Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education

Is Your Master's Degree Useless? (economist.com) 138

While master's degrees are increasingly popular -- with 40% of U.S. bachelor's degree holders now having postgraduate credentials -- new research reveals many don't deliver improved earnings despite soaring costs.

Analysis from the U.S. and UK indicates that about 40% of U.S. master's programs fail to provide positive financial returns, with some even leading to financial losses for graduates, as captured in a new Economist story. Similarly, British master's graduates earn no more than bachelor's holders by age 35 after accounting for background factors. This is particularly significant because U.S. students now average $50,000 in postgraduate debt, triple the real cost since 2000, while UK fees have risen 70% since 2011 to $12,000 annually.

Returns vary dramatically by field: computer science and engineering show strong gains, while humanities degrees often lead to reduced earnings compared to bachelor's-only peers. Women are more likely than men to see earnings increases, succeeding in 14 out of 31 subject areas compared to men's six. Choice of institution impacts outcomes, though data shows no strong correlation between program cost and graduate earnings.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Your Master's Degree Useless?

Comments Filter:
  • Useless to whom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:03AM (#64962425) Homepage Journal

    Useless to you in terms of earning power perhaps, although things like greater opportunities to do work you are interested in, move abroad etc. are harder to quantify.

    Useless to employers? Probably not, it is unlikely that the knowledge and skills gained are of no value to any business. It's just that they don't have to pay more, because of the situation post-grads find themselves in.

    • Re:Useless to whom? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:12AM (#64962461) Journal

      Useless to employers? Probably not,

      This is highly variable across industries. In the tech industry, when I'm interviewing candidates I don't even bother glancing at their education. It just doesn't factor into our hiring decisions at all. And this has been consistent across employers, with my colleagues all agreeing that degrees mean absolutely nothing to us.

      But try becoming a civil engineer without a degree and that's a completely different story.

      • Re:Useless to whom? (Score:4, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:20AM (#64962489) Homepage Journal

        I'm similar, I don't really care much about education, only what example work they can show me and how they come over when talking to them. Getting a post-grad degree is a decent way to build up some examples of work, especially in subjects where the university gets you access to stuff like labs and networks of people who you don't have access to by yourself.

        It's a bit different in areas where there is a lot of liability or you need certain qualifications, like your example of civil engineering, or medicine.

        • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:42AM (#64962561) Journal

          I look to see whether a candidate has a degree or two. What the degree is in may or may not matter.

          Someone who is filling a technical role needs technical training. The training may have come from job experience or self-teaching, not school. But aside from that, a degree is an indicator that you spent some time in an academic environment doing research, writing papers or essays, solving problems, creating projects, and so on.

          To me, a degree in literature or art history may not show technical creds, but at least it shows you spent some time thinking and defending your thoughts in front of others. Like others who have commented here, I have worked with some fine technical people who did not pursue a technical track in their education. It is somewhat rare to find them, though.

          • but at least it shows you spent some time thinking and defending your thoughts in front of others.

            We use the interview process to gauge that. Depending on seniority of the position, the candidate may need to meet with several people during the process. One of those interviews is what we call "culture & values" and it's one of our directors getting to know the individual and how they think and operate.

            But even in the technical interviews, we can very quickly gauge whether the candidate is able to explain why they took a particular approach, whether they can defend that decision, how they arrived ther

            • but at least it shows you spent some time thinking and defending your thoughts in front of others.

              We use the interview process to gauge that. Depending on seniority of the position, the candidate may need to meet with several people during the process. One of those interviews is what we call "culture & values" and it's one of our directors getting to know the individual and how they think and operate.

              But even in the technical interviews, we can very quickly gauge whether the candidate is able to explain why they took a particular approach, whether they can defend that decision, how they arrived there, what the alternatives are and the tradeoffs of each.

              I suppose if we saw any data, any what-so-ever, that suggested that a large number of individuals were slipping through the HR screening phase, who had the technical skills but failed miserably on soft skills, and if we could correlate the good soft skills candidates with those who have degrees... then and only then would we start asking the recruiters to focus on education as a screening metric.

              But there is zero evidence that that correlation exists, and we would be throwing out MANY excellent candidates because we figured that we were saving time and energy by filtering on education if we did that.

              This right here.

              When interviewing controls people for gas liquefaction I have approximately zero concerns if the person doesn't know the first thing about critical points or computing density for flow compensation. It is easy to determine within a few minutes if the person has the technical background required to learn the needed skillset for the job, the attitude and cultural fit are immensely more important.

              Almost anyone can be trained to do a job, even a highly sophisticated and technical one, but if the

              • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @03:43PM (#64963225)

                Its also more than "to do a job". Often I want to do if they can do more than the job. Do I want them to stay a technician for the next 30 years, or do want to see if they can do more, become a leader, a designer, adapt their job on their own when technology and science changes, do more than just following instructions.

                • Do I want them to stay a technician for the next 30 years,

                  There are some that simply want to earn a living, then go do their passion.
                  There are some willing to sacrifice their lives, family, and happiness for their employer.
                  I'm not one. As long as an employee is competent in their role, there's no need to "push them along" to be more if that isn't their cuppa.
                  It isn't that I'm not able, I did manage over a thousand at one point. It's not that I'm poor at it, the team increased profit substantially without raising prices or having layoffs. It's not that I alienated

                  • I'm not saying I want to push everyone along. But when hiring for a mid or senior level position it would be nice to have someone who can do a mid or senior level position.

            • but at least it shows you spent some time thinking and defending your thoughts in front of others.

              We use the interview process to gauge that.

              This is all fine and good. However, you still need a way to look at a resume and decide if you even want to interview that person. How do you figure that out from a piece of paper? Some things need to pop out. Keywords? Schools? Degrees? Past companies or titles or projects? All these items on a resume need explanation to truly evaluate their worth to you and even if and how true they are, but that true evaluation only comes with an interview.

          • Right, you need to know that the candidate can think. Not just do the rote skills. Especially with computing where so many skills today are rote - low-code/no-code, cut-and-paste, etc. A good candidate should be able to do MORE than the particular job we need done this year. Is the candidate going to be able to expand and do other stuff, will they become a leader, when some new tech comes out will they be able to dive in, and importantly will they be able to see the big picture of the product, company,

        • I'm similar, I don't really care much about education, only what example work they can show me and how they come over when talking to them. Getting a post-grad degree is a decent way to build up some examples of work, especially in subjects where the university gets you access to stuff like labs and networks of people who you don't have access to by yourself.

          It's a bit different in areas where there is a lot of liability or you need certain qualifications, like your example of civil engineering, or medicine.

          My experience both as a worker and a manager mirror yours.

          An anecdote so take it for what it is worth, working in industrial controls for chemical plants, gas liquefiers, power plants and other critical infrastructure for the last 20 years, many of the best electrical engineers I worked with had no degree, but all of the worst ones were degreed.

          A degree could equally indicate that you had a particular interest in an area of study or that you saw dollar signs and decided that you needed to get your slice. Co

      • Re:Useless to whom? (Score:5, Informative)

        by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:21AM (#64962493) Journal

        100% this.

        Some of the best software engineers I've worked with have art degrees, degrees in English / language arts. One guy even has a profile on IMDB because he was an actor before going to a coding camp and upending his career.

        We can get away with this in software / tech because everything changes so rapidly, so recent experience writing microservices hosted on Kubernetes tells far more than what you learned about COBOL in the late 90s.

        Other disciplines are very different. My cousin just got a masters in mine engineering, and he's being recruited by companies around the globe.

        • Re:Useless to whom? (Score:4, Informative)

          by toxonix ( 1793960 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @12:08PM (#64962657)

          The big extraction industries are heavily dependent on recruiting engineering master's students because they need them, the pay rate is in line with what you'd expect, given the hours and danger involved, and people don't tend to stay in those jobs once they have enough money to get out and do something more inline with their dreams.
          Oil is still the biggest industry in the world, and mineral extraction is not far behind. If we ever transition away from oil, mining and materials are going to be the next big oil. Lots of engineering and automation goes into that, and it pays very well up to a certain point.

      • Re:Useless to whom? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MNNorske ( 2651341 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @12:26PM (#64962701)
        For most software engineers anything beyond a four year degree is largely useless. Much of what we do day to day is learned after college/on the job.

        If you want to reset your career and break out of the path that you are currently on then a masters degree can help. It can open doors into management or other more advanced technical tacks that your previous on the job experience might make you seem less qualified for.

        In talking with some of my coworkers born in other countries they have used masters degrees for two reasons. The first is to get a degree from an institution recognized here in the US. The second is to get a visa status other than H1B that allows them to stay here longer so they can find an employer that might sponsor them, or to allow them more time to navigate the immigration system.
      • This is highly variable across industries.

        I suspect it is also highly variable across subjects and institutes. For example, historically Cambridge's undergraduate degree was a master's degree because it predated Bachelor degrees. Some time ago the UK government restricted student funding (this was when tuition was free!) anything other than a Bachelor degree so Cambridge changed the name of their degree to Bachelor but then made it so that any one getting a BA could automatically get their MA three years after graduating.

        So technically I have a

      • In the tech industry, when I'm interviewing candidates I don't even bother glancing at their education.

        I don't either, but for a different reason. If they got to the interview they already meet the education requirements. You say it doesn't factor into your hiring decision but if you work at a place with more than say 20 employees then it absolutely does, HR just hasn't told you.

      • by r0nc0 ( 566295 )
        so based on how you review things someone that went back to school at 50 to earn an additional Masters or PhD or even a bachelors in a different area is meaningless? There is no value in someone going to great lengths to learn new things? No interest in curiosity - just get the damned work done like we think it should be and meet my view of how things work?
    • Most employers would probably prefer a bachelor's degree plus 2 years of applicable work experience to a master's degree with no experience.

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )

        Most employers would probably prefer a bachelor's degree plus 2 years of applicable work experience to a master's degree with no experience.

        Not necessarily true.
        My oldest son got a masters degree in computer science. It did help him get a job at a large financial clearinghouse, and I believe it helped weather a couple of rounds of layoffs.
        My younger brother got a masters degree in geophyisics, and in my opinion he would not have got his eventual high positions at major oil companies if he didn't have it

    • Useless to you in terms of earning power perhaps

      Well...that's all that matters really.

      I mean, most people in their right mind would NOT work, if they didn't have to make money to live and do things they actually like to do in the world.

      • Useless to you in terms of earning power perhaps

        Well...that's all that matters really.

        I mean, most people in their right mind would NOT work, if they didn't have to make money to live and do things they actually like to do in the world.

        You ignore people who work just because they enjoy working, not for the money. I have a family member who is retired and rich, yet he still goes to work in his eighties, and earns little money, if any.

        • You ignore people who work just because they enjoy working, not for the money. I have a family member who is retired and rich, yet he still goes to work in his eighties, and earns little money, if any.

          Oh sure, the world is big and filled with all kinds...

          However, I doubt the number of people in that category are in any statistical meaningful numbers for the most part.

          I know if I won the Powerball tomorrow, I'd leave skid marks out of the proverbial "door"...and never look back.

          • [...] I doubt the number of people [who would work for joy and not money] are in any statistical meaningful numbers for the most part.

            Then I think this might surprise you. [hbr.org]

            Granted, it's not exactly the same point as mine. I was talking about people who enjoy working despite the need for money, and the study talks about people willing to earn less in exchange for work that is more meaningful. Still, consider it. Money is not the be-all and end-all for many people.

            Work makes life sweet. -- attributed to Volga Germans

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Exactly. "Earnings" is a deeply flawed metric when used alone.

    • As far as the USA is concerned - Unless one is wealthy, otherwise has the cash to pay, has an employer sponsored tuition discount/payment plan, or gets substantial scholarships higher education must be a business decision with ROI based reasoning. Nothing is wrong with learning for the sake/enjoyment of it. But economic reality is economic reality. We cannot expect taxpayers to subsidize personal interests.

    • by ebh ( 116526 )

      In some fields a master's is useful, like CS, where it indicates high level engineer versus a PhD which indicates a focus on pure research. In others, like chemistry, a master's is an afterthought, and a PhD is the only thing that matters.

    • Yes, the "paper" of the Master's might not be valued like it once was, the knowledge you gain and work you did to earn one is still valuable. "Learning on the job" is not at all the same thing, because those who learn on the job don't learn the stuff they're not interested in (the theory or math), and it doesn't drill the brain into thinking in new ways.

      Having a B.S. marks one as average. They'd better have a damn good interview or good work experience to stand out. With an M.S. then I think that this per

  • Let alone my MS. I don't even work in the field I studied in. If I could turn back time, I wouldn't waste my time and my parents money on any of this. And yes, I do well for myself.
    • Just because you don't work in the field you studied in doesn't mean you didn't need the degree.

      A lot of employers require a college degree - they don't necessarily care what you majored in or studied - they just need you to have A degree.

      • Right and that kind of non-personal analysis is exactly what studies like in the summary are for.

        And now we know, statistically speaking, an MS/MA/MBA is useless for improving your lot in life. So people like the GP for whom it is personally useless shouldn't be a standout case.

        • Right and that kind of non-personal analysis is exactly what studies like in the summary are for.

          And now we know, statistically speaking, an MS/MA/MBA is useless for improving your lot in life. So people like the GP for whom it is personally useless shouldn't be a standout case.

          And indeed I don't think he is a standout at all. I haven't been asked about my education past my first or second job interview. When interviewing applicants over the last decade or so I've never asked a single one about their educational quals either, it is about whether they have the correct attitude and can fit in with/work with the group and have enough of a grasp of technical matters to learn what we do and how to do it.

          I am one guy, but the experience is spread out over a couple decades of work and do

    • What I got out of my bachelor's degree in computer science: COBOL syntax, FORTRAN Honeywell CP-6 basic job control commands, UCSD Pascal with IBM graphics extensions, submitting jobs via punch card reader. Guess how much of that I still use?

      What I got out of on-the-job training and personal study that still serves me 40 years later: Structured programming, troubleshooting, error trapping, reusability, future-proofing my code, dBase, Clipper, VBscript, C++, Powershell, MS-SQL, git, Azure Devops administratio

      • What I got out of my bachelor's degree in computer science: COBOL syntax, FORTRAN Honeywell CP-6 basic job control commands, UCSD Pascal with IBM graphics extensions, submitting jobs via punch card reader. Guess how much of that I still use?

        What I got out of on-the-job training and personal study that still serves me 40 years later: Structured programming, troubleshooting, error trapping, reusability, future-proofing my code, dBase, Clipper, VBscript, C++, Powershell, MS-SQL, git, Azure Devops administration, bash, REST API design... probably more but I ran out of fingers to count on.

        My daughter got some good hands-on training in PC repair, but... that was 10+ years ago and technology moved on without her.

        We really need a return to trade schools. You don't need a college degree to do most of the work that keeps the world turning - whether it's plumbing or engine repair or even laptop repair or Azure Devops administration. Getting a bachelor's degree for that stuff is... B.S. rimshot

        I know this was meant to be facetious, but FORTRAN is still used relatively widely in some disciplines. If you use one of the open-source Unixlike operating systems for any kind of analysis odds are you are using a BLAS library that is mostly written in FORTRAN. :)

        • Not only that, everything that JPL has sent past the Moon has used MOPS, the Maneuver Operations Programming System and TRAM, the TRAjectory Monitor to track their course and calculate course changes. Guess what they're both written in...
  • H1B (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:09AM (#64962445) Homepage Journal

    All things being equal a master's or equivalent will help your prospects (for people on this site) but a vibrant github will help more.

    And in BigTech an H1B willing to live in a bunkhouse sleeping twenty will fill your slot for 40% less.

    I avoided saying "do your job" because the MBA cartel is perfectly fine with enshittification.

    And if you want to be in that cartel you need the master's; same with occupational licensing.

    Good news is an MBA can be replaced by an LLM in most cases.

    A PMP or other real certification is probably worth more in the long term.

  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:09AM (#64962447) Homepage

    I have a Masters in Electronic Engineering. However, I live in Canada and got it a long time ago when tuition was pretty cheap, plus I was on a scholarship that covered tuition and my living expenses, so I ended up essentially getting it for free.

    I don't think it helped increase my earnings much, but it possibly gave me an edge in getting hired over other candidates who didn't have a Masters.

  • by celest ( 100606 ) <mekki@@@mekki...ca> on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:12AM (#64962463) Homepage

    "Is measuring the value of your Master's degree purely in terms of salary increase useless?"--Alternate World The Economist

  • You have a highly-educated workforce not being getting proper compensation, whose fault is it? Why it's the employees for not trying hard enough, or the universities, for not emphasizing this or that in cirricula...it's never, EVER business that's just cheating its most valuable asset. Which they are obviously doing.
    • You have a highly-educated workforce not being getting proper compensation, whose fault is it? Why it's the employees for not trying hard enough, or the universities, for not emphasizing this or that in cirricula...it's never, EVER business that's just cheating its most valuable asset. Which they are obviously doing.

      How is the business cheating anyone? At least in the United States, nobody signs employment documents with the goon squad standing over them or else they get their legs broken, companies pay what people will work for.

      When you produce a lot of lowish-grade college graduates, there are a lot of people competing for a small pool of jobs. Supply and demand my guy.

      • Then where does the constant "skilled labor shortage" propaganda come from? Business refuses to pay what will get them the labor they need, but somehow it never changes: Companies just stay with their hand out to government, pointing fingers at education and their own workforce. Only everyone else has to pay what things cost.
        • Then where does the constant "skilled labor shortage" propaganda come from? Business refuses to pay what will get them the labor they need, but somehow it never changes: Companies just stay with their hand out to government, pointing fingers at education and their own workforce. Only everyone else has to pay what things cost.

          The government has trained them to behave this way, by rewarding the behavior. If the supply of cheap labor from overseas in the form of H1Bs were choked off, and sufficiently punitive financial or regulatory barriers were put in place to discourage outsourcing work overseas, then local wages would rise.

          Also most of the crying about skilled labor shortages seem to come from silly valley startups and tech consultancies, not normal businesses. The startup and VC culture operates by getting kids in cheap, burn

        • by sfcat ( 872532 )
          Because the phrase "skilled labor" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means carpenters, plumbers and other skilled tradespeople. Not people with degrees. There is some other word salad phrase for us. Probably "office workers".
  • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:16AM (#64962481)
    In most cases, a Master's is just an investment in future discrimination in your favor. If you actually learned something useful?...then OK, I'm wrong, but most don't. The justification I hear is that by jumping through that hoop, you prove to future employers you're more willing to do what it takes. However, in my daily experience, half my coworkers have an advanced degree and half don't. It's not deterministic of competency or success. If anything, the least educated person in any job is usually the most talented. The guy with an advanced degree from MIT basically gets handed the job. The guy with a GED had to really prove himself to make the cut.

    But we also have to think of the human consequences of higher education. The more we force people to sit in school, the longer they delay starting families and thus are more likely to have kids with birth defects, autism, or health issues. We really need to stop this race to see who can sit in school the longest and carefully consider if we're getting a return on our investment or just creating a contest to see who can jump through the most hoops...at great cost to society.
    • That's why I got an MS-CS. However I was working full time and going at night -- I did half of my BA (in comp sci, my university had years prior split CS out of the math department, where they awarded BA in Math) at night while working as a QA person. I never wanted to be told that I wasn't qualified due to credentials. I was fortunate having tuition assistance from my employer - the calculus changes rapidly if you have to cough up 50K for an MS. No!
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @11:17AM (#64962487)
    but don't get one right out of college.

    If you immediately get a Masters then you are probably fucked.

    Companies don't want to hire you because they expect you're gonna work for them a bit, get some experience, then quit for a better job.

    If you're here on an H1-B then sure, but your "Masters" is just there to make it so they can replace an American worker and comply with the "no qualified Americans" law.

    But otherwise you have to get 2-3 years of experience first and then go back for your Masters or Doctorate.

    There are several articles of kids who went straight to their masters and found out the hard way why that's a bad idea.
    • This is field dependent. Master's straight out of school is the norm for accountants (for example) because it gives you enough credits to sit for the CPA exam.

      • A CPA doesn't sound like one of those fields where people would say, "I don't use what I learned in school anyways." You can't be an accountant if you don't know the right way to do accounting, and not only that, have proven you do.
  • ...the a Master's Degree is the floor. Other than that, YMMV.

  • and you know what diploma I passed later in life that landed me the job that paid me the best in terms of dollars per hour? Machinist / fitter.

    I have gone back and forth between white and blue collar in my life, depending on which type of job was most in demand and what I fancied doing at a given moment, and the time I spent behind a machine tool or a file is the best time of my life.

    • I see tool & die shops still in operation that were there 25 years ago when I switched from mechanic/fleet maintenance to software/programmer. If I was switching jobs now, I'd probably go back into mechanical/machine work. If there was a nexus of shipyard and clean energy, I'd want to be in there. Clean energy ships? Sail power? Idk. I like big boats and I cannot lie.

    • Time behind a file is hard to beat.

      I too have a PhD from way back when. I've somehow wangled a job that's 20% supervising people on the kind of topics I did my PhD (and much of my career) in and the other 80% behind a file or equivalent.

      Hard to beat making stuff. I've been away from 3D printing for a decade and wow it's got easy in the mean time. I'm finding a 3D print and some drill bushings, silver steel pins and/or HSS inserts are a fantastic way of making surprisingly good jigs, with a minimum of fuss.

      I

  • There are degrees in humanities, degrees in business, degrees in science, technology, etc.

    Lumping them all together is lazy any and incorrect. Is an MA in English as useful or useless as an MA in math? Idunno. But I'd guess that if you're trying to make yourself look good applying to a job as an english teacher or a copy editor the math degree would be working for you less than the English degree.

    Now, if you're applying for a job as a shelf stocker at Barnes and Noble, or a plumber's apprentice, you're prob

    • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      Depends on the university. I have an MA. It's not an MA in anything. (Technically neither is my BA, but I could get a transcript for that which shows that I took some CS exams). It's not entirely useless, but to really benefit from it I'd have to move back to the city where I studied. On the other hand, it only cost me a couple of days to travel, because I was able to borrow my father's gown for the graduation ceremony.

      • I wonder if we went to the same university. I got some weird ceremonial MA for free a few years after graduation, though I didn't really care as I already had an MSci from the same place. I didn't even have to travel back to UK for it. We also wore gowns for formal events, not just the graduation.

        In fact, I didn't even care about the BA side, as I went straight for the MSci without taking a separate BA first. This was a common option in natural sciences as well as engineering. They just had to throw in t

  • In the school district where I grew up, having a post-grad degree automatically boosted your pay. Neary every teacher had a masters or was getting one. My civics teacher completed his masters degree in art history while I was taking his class. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he taught in school, but he got a $10,000/year raise for it that, most importantly, fed into the calculation for how much his pension was.

    • by jbengt ( 874751 )

      In the school district where I grew up, having a post-grad degree automatically boosted your pay. Neary every teacher had a masters or was getting one.

      My mom was a teacher of the hearing-impaired. She had a BA in teaching, with a specialization for that. Due to changes in qualification requirements, she had to go back to school (night classes) when she was in her late 30s/early 40s in order to qualify to get full pay for that specialty, otherwise they were paying her as a full-time substitute.

  • The purpose of education is to train the mind. A trained mind can do anything.
    The value of a degree is directly proportional to the amount of effort you put in.
    A degree obtained by slouching through school with minimum effort, socializing, binge drinking and cheating on exams is worthless.
    Working extremely hard in school, with obsessive focus and discipline results in a well trained mind.
    It's truly unfortunate that some miss the point

    • I doubt if anyone here does not know this. But we also live in the real world and the size of our pay matters, as does the debt acquired to get any degree.
  • In my Masters, I learned....pretty much the same as in a 400-level undergraduate class. It's not qualitatively different, the way a PhD is. But, sometimes you can get an employer to pay for a Masters, which is less common for undergraduate.
    • In my Masters, I learned....pretty much the same as in a 400-level undergraduate class. It's not qualitatively different, the way a PhD is. But, sometimes you can get an employer to pay for a Masters, which is less common for undergraduate.

      In addition to this, unless you want to work in academia, going above the masters and getting a Ph.D can actually harm your ability to later find work that is not directly related to the field because of the "overqualification" trap.

  • Any degree, but especially a master's degree, needs to have some purpose (unless you are wealthy and just doing it for education's sake).

    I have a JD and an LLM (master of laws, not large language model). The LLM was only an additional semester with the law degree, and it was a semester I wouldn't have been working on anyways. Its primary purpose was just showing employers that I was dedicated to my specialty. If I were looking for a job today, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference because I have a

  • When comparing Masters degrees collectively, you're really comparing a lot of very different things. It's hard to generalize that way. There are likely some degrees that are an order of magnitude more valuable than others (at least by some metric).

    Stepping back, the question should be: Are skills and knowledge value in the market?

    The answer should be YES. But it depends on which skills and which knowledge. That's your first principle. From there a degree related to those skills and knowledge is valuable, if

  • Which should be banned, mostly useless. And it's not new - a co-worker in the late seventies had a master's in microbiology... so she was working as a library page, because she couldn't get a job in her field.

    I never went for one in computer science, because some arshhole in HR would decide I was "overqualified".

  • I think I would have benefitted from getting a Masters. My father encouraged me to get an MBA and I did take the GMAT and did well, but I wasn't excited about that and was enjoying my first "real job" after graduating from college. I have a similar undergrad degree as my father, but he did get an MBA and has done better financially than I have, but I'm not unhappy.

    If I could I'd advise my younger self to do a few things differently I'd have probably gotten a Masters, but maybe not an MBA. I might have want

  • When I hire programmers, my rule of thumb is
    - A bachelor's degree is a good thing.
    - A master's degree is one strike against the candidate.
    - A Ph.D. is two strikes against the candidate.

    What I've found is that IN GENERAL, those who have advanced degrees are better at studying and taking tests, than creating software. Yes, there are exceptions. But after hiring a number of developers with advanced degrees that had trouble completing projects, I've started to recognize a pattern.

    For OTHER lines of work, I have

    • A BA is probably not a particularly good indicator of ability to perform the digital equivalent of manual labour either. If you want code monkeys, you're really talking about whatever the coding equivalent is to vocational post-secondary training.
  • Usefulness might be measured in more dimensions than just earning power. For example, with master's degree you might land a more pleasant job, even if you don't earn more.

  • The article's pay-walled so if anyone can provide answers:

    - Did they report variations between universities, e.g. a Cambridge/Oxford University MA vs a University of Loughborough/Leicester MA?

    - Did they report variations in whether the MAs were acquired on presential courses vs online? Presential MAs are often by requirement because they feature learning to do stuff that you can't learn online.

    - Did they report variations in discipline, e.g. MBA vs MSc chemistry vs MA English lit. vs MA art hist
  • “The number-one reason people get these degrees is insecurity,” reckons Bob Shireman of the Century Foundation, a left-leaning think-tank in New York. “The feeling that if they are going to get a job—or keep their job—they need a master’s degree.”

    Bob is an idiot. It's not insecurity at all. It's the fact that society has said for decades, "Get a degree to get a job" And now they're saying, "Get a masters to get a job."

    It's the fault of people in HR and on hiri

    • Bob says the market demands particular credentials.
      You say that Bob is an idiot, then immediately turn around and blame the very segment of the market (HR and hiring committees) that makes those demands Bob is citing. That peer pressure is also doing the same is true, but peer pressure wouldn't survive without being re-enforced by those with the authority to hire and fire. If society deemed wearing a chartreuse tie as the key to employment, you may see an uptick in sales of chartreuse ties but it would leav

  • I started working before even entering graduation. When I finally ended it, I already had a nice job and salary.

    Then after some years I started to fancy a postgrad, wondering it would give me better opportunities and a bigger income.

    While I acknowledge that it could definitely provide me some advantage if competing for a job offer with other candidates, the calculations for ROI never really added up. So I finally gave up the idea and just went ahead with my life and work as usual.

    Today, approaching my retir

  • I've hired engineers with master degrees, and it doesn't seem to offer any *vocational* benefits above spending the same amount of time working. The master's degreed engineers weren't any better than engineers who'd had a couple of years of actual experience.

    But that struck me as a missed opportunity. There were certain advanced topics that, after years of working in the field, I would liked to have the luxury of a year or two of advanced study to explore. But when I asked people with masters about thei

  • I did my masters because after I finished my MSc I had a taste for more. I never cared about the job prospects. I could have gotten work even without the BSc, and in fact worked during my masters.

    In terms of work, I don't think that the masters added much to my knowledge. The BSc stuff was a lot more important. Still, it was an interesting experience to have a paper published and talk about it at an international conference. (I was stressed and the talk was crappy, but it was still a worthwhile experience.)

  • I'm towards the end of my career path (plan to retire in 3 years) and just finished a Master in Information Technology Management this past spring. In my case, there's zero financial or promotional benefits, I already run an IT shop and make around $200K. Kids are out, I've got the time. I did it solely for the self satisfaction of completing it.
  • At some point during the early 2000s MBAs were in vogue and getting one meant that you'd get 6 figures right after graduation and job opportunities were abundant. I followed this trend and it personally afforded me internships and opportunities where I actually learned how to do real work, mostly unrelated to MBA but I do use NPV/ROI concepts in real life. The classroom lessons were valuable as to understand income statements and balance sheets, and networking was awesome - so it was more of a school to l
  • Yet, I've also never had any issues in interviews and earn a 6-digit salary. People are more interested in my experience and what I can do for them rather than in a useless piece of paper that boasts about my perceived, irrelevant achievements from 2 decades ago.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (3) Ha, ha, I can't believe they're actually going to adopt this sucker.

Working...