Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?

[Locrian]

Locrian, in what way am I being dishonest? I took quotes from your posts (as well those from others) in this thread and, based on those quotes, drew logical conclusions.

Your conclusions were not logical. As I clearly and carefully pointed out, your restatement of my text differed materially in both scope and magnitude.

Can you specifically point to me where you state the opposite of my conclusions?

I've said it before, but importantly I said it in this very thread:

. . . I don't think a physics degree is worthless. . .

That should have been the end of the discussion. Instead, this post will be. I will not be replying to you again because you clearly have no interest in honest discourse.

 

[Rika]

Me too - I don't think Physics degree is worthless. It wasn't worth for me. "Not worth it" doesn't mean worthless.

I apologise if I came across as patronising. It's just that my anecdotal experiences are totally different from yours.

And for various reasons it may be. It doesn't mean that either you or I are wrong.

I do agree however, that the career paths are less clear when you're doing physics contra engineering, economics, medicine, accounting et.c.

Well my 2nd major in art school was painting (we don't have illustration majors here) so it's even less marketable than physics but it was good for me. Why? Probably because I studied physics right after high school and had no idea what to do with my life while I knew exactly what I want to do and what professional skills do I need when I went to art school. So I did tons of self-training, was studying in atelier, in-house and online professional courses. Most of my training was outside of college classes (which is almost impossible in STEM). Job market for art majors is also better than for science majors and with internet you can freelance for anyone so local job market is not a problem. But it's not only that. Because art schools are a little outside of Bologna Process (they can offer 5-years master degree), it allows you to choose classes and for example - painting majors could take all graphic design major classes - so those who had no idea what to do with their life could make themselves more marketable easily and had strong "plan B".

However most important factor was that after foundation years painting major wasn't very time-consuming and I actually had the time to do that all self-teaching and additional training. So even if painting major wasn't very marketable I could easily overcome that by myself but couldn't do that with physics. Worst part of all science majors is that they are very time-consuming and that leaves you a little time for any additional activity. So either major itself is good or you are doomed.

 

[symbolipoint]

Post #37 expressing Art as more marketable than Physics is incredible - unless studying Art puts the student into some practical Arts (and Crafting) skills. If Art includes some specimen restoration work, this should be useful and impressive. Rika, what's really happening with this?

 

[atyy]

Me too - I don't think Physics degree is worthless. It wasn't worth for me. "Not worth it" doesn't mean worthless.

Not worth it means worth is negative. Worthless means worth is zero. Zero is not negative, hence a physics degree is not worthless

 

[symbolipoint]

Not worth it means worth is negative. Worthless means worth is zero. Zero is not negative, hence a physics degree is not worthless

Other way to understand the word is, worthless means "without value" or "without worth". In a more common way of thinking, not much different.

The clearest meaning in saying that some degree in some stated subject was worthless, is that the time and effort to earn it was wasted.

If someone studied and earned an undergraduate degree in Physics, AND THAT WAS ALL, then this could very well have been a waste. A student NEEDS something more - maybe a few nicely chosen elective courses; or some practical technical experience or skill. Maybe some computer programming projects, regardless of relation to Physics.

 

[Rika]

Post #37 expressing Art as more marketable than Physics is incredible - unless studying Art puts the student into some practical Arts (and Crafting) skills. If Art includes some specimen restoration work, this should be useful and impressive. Rika, what's really happening with this?

Yeh, what I mean by "art" is not like "history of jazz" degree but more like art and design like graphic design, industrial design, animation, illustration and so on. Probably most famous school in US in this case is RISD(?) I'm not saying it's all that fluffy but it's more like professional degree - you learn a lot of practical stuff and you build your portfolio so that you can show that you can do something.

If someone studied and earned an undergraduate degree in Physics, AND THAT WAS ALL, then this could very well have been a waste. A student NEEDS something more - maybe a few nicely chosen elective courses; or some practical technical experience or skill. Maybe some computer programming projects, regardless of relation to Physics.

True. But science degree is time-consuming so unless your school allows for some flexibility - it's hard to do additional stuff. Many people want to do PhD afterwards so they focus more on getting good grades or research experience rather than practical skills. Most ppl from my class do PhD, some of them decided to double major in more practical field like engineering, computer science or applied math later. Unfortunately physics is not "no brainer career degree" which means you really to know what you want to do with it. Studying physics only because you are interested in it is rather expensive hobby.

 

[Nidum]

Post #37 expressing Art as more marketable than Physics is incredible

What could be called the Applied Arts ( to parallel the meaning of Applied Sciences ) is very big business at present .

Graphic design , Film and TV graphics , Virtual reality film making , Computer games and Consumer product design are only some examples of areas where there are usually many good jobs available .

Applied Arts courses these days often includes courses in things like CAD , computer programming and physics of animation .

Some of the job applicants that I have come across that have studied Design as an Art subject rather than as a purely technical subject have been very motivated and capable people . I would certainly employ some of them .

 

[symbolipoint]

Rika and Nidium

Thanks for the continued discussion involving Art. The whole point of the Practical Arts was at risk of being missed.

 

[Nidum]

As for the worth of a physics degree to anyone seeking employment in specifically engineering .

(a) Straight out of the box - somewhere between not much and nil .
(b) With further education and practical experience under a properly managed job training scheme - high to very high .

My personal experience of physics graduates entering engineering is that they are clever enough people and understand a lot of theory but they have :

(a) No knowledge of how theoretical concepts translate into practical applications .
(b) Zero ability to identify and solve practical problems .

Put those shortfalls to rights and they rapidly become good engineers with excellent career prospects .

 

[StatGuy2000]

Your conclusions were not logical. As I clearly and carefully pointed out, your restatement of my text differed materially in both scope and magnitude.
I've said it before, but importantly I said it in this very thread:
That should have been the end of the discussion. Instead, this post will be. I will not be replying to you again because you clearly have no interest in honest discourse.

@Locrian, it's unfortunate that you do not wish to reply back to me and that you feel that I have no interest in honest discourse, because nothing could be further from the truth.

In your earlier posts in this thread, you state the following:

"I've retooled myself into a couple of those areas over time, so it can be done, but the time I spent learning physics was pretty much a waste of time."

Then in your reply to gmax137 questioning your above quote, you made the following reply:

"Because I'm interested in more than one thing, some things are more valuable than others, and I won't get to study every last thing I want to.

And honestly, the general university physics education is pretty sad, for entirely intentional reasons. Physics would have been better as a hobby after college education."

In the bolded statements above, you have stated how much the time you spent in the physics program was (a) a waste of time, and (b) the general university physics education is "pretty sad".

As someone reading these statements (and keeping in mind your previous statements elsewhere on PF), I have reached the conclusion that you feel that a physics degree has essentially no value (i.e. worthless) unless one goes into a PhD program (which I may not have explicitly stated -- and perhaps I should have for clarity -- but which was implied in my post).

When I posted a reply with the conclusion I've reached, you came back here on this thread and claimed that I am misrepresenting your views and that I am being dishonest. In your rebuttal (which isn't really a rebuttal, as I will explain later), you state the following:

"The reason claiming I think a physics degree is worthless is wrong is because I don't think a physics degree is worthless. For instance, if one's only goal was teaching high energy physics in academia, I think a physics degree is the best (and nearly only) way to do this.

Do I think it's a mediocre degree? Poorly taught at most universities? Low value for my specific situation? Sure. Worthless? Nope."

In essence, while you don't think a physics degree is worthless, you continued to denigrate a physics degree in terms of its overall value. So in essence you were reiterating what I have concluded -- that outside of academia, physics doesn't hold much value to you. Again, everything I have concluded is consistent with what you've stated.

So in summary, I fail to see how I have misrepresented anything you have stated. If you want to discuss this with me further, please PM me, as I don't want to hijack this thread any further on this topic. Otherwise, this is my last post in this thread.

(Moderators: I feel that my post here is civil and has not violated any PF policies, but please let me know if you have any concerns in terms of my replies).

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Well, I am somebody who has wanted to be a scientist my whole life. I'm not smart enough for that though and physics didn't leave me any fall back opportunities. I am not looking for lots of money. A middle class life with a used car and 1000 sq ft rental is fine for me.

In fact, nearly my entire graduating class wanted to be a scientist and none of them made it. (Though I think one is still trying.)

Most of my best science has been done for love rather then for money. See:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/science-love-money/

It is helpful to separate what you do for a living from your pursuit of science. As consultants, most of the stuff people pay my wife (another physicist) and I for is BORING - stuff some company needs for their bottom line that is not very interesting. But do that stuff well, and you can have enough money to pursue the science you love and desire and find interesting.

As for the worth of a physics degree to anyone seeking employment in specifically engineering .

(a) Straight out of the box - somewhere between not much and nil .
(b) With further education and practical experience under a properly managed job training scheme - high to very high .

My personal experience of physics graduates entering engineering is that they are clever enough people and understand a lot of theory but they have :

(a) No knowledge of how theoretical concepts translate into practical applications .
(b) Zero ability to identify and solve practical problems .

Put those shortfalls to rights and they rapidly become good engineers with excellent career prospects .

My Physics degrees provided me with lots of practical skills in several main areas: programming, machining, electronics, high vacuum systems, lasers, and test and measurement instrumentation. Within 5 years of graduating, I had a 6 figure income and had paid off a home that cost over $200,000. I had NO additional managed job training, I just leveraged my skills in programming, electronics, and instrumentation.

No employer has ever complained that I have:

(a) No knowledge of how theoretical concepts translate into practical applications .
(b) Zero ability to identify and solve practical problems .

 

[symbolipoint]

Dr. Courtney,

How did you get your skills or training in machining, electronics, high vacuum systems, and measurement instruments?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Dr. Courtney,

How did you get your skills or training in machining, electronics, high vacuum systems, and measurement instruments?

On the fly in the process of lab courses and research experience. Most of the experimentalists I worked with had strengths in all these areas. Machining was introduced in the "junior lab" course where the prof took us to the department machine shop the first day of class, had one of the staff machinists give us a lesson, and then gave us the keys and turned us loose to make whatever we needed for the experiment we choose for the course. The other areas were introduced either in coursework or in jobs working for research groups in the department. My first programming experience was in a course, but then I gained many opportunities to program in undergraduate research jobs.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I had NO additional managed job training, I just leveraged my skills in programming, electronics, and instrumentation.

The difference is that you are very entrepreneurial. There's a disconnect between that and "I got my degree - now where's my bleeping job!" mentality that we see so often here. To be honest, I suspect this attitude helped you more than the details of the curriculum.

 

[Rika]

The difference is that you are very entrepreneurial. There's a disconnect between that and "I got my degree - now where's my bleeping job!" mentality that we see so often here. To be honest, I suspect this attitude helped you more than the details of the curriculum.

If people in US pay 200 000$ for their degrees they have right to demand being employable afterwards without need to be "entrepreneurial".

 

[Vanadium 50]

A lot of people think the world works that way. But a job is not a reward for getting a degree.

 

[Amrator]

If people in US pay 200 000$ for their degrees they have right to demand being employable afterwards without need to be "entrepreneurial".

What? I haven't gotten my bachelor's in physics yet, and even I know that's absurd.

 

[CrysPhys]

If people in US pay 200 000$ for their degrees they have right to demand being employable afterwards without need to be "entrepreneurial".

Dr. Courtney said he earned enough money within 5 yrs of receiving his degree to pay off a $200,000+ home.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

If people in US pay 200 000$ for their degrees they have right to demand being employable afterwards without need to be "entrepreneurial".

I was not very entrepreneurial as a recent grad. I read the book, "What Color is Your Parachute?" and took stock of my skills. I wrote a different (skills based) resume for every job I applied to. For programming jobs, I focused on languages and completed programming projects. For instrumentation jobs, I focused on the instrumentation I had worked with. Etc. I knew it was my job as an applicant to convince employers that I was the best candidate for the job. Many employers do not even have a clue what a degree in Physics means. It was my job to show them on the resume that I had the skills needed for the position (at least to get an interview). Then once I got the interview, it was my job in the interview to convince them I had the skills and attitude and excellence to do the job.

Other than selling myself to employers, I didn't become entrepreneurial until about a decade out of school.

No one has the "right" to be employable. You have the right to work hard enough in school to acquire the skills, work ethic, and excellence to be employable. Then having taken the opportunity to make yourself into an awesome potential employee, you have the right to sell yourself to employers. But they have the right to reject all the lazy wannabees who think their degree is worth more than the paper it is printed on just because they spent a lot of money on it. The value is NEVER in the degree. The value is how you made yourself better along the way. You got to prove that happened.

Anyone who spends $200,000 on a degree and is not employable is stupid.

 

[symbolipoint]

If people in US pay 200 000$ for their degrees they have right to demand being employable afterwards without need to be "entrepreneurial".

They really have the right to better counseling and advising. The students need to make their own decisions about education and any available training.

 

[symbolipoint]

Dr. Courtney said he earned enough money within 5 yrs of receiving his degree to pay off a $200,000+ home.

He was smarter; or just more talented than most, and made very fortunate decisions.

 

[Rika]

A lot of people think the world works that way. But a job is not a reward for getting a degree.

I don't think that way. However I do think that if you pay 200k$ for your education then it should provide you with marketable skills and good job opportunities if you are not lazy.

No one has the "right" to be employable. You have the right to work hard enough in school to acquire the skills, work ethic, and excellence to be employable. Then having taken the opportunity to make yourself into an awesome potential employee, you have the right to sell yourself to employers. But they have the right to reject all the lazy wannabees who think their degree is worth more than the paper it is printed on just because they spent a lot of money on it. The value is NEVER in the degree. The value is how you made yourself better along the way. You got to prove that happened.

It's true and if somebody is lazy then it can be helped. What I want to say - no one really expects to go to engineering, med or law school and be "entrepreneurial" afterwards. You just need to do your job as a student - work hard, get good grades, do extra stuff like internship and that's it. And while it's not about piece of paper - degree shows that you are qualified to do your job. You don't have that kind of luxury when you study Physics. Maybe in your case it was different and your curriculum provided you with skills that industry needs. But again it's not like you can google "junior physicist" position in company x and read list of skills that you need.

Anyone who spends $200,000 on a degree and is not employable is stupid.

That's why I think there are better degrees than physics out there. Because being employable with physics degree requires to be much more smarter about your career and much more work than any other more professional degree.

They really have the right to better counseling and advising. The students need to make their own decisions about education and any available training.

True but then again when you graduate from high school you are 18-19 and you have no idea about job market. If I knew what I know now I would never study physics to begin with. But back then I didn't have enough information to make good decision. That's why I think it's important to say how it is without sugar-coating it. When I started my physics degree I wanted to do PhD so I've focused on good grades, research experience and extracurricular activities like conferences abroad so I wasn't lazy. However when I decided to change my path I've realized that I don't have any real skills (and yeah I'm that kind of person that thinks physics is taught poorly in unis, I should also choose top school in my country instead of local one) but it was too late. However if I decided to study let's say computer science then all of that - school rank, chosen path and so on wouldn't really matter.

He was smarter; or just more talented than most, and made very fortunate decisions.

Come to think of it - isn't he from top school like Harvard of MIT? If that's it then he graduated from one of the best school in the world that provides the best lab equipment and networking opportunities. No wonder he is fine. He probably would be fine even with gender studies degree.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It's true and if somebody is lazy then it can be helped. What I want to say - no one really expects to go to engineering, med or law school and be "entrepreneurial" afterwards.

I know a bunch of underemployed attorneys. Do you have any idea how poorly it pays to be a public defender?

I also know a bunch of engineers who intended to be entrepreneurial from the beginning.

That's why I think there are better degrees than physics out there. Because being employable with physics degree requires to be much more smarter about your career and much more work than any other more professional degree.

Every time there is a downturn in the oil industry, Louisiana has boatloads of petroleum engineers who need to be smart enough about their careers to look beyond the oil industry, especially if they want to stay in Louisiana. The smart ones develop skill sets and experience that is marketable in other Louisiana industries.

Employability is always MUCH, MUCH harder when one adds geographical constraints and required salary, regardless of the degree. Most of those unemployed petroleum engineers during oil downturns in Louisiana could easily be employed in the middle east. Most of those unemployed graduates with BS degrees in Physics could easily be employed as science and/or math teachers in inner city schools in the US. But most think they are owed more than a job, they think they are owed an engineering salary, without having bothered to develop an engineering skill set.

Come to think of it - isn't he from top school like Harvard of MIT? If that's it then he graduated from one of the best school in the world that provides the best lab equipment and networking opportunities. No wonder he is fine. He probably would be fine even with gender studies degree.

The lab equipment at LSU was every bit as good as the lab equipment at MIT, and for employment in Louisiana, the networking opportunities were also better. It was the physics faculty at LSU who drove home the importance of skills in programming, high vacuum, instrumentation, machining, and lasers and provided me with the opportunities to develop those skills to a high level. They knew what it takes to succeed with a physics degree beyond the material taught in the classroom, and they made sure I had that.

 

[Rika]

Employability is always MUCH, MUCH harder when one adds geographical constraints and required salary, regardless of the degree. Most of those unemployed petroleum engineers during oil downturns in Louisiana could easily be employed in the middle east. Most of those unemployed graduates with BS degrees in Physics could easily be employed as science and/or math teachers in inner city schools in the US. But most think they are owed more than a job, they think they are owed an engineering salary, without having bothered to develop an engineering skill set.

I can understand what you are saying and you are right - in the end everyone are responsible for their own employment. I didn't want to sound like I think you aren't responsible - especially when you are working professional. However no matter how you look at this - when you go to college you are usually fresh high school graduate - just a kid. When I went to art school for my 2nd degree I was simply older - I had some freelance experience under my belt by then, knew what I want to do and what I need to do and I really didn't need any kind of guidance from my school. I knew when a subject was taught poorly and it didn't bother me much because I could learn it on my own. You could say I've become more "entrepreneurial" but it came with age and experience of job market. We all become wiser as we get older but there is no way I could have those kind of experience and attitude just right after high school. I've just basically taught myself how to be more smart about career. I believe that should be part of university education and faculty is responsible in some way for student success.

The lab equipment at LSU was every bit as good as the lab equipment at MIT, and for employment in Louisiana, the networking opportunities were also better. It was the physics faculty at LSU who drove home the importance of skills in programming, high vacuum, instrumentation, machining, and lasers and provided me with the opportunities to develop those skills to a high level. They knew what it takes to succeed with a physics degree beyond the material taught in the classroom, and they made sure I had that.

You really had very good teachers. I'm jealous because at the end of my bachelor, whole faculty invited students for a talk about master degree. They said we should stay here for masters because "we won't make a problem with graduating and we offer you an opportunity for smooth ride". After that talk half of my class (including me) have dropped out after BSc. But they didn't care whenever we are employable or not. And some university professors are too deep inside academia world and have no idea about industry. If you won't go for PhD, they treat you like a failure. I don't think my experience is rare and exclusive to my country. I understand from this thread that most of you who find physics degree useful do so, because you graduated from good universities with good teachers and strong physics program.

 

[Choppy]

Some general observations from this thread as to whether a degree in physics is "worth it"...

1. There are varying opinions on the matter. For some people it has worked out very well. Others have not found their experience to be particularly useful in the long term, particularly in terms of finding employment, and therefore feel as though pursuing a professional or less academically-oriented degree may have been a better option.
2. Factors that affect this diversity in experience seem to include:
   - the overall quality of the physics program
   - the structure of the physics program and the extent to which marketable skills are developed within it
   - the quality of the instructors
   - the "entrepreneurial" nature of the individual student
   - the student's expectations going in

For a student considering a physics degree, it is therefore important to consider these factors when selecting a program.

 

[jasonRF]

That's why I think there are better degrees than physics out there. Because being employable with physics degree requires to be much more smarter about your career and much more work than any other more professional degree.

I will agree that a physics major needs to be a lot smarter about their careers than an electrical engineering major. I will disagree that it is much much more work overall. When I studied engineering, my major required me to take 2-3 more credits per semester than a physics major had to take. If a physics major simply added a handful of computer science (or engineering, or ...) courses on top of their current curriculum, I would think it would be a significant improvement on their marketability and would be roughly the same workload as an engineering degree.

By the way, this thread has been interesting. I chose engineering not because I had some insight into what I wanted to do 10 years later, but because I simply liked math and science. I thought physics and engineering sounded about equally interesting, so my father, an economist, pointed me towards engineering. Did I have second thoughts along the way? Sure. I even specialized in plasma physics in EE grad school. But I think I received the right advice given I wasn't particularly driven or passionate about physics.

jason

 

[Dr. Courtney]

You really had very good teachers.

I did, and I am grateful for that. But my college profs provided opportunities for things like programming, electronics, machining, high vacuum, and instrumentation skills. They didn't make students do those things. I chose to learn those things, simply because my profs told me they were valuable.

I work hard to provide lots of those same opportunities to students I work with. But most students I work with take the easier approach (path of least resistance) rather than learning new skills. I talk about the value of skills in the above areas, but many times students will pick a different project or a path through the current project where they can avoid learning these valuable skills. I give my students tremendous flexibility on how the division of labor plays out over the course of the project. I never say, "You need to master this instrumentation" or "you need to write the program for the data acquisition/analysis." And on most projects, I'm still the main programmer and the main instrumentation guy. I still spend the most time at the lathe.

I would bet that if most physics graduates honestly examined their overall experiences, they would see that they did have some opportunities to develop more marketable skills in programming, electronics, instrumentation, etc. but that they chose an easier path.

 

[Andy Resnick]

However I do think that if you pay 200k$ for your education then it should provide you with marketable skills and good job opportunities if you are not lazy.

This single sentence summarizes the consumerist-transactional approach to higher education. 30+ years of concerted effort to transform Universities into Businesses based on a presumed transaction that exchanges money for knowledge has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction and dysfunction.

 

[CrysPhys]

He was smarter; or just more talented than most, and made very fortunate decisions.

If "very fortunate" means "hey, he lucked out", then I don't agree. Sure, luck always comes into play, but Dr. Courtney's recap indicates he made decisions that were well-thought-out, carefully considered, and deliberate.

 

[CrysPhys]

I understand from this thread that most of you who find physics degree useful do so, because you graduated from good universities with good teachers and strong physics program.

Isn't this pretty much true for any field, though? You don't increase your chances of success by graduating from bad universities with bad teachers and weak programs (in whatever field).

 

[CrysPhys]

Some general observations from this thread as to whether a degree in physics is "worth it"...

1. There are varying opinions on the matter. For some people it has worked out very well. Others have not found their experience to be particularly useful in the long term, particularly in terms of finding employment, and therefore feel as though pursuing a professional or less academically-oriented degree may have been a better option.
2. Factors that affect this diversity in experience seem to include:
   - the overall quality of the physics program
   - the structure of the physics program and the extent to which marketable skills are developed within it
   - the quality of the instructors
   - the "entrepreneurial" nature of the individual student
   - the student's expectations going in

For a student considering a physics degree, it is therefore important to consider these factors when selecting a program.

Good recap. In 2., I would add the following:

- country in which you studied (there seems to be quite a variation in programs among different countries)
- country in which you seek employment
- how flexible and accommodating you are when seeking employment (this is different from being "entrepreneurial"; if you take the attitude, "Hey I spent X $ and Y years earning a __ degree in physics, so I'm entitled to a job in physics, you're likely to be disappointed).
- timing (during some periods, employment in specific sectors has been relatively stable; during other periods, relatively volatile)

 

[Rika]

I will agree that a physics major needs to be a lot smarter about their careers than an electrical engineering major. I will disagree that it is much much more work overall. When I studied engineering, my major required me to take 2-3 more credits per semester than a physics major had to take. If a physics major simply added a handful of computer science (or engineering, or ...) courses on top of their current curriculum, I would think it would be a significant improvement on their marketability and would be roughly the same workload as an engineering degree.

It really depends on education system. Like I said before outside of US you rarely have a chance to shape your curriculum and take additional classes outside of your major. In Bologna Process you have around 30 ECTS points per semester so the amount of classes/credit hours is the same and if you study physics you have 30 credits of physics classes.

I would bet that if most physics graduates honestly examined their overall experiences, they would see that they did have some opportunities to develop more marketable skills in programming, electronics, instrumentation, etc. but that they chose an easier path.

Some students are lazy or simply went to college because they were expected to not because they wanted. Other feel discouraged because subject is taught poorly. I was terrible coder so I didn't even bother with programming - not that I had a lot of chances to do so. But it's good to have opportunity. Whenever you use it it's up to you but without it there is little you can do.

This single sentence summarizes the consumerist-transactional approach to higher education. 30+ years of concerted effort to transform Universities into Businesses based on a presumed transaction that exchanges money for knowledge has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction and dysfunction.

But do you believe education is worth 200k$ and carrying student's loan your whole life? In my country it's free, in other European countries it's either free or really cheap. If you invest a lot of money in your education I think it's ok to expect something in return - rare skills or networking opportunities - something that would be ground-breaking for your career. Otherwise in the age of Coursera - what's the point?

Isn't this pretty much true for any field, though? You don't increase your chances of success by graduating from bad universities with bad teachers and weak programs (in whatever field).

Not exactly. Graduating from average university in let's say computer science will secure you position as software developer or QA. Maybe not in Google but job market is so great and companies so desperate that anyone who can code will make it. In my field - art&design you don't even need college degree because the only thing that matters is portfolio. Unlike STEM you can get excellent education outside of college so quality of your university doesn't really matter. Some professionals from US are saying you should get your education in solid non-degree institution like ateliers because art school is so expensive that it's not worth it. So in many cases quality of university education is not deciding factor. But in physics and other academic fields it is.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

He was smarter; or just more talented than most, and made very fortunate decisions.

None of the above. I worked harder during my undergraduate years than 99.9% of the other students I have ever met or known. I got good advice from my profs and I followed it.

This single sentence summarizes the consumerist-transactional approach to higher education. 30+ years of concerted effort to transform Universities into Businesses based on a presumed transaction that exchanges money for knowledge has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction and dysfunction.

That money only buys the opportunity to gain knowledge. Most college students prefer not to avail themselves of that opportunity, and most profs allow them to get a degree with only a fraction of the knowledge that they could have had.

As my wife has said about her undergrad degree at Michigan State, "You can get a very good education there, but no one is going to make you."

 

[Amrator]

Some students are lazy or simply went to college because they were expected to not because they wanted. Other feel discouraged because subject is taught poorly. I was terrible coder so I didn't even bother with programming - not that I had a lot of chances to do so. But it's good to have opportunity. Whenever you use it it's up to you but without it there is little you can do.

That's not a good excuse to not continue programming. There's something called PRACTICE.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If "very fortunate" means "hey, he lucked out", then I don't agree. Sure, luck always comes into play

Providence is always on the side of the biggest battalions.