So, after a Bachelors in ME, we have a certain level of “game” that we lose over years especially if we get into the industry.
If you need/want to get into industry that is fine (money, interest etc), but there is no denying it is probably easiest to get a masters straight out of undergrad.
So, there are a bunch of “Master of Science in Engineering” programs offered by reputable schools that are sort of tailored to full timing professionals. Couple good ones - http://www.msol.ucla.edu/ and mse.uark.edu
You can technically get the degree with an “Emphasis” in Civil, Mechanical, etc. But the degree is still “Master of Science in Engineering.” Is this considered more of a “Master of Engineering” degree by insiders? Are these degrees basically comparable to the standard MSME degree where someone stays back a couple years after undergrad and studies full time under a real life professor?
What is your take on these programs for
a) Acceptability in the industry
b) Acceptability in academia if you want to get a PhD down the road (or get into college teaching)
c) What is the best way to write this qualification on your resume? As in, would you hide that it was done online? Take the project option (instead of just coursework only) and call it a “thesis”?
I’m sure they are fine in industry but they will generally be inferior to a thesis-based M.S. When it comes to Ph.D. programs (though that doesn’t necessarily mean it would keep you from getting into such a program, either). You will NOT be able to teach college with any sort of M.S. typically with the exception of the possibility that some departments may be okay with no PhD for their “professors of practice.”
In industry: generally no one cares much about thesis or not. It’s a small boost but not enough to justify a year more of education with all the direct and opportunity costs that come with it. Frankly I have never been asked about thesis work by anyone but academically focused employers I interviewed with (e.g. national labs).
Academia: generally you want a thesis. Honestly though, unless you’re in computer science, you will probably need a PhD to do any real academic work. Since this line of work tends to be research-based, your research focus and your research experience are quite valuable.
On how to put it on your resume: “M.S. Mechanical Engineering, School, Month Year (GPA X.XX)” with no qualifiers, statements of thesis/no thesis, etc. Just the title, school, graduation date, and GPA. If you add anything more or leave anything out it will make them ask questions about what your degree is actually worth - this is not good for you. When you leave it at just “M.S. Mechanical Engineering” with the appropriate info no one will bat an eye or question the value of your degree (thesis/no thesis etc) or care. Just do it simply and focus on having work experience with demonstrable value.
I would not generally recommend online degree programs, but if it is online, then you should never mention it. Don’t lie if you’re asked, but don’t bring it up. It’s not important.
Is it legal/ethical to put “MS Mechanical Engineering” instead of “MS in Engineering (Mechanical Emphasis)” on the resume?
If you read through some of these programs you can do a “project option” - which is basically do 8 classes+project instead of 10 classes with no project. Is it legal/ethical to call this 2 semester long project a “thesis” on the resume?
If the degree consists of the standard mechanical engineering fare, then it is a mechanical engineering degree. I would not see an issue with calling it a mechanical engineering degree. The exact title/name is just semantics.
Definitely not a good idea to call a 2-semester long project a “thesis.” A thesis is a document, either a Master’s thesis or a doctoral dissertation, that is the culmination of a significant amount of novel and substantial research work that a candidate defends in front of an examining committee consisting of advisors and professors. It is more than just a project, and calling a project a thesis would be outright lying. There is nothing wrong with referring to a project as a project.
@baseliner
I agree with AuraObscura on both counts. While schools have a pretty specific definition of what they refer to as “M.S.” it is also pretty generally acknowledged as just the generic distinction for a Masters degree in a technical field (ass opposed to variations such as “MEng” which vary by school and mean very little), and as long as the coursework is actually Mechanical Engineering there is nothing wrong with that.
But a thesis is a thesis and you can’t pretend otherwise. It’s not even particularly advantageous to have a thesis - it’s a plus but like anything else it’s more what you make of it than what degree program you have. A project can indeed be just a project.
A thesis is better, but if it’s a question of 1 year vs. more than 1 year, you are better off graduating sooner and working. The entire advantage of the Masters degree is that it lets you grow more quickly within the company, even if at first it might even be considered a bit of a liability (or not, depending on the company - you work better but some object to paying slightly more for a worker without years of experience even if they will be more productive sooner).
Let’s also not forget that schools generally have an easily-searchable database of theses, so it would be very easy to fact-check the thesis claim. You’d almost certainly get caught in such a lie.
In a way I would kind of feel guilty using the “MSME” title. Look at the courses at mse.uark.edu, you could finish the degree with just 4 ME 400 (senior undergrad) level classes, 4 operations/IE/management type classes, and a project (worth 2 classes). Is it kind of wrong to call it an MSME when you could graduate technically without ever even seeing a 5000 level ME course?
Not really any problem there, but I wouldn’t go for a degree like that. The real value of an MS degree is not the distinction but what you get out of it. An MS doesn’t give you a career boost at the start but it makes your growth rate within the company faster. If you didn’t learn anything special then you probably wasted your time there, unless it’s just a requirement for government salary bumps.
In the industry and in life though, is the degree we get signalling that “I have learned” or that “I can learn”? This is probably a conversation for a different thread, but honestly getting an MS for someone who already has a job etc is more for the “MS” title than actually learning. The cosmetic appeal of the degree, whether right or wrong, is what is most important at that point in your career.
In my opinion, I think engineering degrees signal to employers “I can learn. Very fast.” more than anything else. I see how this argument would break with jobs like national labs or something of that nature, but for the most part I think it is true. That is why personally I would not have any issue with getting the MS in Engineering degree with relatively easy classes because who in the industry really would actively use stuff like grad school level Solid State Physics etc? Most jobs are for people to provide value to a for-profit company, and that is why I doubt anyone would really look into or care the inner workings of two different MS degrees. It just checks a box.
It is the age old question - does college make people smart or do smart people go to college? If the latter is true, why do we have college and not some other cheaper means of signalling smartness?
The answer is a sort of mix. It’s more like “I have learned the fundamentals that will enable me to learn the rest.”
Classes like solid state physics really are used in the workplace. It might not be used by everybody - most people who learn it in school don’t learn it well enough to be useful with it - but it is taught because it matters. An MS is signaling two things, really:
I have stuck with a program further than I had to and achieved a base level of competence well above that of a BS.
I have the potential to use the advanced knowledge I have gained to do something really impressive.
To be blunt, most people in general aren’t really very impressive, and so the advantage of an MS is just (1). Those who are will get much faster access to the kind of advanced work that benefits from depth in academic knowledge, that allows them to rapidly advance their careers. The most directly important aspect of success in industry AND academia is being given ambitious career-building projects and succeeding at them. A more advanced degree (almost always a MS, sometimes a PhD) and the advanced fundamental knowledge that comes with it gets you first pick at those projects, but if you don’t impress (and/or don’t have the ability to build the trust that gets you assigned projects like this) then the advantage is diminished. Still useful in that an experienced engineer with a MS can be billed out at a higher rate by a contracting company, but in the absence of that kind of natural talent you need years of experience before you pursue that Masters.
I still google my MS CS thesis and read it - even 30+ years later - as an ego trip of sorts
In my school at least there were three options depending on how much work was in the thesis: MS Comp Sci Thesis Option involved a good amount of research over a period of multiple semesters (one or two would not cut it) and preferably funded publishable research (back then, sigh). The thesis counted for 6 credits and was the longest option time wise. The thesis was defended in the same way a dissertation was, required a thesis advisory committee and all the good stuff.
There was a ‘Project’ option which would be done over a couple semesters, or semester and summer, worth 3 credits. Only one professor involved, a write up, and no presentation. It could be implementation or literary survey or paper type work.
Then the non-thesis/project option that most people chose.
I chose #1 and according to the department secretary that set up the presentation details I had the largest audience for an MS or PhD candidate ever in the history of the department, largely because of my subject and, ehem, reputation :). It was funded research and was published and my advisor was ticked off beyond description when I did not continue for a PhD. A friend of mine continued my work and earned his PhD. Good stuff for 1985.
