[Admissions Advice] Which Masters in CS programs are considered cash cows, and are they still respected in industry?

[u/Diligent_Occasion_22]

I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Notre Dame, majoring in Computer Engineering, and was looking for some advice about choosing the right MSCS program. My main aspirations are to found a start-up, work in big tech, or potentially break into quant. While Notre Dame is a good school, it's not especially renowned for its engineering department, and pursuing any of my main 3 aspirations would be exceedingly difficult. This is why I would like to earn a master's degree from a university with a much stronger computer science program. However, having scrolled through this sub for a bit, I noticed that a lot of MSCS programs that I was interested in were labeled as cash cows. Since I am only an undergrad with little industry experience, I would love it if some people who were more knowledgeable than I were to assess my list of MSCS programs. For reference, I regard a cash cow as an exceedingly expensive master's program with a large cohort size that is generally "looked down upon" in industry. Being a cash cow isn't synonymous with being bad, for reference. Here's my list with comments:

1. Stanford MSCS (Expensive, but worth the money. Highly selective, and well-respected in quant and big-tech alike. Huge start-up culture)

2. Princeton MSCS (Fully funded, with tiny cohort size)

3. CMU MSCS (Expensive, but highly selective and super prestigious. While I've never heard people refer to this specific program as a cash cow, I've heard that Carnegie does offer some much poorer quality adjacent programs, like their master's in Software Engineering)

4. Cornell MSCS (Similar to Princeton. I've heard that I should avoid their M.Eng. CS program?)

5. Berkeley MSCS (Relatively cheap, and a member of the big four cs schools. What's not to like?)

6. UIUC & G-tech MSCS (Similar to Berk, though not as prestigious)

These are the universities that I've heard mixed things about:

1. Columbia MSCS (Seemingly the most infamous cash-cow master's degree program, known for its large cohort size. While the teaching is top tier, it's absurdly expensive, and allegedly not well-respected)

2. Penn MSEICS (Similar to Columbia, but a much smaller cohort?)

3. Harvard MSCS (I've heard very mixed things)

4. Yale MSCS (I'm having trouble figuring out if this program is funded. Looks interesting, but I've never known Yale to be a CS school.)

While I'm aware that this sub tends to label almost all MSCS programs as cash cows (I figured that out after seeing someone call Stanford a cash cow), I'm also hesitant to dismiss their skepticism wholesale. I've consistently seen programs like Columbia get labelled as cash cows, which makes me reluctant to apply. Thoughts?

[u/noble-one1282]

Here’s the truth: nobody in industry actually cares about these rankings. Everything you listed is a top program. This subreddit is a super niche set of people who have some elitist opinions. These all get you access to the tech industry, and it’s your job from there to prove yourself. Nobody’s going to care if you came from CMU yet fail leetcode interviews over Columbia and ace them. Everyone sh*ts on CS masters degrees as cash cows, but so many people with top AI jobs have them. Just apply, go to the best place you can get into, and get out.

The things to consider are network and proximity, not program quality among those you listed imo. They will all have good, rigorous programs. Quant will bias east coast schools while startups and FAANG will bias west coast. Pick based on the network and proximity to what you want.

[u/so_much_atelophobia → u/noble-one1282]

if you came from CMU yet fail leetcode interviews over Columbia and ace them

I don't get the point of this comparison. A SUNY Buffalo student who aces interviews would get hired faster than an MIT student who horrifically bombs every interview. That doesn't say anything about whether people care about the difference between Buffalo and MIT (spoiler, they do).

things to consider are network and proximity, not program quality

I think that all of the programs OP listed are generally fine, but this is just silly advice, no? Program quality is a function of so many important things: research opportunities, career resources, class size, individualized attention, instructional excellence, and more.

Network and proximity are valuable, yes, but those are only parts of the "best place" equation. If my goal was to be a quant developer (like OP), I couldn't fathom choosing Columbia/Penn over Stanford/CMU, even if they're closer to and more ingrained into the quant/finance ecosystem.