

The 10 most useless graduate degrees: #9, Computer Science - T-A
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/the-10-most-useless-graduate-degrees/ar-BBi0x3S#page=3

======
kelukelugames
Throwing in my anectodata point.

Graduated with Masters. 1) Even after shopping multiple offers I earned less
at the start than my friends who went straight to work. 2) Hard to catch up
because they were ahead on industry experience and professional connections.

Edit: At least I didn't get a PhD. I've had multiple PhD grads tell me I was
smart for getting out early. Most of the time, an advanced degree just does
not pay off.

~~~
cplease
You have it backwards.

With regards to the US at least, in research, whether it's big company IR&D,
government contracts, university or government labs, a Ph.D. opens the door to
being hired directly as senior scientist and advancement to PI. Lack of a
Ph.D. closes a lot of doors to advancement in research. It's harder to apply
for research funding if the principals don't have Dr. before their name, and
that's a fact.

Granted, this is only a slice of industry, and not always the best paying
slice, but within it, a Ph.D. from a good institution is an extremely bankable
asset.

A masters, on the other hand, is foolish unless you need it either for
immigration purposes to get your foot in the U.S. or if you don't have a
relevant undergraduate qualification; in either case, it's for catch-up
purposes when you are behind to start. Plus, a good master's degree is
generally very expensive, whereas you are getting paid a stipend in a good
Ph.D. program.

~~~
chrisbennet
The articles basis of "useless" was how well/poorly a graduate position paid
relative to an undergraduate position.

Doesn't research pay fairly poorly on average? How much longer does it take to
get a PhD? How much much more money does a PhD position need to pay than a
graduate (or even undergraduate) position before it makes up for the years of
lost wages?

~~~
chrisbennet
I did a little digging on Glass door and found average salaries at Microsoft:

Researcher Phd (6 samples): Avg $123,922 (the highest researcher phd salary on
GlassDoor)

Software Engineer I (5100 samples): Avg $104,547

Software Engineer II (1812 samples): Avg $144,443

Unless you write off the opportunity cost while getting a Phd, I'm not seeing
the _financial_ advantages of getting one.

I don't know what the starting salary is for someone at Microsoft but to make
the #'s easy, say it averages out to $100K over 5 years. That's $(1/2 million
- grad student stipend) in lost wages.

~~~
cplease
Glassdoor isn't a great microscope. Do you notice "6 samples" for "Researcher
Phd"? And how many of them are doing research relevant to the software
industry? Also, the "Software Engineer I" is not reflective of average entry-
level salary, it's reflective of everyone reporting with that title, many of
whom have worked for many years as developers.

And a Ph.D. is not just a vanilla qualification to the extent that an
undergraduate degree is. There are plenty of worthless and failed Ph.D's out
there. Institutional affiliation and prestige and network of the PI matters
even more.

It's not a golden ticket, and most people can't simply succeed in a Ph.D.
program and make it pay off, but there are plenty of folks with extremely
lucrative research careers, which they simply could not have achieved without
the credential and connections they got from their Ph.D. program. Could they
have succeeded in something else? Maybe, maybe not, but you could say that
about any career choice.

Computer science Ph.D's can also often negotiate substantial consulting income
on the side in addition to their stipends or fellowships.

Another bonus about research is that the really good jobs are not chained to
the Bay area. Government contract money is diligently spread across all 50
states. So you can start with that six figure salary somewhere outside
SF/NYC/Redmond where it goes a hell of a lot further.

