I know many of you are in the EE industry, which is where I am planning to be after I get my Masters in EE.
I am having a difficult time choosing between the schools I was accepted to, which are:
Princeton (M.Eng.)
Cornell (M.Eng.)
University of Southern California (USC) (M.S. in EE).
I am currently attending University of Rochester. I've been talking to a few of my professors and they said that M.Eng. vs. M.S.
is not an issue in the industry.
My interests include circuit level design, possibly VLSI, embedded systems, low level software, robotics.
1. What would be your thoughts on this issue and which would you recommendation?
2. Which of the schools has a better name recognition in the industry?
All of them have fine name recognition. I've worked with graduates of
all three and all of them were solid in their field. I wouldn't select
my school by name recognition. Get a class schedule/catalog and compare
the offerings against your interests. Think about 'out of
major/program' electives that will complement those classes. For
example, mechanical engineering classes for robotics or software
engineering classes for embedded systems. Take graduate level control
systems classes for both board level circuit design and robotics.
Purely subjective - it would be Cornell, USC and Princeton in that order
(hard call since I like the weather in So.Cal better).
>Hi,
>
>I know many of you are in the EE industry, which is where I am planning to
>be after I get my Masters in EE.
>I am having a difficult time choosing between the schools I was accepted to,
>which are:
>
>Princeton (M.Eng.)
>Cornell (M.Eng.)
>University of Southern California (USC) (M.S. in EE).
>
>I am currently attending University of Rochester. I've been talking to a few
>of my professors and they said that M.Eng. vs. M.S.
>is not an issue in the industry.
>
>My interests include circuit level design, possibly VLSI, embedded systems,
>low level software, robotics.
>
>1. What would be your thoughts on this issue and which would you
>recommendation?
>2. Which of the schools has a better name recognition in the industry?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Konstantin Klitenik
>
>
On Mar 31, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Konstantin K. wrote:
> Princeton (M.Eng.)
> Cornell (M.Eng.)
> University of Southern California (USC) (M.S. in EE).
Them all be "big name" schools; I *think* the only way one would have
"better name recognition" is if you apply somewhere where there are
alumni on the hiring team, or a strong connection between your
prospective
employer and one of those schools. Do you have a "target employer"?
> My interests include circuit level design, possibly VLSI, embedded
> systems, low level software, robotics.
>
I've never been quite able to justify the masters degrees in
engineering.
Seems like MS == 2y job experience as far as payscale goes, although
there
are jobs (VLSI and robotics, in particular) where a BS may not qualify
you to do anything in "industry." A masters might make some people
think
you're "overqualified" for a "low level software" job :-) Those higher
degrees tend to make one more theoretical and aloof. Have you
investigated
what projects/research areas are ongoing at each school in your interest
areas? My impression is that basically extra-ciricular things start to
be more important than classwork, so a person who's co-authored a couple
of research papers, worked on a famous school project, and done a
relevant
thesis beats out someone with better grades but less interesting side
work.
(it does for me, anyway; YMMV depending on what job you're applying for
where. And you have to get past HR. And it's been a while since I've
been in the hiring loop...)
I'll agree with what's said before, any good name is likely as good as
the others. You'll likely learn more than you want to at each --
that's how they got their rep.
I will add:
1. Graduate students seeking masters only are second class citizens.
Many Profs see the graduate pool as composed of their source of PhD
students and those who don't measure up to their PhD students. Your
lack of desire for their life's goal is a psychological slap in the
face to some, whether they realize it or not. There are always
exceptions, but be prepared for a certain level of apathy and disdain
no matter where you go (it's worse in some places, but I don't know
about these three schools in particular -- ask around).
2. There's something to be said for a coursework only masters program
(as opposed to a thesis program). I have both a thesis and a
coursework only masters degrees, and the paper for each degree is
worth the same. The amount of work involved in publishing a thesis is
NOT to be trivialized -- it's hard work getting something written up
that three (or more) distinguished and aggrandized
leaders-in-their-field will agree is worthy of their signature (I
don't sound too bitter, do I?). Seeking only a Master's degree makes
it harder to find support and makes the whole process worse.
Is the thesis worth the effort? I dunno. I'm glad I did it, to say
that I did it once. Did I get more out of it than my slacker brethren
who took the easier routes? probably not more than grief. Am I glad
I took a coursework only masters degree the second time? youbecha!!
The thesis will likely add a MINIMUM of 1 year to your program over a
coursework only, and may likely add 1.5-2. "Project" or the typical
"non-thesis" route (IMHO) are the worst of both worlds, costing you
time and aggravation (not as much, but still sig.) and only saving
you about 1/2 a year with likely nothing published at the end to show
for the effort.
Dunno what these three schools offer in tracks, but these programs are
becoming popular nation wide. It wouldn't surprise me to find all
were offered at all three schools.
Konstantin K. wrote:
> My interests include circuit level design, possibly VLSI, embedded systems,
> low level software, robotics.
>
> 1. What would be your thoughts on this issue and which would you
> recommendation?
This kind of job will get outsourced. Better shift up to enterprise
level of software development.
gmail.com) <><