RoR: Forum

You might as well get a job either as a professor in a college, or as a waitress if you're getting a PhD in "American Studies". I tend to agree with Luke here. There are way too many people getting useless degrees. For example, the number of students enrolling in "environmental studies" degrees has skyrocketed while traditional degrees in engineering and science is decreasing. So we're creating an army of people that can point out what's wrong with the environment without any knowledge of how to improve it.

How many people with psychology degrees have you met that do no such work in that field? And really, how many "Art History" majors does a market demand? A close friend of mine is currently perusing his PhD in History, he's already resigned himself to the fact he will only get a job as a professor.

If the desire for a degree is only borne out of pure satisfaction of gaining knowledge, I know a lot more cheaper ways one can do that. If you'd like to know, send me a check for $100 dollars made out to my name, and I'll let you in on the secret to gaining knowledge cheaply, and without having to pay for room and board.

By the way I agree with Joe on over-qualification turning off employers. Sometimes I look at an applicant and turn them down for a job because the extra education won't translate into more income for my business, rather it translates into plunking down a lot of money for training and then losing the employee in less than a year.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/15, 8:59am)

Post 21

Friday, May 15, 2009 - 10:02am

Just for the record, I never completed 10th grade. And I was about 30 when I took the GED so I could get into the University. I had some scholarships, some student loans (now all paid off), but mostly just paid my way. If I had done a spreadsheet I have no idea what it would have shown - but I do know that I treasure the things my mind was opened to with my formal education - and that the emotional reward of learning and knowing would be on the spreadsheet with a high, made-up number to represent that reward.

So there are two ways of valuing an education, one being related to occupational income, the other related to the pursuit of knowledge on a broader level.

I'm glad that I went through the system decades ago, since I don't like what I see about the universities today. I don't like the low admission standards, the high costs, the way classes are taught, the declining quality of teachers, the grade inflation, or the bias in so many disciplines.

But it is a more complex subject than a spreadsheet will address. And the issue has two viewpoints - "How should a young person address the issue of going to college?" AND "What things should be changed in our system of higher education?"
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/15, 10:13am)

Post 22

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 4:16am

JA: A close friend of mine is currently perusing his PhD in History, he's already resigned himself to the fact he will only get a job as a professor. ... Sometimes I look at an applicant and turn them down for a job because the extra education won't translate into more income for my business...

It is not so much that the education is useless, as that the person with it never learned capitalism.

The markets for historical writing, including historical fiction and historical romance, continue.
Cities and towns support historical research and those that do not are open markets for anyone who wants to develop them.
This translates to tourism and increased real estate values for selected properties.
People pay for genealogies.
"Modern history" (as also "industrial archaeology") is a leading edge study.
Any corporation more than one generation old needs a historian, at least on a contract basis. Fortune 1000 organizations may well have lost trillions of dollars in unrecovered assets for lack of historical capital that could be put to active use.

In short, there are many opportunities, but our cultural values shadow them to all but the most enterprising. Also, it is not clear how much money the historian seeks, or in what forms. College professors do not earn much in salaries, perhaps, but they do have great retirement programs. Also, the job can serve as a platform for other work, from consulting to businesses to being a landlord.

I am always disappointed to discover an Objectivist who falls into a common trap, as above, the idea that an educated person cannot create more wealth than the uneduated. It depends on the nature of the education, certainly. Broadly,any business owner who perceives hiring the most qualified employees as a risk is being penny wise and pound foolish. You always want to hire a potential competitor. Who else is good enough?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/16, 4:21am)

Post 23

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 4:38am

SW: "I'm glad that I went through the system decades ago, since I don't like what I see about the universities today. I don't like the low admission standards, the high costs, the way classes are taught, the declining quality of teachers, the grade inflation, or the bias in so many disciplines."

Funny thing, though, you entered college about 1980. I entered in 1967 and I went to The College of Charleston, founded 1770 and hosting 450 students total when I attended. So, perhaps arguably, from that point of view, you suffered from a modernist lack of education. But you did not.

In fact, you happened to attend after the baby boomers left, when a lull in the action allowed you perhaps more opportunities.

Whatever the social context, I think that you made the most of if by being Steve Wolfer. It is not so much where you go to school, but what you bring to school -- and what you invest of yourself in the process.

While it is true that a larger university will have a better library and so on, other considerations may override. Most recently, 2007-2008, I had two upper division classes required for several curricula in lecture halls for 300 where we were happy that the 100 of us had some elbow room. One professor was a good lecturer who prepared his addresses ahead of each session. The other was a slacker who chatted to the room at large. The ultimate outcome was the about same for me, personally, because of how I work at study.

Comforting and comfortable as the environment may or may not be, the personal opinions in this discussion only underscore the personal responsibilties for the outcomes.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/16, 4:39am)

Post 24

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 11:58am

Michael:

I am always disappointed to discover an Objectivist who falls into a common trap, as above, the idea that an educated person cannot create more wealth than the uneduated. It depends on the nature of the education, certainly.

You know what's funny, the first part of your sentence here actually doesn't apply to anything I said, yet the second part "it depends on the nature of the education" actually does apply to what I said. Were you paying attention? I guess not.

The point is there are certain degrees that do not have the same market demand as others do. Like "Art History". And when the labor market is flooded with useless degrees, most of those educations end up just being a waste. If you feel that spending tens of thousands of dollars on a major that will not give you the return on the investment as worthwhile, then go on driving that used car and living in your one bedroom apartment.

And your analysis of "history major" as a potential marketable degree is absolutely the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination I've ever heard.

Broadly,any business owner who perceives hiring the most qualified employees as a risk is being penny wise and pound foolish

Oh is that so? How many successful businesses have you run? Care to share income statements? Do you even make 6 figures? If you're going to call me out as being a foolish business owner, why don't you back up those fighting words up with some of your own success stories as a business owner?

You always want to hire a potential competitor. Who else is good enough?

Someone who can perform the same tasks at a relatively equal skill level but does not have the desire to leave thereby reducing employee turnover. If you ran a successful business, you'd understand employee turnover is one of the biggest expenses to a business's labor costs. And labor costs is one of the biggest expenses to running a company. But you probably don't run a business, so you wouldn't know.

And even if I did view an overqualified candidate as being a potential future competitor, why would I hire this person and give them all the insight someone needs to run a successful business?
(Edited by John Armaos on 5/16, 12:38pm)

Post 25

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 3:31pm

The point is there are certain degrees that do not have the same market demand as others do. Like "Art History".

I had to laugh at this, only because our receptionist has a BA in Art History. She actually got offered a job on a cruise ship that housed an art gallery, but didn't take it because she'd be away so much and for so long.

A friend's husband has a PhD (I forget which field of study), and landed an executive position at Ford right after graduation a dozen years ago or so.

Post 26

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 7:46pm

And when the labor market is flooded with useless degrees, most of those educations end up just being a waste.

As we are reading past each other, I will say once more that the education is wasted only to the extent that the owner does not know how to capitalize on the resources for lack of an enterprise upbringing. Public school creates employees who show up on time, sit down, shut up and do was they are told. Employers like to hire people like that. Some socialists claim that this proves that the schools exist to serve capitalism which only wants stupid people educated to a minimal level of repetition for employees. Personally, I disagree. I think that capitalism demands the best each of us has to offer. (But I could be wrong.)

If you feel that spending tens of thousands of dollars on a major that will not give you the return on the investment as worthwhile, then go on driving that used car and living in your one bedroom apartment.

I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry with 331,000 miles on it. I think it's pretty cool. We live in a three bedroom house. But if we lived in a one-bedroom apartment my wife and I would still be us. Our self esteem does not depend on the things we own.

And your analysis of "history major" as a potential marketable degree is absolutely the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination I've ever heard.

Owners of successful businesses can be very down to earth people, whose common sense outshines their imagination or creativity. The market rewards that and the market is always right. Bars, convenience stores, gas stations, hardware stores, the mainstream of commerce depends on people who thrive and prosper in the middle of the road. Many brilliant and creative people end up dying poor, even broken simply because they never work out the way to market their speciality. Other creative people become millionaires.

Oh is that so? How many successful businesses have you run? Care to share income statements? Do you even make 6 figures? If you're going to call me out as being a foolish business owner, why don't you back up those fighting words up with some of your own success stories as a business owner?

I have never made six figures in my life. For one thing, I've been on strike for most of my life, never creating much more than I needed. Some years, I did do over $50,000, billing at $25, $30 or $40 per hour, but working only six months as an employee. (There were some exceptions.)

Long ago, I made a conscious choice never to be an employer. I always sell my labor. I am a worker, a proletarian. At the same time, like all of us, I own the same tools of production as everyone else: my intelligence. I save money well and have some small interest-bearing accounts. I have a little money in Switzerland. I never owned a business because I never wanted to be responsible for anyone else. I never wanted to own anything that could be seized. I never wanted to be tied down to anything that would own me back. The price I paid is less income. I live simply. I live well.

I also published over 200 newspaper and magazine articles over the last 25 years. Have you published much, been paid for your opinions, your ideas, your discoveries? Some of my work has been quoted by other authors. One article was cited in a monograph by Nobel laureate Robert Mundell. I cannot take that to the bank. But when you die, you have to leave your money behind. So, we all make choices, pay prices, write off losses, and harvest rewards.

Someone who can perform the same tasks at a relatively equal skill level but does not have the desire to leave thereby reducing employee turnover. If you ran a successful business, you'd understand employee turnover is one of the biggest expenses to a business's labor costs. And labor costs is one of the biggest expenses to running a company. But you probably don't run a business, so you wouldn't know.

We do business as Marotta Associates LLC. Turnover is zero. It is pretty interesting to see why people leave companies and why they stay. If employee turnover is a "constant problem", then I would have to call it a constant, not a problem, and I would plan for that. If your labor costs are out of control, then you need to address that rather than treating it like an emergency. But, you don't need my advice.

And even if I did view an overqualified candidate as being a potential future competitor, why would I hire this person and give them all the insight someone needs to run a successful business?

Obviously, we took different lessons from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Post 27

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 8:58pm

Michael, This is a pleasant suprise. I find I disagree with about 100% of what you say. I'll have to revise that estimate. I agree with every word you just said.

Post 28

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 8:00am

First, I want to go back to the article that Luke linked to at the beginning of this thread. It really is a terrible article. Its message can be sumarized as follows: some PhD degrees aren�t very marketable, especially in the present economy. No duh! But the title suggests that a GED is more valuable than a PhD. Which PhD? And where�s the data on the success of those with a GED getting jobs in today�s economy? And why was it such a bad idea to start working on a PhD five (or in some cases, ten) years ago, when the job market was better (still not great for English majors)? Should they have known that the economy was going to take a nose dive in 2008?

Second, John said:

You might as well get a job either as a professor in a college, or as a waitress if you're getting a PhD in "American Studies".

And

�he's already resigned himself to the fact he will only get a job as a professor.

John: I�ll ask you a question similar to the one you asked Michael: �How many successful faculty positions have you had?� My wife and I have PhDs in science, we both have faculty positions, and we both have made six figure salaries for the last few years. This may not be typical, since we work in a medical school, but it�s not that unusual.

Finally, I want to speak to the idea that the most important factor in choosing a career is the �cash flow statement�. Michael, Steve, and Ryan addressed this also. My wife and I are moving to Cornell this fall. I�m going back to teaching physics in a real physics department. I�ve been doing medical physics for the last 15 years. It�s paid well, but I haven�t received much job satisfaction from it. It�s too much like engineering. I�m going to take a 50% pay cut, but it will be worth it. I enjoy teaching and I�m good at it. That is much more important to me than the size of the salary or how many years it took to get here.

Thanks,

Glenn

Post 29

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 5:34pm

I completely agree with Glen�and very much agree with MEM too.

I am unabashedly elitist when talking about higher educations. To me, the question asked in the title of this thread (and in the article) is by itself quite ridiculous. Remember, a Ph.D. includes GED by default. So does a bachelor or a master degree.

Glen is right that a faculty member at the level of tenured professor in a medical school does typically earn a 6 figure salary. Intellectual satisfaction and prestige aside, a person with a higher degree(s) does earn more over his life time than a person with only a high school diploma. Isn�t that obvious? If not, there are statistics out there for anyone to dig up.

I am also curious of the student loans one accumulates for pursuing higher degrees. My own experience has been different.

First, I never paid any college tuition. Instead I got need-based compensation going to university. That was in China. I�ve learnt since that free university education is also available in countries such as Germany and Britain. Even in US, if you are smart enough, you can go to university for free too. My niece will be attending Princeton this fall. She ranked #1 in her high school senior class of over 500. Her financial aid covers all tuition and some more. (Gosh I love America). In the end, her parents only need to pay part of her living expenses.

Second, for Ph.D. degrees in science, there are always teaching and research assistantships, and tuition is always waived if you have an assistantship. I actually don�t know anyone who paid for his Ph.D. from their own pockets. Perhaps if you can�t get an assistantship or a fellowship and have your tuition waived, you shouldn�t be pursuing those degrees.

Now the cash flows. I�ll indulge Luke�s request, though he hasn�t given us the cash flow of GED holders. In my university, a graduate student�s stipend is about $26K, including medical and dental benefits. Tuition waived. They are basically in a research or teaching assistant position, part of the work force. It�s not much but enough to live on and to study for their degree debt free.

After they get their Ph.D. degree, they may get a postdoctoral position for a couple of years (though many stayed much longer at this supposedly temporary position). NIH�s payline is $35K for a newly minted Ph.D. So they would get close to $40K by the end of 2 years. Fringe benefits (annuity, medical etc) are also included.

After that, many Ph.D.�s I know do get a real job, as professors in universities or scientists in big pharma or biotech companies, or various other research or administrative positions. A few went on to get a law degree and became patent lawyers. The salary and bonus of an industrial position easily tops 6 figures after initial few years. College professors usually earn less but they have their own set of perks.

That said, I must say that I am not particularly familiar with the career path of Ph.D.�s in humanities. I do have a cousin (whom I am quite close to) who has a Ph.D. in economy and is a lecturer (equivalent of asst. professor in US) at Univ. of Bristol in England. Another economy Ph.D. friend has been a risk analyst for a big bank�I wonder how is he doing recently� ;-)

Post 30

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 3:06am

Good post, Michael.

I've long held the belief that it isn't what you know, but what you do with what you know. That is more important. I think this probably holds true as much your personal life as it does in your work.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 5/19, 6:30am)

Post 31

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 7:04am

Hi, Hong. Good to hear from you. Did I ever tell you that my wife did her post doc at your institution? We still have many friends there.
Glenn

Post 32

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:06am

Hi Glenn,
No, you haven't told me that. That's interesting. We might even have some common acquaintances. On the other hand, Wash. U has one of the best Med school in the country but I understand why you'd enjoy teaching physics at Cornell.

Post 33

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:38am

"Comforting and comfortable as the environment may or may not be, the personal opinions in this discussion only underscore the personal responsibilties for the outcomes"

As so often the case, MEM has an outstanding point that requires some effort to get due to his unusual way of putting it.

I absolutely agree with him here, how a person lives his life is the responsibility of his own. Blaming schools or educational system means implicitly that you think the schools or teachers should be responsible for you. As an objectivist, as Luke claims to be, you should be in position to make use of the educational system as a means to achieve your goals, and not to become a victim of the the system which will never be perfect for you. Only you yourself can make you a victim.

If I wanted to learn math and science and Jesuit schools were the only place to have it, I'd have been happy to go there. It's a price to pay and you don't have to be victimized by it.

Post 34

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 12:30pm

Good posts, everybody.

I think the main point still holds, namely, that a higher degree in itself offers no guarantee of employability. Thus it makes no sense to run oneself into impossible debt to earn that degree in the face of other options. So my point about "cash flow" still holds.

Just for kicks, I checked my home state's GED requirements and learned this:

* Must be at least 18 years of age or older (age requirements may vary, check with your local testing center for more details)
* Must be a resident of North Carolina
* Must have withdrawn from high school for six months

Fortunately, younger students with ambitious plans to start college or even a skilled vocation early can apply for a waiver.

I still maintain that a person does himself a disservice by financing college the wrong way. This may sound obvious but it happens all the time anyway. So, yes, there are times when a GED graduate does better financially that someone with a PhD over a lifetime -- a serious issue to consider.

Post 35

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 6:54pm

Michael:

As we are reading past each other, I will say once more that the education is wasted only to the extent that the owner does not know how to capitalize on the resources for lack of an enterprise upbringing.

You can't capitalize on any kind of resource where there is no demand for it. Thousands of kids go into these degrees that will not give them any kind of marketable knowledge.

I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry with 331,000 miles on it. I think it's pretty cool.

Well good for you! If you're happy driving a piece of shit, go on thinking driving a piece of shit is cool. But don't act like you have any clue on how to run a business that actually makes money.

Many brilliant and creative people end up dying poor, even broken simply because they never work out the way to market their speciality.

This is where I have to disagree again. If you take an "Art History" major, and end up opening up your own convenience store, you have done nothing with that degree. You seem to be implying you can take any specialty, any kind, even if there is no demand for it, and turn it into a source of entrepreneurial income. I think that's something comforting to say to people once they realize their degree sucks as far as making them money goes. Although that may be the case for many degrees, it's only applicable insofar as there is any consumer demand for the knowledge you've acquired. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone, and if there is no more demand for "Art History" knowledge, you're not going to be able to do anything with it, and there was no knowledge gained from that major that can allow you to become an entrepreneur in a "Art History" business, because you're not going to find any customers for such a business.

I have never made six figures in my life. For one thing, I've been on strike for most of my life, never creating much more than I needed.

Then you have absolutely no clue how to run a successful business and have no authority to give any advice on the matter.

Long ago, I made a conscious choice never to be an employer. I always sell my labor. ... We do business as Marotta Associates LLC. Turnover is zero.

Obviously turnover is zero for you because you have no employees. Since you don't hire anyone or ever have, you have absolutely no clue on what that entails and what you need to lookout for to minimize labor costs.

If employee turnover is a "constant problem", then I would have to call it a constant, not a problem, and I would plan for that.

That was exactly my point you ninny! You plan for it by effectively hiring employees that you know will stay, and not leave the first minute they get a better offer with someone else because they were overqualified to take the position with your company.

Obviously, we took different lessons from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Obviously you are more interested in striking a moral pose by going on "strike" and accomplishing nothing. I'm not that selfless.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/19, 7:05pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 7:03pm

Glenn:

Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, May 18 - 8:00am Sanction this post Reply
Link
Edit

First, I want to go back to the article that Luke linked to at the beginning of this thread. It really is a terrible article. Its message can be sumarized as follows: some PhD degrees aren�t very marketable, especially in the present economy. No duh! But the title suggests that a GED is more valuable than a PhD. Which PhD? And where�s the data on the success of those with a GED getting jobs in today�s economy? And why was it such a bad idea to start working on a PhD five (or in some cases, ten) years ago, when the job market was better (still not great for English majors)? Should they have known that the economy was going to take a nose dive in 2008?

Second, John said:

You might as well get a job either as a professor in a college, or as a waitress if you're getting a PhD in "American Studies".

And

�he's already resigned himself to the fact he will only get a job as a professor.

John: I�ll ask you a question similar to the one you asked Michael: �How many successful faculty positions have you had?� My wife and I have PhDs in science, we both have faculty positions, and we both have made six figure salaries for the last few years. This may not be typical, since we work in a medical school, but it�s not that unusual.

So? I didn't say you couldn't make 6 figures as a professor.

I said not all majors are going to be particularly marketable but I didn't say all Phds mean all you can do is teach, or that teaching is some kind of horrible profession. So I don't know what your point is. A Phd in science is obviously going to be something that has more market demand in non-teaching markets than a Phd in History would. There aren't very many corporations interested in someone having extensive knowledge in Asian History as they would for say something like biology. And the fact that there would be any demand for Art History teachers exists only because there is a new crop of students every year with the intention of learning a subject matter only to get a job teaching it to someone else.

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/19, 7:10pm)

Post 37

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 6:02am

I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry with 331,000 miles on it. I think it's pretty cool.

That's very cool. I drive a 1988 Honda CRX with just over 120,000 miles on it. 40 mpg, beautiful, and fun to drive. At this rate, it'll last a lifetime. (My husband drives a Lexus GS450h, so you can stop looking down your nose at me, John.)

Post 38

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 6:46am

John said:

I said not all majors are going to be particularly marketable but I didn't say all Phds mean all you can do is teach, or that teaching is some kind of horrible profession.

John: the two quotes of yours that I copied sure sounded to me like you thought teaching was, at best, undesirable. I just wanted to point out, since a lot of the discussion had been about how important money was in choosing one's profession, that teachers can make a decent living.

Art History professors don't only teach those who will become Art History professors. They teach Art History courses to non-majors; in fact, that will be the bulk of their teaching. Also, they will be expected to do research and publish articles and/or books on Art History. Otherwise, they won't last long at most colleges and universities; prior to getting tenure, that is. But that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 39

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 3:59pm