What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community • Hacker News Board

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#71

Post by sedachv » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

dtornabene wrote: post #63

sedachv wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give them a second chance. That is exactly what compulsive liars/sociopaths like Shane Smith want: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/vice-founder-famous-for-tr... The documentaries and reporting produced by Vice are entertaining, but their standards of reporting basically make them a hipster tabloid.

A Couple of things.... 1) The Daily Caller isn't exactly a noted truth teller itself 2) The author of that particular piece, Charles Johnson, is well known for being utterly without scruples whatsoever. He's also one of the purveyors of the extremely offensive "cuckservative" meme that popped up recently (hint: its white supremacist) which leads to #3... 3) Gavin Mcinnes, one of the founders, left Vice under not part…

It is not like that is the only report relating to Vice to raise suspicions:

https://medium.com/thoughts-on-media/vice-media-kit-warning-...

http://gawker.com/working-at-vice-media-is-not-as-cool-as-it...

> Gavin Mcinnes, one of the founders, left Vice under not particularly friendly circumstances and has since come out as a white nationalist and he and Chuck Johnson are pretty tight online. Just some food for thought here.

You can tell a lot about a person from their cofounders. McInnes was at Vice from 1994 to 2007. Vice was built on shock journalism, McInnes never hid his racism and homophobia:

http://www.nypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=NP&date=20...

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#72

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 11:36 PM UTC

patorjk wrote: post #64

pmorici wrote: post #10

This sounds like a problem with how contracts are written. They should be requiring that any degrees cited to fill contract qualification requirements come from an accredited university. That would at least take care of the worst cases. Some accredited schools with well known and prestigious names also operate diploma mills because they know large companies will pay for students to get advanced degrees. In the wider…

Sometimes the big name schools have an accredited ungraduate program, but an unaccredited masters/phd program.

I cannot find any information about accreditation at UT Austin (other than [1], which is out of date). I once had a discussion with someone from the academic staff of the CS department (name redacted to protect the guilty), which I may have misunderstood or be misremembering, but included a statement to the effect of, "we aren't accredited by anyone; they're all following us." (They did have an external visiting committee who reviewed and made comments on the curriculum.)

[1] https://cns.utexas.edu/undergraduate-education/academic-reco...

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#73

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 12:00 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #15

Can someone explain why "100% online" is used as a clear negative factor? What makes physical proximity to a whiteboard a better indicator of academic achievement? The ability and willingness to have a family, a full-time job, and earn an advanced degree should not be a negative signal.

For undergraduate programs? Sure. For a Masters? I suppose. For both, what matters is the reputation of the school, really, not the online/physical dimension. For someone like Georgia Tech, they're the ones who are going to be badly hurt if they cheapen their online classes, so I'm reasonably sure that isn't going to happen.

Accreditation is an attempt to capture that reputation in a way that someone who has no idea about anything else can trust. Unfortunately, while you cannot game real reputation, gaming the accreditation is (almost intentionally) trivial.

A PhD, though, requires a lot of one-on-one time with a real faculty member. It's very much an apprenticeship sort of position. I've know people who did that remotely, and it's harder than doing it while being physically present. Getting a PhD while keeping a full time job is a very bad idea (I'm perfect evidence of this), and trying to do it 'online' is going to make that worse.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#74

Post by Nrsolis » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 12:50 AM UTC

dikdik wrote: post #51

Nrsolis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you like the JHU program? I'm genuinely curious about the rigor and experience with the school.

I enjoyed the program for the most part. I come from a life sciences background and found the biology based courses to be slightly boring/review. The CS courses were definitely challenging for me, I only had minor programming experience in Python going in. However, I would avoid doing it 100% online if possible. Courses that were review for me and/or did not require detailed discussion I would not mind taking online…

I was looking at the CS Masters program. I have a strong desire to acquire a foundation in information security. I was looking at their cybersecurity program as an adjunct to the CS program.

How was the actual administration of the program? I find that your experience with the administration can drastically alter your learning potential.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#75

Post by kobayashi » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 8:57 AM UTC

wsxcde wrote: post #47

derf_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. When I was a Ph.D student I was told that it was very rare for someone to fail their thesis defense, because their advisor will not let them defend until they know they are going to pass. It does happen, but it takes a special kind of effort and means your advisor screwed up.

One more amusing anecdote about "failing" a defence. I was told this happened in the EE department at Princeton. There was a student whose defence wasn't going well and the committee’s consensus was that the more work needed to be done. But if the student actually failed the defence, special university regulations would kick in for the second defence which would likely make it impossible for him to defend. Not wantin…

That is absolutely phenomenal. Any sourcing on this, so when I repeat it it's not just a case of "somebody wrote this online"?

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#76

Post by kobayashi » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 9:00 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #33

virusduck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say a majority of accredited schools also have very high dissertation acceptance rates. That is, you have been counseled by your adviser and other professors (a thesis committee) as to how things are going. They typically give you advice and want you to succeed. Those that do not heed this advice do not get advised to turn in a dissertation.

Duck and cover! Rant incoming! Remember: Face down, ass to the blast! Here's a fun fact: Anyone can give out any degree they like. You can do it. I've done it; heck, I'm a Ph.D. granting institution. (And I thought the diploma turned out rather attractive.) But it'll be worth approximately the price of a piece of used printer paper. A Ph.D. in particular consists of three different things: * An academic degree awarde…

Well said.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#77

Post by grkvlt » Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

TACIXAT wrote: post #37

ra1n85 wrote: post #8

I'm also intrigued, and seemingly let down, by folks with degrees in "Cyber {defense|analysis|warfare}". These degrees are always laid out on a resume with other super-sexy sounding credentials and accolades. Unfortunately, the interviews always seem to reveal a lot of (sometimes serious) technical gaps. The only reliable indicators I've come to find for technical and engineering acumen are curiosity and experience.…

There is a certain school in my area that offers a Masters in Cyber Security. We have come to learn through interviews that people with this degree know very little about practical security, reverse engineering, and exploitation. I'm sure it helps them get a sweet government job though.

Of course you don't need to know how to write shellcode, or have in-depth knowledge of anti-debugger reversing tricks, to write a very useful and robust security policy for an organisation, or manage a global incident response team. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the degree just because it doesn't teach 'practical' security. It's the same story with Computer Science degrees, which don't teach about source control or agile software methodologies, since these 'practical' subjects aren't really anything to do with CS.