I would not consider this news, but I am glad it has been written down regardless. This has been true for decades in Computer Science.
1. Undergraduate degrees: Getting things done, getting in on the ground floor. Needs to be screened rigorously because the high variance of graduates.
2. Masters degrees: Getting things done, but with enough understanding of the landscape on how to make money doing it. Usually pretty good in my experience.
3. PhDs: Getting research done. Are not necessarily good software engineers and need to be screened more rigorously than the Masters holders.
The problem for undergrads is the glut of graduate degrees squeezes out the undergrads, if _only_ for the experience level. With all other things equal, you take the PhD over the Masters over the Undergraduate simply because they are older and have more experience. Recruiters also don't want to have to filter through hundreds of undergrad applicants: it's much easier to trim that off and just look at the Masters/PhD applications instead.
You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
>You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
I feel this is more true in other STEM fields than it is in Software. Could just be bias talking, but I'm a senior SWE with no college degree (couple of certs) and haven't had it stop me from getting good jobs, especially once I got like 3-4 years of experience under my belt and could talk about projects I co-designed and interesting problems I've worked on.
That strategy worked well for me until I was about ten years into my career and hit a tough job market. A degree makes it much, much easier to navigate a tough job market, especially as you get older.
You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
I think this sums up the majority of cases. Some people need graduate degrees because they are seeking higher education, such as a Phd, but mostly it's because someone else requires it without ever really expressing why.
If the software development is mostly stock and standard, I would agree, it doesn't matter if staff have advanced degrees or not. But developers with advanced degrees tend to have a better understanding of what is actually going on "under the hood". When tackling unorthodox, challenging problems, they use that knowledge to make better design decisions, resulting in better quality software. For those types of cutting-edge projects, I think there is value to having staff with advanced degrees.
>Many graduate students tend to favor abstraction over practical skills.
Isn't that the point. There was a time when companies valued problem solving skills instead of being an automatron. Back then companies would train you with practical skills that the company needs. Each company had their own way of doing things.
But I guess now companies want automatrons instead, no wonder they are pushing to replace people with "AI".
Nonsense article. There are a number of reasons for getting a graduate degree, and being on the receiving end of worse employment prospects is not one of them. Author has multiple graduate degrees himself, and if he didn't, he likely wouldn't even have an audience.
I would not consider this news, but I am glad it has been written down regardless. This has been true for decades in Computer Science.
1. Undergraduate degrees: Getting things done, getting in on the ground floor. Needs to be screened rigorously because the high variance of graduates.
2. Masters degrees: Getting things done, but with enough understanding of the landscape on how to make money doing it. Usually pretty good in my experience.
3. PhDs: Getting research done. Are not necessarily good software engineers and need to be screened more rigorously than the Masters holders.
The problem for undergrads is the glut of graduate degrees squeezes out the undergrads, if _only_ for the experience level. With all other things equal, you take the PhD over the Masters over the Undergraduate simply because they are older and have more experience. Recruiters also don't want to have to filter through hundreds of undergrad applicants: it's much easier to trim that off and just look at the Masters/PhD applications instead.
You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
>You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
I feel this is more true in other STEM fields than it is in Software. Could just be bias talking, but I'm a senior SWE with no college degree (couple of certs) and haven't had it stop me from getting good jobs, especially once I got like 3-4 years of experience under my belt and could talk about projects I co-designed and interesting problems I've worked on.
That strategy worked well for me until I was about ten years into my career and hit a tough job market. A degree makes it much, much easier to navigate a tough job market, especially as you get older.
You don't get a graduate degree because _you_ need a graduate degree. You get a graduate degree because _others_ need to see it.
I think this sums up the majority of cases. Some people need graduate degrees because they are seeking higher education, such as a Phd, but mostly it's because someone else requires it without ever really expressing why.
If the software development is mostly stock and standard, I would agree, it doesn't matter if staff have advanced degrees or not. But developers with advanced degrees tend to have a better understanding of what is actually going on "under the hood". When tackling unorthodox, challenging problems, they use that knowledge to make better design decisions, resulting in better quality software. For those types of cutting-edge projects, I think there is value to having staff with advanced degrees.
>Many graduate students tend to favor abstraction over practical skills.
Isn't that the point. There was a time when companies valued problem solving skills instead of being an automatron. Back then companies would train you with practical skills that the company needs. Each company had their own way of doing things.
But I guess now companies want automatrons instead, no wonder they are pushing to replace people with "AI".
Nonsense article. There are a number of reasons for getting a graduate degree, and being on the receiving end of worse employment prospects is not one of them. Author has multiple graduate degrees himself, and if he didn't, he likely wouldn't even have an audience.
Ah yes, a graduate degree in biochemistry is overrated because a CS guy says so