3 ms·

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 alrea

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.)

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.)