Liberal arts graduate degrees, not smart

Mark C. Taylor, the chairman of the religion department at Columbia, writes in a NY Times op-ed:

[Y]oung people enroll in graduate programs, work hard for subsistence pay and assume huge debt burdens, all because of the illusory promise of faculty appointments. But their economical presence, coupled with the intransigence of tenure, ensures that there will always be too many candidates for too few openings.

But the question is, if everyone knows that graduate degrees (excluding professional degrees) are such a bad deal, why do so many enroll?

Well, I guess the answer is that SWPL culture highly values liberal arts graduate degrees, and U.S. society encourages people to have an optimism bias (no one in America likes a pessimist), so if only 10% of graduates get a decent job, 100% of students anticipate that they are going to be in the top 10%.

There's also the factor that many of these students have rich parents, so they don't really care if they can't find a job, their parents will carry them.

Maybe, the real mystery is how can the university faculty look themselves in the mirror each morning knowing how they are screwing over their students?

Comments

[athelas]

The starving artist has a great deal of status, as does the starving academic. These people are simply trading money (which as you point out they may not value highly for a variety of reasons) for status, in which case they already got the status they crave and do not deserve monetary handouts.

[SFG]

The faculty? Same as all those businessmen who underpay and overwork their employees. It's good to be the king, and fuck the slobs who ain't got it. There's assholes on right and left.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"There's also the factor that many of these students have rich parents, so they don't really care if they can't find a job, their parents will carry them."

But at some point, won't tuition inflation result in colleges pricing themselves out of the market?

A friend of mine knows a middle class girl who went +$100,000 in college debt to earn a B.A. in Art History at a posh, exclusive and uber-SWPL (but non-Ivy) private college.

Though she got an internship at the State Department after graduation, she is finding it impossible to get a high enough paying job to pay off the debt.

Indeed, we're reaching the point where earning a B.A. from Harvard may not be worth the debt load.

These price increases are clearly unsustainable.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

Oh, and this girl was having an impossible time paying off her over $100,000 college debt BEFORE the economic crisis.

I haven't heard how she is doing now that the depression is here.

[abe]

How about a B.A in a hard science or math?

[Peter]

It's because these people suffer from a dreaded disease, one that makes the swine flu look like a mild case of the sniffles and even can be even more destructive than Ebola:

It Can't Happen to Me Syndrome.

Victims believe that *they* will be different, that they'll be among the tiny minority who can make livings with their liberal arts degrees. Trouble is, *everyone* is thinking the same way. Most of them will be dead wrong.

[Josh]

A lot of lawyers have liberal arts educations. I dual majored in History and English Lit because I knew I was going to law school. Good grades + good LSAT are all that's really important. I bet you could even get into a decent Med school with a liberal arts education as long as you did the required science classes.

I think you are undervaluing a liberal arts education. You aren't taking into account the satisfaction of having a broad education. As I was taught, a man with a good education can walk and talk with kings. Its true.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"I bet you could even get into a decent Med school with a liberal arts education as long as you did the required science classes."

Only if you are going to an elite college where a degree equals "+125 IQ" to Med school admission staff.

Otherwise, if you are going to a decent state university, smart middle class Americans are better off getting a B.S. in a hard science and then applying to Med school.

[superdestroyer]

I love how liberal arts majors talk about being well rounded yet they take little if any math or science. Yet every math and science major actually has to take more liberal arts classes than the liberal arts every take of math or science.

[Turambar]

Here is another example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501870_5.html?sid=ST2009042502839
"A Hundred Anxious Days
In a South Carolina Town Where the Downturn Has Deepened Since the Inauguration, Two Obama Supporters Have Struggled, Going From 'Fired Up' to Tired Out"

"The past four months have turned the unemployment center into one of the few places in Greenwood that is thriving. It added staff, extended hours and launched a series of seminars -- "Market Yourself in One Minute," "What Employers Want" -- for an estimated 3,500 job-seekers. "We have a lot of people coming in who have been laid off from companies where they worked for 20 or 30 years," Burgess says. "They don't have résumés. They don't know computers. We are essentially teaching them how to look for jobs." "

So this unemployment center is adding jobs to teach the unemployed how apply for jobs. There are no more jobs in the pool and these works have learned no more job related skills. So if there are 10 openings and 100 job seekers now all the job seeks have access to making spiffy resumes training on how to act in the interview, but now they are competing against people who have fancy resumes too.

So the unemployment center feels good about itself training all these people but they arent really helping the situation at all.

[guuy]

"I think you are undervaluing a liberal arts education. You aren't taking into account the satisfaction of having a broad education. As I was taught, a man with a good education can walk and talk with kings. Its true."

Jost is an SWPL whose parents probably paid for his education and his rent while he jumped from one unpaid internship to another.

[Josh]

"Jost is an SWPL whose parents probably paid for his education and his rent while he jumped from one unpaid internship to another."

Nope. Helped pay for school with the GI Bill, via USMC.

[agnostic]

"as does the starving academic"

No, a starving academic is a total loser. If you're starving, you'd better be good with a paintbrush or guitar. (Sorry, poets don't push chicks' buttons.)

"I think you are undervaluing a liberal arts education."

Pretty theory, but wrong. If you look at biology or math majors, they read more arts and humanities stuff than English or art history majors read popular science, math, or tech stuff.

Science, even social science, majors are just more curious than arts & humanities types, judging by their actions (not what they scream to everyone to look cool). The arts & humanities people think that so much of the world is beneath them, so they don't need to know anything about it (like how to count). That's a huge change from the Renaissance Man ideal.

There are exceptions, like those crazies at St. John's who read Ptolemy and Newton, in addition to Locke and Vasari and Thucydides. But aside from these hundreds of liberal arts people, all the rest are smugly ignorant of the wonders of the world around them.

[Sideways]

"A lot of lawyers have liberal arts educations. I dual majored in History and English Lit because I knew I was going to law school. Good grades + good LSAT are all that's really important."

This post is about liberal arts GRADUATE degrees.

[agnostic]

BTW Siggie, you could pocket a nice amount of spending cash, off the books, by tutoring Manhattan kids in SAT or GRE prep. Milk the education bubble for all it's worth, while it's still inflated.

You don't need any bullshit certification or credentialing either -- as long as you've dominated one or more of the big standardized tests, the consumer doesn't care. Even better if you've got a top-tier undergrad degree.

You may have to work on your interpersonal skills, though. ;)

[Brian]

Colleges have no incentive to provide a realistic assessment of what their students will make after graduation. You can't legislate against people making stupid decisions, but I wish colleges were forced to provide statistics on what their (insert BS major) make and where they work after graduation. Then maybe someone could explain to the students how to read the statistical report and they might make better decisions.

[Dr. Horsemeat]

" . . . how can the university faculty look themselves in the mirror each morning knowing how they are screwing over their students?"

Surprising, coming from someone who stresses the theme of personal responsibility. People who enroll in graduate school are not children, nor presumably are they mentally-incapacitated adults. It isn't that difficult to get a reasonable idea of the job prospects in a particular field simply by spending some time on the internet.

People go into hock for all sorts of unrealistic reasons, such as buying Italian sports cars on the theory that such a purchase will "change their life" in some ill-defined way. A stupid choice? Maybe, but it's their choice, and not the fault of the guy selling the car.

Graduate programs offer access to graduate education (whatever that means), not career guarantees. The notion that graduate programs somehow implicitly promise students a job in the field after graduation is, in my experience, rare. I've seen your posts about law schools, and you make a convincing case about their fudged post-graduation employment figures. But it would be far more difficult to do this in the liberal arts. Look, the vast majority of people teaching in the humanities know very wel, and freely admit, that the employment prospects are almost comically bad. This is not a secret somehow kept from the doe-eyed 25 year olds working toward their PhDs. In fact, an acquaintance of mine enrolled in a PhD program at Notre Dame, and was told by his graduate director, upon their first meeting, "We're pleased that you want to come here, but I hope you're not planning on getting a university teaching position after graduation."

[miles]

..................and look what they are learning, from the very funny "Whatswrongwiththeworld" blog (a Sailer link):

April 28, 2009
The Classroom Without Reason
That's the title of an article I just came across on the National Association of Scholars website. It is authored by Douglas G. Campbell, lecturer in the Department of Recreation and Parks Management at California State University at Chico. Here's how it begins:

A few years ago I was asked by the instructor of a philosophy class, then titled “Roots of War,” to discuss with his students the culture of the U.S. military community. After identifying myself as a former career military officer, I discussed my impression of our military’s culture. When I was done, a young woman who had been glowering at me and holding her arms tightly across her chest raised her hand. When called upon she vehemently said, “I don’t agree with you. I don’t think it is anything like that. You have just been brainwashed by the military.”
“OK,” I said, “what do you think our military’s culture is like?”

“Well, certainly nothing like that,” she sputtered. I could see some heads in the class nodding in agreement.

I asked, “Could you share with us your experience in or around the military?”

“I haven’t had anything to do with the military,” she indignantly replied.

Continue reading "The Classroom Without Reason" »

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 28, 2009 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | Del.icio.us

.................thought some of you guys would find that funny. This is what passes for philosophy in the United States.

[guuy]

"Nope. Helped pay for school with the GI Bill, via USMC."

I stand corrected. I realize that people should be making better choices in regards to their future, but what kind of decision making capacity does an 18-22 year old have? It's funny how students will spend enormous amounts of energy protesting "social injustices" or controversial speakers at their school, but what about bogus degree programs with very little career prospects?

College students are a bunch of pricks, so I won't be losing any sleep over some pretentious kid from the suburbs with a better car than mine, who racked up thousands of dollars in debt so that they can study the liberal arts.

There's many more types who truly deserve our empathy.

[Peter]

What really bothers me is that the government makes it possible for this situation to continue, thanks to its policy of making student loans available without regard to the marketability of the courses of study.

[JohnM]

The engineer looks at an idea and asks "How will it work?" The accountant looks at it and asks "How much will it cost?" The businessman looks at it and asks "How do we sell it?" The liberal arts grad looks at it and asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

[randite]

The glaring question here is why does a supposedly respectable ivy league university still have a religion department in the 21st century and why is the NY Times printing an article by this dept head ?

[ERM]

OK, reality check from someone who's been in the scene. A lot of elite graduate programs, in the humanities and social sciences as in the real sciences, have free tuition and generally even include some stipend, though mileage varies widely...if you are in a "cool" city, you're fucked; if you are in shithole Ithaca, NY as I was, you're golden. So a lot of people aren't taking on any debt; indeed, you'd be hugely foolish to do so. But even with everything paid, the opportunity cost is very high and the whole experience is terribly desocializing. An absolutely huge portion of PhD students in the humanities and social sciences quit before they are finished as the reality of the job market begins to make the whole arduous process seem like a complete waste. So people are often more realistic than they are being portrayed here. If you've got no debt, this isn't such a big deal, except perhaps emotionally...a few years free education in something you theoretically enjoy, not a bad deal. There are definitely people indebting themselves with grad school in the humanities/s.s.-es but the real horrors of overpriced, underdelivering educations are in the undergraduate sector, bad none.

By the way, I usually love your stuff, agnostic, but your comment above about the liberal arts crowd is douchebaggy in the extreme. Paint with a wide brush, much? You'll find all types in a decent, large university. I prefer an intellectually diverse crowd, but in my experience the anti-science lib art poseur is no more common than the philistine engineer meathead. The people in the pure sciences tend to be much more well-rounded than the latter; in the humanities, the older the discipline, the more well-rounded the minds in it; I studied History and in my experience history students are interested in everything. Perhaps you've only hung with the Cultural Studies crowd.

[ERM]

By the way...Dr. Horsemeat's comment is good. The humanities grad school crowd is certainly one of the most cynical I've ever been around. PhD Comics offers one of the best looks into the mindset you'll find.

By the way, this is a very good article on the scandal of graduate school: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/01/2009013001c.htm

[hk]

"But the question is, if everyone knows that graduate degrees (excluding professional degrees) are such a bad deal, why do so many enroll?"

Because they just don't care. They are not careerists. They don't want to wear a suit.

"Maybe, the real mystery is how can the university faculty look themselves in the mirror each morning knowing how they are screwing over their students?"

Because they don't care about money or job markets either. They are idealists. Education, knowledge and wisdom are more important to them than employment or fancy cars. A well-paid job is a bonus, not an aim.

Different groups of people hold different preferences for career options, risk and material wealth. Surprise!

Btw, let's look at what young people are choosing in countries where ALL higher education is free.

[The Engineer]

Even if your tuition is waived and you get a small stipend, graduate school has a huge opportuinity cost. These are the years that you get out in the workforce and start earning money. The future value of that cash is astronomical, thanks to compounding. Not only that, but the REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE of work is much, much more valuable than anything that you can learn in a classroom.

The only reason to go to graduate school is to put off the real world. That might seem like a good idea when you're 22, and really like college life. But ultimately it is a bad decision.

In fact, future value calculations alone should be telling you to get a degree as quickly as possible and get out into the workforce. How about getting your degree in 3 years rather than 4? How about doing every AP class you can, and passing out of as many classes as possible? How about taking classes over the summer instead of working, or goofing off?

[The Engineer]

Also... Sig's comment about graduate degrees being SWPL is spot on. Who is higher on the SWPL pecking order? The "Reality Bites" Starbucks barista with a graduate degree in history, or the engineer with wife and kids driving a minivan and living in the 'burbs?

[Chris B.]

"This post is about liberal arts GRADUATE degrees."

In fact, it ought to be about doctorates only. A Masters in liberal arts is a useful credential in all kinds of non-technical fields. It's practically the equivalent of a pre-1960s B.A.

The pathetic cases are those who go on for marginal PhDs and are then unemployable, but a large majority of graduate students leave after their Masters.

And, yeah, it's true that liberal-arts students ought to study more science (and statistics!), but, having taught some, I wouldn't agree that science/engineering students are better rounded on the whole.

[Chris B.]

"In fact, future value calculations alone should be telling you to get a degree as quickly as possible and get out into the workforce."

That's true if you place no intrinsic value on learning. Four years studying something interesting for its own sake is an opportunity you only get once in a lifetime, if you take it.

[Devin H]

What do you all think about a Masters of Library Science degree? Is that SWPL? What about job opportunities? I don't care about salary as I tend to focus more on job security and whether or not I can be outsourced.

[JewishAtheist]

A Masters degree (in anything) is required for a great number of jobs, so it's not a waste in that sense. It's also not a waste if you can afford it and if expected monetary payoff is not your primary goal in life. (The latter is a point HS cannot get his head around, I know. It's kind of sad, really.)

[tmmm]

Chris B, and why you cannot study things you like during your freetime while you are working? I found studying in the university frustrating because I couldn't concentrate on interesting topics but have to follow the curriculum. Also having to pass exams was frustrating. Now when I'm working and can study whatever I want during my freetime it is much more pleasant because I can concentrate on things I found interesting.

[Crazy Talk]

In fact, future value calculations alone should be telling you to get a degree as quickly as possible and get out into the workforce. How about getting your degree in 3 years rather than 4? How about doing every AP class you can, and passing out of as many classes as possible? How about taking classes over the summer instead of working, or goofing off?

Crazy talk. When are you supposed to drink your face off, act like an idiot and chat up that pretty girl in Queer/Lesbian Lit in Context class? Also, would you like cream with that sumatran blend Venti? Then get back in the minivan...

[James]

"Even if your tuition is waived and you get a small stipend, graduate school has a huge opportuinity cost. These are the years that you get out in the workforce and start earning money. The future value of that cash is astronomical, thanks to compounding. Not only that, but the REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE of work is much, much more valuable than anything that you can learn in a classroom.

The only reason to go to graduate school is to put off the real world. That might seem like a good idea when you're 22, and really like college life. But ultimately it is a bad decision.

In fact, future value calculations alone should be telling you to get a degree as quickly as possible and get out into the workforce. How about getting your degree in 3 years rather than 4? How about doing every AP class you can, and passing out of as many classes as possible? How about taking classes over the summer instead of working, or goofing off?"

Engineer,

For a person talking about the need to be realistic, you sure have an unrealistic view of Humanities grads! Hmmmm...why do Grad students in the Humanities pay the huge opportunity cost of graduate school? Because the cost is only "huge" in dollar terms. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT VALUE MONEY. Zoom through school? These are obviously people wishing to prolong school as long as possible! They enjoy being in school, they do not enjoy being in the "real world", so how is it rational for them to rush to get into the workforce?

The big assumption underlying almost all of the posts and comments on this blog is that money actually matters to people. This just isn't the case for a substantial fraction of the "artsy" crowd. Where I grew up (New Orleans) there were entire clans of people who lived their whole lives working temp jobs while enjoying the arts, augmented with some serious drug use of course.

This is just a lifestyle choice, and a lot of bright young liberals make it, at least while they are in their 20s. I'm sure some regret it later, but most don't. The fact is you don't really need to make much more than $30K a year to live quite comfortably in America. None of these grads will have any trouble finding that level of employment. For these people, money has strong diminishing utility returns after they earn enough to pay the rent and buy food (usually around $15K/year). After that, additional dollars are nice but they aren't going to work hard for them. They've got books to read, paintings to finish, video games to play, etc. They are baffled by stories of people on the other side who work 80 hour weeks just so they can make their 2nd or 3rd million.

Typically the game-changer is having children. Once these people have kids they start appreciating the need to work hard and earn a decent living. But still, I have seen several families get by on a single Adjunct philosophy professor's salary. These people just don't mind living on the cheap!

[Peter]

My suspicion - is there any way to prove it? - is that many of the people getting liberal arts master's degrees are schoolteachers who study for the degrees on a part-time basis. Many if not all states allow people with just BA degrees to be hired as teachers but require them to get master's degrees within a specified amount of time. As these people already have jobs, and have valid reasons for getting the degrees, there's no need to worry about them.

Now, the people who don't have day jobs and are going to doctoral degrees in liberal arts, they're the people about whom we should be worrying.

[BrunoBrazil]

The bank tragedy Americans are into will give a reality schock and americans will realize how ridiculously above their means americans were.

As college loans get more difficult at get and more expensive, people will get real about college education and realize the real value of getting return for what they pay for.

A big market will emerge for no-frills college education, because of its affordability. Maybe it is a good investment opportunity.

No-frills colleges have:

1- no research. Big teaching loads for professors and no papers.

2- no dorms. They are commuter schools, you live in the city alone or with parents.

3- No choice of courses. All courses are directly related to major. A business major has only courses on management, accounting, economics, finance and marketing.

4- no isolated campus. College only teaches and rents a commercial building in the city centre, near public transportation. No need to take care of a gigantic park campus or historical buildings.

5- No sports. Why does a law school need to have a football team? It is for somewhat promoting physical activity?

Even a useless major can be taught in such an economical way. At least, if you major in history, you can graduate with no debt.

[HS: Incorrect, people demand the schools with the most prestige, and this type of school wouldn't have any prestige.]

[The Engineer]

James, I completely agree with your observations. I think that they're spot on.

One of my acquantainces is a SWPL. He had a decent job in the private sector, but wanted a more "authentic" job at a non-profit, for all the standard SWPL reasons. So now he's working for a museaum.

I think that he made the transition to non-profit before he had kids. Now the second one is on the way, museums are getting hammered in the recession, and I wonder if he's got a bit of regret.

This guy is a total SWPL: trendy glasses, extensive ironic T-shirt collection, outdoorsy pastimes, Honda Fit. Loves Paul Krugman. He's the complete package.

[anonMD]

"This is just a lifestyle choice, and a lot of bright young liberals make it, at least while they are in their 20s. I'm sure some regret it later, but most don't. The fact is you don't really need to make much more than $30K a year to live quite comfortably in America. None of these grads will have any trouble finding that level of employment. For these people, money has strong diminishing utility returns after they earn enough to pay the rent and buy food (usually around $15K/year). After that, additional dollars are nice but they aren't going to work hard for them. They've got books to read, paintings to finish, video games to play, etc. They are baffled by stories of people on the other side who work 80 hour weeks just so they can make their 2nd or 3rd million."

No shit. I'm used to living on 50K a year and don't see wanting anything else. I should have just been a programmer or something technical where I wouldn't have to watch these fucking sports and could live in a fun SWPL city and date nerdy grad students. Now I'm going to have to live in the Midwest after residency and marry some Christian girl with an IQ of 100. Great for all you Middle America types, I know, but I was born in a big city...all I like to do is hang out in bookstores and argue about politics.

And I'll still have to buy the biggest house possible for the kids' school and the pricey car so I don't stand out. Same frickin' wage slavery, with all the numbers multiplied by 4.

[anonMD]

Christian='evangelical Protestant', BTW. We're not talking about SWPL Episcopalians, with whom I have enough in common.

[Underachiever]

Halfsigma,

Partially "[i]ncorrect, [some] people [currently] demand the schools with the most prestige, and this type of school wouldn't have any prestige."

I fixed your poor wording choice. :)

Bruno's point is valid for many types of engineering and science. In those cases, having a valid degree is what matters. Also, people who go to college just to learn can still go to his school. You are correct though that would not be a good idea for a law school where prestige is important.

[Pigman]

I don't know why there's this idea that liberal-arts people and engineers/hard science people have some conflict; truth be told, they don't much care about each other, and the engineers are respected for their academic rigor. There is, on the other hand, a real conflict is between liberal-arts majors and the stereotypical "frat-boy" business/finance majors. Obviously, the liberal-arts types think the business types are "crass and materialistic."

[The Engineer]

Obviously, the liberal-arts types think the business types are "crass and materialistic.

As we all know, SWPLs aren't any less crass and materialistic, and status seeking, than the traditional bourgois. They're just lusting over something different: the prius instead of the Caddy, the ironic t-shirt rather than the suit, the Mac instead of... whatever. You get my drift.

I don't think SWPLs are doing anything that was not explained in "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". Indeed, you can see companies marketing lots of SWPL, like "green building materials" and whatnot. The Prius is another good example.

[Kevin K]

At my graduate school there were a lot of grad students and a lot in "American Studies"/History and a lot in Computer Science. The American Studies/History majors thought all the physicists were nerds (true enough) and we thought the American Studies were snobs (also hard to disagree with). We never saw the computer science grad students since they didn't speak English and spent all their time in the computer labs playing Counter Strike.

[Kevin K]

First sentence should say "... a lot of grad students in physics . . ."

[C_Q]

Wouldn't this make grad school a type of winner-takes-all market? In which case, the faculty should lose no more sleep over the system than should the management of any corporation. As far as winner-take-all markets go, it's not terrible. Students who are smart enough to obtain Phds should have many skills that are valuable on the white-collar job market. They have high levels of verbal comprehension, high levels of analytical ability and a good deal of task commitment. Technically speaking, I'd expect them to have some level of creativity if they've done any sort of interesting academic work at all. Of course, if they had done truly interesting work, they'd probably have secured an academic job, so I digress. These PhDs, should be able to enter the job market, and sell their skills, probably in marketing or communications fields. With a high enough IQ, one should be capable of converting an entry-level position into a middle management role within 5-10 years. The minivan and the house and the 'burbs are yours!

[Poor Postdoc]

Well, I don't think many in grad school feels that there is much of a "promise" of a faculty position waiting for most students. They do, however, significantly overestimate their chances of scoring a TT position at a nice university after graduation - probably by an order of magnitude. You just have to look at the ratio between the number of PhDs your department mints every year compared to how many professors are hired. Most students will indeed be happy to study more since they value both learning and the SWPL prestige points more than making money. As others have pointed out - this may be something they regret later when the barista job starts getting old and the vibrant neighborhood and its schools turn out not to be that great. Their kids probably turn into cynical MBA types...

As for how professors motivate the overproduction, the honest answer is that they need to produce PhDs for their own and their department's prestige and they need some slaves to write papers, teach classes and do other boring stuff. The defense I hear from professors generally follow the lines:
1. Students are adults and have to make their own choices - it is great that we can offer them opportunities to do what they want.
2. Learning is always good - just look how many stupid people (President Bush - haha) there are arounf in this country. I think we should tech as many as possible as much as possible. [These professors typically don't spend much time teaching after-school programs in the ghetto.]
3. Well, in general the job market is hopeless - but in my subfield, really exciting things are happening and there will be a lot of hiring soon.
4. Look at all the old faculty members around - hardly a person under 60! Clearly, they will retire soon and be replaced by full-time, tenure-track faculty like you in your 20s!

As others have pointed out, if learning is what you want, you can get a job as a garbage collector, enjoy plenty of money compared to a grad student and more time available to read what you want to read and write what you want to write rather than doing boring class assignments. Clearly, this is driven by status seeking. The ridiculuos credentialism, where an office job that 50 years ago would have taken a HS diploma now requires an MA, does not help. I expect the Obama administration to crack down on the use of college diplomas to "weed out minorities", but sadly they won't be relaced by pre-employment testing. Instead, colleges will be dumbed down further, grading abolished and straight quotas enforced across the labor market.

People should feel free to waste their time and money, but the student loan system should be redesigned so that more rational choices are made.

[zzz]

"[HS: Incorrect, people demand the schools with the most prestige, and this type of school wouldn't have any prestige.]"

This is why I hate this blog so much.

"People demand..."? What kind of people? People like you? Neurotic, workaholic, ass kissing, raised by a psychotic soccer mom with an SUV, lunatic father, voted "Hall Monitor of the Year" type people? What type of people?

Oh, I got it. The type of people I wouldn't mind striking with a rusty crowbar.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"What kind of people? People like you? Neurotic, workaholic, ass kissing, raised by a psychotic soccer mom with an SUV, lunatic father, voted "Hall Monitor of the Year" type people? What type of people?"

Sigma was a Hall Monitor?!

[Brutus]

"No, a starving academic is a total loser. If you're starving, you'd better be good with a paintbrush or guitar. (Sorry, poets don't push chicks' buttons.)"

Yes they do; you obviously don't know any poets. An old friend Gerard Malanga, who is just a so-so poet, gets a lot of tail at his poetry readings (and he's in his 60s).

I think everyone has made some worthwhile comments on this topic. What an unemployed English lit doctorate has to learn is adapting her skill sets to the marketplace. An English lit PhD could make a good medical copywriter, or a decent salesman. Wallace Stevens, arguably the greatest poet of the 20th century, used to write poetry during board meetings. He was a vice president at an insurance company!

[The Social Club]

"The type of people I wouldn't mind striking with a rusty crowbar."

When I read a comment like that, all I can do is shake my head in disappointment and let out a sigh of sadness. A rusty crowbar? A fucking rusty crowbar?! Are you pulling up floorboards later?
It is obvious you don't know dick about beating on people. Only a whiny, dumb fuck, low-class moron would try and use a rusty crowbar. Why don't you just root around for a tire iron on the floor of your car, pushing empty Big Gulp cups aside? Pathetic.
But it sounds like you have some potential to better yourself. And that's all we can really ask in these days of low standards, running mouths and stupid behavior.
Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Maybe I could just get a big-ass cane like those guys from A Clockwork Orange carried around and lay a righteous tolchocking on some creeching, merzky moodge." Save that shit (and your nadsat) for Halloween, please. Spend the money and get something from ASP or Monadnock (don't get the "safety tip" though!). Both companies make quality products that fit nicely into a pocket, briefcase or bag. Learn how to use it instead of swinging a piece of shitty iron like a fucking baboon with a bone. Practice on the homeless. And keep practicing. Build some confidence. Check back next week in this thread and let us all know how you're doing!

[Guilty Catholic]

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | April 29, 2009 at 03:17 PM

I always had him pegged as a self-hating Jew as well.

[Brutus]

You're thinking, "Maybe --Social Club

You sound like a deep thinker: keep up the good work. Any ideas on shivs?

PS: You don't use quotations for thoughts--get it?

[Bruno from Paris]

They are some extraordinary free Colleges also in the US : Olin College, Cooper Union, etc.

In France, in the best Colleges, it's the student that get paid and the subsequent prestige is like a certification that never expires.

[Half Delta]

Uh liberal artsy types talk about how they don't care about money, but when they want something they bitch about how the government won't tax the rich to give it to them.

[Brutus]

Uh liberal artsy types talk about how they don't care about money, but when they want something they bitch about how the government won't tax the rich to give it to them.

Posted by: Half Delta | April 29, 2009 at 07:20 PM

These types are known as doofuses and they ain't real artists--and, by the way, they all voted for Bam-Bam

[The Social Club]

Posted by: Brutus | April 29, 2009 at 05:26 PM

No Brutus, I'm not a deep thinker. Let's face it, I put thoughts in quotations because my multiple degrees in liberal arts has prepared me for nothing except idle blabber about bullshit like 15th Century Florentine tax codes. I'm good at cocktail parties, but that's about it.
It is just that when I see someone like "zzz" running his mouth about kicking ass and splitting heads with a rusty crowbar, I see a young, foolish kid who is making all kinds of shitty decisions with no self-respect or sense of decorum. Like I said, a fucking baboon with a bone. Yeah, that's real classy.
I think deep down "zzz" is really unhappy with himself and hurting on the inside. I'm actually somewhat of a nice guy and I'm just trying to help him out if I can. I mean shit, this is the fucking internet, so I can't do much, but I'm going to try anyway. I feel for him, I really do.
As for shivs/shanks, I consider them "field expedients." If you've got one in your hand, you are in a bit of trouble. Jail comes to mind. Or maybe you're in some hellhole fighting for your life. But better than a bare hand.

[James]

I want to add that actually a good graduate school tuition waiver + stipend of $20-$25k is really not that bad for an entry-level job considering you only have to work 20 hours a week. This is what my girlfriend and I currently make in our Ph.D. programs (Educational Psychology (me) and Neuroscience (her)). Add in summer vacation...no social security tax...ultra-flexible hours...etc. Unless you are trying to support a family it is a nice deal.

[ERM]

really not that bad for an entry-level job considering you only have to work 20 hours a week

There is no way you can succeed in any graduate program working only 20 hours a week. Unless you consider 40 hours a week of reading and studying not to be "working". This goes against normal sense and grad student idiom, however.

[peter]

There is a close parallel between the decision that young people make to go get a humanities PHD and the decision that women make to date only alphas and not date betas.

When a young person tells his or her friends that he or she will pursue a phd, even if their friends know that the young person will never get a job using the phd and will wind up working at starbucks, the friends don't want to "burst the bubble" the friends will be encouraging - in other words the friends will tell the young person what he or she wants to hear -

I see the same thing among the women who date only alphas - me and their other friends tell the woman in question that she is sure to get a wedding ring from one of the alphas she is dating - if she just keeps at it long enough, dating only alphas will pay off for her. I know it is not true, i know these women will wind up bitter and alone when they reach middle age, I know that these women would do better dating betas, but if i told any of them they should date betas they would hate me for shooting down their dreams. They would hate me because i "insulted " them by telling them they were not good looking enough to get an alpha to marry them

So even though I know that these women are ruining their own lives and giving up the chance to have children, i smile and give them encouragement in their dating of alphas.

Same thing as me smiling and giving encouragement to the young people getting phds

[SFG]

Yeah, Peter, you can't give people honest negative feedback even if it helps them. It's human nature; nobody likes to hear bad news.

Personally, though, as a bitter omega, I'd be happy to see the alpha-seeking ladies' eggs and hopes shrivel. ;)

[Jack]

Peter, you would be doing those women and all the rest of us a favor by telling them the TRUTH but in a more diplomatic and subtle way.

Of course, another problem we face is that there are guys willing to marry these >30, used-up ex-sluts. Not all guys, but enough that women are deluded into thinking it's ok to fuck around through their 20's.

[Brutus]

Social Club

Curious: what business are you in?

You're very amusing--playwright?

[David Alexander]

**I know that these women would do better dating betas**

Actually, you'd be wasting their time by telling them to date beta males because women are generally unattracted to beta males. One could argue that the women would be better off alone than married to a guy that don't find attractive and will eventually learn to hate.

**Not all guys, but enough that women are deluded into thinking it's ok to fuck around through their 20's.**

Actually, given that female beauty declines with age, it makes a lot of sense to "waste" such beauty on alpha males during peak beauty, and then go for the beta males. Why waste your beauty on a loser male that doesn't excite you sexually? Use it first to get the men that you want, and then at least you can know that you at least had sex with an alpha male.

[rsi]

It's not so much that professors or parents have been intentionally duping students into thinking they can earn a living as an unproductive academic. The past few generations have been deluded by the insane growth rate here in the USA, thinking that we were entering an age where true productivity, at least among the middle and upper class, was no longer necessary.

Once the boomer generation embraced Marxism, it became generally accepted in academia that actual productive work was far less important than freeing up wealth and income by taking it away from the successful. An important related phenomenon was the creation of unnecessary bureaucracy (on the federal, local, and private levels) to monitor and enforce this redistribution. With this bureaucracy came increasingly arbitrary standards for employment, since these jobs required no real skills.

Essentially, in my opinion, the current situation has emerged because the globalized economy no longer provides Americans with sole access to skill-free bureaucratic posts. Americans with English degrees now have to compete with Bangladeshis with basic English skills, and many Americans are finding that their expensive four-year degree does not make them significantly more valuable.

In summary, for the past 100 years we have been living in an artificial "America bubble". Our pre-eminent place in the world ensured a constant influx of wealth, with almost none flowing out. That's how our values, our expectations, and our philosophy became so radically twisted. Today we are facing a globalized world that has made our recently-conceived way of life unsustainable. How quickly we as a nation can adapt will ultimately determine our place in the world.

I have heard the argument that education has intrinsic value, but this value is realized almost entirely by the person with the degree. A vibrant, growing economy requires that our efforts and investments benefit society as well as ourselves. The PhD barista may lead a fuller life than the high school dropout barista, but they both produce the same benefit to society. And ultimately it is our aggregate net benefit to society that determines our overall quality of life.