Getting an MS is a sign that the candidate wasn't particularly good before getting one, because of the various reasons people get an MS. And it's not like they became a better developer as a result of getting one.

This is crazy!

Is this notion prevalent everywhere in US?

Shouldn't it be otherwise, like the student is hardworking and is persistent enough to get a Masters?

The way to determine this is by measuring actual performance.

With more information, like why or how they got an MS, the probability distribution changes. My impression is, there's a set of dimwits from a dimwit part of the industry that decide they should get a Master's in order to better their career. As opposed to, say, getting one right after school because you didn't want to enter the real world, or because a 5-year MS seemed like a good idea, or being brainwashed in general about the value of formal schooling.

You sound right in so many ways.

>> Getting right after school.

Isn’t getting some real work exp before joining Masters a good thing?

>> 5 year MS

Never heard of such a thing. Is there one?

A 5 year MS is where you get both a BS and MS in 5 years. So basically you graduate a year late.

Thanks.

Isn’t getting some real work exp before joining Masters a good thing?

Would like to hear your opinion on this, please.

Don't ask me! I never got a Master's, and if I did get one, it wouldn't be in CS. In general I think work experience would inform your course selection or the decision to get an MS in the first place. That's pretty much the main way it would affect it.