Experience in resume...

Here's the thing, Alan...

Your entire attack on Arts degrees has been based on reducing value to a single statistic. You are saying that the mean value of an Arts degree is less than the mean value of a Science degree in the marketplace, right? As far as the income distributions associated with those degrees are concerned, I doubt you even know the standard deviation of either, let alone the skewness or kurtosis. From what I hear Jespah saying, all the income distributions for the different degrees have high coefficients of variation. I hear Fil Alburquerque telling you about the heavy right-side tail that the income distribution for Arts majors has. They are the ones trying to provide the balanced and complete picture here. You're the one trying to reduce the concept of a degree's value to a single summary statistic--mean income.

Here's another facet of the value of Arts degrees you may have missed. There is no reason to assume that the ratio of the mean value of a Science degree to the mean value of an Arts degree should be as high at Elite U. as it would be at the Powdunk University of Nowhere. In fact, at Elite U. that ratio might even be less than 1 for all you know. In other words, it is quite possible that Arts graduates from Elite U. make more on average than Science graduates from the same school, whatever the national average incomes may be for people who got similar degrees at subpar schools.

So let's summarise...

Whether Science degrees are worth more than Arts degrees is a function of (1) the tier of school you attended, and (2) where you expect to land on the income distribution associated with your chosen degree. Trying to boil down your comparison of Arts and Science to statements like "liberal arts, and some social science are not worth **** when it comes to getting that first job" doesn't work.

Hmm, I haven't read he whole thread but I'd say the main issue is that arts degrees encourage the type of 'out of the box' thinking/questioning that isn't really required in most jobs unti you get a little further up the ladder.
Very generally speaking, in initial roles it's probably even detrimental; the bosses want you to **** munch not dream.

I do think that by claiming all arts degrees are useless you're forgetting that in the process of obtaining one you spend three years writing out cogent arguments.

The issue is not about distribution of salary. The is issue is about the demand for the skill set obtained by getting an LA degree vs a physical science degree.

It is not impossible to obtain with some intense study for the lsat.

Quote:

That is true if you know people inside the profession and it helps that the professional is not too technical. It also has to do with the time. If you look at some of the richest people in the world, some of them tend to be old, and in professions like retail. The world these old rich people earn their fortune is quite a different world from the one we have now. In the past, it is easy to break into any profession with a whatever degree, but now, with global competition, and specialization, it is much harder. Case in point is that all the recent icon companies are from founders with ivy league education in math, physics, or engineering.

Extreme specialization which in turn justify´s precisely why we are having more and more clone products in the industry, with less and less creativity attached to them...general knowledge brings depth of scope and wisdom for those who actually invest in it...we all know about how these days kids are not even able to stablish coherent thoughts in a paper shed...there are study´s on the subject in my field (Education) on the main reasons for that...guess what, it is not just the overwhelming amount of data going on in the information age, but essentially the inability by lack of training to deal with it...that´s where the problem resides.

Quote:

The issue is not about distribution of salary. The is issue is about the demand for the skill set obtained by getting an LA degree vs a physical science degree.

...even if so...this is not the problem, the problem is on what you seam to imply with it ! That very same demand is not comparable more then onions are comparable with apples...

Quote:

It is not impossible to obtain with some intense study for the lsat.

What does this matter ? Now you are comparing institutions...point being, either is needed or not needed. I guess you settled that now !
(Bottom line on this matter is not even about the Masters in this or that field but about specialization against general Knowledge)

But when did I said Specialisation was not needed ? Its quite obvious that is central...

You are talking out of your ass now. The value of degree is determined by the demand in the labor market. The market value is the intersection of the supply, and demand curve for a particular degree.

What you said before implies that being from a LA background lead to being creative in the real world. The skills that lead to career success in the real world are not the onces you learn from getting LA degrees.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:

It is not impossible to obtain with some intense study for the lsat.

What does this matter ? Now you are comparing institutions...point being, either is needed or not needed. I guess you settled that now !
(Bottom line on this matter is not even about the Masters in this or that field but about specialization against general Knowledge)

http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf

In order to make a comparison, it is necessary to "abstract" the details away. Without such simplification, there would be no mathematical models.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:

It is not impossible to obtain with some intense study for the lsat.

What does this matter ? Now you are comparing institutions...point being, either is needed or not needed. I guess you settled that now !
(Bottom line on this matter is not even about the Masters in this or that field but about specialization against general Knowledge)

http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf

The really funny thing about your post here? I used to TEACH LSAT classes and I aced my LSATs. My Liberal Arts degree gave me the skills to do so.

At the end of the day, this thread is about nothing more than you doing three things:

1, trying to prove to yourself that you have more value than others,
2, failing at that, and
3, coming off as a total jerk in the process.

The way you resort to sexualized language and insults when you feel threatened by a post is both childish and revealing, as well as funny

Cycloptichorn

TuringEquivalent wrote:

In order to make a comparison, it is necessary to "abstract" the details away. Without such simplification, there would be no mathematical models.

You seem to see it as necessary to abstract ALL the details away, leaving yourself with a meaningless model.

It's interesting, to me, that the OP values above average earning power as a measure of success when, bottom line, that can be an abominable way to measure success. It is objective in the sense that bills can be paid and a roof can be kept over one's head. It's nice to be comfortable -- I won't deny that. But people can be comfortable and quite happy without making the maximum. A legal career, if I had stuck with it, would have given me a far more lucrative career -- and a far more wealthy lifestyle, with better trips, my house fixed up better and faster, better clothes, etc.