The ol' career path debacle. Any insight helpful

[McCartney]

I just had a flashback to the beginning of my fourth year in computer science where I had an internal debate: Go for grad school, a PhD, and the works, or go make money? The debate was over in two seconds - maybe less. I was working in private industry three weeks from the day I took my last exam.

At the time of my decision, I had inside knowledge on what academia and the pure research field entailed. It isn't pretty, it isn't glamorous and it sure as hell doesn't have much job security. That said, if you're a research superstar, the money and fame will come.

Apologies for not having a substantive reply - I'm not from your country anyways so my knowledge of institutions wouldn't help you much. Good luck, though. You will certainly need it.

See, not many people enjoy reading lots of papers and critically analyzing them.

I do. I really love reading papers, actually. :/ If I don't have the knowledge then I usually do extensive study on the background/preliminaries to help guide my intuition.

There is nothing pretty about graduate school, especially in Computing Science, if you're not in it because you love the Science. I actually want to learn more, this isn't about "padding" my resume...

I just wanna learn, and I want to contribute. I'm actually looking to apply anywhere in the World, not just Canada (where I am now)... That's why I'm here asking about potentially good schools for the above areas of interest.

Graduate school isn't easy, but it isn't hard. As long as you have fun while you're doing it, then it's not really ugly. I have had so much fun this past year learning about new things from papers, they truly are amazing..

 

[PricklyPete]

lol. I know your type - very typical. You'd like to call yourself a purist, but really you just think you're above the lowly programmer - you take care of the dreaming and everyone else will handle the rest. You know why those research papers are so eloquent? Because they are 25% fact and 75% speculation. Trust me, I know- I published 2 papers as an undergrad. None of it was false, but the concrete work behind it could have been a rubber band it was so stretched.

Being a "Computer Scientist" by your definition is like saying an architect should never have to draw up blueprints. It's just not useful or practical.

I worked with someone who was a 4.0 student in grad school. My research was on routing algorithms and she understood everything on paper. When I asked her to work with the code and try to rework the algorithm, it was fairly shocking. I, a 3rd year undergrad, had to explain to her, a 2nd year masters student, that her compile was failing because she was trying to #include a source file. And it took multiple explanations before she understood WHY that was incorrect. The same way she couldn't figure out any of the SVN repositories and had to be hand-held the entire time.

My biggest critique of the entire program at my school was that it was all theory and no practical application. No one hires you if you can't code, and especially if you have no team development skills. If your goal is to be a "pivotal contributor" in whatever field you choose, I suggest you put a little more emphasis on learning how to ""work" in teams".

In summary, no I'm not going to offer you any advice.

I agree heavily with this post.

 

[McCartney]

lol. I know your type - very typical. You'd like to call yourself a purist, but really you just think you're above the lowly programmer - you take care of the dreaming and everyone else will handle the rest. You know why those research papers are so eloquent? Because they are 25% fact and 75% speculation. Trust me, I know- I published 2 papers as an undergrad. None of it was false, but the concrete work behind it could have been a rubber band it was so stretched.

Being a "Computer Scientist" by your definition is like saying an architect should never have to draw up blueprints. It's just not useful or practical.

I worked with someone who was a 4.0 student in grad school. My research was on routing algorithms and she understood everything on paper. When I asked her to work with the code and try to rework the algorithm, it was fairly shocking. I, a 3rd year undergrad, had to explain to her, a 2nd year masters student, that her compile was failing because she was trying to #include a source file. And it took multiple explanations before she understood WHY that was incorrect. The same way she couldn't figure out any of the SVN repositories and had to be hand-held the entire time.

My biggest critique of the entire program at my school was that it was all theory and no practical application. No one hires you if you can't code, and especially if you have no team development skills. If your goal is to be a "pivotal contributor" in whatever field you choose, I suggest you put a little more emphasis on learning how to ""work" in teams".

In summary, no I'm not going to offer you any advice.

I'm sorry, where did it say my ability to program sucked? Someone as educated as yourself realizes that operating systems programming is probably the most demanding type of programming.

You also would realize that I didn't say I hated programming, or I didn't know how. I would like to say I'm (a bit, but not much) above average on programming..

My institution still has a ton of programming assignments, and I don't know where you made the baseless assumptoin I don't know how to even compile code.

If they're missing includes, that's really sad. I can tell you that I am atleast a sufficient programmer and literate in a few languages. I love C, and alot of my parallelization/distributed computing assignments are programming.

I don't understand how you got the idea that I don't like programming, I just believe it shouldn't be my primary objective as a computing scientist... What is one of the fundamental paradigms of computing science? Abstraction. That can be interpreted many ways, but oh well. I don't want this to spiral into a fight, maybe I communicated my goals incorrectly. I didn't mean to insult anyone who chose the role of a software developer because it paid and grad-school was of no benefit to them. That's not really the case for me...


But if that's how you feel, more power to you. I was speaking out more against using java for the software engineering courses with all these style conventions. My coding isn't ugly, it's definitely readable and commented well, I just don't want to have to argue how brace convention goes on...


Thanks for the pot shot though. It's encouraging to see that someone else who is way more qualified than myself to insult me without a solid argument.

 

[McCartney]

And the work I hope to contribute would definitely have an implementation with a source code listing. I don't think it's realistic to publish theorems or ideas without having any feasibility...

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

But if that's how you feel, more power to you. I was speaking out more against using java for the software engineering courses with all these style conventions. My coding isn't ugly, it's definitely readable and commented well, I just don't want to have to argue how brace convention goes on...

CHOO CHOO!
Oh, there goes the clue train. You missed it again! Oh well.

 

[Jeff7]

My biggest critique of the entire program at my school was that it was all theory and no practical application. No one hires you if you can't code, and especially if you have no team development skills. If your goal is to be a "pivotal contributor" in whatever field you choose, I suggest you put a little more emphasis on learning how to ""work" in teams".

In summary, no I'm not going to offer you any advice.

I've hit on some of that theory vs practical applications too. Granted, I was in the Mechanical Engineering Technology program, which had more emphasis on labs, and less on the calc-based pure theory. (And we spent a lot of time in Pro/Engineer, which has made me pretty useful where I work. ) But you still need to pick up a fair amount of stuff once you're out of college.
So great, you can figure out pressures to design a pneumatic system complete with the ladder logic for a PLC - on paper. There, an air hose is a drawn line, and a connection is made by connecting a line to another line.

But if you're on the job and you're told to design and build a pneumatic system, well now you've got to figure out what a physical connector looks like, what kind is best, and maybe even get to see a real PLC for the first time.

I guess that's what the engineers are for though - take the theory and actually make it do something useful.

 

[Rumpltzer]

Okay, I couldn't get through the entire first post but I did read most of the responses.

The thing about an undergrad education is that you're going to need a lot more luck finding the job you want. If the stuff about wanting to learn and wanting to "contribute" is sincere, then you're really going to need to go to grad school... and I mean PhD. This path will be your best chance at a career path where you're not a simple cog in a big machine.

I'm not saying that you need to go to grad school; people have done many, many great things in science and engineering without it, but a PhD will give you the best chance in the present world order. It's also not a sure thing. Most of my classmates took their PhD and they are now a cog in a giant machine. Some went off to start companies, and some are in research. It depends on a lot of things, and it depends on how good you really are.

I wouldn't leave school to get a job for a couple of years and then go back to grad school. Once you have the taste of money and stuff like furniture and a decent car, you'll never go back to school... and if you do, you'll be that weird guy that asks too many questions and tries too hard in class. It's not worth it.

I did undergrad at Illinois in EE. I did it in four years. I had four summer internships under my belt by the time I was done. That's how I narrowed down what I wanted to do in grad school. I don't understand how a CS can have more options than an EE and still not know what he wants after five years of undergrad and so many projects.


Also, the word "elitist" came up in the very first post, so I suspect that the title has been applied to the OP long before coming here to post his life story. An example of why others might perceive the "elitist" stink is that the OP thinks his graduating class of 30 kids and the name of his school makes him special enough that someone might care to know who he is. Puh-leeease.


Also, you don't need to stay in school to read technical papers and learn. It might be better to get a job where you'll have more time on your hands!


OP might consider being a patent attorney.

 

[McCartney]

CHOO CHOO!
Oh, there goes the clue train. You missed it again! Oh well.

Can you please share instead of ridiculing me and saying I'm missing it? It would be helpful.

I agree with the last poster talking about the application and knowing how to apply it. I agree completely. That's why I've been learning how to implement algorithms (heavy theory) in C++, using UVA's onlinejudge.

I'm not saying practicality isn't important. Infact I think it's *the* most important. But what I think you guys are underestimating is the number of CS papers that are published that are USEFUL and have HEAVY theory WITH implementation.

That's what I want to be. I want to be a good enough programmer, such that my implementations are optimal (that is they're amortized) but my theoretical understanding is much better. I want to be good at both, don't get me wrong, but I can't be extremely good at 2 things when they're 2 different disciplines in CS.

Software design and quality doesn't interest me, and I'm not disputing the legitimacy and utlity of their art to the real world, it's just not for me..

Are we cool now? Sheesh I didn't know sharing my opinion would get me in trouble. All I said is I don't want to be a programmer. I should have defined that further and said "A person who hacks at code with a guess and check approach". I have nothing against great programmers, the people who design the program logic prior to coding it.. They're the most impressive.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Are we cool now? Sheesh I didn't know sharing my opinion would get me in trouble. All I said is I don't want to be a programmer. I should have defined that further and said "A person who hacks at code with a guess and check approach".

Wow. You're the kind of person who's a complete fucking douchebag and doesn't even realize when he's doing it. At least when I'm being an asshole I'm aware of it.

 

[Legendary]

Wow. You're the kind of person who's a complete fucking douchebag and doesn't even realize when he's doing it. At least when I'm being an asshole I'm aware of it.

Couldn't agree more.

OP, please get a PhD etc. and stay in theoretical whateverthefuck or in education so I will likely never have to deal with your perceived superiority in the working world.

edited to be less offensive to educators

 

[McCartney]

I think someone as accomplished as you (I see the signature, and obviously you have extensive knowledge in the field) should know that I'm actually trying to figure out what I said to offend you.

I don't think anything I said was baseless or inaccurate. If I did I'm asking you to help me out by telling me so I'm more aware of what I say and prevent future situations such as this.

I don't appreciate you calling me nicknames, what did I say to you to earn that? And how am I a douchebag? Maybe my sample size is small, but a healthy number of people in my classes don't know how to both. They do bad on tests and good on the programming portions. I don't see how that's possible since the programming portions challenges the student to apply the theory and the tests are no different.

I've seen lots of people who can't write the test and get 100 percent on the assignments, when the tests are open book. Are they programmers or computing scientists? I thought it was appropriate to call them programmers, but I guess not and I'm sorry to offend you.

Now can you please help me improve?

 

[mfenn]

I've seen lots of people who can't write the test and get 100 percent on the assignments, when the tests are open book. Are they programmers or computing scientists? I thought it was appropriate to call them programmers, but I guess not and I'm sorry to offend you.

I'd call them cheaters.

EDIT:
In my graduate CS program there are a disturbing number of people who ace the assignments but clearly have no idea WTF is going on. The prof usually lets then think that they've gotten away with it for most of the semester and then owns them in spectacular fashion.

 

[apac]

Wow. You're the kind of person who's a complete fucking douchebag and doesn't even realize when he's doing it. At least when I'm being an asshole I'm aware of it.

I was going to write a response but I think Godless summarized pretty well. OP, do you realize how self-centered you come across? If you're anything like this in real life you really should consider improving your people skills.

And don't reply with "My people skills are fine I've worked on so and so project with this many people blah blah blah". It doesn't matter how good you think you are at X and that you are only above average at Y. I'm telling you, based on what I read in this thread and how you describe yourself, your work, your goals, how you perceive people, how black and white you talk about things, and your overall attitude, I think you would be a very difficult person to work with. That was the point you missed from my original response.

 

[McCartney]

I'd call them cheaters.

EDIT:
In my graduate CS program there are a disturbing number of people who ace the assignments but clearly have no idea WTF is going on. The prof usually lets then think that they've gotten away with it for most of the semester and then owns them in spectacular fashion.

I agree with you 100 percent. You know what is also unfortunate though? What the person may be doing is "working with a friend" or collaborating completely legitimately per university policy, BUT they end up asking the other person so many questions that they don't learn how to do it themselves.

My opinion was that the assignments were always there to help reinforce the concepts. My institution has a very open door collaboration policy so there's no real wrongdoing with working with other people. I don't mind that either. What gets me, however, is that I have seen people say "I got 100 percent on the assignment, how did I do so bad on the tests?"

However maybe it's just my student body, and other institutions don't have this sort of disparity.

all I can speak from is experience. I have seen people make changes to their code that they couldn't rationalize, and repeatedly do this until it works.

Again I'm just talking about what I've seen and I'm not trying to apply this as some "universal truth"..

 

[TruePaige]

I don't think some of you guys get what he is asking about.

It doesn't sound like he wants to be a software engineer or a computer programmer but instead a researcher.

You wouldn't tell a physicist that he needs to stop talking about research and get a job doing something for a big company to produce actual products would you?

OP: Get a PhD, teach for a while, work your way into a tenured position and live out your days teaching a little and researching / publishing a lot.

Seems obvious, don't know why you'd need to ask. US News and World Report can help you find great schools. You should also ask your specifics on college boards in the grad school sections.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You wouldn't tell a physicist that he needs to stop talking about research and get a job doing something for a big company to produce actual products would you?

I think a major part of the disconnect here is that many don't believe that computer "science" is really science. Many believe that the theoretical advances should be made in the field, not in ivory towers. In my opinion the history of CompSci has shown this to be mostly true - the best research is done by companies or governments looking to make products, not for the sake of research itself. It's not like physics where developing theoretical models for the sake of knowing more about the universe around us has value in it's own right.

Of course this is a very contentious issue, but those are my $0.02.

Edit - I'm going to start another thread to discuss the nature of computer science, because this discussion doesn't help the OP. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=29574013#post29574013

 

[McCartney]

I was going to write a response but I think Godless summarized pretty well. OP, do you realize how self-centered you come across? If you're anything like this in real life you really should consider improving your people skills.

And don't reply with "My people skills are fine I've worked on so and so project with this many people blah blah blah". It doesn't matter how good you think you are at X and that you are only above average at Y. I'm telling you, based on what I read in this thread and how you describe yourself, your work, your goals, how you perceive people, how black and white you talk about things, and your overall attitude, I think you would be a very difficult person to work with. That was the point you missed from my original response.

I think you've misconstrued my intentions. My goals are strictly that, goals. They are also goals that are SELF fulfilling. I do not need recognition, money, and all these other things that people are asserting I am chasing. Far from it. For me it's all about self-gratification, believe it or not. I want to be able to be satisfied with myself and what I'm doing, is that wrong to do?

And I am hard pressed to see where my statements were so polarizing. Everything I've stated has basis. I have said repeatedly that none of this could extend to a larger set, rather just the sample I've observed.

I am ALWAYS willing to improve. I am also willing to take criticism, and learn from others. I think that's the beauty of working with other people. There is a lot to be gained in group work, and somehow I've been cast as this person who sees himself as a "one man team". I didn't say that either.

I wouldn't mind workign in groups at all when it comes to research and other things. I don't care if my name ever made it on a paper. All I want to do is try and help out and contribute.

Somehow all of this has spun into me being an "elitist" because I want to try and give back as much as I can. I've been called an arrogant prick because numerous people here have this belief that I treat other people differently based upon their goals. Absolutely not.

I understand why computing science undergraduates need to go and take software development jobs. They need to make money, often pay debt, and they don't mind the work. I didn't say there is anything wrong with that at all, it's just not for me. I don't treat others differently for making a completely understandable and rational decision based upon their goals. Why am I being dubbed as this jerk when my goals are different?

Is it wrong to be an aspiring undergraduate? What is wrong or arrogant with what my dreams are? Should we strip ambition from mankind because people interpret my dreams as being arrogant, self-centered and egocentric ? I don't see where any of my goals even overlap with this.

I want to do these things for self gratification, nothing more. Money isn't my primary goal, it never has been. I just want to be happy doing what I love. I want to live to work, not work to live.

Is that a crime ?

 

[dighn]

Are we cool now? Sheesh I didn't know sharing my opinion would get me in trouble. All I said is I don't want to be a programmer. I should have defined that further and said "A person who hacks at code with a guess and check approach". I have nothing against great programmers, the people who design the program logic prior to coding it.. They're the most impressive.

Frankly your posts come off a little elitist and even pretentious. I'm sure you aren't doing it on purpose but it's there. The ones "in the real world" tend to have a certain level of hostility toward academics; I won't speculate on the reasons but you should word things very carefully to avoid getting flamed. Remember that most people in the field on this forum (myself included) do not work in academia, so any hint at actual/perceived superiority over non-academics is a sure ticket for a nice roasting session. Personally I get where you are coming from though. I love theory too and think its importance is often underrated. To most though, a degree is a mean to an end ($$$) so you won't find much rapport.

If you are interested in processor design, why not look under electrical engineering? Processor design by nature is more of a engineering problem than a theoretical one (at least within the current computing paradigm).

 

[McCartney]

I don't think some of you guys get what he is asking about.

It doesn't sound like he wants to be a software engineer or a computer programmer but instead a researcher.

You wouldn't tell a physicist that he needs to stop talking about research and get a job doing something for a big company to produce actual products would you?

OP: Get a PhD, teach for a while, work your way into a tenured position and live out your days teaching a little and researching / publishing a lot.

Seems obvious, don't know why you'd need to ask. US News and World Report can help you find great schools. You should also ask your specifics on college boards in the grad school sections.

Thank you so much for understanding my position. I am debating a PhD as well, maybe even jumping the MSc thesis portion by doing 1 year of the MSc and then going into a PhD, if my work merits this case.

Thanks for this advice Paige, because it's comforting to know someone understands where I want to be. I just thought someone on the boards would be extremely well-versed in these areas and could shed light on the subjects some more. I hope that still is the case and they will join this thread

 

[TruePaige]

I think a major part of the disconnect here is that many don't believe that computer "science" is really science. Many believe that the theoretical advances should be made in the field, not in ivory towers. In my opinion the history of CompSci has shown this to be mostly true - the best research is done by companies or governments looking to make products, not for the sake of research itself. It's not like physics where developing theoretical models for the sake of knowing more about the universe around us has value in it's own right.

Of course this is a very contentious issue, but those are my $0.02.

I can definitely agree with you on that point, as I've talked with people who stand on both sides of the issue.

If I may play devils advocate for a moment though: How many people end up just toiling away on HIPPA compliance or creating the next Farmville / Mafia Wars clone though? When profit is the ultimate goal for most businesses research for the sake of research (especially in this day and age where significant advances such as artificial intelligence and embedded very small devices have become so complex) can we really expect non-research positions to be able to design these applications of the future?

Of course on the flipside: Practical applications do get some development traction such as the Hadoop project, and let us not forget the companies who have commercialized Linux, many other things such as the software to drive advanced 3D and holographic media has been advanced by private efforts.

So yeah, you can really see how it can be taken either way.

 

[TruePaige]

Thank you so much for understanding my position. I am debating a PhD as well, maybe even jumping the MSc thesis portion by doing 1 year of the MSc and then going into a PhD, if my work merits this case.

Thanks for this advice Paige, because it's comforting to know someone understands where I want to be. I just thought someone on the boards would be extremely well-versed in these areas and could shed light on the subjects some more. I hope that still is the case and they will join this thread

I understand where you are coming from, as someone who has looked at Accounting/Economics/Finance pathways I will warn that to get to that point comes at a price that isn't it worth it to me in my areas of interest (perhaps they will be insightful in preparing you for challenges and missed opportunities you will face).

1. Could make way more money in the real world by the time I could get a DBA specializing in any of those subjects.

2. To get to the tenure level will most likely take ten years of shitty politics to be secure forever.

3. Working down those pathways kind of locks you in and I, while not being the most adventurous, like to have opportunities to move about as I please in the world as I grow and change.

 

[McCartney]

I understand where you are coming from, as someone who has looked at Accounting/Economics/Finance pathways I will warn that to get to that point comes at a price that isn't it worth it to me in my areas of interest (perhaps they will be insightful in preparing you for challenges and missed opportunities you will face).

1. Could make way more money in the real world by the time I could get a DBA specializing in any of those subjects.

2. To get to the tenure level will most likely take ten years of shitty politics to be secure forever.

3. Working down those pathways kind of locks you in and I, while not being the most adventurous, like to have opportunities to move about as I please in the world as I grow and change.

Your last point is too true. This is precisely the reason I may get an MSc from my University in the area of Machine Learning but with the specialization. This would require me to take 1 more course in the first year of my study, but it is also more rigorous.

I want to keep my options open, maybe private sector R&D is where I want to be. I know that to achieve those sorts of positions, experience AND a masters is essential. This is why I was debating the masters road and seeing if there are some interesting positions I could try out (if they are willing to take a risk on me) afterwards.

It seems that your line of work is very similar to what mine might be. May I ask how you find the statistical learning applications? Are you dealing with lots of econometric models?

I don't want to miss opportunities either, and that's why a PhD scares me. There are a lot of years that you invest, and you can pass by numerous opportunities. I thought getting an MSc first would help understand where I want to go.

I definitely want to be a researcher, and possibly a PhD. But if I can get the opportunities at places such as MS, Google or ANY other company who can use any of my skills, I may be better off..

 

[yllus]

See, not many people enjoy reading lots of papers and critically analyzing them.

I do. I really love reading papers, actually. :/ If I don't have the knowledge then I usually do extensive study on the background/preliminaries to help guide my intuition.

There is nothing pretty about graduate school, especially in Computing Science, if you're not in it because you love the Science. I actually want to learn more, this isn't about "padding" my resume...

I just wanna learn, and I want to contribute. I'm actually looking to apply anywhere in the World, not just Canada (where I am now)... That's why I'm here asking about potentially good schools for the above areas of interest.

Graduate school isn't easy, but it isn't hard. As long as you have fun while you're doing it, then it's not really ugly. I have had so much fun this past year learning about new things from papers, they truly are amazing..

You misunderstand. What I mean is the pure research path, especially as an academic, is hard to survive within. It's entirely possible that one year into a two year program, your funding will disappear. Or during your PhD. Or at any point during your professorship, you can be cut loose due to budgetary reasons. How does the thought of being unemployed at 35 after making $40,000 or less for the past ten years sound?

As I said before, if you're a superstar all of the above shouldn't be a worry - you'll make it. If you're not, though, make sure you know what you're in for.

 

[McCartney]

You misunderstand. What I mean is the pure research path, especially as an academic, is hard to survive within. It's entirely possible that one year into a two year program, your funding will disappear. Or during your PhD. Or at any point during your professorship, you can be cut loose due to budgetary reasons. How does the thought of being unemployed at 35 after making $40,000 or less for the past ten years sound?

As I said before, if you're a superstar all of the above shouldn't be a worry - you'll make it. If you're not, though, make sure you know what you're in for.

I would like to be apart of a lab. Maybe not the PI, I don't think I could do that. Not many can. I agree that it's definitely tough to get funding.

Here in Canada the funding comes in 3 year renewals, I think. And you're absolutely correct, worrying about where it's going to come from can be a huge thing. That's why I don't plan on having my own lab or being a PI. I just want to contribute on a team that shares the same passion.

I don't mind being lower in the pecking order for groups doing research, just as long as I can help out I'd be happy.

 

[Circlenaut]

Who the fuck says "daresay"? Do like me man, work for 2 years see if you like it. If you do then go to grad school to do what you love.