3 ms·

> If doing a PhD will bring no career benefits That’s certainly possible if you start the PhD after finishing a career like the author, and in some fields of r

by dahart 6y ago

> If doing a PhD will bring no career benefits That’s certainly possible if you start the PhD after finishing a career like the author, and in some fields of research too. I just wanted to point out that more broadly speaking, an advanced degree usually brings financial benefits. The Fed recently published statistics on this that completely surprised me: in the U.S., people with advanced degrees earn on average about 50% more than bachelor’s degree holders, and 3x more than non-degree holders. I had no idea the average difference was that high until I read the report. https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2019/10/15/is-college-still-worth-it-the-new-calculus-of-falling-returns.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie...

arkades 6y ago
Comparing the field of people with PhDs to the field of people with BSs isn't exactly comparable to comparing PhDs to people with Master's degrees who are already doing all the relevant academic work and receiving academic acclaim in the field. There may be financial benefit, maybe not. There's also the opportunity cost of giving up your career income for four+ years to get a grad student stipend (if it's a program with stipends at all). I understand you were broadening the point, but I think "first-career PhDs" vs. "second-career PhDs" are the topic under discussion, and broadening it to "bachelor's" is too broad.
- dahart 6y ago
  Super fair point, you are right. And FWIW, the source I linked to does not differentiate between PhD and Master's, IIRC. I do assume there's a positive benefit, but I'd have to see whether that's supported using some other source. And the GP comment is right as well, regardless of financial benefits; going back to school will come with some limitations and difficulties. I imagine that's true even in the post-career scenario. Supposing a PhD earned 20% over a masters and it takes 3 years, then it could be a net negative return unless you have 15 years or more of career left after returning to work. That is a valid point and something to consider before going back. The Fed report I linked to is actually arguing that recent trends have changed the balance of opportunity costs when getting degrees. (Though I happen to think the report leaves out some important details and thus frames things in a misleading way.) Even though I brought up financial side, what I dislike about boiling it down to financial opportunity cost of attending school is that tends to frame the entire outcome as a financial decision, and ignores the opportunity cost or future value of a life getting to do research. In my mind it's better to do the PhD because you want to rather than for the money, and I suspect that people who care more about the research than the money tend to fare better as a byproduct. (That's pure speculation though.)
swinnipeg 6y ago
Physicians, and Lawyers also hold advanced degrees. Both of these fields have a non-trivial amount of people earning excess $1M a year. It is really hard to come up with a useful average when including with History PhD's and Dermatologists as part of the same cohort.
- dahart 6y ago
  Yes you're right, and I mentioned it depends on field of research. I did assume this discussion could be talking about MD or JD degrees as easily as a PhD in general - not for the GP comment, but for the average person thinking about going back to school. The averages aren't that misleading though, since they represent the average choice of degree. If you know you're going to study history, then yes the numbers are too high for you, but the averages are correct for the average person. You're right that a non-trivial number of professional advanced degree holders making more than $1M/yr. There are also many scientists and engineers and business people doing the same. People making more than $1M/year are statistical outliers, as are history PhDs in the U.S. https://www.statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctoral-degrees-by-field-of-research/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctora...
sukilot 6y ago
Not everyone who could get a PhD does. Compare those number to the 75th or 90th percentile of non-PhD Bachelor's holders, before, uh, getting your statistics PhD.
- dahart 6y ago
  Yes, correct, you are right the average does not represent the 90th percentile.

by dahart 6y ago

arkades 6y ago

Comparing the field of people with PhDs to the field of people with BSs isn't exactly comparable to comparing PhDs to people with Master's degrees who are already doing all the relevant academic work and receiving academic acclaim in the field. There may be financial benefit, maybe not. There's also the opportunity cost of giving up your career income for four+ years to get a grad student stipend (if it's a program with stipends at all). I understand you were broadening the point, but I think "first-career PhDs" vs. "second-career PhDs" are the topic under discussion, and broadening it to "bachelor's" is too broad.

dahart 6y ago
Super fair point, you are right. And FWIW, the source I linked to does not differentiate between PhD and Master's, IIRC. I do assume there's a positive benefit, but I'd have to see whether that's supported using some other source. And the GP comment is right as well, regardless of financial benefits; going back to school will come with some limitations and difficulties. I imagine that's true even in the post-career scenario. Supposing a PhD earned 20% over a masters and it takes 3 years, then it could be a net negative return unless you have 15 years or more of career left after returning to work. That is a valid point and something to consider before going back. The Fed report I linked to is actually arguing that recent trends have changed the balance of opportunity costs when getting degrees. (Though I happen to think the report leaves out some important details and thus frames things in a misleading way.) Even though I brought up financial side, what I dislike about boiling it down to financial opportunity cost of attending school is that tends to frame the entire outcome as a financial decision, and ignores the opportunity cost or future value of a life getting to do research. In my mind it's better to do the PhD because you want to rather than for the money, and I suspect that people who care more about the research than the money tend to fare better as a byproduct. (That's pure speculation though.)

swinnipeg 6y ago

Physicians, and Lawyers also hold advanced degrees. Both of these fields have a non-trivial amount of people earning excess $1M a year. It is really hard to come up with a useful average when including with History PhD's and Dermatologists as part of the same cohort.

dahart 6y ago
Yes you're right, and I mentioned it depends on field of research. I did assume this discussion could be talking about MD or JD degrees as easily as a PhD in general - not for the GP comment, but for the average person thinking about going back to school. The averages aren't that misleading though, since they represent the average choice of degree. If you know you're going to study history, then yes the numbers are too high for you, but the averages are correct for the average person. You're right that a non-trivial number of professional advanced degree holders making more than $1M/yr. There are also many scientists and engineers and business people doing the same. People making more than $1M/year are statistical outliers, as are history PhDs in the U.S. https://www.statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctoral-degrees-by-field-of-research/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctora...

sukilot 6y ago

Not everyone who could get a PhD does. Compare those number to the 75th or 90th percentile of non-PhD Bachelor's holders, before, uh, getting your statistics PhD.

dahart 6y ago
Yes, correct, you are right the average does not represent the 90th percentile.