> Mark commented on Masters Degrees in computer science: > > ... I've looked at the master's programs for ... nearby schools > > and I see the same thing: the courses I finished taking as an > > undergraduate fifteen years ago. Everything I've needed to learn > > to do my job and explore beyond it I've learned on my own, whether > > it be C++, 3D graphics, CORBA, Ada 95, distributed processing, > > and I've done it far more efficiently and cheaply than I would > > have by getting a Master's degree. > > The purpose of a Master's Degree (or Bachelor's degree) is not to > prepare people for a job. Why are there job-related courses > at the Master's degree level? The purpose of Academia is to do > research, both basic research and applied research. > > The computer science field is rapidly approaching this ideal where > the job market is looking for skills instead of degrees. > > And when degrees are required, they are domain degrees. > These domain degrees are likely to be finance, electrical engineering, > chemical engineering, biological engineering, communications > engineering, control systems, nanosystems, robotics, and for the rare > compiler company even computer science. > > Of course a math degree is substitutable for all of the domains, > since math is the queen of the sciences and the empress of all > domains. No smiley: seriously, mathematicians can not only substitute > for any engineer, but they can actually explain the domains to > those engineers, once those domains are modelled mathematically. > Between a mathematician and a domain expert, the domain expert is > laid off, because that mathematician: she can really do more jobs. > So this must explain why the starting salaries for engineers and comp sci grads are so much higher than for mathematicians with similar education. Or was this a tongue-in-cheek comment? :-) Nothing against mathematicians, but to say they are more "valuable" than engineers is absurd. Value is determined by the market and the market has spoken... Matt