Our PhD Surplus

[Helix]

I was a defensive end/tackle.

I worked everything in order to prevent imbalances which might lead to injury, but I can tell you I cared a lot more about how much I could squat then how much I could reverse curl. If you were any good, I'm sure you did too.

my coach told me i wasn't done until the whistle blew or i had pushed my opponent back ten yards. given that, i mostly focused on my legs. for others, spending time on curls and bench presses was more advantageous. regardless, study doesn't just yield expertise in that particular area; it is exercise for the mind, and society as a whole benefits from the development of our national intellectual resources.

 

[donsutherland1]

.........
If studying an academic subject can only get one a job in academia, then there is no reason for the private sector to replace it. It is just a self perpetuating cycle where certain studies of academia is only producing academics and nothing else.

Lets say there was a PhD in scientology. Considering getting a PhD in scientology is useless to just about anything except for teaching other students the useless study of scientology, I consider that degree worthless.

The counterargument is that religious or secular movements and submovements have been a recurring theme in history. Some movements or their tactics have had influence on attitudes, policy or the economy.

Prior to the financial crisis, outside of a few academic institutions, there was almost no demand for historians or economists who focused on the history of financial crises or panics. The literature was full of references of a "new era" the old rules of a pre-Information age were irrelevant. Hubris that vast and cheap computing power and complex mathematical models made history irrelevant in risk management have pervaded many sectors. The "Great Moderation" was cited as proof by policy makers and Wall Street alike.

All of that was disastrously wrong. To be right, it required a dramatic change in human nature and behavior e.g., market function was not always rational and efficient and markets could break down under some circumstances. It required understanding of how markets function (the idea of co-movements, spillovers, and contagion simply didn't exist in the models making risk assessments on the mortgage-related securities). It required sufficient empirical data to demonstrate that the "Great Moderation" was not some anomalous pause in what remained a volatile world.

 

[ReformCollege]

The counterargument is that religious or secular movements and submovements have been a recurring theme in history. Some movements or their tactics have had influence on attitudes, policy or the economy.

Prior to the financial crisis, outside of a few academic institutions, there was almost no demand for historians or economists who focused on the history of financial crises or panics. The literature was full of references of a "new era" the old rules of a pre-Information age were irrelevant. Hubris that vast and cheap computing power and complex mathematical models made history irrelevant in risk management have pervaded many sectors. The "Great Moderation" was cited as proof by policy makers and Wall Street alike.

All of that was disastrously wrong. To be right, it required a dramatic change in human nature and behavior e.g., market function was not always rational and efficient and markets could break down under some circumstances. It required understanding of how markets function (the idea of co-movements, spillovers, and contagion simply didn't exist in the models making risk assessments on the mortgage-related securities). It required sufficient empirical data to demonstrate that the "Great Moderation" was not some anomalous pause in what remained a volatile world.

The counterargument to your counterargument is that one doesn't need to have a PhD in Scientology to see what it spews forth is pure garbage. Its called seeing the forest for the trees.

Ben Bernake became Fed chairman in 2006, 2 years prior the financial crisis. If I'm not mistaken, his thesis was written on the Great Depression. If I'm not mistaken, I have yet to see someone with a PhD in "financial collapse economics." They get a PhD in economics, and those have definitely had success in finding private sector jobs.

 

[ReformCollege]

my coach told me i wasn't done until the whistle blew or i had pushed my opponent back ten yards. given that, i mostly focused on my legs. for others, spending time on curls and bench presses was more advantageous. regardless, study doesn't just yield expertise in that particular area; it is exercise for the mind, and society as a whole benefits from the development of our national intellectual resources.

As someone who now works for a college football team, I can tell you there isn't a single player on the field where squats are not the most important exercise for weightlifting. Bench press is somewhat important (although overrated) because it is still ~1/4th of your muscle mass.

And regardless, I'd say certain PhD programs engage in useless exercising of the mind where others yield both expertise and contribution of national intellectual resources.

 

[Helix]

As someone who now works for a college football team, I can tell you there isn't a single player on the field where squats are not the most important exercise for weightlifting. Bench press is somewhat important (although overrated) because it is still ~1/4th of your muscle mass.

And regardless, I'd say certain PhD programs engage in useless exercising of the mind where others yield both expertise and contribution of national intellectual resources.

there is no useless exercise of the mind. every class I took that I thought I'd never use again built neural connections that were used for something else. I said it before, and i'll repeat it : education is more than job training.

 

[ReformCollege]

there is no useless exercise of the mind. every class I took that I thought I'd never use again built neural connections that were used for something else. I said it before, and i'll repeat it : education is more than job training.

I think you misunderstand my use of useless here. Useless is acquiring an expertise in an non-useful field. Even if one obtains exercise of the mind or what have you from it, if I could've gotten that exercise without obtaining the degree in a useless field; it was a useless exercise.

Education is more then job training, yes, but any education should at least provide some sort of directly applicable job skills. The further you have to stretch a degree to be applicable to the real world, the less beneficial said degree is.

 

[Helix]

I think you misunderstand my use of useless here. Useless is acquiring an expertise in an non-useful field. Even if one obtains exercise of the mind or what have you from it, if I could've gotten that exercise without obtaining the degree in a useless field; it was a useless exercise.

Education is more then job training, yes, but any education should at least provide some sort of directly applicable job skills. The further you have to stretch a degree to be applicable to the real world, the less beneficial said degree is.

I think we have some common ground, but I doubt we'll agree on a definition of useless. when it comes to ancient Greece, we all know of Socrates and Aristotle. their studies built no structures, and baked no bread. many might have considered their intellectual pursuits useless, or even more sinister. however, history proves the point.

our own myopic perspective makes it difficult to judge what may or may not be important outside of the immediate. I'm simply arguing that we should build and invest in our national intellectual resources.

 

[donsutherland1]

Ben Bernake became Fed chairman in 2006, 2 years prior the financial crisis. If I'm not mistaken, his thesis was written on the Great Depression. If I'm not mistaken, I have yet to see someone with a PhD in "financial collapse economics." They get a PhD in economics, and those have definitely had success in finding private sector jobs.

My point is that people in the field of economics, finance, and business need exposure to material and instruction that goes beyond narrow course requirements. At the university level, a PhD is essential for higher-level teaching. One need not have a PhD in let's say crises, but exposure to the material, understanding of crises, or a thesis among some is helpful. Economic outcomes are, in part, a function of human behavior. Such behavior is complex and still not well understood. Not surprisingly, economic forecasts can be far off the mark. The consensus March employment forecast called for more than double the number of jobs that were actually created. The standard deviation on year-ahead GDP forecast is around +/- 1.9 points. Better insight could reduce the uncertainty behind those forecasts. In turn, reduced uncertainty could allow companies to better plan, better allocate resources, etc.

Bernanke's PhD work was an exception, not the norm. Instead, much of the focus was on aggressively expanding the case of market efficiency and rationality to wildly optimistic proportions. Not surprisingly, when symptoms of problems began manifesting themselves, many during the early and middle 2000s felt that what had been abnormally low inflation rates in place despite near full employment was a "mystery." If increasing capital flows and other elements of an economy approaching capacity weren't adversely impacting consumer prices, perhaps the growing level of demand relative to supply had to be occurring elsewhere. In fact, it was and inflation was raging in the housing sector. Likewise, they believed that bubbles couldn't be identified (literature on crises, including the fresh experience with the 1980s Japan stock/housing market crash and 1990s Asian financial crisis, show a sustained and rapidly accelerating decoupling of asset prices from macroeconomic fundamentals is a clear sign of a swelling bubble. The IMF, which is not beholden to any single economic sector, correctly drew upon the literature and its firsthand experience with the Japanese, Scandanavian, and Asian financial crises and correctly warned about unsustainability problems in the U.S. housing sector. Others, including Paul Krugman, Robert Shiller, and Nouriel Roubini took similar views. The blowback from industry-related economists was harsh. The attitude among U.S. policy makers was "thou shalt not speak badly about housing." Already, with calls to relax lending standards to the housing sector, the lessons of the recent housing bust are being forgotten.

The lack of intellectual rigor, which more attention to history and tbe sciences could provide, leads to a larger share of management and policy decisions becoming little more than exercises in satisficing (the proverbial course of least resistance that seems to address an issue) rather than those closer to optimization.

My overall point is that even seemingly "useless" fields have some utility. One might not need many graduates in those fields, but possession of at least some knowledge is better than none. Some fields might have little direct utility in industry, but they might have indirect utility in providing graduates willl knowledge, skill sets, and critical reasoning ability that is important to one's professions.

 

[ReformCollege]

I think we have some common ground, but I doubt we'll agree on a definition of useless. when it comes to ancient Greece, we all know of Socrates and Aristotle. their studies built no structures, and baked no bread. many might have considered their intellectual pursuits useless, or even more sinister. however, history proves the point.

our own myopic perspective makes it difficult to judge what may or may not be important outside of the immediate. I'm simply arguing that we should build and invest in our national intellectual resources.

To me, I think maybe that classical Greek tradition has for far too long prevented any sort of reform or revision of how academia should be structured. But much of what I consider "useless" is so because it relies far more heavily on theory and rhetorical analysis; and if such theory were actually put into practice it would likely have pernicious effects. Aristotle and Socrates may have done studies which have been considered useless by the commoners of the time. But obviously their writings and theories worked when they were put into practice. And much of Aristotle's philosophy was that he relied only on what he saw himself, rather then relying on stories of others which can be based in superstition and error. So he may not have been perfect or 100% about everything, but at least he sought knowledge directly and sought its application directly. If all you are doing is reinterpreting what others have to say, and then attempting to explain the world through the lens of others, I consider that useless.

 

[shlunka]

Your compulsion to correct my sentence is ill advised, since you have called a basic syllogism "illogical." It just shows that you don't know what the word "illogical" means, and could do with a bit of education in philosophy.



Well, sure, there is no such thing a useful advanced degree in the liberal arts. They are called the liberal arts precisely because they are useless. But my point is there is more to philosophy is foundational, and it has practically nothing to do with dreams as you stated earlier.

The correction was sarcastic and mostly mean-spirited. The existential dreaming philosopher I posted earlier about was a joke playing on the incorrectly stereotyped image of philosophers. I agree that philosophy has wonderful applications. Though others "I.E, Nietzsche" struck me as being turgid and stating the obvious. My apologies for becoming offensive in my posts.

 

[ReformCollege]

My point is that people in the field of economics, finance, and business need exposure to material and instruction that goes beyond narrow course requirements. At the university level, a PhD is essential for higher-level teaching. One need not have a PhD in let's say crises, but exposure to the material, understanding of crises, or a thesis among some is helpful. Economic outcomes are, in part, a function of human behavior. Such behavior is complex and still not well understood. Not surprisingly, economic forecasts can be far off the mark. The consensus March employment forecast called for more than double the number of jobs that were actually created. The standard deviation on year-ahead GDP forecast is around +/- 1.9 points. Better insight could reduce the uncertainty behind those forecasts. In turn, reduced uncertainty could allow companies to better plan, better allocate resources, etc.

Bernanke's PhD work was an exception, not the norm. Instead, much of the focus was on aggressively expanding the case of market efficiency and rationality to wildly optimistic proportions. Not surprisingly, when symptoms of problems began manifesting themselves, many during the early and middle 2000s felt that what had been abnormally low inflation rates in place despite near full employment was a "mystery." If increasing capital flows and other elements of an economy approaching capacity weren't adversely impacting consumer prices, perhaps the growing level of demand relative to supply had to be occurring elsewhere. In fact, it was and inflation was raging in the housing sector. Likewise, they believed that bubbles couldn't be identified (literature on crises, including the fresh experience with the 1980s Japan stock/housing market crash and 1990s Asian financial crisis, show a sustained and rapidly accelerating decoupling of asset prices from macroeconomic fundamentals is a clear sign of a swelling bubble. The IMF, which is not beholden to any single economic sector, correctly drew upon the literature and its firsthand experience with the Japanese, Scandanavian, and Asian financial crises and correctly warned about unsustainability problems in the U.S. housing sector. Others, including Paul Krugman, Robert Shiller, and Nouriel Roubini took similar views. The blowback from industry-related economists was harsh. The attitude among U.S. policy makers was "thou shalt not speak badly about housing." Already, with calls to relax lending standards to the housing sector, the lessons of the recent housing bust are being forgotten.

The lack of intellectual rigor, which more attention to history and tbe sciences could provide, leads to a larger share of management and policy decisions becoming little more than exercises in satisficing (the proverbial course of least resistance that seems to address an issue) rather than those closer to optimization.

My overall point is that even seemingly "useless" fields have some utility. One might not need many graduates in those fields, but possession of at least some knowledge is better than none. Some fields might have little direct utility in industry, but they might have indirect utility in providing graduates will knowledge, skill sets, and critical reasoning ability that is important to one's professions.

First I'd say that the financial crisis was somewhat of a black swan. Hindsight is 20/20 and history isn't always a good predictor of future events. That said, my dad is a real estate broker, and he was saying all the way back in 2005/2006 that much of this boom in real estate development was abhorrently ridiculous. People were getting financing on projects that would never have gotten financing say 5 years ago and the levels of financing were double or triple what they should have been. Not to mention, Ben Bernanke's PhD didn't exactly make him a prophet at predicting the financial crisis either.

Obviously. I am all for a more all encompassing field of study within a particular study. For example, I am studying to attempt to become an MD in endocrinology. But I am not just solely studying the affects of diabetes mellitus on blood sugar levels, but also how it affects blood pH, kidney function, respiration, etc. I am also having to learn about the rest of the body in rigorous detail, even if it may not directly apply to endocrinology. But on an even larger level then that, I also am attempting to further my knowledge of our healthcare system, healthcare policy, healthcare writing, healthcare economics and even some knowledge in psychology that will enable me as deep of a knowledge base as possible as an MD. That will involve knowledge in english, history, writing, sociology, etc. etc.

What I don't agree with, is compartmentalizing those studies. When I say useless, I don't think that learning about sociology and writing to better my understanding of working within medicine is useless. What I mean, is that strictly understanding the sociology of medicine and sociological theory is useless, because it is strictly theory without the understanding of application. They fit hand in glove, and knowing strictly one without the other has very limited real world use.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Because you can't use them to make money.

So making money is the only purpose of education? And money is the only thing that makes life worthwhile? Just make money and buy shiny things and trinkets and things to show off to other people who only live to accumulate money. In your spare time stay drunk or high and play video games to fill in the rough spots where you are bored with everything.

Lovely life you have there Guy.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So making money is the only purpose of education? And money is the only thing that makes life worthwhile? Just make money and buy shiny things and trinkets and things to show off to other people who only live to accumulate money. In your spare time stay drunk or high and play video games to fill in the rough spots where you are bored with everything.

Lovely life you have there Guy.

You sound like a communist. Don't you understand that a liberal arts education is a luxury, not something that you can use to make a living?

 

[nota bene]

I have.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I have.

Congratulations on the equivalent of winning the lottery. However, statistical outliers like yourself do not make a liberal arts degree a wise investment.

 

[Risky Thicket]

You sound like a communist. Don't you understand that a liberal arts education is a luxury, not something that you can use to make a living?

I understand most undergrad degrees are no longer useful in making money.

IHMO the nation could use more liberal arts and philosophy majors. Raw capitalism, predatory capitalism, has damned near destroyed this nation. American culture has become mired in the vestiges of money is God. We cannot seem to find our way toward something better and we are miserable chasing empty ideals.

It may not be you and I understand that, but we need more people with degrees that provide our culture with grounding. I am not talking about political or social or religious issues. I'm talking about quality of life. Our culture now defines almost everything in terms of money and the perceived power it can buy, and that includes political, social and religious issues and a great deal more.

These days I think if you were to ask people if they would prefer to be monied or content with life - no other choices, no equivocation - one or the other, a significant number of people would choose monied. It is where we are. Money isn't good or bad, but it is far from all there is to good life. Of course when universities operate on a business model, as they do now, I can understand how people in their 20s get part of their perspective.

 

[ChezC3]

Part of studying philosophy is studying logic. Logically, if all social sciences are pseudoscience, and criminology is a social science, then yes, criminology is a pseudoscience.

Philosophy is the grandest of the sciences. Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology. In that order.

Those below philosophy are tools to answer that which philosophy questions. You need no answer if you ask no question, no?

 

[imagep]

A guy with a PhD that can't get a job, is just as good as a guy with no PhD at all.

At least he is a smart guy who can't get a job.

Sometimes education, or the expenditure of effort in general, doesn't have to translate into getting a job or making money. Sex doesn't make me any money (although I realize that some people make money from sex), so should I quit having sex? Neither does watching tv, or taking a Sat afternoon to hang out with mi amigos.

 

[imagep]

You'd actually be the minority in many jobs. PhDs are great to hire - for jobs that require a PhD. Otherwise, they're even worse in the "overqualified and unemployable" department.

Most hiring bodies will not employ people who are overqualified due to education. They tend to be hard to manage, are always tryng to "buck the system", and generally think that the position is "beneath" them...and they'd be right. If I was a fast food manager and could hire a 17 year old senior in high school or someone with a 4 year degree, I'll take the teen every damn day. He won't think he's too good for the job, he won't think he's smarter than I am, he's probably not looking for a better job to leave for in 2 weeks, and he won't act like he doesn't belong there.

So yeah, Snake Oil is correct to a point - a PhD is only as good as the job he can get. If he can't get a PhD-worthy position, he's more trouble than he's worth.

You have obviously never been a manager of a fast food joint and never employed 17 year olds. I have been there and done that, and I would take the college grad to be my cashier or fry cook any day of the week, over a 17 year old kid.

 

[imagep]

This issue about the loans is a big one. Policy makers, Higher Education, parents, and students really need to do a better job to ensure that the cost of a given degree is justified by the value added once they graduate. Value added includes but is not limited to career opportunities and incomes.

People get loans for all sorts of reasons, many of which do not "add value" to their career or income.

 

[imagep]

.........
If studying an academic subject can only get one a job in academia, then there is no reason for the private sector to replace it. It is just a self perpetuating cycle where certain studies of academia is only producing academics and nothing else.

Lets say there was a PhD in scientology. Considering getting a PhD in scientology is useless to just about anything except for teaching other students the useless study of scientology, I consider that degree worthless.

Getting a PhD in Logic would mostly likely only lead to a job teaching Logic. That doesn't mean that we don't have a need for certain people to take Logic in school. I actually believe that logic should be part of the core curriculum for every bachelors degree, it's one of those subjects that is highly valuable in the workforce, yet typically ignored in education.

 

[imagep]

I would enjoy someone with a PhD in philosophy to work at the local subway. Could hear them rambling on about their existential dreams while simultaneously constructing a mediocre sandwich that a GED would've sufficed to produce.

The philosopy major would probably be a much more interesting coworker. And I would expect that it might be that type of person who may invent a better way to make those sandwiches, or at least a better sandwich. Much more than the loser with the GED.

 

[imagep]

I was a defensive end/tackle.

I worked everything in order to prevent imbalances which might lead to injury, but I can tell you I cared a lot more about how much I could squat then how much I could reverse curl. If you were any good, I'm sure you did too.

According to a lot of posters on this forum, unless football became your career, it was a waste of effort. Since it is highly unlikely that any one particular student athlete will ever become a professional athlete, by the same line of thinking, we shouldn't have athletics, or extracurricular activities in school.

And jobs related to athletics, like coaching or officiating, don't really count, because they are self perpetuating uselessness, just like the job of being a Philosophy professor.

 

[ReformCollege]

According to a lot of posters on this forum, unless football became your career, it was a waste of effort. Since it is highly unlikely that any one particular student athlete will ever become a professional athlete, by the same line of thinking, we shouldn't have athletics, or extracurricular activities in school.

And jobs related to athletics, like coaching or officiating, don't really count, because they are self perpetuating uselessness, just like the job of being a Philosophy professor.

In order for your analogy to work, football would have to completely replace my education in something else. In which case, yes football would've been a waste of time .

 

[ReformCollege]

The philosopy major would probably be a much more interesting coworker. And I would expect that it might be that type of person who may invent a better way to make those sandwiches, or at least a better sandwich. Much more than the loser with the GED.

I don't think its very cost efficient to train all of our sandwich makers in college level philosophy, do you?