Skip to main content

Why Philosophy is perhaps one of the MOST useful degrees


Here is an excellent resource on why philosophy degrees make especially smart and successful businessmen and women, lawyers, journalists, etc. (you are actually dramatically better off doing a first degree in philosophy than business administration for a career in business).

Some very good answers to "Philosophy? What are you going to do with that?" question. Go here for "testimonials".

Includes GRE test performance (philosophers do staggeringly well - look right), comparative salary information, and various other useful bits of evidence that collectively puncture the peculiar modern myth that philosophy isn't "useful".

I previously commented on the GRE scores comparing philosophy students with all other students here.

A quote from Fordham:

"In addition, as the marketplace becomes more competitive, graduate degrees become more desirable, and that entails a strong performance on the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), the exam most business schools require their applicants to take. Philosophy majors consistently outperform other majors on the GMAT, including all business majors, all humanities majors, and all social sciences majors. Philosophy majors enjoy enormous advantages going into business."

The first and last testimonials are especially good. Opening quote from the final "testimonial" on linked page:

"Most of management theory is inane, writes our correspondent, the founder of consulting firm. If you want to succeed in business, don’t get an M.B.A. Study philosophy instead."

Comments

Paul Baird said…
You do know what Dr Glenn Peoples does for a living ?

:-)
January 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM
LadyAtheist said…
And yet the title of the graph has a typo...
January 21, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Thanks for this article. I completed an Honours degree in Philosophy in London in 97, then went home to Australia, fought several successful community campaigns, and was elected as a Greens local government councillor in 2004. Philosophy allowed me to see through obfuscation and gave me the confidence to be able to listen effectively and successfully argue my corner.
January 24, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Anonymous said…
@LadyAtheist

Hum- philosophy good for seeing the bigger picture but perhaps not the fine grained detail...
January 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Blaise said…
Are you suggesting a causal relationship here? That choosing to do philosophy will lead to greater success?

The evidence from the chart is that philosophers have good (English) language skills. It might be that philosophers tend to be chosen from the pool of people who have good language skills, or it might be that a philosophy degree will improve your language skills. We can't tell.

The other skill that I think is critical is mathematical skills. I know a few philosophy graduates and they are all good at maths. It would not surprise me if that were generally true. I certainly agree that philosophy grads make very good employees but I suspect that it's because the subject acts as a filter: the average business major would flunk philosophy early on.
February 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said…
@Lady Atheist,

1) What typo are you referring to?
2) I'm nearly certain this is a graph prepped by the administs of the GRE, and not simply some philosopher trying to make the discipline look good.
May 26, 2012 at 4:16 AM
Reynold said…
I certainly agree that philosophy grads make very good employees!
USMLE private coaching
December 13, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more