Stanford Vs. Purdue Vs. Cornell .. Dilemna

[moomber123]

Hi Nelie22,

I certainly do not intend to convey the impression that MSCS at Stanford is completely worthless. I merely want to share some common perception shared among the Silicon Valley engineers that certain programs are designed for the sole purpose of raising money. This certainly is not practiced by private school with huge reputation only. Even public schools like Purdue, or UIUC, offer similar course-based advanced degrees that are not intended for research development.

The main idea I wish to convey is that if you are confronted with the choice among course-based and research track programs, the evaluation process needs to account for the completely different intents and nature of the two types of degree. Take USC for example, it is a respectful school in CS (certainly not in the range of Stanford), and its MSCS degree has the course-based option, thesis option, and the course-based option can even be completed online. Experience shows that the placement result for people in the three different programs are clearly different.

Course-based option master programs are great for working professionals who do not afford to quit their job. At the Stanford program, you might find yourself studying with many working professionals who plan to finish the degree in a few years more than usual. This type of interaction and atmosphere will deliver a very different learning experience.

I guess the best way to think of course-based program is to think of it as a professional degree, not unlike MBA. The intent is professional development. Thesis-based program is what research, "academic" degree was designed to look like, hence carrying the MS designation. It is certainly too strong of an opinion to say that course-based programs do not qualify for a MS designation, but it is also no secret that the design of the program stretches the original intent of a MS "academic" degree by removing the thesis requirement.

Writing a thesis, even at master's level, is not a trivial task. It requires the students to demonstrate independent research ability that goes far beyond taking classes and passing exams. It pushes the students to experience the process of pushing the frontier of knowledge, not just the process of acquiring knowledge from established sources. Whether that is suitable for a career-oriented intention for advanced degree or not is certainly up for further, and mostly personal evaluation.

In my opinion, if you intend to go into R&D type of job, want to own a few patents, and want to push the limit of existing industry practice, then a course-based program, even from Stanford, or MIT, seem rather insufficient. If you intend to be a good problem-solver, advance your career by moving up the rank among the engineers but stay with the usual product development type of work, by which I mean taking marketing inputs and respond by modifying existing product, or maintain ongoing product line, etc, then perhaps the course-based program is more cost-effective.

Just a clarification, the "research course" option certainly is a great way for course-based students to be exposed to some research activities. But having one quarter of research course is not the same as coming up with your own research agenda, execute the academic inquiry, and be expected to defend it in a rigorous manner. But as stated earlier, that might actually be the best trade-off for people who are not too into the "academic" type of career.

I guess this is something where economic principles really apply. Good things don't come easy, if even Stanford itself maintains two admissions standards for course-based and thesis-based programs, then it is a natural question to ask why don't everyone just apply for the course-based program and get in easier if they are viewed as the same thing? You can dig deeper into the statistics and you will find out the acceptance rate is substantially higher for the course-based option. The number you see on US News is likely just the thesis-based option, or something of an weighted average. Another example is MIT's Sloan MBA vs. their Master in logistics. Sloan MBA is one of the best and most technical MBA program in the world. The admissions is so competitive that no one can be sure of their chances no matter how good their profiles are, yet MIT constantly bombard people who have taken GMAT and score somewhere above 650 (decent scores, but will probably never get you into their MBA program) about the Master in logistics. The intention is somewhat dishonest, if you ask me, as MIT is trying to convey the impression that "hey, there is this 'easier option' for people who want a Sloan master's degree." Now of course the master in logistics program is excellent, exposes students to top MIT business scholars, and in most cases, a far better option for people who can only manage to get admitted to MBA degree at lower ranking programs. But the naive idea that they are equivalent in prestige or quality needs to be seriously reconsidered. This is why I have been so vehemently posting comments on these issues. But in no way am I trying to convey the ideas that it is a worthless pursuit and the achievements of getting admitted into any of the program something that deserves less respect. No matter what the choice ultimately is, you do deserve to be congratulated for getting into all three programs.

[CalmLogic]

Originally Posted by moomber123

Writing a thesis, even at master's level, is not a trivial task. It requires the students to demonstrate independent research ability that goes far beyond taking classes and passing exams. It pushes the students to experience the process of pushing the frontier of knowledge, not just the process of acquiring knowledge from established sources. Whether that is suitable for a career-oriented intention for advanced degree or not is certainly up for further, and mostly personal evaluation.

Yeah, R&D jobs aside, I really wonder how much having a thesis can help for getting a job in industry. It's not like college recruiters are known to usually ask "Did you do a thesis?" or "What was your thesis about?" Similarly:

There's so much diversity in the work that we do, so Google tends to hire generalists rather than specialists.

Students

I would think the recruiters at Google would glance longer at any resume that mentioned ground-breaking research on information retrieval in whatever form it was presented (thesis or paper). But then one might as well go for the PhD to be a researcher at Google.

[CalmLogic]

(duplicate post)

[CalmLogic]

(duplicate post)

[zander]

@moomber123.. That was some interesting prospective about the course oriented and research oriented MS.

@nellie.. Hasn't the deadline of sending in the response forms for Stanford and Cornell passed away?(15th April)

[nellie22]

moomember123,
that was an excellent analysis, very insightful and balanced worthy of an article by itself.
As zander pointed out though..the deadline for replying to stanford has passed (apr 15th) ..and I did make my decision.. to go to 'the farm'. Just for information, Cornell's deadline is 25th April. Purdue has not mentioned any deadline besides the usual Apr 15th for financial aid offers .. does anyone know if there a cutoff date for responding to their admission offer?

Although i would've liked to have read this before I made my decision, I am sure all those who plan to apply in future would benefit from this perspective .. moomember123 has done very well in debunking the way that we all have of reacting to brand names of schools, and brought the focus back to where it should be - what the student plans to gain from the particular degree.

I am not sure what you mean by stanford maintaing different admissions standards for course-based and thesis-based programs - did you mean MSCS vs. PHD admissions?
This is what the course catalog from the CS department has to say about the MSCS degree (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registr...df/CompSci.pdf)

In general, the M.S. degree in Computer Science is intended as a
terminal professional degree and does not lead to the Ph.D. degree. Most
students planning to obtain the Ph.D. degree should apply directly for
admission to the Ph.D. program. Some students, however, may wish to
complete the master’s program before deciding whether to pursue the
Ph.D. To give such students a greater opportunity to become familiar with
research, the department has instituted a program leading to a master’s
degree with distinction in research. This program is described in more
detail in a subsequent section.

Also, the document goes on to mention that the program must include significant research experience at the level of a half-time commitment over the course of three academic quarters, not just one quarter.

Ultimately, what led me to my choice was a balancing out of prospects after graduation with the quality of education received - and in both respects stanford scored spectacularly. I hope to gain a much better understanding of my subject (which i din't attain in my undergrad), and i'd like to keep my post-MS options open too. Having come from a purely teaching undergrad school however, I am yet unsure of where my calling lies. The exuberant atmosphere that seems to prevail at stan was a nice draw .. there seems to be a 'great-things-going-on-here' attitude about the place. Even if this is the easier program to get into, I guess it's up to the student to make the most of the degree and the university

You are right though, if I had been certain that my career lay in academics, I would have been much more bent on the MS(thesis) option at purdue.

Any further thoughts welcome .. i believe this train of thinking would make good reading for people who are still in the process of deciding their university choices to apply to.

[nellie22]

(duplicate post)