Why shouldn't it be? I don't see why 3 years worth of miscellaneous classes and 1 year worth of classes toward a major (not even necessarily in computer science) should be a prerequisite for a cybersecurity program, or for any masters program for that matter. It just seems like another part of the false mythology of undergraduate education. And I'm sure the people running these credential rackets realize that allowing students to cut to the point would put an end to their gravy train.
Those years for the bachelor don't just prove you learned some random subjects. They also show that you deliver - you have a topic, you study it, you pass the exam.
The reason you say "I don't need that" is because you have to pay a crapload of money for those 3 years with a dubious ROI. It's a credential racket because they charge you through your nose. And it's cheaper now because online is cheaper. But it's unrealistic to assume you get the same quality for less money, it would sink their normal masters business right? Lots of things are debatable here especially if you dig into the exceptions but generally it might be the difference between takeout/fast food and a good restaurant.
When I see people skipping some degrees and going for the online ones they have to show some damn good practical achievements to convince me that was time worth saving.
I'm pretty sure most of you would refuse to go to a doctor who studied online. Cyber-security can easily turn out to be life or death.
Plenty of people have been admitted to MS programs without a BS/BA when they prove why they're the exception. Serious private sector work fills in the gaps easily. MBA programs are no different.
That's an oddly specific case. But as I said, digging into the exceptions will always find something to support any point of view. I'm looking at the overall situation. In most cases the degree can be compensated with work experience.
> Plenty of people have been admitted to MS programs without a BS/BA [...]
This of course is entirely up to the program. Most PhD programs require both, some require only one. What I said is that I (personally) see this as a natural progression. Skipping one will have to come with a damn good reason attached. Like exceptional performance otherwise.
> MBA programs are no different.
Again, personal opinion, I trust the MBA program the least of all. I have seen so many people (including a lot of colleagues) dish out several (tens of) thousands of Euros to get an MBA while still in their 20s, with only some mediocre team-leader over 4-5 people for 2 years experience behind them that I simply cannot put any kind of weight in that achievement.
There's a lot of reasons why you wouldn't finish a degree that are valid. Have you considered asking rather than assuming? What if someone had serious depression or social anxiety? You're making a lot of assumptions on being "serious" and it's honestly pretty naive and silly, borderline offensive, and very common in academia.
Pretty sure that's asking, and if you find that _borderline offensive_ then you probably need a little bit thicker skin. If you're applying for a top-tier institution, they are going to look for red flags in your transcript, and not finishing your education, no matter the reason, is a red flag that needs to at least be explored. They aren't going to simply _assume_ you had some legitimate excuse for not finishing because many people don't.
I don't think it's fair for you to call it naive and silly for someone to understand your background. No one is saying that your serious depression or social anxiety isn't a legitimate reason, but it's also something that has to be considered. Academic institutions have a graduation rate to protect, and they aren't keen on letting someone in that is a risk to drop out after a couple of semesters -- no matter the reason.
If depression or social anxiety are holding you back in your life that much, it's time to seek help, by the way. As someone who has experienced the same, that is a really good indication that it has gone past a simple mood thing into a serious medical condition.
Best of luck.
How does that logically follow? Different people have different learning styles and are at different points in their lives and careers. The rigour of the material is orthogonal to the channel of delivery
You're saying that there's no clear benefit for the first option other than personal "learning style"? How does that fare when going head to head with the extremely obvious and objective advantages of the online option? There's always a compromise and if you gain flexibility and money something's gotta give elsewhere.
You're making a huge confusion if you think an online masters is just a channel of delivery for some material. A (good) classic masters is more than the professor handing out the material personally instead of emailing it to you (which they do anyway).
Exactly as you said, online is the option you choose when you no longer afford (time/money) the other one. It's for when you need to tick a box on an application. Otherwise you can easily skip it and substitute with your experience.
As a person with a bachelor, 2 masters, almost a PhD (:D), and a whole host of online courses and degrees I can tell you there's a world of difference between the two types of experience. So I treat those degrees with the corresponding level of respect. And please mind you, I said the degrees, not the degree holders.
I'm not saying that online=bad. But a good classic masters program will invariably be better than a good online masters program. Of course if something's already not up to par (classic or online) it becomes irrelevant by how much it fails.
But if you believe that masters degrees have value beyond signaling, then the thinking is that a formal multi-year undergraduate course of study that ensures a minimum knowledge core on a topic will better prepare you for a formal multi-year graduate course of study on that topic than simply working in the field and acquiring a random assortment of specific skills based on what you needed on the jobs that you took.
* Even to the extent that degrees are just signaling devices, they are still useful because many people with power over your career care a lot about those signals.
* If you choose a useful major, that one-years-worth of your undergraduate education certainly has utilitarian value in preparing you for a related career or for further instruction.
* The other three-years-worth of courses may make you more worldly and well-rounded, but their instructional value is nowhere near the $150,000 you'll pay for them at a private university.
>the thinking is that a formal multi-year undergraduate course of study that ensures a minimum knowledge core on a topic will better prepare you for a formal multi-year graduate course of study on that topic than simply working in the field and acquiring a random assortment of specific skills based on what you needed on the jobs that you took.
* Yes, of course, but this only applies to the quarter of the undergraduate courses that are actually relevant. It doesn’t explain why should you need three years worth of courses in underwater basketweaving or gender studies as a prerequisite to a masters in cybersecurity.
If you're saying that you think people should be able to attend a graduate degree program without an undergraduate degree, then that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. There is a long established precedent that (formal, possibly legal requirements, too?) you must have an undergraduate degree to take the next step in your education.
You either want the formal education or don't -- if you do, then you have to meet the pretty standard requirements.
There are always ways around, and candidates that should be considered based on potential. But some kind of a qualifier, even a certificate, that would allow candidates like myself that would love to be engaged through some kind of qualifier or conditional acceptance would allow more people to get engaged and show their ability and commitment to being successful.
There is a requirement to complete a few foundational courses after you enroll but you still need to be accepted first.
My career is software dev adjacent and I haven't seen college being a limiting factor.
University of Oxford Master’s in Software Engineering
... However, more extensive experience may compensate for a lack of formal qualifications, and a strong, immediately-relevant qualification may compensate for a lack of professional experience.
There are BS/MS, BA/MA, BBA/MBA, and BSL/JD programs (asking others) that do not require a prior undergraduate degree but instead incorporate a same-field undergrad degree into the graduate out professional program, with typically less total coursework and tone in residence than separate programs would require because of right integration.
> Possession of a masters degree indicates you have completed a prescribed course of study.
Yes, but there's no reason that a bachelor's degree needs to be an admission requirements for that to work; it may be a completion requirement, but that doesn't mean it needs to be an admission requirement.
The comment I was replying to was saying, in effect, "I want to be able to earn a graduate degree without having to earn an undergraduate degree".
Those programs sound great. They would allow a person to EARN both the graduate degree and the underlying undergrad.
That comment specifically complained about entrance requirements, so, no, I don't think that is a fair characterization.
I highly doubt that the motivation behind that comment is a desire to audit a masters program.
I'd love if there were a CS masters that either let you apply directly or complete a specification to get automatic admission. Perhaps after completing foundational courses with a B average. That would greatly increase access and should be sufficient to weed out unprepared candidates.