Used to be about 20% in starting salary at big firms . . . :-)
From the other side of the table, it's probably a reasonable filter - you had to love CS enough to go on to grad school in the first place, you probably had to do enough hard implementation work (grad OS, advanced compilers, and implementation-focused research - I only knew a couple of students in my cohort would did purely theoretical work, so I always find this concern from employers a little funny - are generally tougher coding than most people do as undergrads). Plus, you might actually be able to read a paper or two from candidates to see if they can communicate advanced ideas in a reasonable way.
I also distinctly viewed the MS in CS as a way to "stand out from the crowd," but I was graduating at a time when there were still tons of CS undergrads hoping to surf the internet boom. These days, the Taulbee surveys seem to say that more CS students are heading to grad school, so with the economy now you're probably seeing the same thought process.
What I don't remember are people (at least at the two schools I knew best) finishing with a MS degree and thinking they were entitled to better gigs than undergrads.
Now, close to 10 years out from finishing my MS, I find that my thought process is quite different than my engineer peers without grad degrees. I'm much more interested in being more efficient, I prefer to stay away from coding that feels like plumbing to me, and I sometimes wonder if all the big payoffs are either in startups or back in research. Where payoff equals mentally challenging, focused effort that stretches you in a very flow-inducing way versus the "industrial software complex" where you often have the same two years of experience over 10 years.
Ignoring all of the above, if you want great hackers (who sometimes have no degree, degrees in english, or even PhDs in CS), you have to make sure you strongly communicate why your company is one that great hackers want to work at.
From the other side of the table, it's probably a reasonable filter - you had to love CS enough to go on to grad school in the first place, you probably had to do enough hard implementation work (grad OS, advanced compilers, and implementation-focused research - I only knew a couple of students in my cohort would did purely theoretical work, so I always find this concern from employers a little funny - are generally tougher coding than most people do as undergrads). Plus, you might actually be able to read a paper or two from candidates to see if they can communicate advanced ideas in a reasonable way.
I also distinctly viewed the MS in CS as a way to "stand out from the crowd," but I was graduating at a time when there were still tons of CS undergrads hoping to surf the internet boom. These days, the Taulbee surveys seem to say that more CS students are heading to grad school, so with the economy now you're probably seeing the same thought process.
What I don't remember are people (at least at the two schools I knew best) finishing with a MS degree and thinking they were entitled to better gigs than undergrads.
Now, close to 10 years out from finishing my MS, I find that my thought process is quite different than my engineer peers without grad degrees. I'm much more interested in being more efficient, I prefer to stay away from coding that feels like plumbing to me, and I sometimes wonder if all the big payoffs are either in startups or back in research. Where payoff equals mentally challenging, focused effort that stretches you in a very flow-inducing way versus the "industrial software complex" where you often have the same two years of experience over 10 years.
Ignoring all of the above, if you want great hackers (who sometimes have no degree, degrees in english, or even PhDs in CS), you have to make sure you strongly communicate why your company is one that great hackers want to work at.