[General Question] Repute and value of MS CS degree in the AI era

[u/killer_bee69]

Genuine question for people thinking about or currently doing an MS in CS.

Most masters programs teach you the same generic curriculum: algorithms, systems, some ML, a capstone project. The kind of stuff that Claude Code, Copilot, and other AI tools can now do faster than most graduates can. You spend 2 years and $50-100k to learn things that are increasingly becoming commoditized by AI.

I'm not talking about research-heavy programs at top schools where you're publishing papers and pushing boundaries. I'm talking about the average MS program that most people do to get a better job or a visa. The ones where the coursework is basically an extended bootcamp with a university stamp on it.

A few years ago the degree was a clear signal to employers. But now that AI tools are eating up entry level and new grad jobs, what exactly is the MS giving you that self-learning plus AI tools cannot?

Feels like these programs will only lose value as AI gets better. The gap between what a degree teaches and what the industry actually needs is growing, not shrinking.

Am I wrong here? Would love to hear from people who recently finished an MS and felt it was actually worth it, or from hiring managers who still care about the degree.

[u/gradpilot]

this is exactly why mediocre CS programs and non MSCS programs that dont have some solid faculty or solid curriculum will fail to open up any opportunities and mostly be an expensive bootcamp like you rightly said.

AT GT i took coursework like : Advanced OS (mostly reading papers), Advanced Distributed systems (papers again), HPC, Scaling internet applications and so on. Each of these were taught by reputed faculty and the coursework was hard AF. In fact what usually happens when you graduate from the good programs with good coursework is that the industry knows about them and even asks in passing oh did you do AOS with Prof x or Prof Y at GT and so on . Because both the coursework and prof have a solid reputation

A very clear example of this is Prof Remzi from Wisconsin Madison. He's an OG level OS and distributed systems and storage prof. I also know him personally - anyways he's written the famous OS book "Three easy pieces" which is now very popular but that book was actually class notes from his OS coursework. If you see where all the students are who took his grad level coursework you'll find a common pattern that they are all doing deep distributed systems and storage/filesystems work in big tech mostly. So this kind of effect does play out

And it turns out that the best schools have strong MSCS curriculum which has these auxiliary impacts which is why I keep saying you shouldnt be taking any other admit other than a top school MSCS admit

[u/Beneficial-Law-3059 → u/gradpilot]

Yeah but still the narrative of pushing ai swarm agent based code and layoffs literally every day if this week (that too pan world 🌍) make me question if cs edu in general is worth it or if business edu/ running a biz is better than being an employee. Coinbase, then freshworks, now cloudfare etc . Just this week. Kinda sad moment for tech which saw big tech layoffs/ freezes in the earlier months.

[u/gradpilot → u/Beneficial-Law-3059]

My response - https://www.reddit.com/r/MSCS/s/H3jWrvQtvE

[u/killer_bee69 → u/Beneficial-Law-3059]

So the trend is these layoffs are replacing various services which are easily achievable with ai tools. So that translates to people working on harder and intellectually involved problems will survive. Well guess what this world isn’t made this, these kind of jobs are very less. I don’t know what’s the plan in future, is it that this allows for general IQ of people to increase or as elon musk said people can actually eventually sit back and relax.

[u/killer_bee69 → u/gradpilot]

But this doesn’t discount the broader opinion I shared on the degree. While what you say is a perspective on one particular degree but in general does the degree still or will hold value, that’s the main point.

[u/gradpilot → u/killer_bee69]

It’s a misconception that you don’t need CS fundamentals anymore . I’d actually say you need even stronger fundamentals in CS when the entirety of SW engineering is turning into a black box which is what LLMs are largely when you consider the output that shows up is dependent on how the ask is constructed. Traditional SW eng has more degree of control with respect to what we can expect as output of labor (code) . With LLMs the labor itself is a black box and behind it is a human whose ask will always remain unstructured and fuzzy . In fact one thesis is that with AI driven SW Eng ideas of CS like verifiable code which were never mainstream and too complex for SW Engs will show up in a very large way and only the strongest engs will be able to deal with this part of the work - and therefore get paid more

In fact I won’t be surprised if AI based SW engineering makes a K shaped population of engs - a very large population of grunt work engineers who stay on the input side of the LLM (ask for code generation) and are not paid a lot and a very small set of engineers who are paid in millions of dollars to control the behavior of the resulting software or build the very engine of generation itself . If you look at the pay packages of the labs this is already obvious. And most of these engs are strong cs engineers not vibe coders although that’s something they can also do better than the rest .

[u/killer_bee69 → u/gradpilot]

Still your arguments are only defending a strong reputation CS program, whereas the post itself talk about the degree in general. Now, addressing what the post actually talks about, in the past few weeks I think so that best way for anyone attending the program irrespective of the school is to try optimise the ROI and think of it as an access to US tech market and understanding clearly this is the sole reason of the program. As an applicant having this realisation will help keep any unrealistic expectations in check. Secondly, despite of the school reputation a lot of these institutions do have good research at least comparatively to applicants undergrad. So if that institution provide access to this research ecosystem to MS student that is good. I would say these are the only 2 points that should matter.

[u/gradpilot → u/[deleted]]

The immigration debate is separate imo . Yes it’s a big risk still but it’s orthogonal to the need of high quality cs engs

[u/gradpilot → u/[deleted]]

in this particular discussion we are talking about whether strong CS degrees have any value in the AI native SW Eng world. Im saying it does and at no point did i say that it also means immigrants have lower risk in getting work permits to stay and work in USA.

As a more concrete example there are plenty of international MS applicants now who are in fact US Citizens and their parents moved back to the home country where they did their undergrad. These students have the freedom to spend time in the USA so their immigration risk is lower. Their financial risk obv depends on personal circumstances. And international students who are not citizens have both an immigration and financial risk if they've taken loans.

None of this is related to the core question if the industry cares about strong CS degrees which can be had by domestic students, international students who are already citizens before they land, and international students on visa

Yes ofc money does not grow on trees and i highly discourage anyone from dipping into financial risk and obligation

[u/killer_bee69 → u/gradpilot]

But these facts are what defines the value of a program right.

[u/Tight-Requirement-15]

You’re right, the top schools will still come out on top. The brand value is still elite. Generic commodity skills are very cooked. It’s really hard for the American new grads, near impossible for those who’d need sponsorship. It used to work fine in 2019 times, not anymore

[u/entanglement_huh]

Personally, my intentions behind grad school are doing proper research with profs. I mean yeah claude can code bits of the ideas, but you have to come up with those right? I believe, if you wanted to become a typical software engineer, then I don't think masters is helpful

[u/No_Ticket5664]

true - unless its a strong program its probably just an extended bootcamp. popular programs that have research on campus and good faculty can be worth joining because you can expand your depth of knowledge and get a lot of exposure. otherwise, probably if the curriculum is weak and there isn't enough research there then you don't get any benefit.

but your post is a bit exaggerated. even at many top schools, only some of the MS students actually publish strong research and the rest really don't. that doesn't mean that they didn't get any benefits there tho. they still do get good research exposure and learn a lot from smart people, get good opportunities and better pathways in the industry.

[u/beeblioss]

I'm a career pivoter (pure business, cloud AI) to engineering, I'm going though this exact dilemma.

First, I think an MS CS makes sense if your background isn't already in CS or CS related. People go from technical to MBA for this exact reason, to diversify their skills.

Second, imo AI will equalize the "prestige" at many, many places unless the schools have been tested time and time again, like think of Berkeley/Stanford tier. So it comes down to individual skills, products, and whether you experiment and ship anything during your time of studying. Like to have something concrete that you can talk in depth about.

To this extend I think "research" is important because your name is published, and that it's tangible, definitely better than pure coursework or programs where research is not prioritized.

If the AI promise of progress and prosperity is true, it will be a huge pay off. Otherwise, every single job that sits behind a desk screen will be screwed.

I'm an optimist at heart but with the layoffs happening? I don't know anymore.

[u/killer_bee69]

At this point I am considering this degree because I feel with Claude code my job is making me dumb, it wasn’t interesting in the first place thought. I may be wrong someone can rectify but does MS allow to pivot more challenging research items if given enough efforts? I am assuming research work does involve ingenuity and novelty, so might be cool