Master’s degrees are the second biggest scam in higher education?(slate.com)
slate.com
Master’s degrees are the second biggest scam in higher education?
https://slate.com/business/2021/07/masters-degrees-debt-loans-worth-it.html
316 コメント
I would characterize working over talented foreigners in this way as a grift, rather than a scam.
They pay the high sticker price because it's rationally their best choice, but the value they're purchasing isn't in the degree, but rather the favorable status they earn in the immigration labyrinth.
This isn't good for them, except in comparison to other options. It certainly isn't good for native-born Americans, who are (for the most part) stuck paying the same high sticker prices, without getting the features which justify the high cost of the product.
They pay the high sticker price because it's rationally their best choice, but the value they're purchasing isn't in the degree, but rather the favorable status they earn in the immigration labyrinth.
This isn't good for them, except in comparison to other options. It certainly isn't good for native-born Americans, who are (for the most part) stuck paying the same high sticker prices, without getting the features which justify the high cost of the product.
It should also be viewed as potentially disadvantaging people already in the US. If these programs are catering to wealthy foreigners looking to immigrate, then we're not serving whatever need may be inside the country already.
In some fields, there is no need for masters degrees at all. For example in physics you can get a bachelors and career out, or get a PhD and be a physicist (industrial or academic), but there are no jobs I can think of that a masters would qualify you for that a bachelors wouldn't.
> but there are no jobs I can think of that a masters would qualify you for that a bachelors wouldn't.
Typically, community college faculty (and sometimes university lecturers) require a minimum of a master's in the field, and at least the first is as true of physics as it is generally.
Typically, community college faculty (and sometimes university lecturers) require a minimum of a master's in the field, and at least the first is as true of physics as it is generally.
In government it makes a difference in promotions and salary bands.
I have seen in electrical engineering some jobs advertise that they want someone with a masters, but really what they want is someone who understood and can use at least something from their undergrad and can be relied upon to exercise theory as opposed to someone who just passed.
I have seen in electrical engineering some jobs advertise that they want someone with a masters, but really what they want is someone who understood and can use at least something from their undergrad and can be relied upon to exercise theory as opposed to someone who just passed.
I'm considering a masters in physics because I'm interested in possibly pursuing a Ph.D. there, but never got beyond 200-level in undergrad. The local university offers a physics MS that's basically a rebranding of their undergrad core, but at night to cater to working adults. It'd be cheaper to just take the undergrad classes, but that just doesn't fit into life, so I'm willing to pay for the privilege of being able to take them at night. (A Ph.D. program may never fit into real life either, but that's a different problem for a different day).
[deleted]
Some employers pay for higher education, but there is little ability for people to actually get that education. Many people in this thread do not value a masters specifically because they are not a good investment just looking at the price.
If the education system was different, more people would want them, and they would be more useful. See commenter below who notes that CS masters are usually quite useful but also are not employment gating and have many reasons to stay competitive with other programs.
If the education system was different, more people would want them, and they would be more useful. See commenter below who notes that CS masters are usually quite useful but also are not employment gating and have many reasons to stay competitive with other programs.
A master’s in physics is usually a sort of consolation prize to people who do not finish their PhD. Like you said, you either need a BS or PhD.
Assuming you're actually smart and skilled - wouldn't it be better to just start your own consulting business, or if you're really ambitious, eventually an agency?
Aren't H1-B visa workers mostly in extremely HCOL areas and significantly underpaid / taken advantage of?
I imagine if you're from India and you really want to get out of India - this sounds like a good deal (although wouldn't $50k for tuition be hard to get?) But, I'm assuming most people just want to have more money / a better life?
Wouldn't the first option be better? And then you could stay closer to friends and family.
Aren't H1-B visa workers mostly in extremely HCOL areas and significantly underpaid / taken advantage of?
I imagine if you're from India and you really want to get out of India - this sounds like a good deal (although wouldn't $50k for tuition be hard to get?) But, I'm assuming most people just want to have more money / a better life?
Wouldn't the first option be better? And then you could stay closer to friends and family.
Consulting straight out of school is a really tough sell. Consultants are most often considered valuable by their employers because of their experience in a given industry.
I would not want to try to pitch myself as a consultant as a foreigner with little to no American work experience. If you’re doing it yourself, sales will be a challenge.
I would not want to try to pitch myself as a consultant as a foreigner with little to no American work experience. If you’re doing it yourself, sales will be a challenge.
To speak more strongly, it’s going to be impossible unless you’re a rock star.
My first gig out of school was consulting.
Heck, I did consulting in school to support tuition.
I think there are a few factors to consider.
(1) Ability isn't one-dimensional. Consulting is a different skillset than full-time work. It's not harder or easier -- you just have to be more of a package deal -- finding business, contracts, billing, etc.
(2) Interest. Most people are happier in a full time job not because consulting is hard but because they'd rather not do all those things. If you don't want to deal with contracts and billing, consulting isn't for you.
(3) Consulting goes all the way from cheap Indian contractors, through boutique UX shops, through Caltech professors consulting on esoteric issues.
You definitely don't need to be a rock star. Companies hire consultants for a variety of reasons. Some need some particularly hard technical problem, but plenty simply need a talent for a short amount of time. It's the same difference between in-house counsel (which is good for ongoing legal issues) versus law firm (which is good for one-off issues). Or if you're worried about a tree falling down on your house, you might bring in a random arborist to consult.
I picked up the skillset because I needed to pay tuition, not out of any innate interest or talent. You might not have the skillset for it, but it's not rocket science. You could pick it up too pretty quickly if the situation arose.
Now double the age, I find I don't actually like consulting very much. I need to charge about double to triple my salary to cover overhead, and overhead is all stuff I don't actually enjoy doing. It does have upsides. I do like the variety. The boom/bust of consulting works well if you have a bit saved up and a low cost-of-living -- booms are intense, and busts make for nice vacations. I also prefer not having to worry about things like overarching employment agreements and an employer owning me. But that doesn't outweigh the hassle of having to sell myself, send invoices, negotiate contracts, etc.
Heck, I did consulting in school to support tuition.
I think there are a few factors to consider.
(1) Ability isn't one-dimensional. Consulting is a different skillset than full-time work. It's not harder or easier -- you just have to be more of a package deal -- finding business, contracts, billing, etc.
(2) Interest. Most people are happier in a full time job not because consulting is hard but because they'd rather not do all those things. If you don't want to deal with contracts and billing, consulting isn't for you.
(3) Consulting goes all the way from cheap Indian contractors, through boutique UX shops, through Caltech professors consulting on esoteric issues.
You definitely don't need to be a rock star. Companies hire consultants for a variety of reasons. Some need some particularly hard technical problem, but plenty simply need a talent for a short amount of time. It's the same difference between in-house counsel (which is good for ongoing legal issues) versus law firm (which is good for one-off issues). Or if you're worried about a tree falling down on your house, you might bring in a random arborist to consult.
I picked up the skillset because I needed to pay tuition, not out of any innate interest or talent. You might not have the skillset for it, but it's not rocket science. You could pick it up too pretty quickly if the situation arose.
Now double the age, I find I don't actually like consulting very much. I need to charge about double to triple my salary to cover overhead, and overhead is all stuff I don't actually enjoy doing. It does have upsides. I do like the variety. The boom/bust of consulting works well if you have a bit saved up and a low cost-of-living -- booms are intense, and busts make for nice vacations. I also prefer not having to worry about things like overarching employment agreements and an employer owning me. But that doesn't outweigh the hassle of having to sell myself, send invoices, negotiate contracts, etc.
But not necessarily a technical rock star… If you’re really good at sales and you can somehow procure the technical talent elsewhere, you might be able to pull it off.
I am no rock star but my first three gigs after my MS were consulting gigs. 1 software and 2 network consulting jobs, including a high speed metro area network.
It is fun and flexible but not as nice as a steady job. Plus, I have no people skills. :)
It is fun and flexible but not as nice as a steady job. Plus, I have no people skills. :)
"Smart and skilled" are only loosely correlated to success as consultant and small business.
This is not meant to be sarcasm. There are many other characteristics necessary and better indicators. I am smart skilled and successful. But I made a lousy consultant when I tried it too early in life - (self)salesmanship, business skills, tenacity and courage, people skills, and a specific view on risk acceptance are far more important. Relationships and a full Rolodex and branding / reputation don't hurt either.
(A specific view on integrity and ethics too. I'm not saying no integrity or no ethics. But the salespersons / deal closers in my area are all honourable truthful people whose job I couldn't do because my view of truth wouldn't necessarily correspond to theirs)
Finally, if we grant your last statement that most people want renumeration and happy life, for many smart and skilled people, stress and risk that comes with consultancy business does not contribute to happiness.
This is not meant to be sarcasm. There are many other characteristics necessary and better indicators. I am smart skilled and successful. But I made a lousy consultant when I tried it too early in life - (self)salesmanship, business skills, tenacity and courage, people skills, and a specific view on risk acceptance are far more important. Relationships and a full Rolodex and branding / reputation don't hurt either.
(A specific view on integrity and ethics too. I'm not saying no integrity or no ethics. But the salespersons / deal closers in my area are all honourable truthful people whose job I couldn't do because my view of truth wouldn't necessarily correspond to theirs)
Finally, if we grant your last statement that most people want renumeration and happy life, for many smart and skilled people, stress and risk that comes with consultancy business does not contribute to happiness.
I used to work for a small tech company in the suburbs outside of St Louis, which is definitely not a HCOL area. When I left (to move back to a HCOL tech hub), probably about half of the engineering staff were H1-B visa holders. This was because we often had trouble finding qualified candidates that were either already local or willing to relocate to the area. Visa sponsorship was a much more compelling reason to relocate than anything we could offer US citizens.
The office was near Mastercard's global operations headquarters and it seemed like they also employed a lot of visa holders. So I don't think we were particularly unique in our willingness to offer visa sponsorship in a LCOL area.
The office was near Mastercard's global operations headquarters and it seemed like they also employed a lot of visa holders. So I don't think we were particularly unique in our willingness to offer visa sponsorship in a LCOL area.
>This was because we often had trouble finding qualified candidates that were either already local or willing to relocate to the area. Visa sponsorship was a much more compelling reason to relocate than anything we could offer US citizens.
Seems rather unlikely. What I guess you might mean is that you couldn't find qualified candidates at the pay ranges you were offering.
Seems rather unlikely. What I guess you might mean is that you couldn't find qualified candidates at the pay ranges you were offering.
No, speaking from the Midwest there is in some areas a real shortage of experienced/qualified candidates. Even if you pay $200k, $300k, more, there are a lot of Americans who will not move to the Midwest. Folks from overseas, though, don't have the same preferences or prejudices. If you're coming from China, India, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Colombia, what does Minnesota vs Missouri vs Maryland really matter if you're coming for a job? Iowa vs Ohio? As long as you can find a suburb with good schools it's interchangeable. People who are attached to San Francisco or Seattle or the Northeast though do not harbor the same openness to moving to Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, etc.
I'd love to see any midwest company paying those numbers, for a non C-level role. Hell, even trying to get above 100k/annum in the midwest is nearly impossible. Remote work options have made this a bit better; if the company then doesn't offer you "local market rates" bullshit.
Having driven through St. Louis (and Missouri) quite a number of times, I would be not be willing to relocate to the area. Maybe if the job paid really well AND was a really close match to what I wanted to do I might consider it. But for just pay, it's not even on my list of places I'm even looking for jobs.
That H1-B workers are "taken advantage of" is a myth. Yes some of them are but it isn't the case that if you hold such a visa you are being underpaid. Source: was an H1-B holder.
Depends on the industry and profession. A lot of professional healthcare workers are hired well below competitive market rates.
Source: partner was one, doubled salary after, is friends with dozens more who went through the same exploitation now making significantly more.
Source: partner was one, doubled salary after, is friends with dozens more who went through the same exploitation now making significantly more.
1. I think you are mixing smart with courageous, starting a business requires some courage.
2. Nope. At least those working for FANGs aren’t. You can see so many cases of folks were for low paying consultancies in India getting masters and then getting a job at FANG.
3. Getting an education loan for STEM is really easy and people are willing to put their parents house up for collateral.
I think with a FANG or good tech job you can be done with your loan in an year or two. Some people go to state schools and don’t get into any debt, or pay it off via internships. The US in most Indian people’s head comes with a better quality of life, a lot more money and better infrastructure. Perhaps some status too.
2. Nope. At least those working for FANGs aren’t. You can see so many cases of folks were for low paying consultancies in India getting masters and then getting a job at FANG.
3. Getting an education loan for STEM is really easy and people are willing to put their parents house up for collateral.
I think with a FANG or good tech job you can be done with your loan in an year or two. Some people go to state schools and don’t get into any debt, or pay it off via internships. The US in most Indian people’s head comes with a better quality of life, a lot more money and better infrastructure. Perhaps some status too.
> Assuming you're actually smart and skilled
as an interviewer, I see many w/ masters degrees who are neither.
as an interviewer, I see many w/ masters degrees who are neither.
Right - I think a lot of people hope that by being more educated they'll get "smarter". That's not really how it works. You just get more educated.
In software, you DO need a lot of skills. But I think more important than that is having the ability to learn new things/skills quickly (being smart). The industry is always changing and evolving.
College is only going to get you the skills - maybe, a lot of times they teach you things that aren't that useful in the job market and don't teach you the things that are.
In software, you DO need a lot of skills. But I think more important than that is having the ability to learn new things/skills quickly (being smart). The industry is always changing and evolving.
College is only going to get you the skills - maybe, a lot of times they teach you things that aren't that useful in the job market and don't teach you the things that are.
Nobody gets paid if you're an autodidact.
No, they're also abused in MCOL and LCOL areas. And they might be smart and skilled, but most of the ones I interviewed are lousy software engineers.
If we were talking about people with master's degrees from MIT or Stanford, it'd be a different ball game.
But I can't tell you how many candidates I've seen with something like a "Master of Science in Information Systems from the University of South Central Appalachia".
If we were talking about people with master's degrees from MIT or Stanford, it'd be a different ball game.
But I can't tell you how many candidates I've seen with something like a "Master of Science in Information Systems from the University of South Central Appalachia".
Well, even then framing a $50k degree as a workaround for US immigration woes, and not as an $50k worth of added value in terms of skills and education makes it sound like a racket, even if the numbers work out in the students' favour.
The USA essentially runs on rackets. E.g higher education, changing engine oil at 5000 miles, Citizens United...
The gist is right, but details are wrong. Undergraduates can also get a 3-year work visa via OPT with STEM extension during which you can enter into the H-1B lottery multiple times (as many as four times if you time it well). It's just masters have higher chances in that lottery.
> are huge moneymakers as a ticket to working in the US.
Beyond that, the international Masters students are really subsidizing the education of other students. Every time there is some friction added to the student visa process, all but the top schools with huge endowment funds feel the financial pressure.
Most narratives I read about this situation paints the picture of the students buying their way into US residency via Masters program. But it works the other way too - many US citizens are able to get educated at an affordable price because of the money these Masters students bring in to the school.
Beyond that, the international Masters students are really subsidizing the education of other students. Every time there is some friction added to the student visa process, all but the top schools with huge endowment funds feel the financial pressure.
Most narratives I read about this situation paints the picture of the students buying their way into US residency via Masters program. But it works the other way too - many US citizens are able to get educated at an affordable price because of the money these Masters students bring in to the school.
Seems the US government could skip the middleman by just selling work visas for $50k and subsidizing education for Americans.
we've had foreign job candidates with masters degrees in CS from top 50 schools who couldn't pass a simple programming test or who couldn't answer some basic CS questions on O(n) or whatnot.
I'm not talking sadistic google interview questions, these were things that anyone with a BS should be able to answer.
I'm not talking sadistic google interview questions, these were things that anyone with a BS should be able to answer.
That has happened to me so many times that my last company shreds resumes from foreign students with a prestigious American masters where the undergrad is not similarly prestigious (eg IIT and Tsinghua are good, but not many other schools).
India has a population of well over a billion people. IITs admit only about 5000 students per academic year, from about 100K students applying, across all disciplines. If you find all other students from India not qualified, maybe there is something seriously wrong with your candidate outreach, or you hire from a very exclusive pool even stateside.
That's true, but having seen (non-IIT) Indian colleges, I am not surprised if 80%+ students they see are like that. Moreover, intelligent ones less commonly opt for masters degrees because they get good offers in campus placements, especially those from middle class or rural areas are already doing undergrad on loans.
We did only hire from about 20 schools in the US. The unfortunate thing is that the masters programs did not filter nearly as exclusively as the undergrad programs.
Ok, so you were "shredding resumes" of students of all but 20 schools in US, IITs and Tsinghua. That's an extremely high hiring bar.
I don't think this experience can be used to draw general conclusions on the quality of education across Masters programs in US.
I don't think this experience can be used to draw general conclusions on the quality of education across Masters programs in US.
Yeah, I know many people who wouldn't have passed that bar making bank working at FAANGS.
for "top 50 schools", what "top 50" are you implying? top 50 worldwide? top 50 us? or top 50 in their own foreign country?
As a sidenote: a lot of CS/Software Engineering graduates with a bachelor in my own country (Italy) can't pass simple programming tests, because most of the education is (too?) focused on theoretical aspects, and most of the time people is tested with non-practical exams.
As a sidenote: a lot of CS/Software Engineering graduates with a bachelor in my own country (Italy) can't pass simple programming tests, because most of the education is (too?) focused on theoretical aspects, and most of the time people is tested with non-practical exams.
Masters at Buffalo in computer science costs about 26k in tuition.
You forgot another option. Immigrate to Canada and then move to the US on a TN.
That may be an even better option because you can retire in Canada with free healthcare.
> are huge moneymakers as a ticket to working in the US.
Not just the US. Most countries in Europe offer international master degrees in english that serve the exact same purpose.
Not just the US. Most countries in Europe offer international master degrees in english that serve the exact same purpose.
I came to post the same thing - sometimes Americans forget that they are a country of immigrants. And one of the routes for potential immigrants is college education.
But with a typically enterprising capitalist mindset, the American system also wants to ensure that talented individual don't go back to their country (or elsewhere) immediately after getting a degree. This is where the high cost of a US college degree comes into the picture - the burden of paying for it acts like an anchor for most students who come from developing countries or econonomically weak background. Even if they get some kind of scholarship and / or do part-time work, they still have to take a huge loans to live in the US to complete their education. And often the fastest way to repay these loans is to work in the US or other developed nations. This may take another few years. The American system hopes that by then the potential immigrant would be sufficiently exposed to the American culture and lifestyle and consider staying here.
(The high cost also ensures quality of education is high in the US, thus attracting talents from around the world. And the money is also pumped into a lot of R&D in the college allowing US to maintain a big tech lead. It's a neat system that seems to work so far.)
The other aspect of ensuring that higher education remains costly in the US is to also ensure that a blue-collar workforce continues to exist, and wage is suppressed among the white-collars. Perhaps the law makers also feel that it acts like an incentive to work more diligently, out of anxiety and worry - after all, people with more qualification, experience and higher stable income often tend to jump around more (which the big tech try to thwart by entering into illegal agreements to not hire each others employee).
But with a typically enterprising capitalist mindset, the American system also wants to ensure that talented individual don't go back to their country (or elsewhere) immediately after getting a degree. This is where the high cost of a US college degree comes into the picture - the burden of paying for it acts like an anchor for most students who come from developing countries or econonomically weak background. Even if they get some kind of scholarship and / or do part-time work, they still have to take a huge loans to live in the US to complete their education. And often the fastest way to repay these loans is to work in the US or other developed nations. This may take another few years. The American system hopes that by then the potential immigrant would be sufficiently exposed to the American culture and lifestyle and consider staying here.
(The high cost also ensures quality of education is high in the US, thus attracting talents from around the world. And the money is also pumped into a lot of R&D in the college allowing US to maintain a big tech lead. It's a neat system that seems to work so far.)
The other aspect of ensuring that higher education remains costly in the US is to also ensure that a blue-collar workforce continues to exist, and wage is suppressed among the white-collars. Perhaps the law makers also feel that it acts like an incentive to work more diligently, out of anxiety and worry - after all, people with more qualification, experience and higher stable income often tend to jump around more (which the big tech try to thwart by entering into illegal agreements to not hire each others employee).
[deleted]
Or...find and marry an American?
One of the key issues I see is that we don’t place a high enough value on adult education. A philosophy professor of mine told me the word “andragogy”, which is the theory of adult education. It’s different from “pedagogy” which means the education of children.
I always thought that learning is learning. It never occurred to me that there’s a difference between how and why children learn and that it could be different from adults.
As an adult, who considers myself a life long learner, I see the differences. The education system hasn’t adapted to adult learning. Most masters classes are simply just repackaged versions of undergraduate classes, maybe with a little more depth.
The schedules haven’t changed either. As the article points out almost all the bad practices are online classes. It’s hard for adults to juggle family, kids, and work while being a student. People feel it’s necessary to further their schooling but don’t have many options. They can’t just take off two days of the week to attend a class. Few schools offer nights and weekend classes. Online becomes the only option.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andragogy
I always thought that learning is learning. It never occurred to me that there’s a difference between how and why children learn and that it could be different from adults.
As an adult, who considers myself a life long learner, I see the differences. The education system hasn’t adapted to adult learning. Most masters classes are simply just repackaged versions of undergraduate classes, maybe with a little more depth.
The schedules haven’t changed either. As the article points out almost all the bad practices are online classes. It’s hard for adults to juggle family, kids, and work while being a student. People feel it’s necessary to further their schooling but don’t have many options. They can’t just take off two days of the week to attend a class. Few schools offer nights and weekend classes. Online becomes the only option.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andragogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_high_school
In Denmark and some neighboring countries there's this concept of a school you can go to just to learn stuff later in life, as an ongoing thing. There's a whole bunch of themes (sports, history, etc), and often you can book yourself in for whatever amount of time makes sense for you.
In Denmark and some neighboring countries there's this concept of a school you can go to just to learn stuff later in life, as an ongoing thing. There's a whole bunch of themes (sports, history, etc), and often you can book yourself in for whatever amount of time makes sense for you.
ROTFL. This is called "Volkshochschule" in Germany. Hochschule can be translated to University. One guy from former Yugoslavia took an accounting course there, got a certificate and had this translated (to Serbian, Croatian or whatever). The translater did indeed translate Volkshochschule to Peoples University and the guy managed to secure a Professor position with it at a University. Of cause later this caused a scandal...
> In Denmark and some neighboring countries there's this concept of a school you can go to just to learn stuff later in life, as an ongoing thing
We have those in the US; we don't have a general collective name for them, but there are both private for-profit ones with a variety of (mostly narrow) specialities, either standalone or as adjuncts to other related businesses (selling, e.g., products in the field that it teaches people to act in), plus community colleges, public libraries, public parks and rec departments, and museums tend to also have programs that serve this function, despite it not being their sole or primary function.
We have those in the US; we don't have a general collective name for them, but there are both private for-profit ones with a variety of (mostly narrow) specialities, either standalone or as adjuncts to other related businesses (selling, e.g., products in the field that it teaches people to act in), plus community colleges, public libraries, public parks and rec departments, and museums tend to also have programs that serve this function, despite it not being their sole or primary function.
My whole life, I've heard of those places as either "FunEd" or "The Learning Annex" and I didn't realize until well into adulthood that those were proper nouns, not the generic name for "classes you take as a grownup just for interest."
We have community colleges in America that serve the exact same function. My parents love taking the astronomy courses because they come with an observatory. They have also some some criminal justice classes and a lot of art classes like pottery. They are very old. You also don’t get a degree for taking these courses but they are much cheaper than the classes are for degree track students.
I have a bachelors in computer engineering but I've taken drawing and painting classes at my local community college. It was a fun and we met once a week at night for 3 months. I think it was $120 for the entire 3 months but we did have to buy our own supplies.
I have a programmer friend that took welding and car repair classes at the community college. He just wanted to learn.
I have a programmer friend that took welding and car repair classes at the community college. He just wanted to learn.
Many if not most universities in the USA have extension schools that serve this purpose.
I'd like to point out that Extension schools also allow minors to take full credit college courses. I basically had my math bachelor's degree complete by the time I was officially accepted to my university.
If you are a parent, let your children know about these extension college courses if they are interested!
If you are a parent, let your children know about these extension college courses if they are interested!
Do you get an academic degree?
Generally no
Is that recognized socially ? As in opening a business after passes these classes.
You don't need a degree to open a business. And mostly it's for learning things for your own satisfaction, which I sense is what you mean?
Depends on the trade, you can't make electrical work without some form of recognition I believe. And beyond that I mostly asked regarding customers, you want something to back your claims and prices.
Those are called “trade schools” in the US, and most community colleges have programs for trades. For example, a lot of community colleges have programs in auto repair and heating/cooling.
It gets more complicated in the US because of unions. In many places, you can’t become a plumber or electrician without an apprenticeship, which is controlled by the trade unions. Therefore, community colleges might offer classes on plumbing or electrical, but there’s no equivalent to a certification program, because it’s not possible to become a professional just by going to school.
It gets more complicated in the US because of unions. In many places, you can’t become a plumber or electrician without an apprenticeship, which is controlled by the trade unions. Therefore, community colleges might offer classes on plumbing or electrical, but there’s no equivalent to a certification program, because it’s not possible to become a professional just by going to school.
Interesting I never linked the name 'trade school' with adult learning. I thought it was some parallel track for teenagers to jump into a field.
Depends. If it's in a medical field, you might need a degree.
You don't need a degree to open a medical business. You need a degree to practice medicine.
This certainly depends on local rules. For example, in the UK I believe dental businesses can only be opened by a qualified dentist. I was surprised when I learnt this earlier this year.
This source [0] says “non-dentists cannot set up or buy dental practices as an individual or partnership but they are permitted to be shareholders of a limited company which owns the practice” and “the majority of directors of that limited company cannot be non-dentists”.
[0]: https://www.plutopartners.co.uk/post/who-can-own-a-dental-bu...
This source [0] says “non-dentists cannot set up or buy dental practices as an individual or partnership but they are permitted to be shareholders of a limited company which owns the practice” and “the majority of directors of that limited company cannot be non-dentists”.
[0]: https://www.plutopartners.co.uk/post/who-can-own-a-dental-bu...
I believe this is the case with law firms, and probably some other professional firms, in the US as well. AFAIK a law firm is a partnership of lawyers.
That said, this isn't what most people are talking about when they are talking about starting a business.
That said, this isn't what most people are talking about when they are talking about starting a business.
My impression, knowing very few who has attended højskole, is that people do it for their own personal fulfillment and enjoyment.
Socially, I’d say that it is respected and regarded as a sign of dedication to ones interests.
Socially, I’d say that it is respected and regarded as a sign of dedication to ones interests.
which is pretty cool, I think it's a vital need for humans to keep learning new stuff if you don't have enough stimulation
> As in opening a business after passes these classes.
Where do you need a degree to open a business?
Where do you need a degree to open a business?
Lots of professions and trades require a qualification or license to practice.
So getting these qualifications are required for reskilling.
So getting these qualifications are required for reskilling.
Right so the employees providing the actual services may need qualifications. The person opening the business doesn't. I've never seen anywhere where opening a business needs a degree or qualification.
Dentist, vet clinic, lawyer are three.
Daycare center, hairstyling and financial advisor are others that require qualifications / lic
Daycare center, hairstyling and financial advisor are others that require qualifications / lic
> Dentist, vet clinic, lawyer are three.
People aren't learning these professions at folk high school are they?
People aren't learning these professions at folk high school are they?
That's the point. Most people want adult education so they have comfortable lives. Learning about history is a luxury pursuit really for people who are already comfortable and have spare time.
So you really need education that leads to recognised qualifications.
So you really need education that leads to recognised qualifications.
Yes, because tons of people have the capital to open business and hire employees.
Reality is most people wanting to retrain are going to do it as a single person business as a plumber, hair dresser or similar.
Reality is most people wanting to retrain are going to do it as a single person business as a plumber, hair dresser or similar.
Going and getting a degree isn't a good way of raising capital.
I never said it was. It's potentially good way of getting a well paid job though.
I wish schools got audited for that very thing. Schools are extremely discriminatory against adults not at application time, but when they offer classes. Not only do they not accommodate either, a lot of professors still pull BS where you need to hand in assignments at the end of class! There is absolutely nothing in the education system today that requires you to hand in something with such a short term time table.
I say this as a mid 20s return college student. My experience going back to college without the "stars in my eyes" so to speak, has really left me embittered by the system altogether. Schools act like autocratic bureaucracies that when they make a mistake all you get is an "oops sorry. Now deal with it lol." Also student employment is not only predatory (cause the pay is just garbage), but it's like they don't even train students either. If you want any answers, you have to wait to talk to one of the few people who has actually been hired on as an employee.
Higher education is structured for students going from high school to their institutions. They also assume students don't have full time employment or a family. So basically if you have either of those, the school doesn't care at all about your plight. They know your gonna pay off your loans and complete your degree. They prefer younger impressionable kids who are gonna waste a lot of time and money there instead.
I say this as a mid 20s return college student. My experience going back to college without the "stars in my eyes" so to speak, has really left me embittered by the system altogether. Schools act like autocratic bureaucracies that when they make a mistake all you get is an "oops sorry. Now deal with it lol." Also student employment is not only predatory (cause the pay is just garbage), but it's like they don't even train students either. If you want any answers, you have to wait to talk to one of the few people who has actually been hired on as an employee.
Higher education is structured for students going from high school to their institutions. They also assume students don't have full time employment or a family. So basically if you have either of those, the school doesn't care at all about your plight. They know your gonna pay off your loans and complete your degree. They prefer younger impressionable kids who are gonna waste a lot of time and money there instead.
>Higher education is structured for students going from high school to their institutions. They also assume students don't have full time employment or a family. So basically if you have either of
In the US, Depending on your state this might not be true. Many of the 'Elite' schools are absolutely as you describe, but many of the state schools do cater to adult learners. This is particularly true in states which separate their Research Universities from their more teaching oriented Universities. Most of the latter do have night classes and other offerings aimed at adult learners. But the private universities with dreams of grandeur are looking mostly for the "traditional college student"
In the US, Depending on your state this might not be true. Many of the 'Elite' schools are absolutely as you describe, but many of the state schools do cater to adult learners. This is particularly true in states which separate their Research Universities from their more teaching oriented Universities. Most of the latter do have night classes and other offerings aimed at adult learners. But the private universities with dreams of grandeur are looking mostly for the "traditional college student"
There are schools that are much more oriented (or have programs that are much more oriented) towards people who are working or are otherwise not attending school full time. I'm not sure I can really fault the average undergrad program for orienting things towards the 95% case situation. (Some schools are also much more commuter-oriented than others are.)
You are absolutely right and that definitely makes sense. But, and I have to preface this has been my experience, there are virtually no accommodations. School is your job when you go back to a university and colleges believe that is what you should be doing.
Now to the legalities. The Age Discrimination Act mandates any institution receiving federal funding from preventing someone from being able to participate[0]. So like a physical disability, if you only make stairs because "99% of people can walk" but cannot accommodate for someone in a wheelchair, you would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Same thing with making a website accessible to the blind. By making your courses only available during business hours, you essentially are telling working adults "we are preventing you from participating in mandatory courses because you cannot be at work during the class." Work, mind you, that will pay their bills, support their family, and keep them out of absurd debt bondage upon graduation.
When you make class at 8AM for 1.5 hours, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, you are discriminating against working adults. It doesn't matter if the discrimination is intentional. Your very allowance of not offering a course wholly online without a mandatory attended lecture or just a night class is pure evidence that you do not want non-traditional students. How can an college believe that someone who works full time can make that work? Night classes are at least an accommodation and can work.
What I've found is technical colleges, since they're catered toward people going back to school, they do a much better job all around. Also since they are city funded and not a state run university through tax payers, they can hire real employees. So when I ask an administrative question that is very important, I don't get "uh I'm not sure, let me ask a staff member since I'm only a student employee! Can you hold for 10 minutes?"
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/ageoverview.html
Now to the legalities. The Age Discrimination Act mandates any institution receiving federal funding from preventing someone from being able to participate[0]. So like a physical disability, if you only make stairs because "99% of people can walk" but cannot accommodate for someone in a wheelchair, you would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Same thing with making a website accessible to the blind. By making your courses only available during business hours, you essentially are telling working adults "we are preventing you from participating in mandatory courses because you cannot be at work during the class." Work, mind you, that will pay their bills, support their family, and keep them out of absurd debt bondage upon graduation.
When you make class at 8AM for 1.5 hours, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, you are discriminating against working adults. It doesn't matter if the discrimination is intentional. Your very allowance of not offering a course wholly online without a mandatory attended lecture or just a night class is pure evidence that you do not want non-traditional students. How can an college believe that someone who works full time can make that work? Night classes are at least an accommodation and can work.
What I've found is technical colleges, since they're catered toward people going back to school, they do a much better job all around. Also since they are city funded and not a state run university through tax payers, they can hire real employees. So when I ask an administrative question that is very important, I don't get "uh I'm not sure, let me ask a staff member since I'm only a student employee! Can you hold for 10 minutes?"
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/ageoverview.html
It may be discrimination towards people with jobs, but it's not based on age. Legally, employees are not a protected class. Also, the protected class for age is "people over 40", who are not necessarily more likely to work full time than people under 40.
If you intentionally create an environment that is hostile toward people of differing ages, you are discriminating. My college required me upon sign up to put in for my housing "My parent/guardians contact information." Universally everyone is an adult when they enter college (the people who don't are so rare I'm ignoring them). I could not leave the page unless I entered any data so I just put my name and contact info. Guess what else? All the events are catered toward young students and target them specifically that way. If someone really wanted to, they could easily have an age discrimination case against almost every school. Culturally however, people don't because they don't want to associate with lesser experienced and more incredibly arrogant individuals.
Very interesting to know there was a term for that already.
Slight anecdote, I gave a few geometry lessons to a teen. And witnessing his brain operate was quite staggering. Teen operate at high frequency low depth it seems. He didn't want to grasp the rule or symmetry but ran in many intuitions very rapidly (honestly my brain froze at his pace of change, so vibrant) only to feel defeated or confused. Made me think adult and kids really need different approaches. Our emotions facing a new topic are so different.
Slight anecdote, I gave a few geometry lessons to a teen. And witnessing his brain operate was quite staggering. Teen operate at high frequency low depth it seems. He didn't want to grasp the rule or symmetry but ran in many intuitions very rapidly (honestly my brain froze at his pace of change, so vibrant) only to feel defeated or confused. Made me think adult and kids really need different approaches. Our emotions facing a new topic are so different.
Love this story because this has been my experience as well when teaching youth. Children in a classroom scarcely need a teacher explaining things to them. Give them the materials and leave the room for an hour. I guarantee you they'll know what to do and how to to do it when you return. However, they won't have any particular depth of knowledge of the topic. And thats because they usually move onto their own ideas of how to use the new knowledge. They're not interested in how I use that knowledge. So different approaches for youth vs adults has always been something I needed to train either. One approach doesn't really work for the other.
As an adult with ADHD, these descriptions sound very similar to how I study and learn too, and perhaps explain the difficulties I've had.
> Most masters classes are simply just repackaged versions of undergraduate classes, maybe with a little more depth.
Depends on the country. Masters degrees can be research which are the first year of a Ph.D. or they can be taught degrees. In the latter they are usually called "conversion" courses where there's intensive focus on filling in gaps in education for somebody moving to the field. E.g. moving from an Economics B.Sc. to a Computer Science degree.
Where I was educated the Computing Science undergraduate degree is the equivalent of any Masters degree in the same subject. There is nothing in the subject matter that would be of value as another degree as it isn't advancement. It would be merely repackaged undergraduate courses like you suggest.
Depends on the country. Masters degrees can be research which are the first year of a Ph.D. or they can be taught degrees. In the latter they are usually called "conversion" courses where there's intensive focus on filling in gaps in education for somebody moving to the field. E.g. moving from an Economics B.Sc. to a Computer Science degree.
Where I was educated the Computing Science undergraduate degree is the equivalent of any Masters degree in the same subject. There is nothing in the subject matter that would be of value as another degree as it isn't advancement. It would be merely repackaged undergraduate courses like you suggest.
I did a hybrid masters in CS - half the year was taught and half the year was research. Of the 6 classes I was taught 2 of them were undergrad level (and they were 3rd/final year level at that), and the rest were definitely a level above undergrad. Most were actively learning about the state of the art in their areas, or very close to it. Of the 15 or so students, 5 of us had our names on papers from the research we did for the second period. My experience may be atypical, but I definitely believe there is a range available, and it's unfortunately up to a student to try to discern the two.
And ones that are solely or mostly classroom courses can even be taken by people who majored in the field undergrad. I know someone who did one years ago at a top school. Which surprised me a bit at the time because, although I did have classes in my Master's program, the real value was in my thesis, some additional related research, and an unrelated project.
In the US, those gaps are usually noted and you fill them with upper division courses and if necessary, lower division. Actual graduate courses are quite different from undergraduate even covering the same subject matter.
Lower division is problem sets.
Upper division is problem sets + project.
Graduate is project + research paper.I understand GP's point, education can vary widely depending on the country.
For example, in my home country an undergraduate degree in engineering is normally 5 years where
- first 2 years are very standard undergraduate courses (your lower division)
- last 3rd and 4th years are the upper division you describe
- 5th year is a graduation project that can be 50 to 100 pages long (almost a thesis) + upper division courses and maybe a research paper (depends if you had a scholarship of sorts)
So when a person goes to do a master in this country, the experience is almost one of a PhD, while the PhD experience is very intense.
For example, in my home country an undergraduate degree in engineering is normally 5 years where
- first 2 years are very standard undergraduate courses (your lower division)
- last 3rd and 4th years are the upper division you describe
- 5th year is a graduation project that can be 50 to 100 pages long (almost a thesis) + upper division courses and maybe a research paper (depends if you had a scholarship of sorts)
So when a person goes to do a master in this country, the experience is almost one of a PhD, while the PhD experience is very intense.
> In the latter they are usually called "conversion" courses where there's intensive focus on filling in gaps in education for somebody moving to the field.
Well, or they are first professional degrees (e.g., the MBA, MFA, etc.)
Well, or they are first professional degrees (e.g., the MBA, MFA, etc.)
I guess I don't really see it.
As an adult, I don't really have much interest in a complete degree with a certification. (With the exception of very bounded industry-specific things.) So in that respect adult education certainly is different.
I have known people who got PhDs as adults and I think they mostly didn't care for the experience. I know I have zero interest in getting another degree. Even a couple of decades ago, it would have zero value for my professional development and would, in fact, have been mostly a distraction.
However, there are a ton of educational opportunities often oriented to working adults. Community colleges, extension programs, online learning of all sorts...
As an adult, I don't really have much interest in a complete degree with a certification. (With the exception of very bounded industry-specific things.) So in that respect adult education certainly is different.
I have known people who got PhDs as adults and I think they mostly didn't care for the experience. I know I have zero interest in getting another degree. Even a couple of decades ago, it would have zero value for my professional development and would, in fact, have been mostly a distraction.
However, there are a ton of educational opportunities often oriented to working adults. Community colleges, extension programs, online learning of all sorts...
Most of the people I know with PhD's did them because they wsnted to do a PhD, not because it would increase their earning potential.
Where I went (MIT Media Lab) our classes were unique and only graduate level. In fact masters and PhD took the same classes, PhD just took more of them. There were no undergrads, and the knowledge assumptions, type of classes, and speed were very much more advanced than undergraduate. During my undergraduate (UCSD) I took a few masters classes — they were definitely harder and assumed a lot more knowledge with less hand holding. YMMV.
I'm a life long learner myself. I have to agree that the traditional education system is lacking and is very poorly set up at catering for people like us. If you want to take classes as a working adult, you're pretty much limited to night school. Which, for reasons I will never understand, seems to be mostly limited to languages (and oddly specific things like TIG welding). Although some universities seem to be offering philosophy courses on an evening schedule as well.
I get that you need a big enough audience in order to set up any class, and supply/demand is definitely an issue. But I think the demand is much higher than what the supply side seems to cater for.
Things like Khan Academy are great, but they've begun to scale down their offering in favour of university prep. The Open University has some truly great content, but it's prohibitively expensive. MOOCs seem very hit or miss, and often lack a good mechanism for feedback. And quite frankly, I enjoy being in a classroom full of motivated people.
I get that you need a big enough audience in order to set up any class, and supply/demand is definitely an issue. But I think the demand is much higher than what the supply side seems to cater for.
Things like Khan Academy are great, but they've begun to scale down their offering in favour of university prep. The Open University has some truly great content, but it's prohibitively expensive. MOOCs seem very hit or miss, and often lack a good mechanism for feedback. And quite frankly, I enjoy being in a classroom full of motivated people.
[deleted]
People in the US place extremely high values on education. What is lacking is people's ability to pay for it.
Having lived in a fairly rural area of the US, and having parents who live in a different, very rural area of the US, that the rural areas do not have much of a value for education. Particularly the type of Christians who are the 6-day creation types, although I also haven't found as many 6-day creation believers in urban areas.
(This isn't meant as a dig at those, just an observation. If your worldview places "belief in the Bible" as a high value and your interpretation requires a literal reading, then what would an institution full of people who preach evolution and old-earth have to offer? I have a friend who teaches physics part-time at a local college in one of these rural areas, but he is 6-day creation. I said that you'd have to believe that the scientists are incompetent at their jobs, and he said that of course they were. I was stunned because while I could imagine other people saying that, I didn't imagine that he would. I can't fathom how you can believe that people who have worked years to figure out how to most accurately date something would be so incompetent as to mistake days for thousands or millions of years. Especially when it's physics that underlies all the carbon dating... And to be fair, there are plenty of Christians who think 6-day creation is a rather silly abuse of a poetic account.)
(This isn't meant as a dig at those, just an observation. If your worldview places "belief in the Bible" as a high value and your interpretation requires a literal reading, then what would an institution full of people who preach evolution and old-earth have to offer? I have a friend who teaches physics part-time at a local college in one of these rural areas, but he is 6-day creation. I said that you'd have to believe that the scientists are incompetent at their jobs, and he said that of course they were. I was stunned because while I could imagine other people saying that, I didn't imagine that he would. I can't fathom how you can believe that people who have worked years to figure out how to most accurately date something would be so incompetent as to mistake days for thousands or millions of years. Especially when it's physics that underlies all the carbon dating... And to be fair, there are plenty of Christians who think 6-day creation is a rather silly abuse of a poetic account.)
I have lived in a very rural part of the US as well. Typically there's a rundown part of a small town (or for very small towns, the entire town) that has people caught in it that may not appreciate education, but generally my experience is everyone does recognize the value of education but may resent the fact they have no access to it. They are also not usually overly religious.
Farmers especially respect education a great deal because the states pay professionals to go out and tell them how to make as much money as possible.
Farmers especially respect education a great deal because the states pay professionals to go out and tell them how to make as much money as possible.
Is there also Gynagogy?
There isn't.
'Andragogy' is not a great name for a theory which tries to describe how all adults, not just men, learn. However, it is a really telling name about the kinds of assumptions baked into the theory [1].
I work in adult education; I don't use the word 'andragogy' to describe what I do, and it's a bit of a warning sign if someone else does.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0260691793...
'Andragogy' is not a great name for a theory which tries to describe how all adults, not just men, learn. However, it is a really telling name about the kinds of assumptions baked into the theory [1].
I work in adult education; I don't use the word 'andragogy' to describe what I do, and it's a bit of a warning sign if someone else does.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0260691793...
I disagree.
Firstly, the question needs to be narrowed down. The topic of a master's degree in Europe vs in the UK and in the US varies, hugely: 1) The UK and the US have a great focus on the elitism of the university name. Countries like Germany do not, a masters from a (known) university with good grades, is pretty much as valuable as all the others. 2) Fees in Europe its free (as has been mentioned countless times here) so there's less of a "shopping" market here, in terms of looking for the most elite degree to graduate with, and much more about content 3) It depends on what you want to do as a career. In Europe, scientific and engineering fields do look for postgraduate degrees as a minimum. Companies like Amazon, hire data scientists mostly with PhDs in Germany or on exception, highly talented engineers.
But the main "pro masters" degree argument for me, is the learning experience.
My master's studies, was so intense, so stressful and so unbelievably intellectually rewarding that it shaped me and my character in a way that my bachelor's did not come close to.
It gave me that confidence to approach fields and advanced topics, where I am not familiar with the notation, the terminology and don't know where to start, and it taught me how to dive in deep, in a self-motivated and self organised way. I really felt the whole time like an independent researcher, picking up books where I needed to, learning mathematical tools and programming skills I never thought of using to solve new problems. And participating in the latest SOTA research, in a way that has made me quite intellectually fearless now, going forward in my career.
Firstly, the question needs to be narrowed down. The topic of a master's degree in Europe vs in the UK and in the US varies, hugely: 1) The UK and the US have a great focus on the elitism of the university name. Countries like Germany do not, a masters from a (known) university with good grades, is pretty much as valuable as all the others. 2) Fees in Europe its free (as has been mentioned countless times here) so there's less of a "shopping" market here, in terms of looking for the most elite degree to graduate with, and much more about content 3) It depends on what you want to do as a career. In Europe, scientific and engineering fields do look for postgraduate degrees as a minimum. Companies like Amazon, hire data scientists mostly with PhDs in Germany or on exception, highly talented engineers.
But the main "pro masters" degree argument for me, is the learning experience.
My master's studies, was so intense, so stressful and so unbelievably intellectually rewarding that it shaped me and my character in a way that my bachelor's did not come close to.
It gave me that confidence to approach fields and advanced topics, where I am not familiar with the notation, the terminology and don't know where to start, and it taught me how to dive in deep, in a self-motivated and self organised way. I really felt the whole time like an independent researcher, picking up books where I needed to, learning mathematical tools and programming skills I never thought of using to solve new problems. And participating in the latest SOTA research, in a way that has made me quite intellectually fearless now, going forward in my career.
And which country did you get your masters from? Do you think your experience would have been different had you chosen a different country to do your masters in?
Agreed my current masters is intense, stressful and extremely intellectually rewarding as well
My masters degree in Computer Science was incredibly educating and opened many career doors for me.
It filled in a lot of gaps that my undergraduate education left, and significantly raised my profile amongst recruiters.
CS might be the exception to the rule about Masters degrees though.
It filled in a lot of gaps that my undergraduate education left, and significantly raised my profile amongst recruiters.
CS might be the exception to the rule about Masters degrees though.
CS is pretty special:
- It's not a legally qualifying degree like studying medicine
- It's academic in the sense that you can use it to gain entrance to a phd, and has academic content that isn't just "how to code".
- And yet you learn a fair bit about how to code. You'll in all likelihood come across actual tools, not toys, that real coders use, eg Git. You might also do some specialist stuff that is directly applicable to an employer, rather than just demonstrating interest. Eg if you do a systems programming course, you might actually understand systems in a way that's useful from the start.
- It's not a legally qualifying degree like studying medicine
- It's academic in the sense that you can use it to gain entrance to a phd, and has academic content that isn't just "how to code".
- And yet you learn a fair bit about how to code. You'll in all likelihood come across actual tools, not toys, that real coders use, eg Git. You might also do some specialist stuff that is directly applicable to an employer, rather than just demonstrating interest. Eg if you do a systems programming course, you might actually understand systems in a way that's useful from the start.
Conversely, I don't even have a bachelor's degree in CS, and I haven't suffered at all because of it. I got a job offer before graduating, and decided my time was better spent earning money than learning stuff I would probably never have any use for.
Rather than focusing on degrees, I think it's a lot more important to focus on learning, however you don't know what's important to learn until you actually start working on real problems.
Rather than focusing on degrees, I think it's a lot more important to focus on learning, however you don't know what's important to learn until you actually start working on real problems.
Funny how those of us who didn't spend more than a couple years in school think the rest of the years are probably a waste, and those that did spend a lot of time and money in school think it was useful.
I have a BS in computer science. I felt like less than 25% of it actually made me a better programmer. At least 25% of it was a total waste of time. The rest was stuff that was maybe academically relevant or interesting to me at least, but of dubious value given the time and financial costs.
Who got more accurate information in that case.. ;)
It might be because education is free in my country, but I loved my Uni years and am glad I got 5 of them no matter the use for my career.
It might be because education is free in my country, but I loved my Uni years and am glad I got 5 of them no matter the use for my career.
I spent 6 years in undergrad (3 for MechE, 3 for Econ). I think it was a waste in terms of my career (which is SWE). I enjoyed college from a social perspective, but there were way cooler things I could've done with $15,000/yr
I had a BA in business and wanted to get into tech field (no idea what, at the time). Decided to get MS in Information Science. That helped me get an internship which enabled me to add some tech-related experience to my resume which was a jumping off point that launched my tech career. My feeling about getting a MS at this point is that it was gatekeeping. I could have done that job pre-masters and everything I've learned about programming has been on-the-job training or self-directed.
I have a degree. It will go down as the biggest regret of my life and my life has changed drastically simply because I thought getting an education was good for society.
I spent the first ten years of my programming career without a degree, like you. I got a SoftEng MSc at 30. It was worth it. Sometimes we just don't know what we don't know.
I think formal cs education would make me a better engineer than I am now, but at the same time I have never seen an instance where education has mattered more than intelligence.
What made it worth it to you?
> learning stuff I would probably never have any use for.
I hear this so much, and I used to be one of the people saying it. Until I actually 1) learned that stuff and 2) realized I don't want to just write glue code. I like writing compilers. I like writing efficient data structures. I use my CS education a lot.
I hear this so much, and I used to be one of the people saying it. Until I actually 1) learned that stuff and 2) realized I don't want to just write glue code. I like writing compilers. I like writing efficient data structures. I use my CS education a lot.
Instead those around you, with a degree, suffered. Having to deal with bricklayers that reinvent the wheel simply because they cant grasp cs topics is annoying.
In my experience, a degree doesn't matter much whether someone is able to 'grasp cs topics'; a willingness to learn on the job is vastly more important.
If others suffered because of me, it would be because I was once a junior developer with no practical experience -- which applies to everyone, regardless of whether they have a degree or not.
If others suffered because of me, it would be because I was once a junior developer with no practical experience -- which applies to everyone, regardless of whether they have a degree or not.
I wonder if you realize how bigoted and insulting your generalization is.
It's probably generally true of engineering degrees. While there's obviously an opportunity cost, there's usually not a big out of pocket expense other than living expenses. In my case, it wasn't so much that I really used a lot of specific things I learned getting the Master's but I still think it was a useful supplement to what I learned undergrad--the thesis in particular.
The same applies to some degree of the sciences in general but, there, you probably have to get to a PhD for the opportunities to be significantly elevated relative to a BS.
In any case, this meme about Master's degree scams is mostly directed at high-cost degrees in journalism and the like where the career opportunities aren't great with or without the degree.
The same applies to some degree of the sciences in general but, there, you probably have to get to a PhD for the opportunities to be significantly elevated relative to a BS.
In any case, this meme about Master's degree scams is mostly directed at high-cost degrees in journalism and the like where the career opportunities aren't great with or without the degree.
The article is poorly titled - it's mostly about non-tech degrees or online programs.
In engineering, an MS in CS has the least value to employers. However, in other areas of engineering, it has a pretty high value. Many big companies will not let you do EE design work with just a BS, for example.
In engineering, an MS in CS has the least value to employers. However, in other areas of engineering, it has a pretty high value. Many big companies will not let you do EE design work with just a BS, for example.
I think this really depends on your undergrad, the value of masters degree seems to diminish with the following factors:
- A well taught undergrad degree in CS (Masters fill gaps caused by bad classes or different fields)
- Graduated with undergrad degree recently (getting a Masters degree after being out of school for 10 years can be a good refresher and update on how the field has evolved/changed)
- Masters degree classes in an area of CS you are familiar with (Masters degree is a great opportunity to take classes in areas that you care about but don't know well, if you are a great Rails webdev with 7 years experience, then taking a Masters degree class in Rail WebDev is just wasting your time.)
- A well taught undergrad degree in CS (Masters fill gaps caused by bad classes or different fields)
- Graduated with undergrad degree recently (getting a Masters degree after being out of school for 10 years can be a good refresher and update on how the field has evolved/changed)
- Masters degree classes in an area of CS you are familiar with (Masters degree is a great opportunity to take classes in areas that you care about but don't know well, if you are a great Rails webdev with 7 years experience, then taking a Masters degree class in Rail WebDev is just wasting your time.)
My CS masters was also no cost to me. Working as a half-time teaching and research assistant covered my tuition. I finished in twice the usual time with no debt and valuable work experience.
It's also worth considering the opportunity cost. Usually for more junior candidates, time in school is treated equivalently to work experience. You just get paid more for working those years.
I've read universally it's very hit or miss unless you specialize in some specific field.
Similar experience here. I did a BA in 'Information Technology'. It wasn't until after I graduated that I taught myself to program through Stanford lectures on YT. The MSE in CS was incredibly beneficial for me.
What was your undergraduate degree in?
Also Computer Science but from a much less prestigious state school.
It was also in a region with a much smaller tech sector.
It's actually hard to say how much of the career boost was from moving to Boston and how much from the degree. I did make some very useful connections during the degree as well as actually learning quite a lot in some of the classes.
It was also in a region with a much smaller tech sector.
It's actually hard to say how much of the career boost was from moving to Boston and how much from the degree. I did make some very useful connections during the degree as well as actually learning quite a lot in some of the classes.
The base problem is the idea that a given academic degree gives you access to some career. It's messy, because clearly some do work that way. With the film degree it should have been clear that there's only so many relevant jobs going each year, and thus your chance as a graduate is going to be minimal. It would certainly be in everyone's interest to have transparency about the destinations. Master's degrees are also often the kind of thing people do if they did an unspecifically directed undergrad (eg English, History) and then want to get their door in somewhere (eg law conversion), so it's important that people understand what they're buying.
If you look at most things though, there's no connection between what you do at work and what you studied. At best studying some subject means you are interested in some broad area, and you are conscientious enough to have done all the exercises, so employers should perhaps hire you in the hope that you can learn how the online advertising industry works, or how the plastic supply chain works, etc.
Looking back at my degree, it was really a bunch of indexing interesting things in science and math for potential further investigation. And then an exercise in flaneuring: wandering about, coming upon something interesting, and then being able to focus on figuring out that thing as opportunities arise.
If you look at most things though, there's no connection between what you do at work and what you studied. At best studying some subject means you are interested in some broad area, and you are conscientious enough to have done all the exercises, so employers should perhaps hire you in the hope that you can learn how the online advertising industry works, or how the plastic supply chain works, etc.
Looking back at my degree, it was really a bunch of indexing interesting things in science and math for potential further investigation. And then an exercise in flaneuring: wandering about, coming upon something interesting, and then being able to focus on figuring out that thing as opportunities arise.
Film is actually interesting because I think you'll find that many of the most respected directors, editors, cinematographers, etc. in Hollywood didn't go to film school.
The two factors are:
Credentialism the worship of credentials throughout many industries when other cheaper metrics are available, but may be illegal (like testing for IQ in USA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism_and_educational_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
and inability to declare bankruptcy so as to include student loans. Bankruptcy says that the _lender_ has responsibility to not enslave people with debt -- or rather the _lender_ may only enslave a borrower for a limited amount of time, after which it is ultimately the lenders problem that they gave that person too much money and that they should have known that the borrower would have never been able to repay. Debt is a useful tool, but the ability to enslave people with debt should be limited by the law.
Credentialism the worship of credentials throughout many industries when other cheaper metrics are available, but may be illegal (like testing for IQ in USA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism_and_educational_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
and inability to declare bankruptcy so as to include student loans. Bankruptcy says that the _lender_ has responsibility to not enslave people with debt -- or rather the _lender_ may only enslave a borrower for a limited amount of time, after which it is ultimately the lenders problem that they gave that person too much money and that they should have known that the borrower would have never been able to repay. Debt is a useful tool, but the ability to enslave people with debt should be limited by the law.
If testing for IQ works for your purposes, then why not use GMAT, GRE, SAT scores?
I’m not sure any of this helps, though, since it would only prove you’re good at the test.
I’m not sure any of this helps, though, since it would only prove you’re good at the test.
Standardized tests are highly predictive of IQ. https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/what-do-sat-and-iq-test... Here's a layman read. Here's a little more depth : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/
Just wondering, as someone currently preparing for SAT - why is it so easy to drastically improve one's performance on standardized tests if they predict IQ? My score was pretty mediocre (due to a year of slacking off during COVID) but after some practice I improved it significantly - does that mean my IQ is greatly increasing as well?
I know of some very, very clever people who do not perform well, and the opposite too.
I know of some very, very clever people who do not perform well, and the opposite too.
"SAT scores are predictive of IQ" is not the same as saying "if an individual gets a higher SAT score than another person they have a higher IQ than that person". If however you had a group of 100 people that had a fairly higher score, it is very likely they would have a higher mean IQ than a group of 100 people with a lower score. Nor is it the same as saying "the SAT is a perfect IQ test". A perfect IQ test, one that gives an individual the same score every time, and ranks everyone along an unquestioned scale, is likely
impossible.
> why is it so easy to drastically improve one's performance on standardized tests
I'm going to guess you're gains plateau or you get to a near-perfect score pretty quickly. The gains you're seeing are just familiarity with the test.
I'm going to guess you're gains plateau or you get to a near-perfect score pretty quickly. The gains you're seeing are just familiarity with the test.
How can some people keep improving year after year on these tests, though? They don't fit into your possible options.
Do you mean the same person gets better year over year? They learned and matured as a student.
That's what I mean.
Do you mean teenagers? I took the SAT at around 12 and at 16, for instance, and scored considerably higher the second time, with no special test prep (just a couple of sample tests from a booklet from the library a few days before that second test). I think that did help a little, but already doing a third one would've been in the region of diminishing returns. The difference really was just the time, and high school classes.
I'd be surprised to see this pattern in someone a decade older.
I'd be surprised to see this pattern in someone a decade older.
"We can’t just rely on the market to provide all of the quality discipline that master’s programs need."
It seems like if the federal government stopped lending for master's degrees, and allowed students to file for bankruptcy to get out of private loans, then the market might very well sort everything out.
It seems like if the federal government stopped lending for master's degrees, and allowed students to file for bankruptcy to get out of private loans, then the market might very well sort everything out.
Wouldn't that just mean rich people got masters they didn't need and poor people didn't get ones they did need?
Maybe markets have a difference concept of efficiency than society...
Maybe markets have a difference concept of efficiency than society...
Poor people who choose degrees with good career prospects will get a loan. Poor people who want a degree with bad career prospects may not have the chance to waste a year or more of their life pursuing one.
Surely no one will get a loan because as soon as you pay your last fee, you can declare bankruptcy? That way you don't have to pay back that money and there is nothing to be repo'd. And if no one pays back loans, lends don't lend.
Isn't this the broad logic behind student loans not be dischargable already?
I don't think the current US system is correct. But I think there needs to be some balance rather than just never being dischargable.
Some of the "equity" based models offered by a few places (where you pay a percentage of income for X years) seem better to me. Or at least suitable in some cases.
Isn't this the broad logic behind student loans not be dischargable already?
I don't think the current US system is correct. But I think there needs to be some balance rather than just never being dischargable.
Some of the "equity" based models offered by a few places (where you pay a percentage of income for X years) seem better to me. Or at least suitable in some cases.
> Surely no one will get a loan because as soon as you pay your last fee, you can declare bankruptcy?
Well, no because there are lots of incentives for the people who could pay to not declare bankruptcy, because bankruptcy has adverse impacts on employability, housing, etc. And with income contingent repayment available on federal loans, pretty much everyone can stay in good standing with them (people don't, but that's mostly servicers trying to get people not to take available income contingent plans.)
Also, the main lender is the federal government (since other , who lends because that's what the law says they do. The already narrow space of private student loans might narrow a bit further with easier dischargeability, but that’s about it.
> Isn't this the broad logic behind student loans not be dischargable already?
IIRC, private, non-federally-guaranteed student lending was trending upward, with no graduate-and-declare-bankruptcy trend when limited dischargeability for such loans was adopted, so, to the extent it was the justification it wasn’t factually justified, just an excuse for a financial services industry subsidy. (IIRC, it was later displaced somewhat by expanded federally-guaranteed lensing then hit a sharp cliff around the 2009 financial crisis.)
And for federally-guaranteed loans, private lenders have been excluded for many years, as private federally-guaranteed loans have been replaced with exclusively direct federal loans, and when therr was private lending they had federal guarantees, so encouraging lenders isn't a factor in that space, either.
> Some of the "equity" based models offered by a few places (where you pay a percentage of income for X years) seem better to me.
Those seem to a strictly-worse variation of the income-based plans already available for federal loans.
Well, no because there are lots of incentives for the people who could pay to not declare bankruptcy, because bankruptcy has adverse impacts on employability, housing, etc. And with income contingent repayment available on federal loans, pretty much everyone can stay in good standing with them (people don't, but that's mostly servicers trying to get people not to take available income contingent plans.)
Also, the main lender is the federal government (since other , who lends because that's what the law says they do. The already narrow space of private student loans might narrow a bit further with easier dischargeability, but that’s about it.
> Isn't this the broad logic behind student loans not be dischargable already?
IIRC, private, non-federally-guaranteed student lending was trending upward, with no graduate-and-declare-bankruptcy trend when limited dischargeability for such loans was adopted, so, to the extent it was the justification it wasn’t factually justified, just an excuse for a financial services industry subsidy. (IIRC, it was later displaced somewhat by expanded federally-guaranteed lensing then hit a sharp cliff around the 2009 financial crisis.)
And for federally-guaranteed loans, private lenders have been excluded for many years, as private federally-guaranteed loans have been replaced with exclusively direct federal loans, and when therr was private lending they had federal guarantees, so encouraging lenders isn't a factor in that space, either.
> Some of the "equity" based models offered by a few places (where you pay a percentage of income for X years) seem better to me.
Those seem to a strictly-worse variation of the income-based plans already available for federal loans.
Waste seems like a strong word. The career isnt the only reason to learn things
I think immigration laws play a big role too, a lot of people seem to use a masters as a way of getting a visa - I believe having a masters improves the chances of getting an H1-B, and also being in school in the US makes it much easier to apply to US companies.
Yes, having government involved always creates inflation. It's no coincidence that the two areas with most government involvement, education and health care, are the things that have outpaced every other measure of inflation significantly.
> Yes, having government involved always creates inflation.
No it doesn't.
> It's no coincidence that the two areas with most government involvement, education and health care, are the things that have outpaced every other measure of inflation significantly.
The government is less (EDIT: more) involved (proportionate to total expenditures in the domain) in healthcare lots of places outside the US without equal, much less greater, healthcare inflation.
It is the manner, not the mere fact of government involvement that produces inflation.
No it doesn't.
> It's no coincidence that the two areas with most government involvement, education and health care, are the things that have outpaced every other measure of inflation significantly.
The government is less (EDIT: more) involved (proportionate to total expenditures in the domain) in healthcare lots of places outside the US without equal, much less greater, healthcare inflation.
It is the manner, not the mere fact of government involvement that produces inflation.
It sounds like you’re saying that places with less government involvement have less healthcare inflation - isn’t what the comment you are replying to is arguing?
> It sounds like you’re saying that places with less government involvement have less healthcare inflation
Yeah, it did; that was an error.
Yeah, it did; that was an error.
I think your point is respectfully very American.
Here in the UK we have some the cheapest healthcare in the western world with a nationalised system.
I actually agree that the US government often causes inflation. But that's because everyone in the states seems to love government subsidies and no one in the states likes regulation, price control, etc. Whether you're a government or not, subsidising X without regulating consumption or controlling the prices of X will lead to inflation...
An example of what I'm talking about is American high school. State schools have much lower prices per kid than private. Because the state starts with a fixed budget and works from there. Imagine if instead government required "education insurance" like health insurance. And insurers were required to pay for anything the teacher decided was required...
Here in the UK we have some the cheapest healthcare in the western world with a nationalised system.
I actually agree that the US government often causes inflation. But that's because everyone in the states seems to love government subsidies and no one in the states likes regulation, price control, etc. Whether you're a government or not, subsidising X without regulating consumption or controlling the prices of X will lead to inflation...
An example of what I'm talking about is American high school. State schools have much lower prices per kid than private. Because the state starts with a fixed budget and works from there. Imagine if instead government required "education insurance" like health insurance. And insurers were required to pay for anything the teacher decided was required...
The success of the more socialized approaches to healthcare relative to the partially-private US approach suggest we need more government involvement in healthcare. Much cheaper, better outcomes, more people covered.
[deleted]
And let's not forget housing. (Our government) making large loans more available and cheaper drives up demand for the intended goods/services. That, naturally, drives up price.
It's difficult to understand why so many people advocate for even more government "intervention" (i.e., do more to increase the availability and cost of loans).
It's difficult to understand why so many people advocate for even more government "intervention" (i.e., do more to increase the availability and cost of loans).
Of course in both cases this is only true in the US.
My 4 year bachelor's degree in Australia still cost me $60000. I'm still not convinced it was worth it
I was surprised to hear this, I had thought it was about 30k
Found a per-year table, appears to depend on what degree topic https://student.unsw.edu.au/fees-student-contribution-rates
A 4year engineering degree (likely what the HN crowd is interested in) is about A$32k / US$24k
Whereas law/commerce/medicine is A$60k
Found a per-year table, appears to depend on what degree topic https://student.unsw.edu.au/fees-student-contribution-rates
A 4year engineering degree (likely what the HN crowd is interested in) is about A$32k / US$24k
Whereas law/commerce/medicine is A$60k
plus lost wages for four years.
The problem is that "government involvement" in the US is synonymous with "throw money at the problem." It's a easy way to get results in the short term, so which gets you political approval, but in the long term, it just creates a money black hole.
I had a friend who was wanting to get a master's degree in poetry, and it cost about 45k a year, back in early 2000s. I strongly advised against it, my friend did not take well to my advice. Hope it all turned out well.
I have no problem with people getting degrees in the arts. My spouse has a Master's in fine arts, from a university in Europe. But she didn't acquire any debt from that degree, while I did in the US with my CS Master's.
But living with enormous debt--debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (in the US)--is such a burden, and the degree itself may really not offer that much in terms of job prospects (though we shouldn't discount the value of humanities degrees--turns out they often do pretty well in life).
It is hard to see why a poetry program should cost so much.
I have no problem with people getting degrees in the arts. My spouse has a Master's in fine arts, from a university in Europe. But she didn't acquire any debt from that degree, while I did in the US with my CS Master's.
But living with enormous debt--debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (in the US)--is such a burden, and the degree itself may really not offer that much in terms of job prospects (though we shouldn't discount the value of humanities degrees--turns out they often do pretty well in life).
It is hard to see why a poetry program should cost so much.
That said about federal student loans, it is a low interest unsecured type of debt. At a bank an unsecured loan is at least 11-16% depending on the amount.
So if you as a student do have some of that debt leftover, it is much smarter to use that toward a car down payment or a deposit on an apartment. I feel like most college kids don't have even the slightest grasp on budgeting and how all transactions affect the accounting equation honestly.
So if you as a student do have some of that debt leftover, it is much smarter to use that toward a car down payment or a deposit on an apartment. I feel like most college kids don't have even the slightest grasp on budgeting and how all transactions affect the accounting equation honestly.
[deleted]
I did my MFA in poetry in the US. Tuition and living expenses were completely covered by fellowships and a TA position. I think this is the norm. While expensive on paper, no one really pays that. Most programs are not predatory like those described in article.
I certainly hope that was the case for her.
I think the debt problem is one of a predatory nature. I love music and history, but I came from a family that pretty much only got by because of welfare. I didn't have the time or money to waste getting a degree in something that had zero job prospects after school.
You show a $50k a year degree to an 18 year old from a more middle to upper middle class family, though, and they're not going to understand how much money that actually is. They're going to see one big party that they don't need to pay for until they're done.
I also remember when I was in high school, all the boomer teachers and parents were saying university is a gateway to easy money after. We were sold something that hasn't held true, and I think a lot of people are very bitter about that.
You show a $50k a year degree to an 18 year old from a more middle to upper middle class family, though, and they're not going to understand how much money that actually is. They're going to see one big party that they don't need to pay for until they're done.
I also remember when I was in high school, all the boomer teachers and parents were saying university is a gateway to easy money after. We were sold something that hasn't held true, and I think a lot of people are very bitter about that.
> We were sold something that hasn't held true, and I think a lot of people are very bitter about that.
In what way has it not held true? 33% of Americans have at least a four year degree and earn an average of $1m more than their peers without over their lifetimes.
By all measures, university is a gateway to easy money after. So long as you finish.
In what way has it not held true? 33% of Americans have at least a four year degree and earn an average of $1m more than their peers without over their lifetimes.
By all measures, university is a gateway to easy money after. So long as you finish.
I bet Ferrari owners earn even more than that compared to people without Ferraris.
I don’t think that means we should tell young people to take out loans to buy a Ferrari because it’s a ticket to easy money.
When the only kids going to college were either rich or highly motivated then having a degree made you stand out and could open doors. When everyone gets a degree it doesn’t make you stand out any more. Instead, not having a degree makes you look bad. (And unlike high school, which anyone can attend for free, most kids in the US need to take on a lot of debt just so the don’t get left behind.)
I don’t think that means we should tell young people to take out loans to buy a Ferrari because it’s a ticket to easy money.
When the only kids going to college were either rich or highly motivated then having a degree made you stand out and could open doors. When everyone gets a degree it doesn’t make you stand out any more. Instead, not having a degree makes you look bad. (And unlike high school, which anyone can attend for free, most kids in the US need to take on a lot of debt just so the don’t get left behind.)
>When everyone gets a degree it doesn’t make you stand out any more.
Then let’s talk when we get closer to everyone having a degree. 33% is not everyone and “a degree” is not a single product that can be compared 1:1 across each instance.
> most kids in the US need to take on a lot of debt just so the don’t get left behind
The average student loan debt for undergraduate degrees is $28,950. This is not “a lot of debt.”
According to the valuation analysts at Kelley Blue Book, the estimated average transaction price for a light vehicle in the United States was $37,876 in 2020.
That is to say, on average, students are taking on the debt for a 4 year education, that sets them up on average to earn a million dollars more in their lifetime than their peers who don’t, for less than the average transaction price for a light vehicle — an asset that depreciates ~20% when you take it off the lot.
And you get the keep the credentials a lot longer.
Then let’s talk when we get closer to everyone having a degree. 33% is not everyone and “a degree” is not a single product that can be compared 1:1 across each instance.
> most kids in the US need to take on a lot of debt just so the don’t get left behind
The average student loan debt for undergraduate degrees is $28,950. This is not “a lot of debt.”
According to the valuation analysts at Kelley Blue Book, the estimated average transaction price for a light vehicle in the United States was $37,876 in 2020.
That is to say, on average, students are taking on the debt for a 4 year education, that sets them up on average to earn a million dollars more in their lifetime than their peers who don’t, for less than the average transaction price for a light vehicle — an asset that depreciates ~20% when you take it off the lot.
And you get the keep the credentials a lot longer.
MFA programs in creative writing are the most worthless. In my experience as an editor, writers with MFAs were not as a class better than those without.
At least with some graduate programs—in areas of actually value—you might qualify for an RA or TA subsidy. But it’s not worth paying full freight.
At least with some graduate programs—in areas of actually value—you might qualify for an RA or TA subsidy. But it’s not worth paying full freight.
On the other hand, degrees are "free" in Europe, and I don't want my tax money spent on people doing masters degrees on "poetry".
The fact that you have to pay for your degree out of pocket may mean that more people will choose to do degrees that are worth something, which is a great thing for society overall. Having said that the prices of degrees in the US are outrageous. A middle ground should be found.
The fact that you have to pay for your degree out of pocket may mean that more people will choose to do degrees that are worth something, which is a great thing for society overall. Having said that the prices of degrees in the US are outrageous. A middle ground should be found.
How bleak are our prospects as a civilisation when we reduce the value of a higher education in the arts, such as literature, to something as rudimentary as a waste of tax money. It is short sighted to think that since a "degree in poetry" won't yield a substantial dollar-value return economically, that it therefore has no value. Especially when several of recent history's social and political movements were in fact born of literature, writing and the kind of written articulation that characterises such academic fields.
And to your point about "free" education in Europe. The act of decoupling the pursuit of education and knowledge, from a high financial cost, is a crucial mechanism to ensure that institutions retain the freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake, and to not be (solely) steered by the industrial interests of the status quo.
And to your point about "free" education in Europe. The act of decoupling the pursuit of education and knowledge, from a high financial cost, is a crucial mechanism to ensure that institutions retain the freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake, and to not be (solely) steered by the industrial interests of the status quo.
That's a very romantic view of society, but a graduate on poetry will most likely spend the rest of her days writing copy for a marketing agency, selling burgers, or cleaning latrines. And that's ignoring the fact that you really don't need to study "poetry" for four years to be able to write poems.
it's been a long, long time for me, but graduate school (for Master's) was where I actually learnt a lot. I was too swamped under a load of undergraduate coursework to deeply absorb anything. Lighter coursework and deeper dives into subjects were so much better for my brain during my Master's.
It might have helped that I was too young and stupid to have any well-considered career goals and enjoyed learning for the sake of it.
This was engineering/CS though, and the article seems to be about MFAs.
It might have helped that I was too young and stupid to have any well-considered career goals and enjoyed learning for the sake of it.
This was engineering/CS though, and the article seems to be about MFAs.
I went to a top-tier IT engineering school in France.
Despite programming (in GWBasic) since 7 years old, the IT school didn’t transform me into a good developer. In fact most of my colleagues became managers. It’s only 4 years AFTER school that I landed in a famous startup, where I learnt to recompile open-source and use Maven properly and understand the underlying concepts, what to study, what to look into.
And immediately, I created my startup which is now successful.
This whole beginning of career / engineering school has been a terrible waste of youth energy, along with stressing me out because I knew something wasn’t right, and making me intensely depressed. I’m enraged that studying is so hard, and yet, you’re left with absolutely no time to program on your own and discover the scroll of truth.
Despite programming (in GWBasic) since 7 years old, the IT school didn’t transform me into a good developer. In fact most of my colleagues became managers. It’s only 4 years AFTER school that I landed in a famous startup, where I learnt to recompile open-source and use Maven properly and understand the underlying concepts, what to study, what to look into.
And immediately, I created my startup which is now successful.
This whole beginning of career / engineering school has been a terrible waste of youth energy, along with stressing me out because I knew something wasn’t right, and making me intensely depressed. I’m enraged that studying is so hard, and yet, you’re left with absolutely no time to program on your own and discover the scroll of truth.
When are we going to learn that encouraging everyone to get more education is a waste of resources? All it leads to is lowered standards and devalued degrees. Your credential is only worth something because someone else doesn't have it.
It's a qualification arms race.
When very few people had college degrees, they were of high value because the programs were more likely to be rigorous.
As US society said "higher education is the best path to success", it drove up demand where people who never would have considered college otherwise were pushed that way by teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. The high school system adjusted to launch more students in better ways.
Along the way, that morphed into "higher education is the only path to success" and suddenly anyone who didn't go was considered a failure and the entire high school system dumbed down to the point where more and more otherwise normal courses were deemed "college prep."
Unfortunately, it put students who would be below college standards or even just borderline a generation ago in a bad spot where they were underprepared. But colleges get massive cashflow so they introduced more remedial courses in the first year and the average student is graduating in 5 or 6 years. They've steadily devalued themselves and are looking more and more like high school 2.0 but longer with a massive price tag.
(Background: Have a college age kid just going through this personally and watching his friends struggle as some hit these walls. It's sad and ugly and didn't have to be this way.)
When very few people had college degrees, they were of high value because the programs were more likely to be rigorous.
As US society said "higher education is the best path to success", it drove up demand where people who never would have considered college otherwise were pushed that way by teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. The high school system adjusted to launch more students in better ways.
Along the way, that morphed into "higher education is the only path to success" and suddenly anyone who didn't go was considered a failure and the entire high school system dumbed down to the point where more and more otherwise normal courses were deemed "college prep."
Unfortunately, it put students who would be below college standards or even just borderline a generation ago in a bad spot where they were underprepared. But colleges get massive cashflow so they introduced more remedial courses in the first year and the average student is graduating in 5 or 6 years. They've steadily devalued themselves and are looking more and more like high school 2.0 but longer with a massive price tag.
(Background: Have a college age kid just going through this personally and watching his friends struggle as some hit these walls. It's sad and ugly and didn't have to be this way.)
As a mid 20s returning college student, its definitely high school 2.0. I've talked to and tried to hit on many girls only to come to actually stop because their priorities are just way out of wack. Guys seem more mellow than in high school at least. But for the most part I encounter the "know it all" arrogance more from men. A lot of them just never failed hard in their lives before so they often think they can beat the system or what have you.
> Your credential is only worth something because someone else doesn't have it.
This is an unbelievably cynical take on the world. Society and the economy are not zero-sum, and having better education and better skills make someone better off without taking away an equal amount of opportunity from others.
This is an unbelievably cynical take on the world. Society and the economy are not zero-sum, and having better education and better skills make someone better off without taking away an equal amount of opportunity from others.
Better skills are not zero sum, but credentials are. Having a doctorate is only impressive if everybody else doesn't also have one.then you would have to have two doctorates.
What? Doctorate implies you've learned some skills.
If everyone suddenly everyone got better at maths and critical thinking. Overall the economy would be more productive, and everyone would be better off.
There isn't a fixed amount wealth, to be divided up between people. If you increase skill levels, total level of wealth can increase.
If everyone suddenly everyone got better at maths and critical thinking. Overall the economy would be more productive, and everyone would be better off.
There isn't a fixed amount wealth, to be divided up between people. If you increase skill levels, total level of wealth can increase.
You’re assuming that getting the doctorate actually increased people’s skills that are economically useful - this book suggests otherwise:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/05/30/book-rev...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/05/30/book-rev...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education
One would hope that one's salary would depend on one's expected productivity, which an education should increase.
Lowered standards and devalued degrees is probably a thing though.
Lowered standards and devalued degrees is probably a thing though.
I would say this depends strongly on the field. In the field I'm most experienced in, electrical engineering, I tell people considering a Master's is that it's a possible short cut to the pay of someone with 3 years of experience. So if you can get it fast enough, and the math works out, then do it. Otherwise skip it.
I think it's never a waste to get more education. But getting an advanced degree from a mediocre school for the sake of career advancement probably doesn't worth it.
A few exceptions:
1) You want to learn something but doesn't want to go through the 90-credit undergraduate. In my university they give you access to a CS graduate diploma that consists of 10 core CS courses under the requirement that you already have an undergraduate degree (non-CS) and pass the entry CS course about programming (usually a Java 101 course). IMO it's a LOT better than a 90-credit second undergraduate degree on CS.
The other exception is that you want to do the research but I'd argue it still doesn't worth it unless it's a prestigious school like top 20 in North America (MIT, Stanford, CMU, Waterloo, those top schools).
A few exceptions:
1) You want to learn something but doesn't want to go through the 90-credit undergraduate. In my university they give you access to a CS graduate diploma that consists of 10 core CS courses under the requirement that you already have an undergraduate degree (non-CS) and pass the entry CS course about programming (usually a Java 101 course). IMO it's a LOT better than a 90-credit second undergraduate degree on CS.
The other exception is that you want to do the research but I'd argue it still doesn't worth it unless it's a prestigious school like top 20 in North America (MIT, Stanford, CMU, Waterloo, those top schools).
> Your credential is only worth something because someone else doesn't have it.
That would be true only if all the jobs requiring these credentials were already filled and none were to be created in the future.
That would be true only if all the jobs requiring these credentials were already filled and none were to be created in the future.
Only if the people hired with those degrees are capable of doing the work.
There's an ongoing weakening of the signal for people with degrees who can actually do design engineering.
There's an ongoing weakening of the signal for people with degrees who can actually do design engineering.
One way to think of this is that the "ruling class", for lack of a better term, in the US is college educated professionals.
To them, "college is good" is an unquestionable truth, and the systems they build will always give more resources to colleges.
To them, "college is good" is an unquestionable truth, and the systems they build will always give more resources to colleges.
[deleted]
I can't comment on the American education system (which this article is about) but here and in other parts of Europe, the bachelors vs masters distinction is a quite recent addition (30-40 years ago, I think?) Before then, higher education took at least five, maybe six years versus the 4+2 or 3+2 system that has replaced it. An artifical split was added after three or four years (depending on the level of education) to align with the foreign bachelor/master system and make our degrees easier to use in foreign countries.
Nowadays, people consider the bachelor enough of an education to join the workforce. And power to them, if they can get their jobs done with only their bachelors', they have no need for more education.
However, it does imply that less knowledge has been transferred to those students than to the students who followed the old system. The vocational education has also shaped itself more to that form, at least here, which is detrimental for the quality of education those people receive.
Nowadays, people consider the bachelor enough of an education to join the workforce. And power to them, if they can get their jobs done with only their bachelors', they have no need for more education.
However, it does imply that less knowledge has been transferred to those students than to the students who followed the old system. The vocational education has also shaped itself more to that form, at least here, which is detrimental for the quality of education those people receive.
I wonder if this scam also applies to executive MBA programs? For example, the Kellogg-HKSTU program cost US$220,000 for about 18 long weekends of on-site classroom time. This is exorbitant, but the Financial Times has ranked the program as the best EMBA program in the world 10 times, primarily due to the large increase in salary after graduation, up 67% to $528,057 in 2020. [1]. In fact, the reported salary increases on all of the top EMBA programs imply that these programs are legitimately worth their costs. They're priced like scams, but (if accurate) the salary increases suggest they aren't. I wonder if there are any master's programs that outperform the best EMBAs in terms of salary increase?
[0] https://emba.hkust.edu.hk [1] https://rankings.ft.com/home/masters-in-business-administrat... [1]
[0] https://emba.hkust.edu.hk [1] https://rankings.ft.com/home/masters-in-business-administrat... [1]
One of the admission requirements is that your company sponsors you as outstanding with potential within the organization. Another requirement is that you are already or will soon be an executive. This makes me assume the salary increase is due to the fact that they only accept people that are positioned to get big salary increases.
Also the fees page suggests that it costs at minimum, 550k, and if I'm reading it correctly, 1.5m.
https://emba.hkust.edu.hk/admissions/fees/
Also the fees page suggests that it costs at minimum, 550k, and if I'm reading it correctly, 1.5m.
https://emba.hkust.edu.hk/admissions/fees/
> Also the fees page suggests that it costs at minimum, 550k, and if I'm reading it correctly, 1.5m.
Fwiw, those are HK$, so about $193k USD.
Fwiw, those are HK$, so about $193k USD.
Typically, in my experience, companies are paying for these. In my experience from decades ago, these sort of programs were oriented towards e.g. people who had come up through the engineering ranks, didn't have an MBA, and were being groomed for more senior management.
Of course, that was from a time when MBAs were probably more of a requirement even in tech for senior exec roles than they are today. These programs obviously still exist but I'm not personally aware of anyone who has gone to one any time recently.
Of course, that was from a time when MBAs were probably more of a requirement even in tech for senior exec roles than they are today. These programs obviously still exist but I'm not personally aware of anyone who has gone to one any time recently.
MBA are mostly for connections and maybe an advanced degree (in some countries it's considered as equivalent to a Master's degree and salaries adjust for that especially for government positions). Occasionally, if not sponsored by companies, they serve as a convenient place to find a proper mating partner.
1. These students are almost always sponsored by the their companies.
2. In addition to technical knowledge, the students are also exposed to other future executives in other industries. This network can be very powerful.
2. In addition to technical knowledge, the students are also exposed to other future executives in other industries. This network can be very powerful.
It's actually just a double-scam.
Scam #1 is the level of executive compensation, particularly in the US.
Scam #2, the EMBA, rides on the back of #1. Cost is "justified" by what #1 makes possible, but nothing else.
Scam #1 is the level of executive compensation, particularly in the US.
Scam #2, the EMBA, rides on the back of #1. Cost is "justified" by what #1 makes possible, but nothing else.
Is it maybe a self powered thing where companies are reimbursing tuition for specific hand selected people they intend to promote?
At at top 10 school in the UK: masters and even doctorates are being essentially sold to foreign students. The standards are incredibly low (students getting degrees without functional use of English), but the revenue to the university is essential.
There is a business risk if schools try to maintain standards (students have paid for degrees, not learning), but the cumulative effect is that I completely ignore graduate degrees when hiring.
There is a business risk if schools try to maintain standards (students have paid for degrees, not learning), but the cumulative effect is that I completely ignore graduate degrees when hiring.
This reminds me an episode of Yes Minister but I didn't expect it to go down that fast. Is it the same for STEM as well?
I don’t know about the STEM fields, this is from the business school, which is a cash cow funding other programmes.
In Europe a Master's degree is a necessity for the (better) starter jobs in industry, but usually in the more common (traditional) fields like economics, law, engineering, or science.
But in these cases aren't undergraduate degrees normally three years, and a master's degree one? So that's four years total, which is what Americans do anyway.
An American undergraduate plus masters is six years, which is absolutely insane.
Let alone their PhDs, which mean you could easily end up 29 before you graduate.
I had a friend in Europe who finished their PhD with top-tier publications in two years - much less mucking around than in the US.
An American undergraduate plus masters is six years, which is absolutely insane.
Let alone their PhDs, which mean you could easily end up 29 before you graduate.
I had a friend in Europe who finished their PhD with top-tier publications in two years - much less mucking around than in the US.
The typical structure is 3 years for the bachelor's degree and 2 years for the master's degree. In many countries, master's is the primary undergraduate degree, while bachelor's is considered a glorified dropout.
American undergraduate degrees often have plenty of classes unrelated to the major/minor subjects, while European degrees tend to be more focused. In some countries, those breadth requirements are considered a part of secondary education. While an American nominally starts a four-year degree at 18, a European may start a three-year degree at 19.
As for PhDs, they were traditionally considered more like certifications than degrees. You could graduate quickly if you managed to finish your thesis, but it was far more common to continue working on it well into your 30s. This has changed in the past decade or two, as universities started favoring short "American-style" PhDs, with the ideal to graduate before 30. (The British with their short PhDs were always an exception to this.)
American undergraduate degrees often have plenty of classes unrelated to the major/minor subjects, while European degrees tend to be more focused. In some countries, those breadth requirements are considered a part of secondary education. While an American nominally starts a four-year degree at 18, a European may start a three-year degree at 19.
As for PhDs, they were traditionally considered more like certifications than degrees. You could graduate quickly if you managed to finish your thesis, but it was far more common to continue working on it well into your 30s. This has changed in the past decade or two, as universities started favoring short "American-style" PhDs, with the ideal to graduate before 30. (The British with their short PhDs were always an exception to this.)
> But in these cases aren't undergraduate degrees normally three years, and a master's degree one?
It's usually three years + two years.
At least in France there used to be a degree at four years, before the Master's (at five) but I don't think that exists anymore since they introduced the EU-wide new system (Bachelor's — Master's — PhD).
It's usually three years + two years.
At least in France there used to be a degree at four years, before the Master's (at five) but I don't think that exists anymore since they introduced the EU-wide new system (Bachelor's — Master's — PhD).
I think academically the first year of an US undergraduate degree is probably more on the level of the last year of a European "high school" (lycee, gymnasium etc).
The continent is generally 3+2. In the UK it's generally 3 + 1.
Eg I got a Master's 4 years after high school in the UK.
Eg I got a Master's 4 years after high school in the UK.
Europe is generally 3 for Bachelors + 2 for Masters.
And in some countries it's more common to do 5 years straight to Masters (for example it was the system in Poland when I graduated but it became more popular to do 3+2 since then).
At any rate - I wouldn't say it's a scam in countries with free university education. It's actually cheap to teach people and it improves the society. Win-win.
University system in US is a scam for the same reason that healthcare system in US is a scam - because it has bad incentives and no taxpayers control over them.
At any rate - I wouldn't say it's a scam in countries with free university education. It's actually cheap to teach people and it improves the society. Win-win.
University system in US is a scam for the same reason that healthcare system in US is a scam - because it has bad incentives and no taxpayers control over them.
> for example it was the system in Poland when I graduated but it became more popular to do 3+2 since then
In France, there is the "3+2" system, but that's just on paper. Basically, there are two types of bachelor's: a practical one that's supposed to be the last in line, and another, more "theoretical" one that's supposed to be followed with a Master's.
Students have to choose between the two fairly early, so if your goal is a Master's, you'll take the bachelor that's supposed to be followed by the Master. You do get a piece of paper at the three-year mark saying you've got a Bachelor's, but that's unusable if you want to get a job (as in no-one will hire you).
You technically can go to a Master's after the practical one, but there are extra steps, and it's not as easy.
In France, there is the "3+2" system, but that's just on paper. Basically, there are two types of bachelor's: a practical one that's supposed to be the last in line, and another, more "theoretical" one that's supposed to be followed with a Master's.
Students have to choose between the two fairly early, so if your goal is a Master's, you'll take the bachelor that's supposed to be followed by the Master. You do get a piece of paper at the three-year mark saying you've got a Bachelor's, but that's unusable if you want to get a job (as in no-one will hire you).
You technically can go to a Master's after the practical one, but there are extra steps, and it's not as easy.
Almost every European I have met through work, and through my European friends have master degrees.
Mostly in softer fields like marketing and (English) language.
They have all communicated the same thing - it's a necessity for starter jobs.
Mostly in softer fields like marketing and (English) language.
They have all communicated the same thing - it's a necessity for starter jobs.
I think that was the case when Universities offered only 5year Master's degree programs but it changed after the Bologna process and you have Bachelor's 3years (3.5 for engineering) + 2years (1.5 eng) Master's.
Bachelor's degree is often enough for a starter job in industry and I don't think it matters that much if it's Master's or Bachelor's even later in your career (at least in software dev), PhD is definitely regarded much higher
Bachelor's degree is often enough for a starter job in industry and I don't think it matters that much if it's Master's or Bachelor's even later in your career (at least in software dev), PhD is definitely regarded much higher
I got my PhD in a field where you nonchalantly get a masters along the way (because masters degrees have an in-field glass ceiling).
A terminal masters program was started by my program while I was in attendance. If you needed the education, it was billed as a professional degree and I think is put to good use. But if you had an undergraduate degree in the field and were not pursuing a PhD then it was just window dressing.
A terminal masters program was started by my program while I was in attendance. If you needed the education, it was billed as a professional degree and I think is put to good use. But if you had an undergraduate degree in the field and were not pursuing a PhD then it was just window dressing.
It’s pretty ridiculous, but there are a bunch of fields gate keeped by these terminal masters programs regardless of undergraduate background or work experience.
E.g. most industrial fields that include scientist in the title. DS/AS roles in tech, Product management roles etc.
E.g. most industrial fields that include scientist in the title. DS/AS roles in tech, Product management roles etc.
Are you in physics?
Economics.
Haha I knew you were talking about Econ when I read the post. It seemed pretty clear it was PhD or gtfo when I did Econ undergrad. Masters seems like an actual scam.
Economics is one of the undergrad degrees that is often sort of generic--i.e. you don't really work in the field with just a BA/BS. And you need a PhD to actually be an economist so a Masters probably doesn't buy you much. (Not 100% true of course, but close enough.)
There are a few industries I'd consider as targets for economics. Management consulting and litigation consulting are top in those.
Yes, but many of the partners at those firms who are "economists" probably have PhDs.
I imagine it's also fairly common for banks, trading firms, and the like to have economists on staff but my point is that they're likely not mostly undergrad (or even Masters) economics majors.
I imagine it's also fairly common for banks, trading firms, and the like to have economists on staff but my point is that they're likely not mostly undergrad (or even Masters) economics majors.
Indeed. There is a ceiling without the advanced degree!
Banks surprisingly hire few economists outside of information/trading groups and, for the more quant heavy, risk groups.
Banks surprisingly hire few economists outside of information/trading groups and, for the more quant heavy, risk groups.
Recent OMSCS graduate here, and I was already working as a software engineer. I learned a lot, I'm very happy with the experience, the price is totally reasonable (around $7k) and it's a kind of education which suits and is oriented to adults. I totally recommend the program.
But, I totally understand the issue with a $50k Master's.
But, I totally understand the issue with a $50k Master's.
+1 for OMSCS. I’m about to start my final class of the program. The low relative cost and scheduling flexibility made it attractive. I don’t feel as though I’ve been scammed. I was exposed to a lot of computing topics I wouldn’t have been able to explore as easily and with as much depth or rigor elsewhere.
Would you recommend OMSCS for someone trying to switch into tech but has some only some CS coursework in undergrad (OOP, discrete, DS&A, an unrelated major like Biology) ?
It's one way to make the career switch but possibly not the best. As with most things, it depends on your circumstances.
What OMSCS offers imo is:
- an elite CS education
- specialize in topics that interest you
- very low cost (I'll have spent around $8k total by graudation)
- the flexibility that naturally comes with an online-first education
What it doesn't offer:
- a starting point for someone with near zero cs-background (if this is you, it will be a hard program)
- job/coop placement
- networking is hard imo
What OMSCS offers imo is:
- an elite CS education
- specialize in topics that interest you
- very low cost (I'll have spent around $8k total by graudation)
- the flexibility that naturally comes with an online-first education
What it doesn't offer:
- a starting point for someone with near zero cs-background (if this is you, it will be a hard program)
- job/coop placement
- networking is hard imo
I feel like I have the necessary foundations of CS so I think it is a good starting point for me but the main goal is to maximize my time to get the necessary foundation in CS to do well at my job as well as open up my possibilities such that recruiters don't throw away my resume once they see "Biology with CS coursework".
In terms of networking and job placement, I am thinking of applying to in-person masters programs (USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cornell) but that would put be in some debt (40-50k). After reading this article, I am utterly lost.
In terms of networking and job placement, I am thinking of applying to in-person masters programs (USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cornell) but that would put be in some debt (40-50k). After reading this article, I am utterly lost.
Coming up next: luxury watches biggest scam in retail. (they serve the same function as an ivy league degree: signaling status)
And diamonds. I wonder if you can rent those watches for the big events.
1. You don't need a masters to apply to a doctorate program. 2. You're not making that much more than someone with a bachelors and 2/3 additional years of experience.
I managed two people with a masters degree at a previous position and they weren't any better then the person I hired with a high school diploma. In fact I'd say the death metal guy with the HS diploma ran circles around them.
Doesn't seem like a sound investment from my very limited perspective.
I managed two people with a masters degree at a previous position and they weren't any better then the person I hired with a high school diploma. In fact I'd say the death metal guy with the HS diploma ran circles around them.
Doesn't seem like a sound investment from my very limited perspective.
> You don't need a masters to apply to a doctorate program.
Don't make overly broad statements. This is true for many programs, but false for many programs. It tends to be true for CS, and less true for EE, for example. When I applied for grad schools in EE, the universities that let you in the PhD program with just a BS were a minority. The top 10 school I got into said they would allow it only for special circumstances, and even then, would make you take about 2 extra years of coursework compared to those coming in with an MS (so practically the same as being admitted to a MS first). In my time there, I didn't encounter a single person who got into the PhD program with just a BS.
Googling now, what I say may be less true. My undergrad university, which absolutely required a MS to get into the PhD program, no longer does. Although the grad school I went to hasn't changed - you still have to take about 2 more years of coursework if you get in without a MS, and your qualifying exam is delayed pretty much as if you were first getting an MS.
Don't make overly broad statements. This is true for many programs, but false for many programs. It tends to be true for CS, and less true for EE, for example. When I applied for grad schools in EE, the universities that let you in the PhD program with just a BS were a minority. The top 10 school I got into said they would allow it only for special circumstances, and even then, would make you take about 2 extra years of coursework compared to those coming in with an MS (so practically the same as being admitted to a MS first). In my time there, I didn't encounter a single person who got into the PhD program with just a BS.
Googling now, what I say may be less true. My undergrad university, which absolutely required a MS to get into the PhD program, no longer does. Although the grad school I went to hasn't changed - you still have to take about 2 more years of coursework if you get in without a MS, and your qualifying exam is delayed pretty much as if you were first getting an MS.
I don't know, in my Master's degree, the quality of the people I study with is quite good, quite a few genius types, someone I know is now studying their PhD at ETH Zurich etc, this is a top #1 or #2 uni in my country though
What bothers me the most about US higher education is the sheer waste of time and money it can be. This is directly connected to how bad our secondary (say, middle to high school) education has become.
In terms of secondary education, after a dozen years of schooling young adults are launched into the world with exactly zero marketable skills. Zero.
What is the average US high school graduate good for?
Stacking boxes and, after training, making coffee and a number of other low skill/knowledge jobs.
This, from my perspective, is a travesty, a serious breach of the trust we place on a system of education that seems to have no ability to deliver real value for the money we spend.
At the university level we easily add a year or two to degrees by adding what I call “degree-irrelevant” courses.
An engineering degree should not have —as a graduation requirement— history, social science or non-technical classes.
Please note I said “graduation requirement”. You should not need to pass a class on Middle Earth History and Poetry to obtain an Electrical Engineering degree. This is silly and it wastes a tremendous amount of time and money.
Why do we have this?
Well, our secondary education sucks, so we teach and re-teach that which should have been learned in high school.
Worse than that, because the government is in the student loan business (and they are dumb as can be) the education “mafia” figured out how to fatten-up degrees to extract more money out of the system.
A history class is inexpensive to teach, and yet it costs the same per credit than, say, a chemistry class that requires more infrastructure. Degrees are padded with crap no employer values at all.
If you go to a university that costs, say, $30K to $50K per year, you likely have somewhere in the range of $30K to $80K in coursework loans that is utterly irrelevant to your degree.
The other angle is that, without this coursework we would be able to graduate engineers about 25% faster than we do, which would be a competitive advantage.
These graduates would start their professional lives with about 25% less debt. The lifetime benefits of this cannot be understated.
The opportunity cost, for the person and prospective employer, of taking an additional year or more to graduate people with technical degrees is, in the aggregate, massive in scale.
Someone might say: A well rounded education is important!
Absolutely agreed! Just not as a graduation requirement that adds tens of thousands of dollars to the already abusive cost of education and, in most cases, over a year of time to obtaining a degree.
This is where secondary education should shine. We should demand that young adults emerge from that system with both a well-rounded education and marketable skills.
Society would benefit immensely if we were better at the business of education, from K through university.
EDIT:
As one of many personal examples. Many years ago I hired an EE out of Intel. He spent around five years there designing switching power supplies. That's what I hired him for. He worked for my company for several years doing exactly that, designing switching power supplies. The fact that his US degree required him to take a bunch of irrelevant courses added exactly zero value to what he could do for anyone who might hire him, myself included. This means this person wasted a year+ of his life in school taking courses nobody cares about (and nobody will pay him for). A year later I hired yet another EE to do the same work. His degree was from Europe. He had nearly zero non-STEM coursework. He performed just as well, and in some aspects better, than the US-graduated EE.
I don't understand why we allow the education system to do things that are demonstrably detrimental from nearly every angle. If someone does want to study philosophy or history while obtaining a degree, no problem at all. It should be THEIR decision. And, if they think it might have future value to employers, they would get to highlight the fact that they took and passed such coursework. They could even opt to go for a minor in a certain area of study. Again, this should be the decision of the student and it should self-select based on the ultimate value assigned to such studies by society, not imposed upon every single student by a system with already ridiculous cost structures.
In terms of secondary education, after a dozen years of schooling young adults are launched into the world with exactly zero marketable skills. Zero.
What is the average US high school graduate good for?
Stacking boxes and, after training, making coffee and a number of other low skill/knowledge jobs.
This, from my perspective, is a travesty, a serious breach of the trust we place on a system of education that seems to have no ability to deliver real value for the money we spend.
At the university level we easily add a year or two to degrees by adding what I call “degree-irrelevant” courses.
An engineering degree should not have —as a graduation requirement— history, social science or non-technical classes.
Please note I said “graduation requirement”. You should not need to pass a class on Middle Earth History and Poetry to obtain an Electrical Engineering degree. This is silly and it wastes a tremendous amount of time and money.
Why do we have this?
Well, our secondary education sucks, so we teach and re-teach that which should have been learned in high school.
Worse than that, because the government is in the student loan business (and they are dumb as can be) the education “mafia” figured out how to fatten-up degrees to extract more money out of the system.
A history class is inexpensive to teach, and yet it costs the same per credit than, say, a chemistry class that requires more infrastructure. Degrees are padded with crap no employer values at all.
If you go to a university that costs, say, $30K to $50K per year, you likely have somewhere in the range of $30K to $80K in coursework loans that is utterly irrelevant to your degree.
The other angle is that, without this coursework we would be able to graduate engineers about 25% faster than we do, which would be a competitive advantage.
These graduates would start their professional lives with about 25% less debt. The lifetime benefits of this cannot be understated.
The opportunity cost, for the person and prospective employer, of taking an additional year or more to graduate people with technical degrees is, in the aggregate, massive in scale.
Someone might say: A well rounded education is important!
Absolutely agreed! Just not as a graduation requirement that adds tens of thousands of dollars to the already abusive cost of education and, in most cases, over a year of time to obtaining a degree.
This is where secondary education should shine. We should demand that young adults emerge from that system with both a well-rounded education and marketable skills.
Society would benefit immensely if we were better at the business of education, from K through university.
EDIT:
As one of many personal examples. Many years ago I hired an EE out of Intel. He spent around five years there designing switching power supplies. That's what I hired him for. He worked for my company for several years doing exactly that, designing switching power supplies. The fact that his US degree required him to take a bunch of irrelevant courses added exactly zero value to what he could do for anyone who might hire him, myself included. This means this person wasted a year+ of his life in school taking courses nobody cares about (and nobody will pay him for). A year later I hired yet another EE to do the same work. His degree was from Europe. He had nearly zero non-STEM coursework. He performed just as well, and in some aspects better, than the US-graduated EE.
I don't understand why we allow the education system to do things that are demonstrably detrimental from nearly every angle. If someone does want to study philosophy or history while obtaining a degree, no problem at all. It should be THEIR decision. And, if they think it might have future value to employers, they would get to highlight the fact that they took and passed such coursework. They could even opt to go for a minor in a certain area of study. Again, this should be the decision of the student and it should self-select based on the ultimate value assigned to such studies by society, not imposed upon every single student by a system with already ridiculous cost structures.
Indeed. I was shocked when I learned how much American university students are treated as children (forced to take off-topic courses, living under high school-like rules).
[deleted]
The article doesn't mention one of the biggest draws: having a masters degree from an accredited U.S. institution improves your chances at getting an H-1B visa.
You meant STEM OPT? H1B masters pool only marginally improves H1B lottery chances, which are far too low today to begin with.
My understanding is that the masters pool is a rather significant improvement in your chances: some Googling finds a random source that claims your chances are 60% higher: https://www.waylit.com/post/what-are-my-chances-of-h1b-lotte...
Whereas OPT not being lottery-based is 100%, no? And more importantly, you can pretty much go work wherever you want with it, every tech firm is ok with it, but relatively few bother with H1B today for overseas candidates.
I don't think masters degrees are a scam. However, there are a lot of online only masters programs out there now, and I am not sure they provide the same value. More on that later,
Yes, MS are much more career targeted. That's a feature, not a detriment. In computer science undergrad, I had to take 2 religion, 4 philosophy, 2 history, and 3 language classes. None of those 11 made me a better person nor helped my career. There were 10+ other humanities classes I had to take which left me no room to do what I actually wanted to do: dual major in business and computer science. Note: there were ZERO classes I was given that had any web, cloud, or big data learning in them. I still felt restricted by the 10 courses I had to take for my computer science masters, but I routinely use what I learned in my masters at work. It was extremely beneficial/applicable. There is something to be said for context switching as well. I liked having a smaller-focused course load.
Another thing I liked / found beneficial is the dedication of my classmates. In undergrad, many students wanted to do the bare minimum and move on with their lives. A lot was about partying and sleeping in, which isn't bad, but having classmates who are passionate about the topics and dedicated to putting their best foot forward in class is nice to also have. Its nice having these two separate learning experiences. I've kept in touch with almost no one from undergrad, but lots from masters. The most valuable aspect of a masters is the students, which is why I am highly skeptical of online only masters programs.
In the end, my masters degree doubled my earnings and set my career on a whole new trajectory. Its a great way to energize or restart your career as well.
Yes, MS are much more career targeted. That's a feature, not a detriment. In computer science undergrad, I had to take 2 religion, 4 philosophy, 2 history, and 3 language classes. None of those 11 made me a better person nor helped my career. There were 10+ other humanities classes I had to take which left me no room to do what I actually wanted to do: dual major in business and computer science. Note: there were ZERO classes I was given that had any web, cloud, or big data learning in them. I still felt restricted by the 10 courses I had to take for my computer science masters, but I routinely use what I learned in my masters at work. It was extremely beneficial/applicable. There is something to be said for context switching as well. I liked having a smaller-focused course load.
Another thing I liked / found beneficial is the dedication of my classmates. In undergrad, many students wanted to do the bare minimum and move on with their lives. A lot was about partying and sleeping in, which isn't bad, but having classmates who are passionate about the topics and dedicated to putting their best foot forward in class is nice to also have. Its nice having these two separate learning experiences. I've kept in touch with almost no one from undergrad, but lots from masters. The most valuable aspect of a masters is the students, which is why I am highly skeptical of online only masters programs.
In the end, my masters degree doubled my earnings and set my career on a whole new trajectory. Its a great way to energize or restart your career as well.
Will Master's allow me to obtain US visa / get job in US & relocate easier?
or the diff between bachelor/engineering degree is barely significant
or the diff between bachelor/engineering degree is barely significant
It does. One goes through a separate, advanced degree, pool for the h1b lottery. If one is not selected on that pool, then one enters the regular one.
Also, a STEM masters allows one to do three years of OPT, which is basically a work permit.
A masters was a great choice for me. I did my engineering undergrad abroad, got a very good education for not much money. Doing a masters in the US allowed me to specialize and enter the US market.
Comparatively, the price of a technical masters in the US was on part with that of an MBA on my country of origin. After crunching the numbers, it was an easy decision.
I am happy with the education I got, and the opportunities it opened for me.
Also, a STEM masters allows one to do three years of OPT, which is basically a work permit.
A masters was a great choice for me. I did my engineering undergrad abroad, got a very good education for not much money. Doing a masters in the US allowed me to specialize and enter the US market.
Comparatively, the price of a technical masters in the US was on part with that of an MBA on my country of origin. After crunching the numbers, it was an easy decision.
I am happy with the education I got, and the opportunities it opened for me.
Thank you for explanation
[deleted]
I graduated from a no-name state school in the early 90s into a down job market. I was at the top of my class and did well on the GREs and was offered a fellowship to a PhD program at a private engineering school (RPI). I enrolled in the PhD program, and I used the time saved by the fellowship to take an overload of classes. Between the overload, and transferring in credits from graduate level classes I had taken as an undergrad, I bailed out with an almost free MS after one calendar year. The cost to me was the full price I paid for the credits to do the MS project.
IMHO, I learned exactly nothing from my MS. My undergrad classes at a no-name state school were more challenging, and I felt like the grad level classes were a poor copy. The MS project was useless drudgery that I was not interested in at all.
The entire thing was a waste of time, except for the piece of paper that I got at the end. I firmly believe that piece of paper opened several doors that might otherwise have been closed, and has resulted in better jobs and better pay throughout my career.
IMHO, I learned exactly nothing from my MS. My undergrad classes at a no-name state school were more challenging, and I felt like the grad level classes were a poor copy. The MS project was useless drudgery that I was not interested in at all.
The entire thing was a waste of time, except for the piece of paper that I got at the end. I firmly believe that piece of paper opened several doors that might otherwise have been closed, and has resulted in better jobs and better pay throughout my career.
Come on, could the title be any more click-baity?
Arts and U.S. Ivy are missing key words in the title.
If you lift your eyes beyond the U.S., there are countries where the student does not pay tuition and the offered degree program actually contains really useful material with a high quality teaching experience.
But sure, let's just all watch 10min youtube clips and claim it's at least as good.
Arts and U.S. Ivy are missing key words in the title.
If you lift your eyes beyond the U.S., there are countries where the student does not pay tuition and the offered degree program actually contains really useful material with a high quality teaching experience.
But sure, let's just all watch 10min youtube clips and claim it's at least as good.
FTA:
> For colleges and universities, master’s degrees have essentially become an enormous moneymaking scheme, wherein the line between for-profit and nonprofit education has been utterly blurred. There are, of course, good programs as well as bad ones, but when you scope out, there is clearly a systemic problem.
Cool. Now do the higher education system as a whole.
> For colleges and universities, master’s degrees have essentially become an enormous moneymaking scheme, wherein the line between for-profit and nonprofit education has been utterly blurred. There are, of course, good programs as well as bad ones, but when you scope out, there is clearly a systemic problem.
Cool. Now do the higher education system as a whole.
This is why I prefer PhD or research degrees to Masters as the "curriculum" is more modular (i.e. I can quickly change my focus if something wasn't working out or learn new things without needing permission).
US/Europe govt should pay people to do research degrees for 12-15 months with some screening as to ability. Run it like a library and/or makespace and remove bloated universities out of the equation. This plus some sort of machine rental or access service (e.g. pay per use) for scientific/fab equipment and open methods for peer review publication would revolutionise adult education in the sciences and engineering.
US/Europe govt should pay people to do research degrees for 12-15 months with some screening as to ability. Run it like a library and/or makespace and remove bloated universities out of the equation. This plus some sort of machine rental or access service (e.g. pay per use) for scientific/fab equipment and open methods for peer review publication would revolutionise adult education in the sciences and engineering.
I can only speak from myself (Economics, in Portugal).
In employability terms, my master's degree was not a good investment, and these degrees are cheap here compared to the US (I payed 5k for two years).
I do however feel I developed plenty of resillience due to the amount of studying I had to do, a real understanding of what academic life is like by doing my thesis (we are not very exposed to papers in the undergrad), and most importantly, a strong and useful framework and intuition for thinking about the world - but I think that might just be a combination of my degree and innate inclinations.
In employability terms, my master's degree was not a good investment, and these degrees are cheap here compared to the US (I payed 5k for two years).
I do however feel I developed plenty of resillience due to the amount of studying I had to do, a real understanding of what academic life is like by doing my thesis (we are not very exposed to papers in the undergrad), and most importantly, a strong and useful framework and intuition for thinking about the world - but I think that might just be a combination of my degree and innate inclinations.
Don't forget to factor in the opportunity cost of 2 years of lost wages!
"Fortunately" wages in Portugal are low, so the associated opportunity cost is not that high :)
In the US.
Was gonna say. My Master’s program paid for itself by the time I graduated and absolutely helped land me my dream job which turned into a dream career.
Sure, but personally I would argue that it almost always makes more financial sense to do a combined Masters-PhD (i.e. a research degree), especially in fields with plentiful funding.
That was the case for me in Ireland when I did my doctorate.
That was the case for me in Ireland when I did my doctorate.
In engineering a MS pays best, at least historically. Lately PhD's are becoming very common and much more product-oriented I'd say (as opposed to long-term high-risk research). So may be a better ticket to the upper ranks of technical tracks at large tech companies.
Historically, with professional degrees you are totally correct. I think that's more because there's a professional organisation ensuring that people get rewarded for better qualifications.
I mean, PhD's are great if you want to learn how to structure and finish a long-term project, and learn how to research. I definitely don't regret mine, but I remember looking the the cost structure of masters vs PhD's and concluding that masters were for suckers as you could always just finish a PhD in 18 months with a research masters.
I mean, PhD's are great if you want to learn how to structure and finish a long-term project, and learn how to research. I definitely don't regret mine, but I remember looking the the cost structure of masters vs PhD's and concluding that masters were for suckers as you could always just finish a PhD in 18 months with a research masters.
[deleted]
Can you share which fields are these?
Definitely not psychology, which is what my doctorate's in.
Generally, more hard-sciencey type fields tend to have better funding (physics, engineering that sort of thing). They also have less PhD students, because there are more opportunities in industry so less competition for places.
It seems like CS is one of those disciplines also, tbh.
Generally, more hard-sciencey type fields tend to have better funding (physics, engineering that sort of thing). They also have less PhD students, because there are more opportunities in industry so less competition for places.
It seems like CS is one of those disciplines also, tbh.
In the various STEM fields I work in the Masters degree and PhD coursework is essentially the same. You learn most of what there is to know about the subject. The doctorate bolts on another 2-4 years of learning how to research in that field: what are frontier problems that can be done a couple years of work. Doctoral newbies often select a problem too easy, too hard or already done and have to be steered awayfrom that.
In software development I’m not sure there is a difference between a bachelors and a masters. At least for hiring purposes I do not view them as any different.
I also hire people out of code schools as well. I get a lot of resumes from people with a degree in some random field…then spent a few months at a boot camp. So far, our boot camp employees have been very good.
I also hire people out of code schools as well. I get a lot of resumes from people with a degree in some random field…then spent a few months at a boot camp. So far, our boot camp employees have been very good.
The biggest cheapening of Master's degrees is in education, where many school districts provide reimbursement and fairly significant pay raises for teachers who get masters. Which has led to a large number of garbage paint-by-number programs to service that demand. My mother got one while I was in high school, from a well respected regional university, and the level of the coursework was laughable.
A university near me gave ed master’s credit for playing golf. Not even in a class, you just play golf and send in your score.
I guess they are paying $300k for the connections and access to the elites who go to these universities but whats the point of paying if the 'elite university experience' is not only virtual, but anyone can go and get a MS degree online for cheap access? (Obviously for some courses)
Still the pandemic has made it glaringly obvious that depending on the course you study, in this case, history, media, drama and film studies, a Masters Degree in either of those fields is a complete scam if the probabilities in getting a high earning job is that small as I have said before. [0]
As for a PhD in especially in either of those fields. Well... Just don't take my word for it and just look at the responses right here and you can make your own decision to see if it is worth it. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27620695
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27580605
Still the pandemic has made it glaringly obvious that depending on the course you study, in this case, history, media, drama and film studies, a Masters Degree in either of those fields is a complete scam if the probabilities in getting a high earning job is that small as I have said before. [0]
As for a PhD in especially in either of those fields. Well... Just don't take my word for it and just look at the responses right here and you can make your own decision to see if it is worth it. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27620695
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27580605
In the case of J-School, mentioned in the article, even back when journalism was not such a beleaguered profession, a lot of people were pretty skeptical that it was a better option than, you know, being a journalist.
I know a lot of working journalists and very few of them went to J-School. (Many worked on undergrad newspapers and some colleges have undergrad elective classes.)
I know a lot of working journalists and very few of them went to J-School. (Many worked on undergrad newspapers and some colleges have undergrad elective classes.)
>I guess they are paying $300k for the connections and access to the elites who go to these universities
Can you expand on what you mean by "access to elites"
Can you expand on what you mean by "access to elites"
Let's just say it's not about what you know, but it is about who you know. This applies better at the top universities in the world.
Why not ask Paul Graham (pg) and Patrick Collison (pc)?
Maybe you can ask Peter Thiel and the Thiel fellowship recipients?
Why not ask Paul Graham (pg) and Patrick Collison (pc)?
Maybe you can ask Peter Thiel and the Thiel fellowship recipients?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the title overstates it, even per it's own arguments in the article itself whose criticism is more narrow in scope. (Though criticisms on high prices do apply across the board)
What it really takes issue with are programs that amount to a professional certificate, essentially a sort of trade school for a particular industry or role within that industry.
I don't think the same criticism of quality applies to more traditional academically-oriented programs. For example an undergrad Biology major is essentially getting a wide survey of the field. At the master's level it goes into a lot more depth and you usually have some fairly specific area of focus. In short, you're acquiring a base of knowledge rather than focussing mostly on the application of that knowledge. Far different than, say, a 9-month Master's degree in cloud infrastructure that may be obsolete before you pay off the loan.
What it really takes issue with are programs that amount to a professional certificate, essentially a sort of trade school for a particular industry or role within that industry.
I don't think the same criticism of quality applies to more traditional academically-oriented programs. For example an undergrad Biology major is essentially getting a wide survey of the field. At the master's level it goes into a lot more depth and you usually have some fairly specific area of focus. In short, you're acquiring a base of knowledge rather than focussing mostly on the application of that knowledge. Far different than, say, a 9-month Master's degree in cloud infrastructure that may be obsolete before you pay off the loan.
This likely depends on the degree and the purpose for which you tried to obtain it.
Some online Masters degree programs are just scams preying on people's desire to improve their careers. They are successful because so many employer's won't pay or promote to certain positions without advanced degrees. So there is a real demand for degrees like MBAs.
For some degrees, the real value is the additional education you receive because of the increased complexity of the subject. Not everyone goes after these degrees for the same reason. For me, I went to grad school in physics not because I thought it would help my career, but because I wanted to learn more physics. I don't think this is the typical reason for which advanced degrees are sought anymore, but at least in some cases, like mine, master's degrees aren't scams, but a necessary part of deeper education into a specific area.
Some online Masters degree programs are just scams preying on people's desire to improve their careers. They are successful because so many employer's won't pay or promote to certain positions without advanced degrees. So there is a real demand for degrees like MBAs.
For some degrees, the real value is the additional education you receive because of the increased complexity of the subject. Not everyone goes after these degrees for the same reason. For me, I went to grad school in physics not because I thought it would help my career, but because I wanted to learn more physics. I don't think this is the typical reason for which advanced degrees are sought anymore, but at least in some cases, like mine, master's degrees aren't scams, but a necessary part of deeper education into a specific area.
A friend of mine and I went through the same bachelor's degree program. My friend ended up continuing on to get a masters degree. Even my friend admitted they just went for the degree to get the degree. In the end, my friend went back to the job they were doing after the first degree and has been there ever since.
Even by the end of the bachelor's program I took, it felt like I was kind of wasting money. As soon as teachers started trying to convince us to move on into the masters degree program, it was just a hard no from me. It would have cost the same as what I'd already paid for school, if not more and wasn't going to lead to a significant increase in job opportunities.
By the end of that last year, it had become a lot more clear the school was more about making money than anything else.
Even by the end of the bachelor's program I took, it felt like I was kind of wasting money. As soon as teachers started trying to convince us to move on into the masters degree program, it was just a hard no from me. It would have cost the same as what I'd already paid for school, if not more and wasn't going to lead to a significant increase in job opportunities.
By the end of that last year, it had become a lot more clear the school was more about making money than anything else.
I'm not sure how to take this article considering that I am trying to switch into tech with a Biology undergrad with some CS coursework.
I'm already been admitted to OMSCS but I've been thinking of applying to on-campus masters programs at Cornell, USC, and Stanford but the >$50k price tag is making me resist.
Are these on-campus programs at prestigious universities worth it to get access to high-growth startups and big tech companies as well as more face-to-face time with instructors and other classmates as opposed to a part-time online masters?
I'm already been admitted to OMSCS but I've been thinking of applying to on-campus masters programs at Cornell, USC, and Stanford but the >$50k price tag is making me resist.
Are these on-campus programs at prestigious universities worth it to get access to high-growth startups and big tech companies as well as more face-to-face time with instructors and other classmates as opposed to a part-time online masters?
I think the easiest path into tech is through internships. Being a student at a well-known university can help get you in the door for good internships, but it doesn’t have to be an expensive private college. Some schools also have a “second bachelor’s” program in CS which might get you into the kind of internships you want.
I was in a similar situation as you. I did a 3-month “boot camp” and then worked at an unknown startup until FAANG recruiters started to email me, but obviously YMMV.
I was in a similar situation as you. I did a 3-month “boot camp” and then worked at an unknown startup until FAANG recruiters started to email me, but obviously YMMV.
Yeah the main thing with OMSCS is that it's part-time and apparently some companies require you to be a full-time student in order to intern. I'm scared I'd be limited if I do OMSCS.
In terms of the bootcamp pathway, I feel like I have the foundation to teach myself the skills I need but it seems like the one positive thing that can come out of the bootcamp for me are the potential connections and job placement I would be able to get.
Let me know if I am wrong about it though!
In terms of the bootcamp pathway, I feel like I have the foundation to teach myself the skills I need but it seems like the one positive thing that can come out of the bootcamp for me are the potential connections and job placement I would be able to get.
Let me know if I am wrong about it though!
That was my experience. I already had enough skill to be a junior dev but I needed the connections (internship opportunities) that the boot camp provided.
Many students fail to look into prospects and hopelessly enroll in post-grad thinking they’re entitled to them.
Do your homework when you choose to sign up for a degree, stop playing victim.
Do your homework when you choose to sign up for a degree, stop playing victim.
Post Secondary Institutions have put undergraduate education on the back burner. It's all about graduate degrees now. More money, grants, and cheap student labour.
At least 75% of the people I know with masters degrees didn't pay a thing and in fact got free tuition AND a stipend.
I have a lot of relatives from India that came to the US to get their masters in various engineering disciplines. None of them paid a dime.
They had to work a lot of weekends for professors doing research but it was just 2 years and then they had published research papers and industry connections to get a job.
I have a lot of relatives from India that came to the US to get their masters in various engineering disciplines. None of them paid a dime.
They had to work a lot of weekends for professors doing research but it was just 2 years and then they had published research papers and industry connections to get a job.
My college mentor always said, "do not pay for a Master's degree, find a company who will pay for it."
Best damn advice I've ever gotten!
Best damn advice I've ever gotten!
Is that possible?
Every company I've every worked for offered money for education but usually it only covered slightly over 1/3 of the total expense when everything was said and done. (And this was early 2000s when University was cheaper)
Also, two companies required at least a B for reimbursement which is not always that easy in a competitive STEM class. I found I could do work, or school, well. But not work and school and subsequently dropped out of my Graduate program. It worked out in the end. :)
Every company I've every worked for offered money for education but usually it only covered slightly over 1/3 of the total expense when everything was said and done. (And this was early 2000s when University was cheaper)
Also, two companies required at least a B for reimbursement which is not always that easy in a competitive STEM class. I found I could do work, or school, well. But not work and school and subsequently dropped out of my Graduate program. It worked out in the end. :)
Sorry I never responded to this, yes it's absolutely possible. I think things are changing and a lot of companies will pay for your degree. Typically you can also negotiate it in a job interview. Usually it does involve keeping good grades in school (B or above), so yeah, that happens. :)
I ended up leaving the job and having to pay over $7k in classes, but the company I moved to had an even better deal and paid for my entire degree with no qualms. It's a lot of work and stress, but it was worth it. :)
If a company is going to help you get a master's degree, they should understand that they can't push you too hard, considering the degree is a job in itself!
I ended up leaving the job and having to pay over $7k in classes, but the company I moved to had an even better deal and paid for my entire degree with no qualms. It's a lot of work and stress, but it was worth it. :)
If a company is going to help you get a master's degree, they should understand that they can't push you too hard, considering the degree is a job in itself!
It skips the part that masters degrees are required for some jobs, like teaching higher education. (Odd it picked on film writing and arts.) This in itself is part of the racket. Want to teach in any college, public, community, private? You need a masters, no matter how uninformative the content really is. It's a big circle.
STEM masters degrees are a necessary hoop to jump through to get promotions in many industries. Humanities masters are just students paying to enjoy their passions, fine if you're rich but too pricy for most.
> STEM masters degrees are a necessary hoop to jump through to get promotions in many industries. Humanities masters
Are also hoops people in certain fields need to jump through for jobs (e.g., community college faculty, lecturer at some other institutions), advancement or pay incentives, etc.
Are also hoops people in certain fields need to jump through for jobs (e.g., community college faculty, lecturer at some other institutions), advancement or pay incentives, etc.
I got a BS and MS in CS and thought it was a great use of time and money. No regrets at all.
But that was in the 90s. It saddens me to see how things are today. We've lost something considerable.
But that was in the 90s. It saddens me to see how things are today. We've lost something considerable.
I had the impression, it's what you make of it.
I learned new interesting things, but I could also have boring stuff I would never use anywhere later.
I learned new interesting things, but I could also have boring stuff I would never use anywhere later.
That sorry of education is a scan in a system where you take on huge amounts of debt. The financial aspect definitely makes it a scam.
I did my masters at a top 10-20 Masters university for ML. It was an intense course and I learned a ton. IMO, a masters is necessary for fields like ML and it is also an excellent way to transition from a non-CS undergrad to CS.
All of them are now working on their STEM-OPT or an H1B, but the course had been paid off within the 1st year. They seem to be paid in exactly same range that levels.fyi reports and many are rising up the ranks at a pace beyond their median American peer in the same company.
It seems like a win-win to me. Universities make more money used to fund research and undergrad scholarships. The US gets a steady stream of the top 95+ percentile of developing countries. They meaningfully contribute to the economy and the US maintains it hegemony by literally sucking other nations dry of their most important resource.
Also, the US is literally (I mean literally, in as close a sense that figuratively will allow) impossible to immigrate to as a STEM GRAD if the masters programs didn't exist. L1 transfers are incredibly small in number and actually exploitative. No one sponsors an H1b when they have to wait a non-descript number of ears before their employee can join.
As for code sweat-shop H1b exploiters (infosys, TCS,etc), the H1bs in FANG+s hate them far more than your standard anti-immigration american.
All of them are now working on their STEM-OPT or an H1B, but the course had been paid off within the 1st year. They seem to be paid in exactly same range that levels.fyi reports and many are rising up the ranks at a pace beyond their median American peer in the same company.
It seems like a win-win to me. Universities make more money used to fund research and undergrad scholarships. The US gets a steady stream of the top 95+ percentile of developing countries. They meaningfully contribute to the economy and the US maintains it hegemony by literally sucking other nations dry of their most important resource.
Also, the US is literally (I mean literally, in as close a sense that figuratively will allow) impossible to immigrate to as a STEM GRAD if the masters programs didn't exist. L1 transfers are incredibly small in number and actually exploitative. No one sponsors an H1b when they have to wait a non-descript number of ears before their employee can join.
As for code sweat-shop H1b exploiters (infosys, TCS,etc), the H1bs in FANG+s hate them far more than your standard anti-immigration american.
One of the most valuable things you get from a degree in the US is access to internships.
Unless hugely motivated, I would not considering getting a Master degree. Masters and Docs are mostly for research.
There are course-based Masters and I consider them as a convenient solution to get around the unnecessary electives in Undergraduate studies. I recently transferred to a graduate diploma which serves the same purpose.
There are course-based Masters and I consider them as a convenient solution to get around the unnecessary electives in Undergraduate studies. I recently transferred to a graduate diploma which serves the same purpose.
[deleted](1)
I can't agree. My masters degree inspired my first entrepreneurship, not to mention over half of the cost was paid by my company.
I also took a marketing class that changed my life. If you buy products from Nintendo, Apple, or Jeep, a marketing class will make you disgusted/woke.
I also took a marketing class that changed my life. If you buy products from Nintendo, Apple, or Jeep, a marketing class will make you disgusted/woke.
Many moons ago I earned a Master's degree from the UT Austin CS department while I was working full-time. Reading the article, I was struck by how much my own experience differed. Because of my Master's degree I feel that my technical abilities improved significantly, and I enjoyed career advancement as a direct result of my efforts.
That said, I'm going to agree with a lot the article. If you're going into $300k debt to get an advanced degree in screenwriting, you're probably making a poor decision. As is the case with most things in life, there can be a tremendous variation in what a "Master's degree" ends up being for you.
My undergraduate degree was Computer Engineering, which at the time was under the purview of the EE department at my university. As such, it was heavier on things like BJT properties and lighter on topics like algorithm complexity theory, modern language constructs, and database and networking theory. Once I got into industry, I quickly realized that I was missing a lot of knowledge that my peers had in these areas, and I felt it was important to find a way to fill those gaps.
My employer had a program where they would let me work as a full-time employee while I simultaneously pursued higher education. They covered my tuition so long as I maintained a minimum acceptable GPA. Since UT Austin was nearby, I jumped at the opportunity, as they have a very reputable CS program. Tuition ended up costing all of $13k over the 3 years that it took me to complete the program while working full time. Meanwhile I pulled an entry-level tech salary with benefits.
I already knew that I wanted to focus on security in my career, so in every class that had a term paper or final project, I focused on something security-related. For my databases course I studied and implemented k-anonymity. For my computer architecture courses I implemented Blowfish on an experimental CPU architecture and implemented data cache tagging as a mechanism for isolating regions of memory to specific chunks of executable code. For my networking class I wrote a paper summarizing some recent advancements in onion routing protocols. For my machine learning class I implemented a k-nearest-neighbor algorithm to look at access patterns done on encrypted storage to infer the types of files being accessed and the applications manipulating the files.
All the while I filled many gaps in my knowledge on Computer Science as a discipline, and that helped prepare me to eventually be able to pass the infamous highly technical Google interview loop. From that point I leveraged the expertise I had developed in the field of security to build some notable security features, one of which you are using right now if you happen to be reading this on an Android device.
If I hadn't pursued my Master's degree, I honestly can't say whether I would have had the same level of career success in the years that followed. Because I went to a public university that didn't charge exhorbitant fees (and because my employer covered them anyway), I did it without accumulating any debt. I had specific personal goals for what knowledge and skills I wanted to develop in the program. I took advantage of the opportunity to deep-dive on topics with knowledgeable professors who were accomplished in their respective fields. I honed my knowledge of data structures and algorithms to be better prepared for technical interviews.
So the takeaway perhaps is that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about a Master's degree. If you're going into significant debt to zombie through the base requirements to get a piece of paper, in general you can't expect to get the same results as you would if you were highly intentional and strategic about where you go and how much you pay to go there.
That said, I'm going to agree with a lot the article. If you're going into $300k debt to get an advanced degree in screenwriting, you're probably making a poor decision. As is the case with most things in life, there can be a tremendous variation in what a "Master's degree" ends up being for you.
My undergraduate degree was Computer Engineering, which at the time was under the purview of the EE department at my university. As such, it was heavier on things like BJT properties and lighter on topics like algorithm complexity theory, modern language constructs, and database and networking theory. Once I got into industry, I quickly realized that I was missing a lot of knowledge that my peers had in these areas, and I felt it was important to find a way to fill those gaps.
My employer had a program where they would let me work as a full-time employee while I simultaneously pursued higher education. They covered my tuition so long as I maintained a minimum acceptable GPA. Since UT Austin was nearby, I jumped at the opportunity, as they have a very reputable CS program. Tuition ended up costing all of $13k over the 3 years that it took me to complete the program while working full time. Meanwhile I pulled an entry-level tech salary with benefits.
I already knew that I wanted to focus on security in my career, so in every class that had a term paper or final project, I focused on something security-related. For my databases course I studied and implemented k-anonymity. For my computer architecture courses I implemented Blowfish on an experimental CPU architecture and implemented data cache tagging as a mechanism for isolating regions of memory to specific chunks of executable code. For my networking class I wrote a paper summarizing some recent advancements in onion routing protocols. For my machine learning class I implemented a k-nearest-neighbor algorithm to look at access patterns done on encrypted storage to infer the types of files being accessed and the applications manipulating the files.
All the while I filled many gaps in my knowledge on Computer Science as a discipline, and that helped prepare me to eventually be able to pass the infamous highly technical Google interview loop. From that point I leveraged the expertise I had developed in the field of security to build some notable security features, one of which you are using right now if you happen to be reading this on an Android device.
If I hadn't pursued my Master's degree, I honestly can't say whether I would have had the same level of career success in the years that followed. Because I went to a public university that didn't charge exhorbitant fees (and because my employer covered them anyway), I did it without accumulating any debt. I had specific personal goals for what knowledge and skills I wanted to develop in the program. I took advantage of the opportunity to deep-dive on topics with knowledgeable professors who were accomplished in their respective fields. I honed my knowledge of data structures and algorithms to be better prepared for technical interviews.
So the takeaway perhaps is that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about a Master's degree. If you're going into significant debt to zombie through the base requirements to get a piece of paper, in general you can't expect to get the same results as you would if you were highly intentional and strategic about where you go and how much you pay to go there.
Outside of engineering, probably.
It's a simple ROI problem.
It's a simple ROI problem.
Is it really?
[deleted]
Bachelor degrees are the scam in higher education. It should be only masters.
Why?
Because bachelors don't know shit, and you don't need a degree to do bachelor stuff.
Ie you need to gauge people based on their skill not their degree for bachelor level stuff anyways so instead of some mid degree that's useless we should get rid of it and push people to actually complete something useful, like a master's degree.
Ie you need to gauge people based on their skill not their degree for bachelor level stuff anyways so instead of some mid degree that's useless we should get rid of it and push people to actually complete something useful, like a master's degree.
Here’s an idea. Make it so that individuals can offer loans from their 401k. Maybe even let them approve the individual applying for the loan. 3.9 GPA, going into petroleum engineering, I’ll give you 10k at 7% interest with a minimum of $250/month repayment.
Make it so this is the only way for people to get college loans, and the lending criteria will be solved. Also, the complaining about “we should be able to declare bankruptcy and get out of paying for our loans” will go away.
Make it so this is the only way for people to get college loans, and the lending criteria will be solved. Also, the complaining about “we should be able to declare bankruptcy and get out of paying for our loans” will go away.
I've yet to see a useful master's degree. Especially in the US and in STEM it seems like master's has just been a gate to the next thing.
I have a master's and one of the biggest reasons behind my education was the opportunity in the US after the master's. Sole benefit of it has been the OPT (~3 years work visa). I learned small things here and there during my education but as an SWE I don't use them at all and I forgot the rest of my classes. I wrote a thesis but it was nowhere near a PhD level research.
Additionally higher entry level areas such as ML and AI often require PhD so getting a master's is not getting your foot in the door.
I have a master's and one of the biggest reasons behind my education was the opportunity in the US after the master's. Sole benefit of it has been the OPT (~3 years work visa). I learned small things here and there during my education but as an SWE I don't use them at all and I forgot the rest of my classes. I wrote a thesis but it was nowhere near a PhD level research.
Additionally higher entry level areas such as ML and AI often require PhD so getting a master's is not getting your foot in the door.
Master's Degree in Social Work is required for licensing in the US (LCSW). To teach at a community college it's generally required to have a Master's degree as well.
"useful" is in the eye of the beholder. I would expect a company hiring manager to put a candidate with a Master's degree higher on the pile than those with high school or Bachelor's degrees, too.
"useful" is in the eye of the beholder. I would expect a company hiring manager to put a candidate with a Master's degree higher on the pile than those with high school or Bachelor's degrees, too.
It’s a bit of a mixed bag. If the degree becomes meaningless than the hiring manager may apply skepticism to why someone would need that degree.
I've seen that in CS programs at University of Buffalo and Yale, a majority of Masters students are from abroad, especially from Asia.
Basically, if you wanted to work in tech in the US, you could either:
- Find a multinational company in your home country, work for them for a year, and request a transfer (highly competitive)
- Find a job for a company in the US while abroad, ask them to sponsor you for a H-1B, and hope you win the visa lottery (unlikely, since companies don't like their chances on the lottery)
- Get a Masters degree. Sure, it's $50,000, but you're guaranteed a 3-year work visa (OPT with STEM extension) during which you can apply for the H-1B multiple times (it's a winner!)
This is actually completely rational, and benefits both the students, the school, and arguably the US since it gets some highly skilled workers who did not take out loans.
Are Masters degrees outside of STEM (and online ones, like the OPM-managed ones this article mentions) that cater to local Americans in low wage sectors a scam? Maybe!
Are Masters degrees in STEM (which definitely are cash cows) a scam? Almost definitely not; in fact, they're a great workaround until the US reforms its immigration system