100 Reasons Not to Go to Grad School

[Sheilbh]

I guess my point is if you just love the content you can now study it on your own better than ever.  Graduate school should be for people who are committed to becoming specialists and devoting careers to this stuff.

I think that's fair.  But I think the flip-side is if you want to really drill down into a subject (assuming you've the time and money) then it's worth going back to uni.

[Malthus]

I guess my point is if you just love the content you can now study it on your own better than ever.  Graduate school should be for people who are committed to becoming specialists and devoting careers to this stuff.

I think that's fair.  But I think the flip-side is if you want to really drill down into a subject (assuming you've the time and money) then it's worth going back to uni.

If I really loved a subject, I'd do undergrad forever. Or better yet, become an authour on it. Why be a grad student? They make you jump through all sorts of hoops that have nothing to do with the subject.

Granted some subjects - such as the sciences - you can't very well do outside of a university structure. I'm thinking of the humanities here.

[Sheilbh]

Well doing a Masters and then a PhD (or straight to PhD, if you're good) you do become an author on a subject and you get some training on the necessary research techniques.  The other advantage is that research students and post-grads are far more likely to get invited to conferences where you can hear the latest research on a subject or new and different perspectives.  If you're good you can even end up getting paid to research something you love (and to teach it).  But you're right it does depend on what you're interested in.

[Valmy]

Well doing a Masters and then a PhD (or straight to PhD, if you're good) you do become an author on a subject and you get some training on the necessary research techniques.  The other advantage is that research students and post-grads are far more likely to get invited to conferences where you can hear the latest research on a subject or new and different perspectives.  If you're good you can even end up getting paid to research something you love (and to teach it).  But you're right it does depend on what you're interested in.

But you really have to have plenty of money to really enjoy it.  Otherwise you are going to spending most of your time being a teachers assistant and the like to make ends meet.  I think that is the main message.  Actually making a living and being adequately compensated for the work you do is incredibly unlikely and the work is long and hard and often very solitary.  Things people should know before deciding to do it. The economic value for most PhDs and Masters is virtually nil outside of the specific field they are acquired (and in some cases not incredibly high inside of it either).

I have to question the different perspectives part though.  One of big problems of academia is how insular it is.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, that's a given.  I thought we were talking about Tim's comment that if he could he'd do one, or my attitude which is that if I ever have the time or money I'd love to do one.  If you're looking at a career then I don't think you're probably good enough unless you're being funded.

I'm nowhere near good enough to make it as an academic.  It's different for science because you can be a researcher, but from a professional perspective the humanities really only have one route to being paid for that sort of work.  I've got a few friends doing PhDs in engineering or chemistry or bits of biology who will get work from it.  But I've only got one friend who's brilliant enough to be dong a (fully funded) PhD in the humanities and, I think, to succeed as an academic.

[CountDeMoney]

For some disciplines, I can see the need for a Masters (engineers, scientists, even certain ITard fields).  But for others, it's all about demonstrating a higher, formalized amount of exposure to ideas, concepts, their history and application, either for resume embellishment (MBA) or personal enrichment.

Hell, I would love to pursue a Masters in Fine Arts, solely for my own personal enrichment*.  Ain't got jack shit with what I do--did, LOL--for a living, but it would demonstrate, for those employers who would appreciate it, a particular level of well-roundedness.  God knows I'm round enough as it is, should at least have a sheepskin to show for it.






*And yes, as a terminal degree, I could conceivably teach and bang 20 year old coeds.  But that is beside the point.

[Maximus]

Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:

Silicon Valley needs humanities students
Vivek Wadhwa, Columnist

High Demand for Science Graduates Enables Them to Pick Their Jobs, Report Says
By Paul Basken
A couple of years ago, a pair of researchers at Georgetown University and Rutgers University concluded that, contrary to widespread perception, the United States produces plenty of scientists and engineers.

The problem, wrote Harold Salzman of Rutgers and B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown, is that fewer than half of all college graduates in science and engineering actually take jobs in those fields. So instead of pressing colleges to produce more science graduates, they wrote, the country needed only to persuade new graduates to take the right jobs.

A study released on Wednesday by another Georgetown research team suggests, however, that lot of persuasion may be necessary.

Among its findings, the study, from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shows that science and engineering graduates enjoy high demand in a variety of fields, with a bachelor's degree in a science major commanding a greater salary than a master's degree in a nonscience major.

And, the new report says, English-speaking science graduates are much less likely than foreign-born science graduates to take a job in a traditional science career, which American graduates often view as too socially isolating.

"It sort of fits the stereotype, frankly," said the report's lead author, Anthony P. Carnevale, a research professor at Georgetown who serves as director of the Center on Education and the Workforce.

In recent months, the center has also issued reports that analyzed students' future earnings based on their undergraduate majors, and that tied lifetime earnings as much to students' choice of occupation as to their degrees.

The 2009 study by Mr. Salzman, a professor of public policy on Rutgers's New Brunswick campus, and Mr. Lowell, director of policy studies at Georgetown's Institute for the Study of International Migration, used 30 years of federal job data to show that American colleges produce far more talented graduates in the sciences than is required by the industry for which they've been specifically trained. But there is a labor shortfall, the professors said, because so many science graduates take jobs in areas such as sales, marketing, and health care.

The training and expertise of science graduates give them that flexibility, Mr. Carnevale found in his study. Sixty-five percent of students earning bachelor's degrees in science or engineering fields earn more than master's-degree holders in nonscience fields do, the report says. And 47 percent of bachelor's-degree holders in science fields earn more than do those holding doctorates in other fields.

A liberal-arts education is often regarded as giving a graduate a wide degree of flexibility in a fast-changing job market. The wage data may now be showing that a narrower education in a scientific field offers similar benefits, Mr. Carnevale said. "The technical foundation," he said, "is worth even more than we thought."

http://chronicle.com/article/High-Demand-for-Science/129472/

[CountDeMoney]

And, the new report says, English-speaking science graduates are much less likely than foreign-born science graduates to take a job in a traditional science career, which American graduates often view as too socially isolating.

Hmmm, science-based education frowned upon by American societal construct, nerds still assaulted by jocks since 2nd grade because nobody likes the smart kid in class.  Imagine that.

[Valmy]

Just for the record to all potential future employers: I am totally fine with being socially isolated.

[Kolytsin]

Well, yeah.  Duh! 

As for "no business will hire you for a middle/upper management level track unless you have that "check in the box" MBA,"  I assume that is just throwaway hyperbole, which the readers are supposed to recognize as untrue.  Because, of course, it is untrue.

You know what I meant to type.  Success has a very strong correlation with education.

As for the second statement, that was a bit hyperbolized and anecdotal based on watching several associates try to cold hire into companies and based on my own attempts at job searching.  It is not based on studies.  You strategically cut out the first qualification, which stated that you need some other blip on your resume OR an MBA.  Human resources need something concrete to filter out job applicants that don't have some networking connection inside the organization.  If you disagree, then I don't really care. You may have had different experiences.

[CountDeMoney]

Just for the record to all potential future employers: I am totally fine with being socially isolated.

No kidding.  Want me to be gregarious?  I can do that, too.

[Phillip V]

Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:

Silicon Valley needs humanities students
Vivek Wadhwa, Columnist

And did that columnist use his higher level humanities thinking to evaluate those 652 CEO's he surveyed in personal areas/experience besides the kind of degree they possessed? Nope.

About 1 in 10 CEO's of a Fortune 500 company is a veteran. Perhaps such "different" experiences contribute to the "vision" and "soft skills" that the columnist touts.

As for me, I have no degree, but I have parlayed my few years of enlisted military experience (and the early management/technical roles that provided to a 20ish-year-old) into a near six-figure salary job in the private sector. (I also listed on my resume that I was a Paradox Interactive beta tester for seven years. )

[CountDeMoney]

And did that columnist use his higher level humanities thinking to evaluate those 652 CEO's he surveyed in personal areas/experience besides the kind of degree they possessed? Nope.

You know the deal about CEOs, I'm sure you've been in HR "leadership" cohorts and workshops...all the character traits they espouse for proper leaders are the complete opposite of what it takes to get to the top.   Every trait they poo-poo in those workshops for "us", from passive-aggressive backstabbing to "anti-teamwork" to compete and total douchebaggery and selfishness...that's what it takes for real leaders to succeed. 

[Phillip V]

And did that columnist use his higher level humanities thinking to evaluate those 652 CEO's he surveyed in personal areas/experience besides the kind of degree they possessed? Nope.

Every trait they poo-poo in those workshops for "us", from passive-aggressive backstabbing to "anti-teamwork" to compete and total douchebaggery and selfishness...that's what it takes for real leaders to succeed. 

[CountDeMoney]

The Human Resources industry is the very definition of the Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone.