Ask HN: Director-Level Contemplating an MS in Computer Science–Thoughts? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Director-Level Contemplating an MS in Computer Science–Thoughts?

Hi HN community,

I'm in a Director+ level management role within data and am well-versed in statistics and traditional ML. I manage DS, DE, SWE, and Product teams. I'm considering an MS in Computer Science to deepen my understanding of deep learning out of personal interest. I'm no longer hands-on with coding but value structured academic environments. Cost isn't an issue.

Key points:

- My goal is personal enrichment and staying technically current, not career progression.

- How might recruiters and companies view this educational pursuit at my career stage? Positively as continual learning or as unnecessary given my seniority? Perhaps negatively?

I would appreciate insights from those who've embarked on similar educational journeys or have relevant knowledge about the industry's view on such decisions.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

View on HN

There are basically two things you get by pursuing an MS instead of just picking up the same knowledge on your own: (1) more structure and (2) a credential. (Okay, three: if you're junior, it's a way to continue building your network. But this isn't relevant for you.)

It sounds like you see value in (1). You're a little unclear on whether you want (2), since first you say your goal is not career progression, but then you ask how this is viewed by companies and recruiters.

From the perspective of someone who has been in the position of screening and interviewing technical candidates, both ICs and managers, most MS degrees don't add a lot to a resume IMO. If it's from a mid- or low-tier school, or an online program, I don't really put much stock in the quality of the program. Even upper-tier schools more and more give off the perception that you're just paying for a credential. I would say that if you have the motivation to learn the material on your own, and then put it into practice in a demonstrable way in your actual work (which seems like something that should be tractable, given your role), that would have more value.

Good call out on (2). The credential itself is more important to me than I initially thought. I did a full-time MBA at a young age and have always regretted not doing a technical master's.

I appreciate the thoughts on self-motivation and demonstrable projects. I'm already doing this, although I find myself wanting to learn too many things, which can cause me to lose focus. The structure helps here. I'm familiar with initiatives like the Open Source Society University, but I am not interested as it's nice to do these classes with other folks.

The program would be the Stanford Honors Cooperative Program or something similar where there isn't an oversized part-time/remote cohort.

What kind of company?

Asking coz a Director+ at one company can mean jack sh*t at another. As a Director your actual stats chops probably mean nothing at many larger orgs and it's all about playing politics. Get a major in psych-* or whatever.

If you want to stay in your presumably more startuppy Director role it might still be relevant.

But you said it's not for the relevance. So do whatever makes you happy and leave it out on your resume when it feels off and put it on when it might help.

I had a "Director+" boss once who got a Dr. title to be able to put it on his CV and business card. Got it at a cheap eastern European college that was known for basically handing these out to people like him that write a "thesis" on the side while managing a department of 20-30 devs. Of course that isn't something that's visible on his business card.

Hah, truth for larger orgs: "major in psych-* or whatever." I'm at a mid-size company now and have done both the large company and start-up world.

Thinking about a candidate who is studying part-time, I have two considerations:

Positively, it speaks of a desire to learn, to become better, to understand more deeply, and to be willing to commit significant personal effort to that.

Negatively, it might be a distraction. It might limit their availability at times, and could occupy their thinking during work hours when it's demanding (like, assignments or exams).

For a more junior role, I'd likely also consider that the candidate might be looking to move on once they'd completed the qualification, but that's not relevant here.

The tradeoff between those two aspects would depend a lot on the role and the feeling I got from interviewing the individual.

I appreciate that this probably doesn't help at all.

It does! Thank you.

I am doing something similar and it's quite rewarding. I have a masters in finance and management from while back, and am just finishing 9 month program to get my CISSP and PMP. Personally I enjoy the learning and challenge, and this field allows for so much.

If you have the time and genuine interest, I say go for the MSCS. Choose a rigorous program, dive into deep learning, and let your enthusiasm shine through. Ignore any naysayers and embrace this season of structured learning.

The one potential risk I'd consider is signaling a desire to return to hands-on technical work. Some may interpret your degree pursuit as dissatisfaction with management and a wish to return to individual contributor roles. You can likely mitigate this by clearly communicating your rationale to key stakeholders.

Great call-out: "Some may interpret your degree pursuit as dissatisfaction with management and a wish to return to individual contributor roles." Thank you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com