The school tries to sell the program by stating the demand for graduates exceeds the supply. But they also state that:
“One of the common misconceptions about Imaging Science is that our graduates are too specialized, and will become pigeonholed when it comes to finding a career. In reality, this could not be farther from the truth. Imaging Scientists can apply their expertise in the imaging chain to any field imaginable that involves imagery - and just think about all the places you experience images on any given day. In an increasingly technological world, one which involves images on an ever-growing basis, Imaging Scientists are necessary to propel the industry forward.”
Frankly being pigeon-holed was the first thing that came to mind.
Program sounds good to me, there are optics engineers and scientists involved in many satellite sensors, in fiber optics, lasers and other fields. They list salaries. Physicists and engineers have both found their way to optics engineering and many have masters or PhD. The integration of computer science seems logical at this point in time.
Rochester is the home of what was once Kodak, who built a lot of very sophisticated instruments.
Few people stay generic for more than 5 years unless they are more interested in program management or functional management than pure technical work.
Certainly would be easy to find out how graduates from the program fare, I would guess well, and starting salaries in the mid-70s are very high compared to physics BS degree. Not everyone wants to write software forever, and there are seas of people who can write standard generic code, a lot less with expertise with graphics …
RIT also has a full complement of other engineering majors … so if this program is not for you, you can change course. The only issue I see is that you would not take any chemistry, which likely some or most engineers will take.
Also note the number of graduates is small, so if there are jobs requiring this background and RIT has the reputation of being the school to go to, that would help tremendously.
Asking questions about where alumni from this program or similar studies (if this is a new track) may also lead you to some working alumni who can really describe their niche, the industry, and how they fit into it.
Thanks @PickOne1 - these questions are not for me but I introduced my DD to this program. While it is probably not for her, a lot of the students in our area look at RIT as a place to study engineering and I thought it would help if I got some other perspectives on this program.
Their site says:
Imaging Scientists work with science and technology that is focused on the creation and extraction of information from an image, including development and characterization of technologies used in imaging devices, the integration of those technologies into systems, and the use of those systems to visualize a broad range of objects and phenomena. This work can be done in a wide range of application fields, including: aerial imaging, remote sensing, satellite system design, astronomical imaging, biomedical imaging system development, environmental monitoring, disaster response systems, national security and defense, cultural artifact documentation and restoration, vision systems, and more.
To be honest, I imagine most imaging jobs have to do with defense.
The other night on the PBS TV show Nova, the narrator followed a team of Imaging Scientists from France whom were studying thousands of skeletons from recently uncovered tombs below the streets of Rome, Italy. The bones date from the time of Christ or earlier and the team was trying to confirm ages and the cause of death. Fascinating.
That might have been true up until about 10 years ago. Now there are all kinds of civilian uses for imaging ranging from facial and handwriting recognition to driverless cars.
The word(s) of one’s major matter in getting employment, at least initially, so words suggesting narrowness of qualification are a handicap. Of course, they can be overcome by cover letters that describe a variety of courses with broad utility one has taken. However, it’s better to do it the other way around - if you’re interested in imaging take classes in it, but avoid having it as the name of your major.
I’m going to disagree with jjwinkle. If the intention is to get a software job working on imaging applications, then I’d say the Imaging Science degree would actually attract more attention than something like a vanilla CS degree. (As long as you have a few programming classes.) For most businesses, a potential employee possessing practical, applicable knowledge is going to look better than a potential employee with only general, theoretical knowledge.