Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education News

Is the Master's Degree the New Bachelor's? 330

Hugh Pickens writes "Laura Pappano writes that the master's degree, once derided as the consolation prize for failing to finish a Ph.D., or as a way to kill time waiting out economic downturns, is now the fastest-growing degree, with 657,000 awarded in 2009, more than double the level in the 1980s. Today nearly two in 25 people age 25 and over have a master's, about the same proportion that had a bachelor's or higher in 1960. 'Several years ago it became very clear to us that master's education was moving very rapidly to become the entry degree in many professions,' says Debra W. Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools. 'There is definitely some devaluing of the college degree going on,' adds Eric A. Hanushek, an education economist at the Hoover Institution. 'We are going deeper into the pool of high school graduates for college attendance,' making a bachelor's no longer an adequate screening measure of achievement for employers. But some wonder if a master's is worth the extra effort. 'In some fields, such as business or engineering, a graduate degree typically boosted income by more than enough to justify the cost,' says Liz Pulliam Weston. 'In others — the liberal arts and social sciences, in particular — master's degrees didn't appear to produce much if any earnings advantage.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Master's Degree the New Bachelor's?

Comments Filter:
  • by grimmjeeper ( 2301232 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @04:40PM (#36875434) Homepage

    It's been my experience in the engineering field that going straight through school to the masters degree is far less useful than getting the bachelors, working for a while and then getting the masters (or concurrently getting the masters while you're working your first job out of undergrad). The academic type can come out of a masters program and still not know squat about actually getting things done, making them basically useless. On the other hand, those of us who have gotten a bachelors, worked a while, and then gone back for the masters really do get more value.

    When I see a resume pass my desk that is for someone who went straight through to a masters, I'm actually less likely to recommend them. They often don't have any better real world skills but they cost more to employ while you get them trained. In fact, they tend to be harder to train as they are so completely immersed in academia and have a hard time making the transition to the real world. On the other hand, internship experience while going straight through school does compensate quite a bit. A few terms doing real work while going to school makes all the difference.

  • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @04:43PM (#36875470) Homepage Journal

    Master's Degrees are even worse than Bachelor's Degrees, though. It's well-known that the entire college system is a huge money-making scheme, and quality has gone down in favor of appealing to more students and drawing more money. Lawyers go to law school, doctors go to med school, often after they have a bachelor's or master's in their field: it's a separate school.

    College is for engineers. Learn about math, sciences, physics, engineering, the like. But colleges are trying to push silly stuff like IT management and things that require technical skill sets that are constantly changing and not based on a whole hell of a lot of basic theory. Look at programming degrees: programmers know way too little about how to program and way too much about yesterday's programming languages and today's buzzwords. Programmers learned C++ and Java but had no clue how to deal with raw C, and many of them didn't have the programming background to understand a new language; then .NET happened, and it's like, oh crap, what is this?

    Lawyers need to apprentice with a legal professional--I know, I've seen it. Culinary chefs need to apprentice for a while, too. Doctors apprentice--as nurses, then as apprentice doctors. Programmers don't apprentice; managers don't apprentice; Engineers don't apprentice. I don't understand this.

    Then on top of it you have dance students and students playing musical instruments, and what do they do? Learn the history of art, learn how to paint, learn about math and science. Why? Why do I need this to be a tuba player? ... why the hell am I taking a bachelor's in tuba?

    And then on top of it, $10 textbooks of constantly decreasing quality released on shelf for $200 with a new revision every 4 months so you have to buy new. WTF?

    Put some quality into the education and I'll put some stock into it.

  • by BetterSense ( 1398915 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:01PM (#36875672)
    Yes, but both easy and hard degrees serve the function of laundering classicsm. The unstated value of college degrees, in my estimation, is that they provide the corporate world a politically-correct avenue for helping them select candidates that are 'the right kind of people'.

    In fact, joke liberal arts majors serve this function very well, because the knowledge itself is useless, thereby providing even stronger evidence that the degree holder comes from a well-off background.

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Working...