joelc

I'm also interested in the reputation of Columbia for those same things.

Thanks for your thoughts, reverie003 and SWC. I don't mean to hijack sahil_mehta's thread, since I was originally interested in the CMU INI, but here's my story: I went to Stanford undergrad (studied other subjects), and grew up in Silicon Valley. I know what they have to offer. After all that time, I'm just not itching to go back. I took a few CS classes there, mostly intro ones taught by non-tenured instructors, who were great, and some by actual faculty, who were not. My experience in other departments as an undergrad is that it's actually hard to find good teachers there. They hire researchers who are at the absolute top in their fields in the world, and expect them to be able to talk to students who are just starting out. There's no reason that someone who is good at one of those would necessarily be good at the other. Maybe this is a more of a problem for undergrads. The other factor working against Stanford is that most of their CS MS students are co-terms, i.e. fifth year undergrads tacking on another degree. It's a good deal, if you can get it. I've been out of school for a while and I'm not sure if those are the peers I'm looking for. I just got my acceptance from Columbia, so now that's my other option, as with sahil_mehta. I am leaning toward Columbia for non-academic reasons, but I'm not sure yet. As already noted, Stanford is really in the top tier in certain ways, so it's hard to pass up.

I'm actually facing a pretty similar decision. I'm still waiting to hear from Columbia, which is one of my top choices, but I am in at Stanford (MS CS) and CMU INI MSIS. Systems and security are my main interests, and my thinking on INI is similar to yours. Still trying to decide whether the reputation is something I care much about, since like you said most of the classes are in the SCS. My other concern is for the long term. Security would be a new direction for me, and there's a chance that once I start that career I decide it's not for me. A regular MS CS would be more flexible, I think.

I'm not admitted yet, no, just researching different programs. In undergrad I took linear algebra/multivariable differential calculus and some stats classes required for econ. I worked for 5 years in data analysis and statistical programming. Since then I've taken a minor's worth of undergrad level CS, which included: discrete math correctness and runtime analysis of algorithms and data structures introduction to systems programming (x86 assembly, bitwise operations, binary representation of data, manipulating memory, implementing malloc) more systems programming (system calls, threading, multiprocessing, file systems, basic networking, signal handling, software-level caching) My first priorities when I go back to school will be first classes in operating system design, compilers, and networking. Anyway, what I'm really wondering is how many classes students at UT Austin generally take at one time, so how long it usually takes to get through 10 or 12 of them.

I'm wondering how long it usually takes to complete the MS CS at UT Austin. In the coursework track, it looks like 10 classes is the minimum. I'd need to fill in a couple undergrad level courses, so I'd probably need about 12 classes total. How many courses do students there usually take at one time?

Hi all, I've looked through some past posts and found some interesting discussions, but I thought I'd get at this question more directly. I have a dual BA in economics and political science from a top private US university. I did OK overall (3.5) but not totally stellar in econ (3.25). I haven't taken the GRE yet but I think I will do well. I've been working in private research for a couple years, but it's time to move on. I really enjoyed studying economics and did much better in my later classes. I'm not sure if a PhD is where I'm headed, but it's a possibility. I'm thinking an MA/MS in economics might be a good intermediate step, because it could strengthen my so-so application if I do decide that I'm cut out for a PhD, and if not, I could go back to the private sector with somewhat more attractive skills. I've heard that a lot of econ masters programs do not offer good preparation for academic research, though, and might not be that compelling for a PhD application. It looks like LSE, University of British Columbia, NYU, Duke and Michigan offer terminal masters that might be most useful for both further graduate study and the private sector, though LSE would probably be a stretch for my qualifications. Can anyone who has considered those confirm or deny that my impressions are correct? Has anyone here done a masters in econ and leveraged it into a stronger PhD application? MA/MS programs tend to be expensive, so if I would not actually be keeping the academic option open, it's probably not worth it for me. Thanks for your input, Joel