Grad School vs. Industry

[Sidoh]

I've done two separate 10-week REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) programs the past two summers (one at Texas A&M and one at Notre Dame).  And I'm currently doing a paid internship with my university's IT department developing a web-based risk management utility for them, as well as developed a web-based call logging system last semester for them (unpaid) but am now getting paid to maintain this semester.  Albeit, my internship experience is nothing comparable to working with a real company in industry.

Graduate school and working does not work well with me.  I'd prefer to focus on one at a time, so that I can give my 100% to one instead of trying to share it between the two.  That, and I wouldn't think I'd get as much out of the experience like you said.

If you feel that the importance of this decision is paramount, I think it's essential that you do an internship with a company in the industry you're interested in working.  If you're interested in Lockheed Martin (there's a LOT of breath in what they do), I can probably give you some details that will help you get started.

As Chavo touched on, I think a really cool option is research in industry.  This includes working at places like NASA, NSA/CIA/DoD, etc.  I think this is as close as you'll get to "the best of both worlds".   Almost all of these companies/agencies have internship programs.  The deadline for the NSA has passed, I think, but the NASA applications are open until January.  If you're interested, I strongly encourage you to apply.  I don't think you'll be able to make a reasonable decision until you know how much you like working compared to studying.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I've been told that unless you're being paid to go to graduate school, you just don't go.

idk, I don't think that's necessarily true.  I know that LM hires on people with masters degrees about two promotions ahead of those without 'em.  They also give you an "Instant" raise/bonus if you get your masters while working for them.

I also agree with Rule -- I don't think it's very good advice in general.  If you're really enthralled by the academic aspects of the subject you're studying, grad school will probably be more enjoyable than working.

You're not guaranteed a higher paying job after grad school. In fact, a graduate degree can disqualify you from several jobs ("sorry, you're overqualified"). If you just love to learn, you can do that on your own. However, one thing you are guaranteed if you are paying for graduate school is a massive debt. Of course, if you're independently wealthy, finances don't matter. But I'm going to assume that nearly all graduate students are not.

In my field, graduate school is training for research. Why should a person be charged to learn his/her job skills?

Doesn't really sound like that's how a masters in CS is viewed.  Certainly you'd be "overqualified" for some jobs, but it's definitely not the case in general.  Microsoft, Google, et al. have positions they advertise that are specifically geared toward people who have earned a masters.

I'd say Graduate school just because your school isn't really one of the schools companies are recruiting from.

I'm not sure this is useful advise.  If you're interested in a company and you're an outstanding student, the fact that they don't visit your university is nearly irrelevant.   The DoD doesn't visit my school, but my friend applied last year and landed an internship for the past summer pretty quickly.

Personally, an undergrad degree is enough. Grad school is useful if you're teaching or working in an academic type environment (the same that uses complex algorithms :P), but, at least for me, a graduate degree wouldn't make any difference to my career (a lot of people in this field don't even have an undergraduate degree).

Jobs geared toward people who have post-graduate education are by no means necessarily academic.  I think the majority of the people I worked with over the summer either had a masters, were currently attending grad school, or intended to do so in the near future.

I don't think I agree with your assessment of how useful more advanced topics are in general.

[while1]

I'd say Graduate school just because your school isn't really one of the schools companies are recruiting from.

Sure, while my resume might not get a second glance from Microsoft or Google because of my school, by no means does that mean graduates from my school can't find good companies that will hire them.  My former roommate that graduate last year has a good job with Booze Allen, one of Fortune magazine's top 100 companies to work for, doing contracting work for the FBI.  Finding a good job and good company that will hire me is the least of my problems.

If you feel that the importance of this decision is paramount, I think it's essential that you do an internship with a company in the industry you're interested in working.  If you're interested in Lockheed Martin (there's a LOT of breath in what they do), I can probably give you some details that will help you get started.

As Chavo touched on, I think a really cool option is research in industry.  This includes working at places like NASA, NSA/CIA/DoD, etc.  I think this is as close as you'll get to "the best of both worlds".   Almost all of these companies/agencies have internship programs.  The deadline for the NSA has passed, I think, but the NASA applications are open until January.  If you're interested, I strongly encourage you to apply.  I don't think you'll be able to make a reasonable decision until you know how much you like working compared to studying.

I would if it wasn't too late.  I graduate in May.  However, I will be applying to the LARS (NASA Langley) program to land a source of income for the summer in case I do choose grad school, since I will likely be hard pressed to find a company that would give me an internship after I've already graduated.

[iago]

Personally, an undergrad degree is enough. Grad school is useful if you're teaching or working in an academic type environment (the same that uses complex algorithms :P), but, at least for me, a graduate degree wouldn't make any difference to my career (a lot of people in this field don't even have an undergraduate degree).

Jobs geared toward people who have post-graduate education are by no means necessarily academic.  I think the majority of the people I worked with over the summer either had a masters, were currently attending grad school, or intended to do so in the near future.

I don't think I agree with your assessment of how useful more advanced topics are in general.

Well, keep in mind that I work in a funny field. In IT Security, academics write all kinds of great papers and proofs that have absolutely no relevance in the real world, while people who aren't from academic backgrounds (often who have never taken a class) write all kinds of great papers and do tons of research that directly applies.

There's a huge disconnected between academics/non-academics in IT Security. Nobody at the place I work has a degree, for example, and they're considered at the top of their game.

I mostly wanted to build a post around making fun of the complex arguments thing :D

[Sidoh]

I would if it wasn't too late.  I graduate in May.  However, I will be applying to the LARS (NASA Langley) program to land a source of income for the summer in case I do choose grad school, since I will likely be hard pressed to find a company that would give me an internship after I've already graduated.

Ah, cool.  Inernships definitely aren't just for undergraduates, though.  The DoD position my friend worked in offered housing where you roomed with three other people working on your team.  He said one was a PhD candidate, one had a masters and another was writing his master's thesis.

Personally, an undergrad degree is enough. Grad school is useful if you're teaching or working in an academic type environment (the same that uses complex algorithms :P), but, at least for me, a graduate degree wouldn't make any difference to my career (a lot of people in this field don't even have an undergraduate degree).

Jobs geared toward people who have post-graduate education are by no means necessarily academic.  I think the majority of the people I worked with over the summer either had a masters, were currently attending grad school, or intended to do so in the near future.

I don't think I agree with your assessment of how useful more advanced topics are in general.

Well, keep in mind that I work in a funny field. In IT Security, academics write all kinds of great papers and proofs that have absolutely no relevance in the real world, while people who aren't from academic backgrounds (often who have never taken a class) write all kinds of great papers and do tons of research that directly applies.

There's a huge disconnected between academics/non-academics in IT Security. Nobody at the place I work has a degree, for example, and they're considered at the top of their game.

I mostly wanted to build a post around making fun of the complex arguments thing :D

Heh, and that's cool, but I know for a fact that the company I worked for is likely to throw your application out the window if you don't have or aren't actively pursuing a degree.

Some fields of IT security are dominated by academics though, right?!  What about cryptography?  It seems like most of the prominent cryptographic algorithms were developed by people who have PhDs. :)

Having said that, I definitely agree with you on the "usually removed from relevance to the real world", having read a few and seen presentations on the myself.  Sometimes they seem pretty silly. :)

[iago]

Heh, and that's cool, but I know for a fact that the company I worked for is likely to throw your application out the window if you don't have or aren't actively pursuing a degree.

Some fields of IT security are dominated by academics though, right?!  What about cryptography?  It seems like most of the prominent cryptographic algorithms were developed by people who have PhDs. :)

Having said that, I definitely agree with you on the "usually removed from relevance to the real world", having read a few and seen presentations on the myself.  Sometimes they seem pretty silly. :)

Cryptography isn't really security, I consider it math. But you're right, that's definitely full of academics.

And yeah, the reason I like security is because it combines so many things. It doesn't require a degree or education, but it requires a certain personality.

[zorm]

Well, keep in mind that I work in a funny field. In IT Security, academics write all kinds of great papers and proofs that have absolutely no relevance in the real world, while people who aren't from academic backgrounds (often who have never taken a class) write all kinds of great papers and do tons of research that directly applies.

There's a huge disconnected between academics/non-academics in IT Security. Nobody at the place I work has a degree, for example, and they're considered at the top of their game.

I mostly wanted to build a post around making fun of the complex arguments thing :D

Aren't these types of jobs typically referred to as grunt work? I'm not trying to insult you/say this is absolutely the case but generally when you have a job where a degree is not required its because the job is more application of specific skills than thinking. I can definitely see IT Security being that way, I'd care more that a person knows how to properly administrate a firewall than that they know the theory behind how all the circuits inside the shiny box work. See McDonalds for another case in point..

[iago]

Aren't these types of jobs typically referred to as grunt work? I'm not trying to insult you/say this is absolutely the case but generally when you have a job where a degree is not required its because the job is more application of specific skills than thinking. I can definitely see IT Security being that way, I'd care more that a person knows how to properly administrate a firewall than that they know the theory behind how all the circuits inside the shiny box work. See McDonalds for another case in point..

You may be right, in a sense, but I think referring to it as "grunt work" is oversimplification.

To take one example, writing a reliable exploit for a kernel vulnerability on a modern OS is something that is extremely difficult and that takes a broad base of applied knowledge. However, it isn't the kind of thing you're going to learn in academia, or anywhere else, and it's a skill that very few people in the world can claim to have.

Another one is the ability to penetrate a well-defended network without being detected. It isn't something that an academic will learn, it's something that can only be done (well) through years of experience.

The point is, the field I'm in requires a great deal of research (vulnerability exploitation) and skill (penetration testing), neither of which you'll learn from academia. It's a whole different system, in a way.