Came across this blog:
http://100rsns.blogspot.ca/
Any grad students here? What do Languish grad school-goers think? Accurate or bunk?
I teach good.
Better than teaching evil, I suppose.
Totally agree.
I do love the whiny people who comment on the blog who say crap like 'well maybe happiness does not depend on financial success'
Yeah because people go to get advanced degrees so they can be on food stamps. If you just really want to learn German History, or whatever, then study German history for the love and do not go deep into debt at some University. Unless you really think you are, or will be, one of the top German History experts in the United States (or Europe or whatever) but that requires very serious commitment. As it should for an academic career where the jobs are few, usually low paying, and very competitive.
I like this: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-RaWP7Is_40c%2FT3W-7afcrcI%2FAAAAAAAAAOE%2FVS4Z2zcN4Iw%2Fs1600%2Fpage0000001_1.jpg&hash=283cd1ad4236b1565b9c967a4559e4cca23c547b)
People who doubt their ability want the degree. People who bring up their degrees are invariably retards desperate to impress.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2012, 04:28:42 PM
I do love the whiny people who comment on the blog who say crap like 'well maybe happiness does not depend on financial success'
The fuck it doesn't.
Droz: What's your major?
Sanskrit Major: Sanskrit.
Droz: Sanskrit. You're majoring in a 5000 year-old dead language?
Sanskrit Major: Yeah.
I'm getting a degree because I want to get an education and to interact with academic circles. And besides, I dunno about the US, but in Finland a degree does give you the right to demand a better job and higher pay.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2012, 04:28:42 PM
I like this: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-RaWP7Is_40c%2FT3W-7afcrcI%2FAAAAAAAAAOE%2FVS4Z2zcN4Iw%2Fs1600%2Fpage0000001_1.jpg&hash=283cd1ad4236b1565b9c967a4559e4cca23c547b)
Oh man, that cartoon is painfully funny - I love the expressions. :D
If I had the money I'd go to grad school immediately. I love school.
Reading some of the links in that blog makes me cringe in sympathy.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 17, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
I'm getting a degree because I want to get an education and to interact with academic circles. And besides, I dunno about the US, but in Finland a degree does give you the right to demand a better job and higher pay.
It's mostly a method of sorting applicants now. Not so much a thing that gives you an ability to ask for more money.
I am one of those "I don't need money to be happy" people. Of course, the caveat is that I know I will have a nice retirement due to family, I get to do what I want (I don't adjunct and hope to make ends meet - I work full time and teach because it is fun), and I was very good at going to grad school.
Still, there were some things quite shocking to me - the hierarchies among the students, the fight to get known and accepted by the faculty, the bloodthirsty comments when someone failed...all would have made it much more stressful had I not been pretty good at the whole grad experience. Even then, I saw it for what it is, I haven't gone on to get a PhD.
Among actuaries, there is definitely a strong feeling that anything above a bachelor's degree is not worth it, and is often counter-productive. In my experience, there is some truth to that; in my company the success record of graduate degree holders is definitely mixed. Some people are really brilliant, but others are bottom of the barrel, often due to temperamental factors. One economics PhD recently got cut, to the relief of everyone. I'm not sure whether it's correlation or causation, though.
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
Among actuaries, there is definitely a strong feeling that anything above a bachelor's degree is not worth it, and is often counter-productive. In my experience, there is some truth to that; in my company the success record of graduate degree holders is definitely mixed. Some people are really brilliant, but others are bottom of the barrel, often due to temperamental factors. One economics PhD recently got cut, to the relief of everyone. I'm not sure whether it's correlation or causation, though.
In my experience, some people are going to be achievers regardless of their education level and others are going to be dead weight regardless of it. It's unrelated.
Well, with actuaries there's also the fact that the professional exams and designation is generally accorded more weight than a graduate degree. One of my wife's friends went off to get her masters in something related (economics? some sort of math or something? not sure), but it was generally regarded as being easier than getting the next certification level.
There's a glut of PhDs for sure, and to be honest many of them of not astounding quality (I've edited a few...).
I've been encouraged by various ex-professors to do one, but have so far decided against it. Luckily, at least here in the UK a PhD is just the dissertation (plus research training) and it done in 3-4 years.
It depends so much on the field you're talking about. In Max's case, getting an MS or a PhD is a HUGE benefit when looking for a job. Yes, experience is helpful - and often required - but more than half the jobs on the boards ask for at least an MS, preferring a PhD.
The tech fields seem to be far different than any other, though, so that may just be applicable to them and have no bearing on any other.
Personally, I want the advanced degree so that I can wear the hood. :D
Quote from: Warspite on May 17, 2012, 07:11:53 PM
I've been encouraged by various ex-professors to do one, but have so far decided against it. Luckily, at least here in the UK a PhD is just the dissertation (plus research training) and it done in 3-4 years.
I'd assumed that was what was required worldwide. What's a PhD consist of in North America?
I've some friends doing PhDs. One's something vetty - but not - on a project researching how horses see, another's working on trying to make robots run, there's a guy doing malaria research and someone doing something about Medieval Anglo-Norman literature. All sound interesting. If I ever have the time and the money I'd love to go back and do more researched study.
I think the norm in the US is two years of course work, two years of smoking grass and fucking undergrads while pretending to write a dissertation, and one year of writing your dissertation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2012, 07:36:20 PM
I think the norm in the US is two years of course work, two years of smoking grass and fucking undergrads while pretending to write a dissertation, and one year of writing your dissertation.
Then 10 years of going on food stamps while working at B&N.
Unless you have pretty good connections and/or some source of money you can rely upon, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to risk getting a PhD nowadays. Which is a shame, since presumably it will lead to yet further stratification in society. Just anecdotally, I know a guy who was a poor farm boy from western Canada and went on to get his PhD, graduated with a mound of debt, and in 10 years or something has found very little work. And there are all kinds of horror stories like that.
Hell, where I'm from, even getting a teaching job at the high school level these days is pretty much impossible.
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon Valley needs humanities students
Vivek Wadhwa, Columnist
Quit your technology job. Get a PhD in the humanities. That's the way to get ahead in the technology sector. That, at least, is what philosopher Damon Horowitz told a crowd of attendees at the BiblioTech Conference at Stanford University in 2011. Horowitz is also a serial entrepreneur who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that's insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with high-level degrees, are receiving public assistance, what kind of fool would get a degree in a subject with no clear job prospects beyond higher education or teaching?
In Silicon Valley, engineers are honor students and everyone else is taking remedial math. Venture Capitalists often express disdain for startup CEOs who are not engineers. Silicon Valley parents send their kids to college expecting them to major in a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) discipline. The theory goes as follows: STEM degree holders will get higher pay upon graduation and get a leg up in the career sprint.
The trouble is that theory is wrong. In 2008, my research team at Duke and Harvard surveyed 652 U.S.-born chief executive officers and heads of product engineering at 502 technology companies. We found that they tended to be highly educated: 92 percent held bachelor's degrees, and 47 percent held higher degrees. But only 37 percent held degrees in engineering or computer technology, and just two percent held them in mathematics. The rest have degrees in fields as diverse as business, accounting, finance, healthcare, arts and the humanities.
Yes, gaining a degree made a big difference in the sales and employment of the company that a founder started. But the field that the degree was in was not a significant factor. Over the past two years, I have interviewed the founders of more than 300 Silicon Valley start-ups. The most common traits I have observed are a passion to change the world and the confidence to defy the odds and succeed. Any discussion of this nature must return to a comparison of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. True, Jobs was technically competent. But he had, if anything, an eclectic educational background where he spent as much time in seeming arcana such as philosophy and calligraphy as he did on math and engineering.
I'd take that a step further. I believe humanity majors make the best project managers, the best product managers, and, ultimately, the most visionary technology leaders. The reason is simple. Technologists and engineers focus on features and too often get wrapped up in elements that may be cool for geeks but are useless for most people. In contrast, humanities majors can more easily focus on people and how they interact with technology. A history major who has studied the Enlightment or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire may be more likely to understand the human elements of technology and how ease of use and design can be the difference between an interesting historical footnote and a world-changing technology. A psychologist is more likely to know how to motivate people or to understand what users want.
This brings me back to Damon Horowitz. He was a highly accomplished artificial intelligence (AI) researcher with a master's degree from MIT. Damon was in hot demand, making big bucks and founding companies — several of which were acquired for nice, tidy sums. The trouble was, he realized his work was not actually solving the underlying problems of AI in any meaningful way. Damon felt he didn't understand the philosophy of intelligence and human thought well enough to get beyond the beautiful, "intoxicating" prison of computer code he lived in.
So Horowitz quit his tech job and went to Stanford to get his doctorate in philosophy. He was amazed at how much he had to learn. For Horowitz, going back was a transformational shift that opened his eyes not only to key foundational arguments and theories about the nature of intelligence, but it also gave him improved capabilities in strategic vision, creative problem solving and other critical traits. Horowitz believes his degree helped him envision Aardvark, which was an interesting hybrid search system that involved people sending out queries to fellow users who were connected through an automated interface that helped askers properly shape and target their questions.
Don't get me wrong. The world needs engineers. And no, I am not actually advising people to quit their jobs and get PhDs in philosophy. For some people, it might make sense, but for others it wouldn't. The point I'm trying to get across is more nuanced: We need musicians, artists, and psychologists, as much as we need biomedical engineers and computer programmers.
For tech entrepreneurs and managers, there is no "right" major or field of study. While having a degree in slinging code may present a short-term advantage at startup time, it may comprise an equally important disadvantage if the degree came at the cost of other critical "soft leadership" skills required to focus, lead and grow companies. So, it's time for Silicon Valley to get over its obsession with engineers. And, if you run a startup, hire that psychology PhD. You may get a lot more than you bargained for.
Wadhwa is a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and is affiliated with several other universities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
Quote
In Silicon Valley, engineers are honor students and everyone else is taking remedial math. Venture Capitalists often express disdain for startup CEOs who are not engineers. Silicon Valley parents send their kids to college expecting them to major in a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) discipline. The theory goes as follows: STEM degree holders will get higher pay upon graduation and get a leg up in the career sprint.
The trouble is that theory is wrong. In 2008, my research team at Duke and Harvard surveyed 652 U.S.-born chief executive officers and heads of product engineering at 502 technology companies. We found that they tended to be highly educated: 92 percent held bachelor's degrees, and 47 percent held higher degrees. But only 37 percent held degrees in engineering or computer technology, and just two percent held them in mathematics. The rest have degrees in fields as diverse as business, accounting, finance, healthcare, arts and the humanities.
:bleeding: Let me guess, whoever wrote this was not a statistics major.
YOURE MISSING THE POINT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
YOURE MISSING THE POINT
What's the point? Ignorance of the knowledge of hard science can still put you in position to write stupid articles?
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 09:55:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
YOURE MISSING THE POINT
What's the point? Ignorance of the knowledge of hard science can still put you in position to write stupid articles?
Show me where he went wrong with the stats, Werner Von Braun.
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2012, 03:02:11 PM
Came across this blog:
http://100rsns.blogspot.ca/
Any grad students here? What do Languish grad school-goers think? Accurate or bunk?
100% accurate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:59:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 09:55:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
YOURE MISSING THE POINT
What's the point? Ignorance of the knowledge of hard science can still put you in position to write stupid articles?
Show me where he went wrong with the stats, Werner Von Braun.
The fact that only 37 percent of CEOs have hard science background does not disprove the theory that hard science background leads to greater professional success, even assuming that percentage of CEOs is a valid metric for this. You have to know how the pool of candidates is split as well. If there are 20 liberal arts flakies for every hard science major, for example, then 37 percent figure is actually a very strong proof of the theory. Basically, the fatal fallacy is that only half of the necessary information is used to prove a point being made.
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 10:08:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:59:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 09:55:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
YOURE MISSING THE POINT
What's the point? Ignorance of the knowledge of hard science can still put you in position to write stupid articles?
Show me where he went wrong with the stats, Werner Von Braun.
The fact that only 37 percent of CEOs have hard science background does not disprove the theory that hard science background leads to greater professional success, even assuming that percentage of CEOs is a valid metric for this. You have to know how the pool of candidates is split as well. If there are 20 liberal arts flakies for every hard science major, for example, then 37 percent figure is actually a very strong proof of the theory. Basically, the fatal fallacy is that only half of the necessary information is used to prove a point being made.
Also, it overlooks what I believe to be an extremely high likelihood that all those "humanities" majors (since when is fucking accounting one of the humanities? or business?) are HYS fucksticks (no offense garbo) where the name of the institution on their degree is what counts, not their course of study there. I mean, if a history degree from Yale lands you an executive position, does that mean Silicon Valley needs someone with a history degree from a small South Carolina college? If so, where do I sign up?
When you have a math degree, accounting and business majors are humanities to you.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 17, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
I'm getting a degree because I want to get an education and to interact with academic circles. And besides, I dunno about the US, but in Finland a degree does give you the right to demand a better job and higher pay.
You have a right to demand jobs from people :P that must get tiresome for employers.
In any case what we are talking about might not be applicable to Finland. It is an article by North Americans to give North American students food for thought about getting expensive graduate degrees under the specific circumstances present here today. It is not some condemnation of graduate studies for all time and all places to the contrary the people who write on this blog love study and higher education.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 17, 2012, 05:26:18 PM
If I had the money I'd go to grad school immediately. I love school.
What subject? I mean Yale has these great open course where you get the reading the lectures and the whole thing. You basically get to do the class without having to do any of the work, pay the money, or do the bullshit.
http://oyc.yale.edu/
I mean presuming what you want to learn things and not specifically for the degree.
Gee. I'm sure glad I never went to grad school then. :)
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2012, 11:17:54 PMWhat subject? I mean Yale has these great open course where you get the reading the lectures and the whole thing. You basically get to do the class without having to do any of the work, pay the money, or do the bullshit.
http://oyc.yale.edu/
I mean presuming what you want to learn things and not specifically for the degree.
But going to university - especially at a graduate level - is about engaging with academics not listening to them, though those do look interesting.
I had a look at some of the English ones. With the exception of the wonderful Paul Fry, are all American academics so effetely homosexual? :blink:
I know a scientist (hard science) who is completely awesome in his field, #1 in the world AFAICT. He doesn't have a PhD. Ergo, DG, PhDs are completely pointless.
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
One economics PhD recently got cut
Whoa. Where do you work? Baltimore?
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
Among actuaries, there is definitely a strong feeling that anything above a bachelor's degree is not worth it, and is often counter-productive. In my experience, there is some truth to that; in my company the success record of graduate degree holders is definitely mixed. Some people are really brilliant, but others are bottom of the barrel, often due to temperamental factors. One economics PhD recently got cut, to the relief of everyone. I'm not sure whether it's correlation or causation, though.
I suspect it is similar in your line of work as it is in mine, i.e. people with PhD are weirdos. They don't work very well within corporate law firm framework and in fact there is a certain prejudice against hiring them in international law firms (it's different for example in Germany where everyone has a PhD because that's how their system operates - what's funny is how each of them puts their PhD in their signatures nonetheless :D).
Quote from: merithyn on May 17, 2012, 07:13:40 PMPersonally, I want the advanced degree so that I can wear the hood. :D
It would be cheaper and more productive if you just joined KKK.
Quote from: Martinus on May 18, 2012, 01:13:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
One economics PhD recently got cut
Whoa. Where do you work? Baltimore?
You sharpshooting me, cockhound?
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2012, 12:04:31 AM
Gee. I'm sure glad I never went to grad school then. :)
OH DON'T EVEN
Fun fact: with law school admissions down by like 25%, several schools are backing up their application deadlines to AUGUST.
This is how the cookie crumbles, and I helped!
If you go to Grad school for the wrong reasons, then these apply. Good grad school teaches you how to actually research and write papers that people will care about and that meet the standards of the particular academic community. Also, unless you are a wunderkind entrepreneur or have some other very distinctive blip on your resume, no business will hire you for a middle/upper management level track unless you have that "check in the box" MBA. Education is not a prerequisite for success. But success has a very high level of correlation with success.
Too many people in the world though seem to have the idea that more qualifications= a smarter person.
"Oh, he has a PHD and three bachellors! He must be a genius!"....when all it actually means is he put in the time to do that much work. Probally means the opposite of him being a genius.
This idea really needs bringing down. But whilst it remains...there remains merit to graduate studies.
But start going down that road and you start attacking the whole idea of school and how its just about getting the bit of paper.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2012, 11:15:56 PM
In any case what we are talking about might not be applicable to Finland. It is an article by North Americans to give North American students food for thought about getting expensive graduate degrees under the specific circumstances present here today. It is not some condemnation of graduate studies for all time and all places to the contrary the people who write on this blog love study and higher education.
You are probably right, since in Finland there are no tuition fees and students actually get paid state support. You can still rack up some debt but nowhere near the same amount as in the Anglo-Saxon system.
Quote from: Kolytsin on May 18, 2012, 02:56:44 AM
If you go to Grad school for the wrong reasons, then these apply. Good grad school teaches you how to actually research and write papers that people will care about and that meet the standards of the particular academic community. Also, unless you are a wunderkind entrepreneur or have some other very distinctive blip on your resume, no business will hire you for a middle/upper management level track unless you have that "check in the box" MBA. Education is not a prerequisite for success. But success has a very high level of correlation with success.
Well, yeah. Duh! :P
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2012, 06:15:37 AM
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.
I was middle management. :cry: I had no MBA. :cry:
I did a solid year of graduate school and, point in fact, the reason why I took a leave of absence (and eventually withdrew) is because I liked working at a real job so much more than graduate school. The work was far more fulfilling (since I was helping people and achieving tangible things) AND I was getting paid to do so, rather than the other way around. Most of the people in my program actually seemed to be suffering, and if they were lucky enough to get a job after they finished their PhD they had zero control over where they ended up living... a prospect I definitely was not looking forward to either. I actually saw several couples break up since they couldn't both find jobs in the same city.
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2012, 06:41:50 AM
I did a solid year of graduate school and, point in fact, the reason why I took a leave of absence (and eventually withdrew) is because I liked working at a real job so much more than graduate school. The work was far more fulfilling (since I was helping people and achieving tangible things) AND I was getting paid to do so, rather than the other way around. Most of the people in my program actually seemed to be suffering, and if they were lucky enough to get a job after they finished their PhD they had zero control over where they ended up living... a prospect I definitely was not looking forward to either. I actually saw several couples break up since they couldn't both find jobs in the same city.
:hmm: The couples were either same sex or featured a working woman. Either way fuck you, Democrat.
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2012, 06:41:50 AM
I actually saw several couples break up since they couldn't both find jobs in the same city.
As well they should. One's partner should never hold back another's dreams.
@Brain Quit stalking me.
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2012, 06:58:42 AM
@Brain Quit stalking me.
He has different dreams. Let him go.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 18, 2012, 05:19:36 AM
You are probably right, since in Finland there are no tuition fees and students actually get paid state support. You can still rack up some debt but nowhere near the same amount as in the Anglo-Saxon system.
I suddenly have this image of long axe majors studying for their final exams at Offa State University.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 17, 2012, 09:34:00 PM
Unless you have pretty good connections and/or some source of money you can rely upon, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to risk getting a PhD nowadays. Which is a shame, since presumably it will lead to yet further stratification in society. Just anecdotally, I know a guy who was a poor farm boy from western Canada and went on to get his PhD, graduated with a mound of debt, and in 10 years or something has found very little work. And there are all kinds of horror stories like that.
Oh I'd only go if I went to a school that gave me a stipend because yeah otherwise not worth it. Same sort of reason I don't think I'll get an MBA unless I had a company that assisted in paying for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 18, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
But going to university - especially at a graduate level - is about engaging with academics not listening to them, though those do look interesting.
I had a look at some of the English ones. With the exception of the wonderful Paul Fry, are all American academics so effetely homosexual? :blink:
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.
As for the effete thing...yeah that is pretty common for Ivy league types.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2012, 10:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2012, 03:02:11 PM
Came across this blog:
http://100rsns.blogspot.ca/
Any grad students here? What do Languish grad school-goers think? Accurate or bunk?
100% accurate.
Yep.
This one caught my eye as well.
QuoteIn 2010, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, there were 33,655 Americans with doctorates collecting food stamps. Together, they could fill a stadium. The 293,029 Americans with master's degrees collecting food stamps could fill Cincinnati.
I got government cheese before I got my MA.
Heh, I remember back in the day making the decision to go to law school rather than grad school (I applied to and was accepted to both - I also applied to teacher's college, but I was turned down!).
The main reason I chose law school over grad school is that I had a horrible sinking feeling that if I went to grad school one day I'd be right back where I was at that time - no money and not knowing WTF I was going to do. Only older and in debt.
Of course, the same went for many who went to law school, but that wasn't nearly as true when I went as it is now, apparently.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 18, 2012, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 18, 2012, 12:44:51 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon Valley needs humanities students
Vivek Wadhwa, Columnist
QuoteHigh 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/ (http://chronicle.com/article/High-Demand-for-Science/129472/)
QuoteAnd, 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.
Just for the record to all potential future employers: I am totally fine with being socially isolated.
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2012, 06:15:37 AM
Well, yeah. Duh! :P
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 18, 2012, 03:07:42 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon 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. :D )
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
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. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
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. :lol:
:(
The Human Resources industry is the very definition of the Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon Valley needs humanities students
Vivek Wadhwa, Columnist
Quit your technology job. Get a PhD in the humanities. That's the way to get ahead in the technology sector. That, at least, is what philosopher Damon Horowitz told a crowd of attendees at the BiblioTech Conference at Stanford University in 2011. Horowitz is also a serial entrepreneur who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that's insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with high-level degrees, are receiving public assistance, what kind of fool would get a degree in a subject with no clear job prospects beyond higher education or teaching?
In Silicon Valley, engineers are honor students and everyone else is taking remedial math. Venture Capitalists often express disdain for startup CEOs who are not engineers. Silicon Valley parents send their kids to college expecting them to major in a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) discipline. The theory goes as follows: STEM degree holders will get higher pay upon graduation and get a leg up in the career sprint.
The trouble is that theory is wrong. In 2008, my research team at Duke and Harvard surveyed 652 U.S.-born chief executive officers and heads of product engineering at 502 technology companies. We found that they tended to be highly educated: 92 percent held bachelor's degrees, and 47 percent held higher degrees. But only 37 percent held degrees in engineering or computer technology, and just two percent held them in mathematics. The rest have degrees in fields as diverse as business, accounting, finance, healthcare, arts and the humanities.
Yes, gaining a degree made a big difference in the sales and employment of the company that a founder started. But the field that the degree was in was not a significant factor. Over the past two years, I have interviewed the founders of more than 300 Silicon Valley start-ups. The most common traits I have observed are a passion to change the world and the confidence to defy the odds and succeed. Any discussion of this nature must return to a comparison of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. True, Jobs was technically competent. But he had, if anything, an eclectic educational background where he spent as much time in seeming arcana such as philosophy and calligraphy as he did on math and engineering.
I'd take that a step further. I believe humanity majors make the best project managers, the best product managers, and, ultimately, the most visionary technology leaders. The reason is simple. Technologists and engineers focus on features and too often get wrapped up in elements that may be cool for geeks but are useless for most people. In contrast, humanities majors can more easily focus on people and how they interact with technology. A history major who has studied the Enlightment or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire may be more likely to understand the human elements of technology and how ease of use and design can be the difference between an interesting historical footnote and a world-changing technology. A psychologist is more likely to know how to motivate people or to understand what users want.
This brings me back to Damon Horowitz. He was a highly accomplished artificial intelligence (AI) researcher with a master's degree from MIT. Damon was in hot demand, making big bucks and founding companies — several of which were acquired for nice, tidy sums. The trouble was, he realized his work was not actually solving the underlying problems of AI in any meaningful way. Damon felt he didn't understand the philosophy of intelligence and human thought well enough to get beyond the beautiful, "intoxicating" prison of computer code he lived in.
So Horowitz quit his tech job and went to Stanford to get his doctorate in philosophy. He was amazed at how much he had to learn. For Horowitz, going back was a transformational shift that opened his eyes not only to key foundational arguments and theories about the nature of intelligence, but it also gave him improved capabilities in strategic vision, creative problem solving and other critical traits. Horowitz believes his degree helped him envision Aardvark, which was an interesting hybrid search system that involved people sending out queries to fellow users who were connected through an automated interface that helped askers properly shape and target their questions.
Don't get me wrong. The world needs engineers. And no, I am not actually advising people to quit their jobs and get PhDs in philosophy. For some people, it might make sense, but for others it wouldn't. The point I'm trying to get across is more nuanced: We need musicians, artists, and psychologists, as much as we need biomedical engineers and computer programmers.
For tech entrepreneurs and managers, there is no "right" major or field of study. While having a degree in slinging code may present a short-term advantage at startup time, it may comprise an equally important disadvantage if the degree came at the cost of other critical "soft leadership" skills required to focus, lead and grow companies. So, it's time for Silicon Valley to get over its obsession with engineers. And, if you run a startup, hire that psychology PhD. You may get a lot more than you bargained for.
Wadhwa is a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and is affiliated with several other universities.
I'm not surprised that "only" 37% had degrees in engineering or computer science and 2% in math--I would expect most would have educational backgrounds in business or law. Also the 39% cited doesn't include other science disciplines like physics or chemistry.
It would be interesting to see the percent of technology CEOs that just have humanities degrees, or especially how many have PhDs in humanities. It sounds like a guy from Stanford is trying to pitch humanities to students.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon 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.
If you read the article (rather than the author's name), you would find that yes, of course, he did. Just reading the name doesn't tell you anything about the study he did.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I'm not surprised that "only" 37% had degrees in engineering or computer science and 2% in math--I would expect most would have educational backgrounds in business or law. Also the 39% cited doesn't include other science disciplines like physics or chemistry.
It would be interesting to see the percent of technology CEOs that just have humanities degrees, or especially how many have PhDs in humanities. It sounds like a guy from Stanford is trying to pitch humanities to students.
Agree that the "statistics" quoted are incomplete - the numbers would seem to be tilted disproportionately
towards the technical degrees, actually. However, the author doesn't seem to me to be selling the humanities, just pointing out that humanities degrees are also valued by corporations.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2012, 12:23:50 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Interesting column in yesterday's WP, sort of topical:
QuoteSilicon 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.
If you read the article (rather than the author's name), you would find that yes, of course, he did. Just reading the name doesn't tell you anything about the study he did.
Here is a link to the source research he did: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127248
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
Here is a link to the source research he did: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127248
Thanks. As your link demonstrates, I was correct. Lots of data in there besides degree.
But it is interesting that the message the study provides is different than the one his later surveys provide. According to the study, only
3% of the Tech founders had terminal degrees in "Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences." :lol:
Forty-seven percent had STEM terminal degrees.
Evidently, Rutgers Law School is trying to admit people (that is, they are marketing to people) who haven't even taken the LSAT, but rather the GMAT. I didn't know you could do that. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
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. :lol:
qfmft