The article seems to argue from a vocational point of view. I don't know about the US, but around here, universities are not meant for vocational training. We'v

The article seems to argue from a vocational point of view. I don't know about the US, but around here, universities are not meant for vocational training. We've got another educational branch for that; universities are intended for academic training. The value of that for a job is that you ought to have learned how to keep abreast of new developments in the fields and how to make new skills in your field your own. Eg. (simplified) you may not know Java, but you know how to get to know Java - quickly and with great understanding. That's what a bachelor is supposed to give you. A master on top of that is supposed to dive deep into one area in the field, and show you the basics of research in that area. If you want to become a FAANG developer, a bachelor should suffice. A master education definitely has its advantages, but I doubt if there is any master programme anywhere geared towards becoming a rockstar developer. Masters aren't about becoming top-notch in something, they're about taking a broader, higher-level view. That sure can help someone on their path to rockstar developer, but it's up to the master how to continue given the acquired skills.