Comment by tom_b | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tom_b | Hacker News Reader

As MS in CS degree holder, I strongly agree with the article re: the idea that coursework-only MS in CS programs are less worthy that programs that include a thesis. I say this as a MS holder who did not complete a thesis and regret it (much more than leaving grad school, which was the right decision for me).

I did (thankfully) participate in research, so I can always talk about the research work even without a publication track record. I have published since in different formats, so that worked out.

But, and this is a crucial issue, a MS in CS of any type helps get you past the HR filter at big companies. When I completed mine, it meant a significant boost in starting salary right out of the gate. If you're looking to join IBM or Microsoft, you probably need to think hard about that signaling credential . . .

Ignoring the disconnect between the academic CS experience and the reality of what most CS programmers work on in the day job, the biggest challenge I see for new practitioners is building a portfolio of software work that a hiring org can understand well enough to make a hiring or interview decision on. How do you communicate that ability and drive to hiring managers outside of your personal network? Do these combined BS/MS programs (e.g., a year of additional coursework to finish off a coursework-only MS) or simply hitting grad school still work better than saying, hey, here is my open-source implementation of path expressions for concurrency control in Common Lisp?

Your comment about the HR "filter" is precisely the reason I'm pursuing a MS in CS after getting my BS in Economics. Many job posts specify either a BS or MS in Computer Science as a requirement. So even though I have a very solid BS in Economics (lots of statistics and math and an excellent GPA), I wouldn't necessarily get through HR to the hiring manager without the all-important CS diploma. Plus, even if the MS in CS isn't as rigorous as some Bachelor's in CS are, if it covers the fundamentals, I don't think it'll hurt me. And yes, I'm also developing my own projects in addition to doing the MS in CS. I know that it takes a combination of education and demonstrated capacity (i.e., developed projects and code) to really do well in finding a decent job.

I'm curious where you're applying that this is the case; I'm pursuing an undergraduate degree in Literature, one of the most oft maligned fields by STEM-types, and not once (to my knowledge) has it been looked down upon. Most people I interview with seem to place a value on having teams with diverse backgrounds.

Now I'm curious where you're applying as I have degrees in philosophy and law and find that my lack of a CS (or related) degree is a major hurdle to finding a job in software.

To be clear, I agree with your assessment that diverse backgrounds are valued. In my opinion HR "filters" and, more importantly, hiring managers want to see diverse backgrounds supported by robust signals of ability: projects created or contributed to and academic credentials. I think you're best off if you have all three: diverse background, demonstrated ability, and academic credentials.

That said, I'm sure there are employers who will give developers a shot even without an sort of academic credential, but they're not very common in my experience.

How the heck did you end up here? Do you learn coding on the side? I've tried to get one or two of my english majors friends into coding, since I thought it'd be a good complementary skill set, but it didn't really catch.

If you're really good at coding I don't care about the lit degree. I just don't like liberal arts majors who think they're better than me because they don't have to worry about money. :/

"don't have to worry about money"? Goodness, because they don't have any to worry about? Or do they profess to above such concerns?

They profess to be above such concerns. Having to worry about food and rent money is too mundane for such a sophisticated mind, didn't you know? Less readily disclosed is the fact that their parents are paying for everything but maybe the beer money. And yet they still claim to be "putting themselves through college"...

As a MS in CS degree holder (did research, wrote thesis ish report), I also concur. Coursework only MS holders have a fundamentally different degree from the research/thesis degree.

As part of my MS, I did build a portfolio of work - well - a project ! - that I've used in my interviewing process.

And, oddly enough, serendipity is that it had to do with concurrency and was written in Common Lisp.

The consensus here seems to be that, unless you want to do research and publish papers, a Bachelors in CS is a terminal degree. Is there really no room for formal exposure to advanced application of what the researchers are researching?

If I think machine learning sounds like an interesting approach to solving problems, are my choices really limited either to seven years of academic research or to teaching myself this stuff from whatever materials I can cobble together in my spare time?

The point is that practical experience in a Master's that offers research work is more valuable than a coursework-only Master's. Graduate courses are usually easier to complete than undergraduate courses, and they are excellent for complementing a research program.

If you want to do machine learning, go and do a Master's with a thesis option where your advisor does research in machine learning project and where you will be encouraged to publish your work at conferences.

To my mind research is fundamentally different from (and antecedent to) application. I assume (perhaps mistakenly) that there are areas of knowledge that are both potentially useful to solve problems and difficult to access/learn on ones own. Why is it not reasonable for that advanced knowledge to be collected, distilled, and taught?

Further, from my brief exposure to a CS grad lab, research occurs in very narrow areas, often on things with no discernable utility, where all work is essentially throw-away, and where the only goal is to publish a paper. In contrast, I want to build stuff, possibly hard stuff, stuff that someone would use; and that may mean learning things (not discovering things).

From the perspective of industry, practical experience building research toys is generally more valuable than either book learning or course projects, because you are forced to come up with and implement novel solutions and because you ultimately have to make something work in order to get the degree. This is the value of a Master's with a practical thesis.

It's not that the advanced knowledge isn't taught in a graduate program, it's that a formal research project where some or all of the advanced knowledge is applied is seen as a great way to integrate everything, and it's completion is a better marker of autonomy than course project completion. Of course there are professors doing useless research, so find someone at a school doing something that interests you. Or get hired by a company and learn on the job. Or start a side project. Yes, academia can be a waste of time if you don't actually like the work, but depending on what you want to build it might be the easiest way to get there. Grad school is generally an opportunity to become an expert in the field that interests you, and the production pressures of industry might preclude this.

In my experience, employers care more about research than you might imagine (for reasons the other replier has mentioned).

That said, a coursework MS will make you generally much more attractive to employers. It's just that they will interpret the degree as more of a signal of your capability and intelligence (and this effect is greatly underestimated by HN) than an indication of any specific expertise.

So with a coursework masters, you stand a chance of having generally great job opportunities, but you may be disappointed that you are not eligible for the most interesting jobs, even though they are related to your coursework.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com