[objectiveariel]

I love this bit: "I prefer to spend my college years searching, exploring, and wondering, as opposed to training to become an "asset" in the file cabinet of a "human resource" department. Rock on fellow baristas, rock on."

Translation: "I'll come out of university with no transferrable skills whatsoever. Dreadfully unintellectual dead-end jobs are where I'll be able to keep pursuing my love of knowledge".

Dude.

The author's bio is probably the most important part of this article:

"Grant studies at Wake Forest, where he majors in philosophy and economics."

Translation: "I'm passionate about half the university course I'm currently doing and have absolutely no idea how the job market will treat me when I'm done with it."

Full disclosure: I myself studied philosophy at university. I'm proud of it, but I'd never boast about how poorly it prepared me for the job market.

[pdabbadabba]

> I'll come out of university with no transferrable skills whatsoever

I think this reflects a common misunderstanding about either philosophy or what constitutes a "transferable skill." Philosophy teaches writing (quite intensively, in a good program) and abstract analytical skills. I have a philosophy degree and not only have I found it valuable, prospective employers have too. This especially true in my field (law), but I have heard it is true in others as well.

Of course, your experience will vary depending on the type of jobs you're looking at. Some industries will expect specific concrete skills that a philosophy degree will not teach you. And others will tend to be less populated, largely for cultural reasons, by people who understand its value. But this is no different from any other area of study: you have to have some idea of what you want to do in order to determine what field of study would be helpful.

[cbgb]

Philosophy/(Pure) Math double major here.

I would argue that my Math degree made me a "better" writer than my Philosophy degree did. Writing quality in philosophy is generally much poorer than other disciplines; you pretty much have to use passive voice everywhere, which is the first thing your college writing lab will tell you not to do.

On the other hand, in my Math classes, I had to turn in 5-10 pages of proofs every week/every other day for problem set work. It was this work that taught me how to write clearly and parsimoniously, much more so than my Philosophy courses.

Of course, YMMV.

[GarrisonPrime]

This proved to be the case for myself as well, when going through medical school and practice. I discovered I have a pretty good knack for breaking things down to their core principles and presenting them in a succinct, logical manner. I gained a reputation as the guy who could help explain complex medical issues to patients clearly and simply. I credit my undergrad years as a math major with this wonderfully useful skill.

[_delirium]

Where in philosophy is using passive voice common? At least in Anglo-American analytic philosophy, first-person active voice has been the norm for decades, since the days when in other fields it was seen as too informal to start a sentence with "I". Even today, scientists love to write things like "three types of experiments were performed to test this hypothesis". While a philosophy paper is more likely to contain active-voice, first-person sentences like "I present an internal problem for David Lewis's genuine modal realism" [1].

As a computer science major with a philosophy minor, I personally found my philosophy minor much more useful in learning how to write clearly than my CS major was.

[1] Arbitrarily chosen example from a recent abstract http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/125/499/627.abstract

[cbgb]

The idea that passive voice is used in philosophy doesn't seem to be a novel idea [0].

For what it's worth, I don't think undergraduate CS degrees develop students' writing abilities at all. There are only a few proof-based courses I can think of, and those courses (e.g., Theory of Computation, Algorithms) need not necessarily be taught in a mathematically rigorous manner (which is to say, proof writing in these courses may be minimal, depending on the instructor).

[0] http://wehaveneverbeenblogging.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-activ...

Edit: grammar!

[pdabbadabba]

Yes. My mileage definitely varied. There's no doubt that there is bad philosophical writing out there, but I've never met anyone (until today!) who thinks that philosophical writing requires or encourages the passive voice. It may be that the passive voice is harder to avoid in Philosophy than in other disciplines, but avoiding it is a useful exercise. That's how you improve!

And at any rate, I don't believe I ever claimed that a Philosophy degree was the best way to develop your writing.

[tannhauser23]

What philosophy program is this? At my school the professors explicitly told us to write in active voice. Also, what material are you studying? It's been a while since I've been in school, but most analytic philosophy material I read were written in very clear and precise prose.

[cbgb]

See, e.g., Quine's "Translation and Meaning,"[0] as well as the blog post I linked to further down the page. Not every philosophy program consists solely of analytic philosophy; continental philosophy writing is rife with passive voice.

[0] http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/quine.pdf

[pmoriarty]

There's a lot of poor writing in philosophy all around. Passive voice is far from the only authorial sin. Dryness, obscurity, long-windedness and lack of engagement with the audience are probably the most common.

This poor writing is certainly not limited to any particular philosophical discipline, or even to philosophy in general. Math and science tend to be just as bad (often even much worse, except sometimes on the issue of clarity -- at least as far as their intended audience is concerned).

I think the common laborous style comes from the desire to seem "objective", the tradition of presenting very long, drawn out arguments in a "logical" fashion, and the attempt to efface the author from the work (so as to make the argument seem to be self-evident given the premises, and not at all biased or based on one person's experience or opinion). That's hard to do in an engaging manner.

More recently, the practice of revealing who the author is and where he stands is starting to become a little more common. That helps to make the writing more engaging and helps the reader to make more of a connection with the author, but I think this still is very much a minority style. Most of philosophical writing is still mired in "objective" style, and it's difficult to foresee when or if it'll ever make it out.

PS: I'm guilty of this myself, and should really take some writing courses! :)

[dpweb]

It says more about our society that the person who chooses to study philosophy. Making more money is valuable and not making much is looked down upon. But, how happy are we? What philosophy can do is expand your mind beyond what society has told you. Consider these questions in looking at your existence,

What can I know? What must I do? What is man? What is God?

They're not to be scoffed at, waved away with a dismissive.. well how much do you make? You don't need much to live you'll find when you get into those questions in your life instead of how much more money can I make to buy stuff I don't need.

[argonaut]

You are conflating "philosophizing" with "the modern academic study of philosophy." To most people, the second has nothing to do with the first.

Your grandparents, uncles, and aunts have better answers to those questions. Maybe a two semester survey of the history of philosophy and reading the great works to hear some different perspectives. Neither of these involve a full course of study in philosophy.

[pmoriarty]

This kind of dismissive, condescending attitude towards philosophical concerns which are clearly important to a lot if not most people is one of the main things that really ticks me off about some contemporary analytic philosophers, and especially their predecessors, the logical positivists.

They would have the subjects they have anointed be the only True Philosophy, and anything else as mere "philosophizing". But this "philosophizing" has been largely what philosophy was for its entire existence. It's almost the definition of philosophy.

The grandparent poster mentioned four questions: "What can I know? What must I do? What is man? What is God?"

The first two are epistomological and ethical questions, and it's not like either epistemology or ethics have gotten short shrift from analytics, which currently dominate academia. Some analytics aren't interested in those questions, but that doesn't mean they're not philosophical questions or that they're "meaningless" (a favorite dismissive tactic of the logical positivists).

The last two questions could arguably have to do with ontology and metaphysics: not analytic favorites by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly traditionally considered philosophy. You don't need to go to your anunts or uncles to get a bit of "folk philosophy" (yet another dismissive term from some other analytics) but look to thousands of years of philosophical literature on the subject, or attend school in a non-analytic philosophy department (good luck with that in English-speaking countries, which are dominated by analytics). But even analytics have on occasion tackled ontological issues (see the more recent attention to Heidegger from some of them as an example).

The last question is really on shakiest ground as far as philosophy goes. It could arguably be a theological question, but again, theology is an actual academic discipline and you don't have to settle for survey of the opinions of the average person on the street, but actually go to a university and study it, even if it'll be outside a philosophy department. But there has been plenty of philosophy in history which has engaged in theological concerns in some fashion (some common examples being the existence of God, and the problem of evil). It's just not fashionable to consider those questions in academia these days, but again, that doesn't make them non-philosophical.

[argonaut]

You're not making a coherent argument. It seems we agree?

[PavlovsCat]

> You are conflating "philosophizing" with "the modern academic study of philosophy."

For me that's like having sex compared to studying porn, or like walking around the block instead of watching sports. You can belittle it while I enjoy its fruits.

[argonaut]

Who said I was belittling it? Your words not mine.

If anything I was belittling the academic study of philosophy.

[gbog]

The philosophy of the origins in the West and in the East did not care even a little bit about "man" or "God". It did care a lot about how to live together. It was mostly about morals and politics. I think today philosophy has sunk in metaphysics, and it is a shame because we need more than ever to learn how to live together.

[nickpsecurity]

I agree with argonaut. I did have a philosophy class in college. However, most of my time on it was spent reading books, discussing such subjects with people of many views, looking at real-world events to see which philosophies hold up against them, doing thought experiments, and so on.

I bet this taught me way more than an academic program with a narrow focus run by one or more people probably within same or similar political leanings. Plus, I learned business and tech skills. :)

[saint_fiasco]

What does the author think a barista is? Are they not an "asset" to their employers too?

They are exploited as much as any other "human resource" and they don't even make a lot of money to compensate.

[agumonkey]

I'd say it's a matter of perspective. Nobody ever told you barista was special, and requires years of school, etc etc. So you don't feel disappointed when you end up as a "tool". Whereas being a graduate that ends up treated like a cashier at a mall does create some deep internal dissonnance.

[coldtea]

>Full disclosure: I myself studied philosophy at university. I'm proud of it, but I'd never boast about how poorly it prepared me for the job market.

You would in another society, that doesn't prioritize monetary success and the job market above all things.

[objectiveariel]

Yup, I'd be the Philosopher King in Plato's Republic. First thing I'd do is ban JavaScript programming.

[pavlov]

Under what penalty?

Such a capriciously specific command makes it sound like you'd be more of a run-of-the-mill tyrant à la Creon.

[objectiveariel]

Decapitation. That'll teach you loose coupling.

Beware: Those lacking a sense of humour will be sentenced to impalement.

Besides, I'm not like Creon. Creon was into Delphi, and I'm not into Pascal.

[coldtea]

Creon wasn't a run-of-the-mill tyrant -- he was a respected monarch who put the good of the city over moral/religious concerns.

His dispute with Antigone is about law vs personal/religious ethics, not about him being a capricious tyrant (besides in the end he relents). Her brother was a traitor.

[danielam]

"put the good of the city over moral/religious concerns"

Now there's a statement. The "good of city" is itself a moral concern.

[coldtea]

As long as the inhabitants agree on a specific course of things and have found them to help the city, the "good of the city" as concerning its government is meant as just following that.

So, "good of the city" as in "doing what the city deems good", not as in moral.

[monsieurbanana]

A society not prioritizing job market and a society where somehow not being able to get a job is a something you boast about are two different things.

[cafard]

Perhaps in Plato's circle in Athens, where we kalokagathiates live on our rents. Otherwise, doesn't one show better with simple indifference to the matter? It seems to me that boasting demonstrates an anxiety about the world's opinion.

But I do like Yeats's line in the poem prefixed to Responsibilities: "Only the wasteful virtues earn the sun."

(Full disclosure: yes, I too was a philosophy major.)

[edit: for spelling]

[glenda]

You and the OP have a difference in opinion regarding what higher-education should be used for. You're concerned with potential job prospects while the article seems to deal with developing yourself as a main priority.

I went to an art school, studied theory there and wouldn't trade it for anything. They gave me the tools to teach myself and to understand the things around me - which I see as much more valuable than any specific job-oriented training. And from my experience employers are very impressed with these types of skills too.

[lostboys67]

So you use the philosophy to justify using the economics part of you degree to make 2+2 = 5 for your employer.

In the UK the Oxbridge PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) is a well know route into politics.

[ktRolster]

Or:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/149

[lagadu]

> I'm proud of it, but I'd never boast about how poorly it prepared me for the job market.

This is what I don't get: why is there an assumption that what you study at university has to be in any way related to the job market? You study something because you have an interest in developing it further, being able to get a job doing it is just a secondary perk.

[irishcoffee]

"See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library."

[organsnyder]

If you approach college as a consumer of the information fed by professors and books, the Public Library approach is probably a great value proposition (though I'd question whether that $1.50 provided any value at all... :-) ).

However, a good education is much more than this. It includes the opportunity to engage in back-and-forth discussions with professors and classmates, building social and professional networks that can pay innumerable dividends, and to pursue experiences that aren't immediately related to career advancement.

College shouldn't merely be about vocational training. While that's one valuable outcome, there is much more that can be gained. Of course, many colleges (and individual students' experiences) fall far short of this—I wish I thought this way when I was in school, and didn't just see it as another hurdle to full adulthood—but that doesn't mean that the concept is flawed.

[Vraxx]

I agree with you in theory about the utility of higher education, but it falls apart when you start to consider (at least in the US) the practical system in which it exists. People are taking on debt in order to go to college and the fact of the matter is that it's a terrible financial decision if you aren't expecting some vocational training that will help pay that debt back faster than never taking it at all. I agree that life shouldn't be all about money, but most people can't afford to expend thousands of dollars and 4 years of time and work for an enriching experience.

The big distinction that ends up causing all these arguments is that when people say it's a bad decision, they mean it's a bad financial decision when you go to college and take on debt to get a degree that won't lead to a well paying job. Of course everything is about context, so it might not be a bad life choice, but the debt certainly should not be ignored in evaluating that decision.

[ktRolster]

Not to mention: while public libraries are great and I love them, thy are often lacking in-depth knowledge.

My local public library doesn't have a book on advanced logic design, for example. It favors a more 'general' collection, and thus books with heavy reliance on math tend to be omitted. Same with in-depth law books, they just aren't there.

[pmoriarty]

You could go to a university library. Often they're open to the general public for a modest fee.

[chestervonwinch]

> why is there an assumption that what you study at university has to be in any way related to the job market?

Because, like it or not, the majority of people's education is the means to obtain a job in a related field. People don't go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for some l'art pour l'art interest development; they do it because they expect the benefit from the degree (i.e., as a ticket into the job market in a field related to the degree) to outweigh the cost.

[RandomOpinion]

>Because, like it or not, the majority of people's education is the means to obtain a job in a related field.

The community college system is more than enough for those who view postsecondary education as a mere vocational program and doesn't require going "tens of thousands of dollars into debt".

[chestervonwinch]

Yes. There are financial incentives to go to community college, but if people made their decisions based solely on these, then no one would attend universities.

I'm not arguing for the status quo, but let's be honest about the current state of higher education in America: a ton of people have too much debt because of the pressure to attend a 4 year university. This pressure is usually of the form, "good education => good job". Moreover, "good" is often conflated with "expensive" or "prestigious" with regards to education, and conflated with "high-paying" with regards to a job.

[pmoriarty]

Also, this depends on which country you're talking about. University education in some countries is free. It's also possible to get scholarships which subsidize some or even all of your tuition. Finally, there's often financial aid of various types, from need-based to aid to certain minorities, etc.

[PirateDave]

It looks like in Los Angeles this could become a reality soon. At least for a year: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-garcetti-co...

[imtringued]

>This is what I don't get: why is there an assumption that what you study at university has to be in any way related to the job market?

I think the problem is on the employer/recruiter side. They use college/university degrees as a signaling mechanism to weed out candidates. To make sure that everyone can get the signalling degrees the government offers student loans. The tuition costs rise for everyone including those who don't want a signalling degree. They end up paying more without reaping the benefits of the signalling mechanism.

[themartorana]

Well, if you can afford that extra mortgage-sized payment while making minimum wage. We're not talking about studying online or at a community college or self-teaching, we're talking about a 4 year degree at a university.

[FussyZeus]

> why is there an assumption that what you study at university has to be in any way related to the job market?

Because you've borrowed an extraordinary amount of money, sometimes 2 or 3 years of what many Americans would consider a great salary, to attend said institution and the bank would like that money back at some point, they outline that fairly well in the documentation none of us read.

Honestly I think it's insane that one day, your given graduating high schooler has to raise his/her hand to go to the bathroom, and the next day they're entrusted to decide more or less how the next 70 years of their life will play out with incredibly little information at their disposal.

There's nothing wrong with philosophy or any of the classical educations, they are no doubt important. But priority #1 should be making sure your university's newest graduate doesn't starve to death in the street holding a $90,000 degree with "ANYTHING HELPS" written on the backside.

[pmoriarty]

I don't think he's boasting about how poorly it prepared him for the job market. Rather, he's saying studying philosophy is worth it form him despite being poorly prepared for the job market, because he's interested in "searching, exploring, and wondering" -- which he might not be able to do on the job if he got a menial job, but could continue on his own time, after hours.

I doubt he will be working as a barista, though. With his double major, he'll probably have the option to work in academia after he graduates. Economists are also valued in industry these days, and even a philosophy major could always go to law school, which tend to accept more philosophy majors than any others.

[GarrisonPrime]

I don't think he's boasting about being poorly prepared for the job market. I think he's boasting about being much better prepared for life in general.

[sremani]

I think PG is Phil major too.

http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

[tloble]

I studied philosophy and history, I worked as a developer since I graduated. I spent some time learning to program on my own though.