Help me out /sci/ bros.
I'm going to be graduating soon with a degree in Electrical/Computer Engineering. I've already got a job lined up, but from what I can tell, engineering in industry is often non-technical, uninteresting work.
I want to eventually move into something like R&D, where I might actually do some design work or interesting research. Should I get a Masters Degree as a part time student? Would I actually get more interesting work if I do this, or are masters degrees only memes? What will a masters degree do for me?
I'm not going to quit my job, because the opportunity cost of experience/money is too high. I would love continue my education, but I don't want to apply for a part-time program if it's just a waste of time.
Also, discuss higher education, PhD shit, etc
>I've already got a job lined up, but from what I can tell, engineering in industry is often non-technical, uninteresting work.
Then you have the wrong job. Git gud, find a better job, and then do what >>7760093 said. Most decent employers will pay for college courses.
Going back for a master's is more useful, IMO, when you have a few years of experience under your belt and have a good idea of what the industry is really like (No matter what you think you know about the industry right now, you don't the whole story.), where you want to go in your career, and what you didn't learn as an undergrad that you wish you had or would be useful to where you want to go.
Don't wait too long; once you have a wife and kids, your free time is gone forever.
Bumping this, because I'm in the same boat.
Are there are certain fields of electrical engineering that are more interesting and intellectually challenging?
How much easier is it to get into R&D without a PhD (masters + 5 yrs exp = PhD)?
>(masters + 5 yrs exp = PhD)?
I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if a billion Ph.Ds cried out in rage and reached for their keyboards to type a response.
If, by some chance, you actually get into an true research organization, people with actual Ph.Ds will treat you like a trained monkey, no matter how talented you are. Because of the shit one has to go through to actually get a Ph.D, they are super duper touchy about academic credentials.
Hmm. I'm not going to claim that one inherently needs a PhD to be a top-notch researcher, however, I don't think I have seen a case where someone without a PhD trumped someone who had one.
Must be rare, since if you're actually interested in research (I don't mean just doing lab-shit), a PhD is sort of the logical choice.
Assuming you're still a student, see if your school has some sort of career center, hosts any job fairs, or has any information meetings. Start from there, then apply for positions online.
I don't know what you should do if you've already graduated. I guess you should just keep applying, and lower your standards if you have to.
As a ChemE I did undergrad internships at R&D labs and while I myself went the grad-school route plenty of my fellow graduates are now working at national and private R&D labs alike with only a bachelors.
I don't know what it's like for EE, but you really don't need to get a masters to get into research.
I'm in my final year of a part time undergrad electronics/control systems degree. The company i work for paid for the tuition fees etc. I wouldn't recommend going into private commercial industry if you enjoy the theory. IMO private companies quite often want qualified people so that they can make difficult business decisions on the back of what they have learned, which is not really what you learn at university. I say if you enjoy the pure engineering/theory, stick with it. Especially if you feel confident going on towards phd level.
>go to ivy league school
>work as consultant or investment banker
>have a better life than public school engineers