Ok - this question isn't really related - but I noticed he has a Masters in Information Technology.
Now, there is a local public program offering that near where i live that offers a similar degree- the course offerings look pretty good - there are 2 business classes in there but the rest are CS related - Operating systems, AI, etc. It costs about $12k to get the degree.
There is another place, private, that offers CS degrees, but it costs about $40k and additionally doesn't offer graphics or AI, two topics I would like to learn about.
So, my dilema is, getting one or the other is clearly cheaper, but in the long run, how much difference does a Masters in Information Technology with a concentration in CS differ from a Masters in Computer Science? Will I forever be locked out of high end software engineering jobs with the former?
Maybe. I learned a long time ago that degrees mean nothing. One of my best hires had no degree at all. Another had one in education. However, all things being equal, I would go for the candidate with a masters in CS over one in IT. I probably would prefer a musician. I know this is unreasonable, but I tend to regard business sounding degrees as the triumph of form over substance.
Also, is there a difference in quality or reputation between the two schools?
Many, many moons ago RPI was on my list of schools. I have never heard of CCS. Based on way out of date perceptions I would suggest RPI. If you can get into Yale or the like, it may be cheaper than RPI because liberal scholarships.
Education aside, degrees are useful for determining if someone went to college. If you went to college too, you have something to talk about - 4 years of shared similar experiences during a very formative period in your life.
This is very useful in business and life. Only some kind of sociopath would not see the value in this.
Most likely not. My employer (and me, by extension) gives preference to applicants with advanced technical degrees. The specifics of what courses you've taken are far less important than how well you understand the coursework or how you've managed to apply what you learned if you're not fresh out of school.
I expect you to be able to explain theory or practical concepts with the depth of someone with an MS as opposed to someone with a BS.
IOW, if you just cruised through the program to get a piece of paper that says Master of Science on it, but have no understanding of what you supposedly learned, you ain't workin' here :-)
Information Technology = A degree for people that can't cut Computer Science
So, it is basically a watered down CS, with some business classes/marketing, and policy. Perfect for corporate drones/politico types, that love powerpoint. Don't expect anything really innovating out of it.
Get an CS degree, and maybe a minor in business, and you will be set.
Honestly, unless you want to spend the rest of your professional life heads down coding (not that there's anything wrong with that), a degree like that sounds more useful than bare CS.
The overwhelming number of problems you'll encounter on most projects aren't technical: they're business and people related. And people skills are harder to pick up than technical skills if you don't already have them.
My MS is in Software Engineering and on a day-to-day basis I use more of the stuff I learned in Project Management and Quality Control than just about anything else I learned. Even as an embedded programmer, I've never needed the cool analysis techniquesI learned in the Real-time Systems courses.
Mr. Kundra has moved to post city contracts on YouTube and to make Twitter use common in his office and others. He hopes to allow drivers to pay parking tickets or renew their driver’s licenses on Facebook.
I'm all for technology and transparency, but this just sounds silly and gimmicky.
I don't agree with the YouTube bit - it can be a great platform for posting public information (council meetings? press conferences?), and twitter is a great way for the tech-savvy public to be kept in the know with what's going on in their government. Apathy is one of the greatest enemies of democracy, and anything you can do to keep your population engaged is good.
Renewing driver's licenses on Facebook is just stupid, though.
its just cool, not taking sides or speaking on policy. I'm all for lifting this ban to get more super smart folks to the US. I guess the age part is what really stood out. Obama is def down for youth and willing to take the risk on a younger person (smart) with the hopes they can energize citizens and implement real changes.
Perhaps I'm too jaded, but I don't think that details really influence the political impact. My point, as tptacek points out, is that it changes the nature of the conversation in washington.
They are taking a side in the H1B controversy because he's an immigrant? That's like saying they are taking a side in gender discrimination because he's male. If he was actually on an H1B then you might have a point, but it sounds like he's naturalized.
Not being new to it doesn't preclude me from arguing that it doesn't make logical sense. Some forms of "racism" at least seem somewhat rational, ie associating muslims with terrorism after 9/11 makes more sense to me than doing it with sikhs (just because the latter wear turbans). And I argue that this case is one that does not make sense at all. If he was actually an H1B holder working for the government, or even at any point had held an H1B, there would at least be a proximate connection.
Granted, this is a hacking forum and not a political forum, so I won't go on about postmodernity, the media and rationality. However, it is important to note and remember that human beings are not rational. Instead of ignoring the irrationality of individuals, we should attempt to understand it.
You're right, though. His being an immigrant and being Indian likely plays to people's biases and preconceptions about outsourcing and H1B program.
Of course I'm right. I've worked with just as many European H1-B's as I have Indian H1-B's with many coming from Northern and Eastern Europe (scandinavia, poland, ukraine, czech, etc.), yet none of these "patriots" seem to ever mention white Europeans when this discussion comes up, do they?
How did Linus Torvalds get into the US again? Or Sergey Brin's family?
This kind of stuff is just so incredibly obvious to any objective observer who actually pays attention.
Over the past few months, I've had the pleasure of meeting and working with Vivek Kundra in his job as the CTO of Washington, DC. Today he was today he was appointed to the new position of CIO of the Federal Government. He's a visionary -- a leader in the field of eGovernment who understands that technology can be used to change the way government operates, can be used to save money, as a way to inform citizens -- all for the sake of our democracy for its citizens. From my interactions with him it is clear he believes in three things:
1. Using Alternative Market Models to Reduce Cost
A great example of an alternative market model is [Apps for Democracy](http://appsfordemocracy.org), the project that he did with [iStrategyLabs](http://istrategylabs.com) to get lots of ideas and applications developed for the District of Columbia for a pittance. While Kundra didn't invent the contest model, he was the first person inside the Government to use it, and it was a smart move. Not only does it reduce the cost of building early apps, it raises awareness and identifies talent. While I suspect the operations of the Government will not be supplanted by running a bunch of contests, I suspect we'll see some significant cost savings through contest models and open source development.
2. Data driven decisions
Kundra's into [using markets](http://www.nascio.org/awards/2008Awards/portfolioManagement....) to make data driven decisions. I took a tour of his DC CTO office a few months ago and he showed me his "trading floor" of Government projects. Flat panel screens of DC OCTO projects, their cost, their milestones, the teams associated with them and a big score. Scores were associated with names as well as projects, helping Kundra make decisions about how likely a project was to succeed, and find inefficiencies. Each project was given a "buy", "sell", or "hold" rating which helped Kundra make decisions on whether or not to continue projects.
3. Operational Data is Public Data
Perhaps his most profound move is to recognize that there should be no difference between the data that government useS to make decisions and the data available to the public. Government obviously needs to protect some information-- we all agree that, for instance, there shouldn't be a feed of everybody's social security numbers. But Kundra’s understanding that there is no sense in creating a "public data source" and an "operational data source" is revolutionary.
Another interesting thing about Kundra in his DC role is that unlike many government agencies, Kundra had developers working for him rather than contractors or outside firms. His research and development team in DC was led by [Dmitry Kachaev](http://www.linkedin.com/in/dmitrykachaev) a man with real technical skill who worked full time for the Government.
If Kundra can push all three of these philosophies inside of the Government, we're in for a lot of change. It isn't exactly going to be easy. The federal government has a lot more inertia in it than the District of Columbia. But I suspect you can look for some strong shifts very soon. If I was a developer looking for a job, I'd be scouring USAJobs.gov for opportunities in Office of Management and Budget or perhaps the newly created Office of the Federal CIO. We'll see where the legal home is of this new position. Some very interesting things are about to happen.
Are you in a position to do intros? I have a service I think I can provide for free that could save the federal gov't a couple of billion a year. Small change, but a start.
I'm sorry but from what (very) little I know about Kundra, some of the technology solutions he's recommended pale in comparison in scope to what this country needs to address regarding technology.
Tweeting from the town's snow plows is cute/trvial but what about broader issues?
Now, there is a local public program offering that near where i live that offers a similar degree- the course offerings look pretty good - there are 2 business classes in there but the rest are CS related - Operating systems, AI, etc. It costs about $12k to get the degree.
There is another place, private, that offers CS degrees, but it costs about $40k and additionally doesn't offer graphics or AI, two topics I would like to learn about.
So, my dilema is, getting one or the other is clearly cheaper, but in the long run, how much difference does a Masters in Information Technology with a concentration in CS differ from a Masters in Computer Science? Will I forever be locked out of high end software engineering jobs with the former?