Is MSc/MEng worth pursuing?

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>Hi,
I have a Bachelors degree in Comp Sci. I am thinking of pursuing an MEng/MSc. I wanted to get some opinion whether the MSc/MEng will help me get a better position or starting salary. I have about 2 years experience. I thought about doing an MBA, but don't have enough experience. After talking to a few people who are pursuing MBA and also talking with some of the Admission offices at various business schools, although they mention that atleast 2 years work experience is required, usually students have 5 years experience on average. I haven't ruled out MBA, but i will probably do it after i have acquired 5-6 yrs experience.</p>

<p>So, just wanted get some idea of all the engineers out there, whether i could get a more senior position with a MSc/MEng or negotiate a better starting salary.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your opinions.</p>

2

<p>Anyone willing to take a shot at this? any of the senior members?</p>

3

<p>Maybe you should wait for people who know what they're talking about instead of rushing people.</p>

4

<p>Of course the MS/MEng will provide you with more senior opportunities and starting salaries. You pretty much have to have one to do any kind of serious design work, while BS people usually start out doing grunt work like testing, debugging, or verification, which really limits your opportunities for advancement.</p>

5

<p>im_blue, thanks for your response.</p>

<p>Just curios, would getting 1 or 2 years of experience be equivalent to getting an MSc? Just thinking, going back to school i would definitely forego atleast 1 year of income plus the tuition and living expenses i end up paying. If 1 or 2 yrs work experience is same as getting a masters, then might as well stay in work for 2 more years. But, again if i do the masters, then i have an addtional qualification to put in my resume.</p>

<p>I am not looking for answers as to what i should....just looking for everyone's opinion as to what you guys would do, if you were in my shoes.</p>

<p>Any input is much appreciated.</p>

6

<p>No, 1 or 2 years of experience won't be equivalent to getting an MS because you'll probably be restricted in the kind of jobs you can start out with, while you take several advanced courses in your field for the MS. You could look into doing a part-time MS like the one Stanford offers if you really can't forgo the salary.</p>

7

<p>One could also look into getting into one of those joint MBA+MS programs like the MIT LFM prog or the Northwestern MMM program.</p>

8

<p>Sakky, what, in your opinion, would be the added benefit of one of those programs to someone who was already planning on getting their MS in engineering (assuming of course that I attend a school that has such a program)?</p>

9

<p>I personally am of the opinion that anytime you are in a position to get another degree that doesn't cost you anything in terms of time and money, you should probably take it. Looking at the issue from a high level, In the case of MIT LFM, Northwestern MMM, Michigan TMI, or these other special dual-degree programs, since you're going to be spending 2 years getting your MBA anyway, why not also pick up an accompanying Master's during that time? </p>

<p>Now, on a more detailed level, I agree that things are not quite that simple. In particular, if you have zero intention of working in tech (i.e. if you know that you want to be an investment banker), then I agree that picking up that 2nd degree may not be a wise choice. That 2nd degree will soak up a lot of your spare time. You are probably better off spending that time practicing for your banking interviews. In other words, there are definitely good reasons for some people to prefer regular MIT Sloan over LFM, regular Northwestern Kellogg over MMM, regular Michigan over TMI.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I also agree that if you already have an MS, then the allure of these programs diminishes somewhat. However, not entirely, I've known people with PhD's in engineering who went to LFM. Randal Pinkett, the winner of Donald Trump's Apprentice 4, completed an MSc in Computer Science from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and then went to MIT LFM, picking up an MBA and SM in EECS (then stayed at MIT to pick up a PhD from the Media Lab, then started his own company, then wound up as a contestant on the Apprentice). </p>

<p>While I can't speak about TMI or MMM in great detail, I can tell you that one of LFM's great calling cards is that it lets you try to get your engineering SM in any engineering discipline among all the participating LFM disciplines. Currently, I believe all of the eng disciplines except nuclear engineering participate in LFM. Historically, about 1/4 of all LFM students come in already having a master's degree or a PhD in engineering. Many of them see LFM as an opportunity to learn an entirely new field of engineering. As long as you can get decent grades, you can get your SM in whatever engineering you want. For example, one guy already has his MEng in EECS from MIT, and is now in LFM, pursuing his SM in Materials Science, because he's interested in nanotechnology. </p>

<p>By the way, if you're confused about the 'SM' designation, that's what MIT calls its Master of Science. Most schools say MS, but MIT says SM. Just like MIT doesn't hand out BS degrees like most schools do, but rather "SB" degrees. Don't ask why.</p>

10

<p>peck191, i briefly went through the LFM program. It looks like more emphasis is on the management side of engineering. I think if you were planning to do an MS, i believe an MS is more technical in nature than the MS part of the LFM program. I could be wrong...I don't know what the pure MS curriculum is.</p>

11

<p>Many big firms (Intel, AT&T, Sun) will start out students who have master's degrees with higher pay and more responsibility. An entry-level position for a master's degree holder might be "engineer", whereas an entry-level position for a bachelor's degree holder might be "junior engineer". How prevalent this is in non-computer industries, I am unsure.</p>

<p>A lot of schools give their students the opportunity to do a 5-year B.S./M.S. coterm. If you have the money (usually they don't offer T.A. positions for 5-year coterms) and don't mind staying at your current school, this is a good deal because a master's degree usually "counts" more than 1 year of experience.</p>

12

<p>thanks for the input, guys</p>

13

<p>Quentin, thanks for the reply. My situation is as follows. I have a Bachelors in Comp Sci, and 2 years of work exp as a software developer. Now, i'm thinking of going for a Masters....just trying to talk to as many ppl as possible, before i make my decision. I am not sure whether quiting my job, and going for a 1 year MS, would increase my value in the market...i know noone can tell me yes or no. But just trying to get as many opinions as possible.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
peck191, i briefly went through the LFM program. It looks like more emphasis is on the management side of engineering. I think if you were planning to do an MS, i believe an MS is more technical in nature than the MS part of the LFM program. I could be wrong...I don't know what the pure MS curriculum is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me tell you this. The SM part of LFM has EXACTLY the same requirements as the regular MIT SM. Both require 66 units of engineering credits. Both require an SM thesis.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that most LFM students pursue an SM that is far more management oriented than a regular SM student would. Many of the engineering units that they take tend to be less technical and more management-oriented than the average graduate engineering course, although those units still have to be approved by the School of Engineering. And I also agree that the theses tend to be highly management oriented, often times with only a small sliver of true engineering content.</p>

<p>However, I would point out that that's to be expected. LFM students are clearly interested in management. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be in LFM trying to get their MBA's. Many of them see LFM as a way to get out of pure engineering and into engineering management. Hence, it should come as no surprise that LFM students will tend to pursue an engineering curriculum that is highly management focused and less focused on 'pure' hardcore engineering. That's like admitting a student who you know is greatly interested in computer science, and then being 'shocked' to discover that he's not interesting in taking any mechanical engineering classes. </p>

<p>However, I would point out that an LFM student can make his SM as hardcore and technical as he wants it to be. It's up to you. For example, there are a rare few who use LFM as a way to get admitted into PhD engineering programs, either at MIT or elsewhere. These students obviously pursued a curriculum that is extremely technical. It's just that most LFM students don't want to do that. </p>

<p>Furthermore, a regular (non-LFM) SM student can also choose to pursue a management-oriented curriculum. Like I said, all you need to graduate with an SM is a courseload approved the School of Engineering, and a thesis approved by your advisor. Many engineering courses are cross-listed with Sloan and are therefore management-focused, but they still count as engineering courses. So in theory you could complete your entire coursework requirement with cross-listed classes. If you then also get an engineering advisor who does a lot of management research (and there are many advisors that do), then you would get an SM that is just as management-focused, if not more so, then the LFM students do. It's just that most regular SM students don't want to do this. But they could. </p>

<p>The point is, it's not really that the LFM SM curriculum is itself any less technical than the regular SM curriculum is. Rather it's that you have a lot of choice, and most LFM students choose a less technical route.</p>

15

<p>Yes a master's degree is worth the extra trouble, IF you decide to STAY in engineering...many people get weeded out of engineering after thirty since they can't make it into management. There is usually 1 manager per 10 engineers (typically MBA corporate type), so getting into management is pretty tough. </p>

<p>....if you don't mind being a 35+ old engineer that hasn't made it into management, then it's worth getting a Master's degree.</p>

16

<p>Agreed.But i think you still get an "architect" kind of job and i'm guessing a MSc/MEng would give you an edge. It doesn't mean that with an MSc you won't get a management job. Plus, i have seen that 80% of the management job descriptions do not <em>explicitly</em> state that they require an MBA. The most important thing is having some kind of leadership/team lead experience. That being said, an MBA would definitely give you an edge for management jobs, but the most important thing is you have the experience. Where I am currently working, 85% of the managers do not have an MBA. Infact, even some of the directors don't have an MBA.</p>

17

<p>"Agreed.But i think you still get an "architect" kind of job and i'm guessing a MSc/MEng would give you an edge."</p>

<p>Well, how many jobs do you know that explicitly state "architect" on the job description?</p>

<p>BTW, who's to stop you from becoming an "architect" from day 1? Does the manager decide who's an architect? Is it the most smartest guy in the group? Is it the guy that knows how to BS the most? What's the dividing line between "ARCHITECT" and "GRUNT PROGRAMMER"??? There are NOOOO boundaries whatsover...you can be the smartest guy, but if you're not the #1 talker at the table, you're not going to lead anything.</p>

<p>In software engineer, anybody can call themselves anything and it doesn't make a lick of difference...the pay is roughly the same no matter what.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
...many people get weeded out of engineering after thirty since they can't make it into management. There is usually 1 manager per 10 engineers (typically MBA corporate type), so getting into management is pretty tough.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but this isn't specific to engineering. In many fields, lots of people get weeded out after 30. And in most fields, getting into management is tough. </p>

<p>Look, what I will say is this. At the better MBA programs, every graduate can get a management job of some kind. So it's not like there are few management jobs out there. In fact, a lot of employers who recruit at the top B-schools actually find out that they can't hire as many MBA's as they want. For example, certain companies may be looking to hire 10 people, but only 2 or 3 people will even show up for the interview. </p>

<p>The point is, if you go to a better B-school, you will get a management job offer. It may not be McKinsey, it may not be Goldman Sachs, but you're still going to get a management offer of some kind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
BTW, who's to stop you from becoming an "architect" from day 1? Does the manager decide who's an architect? Is it the most smartest guy in the group? Is it the guy that knows how to BS the most? What's the dividing line between "ARCHITECT" and "GRUNT PROGRAMMER"??? There are NOOOO boundaries whatsover...you can be the smartest guy, but if you're not the #1 talker at the table, you're not going to lead anything.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would argue that engineering is one of the least affected by these kinds of politics compared to most corporate jobs. Let's face it. In engineering, it's a lot easier to tell who is good and who isn't, compared to most other corporate positions. Engineering is FAR more meritocratic than, say, Marketing, or Business Development, or most of the other positions you can have in a company. You might say that engineering advancement is based mostly on politics, but I would say that advancement in Marketing is REALLY based mostly on politics. </p>

<p>So it gets back to what I've been saying before. Yes, engineering tends to be a 'corporate-type' job and therefore tends to carry the drawbacks of corporate jobs. But it's no worse in that regard than most other corporate jobs. So why pick on engineering specifically? We should be picking on ALL corporate jobs.</p>

19

<p>If your goals include the normal progression from "pure scientist/engineer" to management, then your best bet would be the joint MS/MBA program. If you cannot initially do the MBA, then do the MS/MEng in Engineering Management. The Engineering Management program will allow you to get some business-like courses (like project management, quality management and economics/finance while still completing some hard-core engineering courses for your specialty.</p>

<p>It's critical that you at least get 3 or 4 business courses in your program that are very similar to the 7 areas needed for admission to an MBA program (with the 7 being accounting, finance, economics, marketing, operations or organizational management, statistics and human resources). This will give you a better shot at an MBA...PLUS you would had already proven graduate school ability.</p>

<p>I did a B.S. in Computational Mathematics and later the M.S. in Engineering Management...mainly because the MBA would require too many courses for me.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>PS: Computational Math is a $100 word for Math major with a CS concentration.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
It's critical that you at least get 3 or 4 business courses in your program that are very similar to the 7 areas needed for admission to an MBA program (with the 7 being accounting, finance, economics, marketing, operations or organizational management, statistics and human resources).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I wasn't aware that there were any areas that you 'need' for admission to an MBA program. In fact, a know a large number of people who are either current MBA students or who graduated from MBA programs who had never taken a single course in any of those areas that you mentioned prior to their MBA. In fact, I was just talking to a woman who is currently an MBA student at MITSloan whose did her undergrad in Classics at Harvard and had thus never taken a single course in any of those 7 areas prior to MIT. So if you need to take courses in those areas in order to get admitted, well, I guess somebody forgot to tell that to her, and somebody forgot to tell that to MIT.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I think some of those areas can be useful to study. But do you "need" them to get admitted. I don't know about that.</p>