6 ms·

This is why I argue against liberal arts degrees. There are so, SO few people who will ever be able to bring the sort of value required by a degree in the liber

This is why I argue against liberal arts degrees. There are so, SO few people who will ever be able to bring the sort of value required by a degree in the liberal arts based on the skills such a degree would provide that it is completely economically irresponsible, especially now that just having a Bachelor's degree says about as much as having a High School diploma did about 30 years ago.

rbritton 16y ago
$170k for a photography degree is asinine. I am a photographer, and the field is more like 90% business and 10% photography. If nothing else, the years of running the business have taught me that people don't necessarily want the ultra-artsy approach tendered by those liberal arts schools -- they will, most of the time, pick the standard, face-forward, simplistic pose. I went to college and it sure wasn't for photography. Photography just happened. I have a BS in Computer Science, and I also have no debt resulting from it. Rather than pursuing a software developer job, which I expected I would be doing, I opened a photography business and have been quite comfortable. Software is now just my hobby, but it's a very useful one. Knowledge of business and accounting will get you far further in almost any industry than a specialty degree will.
- georgecmu 16y ago
  What do you think of her portfolio? http://www.allisonbrookephotography.com/#/client/content_page/4809.xml http://www.allisonbrookephotography.com/#/client/content_pag...
  - prs 16y ago
    I like what I see.
  - rbritton 16y ago
    Decent, though I'm personally not a fan of the faux coloring or the frequent tilting that seems to be the trend lately. But, she's in the Bay area. That's one of the most saturated markets in the US, and some of the best photographers I know are there. The competition would be very, very tough.
  - illumin8 16y ago
    Regardless of how good her portfolio is, I think the point he was trying to make is that you don't need a degree in photography to be a good photographer. My brother-in-law does some of the best corporate photography I've seen, well respected in his field, and he got an unrelated degree. I think his point about business knowledge is a good one. If you want to be a successful photographer, you're probably better off getting a degree in marketing, communications, or business management, and minor in photography.
    - georgecmu 16y ago
      This reminds of the argument that you don't need to a degree in CS to be a good programmer. Sure you don't, but it helps.
  - shalmanese 16y ago
    Regardless of her portfolio, I spotted two typos on her intro page alone.
- petercooper 16y ago
  people don't necessarily want the ultra-artsy approach tendered by those liberal arts schools -- they will, most of the time, pick the standard, face-forward, simplistic pose. This is a problem with most practical, art-based practices (except at the high end). The customers don't have a good critical eye and will frequently choose a photographer or artist by price, prestige, recommendation, or by merely liking one of their earlier pieces - rather than on any technical merits. I suspect someone with no photographical experience but strong business savvy could make a good go of being a professional photographer with the right equipment and just a little training in basic technique. I'd love to watch a TV show about such an experiment - it'd be like Faking It. (And before I'm accused of cheapening a whole industry with the last paragraph, I believe the same about my two industries - publishing and programming. There are more than a few "copy and paste" developers making good money out there. It ain't noble, but it can work.)
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
Photography isn't really a liberal arts degree. It's pretty specialized.
patio11 16y ago
So one of the projects paying the rent this summer was working for a client which markets college degrees. They asked me to crunch some government data and figure out what degrees are worth on a per-major basis. While I'm mostly done and paid (yay), the project isn't live yet, or I'd show it off. I think they'll be OK with me saying this much: the data do not agree with your conclusion, for any sensible value of "liberal arts." Now photography, that is another story. My research methodology totally missed it as a major choice, because the obvious occupation (photographer) doesn't require a degree. Looking at the BLS source data though, egads, $170k to become a photographer is a bad call economically. The median annual salary (note: for photographers at all stages of their career) is $19k. The overwhelming majority are part time only. If you give generous assumptions as to future income growth, the NPV of being a photographer is $410k. That compares disfavorably with every degree I actually have in the data set. (Including, most relevantly to her situation, the associate's degree you need to become an X-ray technician, which you can get for less than $5,000. Spend another $10,000 on camera lenses, bam, you're an X-ray technician doing something she loves as a hobby.)
- plnewman 16y ago
  She's in San Francisco. If she can get regular work at weddings she'll be able to pull down $2000-3000 per gig, and probably more over time. I talked to people who wanted $5-6k -- when I stopped laughing they told me that there are people who will pay it. Weddings are an absurd profit machine.
  - btilly 16y ago
    This is true. But it is also true that the wedding photography business is under severe pricing pressure right now, so I would not count on those prices being sustainable for a lot of photographers.
    - plnewman 16y ago
      That makes sense. I got married a few years ago and was shocked at what some of vendors were asking for. With a rough economy I can see weddings being an area that gets scaled back for a lot of people.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

rbritton 16y ago

$170k for a photography degree is asinine. I am a photographer, and the field is more like 90% business and 10% photography. If nothing else, the years of running the business have taught me that people don't necessarily want the ultra-artsy approach tendered by those liberal arts schools -- they will, most of the time, pick the standard, face-forward, simplistic pose. I went to college and it sure wasn't for photography. Photography just happened. I have a BS in Computer Science, and I also have no debt resulting from it. Rather than pursuing a software developer job, which I expected I would be doing, I opened a photography business and have been quite comfortable. Software is now just my hobby, but it's a very useful one. Knowledge of business and accounting will get you far further in almost any industry than a specialty degree will.

georgecmu 16y ago
What do you think of her portfolio? http://www.allisonbrookephotography.com/#/client/content_page/4809.xml http://www.allisonbrookephotography.com/#/client/content_pag...
- prs 16y ago
  I like what I see.
- rbritton 16y ago
  Decent, though I'm personally not a fan of the faux coloring or the frequent tilting that seems to be the trend lately. But, she's in the Bay area. That's one of the most saturated markets in the US, and some of the best photographers I know are there. The competition would be very, very tough.
- illumin8 16y ago
  Regardless of how good her portfolio is, I think the point he was trying to make is that you don't need a degree in photography to be a good photographer. My brother-in-law does some of the best corporate photography I've seen, well respected in his field, and he got an unrelated degree. I think his point about business knowledge is a good one. If you want to be a successful photographer, you're probably better off getting a degree in marketing, communications, or business management, and minor in photography.
  - georgecmu 16y ago
    This reminds of the argument that you don't need to a degree in CS to be a good programmer. Sure you don't, but it helps.
- shalmanese 16y ago
  Regardless of her portfolio, I spotted two typos on her intro page alone.
petercooper 16y ago
people don't necessarily want the ultra-artsy approach tendered by those liberal arts schools -- they will, most of the time, pick the standard, face-forward, simplistic pose. This is a problem with most practical, art-based practices (except at the high end). The customers don't have a good critical eye and will frequently choose a photographer or artist by price, prestige, recommendation, or by merely liking one of their earlier pieces - rather than on any technical merits. I suspect someone with no photographical experience but strong business savvy could make a good go of being a professional photographer with the right equipment and just a little training in basic technique. I'd love to watch a TV show about such an experiment - it'd be like Faking It. (And before I'm accused of cheapening a whole industry with the last paragraph, I believe the same about my two industries - publishing and programming. There are more than a few "copy and paste" developers making good money out there. It ain't noble, but it can work.)

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

Photography isn't really a liberal arts degree. It's pretty specialized.

patio11 16y ago

So one of the projects paying the rent this summer was working for a client which markets college degrees. They asked me to crunch some government data and figure out what degrees are worth on a per-major basis. While I'm mostly done and paid (yay), the project isn't live yet, or I'd show it off. I think they'll be OK with me saying this much: the data do not agree with your conclusion, for any sensible value of "liberal arts." Now photography, that is another story. My research methodology totally missed it as a major choice, because the obvious occupation (photographer) doesn't require a degree. Looking at the BLS source data though, egads, $170k to become a photographer is a bad call economically. The median annual salary (note: for photographers at all stages of their career) is $19k. The overwhelming majority are part time only. If you give generous assumptions as to future income growth, the NPV of being a photographer is $410k. That compares disfavorably with every degree I actually have in the data set. (Including, most relevantly to her situation, the associate's degree you need to become an X-ray technician, which you can get for less than $5,000. Spend another $10,000 on camera lenses, bam, you're an X-ray technician doing something she loves as a hobby.)

plnewman 16y ago
She's in San Francisco. If she can get regular work at weddings she'll be able to pull down $2000-3000 per gig, and probably more over time. I talked to people who wanted $5-6k -- when I stopped laughing they told me that there are people who will pay it. Weddings are an absurd profit machine.
- btilly 16y ago
  This is true. But it is also true that the wedding photography business is under severe pricing pressure right now, so I would not count on those prices being sustainable for a lot of photographers.
  - plnewman 16y ago
    That makes sense. I got married a few years ago and was shocked at what some of vendors were asking for. With a rough economy I can see weddings being an area that gets scaled back for a lot of people.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]