4 ms·

Would anyone recommend this over doing a masters degree in the similar area of study but at a local university (ie. not Standford)?

by b1gtuna 10y ago

snowcrshd 10y ago
I'm curious about this as well. I have interest in AI, but I'm not sure how companies would see this online degree (even through it is from Stanford).
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I would think it depends on the company. Remember, the world is a LOT bigger than GoogHooBookSoftBer or whatever. Walk into Tom's Auto Salvage or City Chevrolet or Barney's Screen Doors and Small-Engine Repair and show them that you can produce value for their business, and I don't think they're going to give a hoot if your degree/certificate/whatever is from Stanford, Yale, UNC-W, ECPI, or University of Phoenix.
nkozyra 10y ago
Hard to say without having taken these classes. GT isn't Stanford but a top 10 MSCS that offers an ML specialization for ~$8k-$10k. Whether that provides more value or employment opportunity I cannot say, but it is encouraging to see more to universities offering an alternative to traditional degree programs. I think there's a path for non-MS, non-PhD backgrounds, but probably not now. Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. So until they learn practical application I think supply will outnumber demand and most of the jobs will go to PhD AI/statistics backgrounds.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. I would say just the opposite. There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That is, assuming you acknowledge that there's more to ML/AI than "deep learning". Not everybody needs a deep neural network. Sometimes you just need linear regression or a random forest. If you come at it from that point of view, the knowledge you gain from taking Andrew Ng's machine learning course is enough to create value for companies / organizations. A lot of the discussions on this topic here on HN seem to be based on an assumption that you have to be doing cutting edge original research to be useful. I think that's very far from the case. Now the problem is, does the mom and pop bakery on the corner know that they could benefit from ML? And perhaps the more salient question is "are they looking for somebody to do ML for them"? The answer is probably "no" in both cases, so you might have to do some work to sell to that market. But the value you can create is real. Help them optimize production so they throw away less bread on slow days, etc. and you're talking direct business impact. I suspect that there will be, for a long time, a wide continuum in terms of how ML/AI skills can help create value. Which means there will be a lot of ways to leverage this field from a career standpoint.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    > There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That's not exactly what I'm saying. There are ML problems everywhere, opportunities to create efficiencies, new products, etc. out of existing data and processes. But nobody hires an AI/ML candidate to come in and tell them what to do. Nobody says "we want to dabble in ML somehow but don't have any pressing needs, can you start at $140K?" Those businesses need to recognize the opportunities first before the market will expand.
    - xyzzy123 10y ago
      You might be be surprised. Not all of the opportunities are reasonable (or make any kind of sense at all) but if you take a shitty hire at a place with interesting data you can have fun. I can hardly count the number of organisations which now want to project the idea of being "innovative" and are excited to slap the coconut shells over their ears and try waving down planes with a stick. There's still a surprisingly huge number of companies still hiring "blockchain consultants" even though they're rapidly heading into the "despair" phase of the hype cycle. If you're a low cap stock or even a tired brick and mortar, two ML hires and a plausible investor story gives your graph a serious bump. The difference between blockchain bull()$& and ML bull()$& that is the ML could actually have legs. Mostly it'll just tell you stuff that someone who understands market actually knew though.
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        While I believe that, it sure sounds like a miserable job for people who actually want to do cool things with data. Hired for show likely means you're still hunting for that problem (which might not exist).
cr0sh 10y ago
Disclaimer: I do not hold any kind of real degree (just an Associates from a defunct tech school - worth little to nothing now) - so take the following for what it is... Based on my experience, which I won't re-iterate here - the various MOOCs I've taken (and currently the Udacity Nanodegree) would not be anywhere close to a masters in the subject (unless I am severely overestimating a masters - but I don't think so). TBH - they would probably equate closer to an Associates, at best. This offering from Stanford? Not sure - but I still don't think it would be the equivalent. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I think if your goal is a deep level of knowledge and understanding of the subject, then a quality masters program for CompSci or similar would be the better path.
- jayajay 10y ago
  I think this seems right. The value in going to a school, taking classes, talking to students in the same boat and talking to professors is greater than the value of a very low-commitment thing like a certificate for watching 20 videos and turning in a few assignments. For the autodidacts, their github profiles are probably worth more than some silly certificate.
- amatsukawa 10y ago
  I've taken a couple on this list (employer paid as a perk, no way I would pay this price out of pocket) and I can attest it is 100x more worthwhile than Coursera MOOC. You actually study, partner with, and test along-side Stanford MS/PhD students. Not to mention the accountability factor, since you paid $5k for the class you better take it seriously.
- amatsukawa 10y ago
  Rigor is there. I'm now working in the ML/AI research division of big-4, all I needed (and all hiring teams needed to see on my resume) were a couple of these classes (with good internal performance ratings). Having said that, my employer paid for these classes. No way I would pay this price out of pocket. There are probably much cheaper ways to get the same knowledge.
- drewmol 10y ago
  Because I also used to make this much too common grammatical mistake: You're degree is an "associate" (singular) degree as in Associate of Science, etc. (An "associate's" degree could be any type of degree belonging to an associate of some type;-)

Would anyone recommend this over doing a masters degree in the similar area of study but at a local university (ie. not Standford)?

by b1gtuna 10y ago

Would anyone recommend this over doing a masters degree in the similar area of study but at a local university (ie. not Standford)?

snowcrshd 10y ago

I'm curious about this as well. I have interest in AI, but I'm not sure how companies would see this online degree (even through it is from Stanford).

mindcrime 10y ago
I would think it depends on the company. Remember, the world is a LOT bigger than GoogHooBookSoftBer or whatever. Walk into Tom's Auto Salvage or City Chevrolet or Barney's Screen Doors and Small-Engine Repair and show them that you can produce value for their business, and I don't think they're going to give a hoot if your degree/certificate/whatever is from Stanford, Yale, UNC-W, ECPI, or University of Phoenix.

nkozyra 10y ago

Hard to say without having taken these classes. GT isn't Stanford but a top 10 MSCS that offers an ML specialization for ~$8k-$10k. Whether that provides more value or employment opportunity I cannot say, but it is encouraging to see more to universities offering an alternative to traditional degree programs. I think there's a path for non-MS, non-PhD backgrounds, but probably not now. Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. So until they learn practical application I think supply will outnumber demand and most of the jobs will go to PhD AI/statistics backgrounds.

mindcrime 10y ago
Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. I would say just the opposite. There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That is, assuming you acknowledge that there's more to ML/AI than "deep learning". Not everybody needs a deep neural network. Sometimes you just need linear regression or a random forest. If you come at it from that point of view, the knowledge you gain from taking Andrew Ng's machine learning course is enough to create value for companies / organizations. A lot of the discussions on this topic here on HN seem to be based on an assumption that you have to be doing cutting edge original research to be useful. I think that's very far from the case. Now the problem is, does the mom and pop bakery on the corner know that they could benefit from ML? And perhaps the more salient question is "are they looking for somebody to do ML for them"? The answer is probably "no" in both cases, so you might have to do some work to sell to that market. But the value you can create is real. Help them optimize production so they throw away less bread on slow days, etc. and you're talking direct business impact. I suspect that there will be, for a long time, a wide continuum in terms of how ML/AI skills can help create value. Which means there will be a lot of ways to leverage this field from a career standpoint.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  > There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That's not exactly what I'm saying. There are ML problems everywhere, opportunities to create efficiencies, new products, etc. out of existing data and processes. But nobody hires an AI/ML candidate to come in and tell them what to do. Nobody says "we want to dabble in ML somehow but don't have any pressing needs, can you start at $140K?" Those businesses need to recognize the opportunities first before the market will expand.
  - xyzzy123 10y ago
    You might be be surprised. Not all of the opportunities are reasonable (or make any kind of sense at all) but if you take a shitty hire at a place with interesting data you can have fun. I can hardly count the number of organisations which now want to project the idea of being "innovative" and are excited to slap the coconut shells over their ears and try waving down planes with a stick. There's still a surprisingly huge number of companies still hiring "blockchain consultants" even though they're rapidly heading into the "despair" phase of the hype cycle. If you're a low cap stock or even a tired brick and mortar, two ML hires and a plausible investor story gives your graph a serious bump. The difference between blockchain bull()$& and ML bull()$& that is the ML could actually have legs. Mostly it'll just tell you stuff that someone who understands market actually knew though.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      While I believe that, it sure sounds like a miserable job for people who actually want to do cool things with data. Hired for show likely means you're still hunting for that problem (which might not exist).

cr0sh 10y ago

Disclaimer: I do not hold any kind of real degree (just an Associates from a defunct tech school - worth little to nothing now) - so take the following for what it is... Based on my experience, which I won't re-iterate here - the various MOOCs I've taken (and currently the Udacity Nanodegree) would not be anywhere close to a masters in the subject (unless I am severely overestimating a masters - but I don't think so). TBH - they would probably equate closer to an Associates, at best. This offering from Stanford? Not sure - but I still don't think it would be the equivalent. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I think if your goal is a deep level of knowledge and understanding of the subject, then a quality masters program for CompSci or similar would be the better path.

jayajay 10y ago
I think this seems right. The value in going to a school, taking classes, talking to students in the same boat and talking to professors is greater than the value of a very low-commitment thing like a certificate for watching 20 videos and turning in a few assignments. For the autodidacts, their github profiles are probably worth more than some silly certificate.
amatsukawa 10y ago
I've taken a couple on this list (employer paid as a perk, no way I would pay this price out of pocket) and I can attest it is 100x more worthwhile than Coursera MOOC. You actually study, partner with, and test along-side Stanford MS/PhD students. Not to mention the accountability factor, since you paid $5k for the class you better take it seriously.
amatsukawa 10y ago
Rigor is there. I'm now working in the ML/AI research division of big-4, all I needed (and all hiring teams needed to see on my resume) were a couple of these classes (with good internal performance ratings). Having said that, my employer paid for these classes. No way I would pay this price out of pocket. There are probably much cheaper ways to get the same knowledge.
drewmol 10y ago
Because I also used to make this much too common grammatical mistake: You're degree is an "associate" (singular) degree as in Associate of Science, etc. (An "associate's" degree could be any type of degree belonging to an associate of some type;-)