Does the school really matter?

[sakky]

<p>

indeed, it can be argued that such business oriented IT/IS majors are too light on the technical stuff needed to do an efficient job as a system, network, or database administrator)?

</p>

<p>You could argue that, but the fact remains that those people are indeed hired. The IT space is notable for the proliferation of workers who have no technical degrees, or in some cases, no college degrees or any sort. At many companies, the IT staffers who actually hold CS or IT degrees is strictly in the minority. </p>

<p>

Aren’t many IT/IS major programs more like a subarea of business administration, and thus do not include sufficient prerequisite course work to take the advanced CS courses you list

</p>

<p>I agree, which is why I would say that advanced CS coursework is simply not a practical option for many, probably most, IT workers today. As I said, many current IT workers never even majored in a technical subject - and may not have ever taken even the intro CS course - so the notion that they might survive an advanced CS algorithms or database course is simply fanciful. </p>

<p>Nor would it even be useful for them. For example, many Cisco routing protocols are based on the Dijkstra algorithm. But how many Cisco network admins actually know what Dijkstra is at all, let alone how to analyze it? For the vast majority of them, all they know and care about is what the simple commands are to have the routers discover the network topology and calculate Dijkstra by themselves, and if something goes awry, that’s something that needs to be reported to Cisco. </p>

<p>Now certainly I agree that if you were one of the senior developers at Cisco who was implementing faster routing features, or were working in an academic/research capacity to design entirely new routing protocols, then you would certainly need to understand Dijkstra. But the truth is, there are probably no more than several hundred people in the entire world who do that. The overwhelming majority of Cisco IT workers will neither know or care about Dijkstra. </p>

<p>

While much of the CS job market caters to IT/IS, there is quite a bit of difference between the jobs of people who develop and QA the IT/IS software and the jobs of people in the IT/IS departments who use the IT/IS software.

</p>

<p>And what I’ve found ironic is that the latter are often times actually paid more than the former. That’s right - those who actually use the kit may actually make more than those who designed it in the first place. </p>

<p>As to why that is the case, it seems that the IT space rewards breadth more than depth. To extend the above analogy, if you’re a routing developer at Cisco, you may learn Dijkstra to excruciating detail. But the fact is, there are only maybe 10-20 companies in the world - the networking vendors - who actually need somebody who truly understands Dijkstra. However, as a routing protocol expert, you’re probably going to learn practically nothing about Ethernet, or network security, or WAN-signaling, or dial back-up. </p>

<p>On the other hand, a Cisco network admin can learn all of those topics and more. He will not learn any of those topics in depth - ask a typical network admin how SHA hashing actually works and you’ll receive little more than a blank stare - but at least he’ll know how to type in the commands to invoke those features, even without really understanding what the feature actually does. And that breadth over depth is what the market wants. Every company that utilizes Cisco products - that is, the vast majority of all large firms - could hire you. You can then play them off against each other in pursuit of higher pay. </p>

<p>That’s why I’m so hesitant to endorse an advanced algorithms course not because it has no value - because it probably does - but because it seems to be a low-yield activity. The gains you would obtain from such a course do not seem commensurate to the effort you would have to expend. The same seems to be true of most formal CS networking courses, which have a habit of devolving into a morass of queueing theory which few if any network admins actually need to know. They would be far better served in simply practicing on a Cisco home lab on their own time. Not once have I ever known a network admin interview where the candidate was asked to calculate queueing models. But all of them have asked whether they know how to utilize various Cisco features.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>

Actually, it’s not clear that you identified that slight door-opening of which you speak and which seems to be key to your strategy. Exactly how does somebody find and enter that open door? What exactly does somebody have to do to get that first job that will eventually lead him to Federal contracts and security clearances? You say that the Wyoming grad can parley his first contract to more lucrative ones in the future, but how exactly does he obtain that first contract?</p>

<p>I push on this point not to badger you but for the simple reason that CS programs - both prestigious and no-name ones - mint thousands of new CS graduates every year. Many, probably most, of them would surely like to obtain the cushy, high-paying yet low-demand (i.e. 40 hour workweek) IT jobs of which you speak. But the fact is, many, probably most, won’t. They’re stuck in dead-end tech jobs with little opportunity for advancement or development of marketable skills.</p>

<p>For example, I can think of a number of developers for Microsoft, ostensibly a gold-plated employer with numerous opportunities…but who are stuck building bug fixes for obsolete versions of Windows and Office that Microsoft no longer even sells anymore (but is contractually obligated to support). They’re not really learning any ‘hot’ new skills. Nor are they being given the opportunity to switch. They’re assigned to that job, and they either do it, or quit. Nevertheless, even if they do quit, Microsoft will simply assign somebody else to that job. Hence, there will always be some people stuck in low-potential jobs.</p>

<p>So the question then is, how do you avoid being that person? What exactly do you have to do? As we are talking about relative performance - as not everybody in CS is going to get a desirable job - the question then becomes what should you doing differently from the others, specifically what should you not be doing that the others are doing?

</p>

<p>I see your question.</p>

<p>Well even though the last 6 years of my career has been in INTEL federal contracts, the first 14-15 years was non-INTEL: most supporting corporate contracts and a few non-INTEL federal contracts.</p>

<p>But here is the common denominator with my last 18 years of experience…CONSULTING!</p>

<p>Not doing “internal” development for the employer but supporting the various contracts which touch on various lines of business for the employer. Consulting firms make their money by profiting off the difference between what they bill to a client and what they pay you. Now add in the supply/demand for certain skills and you have companies that have to hire to engineers some kind of way…usually from snatching experienced engineers from somewhere else. Either that employer will bill clients more OR slightly profit less but for some smaller companies, that profit is still huge because they have less overhead. I mentioned this just to give a background on how consulting works so I can attempt to answer your question about taking advantage of an opportunity.</p>

<p>Some of these consulting firms also have “side jobs” as being training vendors. Also, when the pool of candidates is small or hard to replenish, these firms will give you the training so that they can fill that need that they “supposedly” told the client that they have. Here is an example: Let’s say you are a SQL Server database professional but the client has secured a position that needs an Oracle professional. Well, since you already have some background in databases, the employer would rather send you downstairs and sit in on the Oracle class that they are teaching that week and “prep” you before sending you to the new client. This same scenario happens for a non-database specific technology like data warehousing. Maybe the SQL Server or Oracle professional has only worked with transactional databases. That consulting firm will send you to some data warehouse course so you can “talk the talk” and then send you to the client. The same scenario can be done for some network person who wants to get into information assurance.</p>

<p>So I would highly recommend companies like Booz Allen, Anderson Consulting (if they are still around) and such. Also, those companies usually have training requirements for their employees. The downpart about consulting is that you may work 6 months on one client, 1 year on another and 9 months on another. Hopefully you can stay at the same consulting firm during those switches but it is VERY possible that you may have to switch consulting firms every 3 years…just because of who gets the clients/contracts. Now some of those Booz-Allen types also will dip into the federal clients and sometimes even the INTEL side. For most INTEL-related gigs, you pretty much have to move to the Washington DC metro area. Non-INTEL federal contracts can be more spread out nationwide.</p>

<p>STILL…I would tell CS grads to look into consulting. To ME, that is where one can get easier access to learning new/latest skills.</p>

[BanjoHitter]

<p>I think you guys might want to take the discussion to PMs. We are well off the topic of Top 100 engineering school vs. Top 10 engineering school.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@sakky

You could argue that, but the fact remains that those people are indeed hired. The IT space is notable for the proliferation of workers who have no technical degrees, or in some cases, no college degrees or any sort. At many companies, the IT staffers who actually hold CS or IT degrees is strictly in the minority.

</p>

<p>Yes, the non-technical IT/IS people get hired. But their effectiveness and efficiency at doing the job is often something else entirely. From a narrow point of view (getting hired and paid), they are successful, but from a broader point of view (keeping the organization’s computer infrastructure running smoothly and efficiently), they may not necessarily be doing the best possible job.</p>

<p>

@sakky

That’s why I’m so hesitant to endorse an advanced algorithms course not because it has no value - because it probably does - but because it seems to be a low-yield activity.

</p>

<p>For an IT/IS person, at least the introductory CS sequence and the operating systems course (and perhaps a few other selected courses like database) would be very helpful, though a full CS bachelor’s degree schedule would be overkill. For too many IT/IS people, writing what should be a simple script to automate some task that would take hours to do manually is beyond their capabilities.</p>

<p>For courses like operating systems (etc.), the software being used may be closed source, but someone with a general understanding of how operating systems (etc.) work can make more educated guesses in terms of how to use it without running into the trouble that they are encountering.</p>

[vblick]

<p>Global Traveler - IT/IS isn’t engineering. Yet every time someone asks about engineering you have to drop the software/IT bomb. It’s not useful. People don’t study real engineering or CS so they can do IT later in life.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

So I would highly recommend companies like Booz Allen, Anderson Consulting (if they are still around) and such. Also, those companies usually have training requirements for their employees. The downpart about consulting is that you may work 6 months on one client, 1 year on another and 9 months on another. Hopefully you can stay at the same consulting firm during those switches but it is VERY possible that you may have to switch consulting firms every 3 years…just because of who gets the clients/contracts. Now some of those Booz-Allen types also will dip into the federal clients and sometimes even the INTEL side. For most INTEL-related gigs, you pretty much have to move to the Washington DC metro area. Non-INTEL federal contracts can be more spread out nationwide.</p>

<p>STILL…I would tell CS grads to look into consulting. To ME, that is where one can get easier access to learning new/latest skills.

</p>

<p>Yet that seems incongruous with your past statements that you don’t really need to attend a high-prestige university if you want to pursue a successful software/IT career. To obtain a job in consulting - particularly at a firm on the level of Booz or Accenture (the successor to Anderson) - you basically need to have attended a high-ranked university, as they simply don’t recruit at low-end schools. </p>

<p>But that only means that we’re right back in the realm of obvious advise: attend a high-ranked school.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

but from a broader point of view (keeping the organization’s computer infrastructure running smoothly and efficiently), they may not necessarily be doing the best possible job.

</p>

<p>Yeah, but those workers don’t really care about that, now do they? They just want to be paid, and if they’re not the optimal people to fill that job, well, that’s not really their problem. </p>

<p>I think the far better question then is why do companies continue to insist on hiring such sub-optimal employees when they could potentially hire better ones. A related formulation is: why aren’t those who actually have the technical expertise paid better? {For example, my attempts at justification in post #21 aside, I am still bewildered as to why many IT workers with no true technical backgrounds can sometimes nevertheless be paid more than the actual engineers who designed those very same IT products that they are using. If the answer is breadth, I think it’s quite clear that those engineers could quickly develop comparable breadth in a flash.}</p>

<p>

For too many IT/IS people, writing what should be a simple script to automate some task that would take hours to do manually is beyond their capabilities.

</p>

<p>But again, when you say “too many”, I would ask: too many according to whom? It may be too many according to you or perhaps even me. But it’s apparently not too many according to whomever actually is hiring and managing those employees. </p>

<p>Which gets to one of the fundamental features of the IT space that GT alluded to: many IT shops are not highly efficient, and have no incentives to be so. Hence, you can and do have plenty of IT employees who pocket nice pay packets without having to know very much or work particularly hard. The trick then is how do you actually obtain one of those jobs? </p>

<p>

For courses like operating systems (etc.), the software being used may be closed source, but someone with a general understanding of how operating systems (etc.) work can make more educated guesses in terms of how to use it without running into the trouble that they are encountering.

</p>

<p>But again, I question how much of the typical CS operating system course is actually useful. Let’s face it: the vast majority of CS graduates will never actually design their own operating system, which is what the course is ultimately geared to teach. For most such CS students, their time would probably be better served in learning the usage of actual commercial operating systems rather than being stuck in a lab trying to build their own.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>

Global Traveler - IT/IS isn’t engineering. Yet every time someone asks about engineering you have to drop the software/IT bomb. It’s not useful. People don’t study real engineering or CS so they can do IT later in life.

</p>

<p>True, the topic of whether software engineering is “real engineering” has not been answered. That question pretty much relates to if computer science is engineering or not.</p>

<p>Whether those questions are true/false is not the point. The point is that on this very board, folks want to debate the “whose curriculum is better” and “whose curriculum is real”, yadda yadda. Now that may help folks with their “competitive streak” or self-esteem but the bottom line is at the end of the day, how much does all of this nitpicking REALLY matter?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

People don’t study real engineering or CS so they can do IT later in life.

</p>

<p>Perhaps they don’t intend to do so, but many of them will end up in IT nevertheless. As I mentioned before, the vast majority of IT workers that I know do not hold degrees in IT. A large fraction hold degrees in CS, but many more also hold degrees in the ‘traditional’ engineering disciplines and drifted to IT because it offered better opportunities, not least being geographical flexibility. The sad truth is that each of the traditional engineering degrees is marketable only in certain specific regions of the country - what if you can’t or don’t want to live in those regions? {For example, an engineering degree is not particularly useful if you want to live in San Francisco and don’t want to deal with owning a car.} But IT skills are useful anywhere where there is a large business sector.</p>

[TheFatAnorexic]

<p>

Yet that seems incongruous with your past statements that you don’t really need to attend a high-prestige university if you want to pursue a successful software/IT career. To obtain a job in consulting - particularly at a firm on the level of Booz or Accenture (the successor to Anderson) - you basically need to have attended a high-ranked university, as they simply don’t recruit at low-end schools. </p>

<p>But that only means that we’re right back in the realm of obvious advise: attend a high-ranked school.

If you look at the NSA’s website, under their information assurance academic outreach section, you’ll find numerous state schools (and even a select few community colleges) that are designated as National Centers of Academic Excellence by the NSA and DHS.</p>

[dmsenior93]

<p>Does the school really matter for civil engineering? I don’t know whether I want to go to U of Arizona (in state and full tuition scholarship) or U of Texas-Austin (around $30k in just tuition) or Cal Poly-SLO (about $20k in just tuition). ((I have already been accepted into UT and will most likely get accepted into Cal Poly, but nothing is guaranteed.)) I know UT-Austin has a great engineering program and Cal Poly does as well, but would I get just as good of a job if I went to U Arizona? I eventually want to become a land developer…</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>

Yet that seems incongruous with your past statements that you don’t really need to attend a high-prestige university if you want to pursue a successful software/IT career. To obtain a job in consulting - particularly at a firm on the level of Booz or Accenture (the successor to Anderson) - you basically need to have attended a high-ranked university, as they simply don’t recruit at low-end schools.</p>

<p>But that only means that we’re right back in the realm of obvious advise: attend a high-ranked school.

</p>

<p>I don’t know what Booz-Allen does outside of the MD/DC/VA area as far as recruiting, but I know a number current/former employees (federal contracting is a small-world socially) and NONE of them are from the Top-10. There are a whole bunch of U-Maryland, U-Virginia and the other 4-year regional schools represented. Now maybe their Accounting/Finance areas may ask your “B-School” first but not in the computer and information sciences.</p>

<p>Which leads me to my overall answer for this thread. For those ultra-competitive majors…school matters. For the higher demand/lower supply majors…school name matters less.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>

If you look at the NSA’s website, under their information assurance academic outreach section, you’ll find numerous state schools (and even a select few community colleges) that are designated as National Centers of Academic Excellence by the NSA and DHS.

</p>

<p>This is very true.</p>

<p>At this very second, the team I am on…doing work for NSA represent the following top-flight schools (sarcasm):</p>

<p>Univ of Maryland - College Park
Univ of Maryland - Baltimore County
Univ of California - San Diego
Bowie State Univ (a local MD university)
Towson University (another local MD university)
Penn State University
West Virginia University
Johns Hopkins University (grad school)
Michigan State University
University of Wisconsin (grad school)
University of Delaware</p>

[UCLA_Band_Mom]

<p>

Does the school really matter for civil engineering? I don’t know whether I want to go to U of Arizona (in state and full tuition scholarship) or U of Texas-Austin (around $30k in just tuition) or Cal Poly-SLO (about $20k in just tuition). ((I have already been accepted into UT and will most likely get accepted into Cal Poly, but nothing is guaranteed.)) I know UT-Austin has a great engineering program and Cal Poly does as well, but would I get just as good of a job if I went to U Arizona? I eventually want to become a land developer…

</p>

<p>The school matters in that it often determines where you will do internships and eventually start your career. Do you want to settle in California, Arizona or Texas? More important than where you go (assuming that they are all accredited programs) is how well you do. The higher your gpa, the more likely that you will have choice internships and job offers.</p>

[al6200]

<p>

Univ of Maryland - College Park
Univ of Maryland - Baltimore County
Univ of California - San Diego
Bowie State Univ (a local MD university)
Towson University (another local MD university)
Penn State University
West Virginia University
Johns Hopkins University (grad school)
Michigan State University
University of Wisconsin (grad school)
University of Delaware

</p>

<p>Hopkins is an elite school and UMCP and Penn State are both state flagships, so your sarcasm is probably inappropriate.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>

Hopkins is an elite school and UMCP and Penn State are both state flagships, so your sarcasm is probably inappropriate.

</p>

<p>You are correct. Still, when you see the various threads created, there are far too many posts that hints at you one does not attend the “Top 10” (MIT, Mellon, Michigan, Stanford, etc) and do well, that you are almost out of luck as far as jobs and grad school. These high-school students do not need to see that.</p>

<p>I want to (and probably have to continue) to shed some light on what really happens in those HR departments and those graduate admissions departments…and how the concepts of general “business decisions” affect both.</p>

[al6200]

<p>Okay, I see what you are saying GlobalTraveler. I agree that at engineering firms, it is very possible to break in from a school that is not highly ranked. That is not the case in other professions that may interest an engineering student.</p>

[mclax8]

<p>This is EXACTLY my dilemma about choosing schools.</p>

<p>2 example schools- U of Illinois Urbana Champaign In state and University of Miami (FL) for Civil or Industrial (I have many reasons for not choosing UIUC immediately)</p>

<p>So If I go to a school like University of Miami, not the greatest engineering school, I would be alright considering I will be in a large city and get a decent job first, then I can branch out if I want using job experience? Not to mention I will probably excel more at Miami, get a good GPA and be competitive for top MS/MBA?</p>

<p>OR are you guys saying I will not have great job prospects coming out of Miami even in the city of Miami and should go to Illinois because I will get a better internship/ first job, be recruited across the country, and have a better career in general?</p>

[vblick]

<p>

True, the topic of whether software engineering is “real engineering” has not been answered. That question pretty much relates to if computer science is engineering or not.</p>

<p>Whether those questions are true/false is not the point. The point is that on this very board, folks want to debate the “whose curriculum is better” and “whose curriculum is real”, yadda yadda. Now that may help folks with their “competitive streak” or self-esteem but the bottom line is at the end of the day, how much does all of this nitpicking REALLY matter?

</p>

<p>Look, I think most people on this board genuinely want to help others. Especially people who have already taken the journey - whether it’s already having the degree or having many years of experience. However, it’s important to give feedback, the right feedback, to the questions being asked. Between you and Sakky, you guys have hijacked this thread with boring, non-related, dialogue about IT. IT is not engineering and shouldn’t even come up when people start threads like these. My point is that you ALWAYS bring IT into the conversation when someone asks a question about engineering or is discussing engineering.
I think you have acknowledged this in the past though. Anyway, this isn’t my attempt to attack you. I too work in the defense industry and I think you’ve provided some great info on what it’s like. I’m just saying you can’t always force the IT conversation into engineering discussions.</p>

<p>

Perhaps they don’t intend to do so, but many of them will end up in IT nevertheless. As I mentioned before, the vast majority of IT workers that I know do not hold degrees in IT. A large fraction hold degrees in CS, but many more also hold degrees in the ‘traditional’ engineering disciplines and drifted to IT because it offered better opportunities, not least being geographical flexibility.

</p>

<p>Well that’s your experience. Mine is exactly opposite. I don’t know anyone with a traditional engineering degree that has gone into IT. I don’t know anyone that has even considered it. I’m curious as to which school these engineers you know went to? Except for a few co-workers here and there, all the rest and all my friends went to top engineering schools. There are tons of engineers that go to small avg engineering schools. Maybe a lot of these kids end up doing IT? I don’t know.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I don’t know what Booz-Allen does outside of the MD/DC/VA area as far as recruiting, but I know a number current/former employees (federal contracting is a small-world socially) and NONE of them are from the Top-10. There are a whole bunch of U-Maryland, U-Virginia and the other 4-year regional schools represented. Now maybe their Accounting/Finance areas may ask your “B-School” first but not in the computer and information sciences.</p>

<p>Which leads me to my overall answer for this thread. For those ultra-competitive majors…school matters. For the higher demand/lower supply majors…school name matters less.

</p>

<p>I actually don’t see how this supports your point; if anything, it seems to support the opposite, as Maryland and Virginia (especially the latter) are precisely the type of high-prestige schools that top consulting firms tend to congregate around. Heck, Virginia is arguably the best public university in the country, at least for undergrad. </p>

<p>Granted, they’re not top 10 “engineering” schools, but that only underlines the point that overall school prestige tends to matter more for in professions such as consulting. Harvard is not a top 10 engineering school, but there is little dispute that Harvard students of any major have a wide variety of consulting opportunities available to them - certainly more so than the typical engineering student from a ‘top’ engineering school. Which then leads to the seemingly incongruous, but nevertheless obvious advice that if you want to become an IT consultant, you should turn down most top engineering schools for Harvard. </p>

<p>

At this very second, the team I am on…doing work for NSA represent the following top-flight schools (sarcasm):</p>

<p>Univ of Maryland - College Park
Univ of Maryland - Baltimore County
Univ of California - San Diego
Bowie State Univ (a local MD university)
Towson University (another local MD university)
Penn State University
West Virginia University
Johns Hopkins University (grad school)
Michigan State University
University of Wisconsin (grad school)
University of Delaware

</p>

<p>Yet therein lies the glimmer of hope. Putting aside such schools as UMCP, Penn State, Johns Hopkins, and UCSD - which are relatively highly ranked schools - we should be asking the question: what exactly did those graduates of low-ranked schools do to merit the career that they have. Surely many (probably most) UMBC graduates do not have nice cushy jobs with the NSA, so how exactly did that UMBC graduate of which you speak manage to distinguish himself from the others? More specifically, what did he not do that the others did? What did he choose not to learn? </p>

<p>

Still, when you see the various threads created, there are far too many posts that hints at you one does not attend the “Top 10” (MIT, Mellon, Michigan, Stanford, etc) and do well, that you are almost out of luck as far as jobs and grad school. These high-school students do not need to see that.

</p>

<p>I agree, but then what those high school students do need to see is a realistic plan consisting of actionable yet non-obvious steps that they could take to succeed without feeling that they need to attend a top school. Most specifically, they should be told what not to spend their time learning as being low-yield, time-wasting activities. As I said before, many (probably most) engineers and IT workers do not have great jobs. I wish they did, but they don’t. How do you avoid being one of them? </p>

<p>Otherwise, those high school students are right to despair, for they don’t have a clear plan as to how to escape their predicament.</p>