Plan B?

[hasbeen]

I could imagine theater or art being difficult majors to come out of college with. I agree that a lot of employers probably don't understand what philosophy entails, but then their general reaction is still probably something like, "That sounds hard." It's a good idea to emphasize to them that yes, it is hard. You will deal with some employers that just dismiss the major and you along with it, but other ones will be thankful to see an application from someone who isn't a business major in an unrelated field.

I think philosophy has a tendency to attract smart people that haven't learned how to excel outside the classroom, because they were always so good inside it.

[LeftInLimbo]

In my experience, those who don't have much familiarity with or appreciation of philosophy assume that "Philosophy Major" is codeword for "spent my college years smoking pot and reading New Age books."

Edited February 27, 2013 by LeftInLimbo

[Philosopath]

"I think philosophy has a tendency to attract smart people that haven't learned how to excel outside the classroom, because they were always so good inside it."

 

Well said.

[Billy Goehring]

Plus, a lot of times people don't market themselves well. Attention to detail and strong analytic skills are good, but majors like philosophy also show that you challenged yourself and worked hard through college. Employers tend to know what the easier majors are.

 

You and I have talked about this at length--and for those of you who also have an M.A., I'm sure you've heard similar stories: ABD students who never submit to conferences, never publish, don't focus on being better teachers or networking with the right people, etc. Then it's time to hit the job market and they blame a bad recession for their lack of success.

 

I mean, yeah, I'm not an idiot--it's a shitty market. I'm not a denialist. But I remember hearing about my undergrad university's hiring process--some of the applicants are just unhirable. One of my professors said he met candidates who, although they had publications and good references, were so so so socially awkward (sometimes with little to no teaching experience!) that there was no way in hell anyone would let them near undergraduates (let alone offer a tenured track position!). 

 

Finding a job isn't guaranteed, but too many people put too little effort into making themselves marketable in the first place. 

Edited February 28, 2013 by Billy Goehring

[Philosopath]

You and I have talked about this at length--and for those of you who also have an M.A., I'm sure you've heard similar stories: ABD students who never submit to conferences, never publish, don't focus on being better teachers or networking with the right people, etc. Then it's time to hit the job market and they blame a bad recession for their lack of success.

 

I mean, yeah, I'm not an idiot--it's a shitty market. I'm not a denialist. But I remember hearing about my undergrad university's hiring process--some of the applicants are just unhirable. One of my professors said he met candidates who, although they had publications and good references, were so so so socially awkward (sometimes with little to no teaching experience!) that there was no way in hell anyone would let them near undergraduates (let alone offer a tenured track position!). 

 

Finding a job isn't guaranteed, but too many people put too little effort into making themselves marketable in the first place. 

 

Indeed.  One thing that makes me so hesitant about actually going through with graduate school is the prospect that I'll be forced to stand in front of a classroom and teach on a regular basis.  Many of us, I assume, are 'doomed' to be socially awkward introverts.  And if we could just make a living off research and publishing, I bet we would do that way before teaching.

[lesage13]

Considering that a philosophy B.A, or M.A. for that matter, provides zero marketable skills or experience outside of academia, I can't imagine these surveys are very accurate.  A philosophy major has the qualifications to land an entry level job which will pay a bit more than minimum wage, if they get lucky.

 

That kind of defeatist attitude is self-fulfilling. And, to be honest, it's just not true. Someone who excels at philosophy will have many marketable skills: Conceptual analysis, critical thinking, strong reading and writing skills, etc. Now, it might be harder to 'market' (yes, those are scare quotes) these skills, given that even many non-philosophy academics have no idea just what it is we do, but they are by no means unmarketable. While I do think that there are certainly difficult obstacles between your average philosophy BA and the market, the lack of skills isn't it. (Actually, it's a big pet peeve of mine. Have you met anyone from these so-called practical majors like accounting or business? They don't actually _know_ anything; for instance, accounting majors surprisingly can't do math and don't seem to have to, and business majors can rarely explain what it is they're actually doing when they use models to predict performance. They do get a crash course on the heuristics and rules at work in business and accounting practices. But, without any analytic skills, they have a really hard time thinking outside of these rules and heuristics by themselves. By all accounts, malice wasn't the reason why the economy crashed, it was narrowmindedness. For more on this, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-management-myth/304883/)

What we do lack is experience, but I think this will be true of just about any major that is either not focused on performing some practical task (e.g. accounting, nursing), or not co-op focused (e.g. some engineering programs, business programs). This shouldn't be underestimated, especially at a time where employers all seem to (paradoxically) want at least some experience for entry level positions. And we do face problems with perception that shouldn't be undersold--to many people, even those who should really know better (ahem, Hawking), we're either all new age hippies or creationists (I don't know which is worse). The problem is that we, as a discipline, don't seem to care very much about how our students fare after graduation if they're not continuing in philosophy. Worse yet, this is infectious. It infects the attitudes of students, dissuading them from really considering or developing interests in other career options--it certainly did for me. It also infects the attitudes of employers (and the general public), disposing them to believe that philosophers are all myopic navel-gazers. These feed into each other, building up until it certainly feels like one cannot realistically do anything with a philosophy degree (or two).

 

I'll admit that when I posed the OP, I wasn't in the most optimistic mood. I was worn out from getting rejected from pretty much every school I applied to (still no acceptances), and I was tired of justifying my degree to my friends and family (not that they were assholes about it, but to me, the extreme ignorance was worse). The idea of not doing philosophy both depressed and terrified me. I didn't know what I would do otherwise or even what I would like to do, in part because you just don't think about that in this discipline. I still don't, really. However, I'm trying to get an handle on the situation rather than letting it defeat me. I'm trying to figure out my options, and luckily a professor in my department will be giving a talk later today on what one can do with a philosophy degree that isn't philosophy. More departments need to do things like this. And the discipline should actively encourage students to think about and explore non-academic career paths, and employers to think about employing students of philosophy. I don't think that this is a big ask.

Edited February 28, 2013 by lesage13

[LeftInLimbo]

I do really think that employers will need more convincing to want to hire a philosophy major and that the value of our skills are less obvious.  That said, I am confident that the average philosophy major really does have an advantage (critical thinking skills) that will allow themselves to prove themselves in the workplace--that is, if they can get hired in the first place.  So I would say we have very valuable skills but ones which are difficult to market.  But if you can get your foot in the door you should have an easy time of using it to stomp all over the competition.

 

In any case, it is true that employers are generally looking for people with experience.  Regardless of what someone is actually studying in school, the advantage that, for example, business majors have is that they are given internship opportunities during their undergrad.  These are the sorts of people that are actually finding jobs straight after graduation.  I'm not saying that philosophy majors couldn't find internship opportunities through their schools, but that (to my knowledge) they are not encouraged to do so (and I'm not sure if they are able to, but I suspect they could if they tried).  I think that responsible philosophy departments might want to encourage their students to find internships and/or that responsible philosophy undergrads should probably try to acquire internships for themselves.

Edited February 28, 2013 by LeftInLimbo

[philosophia3]

I'm always totally perplexed by charts like these. Median Starting Salary for philosophy majors is about $40,000. I'm a year out of college and I make about $10,000 year. I can't imagine myself making much more than $20,000 a year anytime in the next 5 years. Who the hell are all these people making $40,000+ a year as a starting salary? How? I'm not sure how I would ever make $40,000 a year in my lifetime (adjusting for inflation).

I have a BA in Philosophy and a BA in English and I make $40,000 a year. I work in college administration. Normal 40 hours/week.  

Edited February 28, 2013 by philosophia3

[youdontknowme]

I sympathize with most of the above, but maybe can add some experience.

 

I graduated with a BA in philosophy (from a top 10 Leiter school), and I was about 4 courses courses short of a second BA in business communication.

 

I could NOT GET HIRED ANYWHERE.  I finally got a job collecting debt for a bank that lends for car purchases.  Regrettably, this was miserable, and I was required to lie to the customers about their loan terms.  That said, my employer did not call it lying, and I only figured out it was lying when I did my own reading of the fine print of the loan contracts.  This employer is a subsidiary of one of the major American auto manufacturers.

 

With that experience under my belt, I was able to get hired doing data entry for $11/hr.  I got benefits at this job.  What LeftinLimbo said is true.  Getting my foot in the door was near impossible.  But, once it was in the door, it was easy to stomp all over my competition.  I was promoted significantly at this job and ended in IT making about $56k.

 

That said, it was all politics and posturing.  Sure, I worked hard and did a good job, but so did everyone else who I was chosen over.  The ability to succeed was the ability to play politics.  And, in each promotion interview, I had to obscure my philosophy undergraduate!  I did things on my resume like mention that I had an undergraduate BA from xyz school (while intentionally not including the major.)  I even had bosses (who had interviewed and hired me) make remarks like, "Can you believe what it would be like to have a philosophy major here???" as jokes when I helped in the hiring process and philosophy majors applied.

 

I agree that the philospohy major adds the analytic and conceptual skills that have been mentioned above--and attention to detail.  The unfortunate thing is that this doesn't matter.  What matters is the perception of you your potential employer has.  And, as far as that perception is, the philosophy major is a deal-breaker.  I applied to so many jobs that disqualified me on account of having a philosophy major.  Many, many jobs that only considered people who had either a BA in business or an MBA.  For example, one employer nominated me for a promotion (I did good work, as most philosphy majors will), but when she realized my undergraduate was in philosophy---**even though I had so many business electives (accounting, economics, etc...)***---she withdrew my nomination and said only people with degrees in business would be considered.

 

So, getting your foot in the door will be nearly impossible--I'd say harder than getting into a philosophy PhD program (speaking as someone who has tried to do both of these).  But, once your foot is in, you will likely do well if you are able to hide/make your employer forget you have a degree in philosophy.

 

Or, you could do an easy-peasy online MBA on the side (it will be super easy) and add that to your resume.  The upshot with that plan is most $40-60k range business jobs do not really care where your MBA is from, so the online places will work just fine.

 

Of course, if you opt for some kind of retail work, the phil degree will be just fine (I've had a number of those jobs too).  In my experience, retail work generally doesn't care what your degree is actually in, so long as you work hard and have excellent customer service skills.  The downside I've found with these jobs is the lack of benefits and long-term prospects (I was a supervisor at a sbux, but even then I couldn't get decent health insurance.  I also worked at several restaurants and big-box stores).

 

I'm not trying to be downer, but I want those who might be fresh out of their BAs to have a realistic idea of what to expect.

 

(One last point that is quasi-encouraging:  for nearly every business job I had where my boss knew my BA was in phi, they offered to pay my way for me to get an MBA.  So, if you're able to get your foot in the door and excel, you may not have to pay for your MBA.)

 

Given all that stuff, I'd **personally** be pretty happy with any plan B that provided $30k or above and where success was not 80% based off your ability to play politics.  Seems that teaching high school might work for this, and law might work for this--but only if one is able to score a full scholarship to law school, and then aim for public prosecutor or similar and avoid workign for a midzide or big firm.  Teaching at a community college would be ideal, but it seems that there are **very** few jobs that are not adjunct (which if you're teaching 5 classes per semester seems to add up to only about $18-22k a year).

[LeftInLimbo]

Hiding the fact that your degree was in philosophy...I hadn't thought of that one.  I think when applying for certain jobs (business related / not involving a strong writing skills component) that it might be best to leave this detail off the resume.  If pressed in an interview perhaps say that your degree was "liberal arts"...which I believe might seem less head-in-the-clouds to some (by suggesting a broad range of classwork) and isn't entirely lying?..

 

I've already taken to leaving my M.A. off certain job applications.  I have a few years experience waiting tables (a job which can be fairly lucrative depending on the restaurant) but found I wasn't getting responses to resume submissions to waitstaff jobs after finishing my M.A.  I imagine having an MA for this sort of job suggests you are probably seeking work elsewhere and likely to leave at any time (which was true!).

Edited February 28, 2013 by LeftInLimbo

[youdontknowme]

And, just to clarify, when I say:

 

1) Phil PhD admittance is easeir that job admittance with only a phil BA, I mean excluding retail and construction jobs (so no mall/restaurant jobs and no roofing jobs).  I've found the phil PhD acceptance rate to be about 2-4% and the phil BA to "real" job acceptance rate to be about 0.5-1%.  And, frankly, I'm one of the better at self-marketing as evidenced by once I GOT my foot in the door I scored a significant promotion every 9 months on average and over doubled my salary in 4.5 years.  Instead, the 0.5-1% figure is so low because of the number of organizations I've interacted with actually have an unspoken policy against hiring philospohy majors (unless they have another BA or have since procured an MBA).

 

2) JD on full scholarship:  If you come from a name-recognized undergrad, and have a MA in phil (from a name-recognized place too) both with stellar GPAs and have almost perfect LSAT scores, and then you apply to only the worst JD schools (on purpose) who yet offer full rides to their most competitive students (some do), you're odds are decent.  Then, if you target public prosecutor jobs, your odds are decent since such jobs are very uncompetitive due to long hours and very low pay for those with JDs (compared to other attorney work).  But, that is okay since your JD was debt-free. Another option is finding some kind of crap-job at one of the ucompetitive law schools that yet includes tuition remission and get the JD debt-free that way.  Again, this only works if you are aiming for the uncompetitive law jobs, such as public prosecutor ($40-65k but often hire folks with no experience so long as the bar is passed since it is so hard to retain competitive JD's at such uncompetitive jobs).

 

PS, you probably already figured this, but in case it is helpful, I am a person who took a lengthy break between undergrad and grad--and my experience over those years combined with the experiences of others is what I'm using for data here.

[youdontknowme]

Yes, saying my degree was in 'liberal arts' was exactly what I did  

 

Sometimes I tried, "I studied a range of things.... I found business ethics particularly useful...."  This seemed to work okay when pressured in interviews.

[youdontknowme]

I *hated* playing those games though.

 

Yes, saying my degree was in 'liberal arts' was exactly what I did

 

Sometimes I tried, "I studied a range of things.... I found business ethics particularly useful...."  This seemed to work okay when pressured in interviews.

[lovephil]

This thread is the morning after pill of philosophy.

[napoleon314]

I'm going to second the advice about not doing law school. I graduated magna cum laude last December from a top-20 ranked law school, and my deeply held opinion is that it is generally horrible for philosophically inclined people.

 

Superficially, I agree, the two professions seem to require similar skill sets. I think this is illusory. Philosophical argumentation is about getting at how things are. It's about articulating plausible premises, valid inferences, and sound conclusions. Argumentation in law is vastly different. Here's how you argue in law: you look to some rule that a medieval English judge arbitrarily pronounced, sift through centuries of subsequent cases applying the same rule, carving out exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, etc. Then you basically insist that some configuration of rules derived from that history of case law applies to the case you're presently arguing, and therefore that it should come out your way. Of course, the other side will dig up its own set of rules leading to a contrary verdict, because the law is often inconsistent. The two sides then just shout at each other about which fact pattern the disputed case more closely resembles.

 

And that just describes the "glamorous" part of lawyering. The "substance" of legal reasoning. The reality of it is that you'll probably be sitting around most of the time devising ways to fool some megacorporation's lawyers by wording small print in a contract negotiation in such a way that your client is favored in case of some contingency. If you think scrutinizing small print for twelve hours a day is fun, then maybe law is for you.

 

Also, lawyers and law students are horrible, horrible people. Basically, to be a successful law student, you have to enjoy being a bitch. The exception to all of this is law and economics, which is similar to analytic philosophy insofar as it uses formal methods (microeconomic analysis) to analyze the law. The only way I managed to survive was to get very close to the one guy doing law and economics at my law school, and take all the classes he offered (and a healthy dollop of philosophy of law). 

 

Also, insofar as career prospects go, it is NOT at all secure. The reasons why the legal profession is suffering a sharp decline in demand are complicated, but the short story is that big law firms used to hire droves of associates to sift through mountains of documents in complex corporate litigation cases--that allowed reasonably good students from reasonably good law schools to secure jobs starting at $160k. But three factors have pretty much destroyed that market. First, since most records are now digitized, search costs are almost nil, and you don't need dozens of junior associates to comb through paper anymore. You just type in search words, and the computer does the work. Second, the legal profession is parasitic on other industries. As the economy tanked, the legal market therefore felt the full force of the downturn. Third, there are just too many law schools. In my area alone (population 300k), there are four law schools each pumping out 200-300 new lawyers every year. There just isn't the demand for that many lawyers. 

 

Do a cost-benefit analysis. The cost of law school will likely be at least $100k of debt and three years of your life (I have $100k of debt, my brother who is also currently a law student has $300k of debt). Unless you're a top student at a top law school, you're not going to get one of those now rare $160k junior associateships at a big law firm. That means you'll either have to grovel for some small firm to take you at $50k, hang up your own shingle and practice out of your parents' basement, or work in the public sector. The public sector job market is really horrid, too, and the pay is even worse. A starting public defender salary is $40k.

 

Even if you do end up making a smidgen more money as a lawyer than you would doing something else, you've got to factor in the debt (and interest, which won't be insubstantial), as well as burning three years where you're not making anything. The opportunity cost is enormous. You're almost certainly better off learning plumbing. 

 

Even if you can put up with the assholes (lawyers are every bit as horrible as the cliches, and law students are worse--I know, I was recently one of them!), the payoff is so horrible, it's almost impossible to justify. Unless you think you've got a serious shot at being at the top of your class at a school ranked (note: in law, USNWR ranking matters a lot--pedigree is half the game), then I can't imagine a single sane person doing it. I know I've covered this already, but I can't emphasize strongly enough how horrible the people in the legal profession are. Just imagine the biggest jerks you knew from undergrad. Now, imagine that pool distilled to just the purest, most unadulterated douchebags. Thems your classmates.

 

On a practical note: the one nice thing is that you can take the LSAT to see how you'd do. It's a reasonably good predictor of success, but it's a fantastic predictor of where you'll get in. Basically, if either your GPA or LSAT is in the 75th percentile (of students admitted to the school in question--not of test takers. If you're only 75th percentile of test takers, then don't bother applying anywhere), you'll get an admission (but if neither, then you definitely won't). The one nice thing about law school is the predictability about admission and the ease of admissions process (you just fill out one universal application, and tell LSAC which schools to send it to). Given the market, even if you think you can deal with everything else and excel at spouting fallacies (ad hominem arguments are the very point of discrediting witness testimony) and bullshit arguments for the rest of your life, I wouldn't bother if you don't have the grades or LSAT to get into a top 30 school. Anything else, and you're gambling.

Edited March 3, 2013 by napoleon314