BTech Vs BSC

[Mwera]

To some you can help or have experience on this matter. Which is the best option for a student to choose. A BTech in Computer Systems at DUT or BSC in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science on Unisa.

 

[cguy]

The BSc is definitely the better option, especially with Applied Maths. As a fair warning, it’s also a lot harder.

My undergraduate was a double major in CS and Maths, with 2 years of applied maths.

 

[Cage Rattler]

Still remember seeing Gary Bailey pitching up in our 2nd year Comp Sci lectures at UCT after he had retired ... was a bit odd seeing a megastar though he didn't really mix with anyone as we were far younger ... always wondered what he thought of our Canadian lecturer who just disappeared for two months without telling anyone.

 

[cguy]

Still remember seeing Gary Bailey pitching up in our 2nd year Comp Sci lectures at UCT after he had retired ... was a bit odd seeing a megastar though he didn't really mix with anyone as we were far younger ... always wondered what he thought of our Canadian lecturer who just disappeared for two months without telling anyone.

I had to look up who Gary Bailey is.

 

[Dylan_G]

To some you can help or have experience on this matter. Which is the best option for a student to choose. A BTech in Computer Systems at DUT or BSC in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science on Unisa.

I have a BTech in Comp Sys from DUT. Currently trying to get into BSc Hons with UNISA.

What do you want be? A dev?

Do the BSc. UNISA is one of the worst universities I have had to deal with. They are well and truely horrible from an administrative perspective... But you'll be happier with the BSc.

 

[Gnome]

Honestly you should be going on university these days.

I interview a lot and regardless of degree, I'm seeing a lot of really, really low quality candidates.
My strongest candidates come from Stellenbosch, UCT and University of Pretoria.
UP and UCT are trending downward however

I just wonder sometimes if people in other countries interview candidates locally and then think that our degrees are worthless

 

[vic777]

Honestly you should be going on university these days.

I interview a lot and regardless of degree, I'm seeing a lot of really, really low quality candidates.
My strongest candidates come from Stellenbosch, UCT and University of Pretoria.
UP and UCT are trending downward however

I just wonder sometimes if people in other countries interview candidates locally and then think that our degrees are worthless

I disagree, it depends on the candidate. I live and work in Europe - one degree from University of Pretoria (law), and one degree from UNISA (computer science). I went to a lot of interviews and the question of which university I went to never came up.

 

[rpm]

The BSc is definitely the better option, especially with Applied Maths. As a fair warning, it’s also a lot harder.

My undergraduate was a double major in CS and Maths, with 2 years of applied maths.

I support this view. UNISA is not the best option, but a BSc, especially with Mathematics and CS, is a strong degree.

 

[cguy]

Honestly you should be going on university these days.

I interview a lot and regardless of degree, I'm seeing a lot of really, really low quality candidates.
My strongest candidates come from Stellenbosch, UCT and University of Pretoria.
UP and UCT are trending downward however

I just wonder sometimes if people in other countries interview candidates locally and then think that our degrees are worthless

I doubt that there are enough people interviewing that a general opinion can form (the only South Africans I’ve ever interviewed overseas have been from job ads I placed and they contacted me through).

That said, I do think that the “filter” property of the degrees have waned substantially. It used to be that if you got to a Masters in CS, it meant a certain baseline of advanced ability, which is no longer true. The average ability has decreased slightly, but the minimum has decreased substantially. One of the reasons I prefer a Maths/AppMaths/Stats/Physics double major is that it’s a much better filter than CS.

Apart from that, I had a few very sad interviews. The people at the top of the graduating class would be top of the class at most universities in the world. The people at the middle to bottom would never be able to get their degree at a top 200 university.

I posted an advert some 10 years back at my old university, and I got a reply along the lines of “How the **** can we be expected to know XYZ, when it’s not in the curriculum?” (It was something like OS internals or low level performance optimization or something). That’s not my problem, I knew it when I graduated because I didn’t just stick to the curriculum.

 

[Cage Rattler]

I suppose hacking the varsity OS and putting in a backdoor might be extra-curricular too! It was still there a year after I graduated. All done at assembler level without docs in those days.

 

[Gnome]

I disagree, it depends on the candidate. I live and work in Europe - one degree from University of Pretoria (law), and one degree from UNISA (computer science). I went to a lot of interviews and the question of which university I went to never came up.

Disagree with? Sounds like you are trying to extrapolate my experience with candidates to yourself. Or do you mean the pondering I posed about people thinking SA degrees suck. Because if the latter, it clearly wasn't a statement of fact. Hence why it started with "I wonder sometimes". If the former, you are 1 data point, so not really sure how that trumps the hundreds of interviews I have done (so roughly ~300 data points and there is a VERY clear downward trend of late)

That said, I do think that the “filter” property of the degrees have waned substantially. It used to be that if you got to a Masters in CS, it meant a certain baseline of advanced ability, which is no longer true. The average ability has decreased slightly, but the minimum has decreased substantially. One of the reasons I prefer a Maths/AppMaths/Stats/Physics double major is that it’s a much better filter than CS.

Apart from that, I had a few very sad interviews. The people at the top of the graduating class would be top of the class at most universities in the world. The people at the middle to bottom would never be able to get their degree at a top 200 university.

I posted an advert some 10 years back at my old university, and I got a reply along the lines of “How the **** can we be expected to know XYZ, when it’s not in the curriculum?” (It was something like OS internals or low level performance optimization or something). That’s not my problem, I knew it when I graduated because I didn’t just stick to the curriculum.

I don't really put any stock in masters/phd, but that is just me. One of my juniors in the team has a master degree and it hasn't really helped him be a strong technical person. He is good but no better or worse than others. Had another guy with PhD and he was pretty terrible (and it had nothing to do with being "stuck" in theory, he just wasn't that bright)

Very, very few people outside of CS are successful in our interviews but again, they haven't been better or worse really, in the interviews I were in. There is likely a bias here toward people that switch careers and their motivation to learn. ie. you aren't getting the bad math/stats/physics/etc. candidates because they are still stuck in those careers. Strong "learners" typically do better no matter which industry you throw them in. And switching career means taking the steps to learn all over again.

I've only met one guy in my career so far that I thought was godlike. He was super fast, super smart, etc. and he only had done CS. The rest of the people I've worked with, like myself, I think are your middle of the pack humans. Not stupid but not at the level where you really realise you could not possible hope to compete at their level intellectually.

 

[netstrider]

I doubt that there are enough people interviewing that a general opinion can form (the only South Africans I’ve ever interviewed overseas have been from job ads I placed and they contacted me through).

That said, I do think that the “filter” property of the degrees have waned substantially. It used to be that if you got to a Masters in CS, it meant a certain baseline of advanced ability, which is no longer true. The average ability has decreased slightly, but the minimum has decreased substantially. One of the reasons I prefer a Maths/AppMaths/Stats/Physics double major is that it’s a much better filter than CS.

Apart from that, I had a few very sad interviews. The people at the top of the graduating class would be top of the class at most universities in the world. The people at the middle to bottom would never be able to get their degree at a top 200 university.

I posted an advert some 10 years back at my old university, and I got a reply along the lines of “How the **** can we be expected to know XYZ, when it’s not in the curriculum?” (It was something like OS internals or low level performance optimization or something). That’s not my problem, I knew it when I graduated because I didn’t just stick to the curriculum.

Insightful as always.

Was considering Mat/CompSci or AppMat/CompSci through UNISA.

I'm a wee bit older so only option is UNISA.

 

[netstrider]

I doubt that there are enough people interviewing that a general opinion can form (the only South Africans I’ve ever interviewed overseas have been from job ads I placed and they contacted me through).

That said, I do think that the “filter” property of the degrees have waned substantially. It used to be that if you got to a Masters in CS, it meant a certain baseline of advanced ability, which is no longer true. The average ability has decreased slightly, but the minimum has decreased substantially. One of the reasons I prefer a Maths/AppMaths/Stats/Physics double major is that it’s a much better filter than CS.

Apart from that, I had a few very sad interviews. The people at the top of the graduating class would be top of the class at most universities in the world. The people at the middle to bottom would never be able to get their degree at a top 200 university.

I posted an advert some 10 years back at my old university, and I got a reply along the lines of “How the **** can we be expected to know XYZ, when it’s not in the curriculum?” (It was something like OS internals or low level performance optimization or something). That’s not my problem, I knew it when I graduated because I didn’t just stick to the curriculum.

What's your take on a pure Mat or AppMat or a combo compared to a combination of any of the Mat + CS or a MAT + PHY for example?

 

[cguy]

I don't really put any stock in masters/phd, but that is just me. One of my juniors in the team has a master degree and it hasn't really helped him be a strong technical person. He is good but no better or worse than others. Had another guy with PhD and he was pretty terrible (and it had nothing to do with being "stuck" in theory, he just wasn't that bright)

There is a lot of selection bias with this type of observation. If Masters and PhDs are that rare where you work, it's probably not the type of work that someone in the mid to upper percentiles who has that training would choose to do, since it doesn't leverage their abilities.

Very, very few people outside of CS are successful in our interviews but again, they haven't been better or worse really, in the interviews I were in. There is likely a bias here toward people that switch careers and their motivation to learn. ie. you aren't getting the bad math/stats/physics/etc. candidates because they are still stuck in those careers. Strong "learners" typically do better no matter which industry you throw them in. And switching career means taking the steps to learn all over again.

Agreed, we tend to consider people from all over STEM for any position they've decided to apply for, but it's usually a struggle for people outside STEM.

I've only met one guy in my career so far that I thought was godlike. He was super fast, super smart, etc. and he only had done CS. The rest of the people I've worked with, like myself, I think are your middle of the pack humans. Not stupid but not at the level where you really realise you could not possible hope to compete at their level intellectually.

Most of the people I work with are at the very top of their industries, and most hold PhDs, some only Masters degrees.

 

[cguy]

What's your take on a pure Mat or AppMat or a combo compared to a combination of any of the Mat + CS or a MAT + PHY for example?

They're all really good - I don't generally have a strong preference for one vs the other. Some details:

There is strong overlap up to and including 2nd year. If there isn't overlap with your selection try choose it.

E.g., I did Stats1, AppMaths1/2, PureMaths 1/2/3. So I did a ton of applied maths (1/3rd of my 2nd year, 2/9ths of my entire degree). The first 2 years of Pure Maths and Applied Maths really set you up for a broad base of knowledge and skillset on the subject, so I suggest doing both to this level.

At third year, Pure Maths becomes rather esoteric (Topology, Measure Theory, Analysis, Abstract Algebra, etc.), and Applied Maths starts to touch on more mathematical topics in Physics. For the most part, the greatest benefit of this is that working at this level gives you more practice with your 1st and 2nd year fundamentals, and will likely improve your overall understanding.

Those who I know who have studied physics tend to become very good at applying mathematics (more so than many mathematicians) - this builds a unique type of mathematical intuition , that I've often seen in them, wish I had (I work with a number of Physics PhDs).

So in short, the first 2 years are a must for gaining the basic tools of a mathematically literate professional, and after that, the knowledge becomes less likely to be directly applicable, but it galvanizes your understanding.

Being able to get through all 3 years of this, is a great filter for ability and perseverance.

 

[netstrider]

They're all really good - I don't generally have a strong preference for one vs the other. Some details:

There is strong overlap up to and including 2nd year. If there isn't overlap with your selection try choose it.

E.g., I did Stats1, AppMaths1/2, PureMaths 1/2/3. So I did a ton of applied maths (1/3rd of my 2nd year, 2/9ths of my entire degree). The first 2 years of Pure Maths and Applied Maths really set you up for a broad base of knowledge and skillset on the subject, so I suggest doing both to this level.

At third year, Pure Maths becomes rather esoteric (Topology, Measure Theory, Analysis, Abstract Algebra, etc.), and Applied Maths starts to touch on more mathematical topics in Physics. For the most part, the greatest benefit of this is that working at this level gives you more practice with your 1st and 2nd year fundamentals, and will likely improve your overall understanding.

Those who I know who have studied physics tend to become very good at applying mathematics (more so than many mathematicians) - this builds a unique type of mathematical intuition , that I've often seen in them, wish I had (I work with a number of Physics PhDs).

So in short, the first 2 years are a must for gaining the basic tools of a mathematically literate professional, and after that, the knowledge becomes less likely to be directly applicable, but it galvanizes your understanding.

Being able to get through all 3 years of this, is a great filter for ability and perseverance.

Thank you.

 

[Mwera]

I have a BTech in Comp Sys from DUT. Currently trying to get into BSc Hons with UNISA.

What do you want be? A dev?

Do the BSc. UNISA is one of the worst universities I have had to deal with. They are well and truely horrible from an administrative perspective... But you'll be happier with the BSc.

How is BTech, what is it all about

 

[Dylan_G]

How is BTech, what is it all about

Have you done the NDip?

You do know that NDip/BTech/MTech/DTech are all phased out?

You can't register for a BTech anymore at all: Link

You can however, register for a BEngTech. Check the handbook: Link

 

[Johnatan56]

Btech no longer exists, neither does the national diploma.

It's now diploma, advanced diploma to get to BSc equivalent. Then it's post graduate diplomats for honors equivalent and then masters /doctorate.

Which degree you want to get depends on where you want to go. The technical degrees are that, more technical, both will let you be a software dev with a good grounding.

Cguy is correct in terms of BSc in CS with math would be better if you want to work at the absolute top, but you're talking about you being the top 1% of your year, if you don't think you're that, that's not really realistic to aim for and take as a reason.

If you think you can handle the math, personally I would go BSc side, I first wanted to do technical when I started but wanted to swap over, just never ended up going to BSc and finished off Btech a few years ago, still managed to climb and get job offers easily enough that after the second year was about 50k pm, what was important there was personal drive, I like experimenting with stuff and that comes off in Interviews, and I'm good at expressing myself in regards to that, and I made sure to sound out the companies that it was places where good work is rewarded (and make sure you think you can get a good mentor figure there).

 

[Mwera]

Have you done the NDip?

You do know that NDip/BTech/MTech/DTech are all phased out?

You can't register for a BTech anymore at all: Link

You can however, register for a BEngTech. Check the handbook: Link

I mean what is BEng Tech in Computer Systems all about... what does it prepare you for?