Every now and then I succumb to feelings of inadequacy because I only have an undergraduate degree. A professional degree (teaching) wasn’t for me. Neither were the two M.A. programs that accepted me, but that I subsequently declined.
With the second of the two M.A. programs, I just couldn’t bring myself to accept because I knew that taking the time off to study would hurt my career, and being able to put a couple more letters behind my name would do nothing to help it. As I looked over course descriptions and envisioned which classes would be the lesser evils to slog through, I realized that I could learn more, and I had learned more, outside of school. One of the defining moments for me occurred when a PhD student interviewed me for her research on alternative schools and tutoring centres. If I was the source, then why did I have to go back to school? To read about what I’d spent the last year doing? Obviously I’d managed to figure things out on my own. For permission to interview people who know something I don’t? I do that every year when I speak with university admissions departments and confirm any news on the homeschooled applicant front.
I tried really hard not to be swayed by the prestige factor of a graduate diploma. Instead, I thought long and hard about what knowledge I needed, and whether a graduate program was the only place I could get that knowledge. I thought about what my clients needed from me, and what I needed to be able to do for them, and what people would pay me for. Based on that criteria, I decided that the time and money spent on a higher degree just didn’t make any sense.
A good response to the question, “How far should I go in academics?” can be found here. Some of the noteworthy points raised include:
There are a series of mistakes in the minds of most would-be Ph.D. students. The main one is some version of the labor theory of value. They assume that if they work hard enough, and jump through enough academic hoops, some college will hire them.
They do not begin as entrepreneurs. They do not ask the key question: “What is the likely state of the market in three or four years for holders of a Ph.D. in the field that I want to earn mine in?” Why not? Because they do not see economic value as something imputed by buyers of the services supplied by holders of a Ph.D. They see consumer demand as somehow generated by the work it takes to earn a Ph.D.
You don’t need a Ph.D. to be a scholar. You need one to be hired by a university that will pay you. But the odds against getting hired full-time by a university are high. This has been true since 1969 in most fields.
Marx never got hired by a university. Neither did Freud. They changed the world.
Add A Comment