masters, work, then back to school... is this possible?

On 3 Sep, 23:49, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Your thinking is entirely backwards. *Your education should be leading up
> to a career of your choosing. *You don't make a career choice based on your
> level of education.
>
> Figure out what you want to do with your life, then figure out how much
> education you need to do it.

Well, most people get *an* education first, and start thinking
about carreers etc only later. From time to time I hear people
who say they made this or that choise early on, but I must admit
I don't quite believe them. There are just too many random factors
involved, like grades, tuition fees, living expenses, what friends
choose to do and where, teachers one does (not) get along with...
the list goes on and on.

Rune

On 4 Sep, 01:45, "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>
wrote:

> > On a more logical note, I do have the concern that MS will cause me to
> > eventually hit a glass ceiling.

Only if you want to get into academia or R&D. My experience is
that it's the people 'on the floor' who have the cutting-edge
skills as well as rewarding paychecks.

> >*Together with the fact that I still
> > wish to attend that one school I wanted to since high school, I'm
> > looking to reapply in a few years.

Ah, you have that sort of desire? I know that one; I had a fix
on one particular department at one particular university since
age 12 or 14; I don't remember. I even side-stepped to a college
to prep for the department when I didn't qualify directly. It
cost me one extra year to get my degree, who knows what damage
in not-quite-excellent teachers, but gained me hands-on
experience that did me no good while pursuing the PhD degree.

It *seems* my ancient awkward desires might start paying off now,
but that's not at all certain.

....
> The "D" in DSP pretty much guarantees it's gonna be software. *Even if you
> are designing FPGAs, that's a lot like "software".
>
> If you want to do research then it's either a University or possibly a
> government lab.

Aiming for R&D is dangerous. Lots of people do that already,
and lots of people have ridiculous credentials. No need to go
there unless one thinks life is un-lived without that sort of
job.

....
> *The new grad EE type engineers I hired
> usually had done a real project with an FPGA, usually had skills in software
> and understood a variety of things - including DSP or image processing or

I think ecclectic interests and experience is the way to make an
impact. Hands-on experience with as much as possible. Once you
know what's easy and what's not you are in a far better position
to make the good calls.

I must admit that some of the most rewarding (as well as demanding)
stuff I've done was to look over some sonars at sea and help the
crew configure them and run them better. Not very demanding from
an academic point of view, but first finding out what was going on
with the whole crew watching me (because then knew I was to blame
for the vessel putting to sea denying them shore-side time off)
and then explaining what needed to be done to a 20-year-old
operator who had his qualification exam days before -- that was
orders of magnitudes more pressure than with anything I ever did
in R&D.

Rune

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in news:d6aaddd4-4455-4408-8682-
1d6e3f3d2253@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

> On 3 Sep, 23:49, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Your thinking is entirely backwards. *Your education should be leading
> up
>> to a career of your choosing. *You don't make a career choice based on
> your
>> level of education.
>>
>> Figure out what you want to do with your life, then figure out how
much
>> education you need to do it.
>
> Well, most people get *an* education first, and start thinking
> about carreers etc only later. From time to time I hear people
> who say they made this or that choise early on, but I must admit
> I don't quite believe them. There are just too many random factors
> involved, like grades, tuition fees, living expenses, what friends
> choose to do and where, teachers one does (not) get along with...
> the list goes on and on.
>
> Rune
>

When a student ask me for a recommendation for graduate school, I always
ask them to tell me why they want to go to graduate school.

In a second-career case like this, advance planning is particularly
important. Picture the interview process for an "atypical" applicant.
This will come up.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Sep 3, 2:55 pm, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:53 pm, Dave <dspg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 12:08 pm, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 10:24 am, Dave <dspg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 9:47 am, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > You are making the right choice if you do not screw it up by getting
> > > > > in debt, getting married, or otherwise committing your time and money,
> > > > > or losing your motivation to study or your willingness to live a
> > > > > "student" lifestyle, before you get around to finishing it. I would
> > > > > not recommend graduate school part-time, it takes too long and
> > > > > decreases the chance you will finish. A PhD (which I do not have)
> > > > > will benefit you your whole life in opportunities that might otherwise
> > > > > be much more difficult to obtain (opportunitities that you are
> > > > > qualified for, and ones you aren't, but will get because of the PhD),
> > > > > and some pay increase (how much depends on if you remain puirely
> > > > > technical or get into management). With a PhD it is easier to get into
> > > > > management if you want that now or later. Get it early in your carreer
> > > > > so you can reap as much of the benefits as possible.
>
> > > > > My comments are based on decades of observations in the work
> > > > > environment.
>
> > > > > Dirk (only an MSEE, and yes I wish I had finished a PhD)
>
> > > > > Fishilicious wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all, I am about to graduate with my master's degree after going straight
> > > > > > to graduate school from college. I was actually admitted, and intended, to
> > > > > > do a PhD in DSP, but after a year at my current school I realized that this
> > > > > > is not the right PLACE for me. So now I am thinking of going to work for a
> > > > > > few years to beef up my resume, then applying back to that one school that
> > > > > > I really want to go to. Am I making the right choice? Is this even
> > > > > > doable? I also have little clue to what companies / job titles I should be
> > > > > > looking for. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated! Thank!
>
> > > > I have to politely disagree with Dirk, I've found there are very few
> > > > places where a PhD is necessary - it does however help to have at
> > > > least a Masters. The only place where I've seen it is mandatory is for
> > > > teaching at university institutions. Most of the managers I've had
> > > > didn't have PhDs and many didn't even have a Masters degree. Note: I'm
> > > > talking about engineering here and not something like an MBA. There
> > > > was a survey put out a couple of years ago that said a PhD wasn't cost
> > > > effective. In others words the salary you get (and what you would have
> > > > earned over 4 years) doesn't make up for the cost of doing a PhD - I
> > > > suspect with the ever increasing cost of university tuition that is
> > > > even more true now. I think the only way a PhD is cost effective is if
> > > > you skip the Masters and just do a PhD - Most universities don't
> > > > advertise that you can do this, and a lot of professors don't like it
> > > > because they'd like you to produce papers for them for 6 years or they
> > > > like to see what you do at a Masters level before committing time and
> > > > effort to you at a PhD level.
>
> > > > BTW - In my case after I did my undergrad I went to work for IBM for
> > > > 16 months on an internship program and then went back to do my
> > > > Masters. The only way I'd do a PhD is if a company paid for it.
>
> > > > A couple of other observations I've had:
>
> > > > 1) Trying to finish a graduate program part-time is extremely
> > > > difficult. I've seen many attempt it - most just drop out.
>
> > > > 2) Having some related work experience can help in picking out a good
> > > > thesis topic. In some cases it can also help out the company and they
> > > > may even help out with some of the cost of the graduate program.
> > > > Having the direction before you go into your graduate program is a
> > > > definite asset.
>
> > > > 3) Once you have a good paying job and more disposable income than
> > > > you've probably ever had - it can be difficult to go back to the grad
> > > > student lifestyle. Typically your needs and wants tend to grow to meet
> > > > your larger income e.g. car, house, vacations, trips etc.
>
> > > > 4) Someone else mentioned this, but once you have other commitments
> > > > like a wife or children it is challenging to also commit to a PhD. You
> > > > spend a lot of time committed to the PhD and less time with the wife
> > > > and kids.
>
> > > > Most of the people I've seen with PhDs are over rated. Doing a PhD
> > > > tends to focus you on a very specialized area, and you tend to miss
> > > > out on a lot of other generalized knowledge.
>
> > > > Hope the info helps.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Dave,
>
> > > I never said it was necessary, but I have seen it open countless
> > > opportunities for people that furthered their career that they would
> > > not have gotten without a PhD. Even if they knew the exact same
> > > material and had the same capabilities, but no PhD, the opportunities
> > > would not have presented themselves in the same way. There seems to be
> > > a management assumption that people with PhD's are good at management
> > > and can work in areas that they have no expertise in. I have witnessed
> > > this over and over and over ... One place I worked for 10+ years, if
> > > you had a PhD you often became an instant manager of people and
> > > projects when you were hired, even if that was not your experience
> > > before. I have never seen any correlation between a PhD and personnel
> > > management abilty (often the opposite). If management is not technical
> > > enough to understand the technical aspects of things, they often look
> > > to the PhDs for answers, even if a lower level person would actually
> > > know more about the technology.
>
> > > Doing the same job I am doing now, according to the IEEE salary
> > > survey, it would be worth about $10K (US) extra per year, but it is
> > > more likely that with a PhD, I would not be doing the job I am doing
> > > now, I would be doing a higher paying job with the offset being >>
> > > $10K from my present position.
>
> > > Dirk
>
> > Dirk, we've obviously had different experiences. Although I have seen
> > just about anyone put into a manager position - even someone
> > incompetent because they needed the competent person to stay in their
> > current position (they we're too valuable where they were).
>
> > Comparing a job with and without PhD isn't really valid. Let say a 4
> > year PhD costs $40,000 (I'm guessing on tuition these days). If a
> > Masters student starts at say $40,000 a year - then over the 4 years
> > the PhD is starting $200,000 dollars behind.
> > If there is only a $10,000 difference it will take atleast 20 years to
> > make that up. I know that is a simplistic example, but it is more just
> > to bring out a point.
>
> > It gets worse if you take into account the time value of money.
>
> > I will admit there are times were a PhD can open doors - it can break
> > that initial barrier. For me it hasn't been an issue, I've been
> > recognized for the work I do.
>
> > Cheers,
> > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> David,
>
> Being recognized for the work you do can come and go with management,
> changes in companies, the economy, .... I hope you don't take that as
> a given no matter how good you might be. I hope you don't take
> continuous employment for granted either. I had a friend at a large
> division of a huge corporation who won the very prestigious yearly
> division technology award one year and was out of a job two years
> later when the economy tanked (the company didn't tank).
>
> You are not really starting as far behind as your calculations
> suggest. Yes you will have made less money while in school, but you
> will have had less expenses, and where you are financially after a few
> years working instead of school depends greatly on how you spend your
> money. For most people the extra income won't go into the bank and a
> lot of people will not have a great deal more to show (cash or paid
> for durable goods) one way or another at the time the PhD student is
> out of school for a few years.
>
> At some point the PhD who can be hired to do things that he may not
> really be qualified for may have a job while the MS who isn't given
> that option is not employed or fully employed. This could happen a few
> times in your career. That can be very costly and needs to enter into
> your computations.
>
> The financial analysis we have done is not clear cut. If I had it to
> do over I would do it. I would do it as early as possible because
> later it may not be feasible or reasonable. Inflation and time cost of
> money does need to be factored in, as does opportunity. If I had been
> single, 2 years of $10K now would have easily paid for me to get a PhD
> 25 years ago (tuition and living costs) and I would not have had to
> work during school.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Dirk
>
> BTW, 4 X 40K = 160K < 200K :-)

Dirk,
I agree with you about the management. Having a PhD doesn't
necessarily save you from that - though it might postpone it.


BTW - I added in the 4years of tuition to get to the $200K. Doing that
might not be applicable (scholarships etc.) They are a lot of
intangibles - your expenses tend to grow with your income (cars,
homes, yachts, girlfriends, etc )

Cheers,
Dave

On Sep 4, 12:39*am, "Fishilicious" <vnz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 3 Sep, 18:08, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> I never said it was necessary, but I have seen it open countless
> >> opportunities for people that furthered their career that they would
> >> not have gotten without a PhD. Even if they knew the exact same
> >> material and had the same capabilities, but no PhD, the opportunities
> >> would not have presented themselves in the same way.
>
> >I would never encourage anyone to go for a PhD degree, and in the
> >past I have often wondered what one can do with a degree that one
> >can't do without it.
>
> >However, I have been in the position where a project proposal of
> >mine was met with 'who do *you* think you are to think you can
> >do what lots of smart people have attmpted and failed?' where my
> >PhD degree + former affiliations with certain R&D institutions
> >came in handy.
>
> >Not a card to be played too often, but potentially very effective.
>
> >Rune
>
> Wow thanks for all the replies! *Well just a couple of things I would like
> to add. The reason I don't think this is the right place is primarily one
> that is social, same goes for why I wanted to do a PhD to start with. *I
> wanted to get the degree as a kind of self accomplishment, not because I'm
> passionate about the research or want a higher pay. *I know this is nota
> good reason to do graduate school, but it pretty much carried me through
> undergraduate, and now master's.
>
> On a more logical note, I do have the concern that MS will cause me to
> eventually hit a glass ceiling. *Together with the fact that I still wish
> to attend that one school I wanted to since high school, I'm looking to
> reapply in a few years. *However, PhD isn't the only thing I'm considering.
> *Now, I don't think I'm fit for management, so the other option from what I
> heard would be patent law. *But then again, these are all up in the air
> right now, need to get a job first.
>
> With all that said, I am clueless as to what kind of job would a MSEE in
> DSP would do in the work force. *I think my ideal job right now is one that
> is research / design oriented, but with the current state of economy, I
> probably should just take whatever I can get. *I have been searching for
> the past few days, and seems like most job postings that require knowledge
> in DSP are heavily software related--not something I was hoping for. *Just
> tossing some of my concerns these days out there, thanks again for all the
> great replies!!

People have mostly replied to your original question as though a PhD
has inevitable merit, and they are trying to quantify its size. This
is far from the case. In many parts of the world a PhD is a way to get
your resume immediately thrown aside for anything but a teaching job.
PhDs are seen as too pie in the sky academic, and not worthy of
consideration for a practical engineering task.

I think there might be some merit in that argument, though it might be
a bias based on my origins in the UK. Most local (rather than foreign
student) PhD candidates there seem to have started their PhD when they
couldn't find a job. :-\

Despite cutbacks in some of the world's more famous industry owned R&D
centres (e.g. Bell Labs) there is still plenty of deep work conducted
in industry, and little of it is conducted by people with PhDs.

Regards,
Steve

steveu@coppice.org wrote:

...

> People have mostly replied to your original question as though a PhD
> has inevitable merit, and they are trying to quantify its size. This
> is far from the case. In many parts of the world a PhD is a way to get
> your resume immediately thrown aside for anything but a teaching job.
> PhDs are seen as too pie in the sky academic, and not worthy of
> consideration for a practical engineering task.

One day, to my surprise and dismay, Management at the Labs assigned a
newly hired Ph.D. in EE to join my team and "sort of" supervise it.
Nobody winked at me, so I didn't know what was really afoot. He was a
pleasant chap, determinedly cheerful and aware neither of his
incompetence nor his ignorance. For example, he declared that one bar in
the symbol for a capacitor being curved was for decoration and had no
other significance. Most circuits that he designed didn't work as
expected and he didn't know how to go about finding out why. I followed
all of his suggestions without (I believed) showing any annoyance. When
I backed out those of them that didn't work and followed up with my own
way, he neither grumbled nor claimed credit.

After more than a week of this, my Director called us both into his
office and said to the Doctor, "I set you to work with one of our better
teachers. Tell me some of what you learned." The answer is easily summed
up: "Humility." Then he asked me about my new group member. I replied
that he seemed to be a quick study and that I found his mathematical
analyses useful. Then our boss said to him, "Follow his lead. You'll
soon get the hang of things." We worked together for several months.
Mostly, I used him as a technician/mathematician. He pushed the project
forward and by its end, his digital and analog circuits mostly worked
and he could fix them when they didn't. As I wrote above, a quick study.

> I think there might be some merit in that argument, though it might be
> a bias based on my origins in the UK. Most local (rather than foreign
> student) PhD candidates there seem to have started their PhD when they
> couldn't find a job. :-\
>
> Despite cutbacks in some of the world's more famous industry owned R&D
> centres (e.g. Bell Labs) there is still plenty of deep work conducted
> in industry, and little of it is conducted by people with PhDs.

Most of the Members of the Technical Staff when I worked at RCA Labs and
later at Siemens Corporate Research had doctorates. I was a rare
exception at both. Bell Labs had been much the same.

> Regards,
> Steve


--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯