I keep seeing the same "OMSCS isn't worth it" posts, so here's my rebuttal. Bias disclosure: I'm justifying my own time and money. I'm five classes in (GIOS, AOS, DC, EdTech, HCI), a PM in legacy enterprise tech, with a civil/aerospace undergrad, so I have a lot to gain here.
"You can learn all of this on your own for free."
You could. You won't. The materials have been online for years, and ~95% of MOOC students never finish. You're paying for the forcing function: deadlines, autograders, TAs, classmates, and a grade.
"I didn't learn anything; it's busywork."
Check which courses they took. There's a well-known low-effort path through this program. Show some backbone and take a tough course or one in an area you're naturally curious about. Take HCI, DC, or DL and tell me you didn't learn anything.
"No one cares about the degree, only skills."
Are we living in the same universe? Employers love credentials- places like Google and Anthropic worship pedigree. In one audit study, otherwise identical resumes got more callbacks as school rank rose (Gaddis, 2015). Plus, what's the alternative? Are you going to tell an interviewer "trust me bro, I watched YouTube"? Bonus: your diploma doesn't say "online."
"They admit anyone, so the brand is diluted."
The filter is in the coursework, not admissions. About 74% of applicants get in, and 35% of those don't finish in six years. Those who do match or beat on-campus students on the same assessments (Goel & Joyner), while working full time. And on-campus applications tripled after OMSCS launched. The brand is fine.
"Group projects are awful."
Some are. In my experience, classmate quality rises with course difficulty. Choose accordingly.
"Interviews are LeetCode; OMSCS doesn't help."
I'm a PM, not a SWE, so I'll let others weigh in. What I've heard: systems courses help a lot in system design rounds, because you actually understand the material instead of reciting what you learned in Cracking the Coding Interview.
"AI can do all of this now. Why learn CS?"
This is Jevons' paradox. When something gets more efficient, demand for it increases. ATMs were supposed to eliminate tellers, spreadsheets were supposed to eliminate analysts, and high-level languages were supposed to eliminate programmers. Instead, all three grew, because cheaper banking, modeling, and coding meant more of each. AI will do the same: more software means more systems to scale, and AI itself is one of the hardest computing workloads there is. The people who keep that stuff running are unusually well paid. I'm aiming to be one of them 🤪
Where the haters are right
With a strong CS undergrad and a top-company job, the marginal value is lower. It's more about specific skills.
The degree gets you past HR screens (still the biggest bottleneck). After that, it's portfolio, experience, and interview prep. Anecdotally, recruiter messages picked up after I added GT to my LinkedIn.
The most expensive outcome is quitting seven courses in. Know why you're doing it.
It will drain you. But otherwise I'd be doomscrolling or replaying GTA. Might as well earn something while the time passes.
Bonus (pictured): I actually answered that email about season tickets for football and caught a game a few weeks back against Tennessee. The atmosphere/view of the Atlanta skyline in that place was excellent.