MSc worth while?

[JavaMomma]

Currently:
I hold a fairly senior position, with decent pay (nothing to crazy)...
I do mostly back-end development and get to work on the more research based projects, and I have tons of freedom to direct the projects I work on... Overall, I'm fairly happy with my job, I love research based work. Where I work I'm one of the few people who has a CS degree and a strong math background ... most of co-workers have IT degrees and diplomas, they're pretty much your standard application developer.

Anyways, one of my old professors recently gave me a call - he believes I should go back and do my MSc (in Comp Sci).

My Future Thoughts:
a) Advance myself into more research heavy work - basically become an true expert at what I do, would a MSc would help in this goal??
OR
b) In a few years, leave software, step sideways into management and maybe do a MBA one day...
OR
c) do what I am doing now forever... (this would be stupid - better not happen)

I think I should be able to keep my job and do my MSc at the same time...
My main concern(s) are:
Do my MSc and I just end up doing option c) above and never putting the extra education to use...
Also, does anyone really consider a masters that useful (other then maybe google?) I know when I look through resumes I really don't consider it to be of any value for the positions we're typically hiring for...

Anyways, just kind of tossing around some idea's and thought I'd see what others thought?

 

[Markbnj]

I see a lot of high-end analytical and engineering positions, especially in the financial sector, where they would prefer a Masters, also a lot of "principal engineer" and "principal scientist" positions. I don't think you need a Masters to work productively in this field, but if the combination of increased opportunities and personal satisfaction is worth it, then I say go for it.

 

[presidentender]

While your situation is different from mine, some of the advice in this thread might be of use to you. It makes more sense for you to get a graduate degree than for someone just starting out (in my uninformed opinion) because the difference between 6 years field experience and 8 years field experience is perceived as minimal, while the difference between a bachelor's and a master's is perceived as substantial.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I see a lot of high-end analytical and engineering positions, especially in the financial sector, where they would prefer a Masters, also a lot of "principal engineer" and "principal scientist" positions. I don't think you need a Masters to work productively in this field, but if the combination of increased opportunities and personal satisfaction is worth it, then I say go for it.

Wouldn't a principal engineer be someone who has contributed significantly to the prosperity of the company, not necessarily someone you hire on? Being a principal engineer at my company is sacred (like 15-20 out of 2500+ engineers), but I guess every company is different.