MS in Data Science/Analytics should be treated like MBAs (by applicants)

We see a lot of posts on this subreddit about which masters in data science/analytics they should apply to, and how to choose between them and a traditional masters degree in economics/computer science/statistics/OR/applied math.

First things first: at every masters program in this world, what you learn and how well you learn it is not nearly as important for your job prospects as the quality of the "stamp of approval" that you are receiving, i.e., the perceived value of the degree itself.

The more traditional the field, the more programs there are out there with legitimate street cred.

For math, statistics, physics, there are going to be a LOT of programs that carry weight. That is in part because these programs tend to be very demanding, but also because they have had a long time to get established. When looking at resumes, if I see that someone has a masters in statistics, I am not super concerned about where they got it from. A bit, but not super concerned.

Engineering, computer science, OR, etc., are going to be a bit more reduced in the number of programs that are considered legit. The areas are a bit newer, there has traditionally been less interest for MS and PhD grads in these areas (though it's changing), so there is a smaller concentration of programs that are worth their salt. If I'm looking at someone with a MS in computer engineering, I'm looking for a top 25 program at least.

Then you get into these new programs. Masters in advanced analytics. Masters in data science. Masters in analytics. Masters in data modeling. Whatever they may be, these are all normally programs that have been born in the last 10 years. They normally don't have the same level of academic rigor because they are being born out of demand in the field for people with this specific skillset, so it's actually more important to graduate people and get them out there than it is to arm them with legitimate knowledge of the underlying science part of data science.

That is not to say that these are bad programs, but a) they don't carry the same weight as their more traditional counterparts among hiring managers, and b) there is a much smaller set that are considered to be worthwhile.

Because of that, I think these newer types of MS degrees should be treated a lot like MBAs; That is, an MBA is only really worth getting if it's from a top, elite program.

Getting an MBA from, I don't know, Kansas State is not likely to do a whole lot for your career. I would say that top 25 at most is worth the money, and I would argue that there are huge dropoffs after 7 (Berkeley), 12 (NYU,Duke), and 18 (UNC).

I feel the same way about Masters of Data Science/Analytics/etc programs. Using this ranking (don't really care which one you want to use), by the time you get to 15, you are really starting to lose steam.

Just one man's opinion, but with how many questions there are about this, I think it was worth bringing up. What do you think?