Skip to main content

Why a degree in philosophy may be a better bet than a degree in business

This previous post bears repeating in the current economic climate...

If you are wondering what kind of degree programme is likely to boost your general smarts, consider these figures.

Go here. This is one of several graphs from the above article. Based on GRE test performance (Graduate Record Examination) of graduate programme applicants. Quantitative (math) skills on the vertical axis, verbal skills on the horizontal (other graphs include the third component - "analytical writing", at which philosophers also excel, dramatically outperforming all others).

Philosophy graduates are pretty damn smart, the various figures suggest, compared to graduates with other degrees, including most - perhaps even all - sciences (though were they smarter to begin with, or did their degree programme make them smarter, compared to other degrees?). Check the article. Here's the original table of GRE scores of US students completing a variety of degrees.

Notice religion also does very well.

This data suggests (but falls a long way short of establishing) that if we want to produce graduates with general, across-the-board smarts, physics and philosophy are disciplines to encourage [and possibly also that accountancy and business administration should be discouraged (this confirms all my prejudices, I am pleased to say!)].

Note some very weird stats on this graph, such as business administration's woeful performance, doing less well than even "art and performance" on quantitative skills and verbal skills (which is staggering). And accountancy grads less good on quantitative skills than philosophy grads (!) and the worst performers of all on verbal skills. Both business and accountancy are also weak on the analytic writing component.

Of course, as the new business-friendly, market-led Tory vision of degree provision kicks in, we'll probably see philosophy departments up and down the country closing and business administration degrees expanding. Brilliant.

P.S. Just added a second graph comparing analytical writing and verbal. Check out e.g business administration. And where's philosophy?


Anonymous said…
I know this is true because of the quality of philosophy students in my classes. They learn how to think which is very important in this world.
Thrasymachus said…
There is another way of taking these figures - that instead of people going into philosophy and getting much smarter, it is the smarter people who go into philosophy. Given business and other 'vocational' subjects are traditionally low status, more able students would prefer not to go into them. This makes the graph not such a good 'sales pitch' for philosophy - although smarter folks are more likely to go into it, that doesn't mean doing it will improve your GRE etc.

If you buy the 'signalling' theory of education, then the assertion that 'go do a business degree to make you more appealing to business' gets it completely backwards. You are getting a degree to signal how intelligent/conscientious/hard working you are, and so higher status degrees are a much better strategy of getting a good job than getting a 'vocational' one. this might explain why Big4/IB/Mgmt consultants tend to hire lots of humanities (inc. philosophy!) and science grads at prestigious institutions over folks with business degrees.
Anonymous said…
"Of course, as the new business-friendly, market-led Tory vision of degree provision kicks in, we'll probably see philosophy departments up and down the country closing and business administration degrees expanding. Brilliant."

Well, if what you say in the article is true, the exact opposite will happen. If philosophy leads to people who are more talented in both quantitative and verbal abilities, then they will do better in the job market, leading to an increase in demand for philosophy undergrad courses.
Anonymous said…
So why are innocent people always convicted, should cops be forced to study philosophy?
Anonymous said…
Click here, re above comment.
nancy john said…
students should be imptove there GRE Verbal skill that is the best way for passing the test
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
I have taken the data here and worked out average IQ scores by intended major. Check out my graph and comment please. Feel free to be brutal.

@Dr Law -- If you read this comment then please do comment on my graph and feel free to use it as ammunition for promoting philosophy.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks very much ShahHussein - I'll give it its own new post.
Unknown said…
interesting blog. It would be great if you can provide more details about it. Thank you...

USMLE private coaching
nancy john said…
thanks for sharing information really it is very useful

GRE Verbal skill
Unknown said…
Higher studies would bring pride to self, if it is studied from a reputed university either in India or abroad. Thanks for sharing this.

study architecture in usa
study phd in usa
Unknown said…
It is known to everyone that GRE is the most important test to be undertaken if one want to leave abroad countries for studies. So without any doubt it has been started pursuing by almost every students regarding abroad studies. Thanks for sharing this.

Study overseas chennai
Study abroad chennai

Popular posts from this blog


(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

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the