Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Well now you're just showing that you don't know the difference between fine art and 'the arts', which most people use as a byword for the humanities. Well done for yet another spectacular failure of comprehension.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Only people desperate to elevate their poor choice of degree will refer to their subject as 'the arts'. STEM doesn't have to do that as we're already awesome.
    You keep saying it, but no-one is buying it. Philosophy is a waste of time.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    By the way, i've heard that philosophy is a waste of time. Though i'd let you know.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Only people desperate to elevate their poor choice of degree will refer to their subject as 'the arts'. STEM doesn't have to do that as we're already awesome.
    You keep saying it, but no-one is buying it. Philosophy is a waste of time.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    By the way, i've heard that philosophy is a waste of time. Though i'd let you know.
    You're more or less the only vocal Philosophy-hater on this thread. So I would have thought most people are 'buying it'. Philosophers know we're awesome - why do you think I keep telling people just how awesome we are? Dude, the clue's even in the title of the thread!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm never going to agree with you on this topic because of my experience and research into this.

    But I will address some of the points you've made, again, simply for balance and for people who are possibly interested in studying Philosophy or most other humanities/arts degrees (since you mention them).

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Firstly, regarding the salary statistics, the ones provided happen to present an especially rosy picture for Philosophy graduates.
    Exactly. You're admitting that the statistics you've presented - seemingly as solid proof of how good Philosophy degrees are - aren't actually representative of the whole. That's my gripe with those stats and your presentation of them.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    But you'll be hard pressed to find any statistics which rank Philosophy graduates' salaries below their English or History counterparts
    History and English (or any other arts degrees) have nothing to do with this and I made no reference to them. You started a thread about how good Philosophy degrees are (actually you've described them/it as 'Awesome') so I'm discussing Philosophy degrees with you, not English/History. But since you bring them up - no, there's not much difference, they're all equally as useless in my opinion.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    This thread is essentially aimed at people looking at Russell Group unis - who, this being TSR, are likely the majority. Beyond that, I admit there are no guarantees, but Philosophy is the equal to any of the other humanities.
    There are 24 universities in the Russell Group and at least 130 institutes classified as 'universities' in the UK alone. This website is not a Russell Group applicant membership club and it is used by students worldwide. You've posted a thread about the benefits of studying Philosophy and you've strongly suggested that it will lead to employment with a high starting salary. You haven't specified how many Philosophy graduates get those jobs, you haven't specified which institutions they graduate from and you haven't explained the statistics you've posted. All of it is massively misleading.

    As you've conceded, someone studying this 'awesome' degree at an ex-poly isn't likely to be earning the salaries you're suggesting. So straight away, your whole defense of the degree as a means to employment is undermined if you're not being 100% transparent with people.

    But regardless of that - it's not even highly employable for RG grads. That's my point. I'm an RG grad - I've studied these stats and I've seen my fellow alumni struggle. It's not a money making degree. The ex-poly stats are pretty stark, but look at the RG stats - it's not exactly heartening.

    As for it being ''equal to other humanities'' - that makes zero difference to any of this discussion and if you really want to take that route then I can also show you the evidence that an English/History degree at an ex-poly and even at RGs will do little to increase most people's job prospects either.


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    The point is that Philosophy students from the top universities have, if they so choose, extremely successful careers in areas such as high finance, business and law, and are well placed intellectually to do so.
    This is just a patent lie. I just don't understand why you're outright making things up? Tell it to the Philosophy grads stacking shelves and on the dole that they ''chose'' that - that they could have ''chosen'' a lucrative career in finance etc. It's not about choice at all - it's about what doors that degree opens, what employers want and what demonstrable experience and skill you have as a result of your degree (not transferable skills that you can gain through self-study and working part time in a shop etc) and your only 'choice' is within those limits which are pretty limited with a non-vocational degree such as Philosophy. In fact, doors will close (apprenticeships, NVQ2/3, other undergrad courses to retrain).

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    May I ask how your English student friends are faring?
    No better at all. Again, irrelevant and actually just strengthens what I'm saying.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Philosophy is not the problem in your case, it sounds more like a mixture of the institution and a lack of nous in the jobs market.
    Ah, this old chestnut. We're talking about a degree subject. Lets stick to that degree subject. If you're going to start adding extra reasons why people can't get jobs, we could always throw in recessions, the weather, interview attire, the waxing and waning of the moon....
    And believe me, it's not 'my' case - it's thousands of cases. Your argument in this instance sounds a lot like special pleading to me. Most unis have decent careers advice, so why do most unis have poor Philosophy employment rates in professional graduate roles?


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Of course if you're a Philosophy student it's unlikely you'll be handed an obvious career like a medicine student, but isn't this the same for any other humanities or social science student?
    Same as I've said countless time, irrelevant and is actually adding to what I'm saying.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Just reading some books from the local library is nothing like doing it at undergrad. As I say, Philosophy is a process, which can only be learnt by doing it with other people trained in philosophy. Good luck doing that with your librarian.
    Well, I don't need to since I've already got my Philosophy degree. Do you know how many hours contact time we had per week? 9. Do you know what we did in those 9 hours? Lectures with power point slides and seminars reading and discussing texts. The rest of the time was self taught - go home and do the reading/assignment. Most of my time at uni was sitting in a library teaching myself. I got a piece of paper with some fancy lettering on it for that. I could have gone to the local library and and watched free philosophy lectures on Youtube, I could have taken an EdX or Course Era online philosophy course and could have been just as knowledgeable. My piece of paper with fancy writing on it makes no difference to that. I'm not criticizing philosophy as a subject - I love philosophy and will defend it as an art form but I won't defend it as a degree which leads to decent employment for most graduates. Because it's not that. It's not a vocational degree intended to catapult people into a job and when you actually think about it - that's not it's purpose at all.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    You cite not using philosophical knowledge in your job as a reason not to do it. This is patently incorrect. A degree is worth the intellectual skills you gain on it, and little else (barring vocational degrees). No History student in business ever breaks out their knowledge of the causes of the English Civil War midway through a meeting, and no English student in business breaks out their analysis of Macbeth's soliloquy in the office - it's the skill of analysis which they use every day that counts.
    That's exactly my point. You don't need a 3 year degree to have analytical skills. So what have you payed for? Knowledge of Macbeth or Aristotle etc that you don't actually need for a job. If that's irrelevant and you're in the ''I did it for the pleasure/privileged of learning" camp - then how can you say that and then defend it as a means to employment if that's not what you believe it's truly intended for?

    I believe the arts, particularly Philosophy, are useful and worthy of study either in a local library, via Youtuve OR through a degree (yes, I did say that!) but I don't agree with anyone how tries to tell people that Philosophy/Arts degrees are anything other than ways of broadening the mind/being creative etc for your own benefit and development. They are no longer as employable as they used to be before so many people went to university but if someone is well informed and simply wants to study Philosophy at uni for the sheer joy of it - fine. But they should not be mislead with inaccurate statistics about salaries and employment rates if they're choosing a degree based on employabilty and not the sheer joy of studying. Nowadays, most young people choose to go to uni because they want to improve their job prospects - they deserve to know the truth. That's my point.

    Now if you want to talk about the subject itself I'm with you - it can be great. But the subject itself and the degree employabilty prospects are two completely different issues.

    I still don't know whether you're a grad/current student/applicant - and I do think that's relevant here.

    TL;DR. Massive difference between a subject being brilliant in itself and brilliant for employment - kids shouldn't be fed lies about the latter. And I know this post is ridiculously long but this subject matters a lot to me and I think it's wrong to mislead people.



    Posted from TSR Mobile[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    You're more or less the only vocal Philosophy-hater on this thread. So I would have thought most people are 'buying it'. Philosophers know we're awesome - why do you think I keep telling people just how awesome we are? Dude, the clue's even in the title of the thread!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't hate philosophy. I'm only helping you realise the truth, that philosophy is nothing special. Hey, wait a minute..."realise the truth"... there's some philosophy for you there. Hey, this philosophy stuff is easy. Can I have my degree now?

    Most people aren't buying it. Like I said in an earlier post, if you put a lot of mentally deficient people in a room, there's bound to be a lot of hugging. In the real world, philosophy is as useful as a poop flavoured lollypop. Hey, that's some more philosophy for you there. Can I get my Master's now?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone done a combined degree, with say History or the like?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    This is just a patent lie. I just don't understand why you're outright making things up? Tell it to the Philosophy grads stacking shelves and on the dole that they ''chose'' that - that they could have ''chosen'' a lucrative career in finance etc. It's not about choice at all - it's about what doors that degree opens, what employers want and what demonstrable experience and skill you have as a result of your degree (not transferable skills that you can gain through self-study and working part time in a shop etc) and your only 'choice' is within those limits which are pretty limited with a non-vocational degree such as Philosophy. In fact, doors will close (apprenticeships, NVQ2/3, other undergrad courses to retrain).
    I disagree with this part of your post. Philosophy graduates are spoilt for choice, like graduates of other subjects, for what they CAN apply to but it doesn't mean that their personal profile (experience, temperament, abilities, interviewing technique etc) will fit or even be competitive for the jobs out there. That, is where the onus is on the individual to improve these areas and make them more closely fitting to the area of the job sector they want to end up in - the degree is pretty much the baseline (be that for economics, CS, philosophy, engineering etc), and not by itself a major indicator of who will and won't secure employment.

    There's the other angle that there simply is too much competition for every graduate role out there - so you are inevitably bound to hear of people not securing something.

    My opinion is that almost every degree holder has the opportunity to a decent graduate job if they tick the right boxes and have a bit of luck behind them; that, however, does not mean anyone is guaranteed increased prospects by their degree subject alone.

    TL;DR the individual and external factors are more to blame than the degree one pursues.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    I disagree with this part of your post. Philosophy graduates are spoilt for choice, like graduates of other subjects, for what they CAN apply to but it doesn't mean that their personal profile (experience, temperament, abilities, interviewing technique etc) will fit or even be competitive for the jobs out there. That, is where the onus is on the individual to improve these areas and make them more closely fitting to the area of the job sector they want to end up in - the degree is pretty much the baseline (be that for economics, CS, philosophy, engineering etc), and not by itself a major indicator of who will and won't secure employment.

    There's the other angle that there simply is too much competition for every graduate role out there - so you are inevitably bound to hear of people not securing something.

    My opinion is that almost every degree holder has the opportunity to a decent graduate job if they tick the right boxes and have a bit of luck behind them; that, however, does not mean anyone is guaranteed increased prospects by their degree subject alone.

    TL;DR the individual and external factors are more to blame than the degree one pursues.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can see your point here and I do partially agree with it. I deleted ''opportunities'' out of that post before hitting submit because I thought that would open up a whole other debate. So without getting into it too deeply, I think opportunities (and as you say more broadly ''external factors'') do play a significant role in securing grad employment (particularly, I have in my mind the financial crash and subsequent recent recession).

    As for being 'spoilt for choice' - in my mind that can work both ways. On one hand you're qualified for 'everything' (in terms of general grad schemes accepting any degree with a 2.1 e.g. some civil service departments, retail grad schemes, lots of public/private sector grad roles etc) but on the other hand - you're literally qualified for nothing. You're a qualified Philosopher if anything, and they haven't exactly been needed for a pretty long time. You have a bunch of transferable skills and lots of (irrelevant) specific philosophical knowledge, but what job does that translate to? None. You're not ready to walk into any job without further training (even the grad roles - they all have 1-2 years training). You're not qualified to fix a car, suture, advise on legal cases, teach, or even be a cleaner in most instances (many of those jobs as well as HCAs and food prep related roles require NVQs now)...etc. Nothing. You haven't got a 'trade' of any sort. So you have to really know what you're doing it for and build up a lot of solid work exp by 2nd year. The degree alone won't get you a job because it qualifies you for nothing. The 2.1 is like a pass to be granted access to a hotel, but the work experience/internships/networking/clear vision of job/opportunities upon graduation/state of the jobs market etc etc are the key-card that opens your door. The pass is just useless without the key card.

    The thing that I find so ridiculous about all of it is that most of the jobs that Philosophy grads (and most other arts degrees) are able to apply for - the vast majority of them can be reached within a similar time frame by someone without a degree who leaves school at 16 (or 18 with an apprenticeship) and gets work experience and climbs the ladder for 5 years or so. Those retail management jobs and civil service jobs etc are not exclusive to people with degrees so long as people get their foot in the door at a min wage position and work up. The McDonald's trainee manager, for example, earns between 21-25K a year. People can work up to trainee manager easily within 3 years, with no degree. Now look at the starting salary for a general grad scheme job such as one I've just googled and found - a role called ''Graduate Sales Executive" which requires a 2.1 in any subject - starting salary 18-20K. Same amount of time to get to as the McDonald's manager.

    And the last thing I said about the degree closing doors - that's not debatable, it's a fact. In terms or apprenticeships and NVQs, you cannot get funding to retrain due to the funding you received for doing a degree. So if you miss the boat for grad jobs, you can't retrain below level 6 in something vocational and cannot retrain at undergrad level unless it's in healthcare or a couple of other areas (I think town planning and possibly teaching).

    Anyway, I get your point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)

    Exactly. You're admitting that the statistics you've presented - seemingly as solid proof of how good Philosophy degrees are - aren't actually representative of the whole. That's my gripe with those stats and your presentation of them.
    I'm sorry you misunderstood me: they are representative. They aren't just made up you know. As the website says: 'This data represents average figures based on statistics from Graduate Recruitment Bureau and HESA, correct as of October 2015'. My remak was merely that they were at the higher end of the sets of figures that I had researched, but they're still perfectly valid, and suggest that a great deal of Philosophy graduates are very successful in the jobs market, regardless of your anecdotal evidence.

    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    History and English (or any other arts degrees) have nothing to do with this and I made no reference to them. You started a thread about how good Philosophy degrees are (actually you've described them/it as 'Awesome' so I'm discussing Philosophy degrees with you, not English/History. But since you bring them up - no, there's not much difference, they're all equally as useless in my opinion.
    The reason I made reference to them was that others already had done, who were implying Philosophy was a poor degree (with worse prospects than them). By intriducing a comparison with the other humanites I also transferred the argument from one solely about Philosophy to one about the humanities in general. This makes the employability argument much easier from my persepctive, because there are trillions of humanities degree holders with extrememly successful careers in law, finance and business. This is just a fact. Perhaps Philosophy doesn't get you there on its own - but absolutely no degree will for these sectors aside from perhaps Law or Finance, and no one's suggesting everyone has to do those.

    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    You've posted a thread about the benefits of studying Philosophy and you've strongly suggested that it will lead to employment with a high starting salary. You haven't specified how many Philosophy graduates get those jobs, you haven't specified which institutions they graduate from and you haven't explained the statistics you've posted.
    I've suggested that Philosophy can lead to excellently paid jobs. This is perfectly true and I'd have hoped you would show a little more faith in the intelligence of those reading this. Philsophy is a fantastic intellectual discipline which employers respect - but if you go to a university which hardly ever gets any pupils into the most sought after positions, no one is arguing, least of all me, that Philosophy will give you the miraculous powers to do so, and I expect most people can see this without me explaining it to them.

    Does someone espousing the benefits of studying Literature have to go through every university in the UK and explain inividually what the job prospects would be just to say that English can lead to excellent employment? I think not. In general this particular criticism is a strange one: clearly, for example, I'm not suggesting that Philosophy should take the place of a plumbing apprenticeship for a would-be plumber, but following your sentiments one could be forgiven for thinking that I am. I am not. I speak to the intellectually and academically enlightened, and make no bones about it.

    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    As you've conceded, someone studying this 'awesome' degree at an ex-poly isn't likely to be earning the salaries you're suggesting. So straight away, your whole defense of the degree as a means to employment is undermined if you're not being 100% transparent with people.
    A means to employment is very much a secondary reason for studying Philosophy. The primary one is, and always will be, personal intellectual fulfillment and improvement. The only reason I brought employment into the debate was to reassure those studying Philosophy that their skills are valued by employers. They are, and this is backed up by the statistics I provided from the Graduate Recruitment Bureau. This is all very reasonable. Perhaps it isn't on the level of Medicine, but then I never said it was.


    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    This is just a patent lie. I just don't understand why you're outright making things up? Tell it to the Philosophy grads stacking shelves and on the dole that they ''chose'' that - that they could have ''chosen'' a lucrative career in finance etc. It's not about choice at all - it's about what doors that degree opens, what employers want and what demonstrable experience and skill you have as a result of your degree (not transferable skills that you can gain through self-study and working part time in a shop etc) and your only 'choice' is within those limits which are pretty limited with a non-vocational degree such as Philosophy. In fact, doors will close (apprenticeships, NVQ2/3, other undergrad courses to retrain).

    So I see now that your argument is not with Philosophy but all humanities. Your research is simply lacking. Any degree from a good institution will be enough, if you have the soft skills, to gain you entry into a vast array of very well paid professions. For example, I just looked up two management consultancy firms, Deloitte and KPMG, and both say all they require for entrance is a '2:1 in a any discipline'. This is just one example. Here's another: in this article 'Senior Managing Director in Global Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley explains that there’s a misconception that most investment banks aren’t receptive to applicants from humanities or languages disciplines. “This couldn’t be further from the truth,” he says. “At Morgan Stanley we have employees from all sorts of backgrounds who do extremely well in this profession. I’m a history graduate myself.”'
    http://thegatewayonline.com/investme...vestment-banks

    So much for the arts being useless.
    .
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    Ah, this old chestnut. We're talking about a degree subject. Lets stick to that degree subject. If you're going to start adding extra reasons why people can't get jobs, we could always throw in recessions, the weather, interview attire, the waxing and waning of the moon....
    And believe me, it's not 'my' case - it's thousands of cases. Your argument in this instance sounds a lot like special pleading to me. Most unis have decent careers advice, so why do most unis have poor Philosophy employment rates in professional graduate roles?
    No, I fully agree that a Philosophy degree from an awful institution will be as useless as a Maths or History or Economics degree from an equally awful institution. Clearly it is not 'thousands' of cases, as shown by the average data provided by the Graduate Recruitment Bureau, and if it is it's because some people choose Philosophy because they think it will be easy, and these people were never destined for a successful career regardless.You can hardly blame the subject for people's misuse of it.

    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    It's not a vocational degree intended to catapult people into a job and when you actually think about it - that's not it's purpose at all.
    I quite agree, and I have neither said that it does catapult you into a job, nor that it's its purpose to. I have no idea why you seem to think I have. A Philosophy degree can gain you excellent employment if you go looking for it, but this was never the aspect that I particularly thought made it 'awesome', but just as good as similar subjects - and certainly worth including so that peple didn't write it off as unemployable. It was other apsects that give it its 'awesome' quality, such as its breadth, the subject material, the combination of science and arts skills and its impact on the world around us.

    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    That's exactly my point. You don't need a 3 year degree to have analytical skills. So what have you payed for?
    It's all about the level to which you study. If you seriously think someone who did Philsophy at undergrad and then perhaps a masters after that is at the same level as someone who read some books in a library you're deluded. Part of going to university is the fact that your work is marked and as such you're forced to learn, work and perfect your skills. Very few can motivate themsleves to do this at home with the ever-present tempations around them.

    Besides, the economic viabilty of university is another discussion, so I suggest you find a thread on it, there are many.








    Posted from TSR Mobile[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    ...
    Let's agree to disagree. I don't like these discussions to descend into personal digs and I can sense some in your response so I'm going to leave this now. I'm just trying to share something from real life experience and research and I think applicants should at least bare the things I've said in mind. You still haven't said if you are a Philosophy graduate and think that's another thing for people to bare in mind. People can read the thread, do their own research and make their own informed decisions.

    Best of luck whether your're a student/applicant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I'm sorry you misunderstood me: they are representative. They aren't just made up you know. As the website says: 'This data represents average figures based on statistics from Graduate Recruitment Bureau and HESA, correct as of October 2015'. My remak was merely that they were at the higher end of the sets of figures that I had researched, but they're still perfectly valid, and suggest that a great deal of Philosophy graduates are very successful in the jobs market, regardless of your anecdotal evidence.



    The reason I made reference to them was that others already had done, who were implying Philosophy was a poor degree (with worse prospects than them). By introducing a comparison with the other humanites I also transferred the argument from one solely about Philosophy to one about the humanities in general. This makes the employability argument much easier from my persepctive, because there are trillions of humanities degree holders with extrememly successful careers in law, finance and business. This is just a fact. Perhaps Philosophy doesn't get you there on its own - but absolutely no degree will for these sectors aside from perhaps Law or Finance, and no one's suggesting everyone has to do those.


    I've suggested that Philosophy can lead to excellently paid jobs. This is perfectly true and I'd have hoped you would show a little more faith in the intelligence of those reading this. Philsophy is a fantastic intellectual discipline which employers respect - but if you go to a university which hardly ever gets any pupils into the most sought after positions, no one is arguing, least of all me, that Philosophy will give you the miraculous powers to do so, and I expect most people can see this without me explaining it to them.

    Does someone espousing the benefits of studying Literature have to go through every university in the UK and explain inividually what the job prospects would be just to say that English can lead to excellent employment? I think not. In general this particular criticism is a strange one: clearly, for example, I'm not suggesting that Philosophy should take the place of a plumbing apprenticeship for a would-be plumber, but following your sentiments one could be forgiven for thinking that I am. I am not. I speak to the intellectually and academically enlightened, and make no bones about it.



    A means to employment is very much a secondary reason for studying Philosophy. The primary one is, and always will be, personal intellectual fulfillment and improvement. The only reason I brought employment into the debate was to reassure those studying Philosophy that their skills are valued by employers. They are, and this is backed up by the statistics I provided from the Graduate Recruitment Bureau. This is all very reasonable. Perhaps it isn't on the level of Medicine, but then I never said it was.





    So I see now that your argument is not with Philosophy but all humanities. Your research is simply lacking. Any degree from a good institution will be enough, if you have the soft skills, to gain you entry into a vast array of very well paid professions. For example, I just looked up two management consultancy firms, Deloitte and KPMG, and both say all they require for entrance is a '2:1 in a any discipline'. This is just one example. Here's another: in this article 'Senior Managing Director in Global Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley explains that there’s a misconception that most investment banks aren’t receptive to applicants from humanities or languages disciplines. “This couldn’t be further from the truth,” he says. “At Morgan Stanley we have employees from all sorts of backgrounds who do extremely well in this profession. I’m a history graduate myself.”'
    http://thegatewayonline.com/investme...vestment-banks

    So much for the arts being useless.
    .


    No, I fully agree that a Philosophy degree from an awful institution will be as useless as a Maths or History or Economics degree from an equally awful institution. Clearly it is not 'thousands' of cases, as shown by the average data provided by the Graduate Recruitment Bureau, and if it is it's because some people choose Philosophy because they think it will be easy, and these people were never destined for a successful career regardless.You can hardly blame the subject for people's misuse of it.



    I quite agree, and I have neither said that it does catapult you into a job, nor that it's its purpose is to do so. I have no idea why you seem to think I have. A Philosophy degree can gain you excellent employment if you go looking for it, but this was never the aspect that I particularly thought made it 'awesome', just as good as similar subjects - and certainly worth including so that peple diddn't write it off as unemployable. It was other apsects that give it its 'awesome' quality, such as its breadth, the subject material, the combination of science and arts skills and its impact on the world around us.


    Firstly, it's all about the level to which you study. If you seriously think someone who did Philsophy at undergrad and then perhaps a masters after that is at the same level as someone who read some books in a library you're deluded. Part of going to university is the fact that your work is marked and as such you're forced to learn, work and perfect your skills. Very few can motivate themsleves to do this at home with the ever-present tempations around them.

    Besides, the economic viabilty of university is another discussion, so I suggest you find a thread on it, there are many.








    Posted from TSR Mobile
    [/QUOTE]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    Let's agree to disagree. I don't like these discussions to descend into personal digs and I can sense some in your response
    I'm really sorry if any did creep in, I do always try to stay as civilised as possible, but sometimes I can become rather rhetorical. I hope you have more luck with your job search in the future
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I'm really sorry if any did creep in, I do always try to stay as civilised as possible, but sometimes I can become rather rhetorical. I hope you have more luck with your job search in the future
    That's okay. Thank you, I'm starting uni this month to retrain with the NHS. Hopefully it still exists in 2019 .
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)

    1) In terms of skill in logical thought and precision, Philosophy matches any science or quantitative subject. Formal Logic notation is notorious for its complexity, and on Oxford’s website, in the description of the Logic unit, it warns that even students who took Further Maths A Level ‘will struggle’.
    Hahaha you take a first year logic course which is slightly harder than A-level maths? Wow that must be really hard.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by langlitz)
    Hahaha you take a first year logic course which is slightly harder than A-level maths? Wow that must be really hard.
    To be fair that quote referred to a second year option Though the first year stuff at unis is often very difficult
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    To be fair that quote referred to a second year option Though the first year stuff at unis is often very difficult
    Yeah but it doesn't come close to being as hard maths-wise as physics, chemistry or engineering
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by langlitz)
    Yeah but it doesn't come close to being as hard maths-wise as physics, chemistry or engineering
    Will vary in line with where you do it, and it can do depending on what options you choose and the level you're stuying at. In general, though, I would agree that the maths-like work is less than in these degrees, but for a non-maths based degree Philosophy punches well above its weight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You're doing Philosophy at Cambridge? omg I'm actually so jealous! I believe Cambridge is one of the, if not best place to study philosophy in the world! (you must be intelligent asf) When you go through your course you'll see how many of the great philosophers studied at Cambridge (Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell just a few I can name off the top of my head)
    I've just started Philosophy at Cardiff uni this year, so same year as you, It's not quite on the same level as Cambridge but I like to think it's a pretty respectable uni?
    Anyways, how are you enjoying it so far?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I did a module on it in first year of uni. I hated it though it just felt like we were talking about nothing (it was a logic and reasoning module). I didn't feel I'd learnt anything of substance
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Only people desperate to elevate their poor choice of degree will refer to their subject as 'the arts'. STEM doesn't have to do that as we're already awesome.
    Yes, we STEMs are awesome!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    When you tell someone you’re taking Philosophy, you often get the impression the person you’re talking to (especially, it must be said, if they’re a STEM Nazi) doesn’t know what the subject actually is, and assumes it’s just sitting (mainly in the reclined position) considering the meaning of stuff in a whimsical way. Oh the ignorance. So I’ve decided to give some reasons why Philosophy should be (and is, by employers and those who know), considered one of the most prestigious, challenging and rewarding subjects out there (yes, right up there with medicine, physics, law and maths):
    STEM Nazi & proud

    Errrrrrr, Philosophy prestigious? I think not.


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    1) In terms of skill in logical thought and precision, Philosophy matches any science or quantitative subject. Formal Logic notation is notorious for its complexity, and on Oxford’s website, in the description of the Logic unit, it warns that even students who took Further Maths A Level ‘will struggle’.
    I doubt that. A Philosophy grad will not be able do a maths degree. A Maths grad can easily do a Philosophy degree. Otherwise you can prove me wrong by applying to do Maths with just a Philosophy degree and no STEM background.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    2) At the same time, it hones writing, argumentative and analytical skills to the same extent as any other humanities subject, like History or English Literature. Hence combining the best aspects of the arts with the sciences.
    It does not hone analytical skills -- for that you need Maths. For my module in Analysis using programming, my essay consisted of Maths (Euclid, or rather his formulas gets a mention) sandwiched between reams of programming language, comparison with 2 other programming languages. It looked nothing like my essay in comparative foreign language lit - in 2 languages (which is closer to Philosophy).



    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    3) It involves the study of, quite simply, the greatest minds to have ever walked the Earth.....................
    Every subject on earth has contributed the greatest minds to walk the earth. So what?


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    4) Philosophy is the original and oldest subject. There’s a reason Newton named his work ‘Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy’. Science (formerly Natural Philosophy) is a child of Philosophy, and simply cannot function without it. Every day, budding young scientists carry out their investigations, all the while oblivious to the fact that they rely on the work of philosophers like Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Francis Bacon to do so.
    Not true. The oldest subject is language/science, then maths, which created bigger societies, then civilisations.When societies got prosperous enough to allow some elites to pursue literature and organised religion, then came philosophers to explore the nature of that society and debate the rules of a perfect society.


    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    5) Employers know that the soft skills many science students lack can be found in a Philosophy student. The subject is best done as a verbal process or through structured verbal argument, thus perfecting your communication, debating and verbal reasoning skills. Spend time studying syllogisms and analytic philosophy and, in all likelihood, you will be the most ferocious debater for miles around. If you want, training in philosophical reasoning can allow you to dominate your philosophically illiterate opponents (which, sadly, will be most of them).
    Conjecture without evidence. Proof you lack scientific rigor in your arguments. Science is not about debates in fancy language and lawyer style courtroom speeches, but centres on evidence/proof that is robustly tested under peer review.

    Funny enough, I've never noticed any employer moan about lack of soft skills in STEM grads, but many have complained about the lack of Maths skills in non-STEM grads.

    A philosopher can come up with any idea, but he never has to get into the trenches to prove that it works. Not so the man who invents a gun. Not so the scientist.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.