<p>I am going to be a junior in computer science next year, and I currently have little desire to continue onto graduate school, but I would maybe like to get a masters degree down the line. I was wondering if working for a few years then applying to grad school would be more difficult than going straight out of undergrad.</p>
<p>It isn’t necessarily more difficult, just a slightly different process. Assuming you only want a M.S., you may even be able to get your company to pay for it! However, just be aware that in general, it is a lot harder to make yourself go back to school after you get used to that paycheck than if you go straight out of undergrad and are still used to the college way of life (broke all the time).</p>
<p>Chances are if you have a full time job you will go part time and your company should pay for it. It is not unheard of to leave a job and go to grad school full time but this is much more uncommon. It takes a lot of guts to leave a nice salary to become a full time student again. The advantage to full time is that you will probably gain research experience and you can earn a MS in two years or less. If you go part time you will probably take one class at a time and it usually takes 4 to 5 years to earn a MS.</p>
<p>It’s quite possible that grad school will be easier after working a few years in the industry than straight out of undergrad. In graduate courses (at least I.T./systems engineering), you will be asked quite a few of “what if” or “what would you do?” questions either on exams or demonstrate on projects. That is when you can use your work experience to your advantage.</p>
<p>I always felt that at least in the continuing education/part-time route of graduate school, some professors want to pick your brain to see what is actually going on in the working world.</p>
<p>Another reason I feel graduate school can be easier is that in some programs, you are essentially taking some of the same courses you had as an undergrad, but just it is numbered 5xx, 6xx or 7xx. Sometimes you are taking a course that has both undergrads and grads in the course and doing the same topics except the professor may give grad students an extra problem on an exam OR may ask for an extra report at the end of the semester.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This rarely happens in other fields. I think IT might be the exception rather than the rule.</p>
<p>i think its the smarter way to go. jumping right into grad school can be a bad idea because it can “pigeonhole” you before you know it. for example, MBA programs may look at a ms cs as a negative because they don’t like “degree collectors”. thus you may be limiting opportunities without even knowing it.</p>
<p>i also think that depending on the work experience, it can actually help admissions to top ms/phd programs. professors like people with programming experience that you would gain in the workplace so you can do research.</p>
<p>if you are interested in path, just try to refrain from huge financial commitments like a mortgage, at least for a few years while you figure out the next steps.</p>
<p>^wait so it’s hard to get an MBA (at least at top schools) if you have Master in an engineering?</p>
<p>it is at best neutral and quite possible a disadvantage. as i said, they don’t like degree collectors. in general a MS tech implies you want to stay in engineering/tech roles, and has little value-add for a business leader. </p>
<p>two years of work experience are far superior for mba admissions, particularly if you are aiming for HBS/Stanford which target the 25-ish age range. if you graduate college at 22, do a masters until 24, you would have only 1 year experience at the ideal time to apply to those programs.</p>
<p>I disagree BostonEng. Most high level managers start off as technical managers. To become a technical manager, I think a MS is definitely to your advantage. The general consensus that I’ve seen in industry is that a MS carries more weight than a MBA. Lets face it, your average MBA degree is going to be a piece of cake for most engineers. I also do not think that a MS will be a disadvantage when applying for a MBA assuming you have work experience.</p>
<p>Actually, if you look at some MBA programs at some schools there are a few courses that can also be in an M.S. Engineering program…most notably graduate Probability/Statistics, Operations Research/Optimization, Quality Engineering/Management and Project Management. Add to that, some M.S. Engineering programs would like you to take Accounting/Finance/Economics for Engineers. True the business-like courses are geared toward different folks but it is still the same topic areas for technical management.</p>
<p>hmm I thought Master in chemical engineering was basically equivalent to B.S + a few years of experience? The reason why I asked that question above is because I’m graduating with B.S in chem and plan to get M.S in ChemE (non-thesis) and then MBA afterwards… That plan should be fine, right?! :(</p>
<p>most top level managers do not rise up from technical management. the best fast-track jobs are in banking, consulting or general mgmt “leadership development programs” that are only accessible from elite mba programs. while it is possible to rise-up through the engineering ranks, it is also far less likely than other paths. a T10 mba will get you higher/faster than a MS engineering anyday. </p>
<p>now if you are talking non-top mba’s, i agree; the MS is the better option as those mba degrees will not open up any doors. at least the MS comes with a pay-raise and some additional marketable tech skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if you want to get the MBA right after the MS, that plan won’t work. you will need work experience first. also, as i mentioned, the MS will surely be detrimental if you are aiming for mba programs that seek 25 year olds like HBS.</p>
<p>what are your career goals? if you want to be a mid-level engineering manager, you should do the MS and then do a part-time MBA while you work at a corporation (most likely they would pay for it). if you want to be a CEO or other extremely powerful business role, i would forego the MS completely.</p>
<p>if you guys want an idea of the opportunities i am talking about, check out this link:</p>
<p>[MBA</a> Internship Opportunities](<a href=“http://www.dow.com/careers/programs/corp_mba.htm]MBA”>http://www.dow.com/careers/programs/corp_mba.htm)</p>
<p>they only recruit at HBS and UChicago. assignments include</p>
<p>"Personal, assigned mentoring from C-level executives and Executive Vice President’s "
"Work on significant enterprise level projects with interface to top executives "</p>
<p>the graduates that end up in that program are better off career-wise than someone that gets a MS chemical engineering and tries to work their way up from one of their research labs.</p>
<p>Actually within engineering companies, it is not uncommon for even the CEO to have an engineering background. If you are talking about executives of Wall St. banks then that is a completely different story. At engineering companies many top level managers do rise from technical management.</p>
<p>well what exactly is an “engineering company”? most companies are engineering companies in the sense that they sell products that were designed by engineers on staff (for example GE, Boeing, Raytheon). at all those companies, a top MBA + engineering background will do better than a MS engineering who is trying to rise up through the ranks. even Dow which i linked to i am sure has engineers somewhere designing something. </p>
<p>my point is that engineering is in its essence a “grunt” level job where you can easily become over-specialized and necessary in certain specific roles. why do you think there are so many 45 year old engineers around? while you can rise up through the technical ranks, the point of an MBA is to accelerate that process by giving you access to better mentors, business positions, etc.</p>
<p>I would consider the companies you listed as engineering companies. What I am not referring to are Wall St. banks or something like that. I think you are putting too much stock in a MBA. I guess your key word is a “top” MBA. This excludes a lot, in fact the vast majority, of people with a MBA. MBAs from lower ranked schools are a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>All I am saying is that it is very possible to progress to a high level management position by starting off in technical management and to get into technical management the MS will likely be beneficial. A MS will carry more weight with engineering managers and it by no means limits you to a purely technical role as you are insinuating. Some engineers are perfectly complacent in a technical role. It is safe to say that there are many people out there with a MBA also at a “grunt level job” as you called it. No matter what degrees someone has, at the end of the day they still have to be good at what they do if they want to advance. Someone hired as an engineer will have demonstrate solid technical skills. A MS will certainly help this. A large engineering company is not going to promote a kid with a MBA to a high level management position just because he/she has a MBA. If we are talking about the majority of people with a MBA (excluding graduates from Harvard and Yale etc.), I don’t think it carries as much weight as you make it seem. </p>
<p>There are several routes to take to become a high level manager, and technical management is certainly one of them. I will admit that perhaps a MBA from Harvard changes things a bit. Some executives will earn a MBA once they are already to a certain level of management which comes after years of experience. Although many executives do have some form of business training, it did not necesarily come early on in their career.</p>