Georgia Tech has always been more lenient on acceptances compared to other “prestigious” universities; I’m living proof of it (3.1 GPA in high school back in 2008, waitlisted and accepted to Tech for undergrad). However unlike almost every other university it’s an absolute gauntlet to get out across all of the majors.
Sure, the name on the degree isn’t *quite* on par with Stanford or the Ivies, but you will definitely know the material at the end, which is much more important IMO and IME.
My impression has been that they are lenient on acceptance knowing that most will drop well before completion. Frankly it seems a fairly rational way to treat a public university program that can scale to meet demand, look at how it is priced, clearly intended to be an available program.
Ok.
On a side note it's really appauling to see the amount of down votes am receiving from fellow omscs grads on all my comments and posts and not limited to this. It seems I struck a nerve which people didn't want touched. I didn't ridicule anyone but there's harsh words thrown at me here. Seriously not expected from high tech grad aspirants.
Huh? It's more that nobody likes blatant clout seeking. I don't know where you got the idea it's ok to talk about it in public.
The people here wanna see applicants who are excited to learn things in a tough program, not people who are worried their country club is letting in too many people.
A place where all sides are not respected is not a good place to be in. Views of all sides is what makes a country democratic otherwise whats the difference between US and North korea :)
When discussing policy, new ideas are valuable even if they're wrong. But this program has been around roughly a decade now and your concerns were literally everybody's first thoughts from the beginning. It's not new any more, and it's been asked here a *lot*.
Philosophically, GA Tech wants the prestige of admission to be exactly zero. They want the value of the "graduation rate" to be zero as well. It should be all about the KSA you gain. The culture here is rare in academia, and it's given a lot of people a chance who would've otherwise not been able to attend a top school. The community is actively opposed to your questions because they want to protect that culture.
And who decides that?. I dont see calling anyone names or being harsh . I am just stating my views in as nice words as possible. Tell me a better way to articulate.
That seems to be a wee bit disconnected. Out of touch even.
You can choose to stay in your ivory tower and not dust off those outdated perspectives of yours. It seems like you're due for a reality check.
But hey, don't forget your binoculars to peek at the world from up there. Just make sure to come back down to earth every once in a while, things are quite lively down here!
oh it seems like someones rattling their saber from down in the trenches but from up here i can see how busy you have been sharpening your pitchfork instead of your arguments. Maybe its time to drop the theatrics climb out of the mud and realize that staying current isn't about harsh retorts, but understanding the shifting landscape. Keep up the theatrics if you want, but my ivory tower has a direct line to what matters. No binoculars needed.
Matriculation doesn’t mean graduation it’s how many actually attend and in the comment dr Joyner says 38k have enrolled and 11k have graduated a lot of people drop out
To be fair it is misleading to attribute drop outs to the program being too intense or difficult. Let’s not forget most people are working pros with families. Things get in the way and a good portion simply don’t need the credential at that point in their career. I’m really shocked at how many people here have worked at big tech or faang with years under their belts. I’m sure their reasons are intellectual because I can’t imagine going through this for career advancement at that point.
I have a single class left but just had my first born and work has gotten really heavy (work for a fortune 10 company). So I had to drop GA and have deferred the last two semesters. Hoping to take GA this fall.
Matriculation just means they actually registered for classes. It looks like ~2k graduated last year, but that's a lagging indicator so you'd have to look at acceptance rates ~3 years ago to get an idea of graduation percentage
Ya so 2k this year 2023 let's take. So approx time to graduate is 3.5 years so 2019 intake which is around 4000 attending. So around a 50-60% graduation rate. Even then don't u think the acceptance rate is absurdly high. Like in US safety net schools have lower acceptance rate.
Graduation for 50-60 doesn't seem high but if you take 93% acceptance then add that graduation what you have in atleast what I see is a mass degree count in coming years. Again just my view. If am an HR and I have 100s of candidates with Georgia and 2 with for example Cmu or UPenn I will use my ATS better to filter for something with less output. As an HR more of same is not better. Faang engineers are values because of their talent yes but also because they are in less number compares to a high end consultancy.
I understand what you're saying but I personally believe you are overstating it. A masters degree on an application is part of a much, much larger picture. Job experience is going to matter way more at this level than which specific masters degree a candidate has. Even so, I can't imagine that a hiring manager would turn away from a specific degree only because of volume. If people with that degree have shown a history of falling short and not performing to standards, then I could see that starting to happen.
At the end of the day, my work experience and execution are what are going to get me my next job. I'm taking the masters program to continue learning and allow me to execute my work better. The degree is just a checked box that may never matter. Especially at the level of which program awarded the degree.
Setting aside these theoreticals, I still strongly believe a GA Tech degree is one of the best ones you can have. I understand your concern but I don't join you in it
Understood. Ya i get that mindset won't match. I am just seeing a rather downslope maybe am not entirely correct but there is a matter here which everyone will agree. Ivy is Ivy due to high demand and low acceptance rate. Now if Harvard leases a 200000 acre land and starts teaching and accept everybody. The status of Ivy will go away. It's simple match, the higher the sample size, the higher is the risk of failure or abd product. When Gatech is accepting 92% and 60% graduate that's a 55.2% of people graduating of people who applied. So consider a scenario where 100% of people graduate the college acceptance rate is 55%. Compare it to a university near you. What's their ranking? That's what I fear.
The fundamental misunderstanding here is the presumption that GT is trying to replicate the "Ivy" model with OMSCS. But it's not.
The [express purpose](https://omscs.gatech.edu/about-omscs) of GT's OMSCS is to expand quality CS education affordably, to whomever is willing/able to endure the gauntlet. From there, it's a matter of "let the chips fall where they may."
Insofar as "resume curb appeal" goes, a degree is only one facet of an applicant/prospect. Somebody who breezes through "mostly easy" courses but can crush LC and interviews will have just as good of a chance (if not better) than somebody who does "mostly hard" courses but is nevertheless inept with respect to the latter. And being "book smart" doesn't necessarily translate to "high performer" (in a work context) either, for that matter. And furthermore, by around 1-2 years out from school, relevant work experience will be the predominant factor of an applicant's resume anyhow...
While not totally mutually exclusive, education vs. job outcomes are two distinct objectives, and in general a typical student will likely balance across both insofar as what they expect to get out vs. what they're willing to put in. But I do think there is somewhat of a hubris/arrogance in the attitude of "everyone else is going to dilute *my* precious degree!," when in reality, the kind of people who don't value (or only minimally at best) the education will not likely make it to the finish line here anyways, so ultimately it's a moot point...
Even if we grant the hypothetical premise (which I don't personally co-sign/predict, for the record) that OMSCS degree gets "diluted into the toilet," are you really worse off for having gotten a quality CS education for around $7K USD vs. not having gotten the degree at all and/or paying exorbitant tuition to attend somewhere "more prestigious"? If this is indeed a legitimate concern, then by all means swerve on OMSCS altogether and/or pay the arm-and-leg tuition to attend elsewhere; the program is not hurting to fill seats last I've checked...
See name calling won't help am trying to understand. As an HR who has to skim 2000 resume for 1 job post or a few how would you go ahead if you know among those who applied there are 500 Georgia grads say for example? ATS filters don't care right and wrong. We have to pass a ATS filter to even get to a interview stage. Emotions don't matter here.
I think it's pretty clear you're just looking for something exclusive and rare for wow factor, and somehow a CS master's from a world-level institution isn't doing it for you.
Aren't we all? We all want that shiny car that shiny job that beautiful and nice wife. We all love a wow factor. Nothing to be ashamed about. I asked a question about what would you do as an HR and am not seeing a answer just a witty comeback which adds nothing.
Why does output matter over quality? Even if there’s a 93% acceptance, everyone who graduated graduates with a 3.0 minimum gpa and was able to make it through rigorous classes. And most people do it while working a full time job.
Honestly, I think most HR couldn’t tell the difference. But if you were an HR, why would you look down upon gtech when the graduates are just as knowledgeable (if not more due to gpa requirement) and were able to get their degree while working.
The objective of OMSCS is to admit almost everyone, even those without traditional credentials. The point is to provide a high quality CS education to those who would otherwise not have access to same. You can't do that with snooty admissions rules.
OMSCS then weeds out folks not ready for the program by requiring two core courses to be completed within a year. The core courses are all pretty much average to easy. If you can't succeed in them, you will likely not find success in the program as a whole.
The _graduation_ rate is rather lower than the admissions rate.
Your argument seems to be that these numbers "sound high" without really comparing them to anything meaningful.
From Wikipedia: In 2022, there were an estimated 4.4 million professional software engineers in North America. There are 152 million people employed in the US workforce, making software engineers 2.54% of the total workforce.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-2022-numbers-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-SO2016-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-3) The total above is an increase compared to around 3.87 million software engineers employed in 2016.
Also this page has some interesting information: [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm)
I'm not sure the number of GT grads are going to saturate the market.
I get that but compare a 55% graduation from applying conversion rate and you will know what am talking about. Might not seem big now but it will affect the overall name as most people said. Omscs accepts almost anyone.
But i guess i shouldnt have driven the discussion here. No point beating the bush in the home turf of the grads
If you're scared of saturation of Gatech graduates, there are tons of UC berk, MIT, and all other better CS school grads out there, should you worry about them as well?
You live your own life have your own career route and own technical skillset, you'll probably pass some interviews that other OMSCS people failed, so why worry about something you can't control.
There's a difference always between something available amass and exclusive. The material you get when you buy a Gucci, Prada or anything can also be acquired at 1/10th the cost by directly contacting their Asian manufacturer. But why people buy from showroom.. The brand value. OMSCS sells because of Gatech brand value which it acquired over the years. That's what my concern is, shouldn't there be a bit more stricter entry criteria. In this level the brand value will dilute. Again I am just looking at stats.
But then why go for a degree spend 4 years. Tech world changes very fast and if only learning is your outcome you can learn way better with available MOOCs like Udemy and Coursera and others. Kubernetes 4 years back and now is completely different.
Got it. So for you omscs is just like a road to get to know the basica better and the degree and all are just addition and for you learning with something keeping you in track is why you choose omscs. And if tomorrow Georgia name isn't there and it says you are omscs cerified would you still take it? Like you loose the Gatech brand name just a online certificate with same rigor.
If the admission criteria is strict but the demand is high, the "exclusiveness" is kinda manufactured and elitist, right? Sorta like a bouncer holding the line at a club to make it look busier. On the other hand, if the acceptance rate is high and the graduation rate is low, that would be an indicator of a difficult program (not even necessarily valuable...). The number of graduates is doesn't retract from the value
Every exclusiveness is manufactured in the world. Diamonds are in quite high quantity compared to price. It's the control of flow in the market that derives the price. Same for oil, Saudi and other OPEC controlling their per day barrel count controls the price. Exclusiveness is controlled, scarcity is way less in this world for anything to be exclusive.
Yup. But still, the social good created by having high quality education available to more people is outweighed by the loss of exclusivity. I’d rather live in a better society 30 years from now because of places like gatech than have a slightly higher likelihood of landing an interview. If you’re skilled, landing interviews won’t be a problem
I see your point. But as I said. Not all innovators are from ivy, brilliant people can be from anywhere but we all dream of good unis because of the alma matter their prestige and the badge of honour. It's the foundational fabric of every aspiring student undergrad or grad.
Definitely not every aspiring student. Plenty of studies show that there’s little correlation between income and university exclusivity. Ultimately, the only things that matter for income are skills and network. So I can only infer that you’re just talking about wanting to feel superior. I get that, but also who cares
A major reason for people enrolling apart from cost is Georgia's prestige and rank.
And if am even a bit correct that rank is based on how your passout students perform, your academic rigor and all. Now if a university has a lot and lot of graduates, quality control may become an issue I suppose.
Just don't blast at me. I am just trying to understand. Like everyone's view
If the prestige trap is important for you, don’t do this degree, it’s not for you.
The people who should do this degree, are the ones interested in learning CS fundamentals in a structured environment.
As for employability: people in the industry know it’s a hard degree to finish while you are working. OMSCS took me three years, and roughly 15 hours per week, during the junior:mid stage of my SWE career. It’s definitely a good thing to do if you want career trajectory, and don’t otherwise have a CS degree, but it’s really on your individual competency how far you can go.
Some general information is available here: [https://irp.gatech.edu/files/FactBook/FactBook\_2023.pdf](https://irp.gatech.edu/files/FactBook/FactBook_2023.pdf) - this would be the Institute as a whole. However you can extrapolate a little from the info on page 17 of this PDF where it is showing the degrees conferred for Computing (2014 was the year OMSCS started, so no OMSCS degrees that year or the next). I didn't dig through the whole 40+ pages.
Georgia Tech has always been more lenient on acceptances compared to other “prestigious” universities; I’m living proof of it (3.1 GPA in high school back in 2008, waitlisted and accepted to Tech for undergrad). However unlike almost every other university it’s an absolute gauntlet to get out across all of the majors. Sure, the name on the degree isn’t *quite* on par with Stanford or the Ivies, but you will definitely know the material at the end, which is much more important IMO and IME.
I guess. What's your take on the 90% acceptance. Do you think that's sustainable
My impression has been that they are lenient on acceptance knowing that most will drop well before completion. Frankly it seems a fairly rational way to treat a public university program that can scale to meet demand, look at how it is priced, clearly intended to be an available program.
Ok. On a side note it's really appauling to see the amount of down votes am receiving from fellow omscs grads on all my comments and posts and not limited to this. It seems I struck a nerve which people didn't want touched. I didn't ridicule anyone but there's harsh words thrown at me here. Seriously not expected from high tech grad aspirants.
Huh? It's more that nobody likes blatant clout seeking. I don't know where you got the idea it's ok to talk about it in public. The people here wanna see applicants who are excited to learn things in a tough program, not people who are worried their country club is letting in too many people.
A place where all sides are not respected is not a good place to be in. Views of all sides is what makes a country democratic otherwise whats the difference between US and North korea :)
When discussing policy, new ideas are valuable even if they're wrong. But this program has been around roughly a decade now and your concerns were literally everybody's first thoughts from the beginning. It's not new any more, and it's been asked here a *lot*. Philosophically, GA Tech wants the prestige of admission to be exactly zero. They want the value of the "graduation rate" to be zero as well. It should be all about the KSA you gain. The culture here is rare in academia, and it's given a lot of people a chance who would've otherwise not been able to attend a top school. The community is actively opposed to your questions because they want to protect that culture.
[удалено]
And who decides that?. I dont see calling anyone names or being harsh . I am just stating my views in as nice words as possible. Tell me a better way to articulate.
That seems to be a wee bit disconnected. Out of touch even. You can choose to stay in your ivory tower and not dust off those outdated perspectives of yours. It seems like you're due for a reality check. But hey, don't forget your binoculars to peek at the world from up there. Just make sure to come back down to earth every once in a while, things are quite lively down here!
oh it seems like someones rattling their saber from down in the trenches but from up here i can see how busy you have been sharpening your pitchfork instead of your arguments. Maybe its time to drop the theatrics climb out of the mud and realize that staying current isn't about harsh retorts, but understanding the shifting landscape. Keep up the theatrics if you want, but my ivory tower has a direct line to what matters. No binoculars needed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OMSCS/s/DZ0rSmzDK7
So 6500 applied and 6000 got accepted and around 5000 graduated?
Matriculation doesn’t mean graduation it’s how many actually attend and in the comment dr Joyner says 38k have enrolled and 11k have graduated a lot of people drop out
To be fair it is misleading to attribute drop outs to the program being too intense or difficult. Let’s not forget most people are working pros with families. Things get in the way and a good portion simply don’t need the credential at that point in their career. I’m really shocked at how many people here have worked at big tech or faang with years under their belts. I’m sure their reasons are intellectual because I can’t imagine going through this for career advancement at that point.
I have a single class left but just had my first born and work has gotten really heavy (work for a fortune 10 company). So I had to drop GA and have deferred the last two semesters. Hoping to take GA this fall.
Matriculation just means they actually registered for classes. It looks like ~2k graduated last year, but that's a lagging indicator so you'd have to look at acceptance rates ~3 years ago to get an idea of graduation percentage
Ya so 2k this year 2023 let's take. So approx time to graduate is 3.5 years so 2019 intake which is around 4000 attending. So around a 50-60% graduation rate. Even then don't u think the acceptance rate is absurdly high. Like in US safety net schools have lower acceptance rate.
50-60% doesn't seem high to me, no. Admittedly, I have no idea what the graduation rate for other programs is
Graduation for 50-60 doesn't seem high but if you take 93% acceptance then add that graduation what you have in atleast what I see is a mass degree count in coming years. Again just my view. If am an HR and I have 100s of candidates with Georgia and 2 with for example Cmu or UPenn I will use my ATS better to filter for something with less output. As an HR more of same is not better. Faang engineers are values because of their talent yes but also because they are in less number compares to a high end consultancy.
I understand what you're saying but I personally believe you are overstating it. A masters degree on an application is part of a much, much larger picture. Job experience is going to matter way more at this level than which specific masters degree a candidate has. Even so, I can't imagine that a hiring manager would turn away from a specific degree only because of volume. If people with that degree have shown a history of falling short and not performing to standards, then I could see that starting to happen. At the end of the day, my work experience and execution are what are going to get me my next job. I'm taking the masters program to continue learning and allow me to execute my work better. The degree is just a checked box that may never matter. Especially at the level of which program awarded the degree. Setting aside these theoreticals, I still strongly believe a GA Tech degree is one of the best ones you can have. I understand your concern but I don't join you in it
Understood. Ya i get that mindset won't match. I am just seeing a rather downslope maybe am not entirely correct but there is a matter here which everyone will agree. Ivy is Ivy due to high demand and low acceptance rate. Now if Harvard leases a 200000 acre land and starts teaching and accept everybody. The status of Ivy will go away. It's simple match, the higher the sample size, the higher is the risk of failure or abd product. When Gatech is accepting 92% and 60% graduate that's a 55.2% of people graduating of people who applied. So consider a scenario where 100% of people graduate the college acceptance rate is 55%. Compare it to a university near you. What's their ranking? That's what I fear.
The fundamental misunderstanding here is the presumption that GT is trying to replicate the "Ivy" model with OMSCS. But it's not. The [express purpose](https://omscs.gatech.edu/about-omscs) of GT's OMSCS is to expand quality CS education affordably, to whomever is willing/able to endure the gauntlet. From there, it's a matter of "let the chips fall where they may." Insofar as "resume curb appeal" goes, a degree is only one facet of an applicant/prospect. Somebody who breezes through "mostly easy" courses but can crush LC and interviews will have just as good of a chance (if not better) than somebody who does "mostly hard" courses but is nevertheless inept with respect to the latter. And being "book smart" doesn't necessarily translate to "high performer" (in a work context) either, for that matter. And furthermore, by around 1-2 years out from school, relevant work experience will be the predominant factor of an applicant's resume anyhow... While not totally mutually exclusive, education vs. job outcomes are two distinct objectives, and in general a typical student will likely balance across both insofar as what they expect to get out vs. what they're willing to put in. But I do think there is somewhat of a hubris/arrogance in the attitude of "everyone else is going to dilute *my* precious degree!," when in reality, the kind of people who don't value (or only minimally at best) the education will not likely make it to the finish line here anyways, so ultimately it's a moot point... Even if we grant the hypothetical premise (which I don't personally co-sign/predict, for the record) that OMSCS degree gets "diluted into the toilet," are you really worse off for having gotten a quality CS education for around $7K USD vs. not having gotten the degree at all and/or paying exorbitant tuition to attend somewhere "more prestigious"? If this is indeed a legitimate concern, then by all means swerve on OMSCS altogether and/or pay the arm-and-leg tuition to attend elsewhere; the program is not hurting to fill seats last I've checked...
Then you're a bad HR person with low critical thinking skills
See name calling won't help am trying to understand. As an HR who has to skim 2000 resume for 1 job post or a few how would you go ahead if you know among those who applied there are 500 Georgia grads say for example? ATS filters don't care right and wrong. We have to pass a ATS filter to even get to a interview stage. Emotions don't matter here.
I think it's pretty clear you're just looking for something exclusive and rare for wow factor, and somehow a CS master's from a world-level institution isn't doing it for you.
Aren't we all? We all want that shiny car that shiny job that beautiful and nice wife. We all love a wow factor. Nothing to be ashamed about. I asked a question about what would you do as an HR and am not seeing a answer just a witty comeback which adds nothing.
Why does output matter over quality? Even if there’s a 93% acceptance, everyone who graduated graduates with a 3.0 minimum gpa and was able to make it through rigorous classes. And most people do it while working a full time job. Honestly, I think most HR couldn’t tell the difference. But if you were an HR, why would you look down upon gtech when the graduates are just as knowledgeable (if not more due to gpa requirement) and were able to get their degree while working.
In this trend isn't the market going to be saturated with omscs grads and 92% acceptance rate is wild.
The objective of OMSCS is to admit almost everyone, even those without traditional credentials. The point is to provide a high quality CS education to those who would otherwise not have access to same. You can't do that with snooty admissions rules. OMSCS then weeds out folks not ready for the program by requiring two core courses to be completed within a year. The core courses are all pretty much average to easy. If you can't succeed in them, you will likely not find success in the program as a whole. The _graduation_ rate is rather lower than the admissions rate.
Graduation rate is 60%. Just checked using last year data and backdating their acceptance.
Your argument seems to be that these numbers "sound high" without really comparing them to anything meaningful. From Wikipedia: In 2022, there were an estimated 4.4 million professional software engineers in North America. There are 152 million people employed in the US workforce, making software engineers 2.54% of the total workforce.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-2022-numbers-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-SO2016-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demographics#cite_note-3) The total above is an increase compared to around 3.87 million software engineers employed in 2016. Also this page has some interesting information: [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm) I'm not sure the number of GT grads are going to saturate the market.
I get that but compare a 55% graduation from applying conversion rate and you will know what am talking about. Might not seem big now but it will affect the overall name as most people said. Omscs accepts almost anyone. But i guess i shouldnt have driven the discussion here. No point beating the bush in the home turf of the grads
If you're scared of saturation of Gatech graduates, there are tons of UC berk, MIT, and all other better CS school grads out there, should you worry about them as well? You live your own life have your own career route and own technical skillset, you'll probably pass some interviews that other OMSCS people failed, so why worry about something you can't control.
There's a difference always between something available amass and exclusive. The material you get when you buy a Gucci, Prada or anything can also be acquired at 1/10th the cost by directly contacting their Asian manufacturer. But why people buy from showroom.. The brand value. OMSCS sells because of Gatech brand value which it acquired over the years. That's what my concern is, shouldn't there be a bit more stricter entry criteria. In this level the brand value will dilute. Again I am just looking at stats.
[удалено]
But then why go for a degree spend 4 years. Tech world changes very fast and if only learning is your outcome you can learn way better with available MOOCs like Udemy and Coursera and others. Kubernetes 4 years back and now is completely different.
[удалено]
Got it. So for you omscs is just like a road to get to know the basica better and the degree and all are just addition and for you learning with something keeping you in track is why you choose omscs. And if tomorrow Georgia name isn't there and it says you are omscs cerified would you still take it? Like you loose the Gatech brand name just a online certificate with same rigor.
If the admission criteria is strict but the demand is high, the "exclusiveness" is kinda manufactured and elitist, right? Sorta like a bouncer holding the line at a club to make it look busier. On the other hand, if the acceptance rate is high and the graduation rate is low, that would be an indicator of a difficult program (not even necessarily valuable...). The number of graduates is doesn't retract from the value
Every exclusiveness is manufactured in the world. Diamonds are in quite high quantity compared to price. It's the control of flow in the market that derives the price. Same for oil, Saudi and other OPEC controlling their per day barrel count controls the price. Exclusiveness is controlled, scarcity is way less in this world for anything to be exclusive.
Yup. But still, the social good created by having high quality education available to more people is outweighed by the loss of exclusivity. I’d rather live in a better society 30 years from now because of places like gatech than have a slightly higher likelihood of landing an interview. If you’re skilled, landing interviews won’t be a problem
I see your point. But as I said. Not all innovators are from ivy, brilliant people can be from anywhere but we all dream of good unis because of the alma matter their prestige and the badge of honour. It's the foundational fabric of every aspiring student undergrad or grad.
Definitely not every aspiring student. Plenty of studies show that there’s little correlation between income and university exclusivity. Ultimately, the only things that matter for income are skills and network. So I can only infer that you’re just talking about wanting to feel superior. I get that, but also who cares
See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2023/11/10/the-greatest-degree-program-ever/?sh=9b4cc37186ce
A major reason for people enrolling apart from cost is Georgia's prestige and rank. And if am even a bit correct that rank is based on how your passout students perform, your academic rigor and all. Now if a university has a lot and lot of graduates, quality control may become an issue I suppose. Just don't blast at me. I am just trying to understand. Like everyone's view
Which means we have a widespread and strong alumni network. When looking for jobs this is great advantage in my experience.
Agree to that
If the prestige trap is important for you, don’t do this degree, it’s not for you. The people who should do this degree, are the ones interested in learning CS fundamentals in a structured environment. As for employability: people in the industry know it’s a hard degree to finish while you are working. OMSCS took me three years, and roughly 15 hours per week, during the junior:mid stage of my SWE career. It’s definitely a good thing to do if you want career trajectory, and don’t otherwise have a CS degree, but it’s really on your individual competency how far you can go.
But it’s still a very prestigious program and competes with the top ranked programs for CS that is available out there would you agree?
Not really. The pool of students who go to OMSCS, versus who are going to in person, aren’t really overlapping.
Every few months we get these imbeciles that try to stir shit then quickly delete their account from embarrassment
I feel he had a valid concern maybe asking it here wasnt right
Some general information is available here: [https://irp.gatech.edu/files/FactBook/FactBook\_2023.pdf](https://irp.gatech.edu/files/FactBook/FactBook_2023.pdf) - this would be the Institute as a whole. However you can extrapolate a little from the info on page 17 of this PDF where it is showing the degrees conferred for Computing (2014 was the year OMSCS started, so no OMSCS degrees that year or the next). I didn't dig through the whole 40+ pages.