Due to my research and experience, I have a ton of stats and programming experience across a range of languages, from lisp to C++ to javascript to python, to name just a few. I have published stats papers for example.
However, I kinda find when I'm looking at jobs, there's a heavy focus on CS grads, or people with finance-type degrees, or engineering degrees, or some combination. And to be honest, there are certain things out of a BS in CS that I probably am not that familiar with, especially low-level hardware type stuff, and network stuff.
So, I look at what's out there, and getting a BS in CS seems a little odd, for various reasons, in part because I feel like there's a lot of redundancy with what I have from my career and education already.
A MS in CS, on the other hand, is kinda not so strange to me. I might have to take a couple of preparatory courses, like in OSs, but doesn't seem too grueling to me.
So I read a thing like this, and it comes across as similar to the sort of gatekeeping that I bump into, like if you have a PhD in another field and then get an MS in CS, you aren't a "real" CS grad or something. I've supervised honors CS undergrads, and believe me, I feel pretty confident that my skillset is beyond many of theirs, at least in certain areas. At some point it just seems absurd to me.
I share some of the implicit concerns about cash cow MSs, that seem to be part of the current employment climate, not unique to CS, but a symptom of problems with hiring practices and also contributing to it. But it also seems misguided to me to start arguing that someone who completes a MS in CS isn't as skilled as someone with a BS.
There's just so much gatekeeping and pissing contest stuff that goes on in STEM, and it drives me crazy sometimes. It is maybe possible that that english grad actually understands programming, math, and algorithms at a pretty high level (I'm not an english grad, just making a hypothetical argument).
Here's my situation:
I have a PhD, but in a different, non-CS field.
Due to my research and experience, I have a ton of stats and programming experience across a range of languages, from lisp to C++ to javascript to python, to name just a few. I have published stats papers for example.
However, I kinda find when I'm looking at jobs, there's a heavy focus on CS grads, or people with finance-type degrees, or engineering degrees, or some combination. And to be honest, there are certain things out of a BS in CS that I probably am not that familiar with, especially low-level hardware type stuff, and network stuff.
So, I look at what's out there, and getting a BS in CS seems a little odd, for various reasons, in part because I feel like there's a lot of redundancy with what I have from my career and education already.
A MS in CS, on the other hand, is kinda not so strange to me. I might have to take a couple of preparatory courses, like in OSs, but doesn't seem too grueling to me.
So I read a thing like this, and it comes across as similar to the sort of gatekeeping that I bump into, like if you have a PhD in another field and then get an MS in CS, you aren't a "real" CS grad or something. I've supervised honors CS undergrads, and believe me, I feel pretty confident that my skillset is beyond many of theirs, at least in certain areas. At some point it just seems absurd to me.
I share some of the implicit concerns about cash cow MSs, that seem to be part of the current employment climate, not unique to CS, but a symptom of problems with hiring practices and also contributing to it. But it also seems misguided to me to start arguing that someone who completes a MS in CS isn't as skilled as someone with a BS.
There's just so much gatekeeping and pissing contest stuff that goes on in STEM, and it drives me crazy sometimes. It is maybe possible that that english grad actually understands programming, math, and algorithms at a pretty high level (I'm not an english grad, just making a hypothetical argument).