Stories like this one always seem to rub me the wrong way. The point is always to portray the result as somehow deeply tragic. Look at these poor souls who devoted great time and expense into an education in one field, only to end up in a completely different field where little or no education is required at all. To a certain extent, there is a tragedy involved. Typically, the suggestion is that the tragedy is that the individual currently holds a service-industry job when they would prefer to have a different one. But I disagree. I would say the tragedy is that these people went to school at all. That they wasted so much time and money on an education that obviously did not benefit them.
In anything even close to a free market, these types of incidents are bound to occur. Given that the market for education in a particular field and the market for labor in a particular field are completely and totally different, there should be absolutely zero expectation of the supply and demand of a particular job matching up perfectly at any given time. Factor in the fact that highly desirable fields of study often have little practical value in the workplace, while some of the jobs with the most practical value are incredibly difficult to learn, and outcomes like these should not surprise us in the least.
Also, there’s always a little tone of elitism in articles like this. Something like: “Look at this guy, he spent five years getting his PHD in Art History, and now here he is, *gasp*, working at a McDonalds with these lowly uneducated peons!!” The simple fact of the matter is that we need service industry jobs. The current job market would suggest that we need a hell of a lot more waiters than we need psychologists, corporate auditors, art historians, and whatever the hell a “religious studies” major is supposed to do. The recent push in western societies for everyone to go to college is almost an indirect suggestion that we don’t need any service industry jobs at all. How will that work exactly?
The tragedy for Marcin Lubowicki is not that he is an assistant manager at a McDonalds. It is that had he skipped college entirely, he would probably be a district manager by now, and much better off financially.
When you've devoted a great deal of time and treasure toward obtaining qualifications that are supposed to lead to a more prosperous life than what being a sous-chef in a hotel in the slums can ever possibly afford you, then yes, it is tragic.
For what it's worth, I knew my degree by itself was going to be worthless; it was my intention to go on toward an advanced degree. When I lost my job, I tried to shop that degree around, and like these people, I found that there were no takers. In fact, these people did better than I did; they landed something, anything at all. I had to go in for a year's worth of vocational training before anyone would even look at me. I now make enough money to pay down my debts (barely) and not much else.
You made a poor decision. That's not particularly tragic, imo. The tragedy is that unscrupulous teachers and professors tricked you into believing that "college degree = guaranteed job with lots of money that is fun and easy to do"
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I love some of the "degrees" that these people have. Psychology, Communications, Literature, Philosophy, PAINTING. And the only 2 engineers there are Civil, lol.
There's a difference between a degree, and the skills required to do a job. A degree isn't a ticket of admission to a super fun theme park of careers, where you can frolic and do whatever career you want. It's just ONE part of your portfolio, and represents just a part of your skills. A degree alone is rarely good enough to land you your dream job.
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
don't worry Muffin we're slowly getting rid of those jobs. you think what we do with warehouses is nuts, you just wait.
Hey, don't mistake me as a Luddite who opposes technology. I leave that to the keynesians. I'd be totally fine with finding a way to automate McDonalds, but until we do, there's no shame in working at one.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I feel like you're not looking at it from the perspective of the individual.
If you don't want to work at a service industry job, which is clear by your college degree, then it is a tragedy that life didn't work out the way you wanted it to.
I don't know if the article had an agenda, but in this free market there are going to be winners and losers, and these are the losers.
Well, I'm guessing even the lowly, uneducated peons who DON'T have college degrees didn't exactly grow up dreaming of working at McDonalds someday. Sure, the guy with the art history degree might have invested a little more in the dream than someone who dropped out of high school, but in the end, I still need someone to get me my burger, you know?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I feel like a lot of people are just straight up brainwashed from grade school into believing that any degree is a one way ticket to the funzone as far as careers go. That obviously isn't the case, and these kids are learning so the hard way.
Right now college for me is about picking up skills and honing my craft. I've learned by now that you can't rely on the degree to get you into any doors.
-- We can't stop here. This is bat country. Brace for the G's, and fast heel-toe work.
I don't see what's socially repulsive about any of this. If anything, I am trying to praise and compliment service industry employees. They pretty regularly get trashed by mainstream society and looked down upon, as if working at McDonalds is the worst possible thing that can ever happen to a person and means your life is a complete failure.
**** that. I love McDonalds employees. They allow me to have cheap, tasty food. The drive through girl at McDonalds does about a hundred times more to directly improve the quality of my day to day life than every philosopher, politician, and art historian on Earth combined.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The drive through girl at McDonalds does about a hundred times more to directly improve the quality of my day to day life than every philosopher, politician, and art historian on Earth combined.
I wish Ulti were still logging the things that you say, because this is one of the more amazing ones.
-- We can't stop here. This is bat country. Brace for the G's, and fast heel-toe work.
I also feel like it certainly is pretty tragic, or at least sad when people put in that much work in pursuit of their dreams and still aren't coming close to them.
-- We can't stop here. This is bat country. Brace for the G's, and fast heel-toe work.
I didn't read the article, because frankly I agree with everything in your opening post. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, though. It is true that some people have essentially gotten useless degrees and aren't living their dream, and it is a good observation that he may have wasted lots of time, but were some people contesting this?
It sucks that this happens, and as a society we should try to fix the problem.
The tragedy for Marcin Lubowicki is not that he is an assistant manager at a McDonalds. It is that had he skipped college entirely, he would probably be a district manager by now, and much better off financially.
Right, because during the one life you have, it's better to concern yourself solely with climbing up higher financially rather than taking some time to learn about the world and study your passion. You're probably one of those types that believes that school is solely about preparation for the business world, no?
This anti-education bull**** is one of the main reasons I hesitate to call myself a Republican in public. And to think this used to be the party for intelligent people!
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
Yeah I knew my degree was worthless from day negative one.
I'm amazed people don't realize this.
But philosophy ftw so whatevs.
Philosophy is probably the most important field of study for learning how to think critically and independently (every university should have at least three philosophy prerequisites imo), but it's also one of THE best majors for going on into law. Law being very lucrative. So it's not useless at all!
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
The tragedy for Marcin Lubowicki is not that he is an assistant manager at a McDonalds. It is that had he skipped college entirely, he would probably be a district manager by now, and much better off financially.
Right, because during the one life you have, it's better to concern yourself solely with climbing up higher financially rather than taking some time to learn about the world and study your passion. You're probably one of those types that believes that school is solely about preparation for the business world, no?
This anti-education bull**** is one of the main reasons I hesitate to call myself a Republican in public. And to think this used to be the party for intelligent people!
So your saying, the point of studying things like art and history isn't necessarily to prepare you for the business world and school shouldn't just be about improving yourself financially.
That's totally fine! And he's not disagreeing with that idea.
If your goal isn't financial, though, why are you shocked when you come out of school and your degree won't help you financially?
It's fine if you are learning and it's not for the purpose of getting a job. But.... when you can't get a good job and end up working at Mcdonalds, don't be surprised and call it a tragedy....
--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG
From: foolm0ron | #006 I love some of the "degrees" that these people have. Psychology, Communications, Literature, Philosophy, PAINTING. And the only 2 engineers there are Civil, lol.
There's a difference between a degree, and the skills required to do a job. A degree isn't a ticket of admission to a super fun theme park of careers, where you can frolic and do whatever career you want. It's just ONE part of your portfolio, and represents just a part of your skills. A degree alone is rarely good enough to land you your dream job.
This is why I can't help but cringe when I hear somebody talk about how they're a liberal arts or philosophy major.
Yeah, you have the degree, but what can you do?
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
Well you can get pretty god jobs with these degrees and the corresponding graduate degrees (being a professor), but only if you're good and/or lucky enough. You should definitely know going in though that if you're studying something like English or religious studies it's risky at best.
I do think it's kind of tragic, though, because it's definitely ingrained from an early age that if you work hard at what you love you'll lead a happy and successful career, which just isn't true for everyone.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
Philosophy is probably the most important field of study for learning how to think critically and independently
Of course, but the trick is, do you need to dump $20K/year to learn this? Philosophy is a very broad subject, and there are many, many ways to learn the essential concepts. I have never taken a single class in philosophy, but I have always been very strong in the subject (other than the historical part of it cuz **** reading).
The though that you would need to wait until college to learn philosophy is kind of terrible, too. It should be focused on from the beginning of education, in kindergarten even. That would definitely help those who aren't "natural learners" like me.
So your saying, the point of studying things like art and history isn't necessarily to prepare you for the business world and school shouldn't just be about improving yourself financially.
That's totally fine! And he's not disagreeing with that idea.
If your goal isn't financial, though, why are you shocked when you come out of school and your degree won't help you financially?
It's fine if you are learning and it's not for the purpose of getting a job. But.... when you can't get a good job and end up working at Mcdonalds, don't be surprised and call it a tragedy....
Right, this.
If someone wants to get a degree for recreational purposes, that's totally fine by me. I'm not anti-education at all. I love education. I have paid my own money to take courses that will NEVER help me get a job or earn more money at all, just because I was intellectually curious.
But don't go whining about how your stupid liberal arts degree has left you qualified to do nothing but flip burgers.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
well, yeah, if you get an art history degree you have to know going in that it is a risk. I'm sure it is a fulfilling experience to get the degree, but you really need a backup plan if that is your degree.
So your saying, the point of studying things like art and history isn't necessarily to prepare you for the business world and school shouldn't just be about improving yourself financially.
That's totally fine! And he's not disagreeing with that idea.
If your goal isn't financial, though, why are you shocked when you come out of school and your degree won't help you financially?
It's fine if you are learning and it's not for the purpose of getting a job. But.... when you can't get a good job and end up working at Mcdonalds, don't be surprised and call it a tragedy....
My problem isn't with SMuffin's belief that an art history degree is hardly a guarantor of success. Which is true. My problem is comments like
I would say the tragedy is that these people went to school at all. That they wasted so much time and money on an education that obviously did not benefit them.
Also, there’s always a little tone of elitism in articles like this.
and
The recent push in western societies for everyone to go to college is almost an indirect suggestion that we don’t need any service industry jobs at all.
and
The drive through girl at McDonalds does about a hundred times more to directly improve the quality of my day to day life than every philosopher, politician, and art historian on Earth combined.
which suggest, in order, a fierce anti-educational sentiment, a tired (and potentially dangerous) Republican cliche regurgitated from the media, and a bizarre rejection of the importance of truth, beauty, and political order. Especially odd coming from someone who writes a blog about politics.
foolm0ron posted...
From: Westbrick | #025
Philosophy is probably the most important field of study for learning how to think critically and independently
Of course, but the trick is, do you need to dump $20K/year to learn this? Philosophy is a very broad subject, and there are many, many ways to learn the essential concepts. I have never taken a single class in philosophy, but I have always been very strong in the subject (other than the historical part of it cuz **** reading).
The "essential concepts" of philosophy, namely ethics and logic (and perhaps some metaphysics for more abstract questions), definitely get intersected by other disciplines- really, every discipline relies on philosophy at base- but any attempt to get at philosophical questions from another discipline ends up being less than perfect. The ethical principles you learn in, say, a PoliSci class are never going to be as clear or as consistent as ones learned in a pure ethics classroom; similarly, pure logic is something that just about every discipline deals with indirectly, making it a rather important skill to have. And only philosophy can offer it.
Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling now, but the point is that it's misleading to pretend that other disciplines somehow "suffice" in place of philosophical learning. Other disciplines intersect with philosophy, yes, but this is simply a testament to how wide-reaching and essential basic philosophical issues can be.
The though that you would need to wait until college to learn philosophy is kind of terrible, too. It should be focused on from the beginning of education, in kindergarten even. That would definitely help those who aren't "natural learners" like me.
Agree 100%. Expose Kindergarteners to some Plato now and then.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
For some actual input, I went to college for a semester, for theatre, and realized if I want to be doing stuff in the arts, I'm just gonna get out there and do it, and not have to pay 20k a semester to learn stuff I probably will learn by going out and just doing.
I did, however, go to community college to get a diploma in culinary arts, so I can cook if/when I need to. That won't make it any easier to get a job in theatre, but it will make it easier to get money until I start earning it doing what I want to do, if I do at all.
I don't get the whole "liberal arts school" thing. I mean, I want to be an actor. I went to high school. I got a 35 on my ACTs. Why the hell do I need to take a math class? Either I take calculus, which I never use again, or I take a class that teaches me things I've already learned, and I'm wasting money because of pointless rules that don't affect my chosen career. I think more specialized learning would be fantastic. If you don't know what you want to be? Go to community college. You don't learn anything in those first two years at a fantastic liberal arts school that you wouldn't learn at your local CC, and you do so in the latter for a huge, huge discount. I know there are advantages to the bigger private schools, but college has really turned into a money making game, and that needs to be turned around.
Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling now, but the point is that it's misleading to pretend that other disciplines somehow "suffice" in place of philosophical learning.
I still just fail to understand how a class on philosophy is the ONLY place to learn 'pure philosophy'
Or rather, why can the philosophy professor teach me 'pure philosophy', but when my computer science professor does it, it's only 'indirectly' teaching?
-- _foolmo_ 'but that statement is something only an Aspergers patient would say' - UltimaterializerX
Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling now, but the point is that it's misleading to pretend that other disciplines somehow "suffice" in place of philosophical learning.
I still just fail to understand how a class on philosophy is the ONLY place to learn 'pure philosophy'
I was speaking within the context of a college education. You can always pick up a introductory philosophy textbook or try diving into original works of the greats, even though this won't facilitate nearly the same level of learning a college course from a good university would.
AlphaRayAllen posted...
Yeah, but the real world isn't an ethics classroom. People generally want you thinking within the field, not with such a broad mindset.
It's the same reason why a liberal arts degree isn't even a good idea on paper. There's no focus.
Which kind of "people" are we talking about? Business people? That can't be it, because philosophy is one of the few liberal arts degrees that can jump straight into the business world fairly regularly (unlike, say, Women's Studies or Art History or silly stuff like "Painting"). I've known several people who got a high-paying business job right out of college with just a philosophy degree + calculus.
Besides, you're arguing that it's good to remain narrow-minded your entire life. That's... not something we should be advocating.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
The ethical principles you learn in, say, a PoliSci class are never going to be as clear or as consistent as ones learned in a pure ethics classroom
Yeah, but the real world isn't an ethics classroom. People generally want you thinking within the field, not with such a broad mindset.
It's the same reason why a liberal arts degree isn't even a good idea on paper. There's no focus.
I know there are advantages to the bigger private schools, but college has really turned into a money making game, and that needs to be turned around.
We've dug our own grave with that one as a society. The idea that you must go to college if you can is such a dominant mindset that it's difficult to shake. And of course the reputation of community colleges.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
It's also somewhat fallacious to argue that learning about ethical issues broadly will somehow "defocus" yourself to more specific fields, like business ethics or bioethics. Just the opposite is true: delving deep into pure ethics helps you understand the principles that ground all of its sub-disciplines (there's a great deal of overlap). What you're saying sounds to me like arguing that taking an introductory history course is "too broad" for a history major specializing in American history, even though an introductory course can lay the groundwork for history as a discipline.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
I was speaking within the context of a college education. You can always pick up a introductory philosophy textbook or try diving into original works of the greats, even though this won't facilitate nearly the same level of learning a college course from a good university would.
That's what I'm talking about, too. What is so special about the author of a philosophy textbook that allows him to teach me pure philosophy? Obviously the primary sources are great, but that's completely different from being taught philosophy.
I just don't understand why to learn pure philosophy you have to sit down and say "okay, now I am going to learn philosophy".
Call me old-fashioned, but I feel experts are the best place to start when exploring a new discipline for the first time. They've exhausted all the material, know what's accessible to a beginner and what isn't, know which texts are worth reading and which aren't (naturally a little more contentious in philosophy, although that comes with the territory), and can help clarify what you read. Without an expert's guidance, you're just diving into random source material, relying on weak online resources, and trying to piece together a complex picture with limited tools to work with.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
You're still missing the question that I am trying to pose here, which actually makes me question your philosophical ability.
Why can I only learn philosophy from someone that is specifically trying to teach me philosophy? Why is philosophy learned in a philosophy class 'pure', but philosophy learned in a CS class 'indirect'? Is there some sort of "philosophy mode" that you have to be in to learn philosophy? It doesn't make sense to me.
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
You're still missing the question that I am trying to pose here, which actually makes me question your philosophical ability.
got em
Why can I only learn philosophy from someone that is specifically trying to teach me philosophy? Why is philosophy learned in a philosophy class 'pure', but philosophy learned in a CS class 'indirect'? Is there some sort of "philosophy mode" that you have to be in to learn philosophy? It doesn't make sense to me.
Philosophy professors are experts in philosophy. Political science professors only know philosophy well insofar as it intersects with political problems. Learning philosophy properly, i.e. thoroughly and guided by a true master, demands taking a pure philosophy course. Not sure how this is remotely complicated.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
You're still missing the question that I am trying to pose here, which actually makes me question your philosophical ability.
Why can I only learn philosophy from someone that is specifically trying to teach me philosophy? Why is philosophy learned in a philosophy class 'pure', but philosophy learned in a CS class 'indirect'? Is there some sort of "philosophy mode" that you have to be in to learn philosophy? It doesn't make sense to me.
Because philosophy requires stripping away at basic concepts and facets of life and analyzing them in great, painstaking detail to spot the things you missed by just accepting their existence. It's kind of the difference between knowing how something works, and why it works (philosophy being the former, your main subject being the latter).
On topic, I tremendously disagree with you here, Bio. The basis of innovation is disruption, trying out new things. You can't do it if you're stuck inside the box - that's continuism, which is something that helps you capitalize on preexisting success, but not achieve success in the first place. You need innovation to make it big on anything and everything that isn't physical sports (and it helps in those too), so it's a really good idea to learn how to do it.
Okay can you list the number of things that 1) Philosophy has solved (For example, if philosophy has solved ethics, we should expect there to be consensus on something or some real world effects that extend beyond "oh there's this egghead who said this thingie") 2) Is not incorporated outside of philosophy or incorporated in such a way that it's strictly inferior to philosophy's conception of it (A counterexample would be Kantian (??? Not sure) versus the General Relativistic conception of space) 3) Is important in contexts beyond simple rent-seeking or status jockeying within academia?
The only thing remotely coming to mind right now is the philosophy of cognition, whose practitioners resemble neuroscientists more than philosophers. I can't name anything right now where I would go "Gee, I sure wish we had more philosophers in areas X, Y and Z" as opposed to, let's say, computer scientists, artists, engineers, business people, lawyers or historians.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
if philosophy has solved ethics, we should expect there to be consensus on something or some real world effects that extend beyond "oh there's this egghead who said this thingie"
See, I don't need to have taken a philosophy class to know this is terrible logic
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
Okay can you list the number of things that 1) Philosophy has solved (For example, if philosophy has solved ethics, we should expect there to be consensus on something or some real world effects that extend beyond "oh there's this egghead who said this thingie")
Natural philosophy has solved innumerable practical problems, something I'm sure you'd agree with. More abstract philosophy doesn't concern itself with practical application, but has discovered and clarified a tremendous deal in the spheres of logic and ethics.
2) Is not incorporated outside of philosophy or incorporated in such a way that it's strictly inferior to philosophy's conception of it (A counterexample would be Kantian (??? Not sure) versus the General Relativistic conception of space)
Trivially easy: political ethics versus philosophical ethics.
3) Is important in contexts beyond simple rent-seeking or status jockeying within academia?
Philosophy, at heart, is concerned with truth. Not sure how I feel about your characterization of searching for truth as "status jockeying."
The only thing remotely coming to mind right now is the philosophy of cognition, whose practitioners resemble neuroscientists more than philosophers. I can't name anything right now where I would go "Gee, I sure wish we had more philosophers in areas X, Y and Z" as opposed to, let's say, computer scientists, artists, engineers, business people, lawyers or historians.
Why? Because they're more "practically beneficial"?
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp