3 ms·

> If you teach CS well and make $65K, almost all your students will make more than you do at their first position and many will make 2x-3x "Many" is a weasel w

> If you teach CS well and make $65K, almost all your students will make more than you do at their first position and many will make 2x-3x "Many" is a weasel word that adds a different flavor to your original assertion that "your undergrads are making 3x your income at their first gig." What you're saying is still crazy hyperbole. I simply cannot imagine what your source of data is here. A randomly chosen google hit shows that the average starting salary for a new CS undergrad is around $68k, which seems about right. It is still, if we're being honest, probably a bit humbling for a junior professor to be making the same as a new graduate. But you had to lean into the "2x-3x" hyperbole... >> These sorts of careless lies... > This rant sounds extremely personal. Not going to touch this. Oh, touch it. Young people trying to gauge the profession, higher education, and its' costs are going to read your comments. They are entering what is often a lucrative profession but they are not going to be making three times as much as their teachers. Why make stuff up? It's not helping anybody. > Total comp out of a top CS PhD programs lately is around 200K-300K range with some outliers. > Total comp out of a top MBA program lately is around 100K-200K range with some outliers. This would be a lot more compelling if you provided citations. The salary numbers someone else provided for the Stanford MBA program, numbers which you were dismissive of, included range, median, and mode, and those numbers were higher. But the numbers I (and I suspect, anyone involved in the profession) are likely to be most skeptical about are the numbers you're talking about for CS PhD new grads. Those people will often gravitate towards postdoc and teaching positions, while the Masters students will often gravitate towards FAANG jobs. To be honest I would be delighted to learn that newly graduated CS PhDs from top programs are making, on average, as much as those entering industry with a Masters, since it would probably signal a lot more money being put towards research. I'm pretty sure the numbers you're talking about would have them making twice as much as the new Masters grads, which, again, great! I would be delighted to learn it's true. [0] https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/compensation/computer-science-grads-projected-to-be-top-paid-in-major/ https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/compensation/computer-sci...

throwawaygh 5y ago
> "Many" is a weasel word Yes. > Adds color Dude. Sometimes is also a qualifier. It's right there in my original quote. WTF is this conversation even about anymore? This is getting unbelievably pedantic. Look, it's a thing at the 3 institutions I advise for their CS faculty to make below-market wages and for their graduates to make above-average wages. I think this pattern of facts is uniquely common at lower tier LACs with CS PhD on faculty. Those institutions pay uniquely low rates for CS faculty, but the value of LAC-style 1:1 mentorship from a CS PhD is enormous and consistently results in better than average placements. I didn't claim this is the base case. I used conditioning words. Sometimes. Up to. From first post on-wards. you can call me a liar. Whatever. This is real phenomenon. These situations exist. You've even conceded my fundamental point about this subset of CS PhDs AFAICT: that the jobs are plentiful and not particularly attractive. Next, you claimed Stanford MBAs make more than Stanford CS PhDs because some Stanford CS PhDs choose academia (and, yes, the Stanford CS PhDs who choose industry make more than their MBA counter-parts; go look at levels.fyi). That's all fine and well. Probably true. here's the thing, though. My top-most post in this thread explicitly preconditioned this branch of the conversation on "CS PhDs who choose industry". So at this point I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Clearly, we're so far down-thread that the plot is completely lost. The pedantry is trying my patience. Go back and read my original post. Is there any aspect of that basic thesis that you actually disagree with in a substantive way?
labcomputer 5y ago
> the salary numbers someone else provided for the Stanford MBA program, [...] and those numbers were higher. Standford is widely-regarded as one of the very tippy-top MBA programs. The Economist ranks them #5 (but #1 in post-MBA earnings). FT ranks them #2 and US News and World Report ranks them #1.

throwawaygh 5y ago

> "Many" is a weasel word Yes. > Adds color Dude. Sometimes is also a qualifier. It's right there in my original quote. WTF is this conversation even about anymore? This is getting unbelievably pedantic. Look, it's a thing at the 3 institutions I advise for their CS faculty to make below-market wages and for their graduates to make above-average wages. I think this pattern of facts is uniquely common at lower tier LACs with CS PhD on faculty. Those institutions pay uniquely low rates for CS faculty, but the value of LAC-style 1:1 mentorship from a CS PhD is enormous and consistently results in better than average placements. I didn't claim this is the base case. I used conditioning words. Sometimes. Up to. From first post on-wards. you can call me a liar. Whatever. This is real phenomenon. These situations exist. You've even conceded my fundamental point about this subset of CS PhDs AFAICT: that the jobs are plentiful and not particularly attractive. Next, you claimed Stanford MBAs make more than Stanford CS PhDs because some Stanford CS PhDs choose academia (and, yes, the Stanford CS PhDs who choose industry make more than their MBA counter-parts; go look at levels.fyi). That's all fine and well. Probably true. here's the thing, though. My top-most post in this thread explicitly preconditioned this branch of the conversation on "CS PhDs who choose industry". So at this point I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Clearly, we're so far down-thread that the plot is completely lost. The pedantry is trying my patience. Go back and read my original post. Is there any aspect of that basic thesis that you actually disagree with in a substantive way?

labcomputer 5y ago

> the salary numbers someone else provided for the Stanford MBA program, [...] and those numbers were higher. Standford is widely-regarded as one of the very tippy-top MBA programs. The Economist ranks them #5 (but #1 in post-MBA earnings). FT ranks them #2 and US News and World Report ranks them #1.