ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) (01/04/89)
I've been thinking about going back to graduate school full-time for a master's degree in computer science (with an emphasis on software engineering and distributed systems). I cannot make a firm decision on whether or not to go back because I'm not sure what the advantages of a master's degree are. I've been working full-time for over a year and a half since graduating with a BS in Computer Science. At the time that I plan to go back to school I will have three years under my belt. It would then take probably two years to earn the degree. Part-time programs don't appeal to me - there is just not enough time to divide between work and school. Sometimes I feel that I am doing it for the 'right' reasons, ie., to learn more. But then sometimes I feel that I am doing it only because I feel that I must have one to advance my career. What advantages do 2 years in grad school have over 2 years in industry? For the people who went back to school after working a few years, did you feel that your work experience and knowledge gained from working gave you an advantage over students who went straight from undergrad to grad school? When you got back to work, was the experience beneficial to your career? Did it give you an advantage over your fellow engineers who did not have advanced degrees? I'm interested in hearing about what others have done. Thanks, Paul Ciarfella levers@dec.com
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (01/05/89)
In article <8901041445.AA20933@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: > > What advantages do 2 years in grad school have over 2 years in >industry? Depends on the company you wish to work for. Some companies like the degree as a hiring criteria (but may, for a very talented graduate, help pay for the Master's Degree); others find the experience more relevant to what the company is producing. If you want to do R&D, then the degree may mean a good deal since the work on a Master's project/thesis may show something of your independent study/work skill on less than well-defined problems. If you're into development of pro- ducts, then the demonstrated success at doing that in a specific environment (OS, language, etc.) will matter most to those who want *that particular* ex- perience. > For the people who went back to school after working a few years, >did you feel that your work experience and knowledge gained from working >gave you an advantage over students who went straight from undergrad to >grad school? When you got back to work, was the experience beneficial to >your career? Did it give you an advantage over your fellow engineers who >did not have advanced degrees? I have never gone back, so these questions aren't something I can speak to, but they are of interest to me, as well, in terms of advising others whom I might meet. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/05/89)
In article <8901041445.AA20933@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: > I've been thinking about going back to graduate school full-time >for a master's degree in computer science (with an emphasis on software >engineering and distributed systems). I cannot make a firm decision on >whether or not to go back because I'm not sure what the advantages of a >master's degree are. > What advantages do 2 years in grad school have over 2 years in >industry? My first comment is that it's like the old joke about a person of ordinary financial means who sees a wealthy guy on a yacht, and asks how much it costs. The rich guy says, "If you have to ask the price, then you can't afford it." :-) I do feel that if someone has to ask about the benefits of grad school, then they are probably not the type of person who would, upon completion of grad school, feel that it was "worth it." But I will go ahead and answer anyway. My wife works in the Silicon Valley, and I used to work there before my present faculty position, and among our acquaintances there, it does seem that many employers are beginning to express strong preference for people with graduate degrees, both in hiring and in the amount of responsibility given to an employee after he/she is hired. I think that this is largely due to two factors: 1. As I have mentioned before, typical undergrad CS programs do not teach "practical" knowledge about computer systems. E.g. a student can come out of an Operating Systems course and not know the term "bootloader," and come out of a course in Programming Languages and Compilers and not know the difference between compiled and interpreted code. By contrast, a student who did some good systems-development research as part of an M.S. thesis will really know this stuff. 2. As I have also mentioned before, a very large number of technical people in the Silicon Valley are former foreign students whom their employer has sponsored for U.S. immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Service generally insists that such an employee have at least a Master's degree. Thus all these foreign-born engineers do have M.S. degrees or higher, and thus employers have grown accustomed to hiring people with such degrees. Comments? Norm
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/05/89)
In article <13178@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@geppetto.UUCP (Scott Duncan) writes: >In article <8901041445.AA20933@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: >> >> What advantages do 2 years in grad school have over 2 years in >>industry? > >Depends on the company you wish to work for. Some companies like the degree >as a hiring criteria (but may, for a very talented graduate, help pay for >the Master's Degree); others find the experience more relevant to what the >company is producing. For some companies a graduate degree may be a prerequisite for moving into a senior level technical position some day. >If you want to do R&D, then the degree may mean a good deal since the work on >a Master's project/thesis may show something of your independent study/work >skill on less than well-defined problems. If you're into development of pro- >ducts, then the demonstrated success at doing that in a specific environment >(OS, language, etc.) will matter most to those who want *that particular* ex- >perience. A Masters Thesis/Project can also give you some valuable experience in all phases of a programming project. This will help those who have only been involved in large projects in a small role in industry. It can also show initiative on the part of the employee. Too many folks are happy with a BS and stop learning the day they receive the piece of paper. >> For the people who went back to school after working a few years, >>did you feel that your work experience and knowledge gained from working >>gave you an advantage over students who went straight from undergrad to >>grad school? When you got back to work, was the experience beneficial to >>your career? Did it give you an advantage over your fellow engineers who >>did not have advanced degrees? >I have never gone back, so these questions aren't something I can speak to, >but they are of interest to me, as well, in terms of advising others whom I >might meet. Well I'll take a stab at it, Scott. I went back after being in industry for three years or so. However, I went back part time and I was not ready for it. I spent a couple of semesters registering for classes only to drop them after a few weeks into the semester! The reason I went back was because I saw others around me doing so and I did not want to put myself at a disadvantage. Only after I got serious about going back and I decided to go back for the right reason (to learn, not to get the piece of paper) did I get past a course and eventually finish. BTW: The people that I worked with who went back and prompted me to return before I was ready, never finished. My past experiences at AT&T and then Bellcore showed me that the graduate degree is indeed valuable. Within AT&T, prior to divestiture, I worked for Western Electric. Most programmers either had a BS or an undergraduate degree in some other field, or even no degree at all! At Bellcore, almost everyone at the MTS level had an MS. So for one it was a necesity and for the other it was something that set you apart from the pack. Scott's comments about it depending upon the company you work for are right on the money. In one context, the MS is quite valuable while in the other to not have one puts you at a disadvantage. In either case it was beneficial to get the degree. Furthermore, if you are interested in continuing to learn and advance your knowledge in CS get the degree. If a company does not want to hire you because of it, then it is not the type of company that you want to work for anyway. I do feel that having some industry experience before returning to school was valuable. And I feel that my MS program helped me at work as well. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
phinker@eta.unix.ETA.COM (Paul Hinker) (01/09/89)
<Some good stuff about Grad school and reasons to go (or not to go)
deleted>
This is the kind of discussion I've been waiting for in this group. I've
been thinking along the same lines as Paul with regards to a graduate degree
in Computer Science and I have a few questions of my own.
I'm sure I want to continue my education for several reasons. I think I
got a fairly decent *general* idea about what Computer Science is all about
when obtaining my BS but find that there are gaps now that I've been working
for a couple (that's two) years. Someday I'd like to teach and I think having
an advanced degree would facilitate that. Finally, my wife has an advanced
degree and I hate to have anyone think that she's more *educated* than I
for I = 1 to many
print :-)
next i
I've talked to quite a few people who've gotten advanced degrees and the
general concensus is : If you're going to get a PhD then don't fool around,
go for it and skip the masters degree. Is this good advice? I do want to
get a PhD, ultimately, so I guess it makes sense. Comments?
Also, which schools offer the best advanced degree education? I've got
a book that lists Graduate Engineering Schools but I'd like some other input.
I've also been told "If you're going to do it, do it right and go to MIT or
some other 'big name'" I guess I'm not looking for some of the obvious
choices here. I got my BS at a 'no name' engineering college and find that
I have as good, or better, education as graduates from the 'big name' schools
with an equivalent degree. Some schools that have been suggested to me so far
include : Texas Tech, New Mexico Tech, Iowa State (Ames). Can anyone tell
me about them?
DISCLAIMER : Any opinions expressed or implied are solely the author's and
do not (necessarily) reflect the policies of ETA Systems
Paul Hinker
phinker@aring.eta.com
phinker@sunfun.eta.combls@cs.purdue.EDU (Brian L. Stuart) (01/10/89)
In article <911@wilbur.unix.ETA.COM> phinker@eta.unix.ETA.COM (Paul Hinker) writes: > > I've talked to quite a few people who've gotten advanced degrees and the >general concensus is : If you're going to get a PhD then don't fool around, >go for it and skip the masters degree. Is this good advice? I do want to >get a PhD, ultimately, so I guess it makes sense. Comments? > Also, which schools offer the best advanced degree education? I've got >a book that lists Graduate Engineering Schools but I'd like some other input. >I've also been told "If you're going to do it, do it right and go to MIT or >some other 'big name'" I guess I'm not looking for some of the obvious >choices here. I got my BS at a 'no name' engineering college and find that >I have as good, or better, education as graduates from the 'big name' schools >with an equivalent degree. > >Paul Hinker Since several people seem interested in this topic, I'll put in my $0.02 worth. I came back to school after three years in industry mainly because I wanted to go into achedemia rather than stay in industry. Therefore, I can't comment on what a graduate degree can do for you in industry. However, I do have a few ideas about your grad school decisions. On the masters vs. Ph.D. question, I tend to agree with the advice you've already received. If you are planning on going for a Ph.D. without stopping, then don't bother with a masters unless: 1) You wan advanced degrees in two different areas. I.E. An M.S. in E.E. and a Ph.D. in C.S. (This is the way I've ended up doing it. Not really by plan, but that's just the way it's worked out.) 2) The master's requirements for your program are a proper subset of the Ph.D. requirements. In other words, if you can just claim a master's somewhere along the line without doing any more work than filling out some forms, why not? This way if something happens where you can't finish, you still have something to show for your work. A related issue is thesis vs. non-thesis masters. Here, I feel that if you are going on to a Ph.D. then don't bother with a thesis. (This is sort of a corolary to (2) above.) On the other hand if you are a `terminal' master's student, then a thesis will be very benificial and in some ways is the main point of graduate school. A thesis can really help you learn to focus you reserch and development efforts in industry (which is probably where you'll be since its almost impossible to get a tenor track position without a Ph.D.). Whether or not you should go to a `name' school is a good question. I think that there are pros and cons to both sides. Going to a school with a lesser known name or one that is weak in your area can give you a better chance to work on research that is really your own as opposed to working on a small part of your major professor's existing project. Conversly, sometimes its good to be a small part of something big, and in `name' schools, the course offering is generally better and you have a chance to study under famous people. (The last point is actually worth more than it may seem on the surface.) I can't really comment on any schools other than those that I've attended. I did my M.S. in E.E. at Notre Dame. ND doesn't have a real C.S. department, so its not the place to go if you want a C.S. degree, but the E.E. department is oficially Electrcal and Computer Engineering and it's not bad in some of the networking and operating systems areas. Currently, I'm working on a Ph.D. in C.S. at Purdue. Purdue is strong in Operating Systems, Networking, Numerical Applications (there is a big physical modeling project going on) and there is a strong push in Software Engineering (but then who isn't pushing in that?). The department also has some work going on in languages and has several strong theory poeple, but it's pretty thin in A.I. (That's my area..) Hope this helps... Brian L. Stuart Department of Computer Sciences Purdue University
ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) (01/10/89)
To answer (partly) one of my own questions - >What advantages do 2 years in grad school have over 2 years in >industry? Last night I had a conversation with an engineering employment specialist. The recruiter said that when companies wish to fill senior level positions, such as principal engineer, or positions which require architectural design work, they most often look at candidates with advanced degrees. The advanced degrees show that the candidate has taken the initiative to learn and to keep in step with technology. This factor, combined with the advanced knowledge and skills received while pursuing the degree, gives the candidate an edge over someone without the advanced degree. Any comments? RE: decwrl!ucbvax!agate!bizet.Berkeley.EDU!matloff (Norm Matloff) >My first comment is that it's like the old joke about a person of >ordinary financial means who sees a wealthy guy on a yacht, and asks >how much it costs. The rich guy says, "If you have to ask the price, >then you can't afford it." :-) I do feel that if someone has to ask >about the benefits of grad school, then they are probably not the type >of person who would, upon completion of grad school, feel that it was >"worth it." The reason I'm asking about the benefits of grad school is that I do not know much about it. Just because I don't know much about something does not mean that I won't appreciate the experience.
ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) (01/10/89)
To the educators out there ... Have you found any differences between working with a masters candidate who has been in industry, ie., has work experience, and a candidate who is going straight from BS to MS? Which candidates work harder? Which seem to understand and grasp their work better? Which are more cooperative, ie., who is the better team player when working on group projects? Who would you rather teach? Why? I'm talking strictly about candidates who have been working full-time for at least two years. I'm not talking about people who have worked during semester breaks or over summer vacations. Paul C ciarfella@levers.dec.com
olender@rachmaninov.CS.ColoState.EDU (Kurt Olender) (01/11/89)
By all means, get a Master's on the way. In most schools, it is simply a matter of filling out the appropriate forms, and perhaps taking the comprehensive exam. All coursework taken as a Master's student usually applies to the Ph. D. as well. Many schools, in fact, will accept large numbers of graduate course work taken at other schools toward the Ph. D. coursework requirements. One never knows what may happen on the way to the Ph. D. If one is forced to leave for whatever reason, then at least you have some piece of paper as a result. The real question, in my opinion, is whether or not to apply for the Ph. D. program or the Master's program in the first place. The answer unfortunately depends on the school. Some schools will give priority for financial aid to Ph. D. students, with whatever is left over given to Master's students. If financial aid is important, this will affect which program to which you apply. The last rumor about UC Berkeley and Stanford on this score that I heard is that they do not generally support Master's students in the CS dept. Some schools will not accept Master's students. UC Irvine, for example, doesn't really have a Master's program in CS. They give the MS as a terminal degree to those Ph. D. students that fulfill the course work requirements but don't make it through the rest of the program. Some schools, however, will not accept people with undergraduate degrees directly into their Ph. D. program unless they have absolutely outstanding credentials. They are reluctant to commit themselves to spending a great deal of time and resources (it costs a lot to put out a Ph. D. both in computing and faculty resources) for someone they don't know. They are much more likely to accept someone into a Master's program, and then once they have direct experience with that person, consider an application into the Ph. D. program, even before the Master's program is finished. The best advice I can give is to call (or visit if you live close enough) the school and talk to one or more members of the dept's graduate admissions committee. They are the people who actually make the admissions decisions for the dept. They can often give you good advice on the application route that would maximize your chances of acceptance and financial aid. A visit especially gives them the opportunity to see you as a person and not as a faceless piece of paper, and demonstrates that you are truly interested in a degree at their institution. Both of those impressions can only help and can make the difference if you have a "marginal" undergraduate record. (The definition of marginal of course depends on the school.) -------------------------------------------------------- |Kurt Olender | Computer Science Dept. | |olender@cs.colostate.edu | Colorado State Univ. | |303-491-7015 | Fort Collins, CO 80523 |
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/11/89)
In article <8901101344.AA21802@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: >RE: decwrl!ucbvax!agate!bizet.Berkeley.EDU!matloff (Norm Matloff) > >My first comment is that it's like the old joke about a person of > >ordinary financial means who sees a wealthy guy on a yacht, and asks > >how much it costs. The rich guy says, "If you have to ask the price, > >then you can't afford it." :-) I do feel that if someone has to ask > >about the benefits of grad school, then they are probably not the type > >of person who would, upon completion of grad school, feel that it was > >"worth it." * The reason I'm asking about the benefits of grad school is that * I do not know much about it. Just because I don't know much * about something does not mean that I won't appreciate the * experience. Oops! My comments apparently came across as being snide. Please accept my apology. I certainly did NOT intend snideness. However, empirically, I have observed what I described in your quote of me. Again, no value judgement implied; it's just a question of each person's individual interests and likes/dislikes. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/11/89)
In article <8901101352.AA22246@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: > To the educators out there ... > Have you found any differences between working with a masters > candidate who has been in industry, ie., has work experience, > and a candidate who is going straight from BS to MS? Excellent set of questions, but may I split things into 3 groups instead of 2? There should be a separate category for foreign students, mainly due to the foreign MSCS students' goal to do well enough in grad school to be able to attract an employer to hire them and sponsor them for U.S. immigration. Let's use this notation: Group A: Domestic, straight from BS to MS. Group B: Domestic, work in industry before MS. Group C: Foreign students. Before going on, I should insert a disclaimer that I am just talking about tendencies below, and don't mean to imply that every single student is like this. > Which candidates work harder? I think that the Group C students work harder than Groups A and B (which is NOT meant to imply that I don't think the domestic students are working hard ENOUGH). The other two groups work equally hard (as each other), for different reasons: Group A people tend to still be hung up on the undergraduate concept of grades being very important, while Group B work hard because they have made a conscious decision to drastically change their lives (and undergo financial sacrifice) to come back to school, and so they really make their time "count." > Which seem to understand and grasp their work better? In my opinion, after adjusting for everything else (grades, GRE scores), Group B is MUCH better. They really THINK much more about the material and ****its implications****, again, as opposed to just doing well in terms of grades. > Which are more cooperative, ie., who is the better team player > when working on group projects? I really haven't observed much difference between the 3 groups in this aspect. > Who would you rather teach? Why? For a systems course, I'd much rather teach Group B, and take them on as research students. For a theoretical course, I'd choose Group C; Group A seems less interested in theory, and Group B tends to have forgotten its advanced math. Norm
sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) (01/11/89)
in article <8901101352.AA22246@decwrl.dec.com>, ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) says: > > > To the educators out there ... > > Have you found any differences between working with a masters > candidate who has been in industry, ie., has work experience, > and a candidate who is going straight from BS to MS? > Yes, there are differences, some good and some bad. > Which candidates work harder? It depends on the individual. Often people who are working are older than people who just got their bachelors. They have families, jobs, and other responsibilties. They don't have the time to put in to a class as they might have when they were younger. > Which seem to understand and grasp their work better? People with experience bring maturity to the analysis of problems, as well as what they've learned in the workplace. However, many have been out of school for a time, and are out of the habit of working with theoretical material. Therefore, people going directly from the BS have an easier time with theory, but can't temper it with reality; people who've been working have trouble with theory. The ideal graduate class has a mixture of both types of students so they can benefit from each other. > Which are more cooperative, ie., who is the better team player > when working on group projects? Ah, this one's easy - the students coming directly from the BS. People who are working are generally negative about group projects, simply because the logistics are difficult. They also have to deal with committees at work and are really fed up with the group experience. > > Who would you rather teach? Why? Like I said above, I like classes with both types of students, since the people with experience bring their practical wisdom to the class and the people straight out of a BS program bring an ability to cope with theory. > Jan Harrington, sysop Scholastech Telecommunications UUCP: husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop BITNET: JHARRY@BENTLEY ******************************************************************************** Miscellaneous profundity: "No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai ********************************************************************************
uucibg@sw1e.UUCP (3929] Brian Gilstrap) (01/11/89)
In article <18960@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: [good intro] >Let's use this notation: > > Group A: Domestic, straight from BS to MS. > > Group B: Domestic, work in industry before MS. > > Group C: Foreign students. > >Before going on, I should insert a disclaimer that I am just talking >about tendencies below, and don't mean to imply that every single >student is like this. [ much good material deleted ] >> Who would you rather teach? Why? > >For a systems course, I'd much rather teach Group B, and take them on >as research students. For a theoretical course, I'd choose Group C; >Group A seems less interested in theory, and Group B tends to have >forgotten its advanced math. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who? Me? Naaww! Now, what's an integral again?... :-) Actually, your words give me hope for getting into a "good" (by my standards) graduate program someday. > Norm Brian R. Gilstrap One Bell Center Rm 17-G-4 ...!ames!killer!texbell!sw1e!uucibg St. Louis, MO 63101 ...!bellcore!texbell!sw1e!uucibg (314) 235-3929
gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Dwight Gordon) (01/12/89)
In article <967@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> olender@rachmaninov.UUCP (Kurt Olender) writes: > >By all means, get a Master's on the way. In most schools, it is simply a >matter of filling out the appropriate forms, and perhaps taking the >comprehensive exam. All coursework taken as a Master's student usually >applies to the Ph. D. as well. Many schools, in fact, will accept large >numbers of graduate course work taken at other schools toward the Ph. D. >coursework requirements. . . . BE CAREFUL! When I was looking at graduate programs (around 1982) I came to the conclusion that graduate credits transferred about as well as lead floats! :-) A degree seems to transfer well, but many schools use graduate credit requirements (especially at the Ph.D. level) as a revenue device. To this end they may NOT like transferring raw credits without a degree to which they are applied. Kansas State's College of Engineering has limits as to the number of credit hours that may be applied to their undergraduate degree. This is as a means of "quality control." Dwight W. Gordon | 913-532-5600 | gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu Electrical & Computer Engineering Department | dwgordon@ksuvm.bitnet Kansas State University - Durland Hall | rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon Manhattan, KS 66506 | {pyramid,ucsd}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (01/13/89)
In article <18960@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <8901101352.AA22246@decwrl.dec.com> ciarfella@levers.dec.com (Paul Ciarfella) writes: > >Let's use this notation: > > Group A: Domestic, straight from BS to MS. > > Group B: Domestic, work in industry before MS. > > Group C: Foreign students. > >> Which are more cooperative, ie., who is the better team player >> when working on group projects? > >I really haven't observed much difference between the 3 groups in this >aspect. I would think all three are pretty much equal in different respects. Group A has the benefit of understanding the theoretical basis of the project. Group B has BEEN INVOLVED with group projects before; they know HOW TO COMPLETE A PROJECT IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS (sorry if I'm getting a little carried away with the emphasis). Group C may be simply a "foreign" case of Groups A or B. Problems? Group A is the most grade-oriented. As Norm and a few others have pointed out, these are kids who have been taught to be competitive as undergraduates. Group B is grade-oriented, too, but to a lesser degree; these people need a "passing grade" (usually a "B"), since their companies are probably paying for the course. Group C needs "passing grades" as well, since they are usually supported by some form of tuition scholarship. Usually, however, Group C gets the highest grades of all three. Members of Group B seem to be the most cooperative, friendly, and motivated (please note I am combining all three). These people have an equal balance of theory and practice. If a person wants to continue studying and studying, obtaining more degrees along the way, that's fine, however, it's always nice to have a little industry experience in your storehouse of credentials. It tells your future employer that you can definitely apply your knowledge, rather than just preach it. Sincerely, Clarence cd@bu-cs.bu.edu
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/13/89)
In article <27198@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Clarence K. Din) writes: >project. Group B has BEEN INVOLVED with group projects before; they >know HOW TO COMPLETE A PROJECT IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS Good point!!!! Groups A and C tend to think in terms of "partial credit" on examinations and projects. E.g. they might **completely** miss the conceptual part of an exam problem, but still demand to get some points simply because a "Gestalt" view of the marks on their paper has some similarity to the correct solution. :-) >Group C may >be simply a "foreign" case of Groups A or B. Students from Taiwan, at least the male students, generally fall into a foreign case of Group B, since they are required to serve in the military right after getting their Bachelor's degree (and often do technical work in the military). This is also somewhat true for students from China, since the government requires many of them to work for 2 years before studying abroad. On the other hand, students from Hong Kong and India (the other main groups in CS grad programs in the U.S.) generally form a foreign version of Group A. However, all the Group C students differ from both Groups A and B due to the immigration goal that I mentioned earlier. >companies are probably paying for the course. Group C needs "passing grades" >as well, since they are usually supported by some form of tuition >scholarship. Yes. But the phrase "passing grades" is too weak, I think. They need TOP grades, both to attain financial support (tuition waivers, assistantships/fellowships, etc.) while they are in school, and also to maximize their (perceived) chances of getting a U.S. employer to hire them and sponsor them for U.S. immigration. >Usually, however, Group C gets the highest grades of all three. Right. For the above reasons, they need to do so, and are under enormous pressure. I don't think the Americans realize what a tough life the foreign students lead during their times in grad school in the U.S. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/13/89)
In article <1174@sw1e.UUCP> uucibg@sw1e.UUCP ([5-3929] Brian Gilstrap) writes: >In article <18960@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>For a systems course, I'd much rather teach Group B, and take them on >>as research students. For a theoretical course, I'd choose Group C; >>Group A seems less interested in theory, and Group B tends to have >>forgotten its advanced math. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Who? Me? Naaww! Now, what's an integral again?... :-) Actually, it's not really calculus that I was referring to, or for that matter, any specific course. Instead, it is mathematics in general, i.e. the idea of abstract and theoretical descriptions of problems, proofs, etc Norm
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/13/89)
In article <532@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> gordon@eecea.UUCP (Dwight Gordon) writes: > BE CAREFUL! When I was looking at graduate programs (around 1982) I came >to the conclusion that graduate credits transferred about as well as lead >floats! :-) A degree seems to transfer well, but many schools use graduate >credit requirements (especially at the Ph.D. level) as a revenue device. As a fairly extreme example of this, here at UCLA working people may take graduate courses by petition. This is administered by university extension, but they are the same courses the regular graduate students take. *Exactly* the same: same profs, same students, usw. Nonetheless the university only allows you to "transfer" 2 courses taken this way for graduate credit!
olender@rachmaninov.CS.ColoState.Edu (Kurt Olender) (01/14/89)
In article <325@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > > As a fairly extreme example of this, here at UCLA working people may >take graduate courses by petition. This is administered by university >extension, but they are the same courses the regular graduate students >take. *Exactly* the same: same profs, same students, usw. Nonetheless the >university only allows you to "transfer" 2 courses taken this way for >graduate credit! The question here is whether or not you are in a degree program. The University of Colorado at Boulder accepts 21 hours of graduate credit from other schools toward a Ph.D. degree but I think you had to have gotten them while actually in a degree program. (It is another question as to whether or not that is fair.) They accept 8 toward an MS. This is a fairly recent development however. It had previously been the same 8 credits as the MS. The intent, of course, is to attract more qualified MS level people into their Ph.D. program by imposing less of a credit penalty for transferring. Each school is different, but it is helpful to know the right questions to ask. -------------------------------------------------------- |Kurt Olender | Computer Science Dept. | |olender@cs.colostate.edu | Colorado State Univ. | |303-491-7015 | Fort Collins, CO 80523 |