CS majors... is all this publicity dangerous?

[aegrisomnia]

<p>@JamesMadison:</p>

<p>A media/mobile market bubble right now is just about as scary a thought as I can fathom.</p>

<p>@ChrisTKD:</p>

<p>I agree with most of what you say, but would caution that economic theory is a good way to model, understand, and predict labor markets, including the one for programming and software engineering. My main issue with KamelAkbar’s analysis is that it seems oversimplified and based on a perfectly competitive model, which I don’t feel is even approximately applicable to the labor market for CS grads.</p>

[KamelAkbar]

<p>Aeg-</p>

<p>We can all wiki some economic buzzwords, but you need to take a few econ classes before you step into the arena of arguing economics. </p>

<p>Perfect competition doesn’t really exist. If you can convince people your salt is better or more pure than someone else’s salt, even one person’s commodity can command a higher price. Perfect competition is really just an idea used to simplify economic models.</p>

<p>Monopolistic competition refers to the difference between a Porsche and a Honda. Only Porsche makes Porsches, and therefore Porsche has a monopoly on Porches, but not cars. That doesn’t apply to CS grads. CS grads are selling their labor. Their labor can differ, and therefore 4.0 Stanford CS grads will not be in the same market as 2.0 GPA University of Alaska grads, but the individual CS grad who is supplying their labor has no control over other CS grads getting the exact same skills as them, and therefore it is not monopolistic competition. The 4.0 Stanford grad is in the market with other 4.0 Stanford grads, and they will compete.</p>

<p>You’re arguing that economic principles don’t apply to CS grads but have no real support for your argument. They do. </p>

<p>

I think it means a great deal. Let’s take your argument to the logical limit: with n CS jobs and 1 CS grad per year, under the simplified assumption that CS grads get CS jobs before non-CS grads, the number of CS grads would have to increase by a factor of n before anything substantially changed for pre-existing CS grads. Perhaps some of those n jobs never paid very well anyway; but if we’re counting those as CS jobs, they represent current wage information and their failure to change with increasing CS enrollment would be beside the point. Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that a company would hire a non-CS grad for X and train him for Y, while the same company would hire a CS grad for X+Y. I just don’t find that realistic; odds are that the company would hire a CS grad for X if CS grads were available, and otherwise, they’d hire a non-CS grad for X and train him for Y. It’s imperfect information going the other way.

</p>

<p>You are missing the ENTIRE point. A company is not hiring a non-CS grad to do CS work because there are not enough CS grads, but because THEY CAN’T AFFORD CS grads (sure, they can’t afford CS grads because there aren’t enough of them, but the cost is what is motivating their decisions - if they were willing to pay $500k/year for a CS grad they’d certainly find one). If more CS grads enter the market, the wage will go down, and they will no longer have to purchase the labor of the math majors, who would provide an inferior service at a reduced price. </p>

<p>This is the same reason McDonald’s did very well during the recession. People still want to go out to eat, but they buy inferior goods when they can’t afford the better goods. The people, in this case, are CS employers, and the McDonald’s food is the math majors.</p>

[markladen]

<p>JamesMadison pointed out something significant. I firmly believe that a majority of the newly found interest in CS is a direct result of the popularity of iPhone, Android, iPad, Facebook, etc. Seems very similar to the CS major at the end of the 1990s. Once it pops, it might become “uncool” again for a little while. Still, no matter how uncool the major becomes, a majority of the CS jobs will remain for the taking. The CS students who weren’t really into it & just took the major to make lots of money will be the first to get swept out. If you’re into it, enjoy it & are reasonably good at it, you don’t need to worry.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: All of this is my opinion and in no way based on fact.</p>

[KamelAkbar]

<p>I just don’t agree that everyone motivated by the strong job outlook cannot possibly also enjoy CS. It is fun, most people who understand it enjoy it. I could major in it because I enjoy it and am good at it, but I chose something else that I am also interested in. If I my other interests didn’t also pay well, I would probably choose CS because it’s something I’m interested that would also feed my kids.</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>

We can all wiki some economic buzzwords, but you need to take a few econ classes before you step into the arena of arguing economics.

I’m not sure I’d call “monopolistic competition” a buzzword, any more than I’d call “quicksort” a buzzword. It’s a word that refers to a well-defined idea. To facilitate discussion, I’ll simply ignore the rest of this.</p>

<p>

Perfect competition doesn’t really exist. If you can convince people your salt is better or more pure than someone else’s salt, even one person’s commodity can command a higher price. Perfect competition is really just an idea used to simplify economic models.

The word “perfect” might have given that away. Still, it doesn’t make much sense to dismiss the importance of perfect competition as a tool to understand markets. Indeed, you and I appear to be saying much the same thing: the labor market isn’t perfectly competitive, so the argument “more supply means lower prices” might be oversimplified. I tend to feel like it is.</p>

<p>

That doesn’t apply to CS grads. CS grads are selling their labor. Their labor can differ, and therefore 4.0 Stanford CS grads will not be in the same market as 2.0 GPA University of Alaska grads, but the individual CS grad who is supplying their labor has no control over other CS grads getting the exact same skills as them, and therefore it is not monopolistic competition.

There’s a lot of misconception here. First off, 4.0 Stanford CS grads are in exactly the same market as 2.0 U Alaska grads. To see this, it suffices to realize that many employers might hire grads from either school for the same job. If all CS grads at Stanford decided to go into finance, do you think tech companies heavily recruiting at Stanford would go out of business before they hired U Alaska grads? They’re buying a substitute which differs in ways besides price. Do you think that McDonald’s has any control over another restaurant chain opening that serves burgers, fries, chicken nuggets and Coke products? Since the fast-food restaurant industry is a prime example of monopolistic competition, such an enterprise could actually be successful, if they correctly brand themselves. What protections McDonald’s has come from trademarks, a brand name, etc. Protections available to CS grads - and all sellers in a labor market - are their credentials. These come from the brand name of the school, brand name of technologies or courses or professors, as well as marketing via resumes, cover letters and interviews. The point of interviews is to determine which applicant is best; the idea that products differ qualitatively (rather than only in terms of price) implies that you’re looking at something more like monopolistic/imperfect competition than perfect competition.</p>

<p>

You are missing the ENTIRE point. A company is not hiring a non-CS grad to do CS work because there are not enough CS grads, but because THEY CAN’T AFFORD CS grads (sure, they can’t afford CS grads because there aren’t enough of them, but the cost is what is motivating their decisions - if they were willing to pay $500k/year for a CS grad they’d certainly find one).

Economically speaking, not being able to afford something its not existing are essentially the same thing, and that was the second part of the point of mine you quoted.</p>

<p>

If more CS grads enter the market, the wage will go down, and they will no longer have to purchase the labor of the math majors, who would provide an inferior service at a reduced price.

If your theory is correct, and non-CS people are getting CS jobs, then there are CS graduates who cannot find a job which meets their salary requirements and, as such, leave the CS job market altogether, either by finding a job in another field or remaining unemployed. If they’re already refusing to work for low pay, what makes you think that having twice as many people competing for jobs will change their minds? Already they’re leaving the industry, if your argument is to hold any water.</p>

[KamelAkbar]

<p>Well this was fun…</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>

I just don’t agree that everyone motivated by the strong job outlook cannot possibly also enjoy CS. It is fun, most people who understand it enjoy it. I could major in it because I enjoy it and am good at it, but I chose something else that I am also interested in. If I my other interests didn’t also pay well, I would probably choose CS because it’s something I’m interested that would also feed my kids.

I don’t think anybody has said that all people who have potential to be great at CS automatically enroll in CS. All I have been trying to say is that it seems reasonable that people who choose to be in CS regardless of employment outlook are probably more likely to be CS adept than people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be in CS. Would you agree that people who choose to major in Physics are more likely to be those people with a knack for physics which will lead them to success? That doesn’t mean every physics major will be a successful physicist; but does it mean that (statistically) significantly more Physics adept, somehow, end up studying Physics at the undergraduate level than all other people studying other subjects?</p>

[KamelAkbar]

<p>I challenge you to cite the “statistics” that say more physics adept people end up studying physics.</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>^ I have no such statistics; it is an assumption, and it has been since the post where I explicitly said it was an assumption and that I had no evidence to back it up.</p>

<p>

My assumption is that the proportion of potential CS adept studying CS of their own volition and interests is higher - probably significantly higher - than the proportion of potential CS adept doing something unrelated (so as to target different employment)… then again, I have no way to back that up.

</p>

<p>Do you or do you not disagree with this assumption? The proportion of X-adept majoring in X is likely to be higher than the proportion of X-adept majoring in something else.</p>

<p>A better question might be why you bothered to argue with me at all, if you rejected my basic assumption? Did you have a reason, or did you originally agree with me, find your opposed position untenable, and begin searching for an assumption to bolster your last-ditch proof by contradiction (Assuming A, my position is untenable. Therefore, not A.)</p>

[BCEagle91]

<p>To get a CS degree, you have to pass a lot of courses that most people wouldn’t be able to complete. Yes, enrollments are way up but how many of those new students will stick it out through foundations, architecture, circuits, statistics and algorithms?</p>

<p>If you’re in this discussion board, then I assume that you think (and maybe know) that you’re good. The world is a competitive place - what makes you think that you can’t compete and maybe even out-compete with the new supply of students?</p>

[Mark77]

<p>My experience – top quartile EE/CS grad from 2002 from one of the top 20 schools at the time. Started sending out job applications after shortly after the 9/11 attacks for the recruiting cycle the next year. Had some internship experience. Was able to get a few interviews, but the interviewers themselves were often laid off as entire companies went bankrupt or out of business. </p>

<p>Still don’t have a job, and its been a decade later. Of the thousands of applications I’ve sent out, I can count the human replies (not just automated rejection emails) from firms on my hands. I have a website, many personal projects, a fairly comprehensive systems/design project from school (dealing with embedded h/w and s/w development as applied to a control system for a certain type of high-energy physics experiment). All that stuff is on my resume. But with firms receiving hundreds, sometimes thousands of resumes per position, none of that stuff even gets looked at.</p>

<p>What’s ‘dangerous’ about the lies in the media concerning the demand for CS majors is that some helpless 17-year-olds might believe them and spend the next 5 years of their lives studying CS when there is literally many years worth of supply of graduates sitting on the sidelines.</p>

<p>Verified Cornell and UC Berkeley CS employment rates are only in the 30-40% range, BTW. And those are top-tier schools, UCB undeniably so for CS. If Google receives 4000 applications for every Soft Eng position they hire, instead of 2,000 applications – is it really going to change your chances, materially, of working at Google? Or whatever your Silicon Valley tech company of fancy happens to be?</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>^ Out of curiosity, what was your GPA? I don’t think your experience is typical of people graduating today… it didn’t seem that way when I graduated, anyway. Then again, your experience may be more a function of when you graduated than of the BSCS itself.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<p>I’m curious about your GPA too.</p>

<p>Also, what were your concentration courses in?</p>

<p>Did you go for an MSCS?</p>

<p>I actually see a lot of demand for CS grads but employers are very specific about skills. My brother-in-law works at a company and I spoke to his manager at a function last year and he told me that they can’t find people with the skills that they want (they were looking for GIS skills). We’ve hired several engineers from a national university that ISN’T in the top 60 national universities in the last year.</p>

<p>We have job posts out on public boards but you have to have specific skills, an MSCS or work experience. In my son’s school, they have 10 or 11 concentration areas and undergrads have to take at least two courses in a concentration area. A masters program allows the student to take several concentration areas and then it’s a matter of finding a job to match your concentration areas.</p>

<p>CS majors have one benefit that a lot of other majors don’t offer. You can do significant work on open source projects and, if you’re good or make significant contributions, you might get job or contract offers. I worked on an OS project for a year for fun and later received an email from the VP of an organization offering me a job. I already had a great job and declined.</p>

<p>2002 was definitely not a good time for CS grads but I would say that the recovery started in 2003 in tech hiring. There have been many good areas for CS grads: cloud, gui, touch computing, data mining, database, GIS, sensor networks.</p>

[Mark77]

<p>Final year GPA was around 3.6. Which is pretty good since I polished off both 4 year degrees in 4.5 years and did 3 internships in the summers. 3.6 placed me in the top quartile. Only one guy in our entire graduating year pulled a 4.0 (and even he’s underemployed!).</p>

<p>Concentration was in networking/communications, signal processing, embedded systems/design and VLSI (ie: chip design). Well at least to the extent those topics are covered in undergrad. As it turns out, probably the areas hardest hit by a good chunk of the ‘hardware’ industry moving to Asia, and the collapse of the networking equipment sector in Canada (and even all the troubles that outfits like Cisco have gone through).</p>

<p>Been a big Linux user since I got my first Slackware CDs installed on a 386 back in 1995. Can manipulate most of the LAMP stack with ease, and have written Linux kernel patches but nobody seems to care because my formal work experience isn’t directly in the area, and I’m a former intern of two now defunct firms.</p>

<p>As for 2003 in tech, from what I saw, they were still in heavy layoff mode. The re-staffing initiative really didn’t begin until 2005 or so when Google started to really pick up momentum, and even then, they were mostly hiring people who were previously laid off, or foreigners imported from India, not new talent. </p>

<p>

can’t find people with the skills that they want

</p>

<p>This is sort of my pet peeve with the industry. GIS isn’t a skill, rather, it is an application. And if employers aren’t willing to hire people and develop them with the sort of skills they want, how will those skills ever be available in the marketplace? Especially for something like GIS, which isn’t exactly something that can really be, unlike open source, “played with” at home.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>Final year GPA was around 3.6. Which is pretty good</p>

<br>

<p>3.6 is fine.</p>

<br>

<p>As it turns out, probably the areas hardest hit by a good chunk of
the ‘hardware’ industry moving to Asia, and the collapse of the
networking equipment sector in Canada (and even all the troubles
that outfits like Cisco have gone through).</p>

<br>

<p>Yup, wrong place at the wrong time.</p>

<br>

<p>As for 2003 in tech, from what I saw, they were still in heavy
layoff mode. The re-staffing initiative really didn’t begin until
2005 or so when Google started to really pick up momentum, and even
then, they were mostly hiring people who were previously laid off,
or foreigners imported from India, not new talent.</p>

<br>

<p>Fall 2002 was the bottom of the stock market crash. The NASDAQ was up
30% in 2003. I believe that Google was hiring engineers from us around
2003 and afterwards.</p>

<p>Google isn’t the only large company that hires CS grads.</p>

<br>

<p>This is sort of my pet peeve with the industry. GIS isn’t a skill,
rather, it is an application. And if employers aren’t willing to
hire people and develop them with the sort of skills they want, how
will those skills ever be available in the marketplace? Especially
for something like GIS, which isn’t exactly something that can
really be, unlike open source, “played with” at home.</p>

<br>

<p>I had dinner with one of our GIS guys a few days ago. I’ll ask him
whether he thinks it’s an application or skill. We typically hire
graduates from a very small set of school with known GIS programs.
University of Maine at Orono is an example. We usually hire those
with Phds or Masters.</p>

<p>I have seen internship and job postings for CS majors with Linux
experience in the Merrimack Valley area of Massachusetts where Red Hat
has offices, in the last three years. I talked to a guy that worked
there at a conference a few years ago and they seemed to be doing fine
on the financial front indicating their ability to hire people.</p>

<p>BTW, the training thing is a pet peeve with me too. We hired an EE guy recently (communications Phd) and we’ve had to train him in a lot of basic software things. It takes a new hire about 9 months to a year to get up to speed on our development process, tools, organization, etc. but most come in with a lot of expertise in our field. So we have to train even though we may not necessarily want to.</p>

<p>A lot of smaller companies with fewer resources may not have the luxury to hire new graduates that don’t have some specific background that they need. I think that it’s more an issue of planning. Further, a lot of companies don’t want to put the effort into training only to have the employee leave after a year for a better salary because they now have the training. I’ve seen that happen many times and even did it myself when I was a lot younger. When you’re young, you don’t necessarily think about all of the effort that companies put to train you - though you could argue that they could keep you around with raises and bonuses. I guess the idea in management is to pay you just enough so that you won’t leave - but sometimes there are companies that will offer you a lot more.</p>

<p>So what are you doing now for work?</p>

[Mark77]

<p>So what are you doing now for work?</p>

<p>Haven’t been able to work in nearly 10 years. Firms who don’t need high-end skills tell me, “you should be working at Google/Facebook/Nortel/HP with your background, why would we hire you if you’re just gonna take off when those companies start hiring”. Tech firms like Google/Facebook/HP/Microsoft (and hundreds of others, I’m not married to any particular brand names) don’t respond to my applications or emails as I wasn’t a previous intern (and Nortel is defunct), and am neither a new grad, nor an experienced candidate.</p>

<p>CS might work out fabulous for those who are lucky enough to graduate in a year where there’s lots of hiring, and if they had an internship with an employer they want to return to. But once you stray outside of that realm, its really a nasty world out there. </p>

<p>At this point, studying Engineering and CS, and doing extremely well academically has probably ruined my life, as now I have the ‘overqualified’ and/or the ‘unemployed for a long period’ label stamped on me. Have no interest in grad school as if employers are flooded with thousands of resumes per position, what good is an extra degree and more debt going to do?</p>

<p>I started a business along the way that was earning me a reasonable income until the stock market collapse. And yes, Google was hiring in 2003, 2004 – but I watched a presentation on their server infrastructure and they literally only had 2 EE’s on staff until around 2006 working on the hardware/low cost server infrastructure end of their business.</p>

[JamesMadison]

<p>I don’t know why you can’t get a job, when you got those internships. Getting an internship is quite competitive. You are probably not presenting yourself well on interviews, or there is something seriously wrong with your resume. The vast majority of CS graduates I talk to are just inundated with job offers these days. I myself am an EE in grad school, and I had two job offers after my BS even though my GPA was barely above average. </p>

<p>And there are plenty of VLSI/embedded jobs in USA. Maybe not as much as in software, but the market is not the problem here.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>Have no interest in grad school as if employers are flooded with thousands of resumes
per position, what good is an extra degree and more debt going to do?</p>

<br>

<p>I don’t think that employers are flooded with thousands of resumes per position unless they are very general in the job posting. Most of the job postings that I have seen are pretty specific in what they are looking for. Perhaps many apply anyways but those would be quickly weeded out.</p>

<p>The benefit of the extra degree is additional skills. The idea is to get a TA or RA position to pay for the schooling. Yes, it means a ton of hours but I’ve seen many go this route.</p>

<br>

<p>And yes, Google was hiring in 2003, 2004 – but I watched a presentation on their
server infrastructure and they literally only had 2 EE’s on staff until around 2006
working on the hardware/low cost server infrastructure end of their business. </p>

<br>

<p>That may be one downside of the EECS degree - not enough CS to get hired in a software company (that’s what they were back then).</p>

[Mark77]

<p>JamesMadison, my experience says otherwise. And I’ve had my resume reviewed by as many professionals as I could either afford, or could get to talk to me for free. As for interviews, I don’t even get the calls, and when I do receive feedback, it is obvious that the person they ultimately hired had a huge gain of experience on me (ie: pretty hard for someone with little experience to compete with someone with 20 years in the industry, for an entry level job).</p>

<p>As for thousands of resumes, this link:</p>

<p><a href=“http://images.mastersdegree.net.s3.amazonaws.com/tech-job.jpg[/url]”>http://images.mastersdegree.net.s3.amazonaws.com/tech-job.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>implies that Google receives between 250 and 1000 resumes for each Software Engineer position it fills, and other big firms have similar metrics. </p>

<p>Microsoft receives so many resumes apparently that it only actually reviews less than 1% of them. Same deal at the other tech firms. I’ve even had internal recruiters tell me, in not so many words, that their resume/application systems are basically redirects to /dev/null, and the postings intended to fool competitors and investors into believing the firm is more successful than it really is.</p>

<p>

That may be one downside of the EECS degree - not enough CS to get hired in a software company (that’s what they were back then).

</p>

<p>I have a freestanding EE degree and a freestanding CS degree. Not a combination degree. I did all the requirements of the 4-year CS program. And all the requirements of the 4-year EE program. By doubling my course load basically. Most of the math courses were applicable to both programs (as well as English, Economics, etc.), but otherwise, I studied the full curricula of both programs. </p>

<p>But I certainly understand what you’re saying about people who might take a specially ‘combined’ (and watered down) program. </p>

<p>Combining CS and EE in this way actually had a ton of benefits, especially with respect to upper year (ie: 4th year or grad-level) computer graphics courses. Computer graphics heavily relies upon vector math and digital signal theory/processing theory, which is covered extensively in EE programs, but receives minimal treatment in a CS program.</p>

<p>But alas, it was all in vain. At least I managed to get through debt free.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>Combining CS and EE in this way actually had a ton of benefits, especially with respect
to upper year (ie: 4th year or grad-level) computer graphics courses. Computer graphics
heavily relies upon vector math and digital signal theory/processing theory, which is
covered extensively in EE programs, but receives minimal treatment in a CS program.</p>

<br>

<p>I’m surprised that you couldn’t get a job at a defense company - I know several companies in my area that were looking for image and graphics processing at the hardware and software level for the last few years. Mercury Computer Systems is an example.</p>

<p>That’s an interesting website that you posted. BTW, I do know a VP at Facebook (he tried to hire me when he was at another company) but I’m not interested in social media stuff. I see a lot of job postings outside the Google-Microsoft-Facebook-Apple genre. Lots of small and medium sized companies looking for specific skills for proposed or in-progress projects.</p>

<p>That site does suggest areas for MSCS programs to go into.</p>