Poll
Question:
Would you recommend your college major to someone who was interested in the field?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 21
Option 2: No
votes: 19
I saw a link to this on Facebook and wondered if anyone (besides Ide) regretted their college major.
QuoteTop 5 Most Regretted Majors
By Catherine Conlan
Monster Contributing Writer
Buyer's remorse is never fun, but it's particularly painful when it comes with the time and cost of getting a college education.
To help you avoid this stinging regret, PayScale has ranked the majors college alumni recommend least. If you have your heart set on one of these, you don't necessarily have to change course -- just do your research on job prospects so your dreams aren't dashed after graduation day.
1. Anthropology (average starting salary: $36,500)
According to PayScale's data, 35 percent of anthropology majors wouldn't recommend it to current students.
"People typically regret majoring in anthropology because they have a preconceived notion that there is a direct and specific job title perfectly correlating to it," says training and development consultant Farrah Parker. "Instead of recognizing the broad spectrum of careers that they can pursue, they focus on their inability to find a career with an exact reference to their major."
Anthropology majors could consider work in community organizations or government, for example, or combine the major with others to make themselves more marketable.
2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
This major is recommended by only 33 percent of its graduates. Many history majors go on to work in academia, or may find jobs with government agencies, libraries or organizations dedicated to the period they studied.
Parker says it's important for graduates to keep their options open after graduation. "People with narrow definitions of career paths find themselves regretting majors," she says. "However, those who recognize that the workforce is full of positions that require expertise outside of what may be formally listed in a course catalog find themselves in a perfect position to brand their college major in whatever manner they see fit."
3. Visual Communication (average starting salary: $37,300)
Only 29 percent of visual communication majors would recommend this to students. Majoring in visual communication may involve creating artwork, learning about ad design and public relations, and studying layout. Graduates may go on to work in media, advertising, public relations or other fields.
4. Social Science (average starting salary: $37,300)
PayScale found 28 percent of social science majors would recommend the major to students.
"I am a former social science major who has since advised against it," says recruiting consultant Sarah Merrill at Atrium Staffing. "I won't say that you don't learn anything from a social science major, but you certainly don't learn practical knowledge that can be applied to a wide range of jobs."
"When I talk to students now I advise them to think about what they can actually use in the future -- courses on personal finance, marketing, business," she explains. "There was a course offered at my university on business writing that I have heard was the hands-down most useful course ever taken because of a whole section on email etiquette."
5. Journalism (average starting salary $38,100)
Only 27 percent of journalism graduates would recommend the major. Difficulties facing print media and the time it takes to break out of entry-level positions can be downers for grads. People with journalism degrees can also end up in marketing, sales, academia or other jobs if they decide to leave the newsgathering business.
Definitely
Yay, I'm in the top 5 of regretted majors!
Yes, unreservedly so. :ph34r:
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2013, 07:28:32 PM
Yes, unreservedly so. :ph34r:
What was your major, Mongers?
Yes.
I wish I'd studied History instead of English Literature, but I'd still entirely recommend it to someone interested as long as they were going to a Uni with a decent department.
Only if you're going forward with grad school or law school; Political Science for the sake of Political Science only pays off if you're from the Ivys or the Washington DC schools.
Academia, government service and policy think tanks in the BCS don't invite schools from the FCS.
In related news, the school's career center is hosting a "What Do I Do With This Liberal Arts Degree?" panel Q & A session for all the kiddies next week, with alumni participants from various employers; a bit disingenuous if you ask me--looking at the roll call, judging by their titles and employers, there's a lot of grad school in there. Yes, it's nice you got your BS in World Civilizations; I'm sure it really comes in handy as a United States Attorney, thanks!
Yes, Philosophy is the only discipline that can teach critical thinking.
Is there an actual major called "social science?"
What about Homeland Security as a major?
Is it worth it?
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:50:29 PM
What about Homeland Security as a major?
Is it worth it?
Your not watching those commercials from a for profit college, are you? DON'T BE SUCKERED BY THEM.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:50:29 PM
What about Homeland Security as a major?
Is it worth it?
Your not watching those commercials from a for profit college, are you? DON'T BE SUCKERED BY THEM.
AMU. American Military University.
It is covered by the Army's Tuition Assistance program.
Should I bother with Homeland Security or should I go with General History as was my intention.
I saw a sign at one of the local for-profit universities that said "Bachelors of Homeland Security." It took me a minute to realize that was a major, and not an advertisement for a saucy revue for the ladies.
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:50:29 PM
What about Homeland Security as a major?
Is it worth it?
Your not watching those commercials from a for profit college, are you? DON'T BE SUCKERED BY THEM.
AMU. American Military University.
It is covered by the Army's Tuition Assistance program.
Should I bother with Homeland Security or should I go with General History as was my intention.
While that is way outside my cone of knowledge, this old thread:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/northern-virginia/738256-have-any-current-govt-defense-contract.html
http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?5669-American-Military-University
Might help.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 13, 2013, 07:57:03 PM
I saw a sign at one of the local for-profit universities that said "Bachelors of Homeland Security." It took me a minute to realize that was a major, and not an advertisement for a saucy revue for the ladies.
Yup, it's all the rage now. I LOL.
The local cops all laugh at the Fortis College cop wannabes.
If they want to teach, yes. Otherwise, no.
So, unequivocally maybe.
If they were intent on going to college I would recommend my major as a decent choice. It's STEM-tastic.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2013, 08:16:32 PM
If they were intent on going to college I would recommend my major as a decent choice. It's STEM-tastic.
What was your major, MiM?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 13, 2013, 08:20:47 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2013, 08:16:32 PM
If they were intent on going to college I would recommend my major as a decent choice. It's STEM-tastic.
What was your major, MiM?
Seedy's favorite. Information Technology. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2013, 08:00:21 PM
The local cops all laugh at the Fortis College cop wannabes.
I love the bulletins from the always vigilant, totally bored and therefore completely overzealous campus police:
Quote
CRIME ALERT: Off CAMPUS –POSSIBLE ARMED SUBJECT
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION: Black Male, Tall, Thin wearing all dark clothing. Possibly armed with a handgun. He was last seen running near XXXXX.
Before:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ephotobay.com%2Fimage%2Foriginal-sauna-suit-black-man-running.jpg&hash=0b671996c6ee7adf161d9dd84101f651569b834c)
After:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.policebrutality.info%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fcops-brutally-beat-up.jpg&hash=07c7bb0e2af0bd8e7a3b321bb3f94b36120c9331)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2013, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2013, 07:50:29 PM
What about Homeland Security as a major?
Is it worth it?
Your not watching those commercials from a for profit college, are you? DON'T BE SUCKERED BY THEM.
AMU. American Military University.
It is covered by the Army's Tuition Assistance program.
Should I bother with Homeland Security or should I go with General History as was my intention.
While that is way outside my cone of knowledge, this old thread:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/northern-virginia/738256-have-any-current-govt-defense-contract.html
http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?5669-American-Military-University
Might help.
Whoa, thank you. Very helpful.
No problemo. I know I've gave you shit over the years Siege but it was like an older brother rubbing your face in dog poo. I want the best for you kid.
Ha, my brother's major was anthro and mine was history. :lol:
I work in IT now and he works in telecom compliance.
Quote from: Caliga on November 13, 2013, 10:32:38 PM
Ha, my brother's major was anthro and mine was history. :lol:
I work in IT now and he works in telecom compliance.
We're like the Borg. We suck you in, even when you don't come from the major. :P
Well, I have two history degrees and I still manage to teach one class a semester in history. Still, I don't do history for a living as I never got my PhD.
No.
Computing is useless.
I should have studied history or the like. Easy but interesting. I would likely have better grades as that is all that actually matters.
Major: English Literature and Composition.
I would have read and written regardless. And I might have had to deal with twats wearing elbow patches on their tweed jackets, but they wouldn't have been the Chair of my department.
So: without question, I regret my major.
If I had a Wayback Machine, I might have majored in Geography instead and tried for a career in surveying or GIS cartography.
Of course I would. There are great jobs in market finance, corporate finance, research finance and any field related to business administration. It's a definite yes.
I greatly enjoyed my time in school as a History major, so I would recommend. What comes after doesn't concern me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2013, 11:26:19 PM
I greatly enjoyed my time in school as a History major, so I would recommend. What comes after doesn't concern me.
Says the man who at one point expected to be dead before 25, and when he woke up at 26 and found he was still alive, fled the fucking country.
History: emphatically no, no, no, no, no.
Redo? Geology, IT-related stuff, or whatever CGI click monkeys take to become VFX artistes. Turns out I'm good at sitting in front of a computer for twelve hours a day and at least animating the brimstone dicks in This Is the End wouldn't kill my soul.
My inital major was history.
Would I recommend it? It depends on the individual and the university. To most aspiring university students, I would not. For myself, definitely yes.
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
That sounds like bullshit too. Needs scamblog attention.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 13, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
...whatever CGI click monkeys take to become VFX artistes. Turns out I'm good at sitting in front of a computer for twelve hours a day and at least animating the brimstone dicks in This Is the End wouldn't kill my soul.
It's a grab bag between graphic design and film majors. The ROI might not be as good as you're expecting, though; lots of art school kiddies majoring in fine art/illustration/animation either dual major or minor in GD to have a marketable job skill on their resumes. It's almost as saturated a market as what you're in.
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
history teacher in high school, most likely?
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2013, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
history teacher in high school, most likely?
Maybe, that would seem reasonable. It was just weird in an era with 20%+ youth unemployment to suggest history grads walk out of school with a salaried position of $39,700. I knew several who were working for hourly wages, like me for example. Many others cannot get jobs. So those guys getting salaries must be getting giant salaries indeed to make that the average.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2013, 12:52:28 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2013, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
history teacher in high school, most likely?
Maybe, that would seem reasonable. It was just weird in an era with 20%+ youth unemployment to suggest history grads walk out of school with a salaried position of $39,700. I knew several who were working for hourly wages, like me for example. Many others cannot get jobs. So those guys getting salaries must be getting giant salaries indeed to make that the average.
Maybe it counts all those with history bachelors who immediately go on to get Law degrees?
Of course I would. Engineering Physics is an elite education that gives you a solid base in science and engineering. It worked out great for me and I'm not interested in the subject. A person who is actually interested must be in heaven.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2013, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
history teacher in high school, most likely?
The thing about that is that, in America at least, you can't go teach in a high school with a history degree--you need an education degree and the accompanying certifications. I think some private schools will hire someone with a history degree vs. an education degree, but not any public schools.
At one point when there was a teacher shortage in Mass. they were letting people with any sort of bachelor's degree take some exam and if you passed it, you could get hired as like a provisional teacher, but only if you agreed to go to night school to get an education degree and you had to obtain it within x number of years or you'd get let go.
I considered studying history, but I realized in high school that history isn't being done seriously in the academic world. We have the historians we have and not the historians we wish we had. They are clueless about their subject. So history, for me, was out.
Quote from: Caliga on November 14, 2013, 05:58:46 AM
The thing about that is that, in America at least, you can't go teach in a high school with a history degree--you need an education degree and the accompanying certifications. I think some private schools will hire someone with a history degree vs. an education degree, but not any public schools.
At one point when there was a teacher shortage in Mass. they were letting people with any sort of bachelor's degree take some exam and if you passed it, you could get hired as like a provisional teacher, but only if you agreed to go to night school to get an education degree and you had to obtain it within x number of years or you'd get let go.
Just so you know, this is wrong. You might want to look up some facts before you start telling people who don't know better how it is "in America, at least."
To teach in high school, one almost certainly needs a degree in the field taught, contrary to what you state. It is true that you also need a teaching certificate (which you can obtain after taking the 5 or so requisite courses in child development, best practices, and that sort of thing), but I don't know a single high school teacher in America, at least who has a bachelor's in education. The coursework required to get subject certification on top of a teaching certificate would virtually amount to a new degree anyway.
In Massachusetts, they allowed (as do many states) someone with a subject area degree to teach under a provisional teaching certification while they took the requisite courses to get a permanent teaching certificate, but you are absolutely wrong to state that such teachers had to get a
degree in education. No one would agree to that kind of burden.
A master's degree in education is quite popular among high school teachers; I'd guess between a quarter and half of public high school teachers have one.
Primary school teachers mostly
do have bachelor's degrees in education, in America at least. But that's not what we are talking about.
tl;dr version: Cal is dead wrong, and high school history teachers generally
do have history degrees and
don't have teaching degrees.
So, can I be a high school teacher with just a history degree?
Nope. Well, actually yes, just don't stop at the level I did continue on & become an engineer.
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2013, 08:16:03 AM
So, can I be a high school teacher with just a history degree?
You'll go to prison if you sleep with your students.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2013, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2013, 12:52:28 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2013, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
history teacher in high school, most likely?
Maybe, that would seem reasonable. It was just weird in an era with 20%+ youth unemployment to suggest history grads walk out of school with a salaried position of $39,700. I knew several who were working for hourly wages, like me for example. Many others cannot get jobs. So those guys getting salaries must be getting giant salaries indeed to make that the average.
Maybe it counts all those with history bachelors who immediately go on to get Law degrees?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1bea2pZSyAA%2FUhxJeiQiCJI%2FAAAAAAAAAmk%2FygWkY707fp4%2Fs320%2FWorldsEnd10.jpg&hash=13aa42205fa22a5754e50549a940c8dd92f1b9d6)
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2013, 07:36:11 AM
Just so you know, this is wrong. You might want to look up some facts before you start telling people who don't know better how it is "in America, at least."
To teach in high school, one almost certainly needs a degree in the field taught, contrary to what you state. It is true that you also need a teaching certificate (which you can obtain after taking the 5 or so requisite courses in child development, best practices, and that sort of thing), but I don't know a single high school teacher in America, at least who has a bachelor's in education. The coursework required to get subject certification on top of a teaching certificate would virtually amount to a new degree anyway.
In Massachusetts, they allowed (as do many states) someone with a subject area degree to teach under a provisional teaching certification while they took the requisite courses to get a permanent teaching certificate, but you are absolutely wrong to state that such teachers had to get a degree in education. No one would agree to that kind of burden.
A master's degree in education is quite popular among high school teachers; I'd guess between a quarter and half of public high school teachers have one.
Primary school teachers mostly do have bachelor's degrees in education, in America at least. But that's not what we are talking about.
tl;dr version: Cal is dead wrong, and high school history teachers generally do have history degrees and don't have teaching degrees.
Well yes, this is true. However, you have to be able to get into the Education Program to get your certificates. That's why I never ended up teaching. My grades weren't good enough to get into the program, which meant that I couldn't take the classes needed to get my teaching certificate.
So, yes, you get a degree in history and you do need a certificate, but because of the way most programs are structured, you have to qualify for the Education College to end up teaching, whether your degree is in Education or History.
I would not recommend majoring, as I did, in anthro. I certainly enjoyed university, but I was totally clueless as to what I would do after. While going to law school paid off for me, it's a very tough path these days, as Ide continually reminds us. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2013, 11:57:09 PM
Quote2. History (average starting salary: $39,700)
Average starting salary in what exactly?
Working as a manager at Barnes and Nobles.
Quote from: Caliga on November 14, 2013, 05:58:46 AM
The thing about that is that, in America Massachusetts at least, you can't go teach in a high school with a history degree--you need an education degree and the accompanying certifications. I think some private schools will hire someone with a history degree vs. an education degree, but not any public schools.
At one point when there was a teacher shortage in Mass. they were letting people with any sort of bachelor's degree take some exam and if you passed it, you could get hired as like a provisional teacher, but only if you agreed to go to night school to get an education degree and you had to obtain it within x number of years or you'd get let go.
FYP.
Florida does not now and has never required an Education degree for teachers. In fact, for secondary school subjects they require so many credits in the specific subject areas that I doubt the average Education major even qualifies unless they double-majored.
Texas does not require Education degrees, either. They do require completion of a graduate certificate program if you do do not have an Education degree, though.
I did 2 years of college and dropped out and joined the reserves. Best decision in my life. If i were to go back to school now, I would not go back to engineering. I would probably go for a skill instead.
Quote from: merithyn on November 14, 2013, 08:39:27 AM
Well yes, this is true. However, you have to be able to get into the Education Program to get your certificates. That's why I never ended up teaching. My grades weren't good enough to get into the program, which meant that I couldn't take the classes needed to get my teaching certificate.
So, yes, you get a degree in history and you do need a certificate, but because of the way most programs are structured, you have to qualify for the Education College to end up teaching, whether your degree is in Education or History.
No you don't. Most states accept certifications from various accredited entities, some of which do nothing bu teacher certifications. The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Sounds like a bit of a Catch-22.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 10:42:49 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Sounds like a bit of a Catch-22.
Why? The temporary certificate only requires a bachelor's degree and a passing grade on the subject area test you want to teach in.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 14, 2013, 08:39:27 AM
Well yes, this is true. However, you have to be able to get into the Education Program to get your certificates. That's why I never ended up teaching. My grades weren't good enough to get into the program, which meant that I couldn't take the classes needed to get my teaching certificate.
So, yes, you get a degree in history and you do need a certificate, but because of the way most programs are structured, you have to qualify for the Education College to end up teaching, whether your degree is in Education or History.
No you don't. Most states accept certifications from various accredited entities, some of which do nothing bu teacher certifications. The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Those certs usually take 12-18 months and thousands of dollars. May as well get a Masters in Education as get those. And it's really hard to get a job as a teacher without a cert in hand, so the Florida program isn't really helpful unless you've already got a job in a private school. (They'll hire you with a BA in a subject without a teaching cert more readily than most public schools will.)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
Why? The temporary certificate only requires a bachelor's degree and a passing grade on the subject area test you want to teach in.
kay
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
Why? The temporary certificate only requires a bachelor's degree and a passing grade on the subject area test you want to teach in.
No such thing as a temp cert in Illinois. You can get a substitute teaching cert without a teaching certificate, but you can only stay in the job for six months, then you have to go three months without working again. I have a substitute teacher certification, but I've never used it. The districts around here are so saturated with certified teachers who can't get jobs that the district will hire them before a non-cert sub.
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2013, 08:16:03 AM
So, can I be a high school teacher with just a history degree?
For public schools, you will need (or be working towards, in some school districts) a teaching certificate as well. That is not generally true for private schools.
Those all look like bloody good starting salaries to me.
Quote from: merithyn on November 14, 2013, 10:49:43 AM
Those certs usually take 12-18 months and thousands of dollars. May as well get a Masters in Education as get those. And it's really hard to get a job as a teacher without a cert in hand, so the Florida program isn't really helpful unless you've already got a job in a private school. (They'll hire you with a BA in a subject without a teaching cert more readily than most public schools will.)
Texas only requires 13 credit hours (3 semesters) of professional development coursework, plus whatever subject area coursework you may need based on the specific subject area you want to teach in. Texas universities run certification programs for secondary education through the Liberal Arts or Natural Sciences departments, not Education.
Quote from: Brazen on November 14, 2013, 11:21:04 AM
Those all look like bloody good starting salaries to me.
Yeah with every grad getting that average starting salary in...erm...something I wonder what all these indebted college grads are complaining about.
Yeah sure, I guess I'd recommend it. Unless I was talking to someone who doesn't know shit about/like dealing with computers. Then I'd maybe suggest they go for something else.
What are the background checks like at these private schools? I got me a pseudo-doctorate. I've never committed statutory rape as defined by the laws of my state.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
No you don't. Most states accept certifications from various accredited entities, some of which do nothing bu teacher certifications. The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Ease of certification depends on the state (and sometimes school district). Illinois is a pretty highly corrupt state, so you would expect the certification requirements to be higher than in a state where it costs more to buy politicians. In general, the more union-friendly a state is, the higher the cert requirements. I am certified to teach in Virginia, but would need to take three college courses to get certified in Michigan.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
What are the background checks like at these private schools? I got me a pseudo-doctorate. I've never committed statutory rape as defined by the laws of my state.
Background checks are pretty extensive. You need to be better-qualified than the other candidates, as well as meeting the minimums, though. Then again, if I got hired by an independent school, how hard could it be?
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2013, 01:46:34 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 14, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
No you don't. Most states accept certifications from various accredited entities, some of which do nothing bu teacher certifications. The Florida DOE even runs their own (https://www.altcertflorida.org/) certification program open to anyone holding a temporary certificate and currently employed as a teacher.
Ease of certification depends on the state (and sometimes school district). Illinois is a pretty highly corrupt state, so you would expect the certification requirements to be higher than in a state where it costs more to buy politicians. In general, the more union-friendly a state is, the higher the cert requirements. I am certified to teach in Virginia, but would need to take three college courses to get certified in Michigan.
:yes:
Exactly. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
What are the background checks like at these private schools? I got me a pseudo-doctorate. I've never committed statutory rape as defined by the laws of my state.
They look into your eyes and see your soul.
We have a couple teachers at my sons' private school who would not be able to teach in the public school system because they lack whatever credential it is they need for that. One is a math teacher who has a Doctorate degree in Math. He is an excellent teacher.
The other is a Chemistry teacher who worked for years in the field and has a doctorate in Chemistry. He retired from his professional life and enjoys teaching. He is also excellent.
They also have the benefit of higher pay and better working conditions than if they worked in the public school system.
We may have more who wouldnt have the credentials to work in the public school system. These are the two I know.
One of my best friends started off as an Education major but switched when he realized how bullshit it was. He became a journo major instead :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
One of my best friends started off as an Education major but switched when he realized how bullshit it was. He became a journo major instead :ph34r:
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2013, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
What are the background checks like at these private schools? I got me a pseudo-doctorate. I've never committed statutory rape as defined by the laws of my state.
Background checks are pretty extensive. You need to be better-qualified than the other candidates, as well as meeting the minimums, though. Then again, if I got hired by an independent school, how hard could it be?
I heard the background checking only goes back a century ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2013, 02:23:03 PM
I heard the background checking only goes back a century ... :hmm:
You heard... poorly. /indianajonesandthelastcrusade
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
One of my best friends started off as an Education major but switched when he realized how bullshit it was. He became a journo major instead :ph34r:
:lol: From a bullshit field to a dying one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
One of my best friends started off as an Education major but switched when he realized how bullshit it was. He became a journo major instead :ph34r:
:lol: From a bullshit field to a dying one.
He was smart enough to decide on a PR career after he did an internship. And I'll be damned if that didn't turn out to be the perfect role for him.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
He was smart enough to decide on a PR career after he did an internship. And I'll be damned if that didn't turn out to be the perfect role for him.
I seriously tried to bounce into that. I had so much fun doing it; alas, I don't have the 3-5 years experience or requisite academic pedigree. Doesn't even matter that I was quoted on SportsCenter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2013, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
He was smart enough to decide on a PR career after he did an internship. And I'll be damned if that didn't turn out to be the perfect role for him.
I seriously tried to bounce into that. I had so much fun doing it; alas, I don't have the 3-5 years experience or requisite academic pedigree. Doesn't even matter that I was quoted on SportsCenter.
You're going to need to give us the story for that one...
We arrested a certain Baltimore Orioles pitcher for DWI. I played the role of "Agency Spokesperson", mainly because I was the one that answered the phone at 4 am. :lol:
Mom has the videotape somewhere...
Quote from: Brazen on November 14, 2013, 11:21:04 AM
Those all look like bloody good starting salaries to me.
Welcome to Cameron's/Osbourne's/*Clegg's England. :bowler:
*useful tool.
Quote from: Brazen on November 14, 2013, 11:21:04 AM
Those all look like bloody good starting salaries to me.
They certainly do...which is why I suspect they are complete nonsense. In this day and age if we average the starting salary for every Freshly minted History grad we get $39,000? That is impossible.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 14, 2013, 11:21:04 AM
Those all look like bloody good starting salaries to me.
They certainly do...which is why I suspect they are complete nonsense. In this day and age if we average the starting salary for every Freshly minted History grad we get $39,000? That is impossible.
I don't know - what that article had seems to match with the survey conducted by NACE. Here's what they list for 2013 as averages.
Engineering $63,000
Computer Science $60,000
Business $54,000
Communications $43,000
Math & Sciences $42,700
Education $40,000
Humanities & Social Sciences $37,000
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/15/college-degrees-with-the-highest-starting-salaries-3/
quote on how they are how they compile
QuoteA Bethlehem, Pa. non-profit, NACE links college placement offices with employers. Its employer members tend to be large companies. For its salary survey it went beyond its members and combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau and a master set of data developed by a compensation measurement company called Job Search Intelligence.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:23:36 AM
I don't know - what that article had seems to match with the survey conducted by NACE. Here's what they list for 2013 as averages.
Right. It is clear that these are the average starting salaries of people who graduate with salaried positions. So the idea that the average History Grad is going to get a salaried position of $39,000 is ridiculous. That is the average of whatever percentage of fortunate souls in those disciplines are getting top jobs.
If these numbers were accurate there would be no student debt crisis at all, everybody would just get a Bachelor's degree and get a nice job. But instead we are looking at about a trillion dollars. So...yeah.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:48:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:23:36 AM
I don't know - what that article had seems to match with the survey conducted by NACE. Here's what they list for 2013 as averages.
Right. It is clear that these are the average starting salaries of people who graduate with salaried positions. So the idea that the average History Grad is going to get a salaried position of $39,000 is ridiculous. That is the average of whatever percentage of fortunate souls in those disciplines are getting top jobs.
If these numbers were accurate there would be no student debt crisis at all, everybody would just get a Bachelor's degree and get a nice job. But instead we are looking at about a trillion dollars. So...yeah.
So you are upset that statistics that aren't aimed at taking into account the unemployed...don't take into account the unemployed? :unsure:
It's pretty Goddamned misleading.
I think he also said "salaried position," although I imagine those surveys do take into account the waged. Mine did. I bombed USC's with a minimum wage turd.
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
I considered studying history, but I realized in high school that history isn't being done seriously in the academic world. We have the historians we have and not the historians we wish we had. They are clueless about their subject. So history, for me, was out.
What exactly do you mean by this?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 01:45:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
I considered studying history, but I realized in high school that history isn't being done seriously in the academic world. We have the historians we have and not the historians we wish we had. They are clueless about their subject. So history, for me, was out.
What exactly do you mean by this?
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 01:45:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
I considered studying history, but I realized in high school that history isn't being done seriously in the academic world. We have the historians we have and not the historians we wish we had. They are clueless about their subject. So history, for me, was out.
What exactly do you mean by this?
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
Yes. Enlighten me. :smarty:
Be kinda hard to conduct experiments in history.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2013, 03:55:57 AM
Be kinda hard to conduct experiments in history.
Not necessarily. In France (IIRC?) they're rebuilding a medieval castle with the methods used at the time to get a better understanding of the working conditions and possibilities of the time. Recreating the past in the present to better understand it is quite en vogue.
That's not the same thing.
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 01:50:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 01:45:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
I considered studying history, but I realized in high school that history isn't being done seriously in the academic world. We have the historians we have and not the historians we wish we had. They are clueless about their subject. So history, for me, was out.
What exactly do you mean by this?
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
Yes. Enlighten me. :smarty:
Fuck!
Historians do not seriously attempt to understand the processes at work in history and use the understanding to make predictions. Machiavelli pointed the way, but hardly anyone listened. NB in high school I hadn't read Machiavelli yet so I didn't know that there had been someone who had in fact shown the way and been ignored. Obviously the knowledge wouldn't have improved my opinion of historians.
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Like science.
I did an IT degree, one of the first in the country that was actually business-driven computing rather than pure computer science. In fact, the syllabus was part-set by corporations. Back when I graduated, I wouldn't have recommended it, as at the time, any graduate could walk into an IT job and be trained up from scratch, so I wish I'd done something more academic and enjoyable. Nowadays, it can't hurt to do a vocational degree.
Yeah, Swedish historians suck, but then Swedes suck in general at disciplines requiring intellect, and, face it, Sweden doesn't have enough history to attract any but the dumbest of Swedes (who are pretty dumb, indeed) into its study. The Brain did what all Swedes should do, which is get into a field that is very concrete, has definite answers, and doesn't require much imagination. They should leave history for those capable of undertaking and understanding it.
Quote from: Brazen on November 15, 2013, 06:30:56 AM
I did an IT degree, one of the first in the country that was actually business-driven computing rather than pure computer science. In fact, the syllabus was part-set by corporations. Back when I graduated, I wouldn't have recommended it, as at the time, any graduate could walk into an IT job and be trained up from scratch, so I wish I'd done something more academic and enjoyable.
I think lots of vocational training is still done in your job. In my old job I had to do some basic programming. After a couple of years I was probably going to end up in either a consultancy or a programming role.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2013, 07:05:56 AM
Yeah, Swedish historians suck, but then Swedes suck in general at disciplines requiring intellect, and, face it, Sweden doesn't have enough history to attract any but the dumbest of Swedes (who are pretty dumb, indeed) into its study. The Brain did what all Swedes should do, which is get into a field that is very concrete, has definite answers, and doesn't require much imagination. They should leave history for those capable of undertaking and understanding it.
:lol: He's going to need a Control post in order to use this as an Experimental post.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 01:04:58 AM
So you are upset that statistics that aren't aimed at taking into account the unemployed...don't take into account the unemployed? :unsure:
Does that upset me? Not really they just seem laughably optimistic and divorced from reality.
Now granted I did not exactly pull a 4.0 GPA but four years after I graduated I got a job paying $30,000.00 a year and that was luck and I was glad to get it. I mean seriously I applied for dozens and dozens of positions and I got one interview that I just happened to nail. I just happened to check every single one of the boxes they had, but that had everything to do with my work experience in sales and tech and nothing to do with having a fancy history degree. If somebody offered me a job today for 39.7 I would take it in a second and I have years of experience, that is well above the national median average salary by more than $10,000.00. That is a great salary for a Bachelor's degree. So I just do not get how getting an undergraduate history degree from Nebraska Lincoln with a 2.5 GPA is going to put me in the upper levels of the work force with zero skills or experience. And supposedly I am in a hotbed of employment where young people from across the country move TO.
Heck if I was offered a job for my Engineering degree in Austin for 39.7 I would be pretty grateful to have that offer, even though supposedly EEs are walking out of here with $69,000 (http://www.engr.utexas.edu/ecac/). To that number I have to say: cool story bro but I will believe it when I see it.
So you know that isn't what the stats show and then insist they are misleading because...there are people who read them the wrong way? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:06:51 AM
So I just do not get how getting an undergraduate history degree from Nebraska Lincoln with a 2.5 GPA is going to put me in the upper levels of the work force with zero skills or experience.
Especially if the hiring manager has Sooner shit all over his office.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 09:09:06 AM
So you know that isn't what the stats show and then insist they are misleading because...there are people who read them the wrong way? :unsure:
Yes, the way the stats were used in that article were misleading. They listed degrees and then listed the average starting salaries, which to any reasonable reader would suggest the average person graduating with that degree can expect that salary. But that is false. The stats themselves do not even claim that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 09:09:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:06:51 AM
So I just do not get how getting an undergraduate history degree from Nebraska Lincoln with a 2.5 GPA is going to put me in the upper levels of the work force with zero skills or experience.
Especially if the hiring manager has Sooner shit all over his office.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:11:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 09:09:06 AM
So you know that isn't what the stats show and then insist they are misleading because...there are people who read them the wrong way? :unsure:
Yes, the way the stats were used in that article were misleading. They listed degrees and then listed the average starting salaries, which to any reasonable reader would suggest the average person graduating with that degree can expect that salary. But that is false. The stats themselves do not even claim that.
I think any reasonable reader would recognize that the average start salaries where of those who got a job. I think a reasonable reader would know that a person isn't guaranteed a job post college.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2013, 07:05:56 AM
Yeah, Swedish historians suck, but then Swedes suck in general at disciplines requiring intellect, and, face it, Sweden doesn't have enough history to attract any but the dumbest of Swedes (who are pretty dumb, indeed) into its study. The Brain did what all Swedes should do, which is get into a field that is very concrete, has definite answers, and doesn't require much imagination. They should leave history for those capable of undertaking and understanding it.
:hmm:
To be fair, grumbler is best-placed to evaluate how good historians are.
Nope.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdilbert.com%2Fdyn%2Fstr_strip%2F000000000%2F00000000%2F0000000%2F000000%2F10000%2F7000%2F000%2F17082%2F17082.strip.sunday.gif&hash=358551d5e1d299eaab81cc8d41307d261cbbc48c)
:lol:
It's funny because in engineering, they actually want to fill job positions.
You're an IT geek too Leg?
I certainly would recommend my degree to anyone with the intelligence and interest in the subject.
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 06:24:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Like science.
So how should the topic of, say, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 look like?
Quote from: Legbiter on November 15, 2013, 06:58:16 PM
Nope.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdilbert.com%2Fdyn%2Fstr_strip%2F000000000%2F00000000%2F0000000%2F000000%2F10000%2F7000%2F000%2F17082%2F17082.strip.sunday.gif&hash=358551d5e1d299eaab81cc8d41307d261cbbc48c)
The pointy hair boss has always reminded me of Cal.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 10:10:47 PM
The pointy hair boss has always reminded me of Cal.
Pfft, he's Catbert, Evil HR Director.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 10:10:47 PM
The pointy hair boss has always reminded me of Cal.
Pfft, he's Catbert, Evil HR Director.
Is the adjective necessary? Isn't it just sort of implied?
Several days later, I'm going to go back to the original question - would I recommend my college (well, undergrad) major?
I entered university in 1992. It was a glorious time. Nirvana ruled the airwaves, the Blue Jays were supreme in MLB, and the environment seemed like the new hot area to study. So I signed up to be an environmental science major.
Trouble was... this was only the 2nd year of the program. Environmental Science as a major wasn't actually very well flushed out. There were a few course courses, like Ecology, but not enough. So you had to pick an area of focus within Environmental Science. For reasons not clear to me, I picked Geology.
The two programs did not mesh well. Geology was mostly taught by prof who had worked in industry (and god bless them for the year the professors went on strike - to a man my geology profs crossed the line). My geology courses had a lot of pre-reqs that were NOT counted towards my degree - I had to burn a lot of electives taking core geology courses. In the end I took more geology courses than I did environmental science, and I often fib slightly and tell people I have a geology degree (not actually very far from the truth).
Would I recommend environmental science as a major? Tough to say, since my experience was 20 years ago. Things have changed a lot. Funnily enough last year I met up with a guy who is the son of my dad's best friend from 30 years ago. I have vague memories of hanging out with him when we were both pre-schoolers. Anyways, he got an Environmental Science degree. It worked out in the end for him, and he's working in that field doing environmental compliance. But he worked for several years in unrelated fields.
Would I recommend geology as a major? I found it really, really tough. Law school was a breeze in comparison. I did actually manage to line up a job in my field for awhile - I had a mat leave position with a mining company in northern Manitoba. It involved staring down a microscope counting mineral grains all day. It was awful. From what I could tell the job prospects for a geology undergrad were pretty miserable. Now, getting a MSc or PhD in geology had some prospects - those guys could get serious job opportunities working for big mining or petroleum companies.
In the end, since I wound up going to law school and enjoying that, I wish I had just gotten a history degree.
Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2013, 12:30:17 AM
(and god bless them for the year the professors went on strike - to a man my geology profs crossed the line)
I, er, I... Error. Flaw. Nomad. Sterilize. NOMAD. STERILIZE.
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 09:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 06:24:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Like science.
So how should the topic of, say, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 look like?
What do you mean?
I did joint honours so in effect I had two majors -- politics and economic history.
It actually prepared me quite well.
Going on to do a master's in conflict, security and development (basically civil war studies) drew on a lot of my pre-existing knowledge. It was satisfying in my MA seminars to shoot down dreadlocked-development types by pointing out, for example, that economies traditionally have not modernised with civil society and good governance initiatives, which was something as a surprise for them. Was shocking how many of my peers didn't understand the importance of property rights and the accumulation of capital. Something I still find reflected when talking to Department of International Development staff today, actually.
Professionally, I draw upon both my subject matter knowledge from my majors as well as the more intangible tools of critical enquiry and essay writing.
I think a lot of majors get a bad reputation somewhat unfairly. Even a sociology degree can be useful if the university faculty take seriously their duty to teach logical thought and writing to its students. As an employer, I may not necessarily want your understanding of Durkheim but if you've been taught how to argue effectively and synthesise data from a variety of sources that can be golddust to me. Lazy profs teaching large classes are probably more of a problem for a student than the validity of the subject to the wider world.
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
And where it's from.
It's a trillion dollar industry based 90% on signaling. As the peacock's tail is to sexual selection, higher education is to the economy.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2013, 02:45:31 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 09:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 06:24:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Like science.
So how should the topic of, say, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 look like?
What do you mean?
It's not a trick question. Let's say a historian using the current methods were planning on writing a book or article on the Allied bombing of Dresden in WW2. He would gather data from primary and secondary sources, and then use that information to create a narrative / thesis that, for example, the bombing was a war crime.
How would a research approach "like science" research that same topic and come to a conclusion? (Non-rhetorical)
How about designing an experiment?
You take a control city that's like Dresden (say, Columbia), and don't bomb it. Then take another city like Dresden (I suggest Atlanta), and do bomb it. Hypothesis proved: bombers are awesome and kill people.
In other words, maybe the petty moralizing and unwillingness/inability to quantize utility in human affairs on the part of the social "sciences" is what Brain's talking about.
Shitlist:
Ideologue
Is it because of Atlanta? :D
No, completely random.
:(
Given that my major was print journalism....hmmmm... :hmm: No, probably won't.
Can you get a degree in that anymore Josephus?
Quote from: Camerus on November 16, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2013, 02:45:31 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 09:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 06:24:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:49:40 AM
In academia history is an incredibly immature subject, several centuries behind more mature fields. Historians are clueless about how history works and don't even realize that they are playing at doing serious research and don't actually do it.
Do you want to know more?
How should history work and what would serious research look like?
Like science.
So how should the topic of, say, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 look like?
What do you mean?
It's not a trick question. Let's say a historian using the current methods were planning on writing a book or article on the Allied bombing of Dresden in WW2. He would gather data from primary and secondary sources, and then use that information to create a narrative / thesis that, for example, the bombing was a war crime.
How would a research approach "like science" research that same topic and come to a conclusion? (Non-rhetorical)
Any way he wants. There are no rules in science.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
I think in the UK a lot will also look at where your degree is from as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
I think in the UK a lot will also look at where your degree is from as well.
I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: mongers on November 16, 2013, 08:09:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
I think in the UK a lot will also look at where your degree is from as well.
I find that hard to believe.
:huh: Do you? Really?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 16, 2013, 08:13:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 16, 2013, 08:09:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
I think in the UK a lot will also look at where your degree is from as well.
I find that hard to believe.
:huh: Do you? Really?
What do you think ? :bowler:
Of course. Mongers went to Oxbridge and look at him now. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2013, 08:15:47 PM
Of course. Mongers went to Oxbridge and look at him now. ;)
:D
Interesting, the thought would have never even entered my head, whereas friends with pushy middle class parents pushed them into puting Oxbridge colleges top and a few of those did get in.
The brightest of our whole year, another friend of mine, also never considered it, despite him being eminently suited to an academic career in science.
I guess in part it comes down to class expectations. :bowler:
For my line of work? Probably not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
Problem is that many employers will just look at what your degree is before ever seeing how you can synthesize data.
I think in the UK a lot will also look at where your degree is from as well.
Well, of course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2013, 08:15:47 PM
Of course. Mongers went to Oxbridge and look at him now. ;)
A life of leisure and contemplation riding bicycles through the countryside for a living. Hell, even Harvard can't get you a ticket punched like that.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 08:26:43 PM
Well, of course.
Thinking back actually I think my old job specifically advertised for Russell Group graduates.
Speaking of which I liked this piece:
QuoteWhy I'm hiring graduates with thirds this year
128 Comments 6 July 2013 Rory Sutherland
Whenever I return to my old university, I am always struck by how incredibly focused, purposeful and studious everyone seems to be. It fills me with despair.
It's hard to tell the difference between a university and a business school nowadays. Where are all the hippies, the potheads and the commies? And why is everyone so intently serious and sober all the time? 'Oh, it's simple,' a friend explained. 'If you don't get a 2:1 or a first nowadays, employers won't look at your CV.'
So, as a keen game-theorist, I struck on an idea. Recruiting next year's graduate intake for Ogilvy would be easy. We could simply place ads in student newpapers: 'Headed for a 2:2 or a third? Finish your joint and come and work for us.'
Let me explain. I have asked around, and nobody has any evidence to suggest that, for any given university, recruits with first-class degrees turn into better employees than those with thirds (if anything the correlation operates in reverse). There are some specialised fields which may demand spectacular mathematical ability, say, but these are relatively few.
So my game theoretic instincts suggest that if we confine our recruitment efforts to people in the lower half of the degree ladder we shall have an exclusive appeal to a large body of people no less valuable than anyone else. And such people will be far more loyal hires, since we won't be competing for their attention with deep-pocketed pimps in investment banking.
The logic is inarguable: the best people to hire (or date) are those undervalued by the market. (An expat friend of mine always dated Brooklyn girls for this reason: their accent seemed exotically alluring to him but was repellent to most New Yorkers.)
This approach will be familiar to readers of the book Moneyball, which records the story of the baseball manager Billy Beane. Given evidence showing that the metrics historically used to determine the value of a player did not best correspond to his value on the field, Beane made a series of hires which turned the cash-strapped Oakland Athletics into a surprise success.
So, in the absence of any evidence that degree-class is a predictor of value, why don't businesses follow Moneyball and hire more inventively?
Well, you need to whittle down applications somehow. And to create a spurious veneer of objectivity, recruiters all fall back on the same, lone quantifiable measure (degree class) even without evidence to support it. Tolerable if you are the only person adopting this policy: idiocy when everyone else does. In the words of F.A. von Hayek (praise be upon him) 'Often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement.'
If you recruit only using a single measure, your pool of talent becomes dangerously homogeneous (in 24 years in the advertising industry, the most impressive people I have met range from beard-stroking Oxbridge intellectuals to people who started their careers in the mailroom). It also leads to insane, competitive credentialism, where signalling your qualities to employers requires so much work that only obsessive weirdos or the already privileged can make the grade.
The escalation in demand for internships is just another manifestation of this credentialist arms-race. That's why I am planning to offer an exclusive service to Spectator readers from 2015. Send me a litre of Tanqueray and I'll happily confirm that your son or daughter performed a magnificent four-week internship with me. Meanwhile your kids can all go off to Goa and spend the summer smoking drugs on the beach as God intended. Nobody will be any the wiser — and nobody will be any worse off.
Rory Sutherland is vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.
Quick run-down on what these thirds and firsts are? Like your degrees come with ratings on them?
First is a final mark of 70% or higher, 2.1 60-70%, 2.2 50-60%, a third is 40-50% and anything lower is a fail. At least that's what I remember.
It's like they have a different word for everything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:52:17 PM
QuoteIt’s hard to tell the difference between a university and a business school nowadays. Where are all the hippies, the potheads and the commies? And why is everyone so intently serious and sober all the time? ‘Oh, it’s simple,’ a friend explained. ‘If you don’t get a 2:1 or a first nowadays, employers won’t look at your CV.’
Because kids today are not growing up in the cushy easy era he did? People are actually worried about things like unemployment. This guy kind of pisses me off.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:52:17 PM
QuoteIt's hard to tell the difference between a university and a business school nowadays. Where are all the hippies, the potheads and the commies? And why is everyone so intently serious and sober all the time? 'Oh, it's simple,' a friend explained. 'If you don't get a 2:1 or a first nowadays, employers won't look at your CV.'
Because kids today are not growing up in the cushy easy era he did? People are actually worried about things like unemployment. This guy kind of pisses me off.
Initially, I found it off-putting as well, but I sort of liked the cut of his jib by the end of it.
Quote from: SheilbhFirst is a final mark of 70% or higher, 2.1 60-70%, 2.2 50-60%, a third is 40-50% and anything lower is a fail. At least that's what I remember.
70% I'm a first in just about every Goddamned thing I ever did. :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:52:17 PM
It's hard to tell the difference between a university and a business school nowadays. Where are all the hippies, the potheads and the commies? And why is everyone so intently serious and sober all the time? 'Oh, it's simple,' a friend explained. 'If you don't get a 2:1 or a first nowadays, employers won't look at your CV.'
Because kids today are not growing up in the cushy easy era he did? People are actually worried about things like unemployment. This guy kind of pisses me off.
Where are the hippies, potheads and the commies? Paying for their kids' tuition.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 16, 2013, 10:48:21 AM
How about designing an experiment?
You take a control city that's like Dresden (say, Columbia), and don't bomb it. Then take another city like Dresden (I suggest Atlanta), and do bomb it. Hypothesis proved: bombers are awesome and kill people.
In other words, maybe the petty moralizing and unwillingness/inability to quantize utility in human affairs on the part of the social "sciences" is what Brain's talking about.
I doubt you'll ever take questions of value out of human affairs. I also imagine it is impossible to determine obvious causality to make predictions (if that is what historical study should be reduced to), given the virtually infinite numbers of variables, most of which (in history) we are simply unaware of given the fact our sources and ability to recreate conditions are far from infinite.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2013, 09:48:19 PM
Where are the hippies, potheads and the commies?
In graduate programs.
I disagree with the idea that we cannot or should not learn from history. We can, and it is useful to do so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2013, 08:26:43 PM
Well, of course.
Thinking back actually I think my old job specifically advertised for Russell Group graduates.
Speaking of which I liked this piece:
QuoteWhy I'm hiring graduates with thirds this year
128 Comments 6 July 2013 Rory Sutherland
Whenever I return to man of Ogilvy Group UK.
Sounds nice. The British system is complete BS. In most countries its getting a degree that matters, it's passing that is tough. In Britain they make it so easy to pass that anyone can do it...but its often better to fail and resit the year as passing with lesser grades just isn't worth while.
Who recruits on the basis of degree classification alone? Most graduate-level jobs now demand a round of psychometric testing and followed competency based interviews.
Quote from: Warspite on November 17, 2013, 07:53:55 AM
Who recruits on the basis of degree classification alone?
Recruiters, for one.
Psychometric testing? Ugh.
Quote from: katmai on November 16, 2013, 03:29:11 PM
Can you get a degree in that anymore Josephus?
Well there obviously still are journalism courses. But that specialize in print? Not sure. Probably not.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2013, 10:34:22 AM
Psychometric testing? Ugh.
Gotta conduct that Oxford Capability Analysis before you hire someone.