Dixie, even though I'm not in the humanities I would agree wholeheartedly with #3 and #4 for anyone considering a PhD of any kind. I left a fully funded STEM PhD program because no one told me what getting a PhD really meant, but in their defense, I didn't really ask! My discernment was basically, "I like school, I like to learn things, other people seem to think this would be a good thing for me to do, so OK." This is . . . insufficient to say the least ;-) My advisor told me that a PhD requires a "fire in your belly" to know as much as possible about your specific area, and I was definitely lacking in that.
But my dad gave me some good advice when I graduated from college that I think ties in to the question of being prepared to shift roles in life - "You can lose a lot in this life; people you love, money, your reputation, even your health. But no one can ever take the things you learn away from you." This is why I hate the notion (or even the implication!) that anyone who isn't "using" their college degree is "wasting" it. Nothing that you learn is ever, ever wasted.
Amy, thank you so much for chiming in from this STEM viewpoint! I was hesitant to speak about doctoral work beyond the humanities because I know those fields can be somewhat different in form, experience, and professional outcome, and so I'm glad to see your perspective here.
Your description of the "I guess I'll go" reflexive kind of decision-making is perfect. When you're good at school, it's easy to just decide to keep going with school. But grad school really is a whole different ball game!
I love your dad's advice. I completely agree with you!
I will say that my master's degree has opened up many, many doors for me! For reference, I'm a part-time civil engineer, and the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum is VERY regimented and also very broad. The engineers who build roads, buildings, foundations, water systems, and airports are ALL civil engineers, and they have to cover all that in just two years because your first two years are spent on prerequisites like calculus, chemistry, physics, and mechanics of materials. A master's degree allowed me to spend two additional years learning more about the specific aspects of civil engineering that were most interesting to me, and because it was fully funded it raised my starting salary while essentially giving me six years of education for the price of four. But just like college in general, one of my primary pieces of advice is, "Don't go unless you know why you're going, even if it's only generally." It's perfectly fine with me if my kids would prefer to enter a trade rather than a four year university, but they'd better have a reason to go to college BEFORE they enroll. General idea is good enough - if you know you want to be in health care you can discern between nursing or dental school or pre-med as you learn more. But if you have no idea? Don't just go to go. Join the military, the Peace Corps, do a post-HS year of volunteering, get a job, whatever. You'll learn a lot about yourself and what type of work you're interested in as part of those experiences, and there's no rule that says you have to start college at 18 and finish at 22.
Yes, a Master's degree can be a huge help professionally, and is less of an investment of time and money (especially if it is fully funded, but sometimes is worth it even if it is not). I think it's often a good choice. But I do still advise most students to take a year "off" in between college and grad school to work in the field and see whether they really enjoy it. That first year in the adult working world after college -- providing for your own housing and other needs and being accountable to a boss -- is so packed with maturation that it's often worth taking that time before getting the Master's. But I also think it can work well to go right into the Master's from college, if you're really sure of what you want to do!
Also, re: the "fire in your belly," in many ways, I tend to agree with Cal Newport's argument that following your passion is not necessarily the road to contentment. But a multi-year project that also requires considerable personal sacrifice does require a certain "fire" in order to fuel the determination needed to see the project through!
A mentor of mine wrote in his recommendation for my grad school application, "I am convinced that she has the perseverance needed to see her through to degree completion." He also told me that grad school was the most challenging intellectual, emotional, and physical experience of his life.
I really didn't understand at the time why he said either of those things, but after a few years in grad school I completely got it!
I also agree with Newport on this. I think in a society that has trouble valuing things without dollars attached to them, it's natural for people to think, "This is my passion and the way I will be the happiest is to find a way to get paid for it." But the structural realities around certain ways of life may not support that! I was in choir all through high school and college and I love to sing, but I would be MISERABLE if that was how I was trying to make my living. The uncertainty, the competitiveness, the travel . . . these are all at odds with my preference for structure and general homebody-ness. That's not the life for me because the juice isn't worth the squeeze, as they say.
I think you've got great advice! I simply still do not understand how so many of our generation wasted years of their lives, and so much money pursuing degrees that would never in many hundreds of years pay for themselves, let alone if they became stay at home parents. And that's not to say that that education is in itself bad, or not useful, but we really were living in a dream world of actual usefulness when so many of us pursued degrees. I think the problem is how we view a college degree as a social status thing. If everyone had a degree in a solid liberal arts/humanties education that would be one thing--obviously everyone would be so much smarter, or other practical degrees that equal jobs, but for most people to have useless degrees in psychology or theatre design that they can never feed a family on is really sad and unfortunate. There were a few people I knew who, like you, had the genuine desire to keep learning and to pursue academia and have been really successful, but there were so many others who collected degrees and debt and no longer work in any of those fields today. I would definitely give your advice to my own kids and to constantly remind them that they should include practicality and the value of education in their discernment as much as possible.
It really is, I think, a question of discernment. Often, there is simply no discernment -- except maybe *where* to go, often with status boundaries playing a large part in that!
I agree with Amy in her comment on this post that education is never wasted (and I think you agree, too), but something like student loans can quickly become much more of a burden than many young people realize when they are first taking them on, and if you take them on and then you can't get your magical high-paying dream job, well...down to the insurance office you go to fill out an application for "salesman."
Essentially, you need to know what you are getting into. I think the growing practice of the gap year (especially if it is spent working, rather than playing) before college is a good one because it can create a sense of realism along with rapid growth in maturity and self-knowledge. Again, it would not be needed or good for everyone, but it might be something to consider. Same thing with taking a year to work and live "real adult life" between college and graduate school.
Degrees in theatre and psychology are good things, but they, like others, are best entered into via good discernement. So is an econ degree, for that matter!
One last thought: from the perspective of the Academy, I have actually *not* been successful. I got my degree, but then I "only" adjuncted while raising four kids. I have been blessed with writing success lately, but that has been a steeper climb than it might have been otherwise, largely due to not having a title or an institutional affiliation. BUT -- I still think I am carving out a good professional life for myself while also attending to my primary vocation as wife and mother in the way that I see fit. I've also been helped by a number of generous editors and colleagues who are wise enough to know that women who are committed to homemaking can also be smart, thoughtful writers.
There are lots of women doing this sort of carving...but boy, it sure is a different path than the one laid out as the ideal in the Academy!
I think you're successful because you are using your degree the way you want to, and you acquired it without regrets exactly as you say! Your degrees are successful even if you *just* use them to teach your children! I think I agree exactly with what you're saying, there has to be discernment. And I think inherent in good discernment is understanding and valuing the education you're receiving which I think in general for our generation, especially in undergraduate studies, there was no appreciation. People treated undergraduate studies oftentimes as either a mere stepping stone that didn't matter on the road to more letters after their names, or as something they had to do because their parents wanted them to and so they did the least amount of actual coarse work required for their degree in effect, learning not much of value. And if they don't understand why they're acquiring this education, what it can actually do to improve their life, then they appreciate it even less.
The benefit and good side of our generation is the craving out and creating of new ways to use our gifts/education. But it is so much more than traditional academia. I think women who want to stay at home with their kids in the future do have to bear this in mind when they're taking on more debt with more schooling. Because there are now so many options to making a job and career you want that doesn't necessarily require more degrees. But at the same time, if it is what lights you on fire as you say it's still a good and worthwhile endeavour because we don't know the future! I think the whole issue just needs some eyes of practicality.
So true. I am 100% against debt for doctoral studies, would be cautious about it for and M.A., and, if I could go back in time, would try to find a way to take on less college debt. I thought of my college loans as "worth it" at the time, and I'm very grateful for the college education I received. But it was too much money -- and there are ways to get a college education without spending so much money. I had no concept of how long it would take me to pay off my college debt.
"...remind them that they should include practicality and the value of education in their discernment as much as possible."
Yes to allllll of this response.
When I went into undergrad, and honestly well into my 20's I had nooooo idea what I was doing. Changed majors, had a million jobs afterwards. I wish I had been given better tools of discernment, even—especially—if my parents did pay for a private undergrad education. (I think maybe this was one part of the problem, there was no fire of responsibility in me to make sure I was doing what was prudent and not just expected.)
More people should consider even undergrad more carefully. Although for many jobs, even the lowest entry level jobs I worked, a college degree was necessary..... also I loved it! But in real life, where down the road someone in your family needs to make money, you need to figure out if it's 1) trades 2) entrepreneurial or 3) white collar work that needs degrees... and kids need better discernment in these things. I had no idea what I was doing at 17!
It's as a 32 year-old that I'm even beginning to consider more robustly formal education down the road, and why. We are all different, though, and some people have the wisdom and foresight to recognize these things earlier in life. And some are best not going down those roads at all and doing something differently!
But I love your point Christy that the world would be a better place if everyone had an amazing liberal arts education but that's just not the reality of education these days. *Sigh...*
Christy is so wise, and so are you, Haley. We need to *think* about what we're doing before we spend $100K doing it. This goes for grad school, law school, med school, trade school, whatever.
I was fortunate to get a very good liberal arts education (although it was not as classical as the one students get at the college where my husband teaches), and I really believe it helps form human beings for virtue and civic responsibility and parenthood and work and and and...so I agree with you both about how valuable that is. But I am glancing at Laura's comment below about high school...if college is the new high school in terms of both education and status, that is a financial terrible situation to be in.
Haha, not wise, but a liberal arts girl! So I'm biased because that was my very practical post secondary education! I didn't even finish my degree because I got married across the country. But that's a story for another day!
I have just as many problems with the accepted college education system as I do with the regular education system! I would be all for everyone getting their degrees if it was in liberal arts so that people actually knew how to think! I think your experience is the default experience of what people my age and your age did after high school! It was just what you did! As my rant in the above comment goes off about undergrad attitudes I obviously agree with you. Why do we treat them as given and unimportant? There were so many people I knew who didn't really even expect to learn anything useful in all of undergrad! They were just going through the motions and taking random courses. And then the fact that every entry level job requires a degree but pays you basically minimum wage makes zero sense. Our whole system is so screwed up. I don't think all jobs should require a degree, probably most jobs shouldn't, there are so many ways to be trained in doing a good job that $100,000 or whatever the average is now for four years of education seems ridiculous. But I also think education is valuable and great and everyone should have it! For its own sake! But an education that actually pursues knowledge and wisdom, not one that just lets you pick classes on Taylor Swift.
It would be *so great* if a high school liberal arts education were widely available and such a degree considered enough for most decent jobs.
A lot of undergrads are there mostly to drink, in my experience. Ugh. At $100K, that's an expensive bender!
That's why serious liberal arts colleges are so valuable! They are places where young people really can go to be spiritually and intellectually formed and then go out into the world carrying that light.
I have so much to say but am going to limit it to this: in an ideal world, I think I would want everyone to have a truly classical / liberal education through high school, and then either start working, or move into a specialised field, whether it be a trade or white-collar profession, etc. I don't think a random BA or BS should be required for most jobs (and they aren't at least a lot of the time in the UK). Basically, I think that post-secondary education should be specialised because everyone will have received an amazing liberal education up to that point. (In my dreams :)) Then, if people want to take out loans to gain degrees or training in their chosen field, the money is well-spent. And if someone doesn't know what they want to do, they can try out different forms of work in different fields in order to discover it.
So - having attended and taught at a liberal arts university - I think that these places are great but in an ideal world, *ought* to be unnecessary.
But then I was chatting with a prof whose kids are heading to university and grad school now, and he was saying that he would prefer they first read Aristotle and the Western canon at 20 rather than 16, because if they do it at 16, they'll assume they've read it and can just be done. I was surprised to hear this.
I was wondering about that while reading your comment. I agree about what high school *ought* to be, but at least in our current social context, I found it so much easier to study well and have good discussions and things like that at ages 17-22 than 14-18. In college, everybody was less cliquey, more open-minded, more grown-up. It was easier to learn from people who had different opinions from yours, and I do think the different level of maturity probably contributed to how well we were able to read, write, and discuss important works. There's something about having this intellectual and discursive experience being a part of your first years of adulthood that is really fitting.
Perhaps this was something that younger students attained more readily in periods wherein a 16-year-old functioned essentially as an adult.
I'd love to see stronger lib arts in high school, and then a deepening and revisiting of that in college for many students.
College as licensure for joining the middle class is not ideal, however.
Yes! I agree completely with the ideal being that everyone have a solid liberal arts education at the high school level!
My kids are doing a classical high school program right now and I actually think that them reading the classics for the first time in high school is a good thing. I think the classics need to be read many times in order to plumb their depths and to adequately appreciate them, and the experience of many of my peers in college who were reading Homer for the first time was that they were so at sea that they appreciated very little even from well taught lectures. I'd rather have kids have a cursory knowledge of the classics, so that they will be able to further learn from them in college. It also takes off weird pressure that kids should absorb and understand everything while they're in high school. But I could be wrong!
And wouldn’t it be great if more students could get a solid liberal arts education in high school? I think a lot of the high school years are wasted and four year degrees shouldn’t be necessary for a well rounded education. I think my four year liberal arts degree was great for me but it was a blessing to have it paid for and I know it’s not feasible for everyone. This is something I’ve been thinking about lately.
I agree -- the problem begins with the state of education before college and graduate school.
I've been thinking a lot about the trades lately, and how people say "I want my kids to go into a trade instead of college," and how 22-year-old guys working for a local roofing company can be making salaries almost right of the bat that are bigger than that of, say, oh, I don't know, a tenured professor ;).
One thing I don't know, however, is how good of a longterm plan that is. It's physically dangerous and difficult, much more suited to a young person than even to a middle-aged one. How likely is it that, for example, as you approach 40 you would be able to become a contractor, doing little to none of the physical labor yourself? Surely not everyone can. What happens if you injure your back disastrously at 35? Will you wish you had more education so that you could start a new career in white collar work?
I really don't know the longterm path in the trades, and I'd love to know more.
My husband after college got two trade tickets while working, and if I remember while having three kids under three, but yes you're correct that there should be a path and there usually are paths in the trades that allow progression and job stability. One path is business ownership which is definitely an honourable and noteworthy way of creating a career, the other is using your trade in different industries that promote you further up companies like my husband who now manages 14 tradespeople for a large petrochemical plant. But he definitely counsels boys in high school to look at the current economic situation, what trades are in demand, which ones have a longer career lifespan, and which ones can be stepping stones to good jobs in different industries. Again, it's a viable path, but one that needs some forethought. Also, when doing a trade you're earning money while you train which is beneficial, and my husband has found that the more tickets you have on your resume the more likely you are to be hired in different industries. So just like having a degree gets you in the door, so having a ticket can get you in the door to a different job within an industry.
Yes, my husband has done a lot more trades type work. He really prefers the hands on; however, as we were discerning things we realized that while his current business setup as sole entrepreneur has been completely fine, it’s not a good long term fit for a family. There’s too much precarity; so we were either going to be starting a new business with someone else (which is the plan) or expanding his business and hiring employees. We have a ton of conversations about this at home with our kids (even though they’re young). College isn’t bad, but needs to have a purpose in mind. We both have undergraduate degrees but were so fortunate to have gotten scholarships that left us without debt. It’s one of the things I’m most grateful for and has afforded the flexibility to start a business and try new things. I do think so much of it depends on the type of person — my husband would be so miserable in front of a computer all day. We’ve tried parts of that on, but he thrives when he gets to manage people and relationships and invest in people and solve problems. So much of career advice seems to be given around what will make money with very little credence given to what suits your gifting and capabilities.
It must feel like a big change (and I know you're moving, too!) but I am so excited to see where this new business takes you.
I am coming more and more to think that college with significant student debt is usually not a good idea. Some debt is fine, but lots? Why do we say "just take the loans and go" rather than "why don't you work full-time for a couple of years and save, and then go and finish in three years?"
Flexibility is a good thing.
Or is it that our communities and families are so broken that kids can't bear to stay for that year or two?
"You just can’t know the future – but you can make choices that will serve you well now. You can’t anticipate what the job market will be like eight years hence, you don’t know what your family situation will be, and you’re not likely to make very much money as compared to others with similar levels of education in different fields. But you can discern whether you would like to give yourself over wholeheartedly to the pursuit of wisdom in graduate school if the spark drives you there right now – and in later years, you can let that same wisdom guide you as you make decisions about wage-work and family life."
Graduate school (PhD) is generally fully funded. Masters degrees are generally not. Around 60K is what I see most running around for a counseling degree.
I would implore people to first think of family life and then a career that can go along with that. I turned down a funded Masters degree in accounting because I would have to take on more debt (non-tuition costs like rent etc) and I would have to delay having a family until my early 30s while I got the degree, worked for the credentials, slaved away at the cube farm and then could take maternity leave and put my child in day care.
Women and men are different. Our biological clocks are on different timelines. It would make more sense for society to push men into college/trades at 16 and women into practical life skills training if they even for a second think they want children/family. And by push, I don't mean force.
I somehow stumbled into a relationship at 24 and decided to become a homemaker who plans to homeschool and now have 2 children and I'm pretty happy with the decisions. I'm sure I would've been depressed on a cube farm.
But, this isn't to say that once my children are older, I can't go back to college and get another degree. It goes back to the different clocks/timelines for men vs women.
I just wish people were told the truth, at young ages in mass.
I hear you, but I think people are too diverse for pushing for college/trades at 16 to be the norm for men and practical life skills the norm for women. We all need basic practical life skills and benefit from having basic trade skills to some degree, but these things also can be learned in the home or on the job, so to speak. Pushing practical skills as the *main* education for women who "even think for a second they want to have a family" doesn't track with the overall formation of persons or the variety of gifts that women may have.
Everyone, whether male or female, should learn how to make a decent meal and fold laundry and care for children in a basic manner. Ideally, this would happen during childhood and adolescence. I do not think that higher education should be so easily dismissed, however. A huge number of women and men find it quite supportive of family life.
I hear you, but I think you have a rose-colored lens on your perspective because it has worked for you. The amount of people I meet who's parents did not prepare them with practical life skills and also went to college with no direction incurring thousands in debt, has led me to think that college being pushed for all, is not a workable nor feasible long term solution.
With the rise in single-parent families and dual-parent that both working and not preparing their children for life itself, I think it would be good to go back to the basics and what works.
4 years in college can cost over 100K at a public university, that is not sustainable. And I think you also read "push as force," if a woman wants to go to college and a man wants to learn practical life skills, that's totally fine. But, society pushing college for everyone has been a net negative. Especially with jobs, what jobs are there that people want to do without a degree? Not many.
Respectfully, friend, you know little of me and my experiences and background, so it is not appropriate for you to make assumptions about my perspective.
In any case, I do agree with you that going to college or graduate school should be something that is discerned rather than expected, which is (regarding graduate school) in fact the gist of my post at Current.
But "push" is indeed how I read it (you clearly said not force); pushing means encouraging something as the norm, and I disagree with you about making switching to practical skills education for women beginning at 16 the norm. I don't think it would be good discernment for most women to base their education at 16 on the presumption that they will be full-time homemakers and that a liberal arts college education is not worthwhile preparation for that work.
What a great conversation! (I'm gone for one day and I feel like I missed so much, ha!)
I love the way you highlight the importance of discernment. I did not discern well regarding grad school, despite getting some good advice. Janet Smith said she would tell people not to go to grad school unless they couldn't *not* go. I was more in the "I'm good at school and everyone says I should and what would I do otherwise, anyway?" camp. I even had one theology prof tell me, multiple times: "you will never make any money. You have to be ok with never making money. If you ever want to support a family, this isn't a great fit." At the time, I didn't have a lot of concerns about making money (I figured I'd find a way - I was good at living frugally, etc.). Maybe I was just particularly deaf in my 20s!
I think the other thing is that graduate school is not necessarily the same as "an education." I know many well-read, interesting and interested people, who do not have graduate degrees. The older I get, the less of a snob I become about it all. I think grad school/ academia can be a good fit for those who have a particular, narrow, interest or question and are happy to spend 30+ years in the weeds about it: those are the people I've seen happiest in their fields, if that makes sense.
I agree. I think a lot of the joy of grad school in the coursework stage is studying and discussing with profs and colleagues who are just as thrilled by the subject and its questions as you are. When you're all "clicking" together with that particular drive, it is such a pleasure to dive in headfirst! But that's going to be a really small group of people -- people who have that level of interest and motivation. If you're not quite at that place with it it's just not going to be worth it. It's a really particular kind of formation and it's not really suited to most people. And then if you do become a professor, that subject matter is going to be your bread and butter -- that and the relationships with students and colleagues.
Reading widely is such a gift -- also a wonderful way to get an education!
Also, 22-year-olds can just be kind of cocky...I can totally see being told "there will be no money" and saying HA THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK. Despite all evidence to the contrary ;)
It's a good point to bring up the relational aspect: having other people who are just as keen to talk about the same things! I think my experience was that overall I was always wanting to talk about things that were slightly adjacent and broader, and it was a case of one foot in and one foot out. When I had students who were keen for these adjacent matters, it was wonderful!
Also, the social aspect of grad school almost disappears entirely once you're ABD. So you can't rely on that overall! And later, a lot depends on your particular students and colleagues.
It's true! I think finding ways to continue interesting conversations (like here on Substack :)) throughout life is really key. I know many people who mourn for their grad school years of community because it's hard to replicate.
I think another thing I would encourage people to think about — especially women perhaps — is that it IS possible to go on to have a second career later in life. I have several wonderful examples of this in my life. An aunt who had ten children, returned to school for an MA in counseling when her youngest was in middle school and is now in private practice. My husband’s grandma became a direct entry midwife when her youngest of 7 was in high school. So I really love examples of women like this; it gives me a lot of hope that there’s so many ways to do things.
It feels to me as if that is what is happening to me! In the last couple of years new opportunities have opened up and there are new possibilities and, although I still intend to homeschool and be primarily a homemaker, suddenly I've re-entered professional life, too, in quite unexpected ways! What a gift. We never know what the good Lord has in store for us!
I think you offer wonderful advice in this essay about tempering expectations, making sure you have full funding, and doing it primarily for the love of it rather than for career prospects. My husband and I both have PhDs in the humanities. Overall, this career path has worked for us in that we've both held tenure-track positions and been able to grow intellectually over the years. Neither of us, however, would recommend this path to our kids unless, as you say, they absolutely don't want to do anything else.
The biggest struggles for us have been the following:
-stretches of unemployment, adjunct work, and struggles with the job market.
-salaries that don't always keep up with the cost of living (particularly in California, where my husband's tenure-track job at a state school has us barely affording our two-bedroom apartment and living without a car).
-the demanding nature of tenure-track positions that make a healthy work-life balance difficult.
After earning tenure at a small liberal arts college, I quit my job last year and I am currently teaching online as an adjunct so I can focus on homeschooling my kids. I'm thankful for the flexibility, but recognize that getting another tenure-track position after the kids are grown could be very difficult unless I continue to publish during these years.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom on this important topic!
I have a masters in writing. I taught middle school for three years and then left to get that degree. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. I love to write, and doing it for two years with mentorship and community helped me grow so much. I'm back to teaching now, and the master's degree entitles me to a yearly stipend, so that's an obvious plus, but my growth as a writer is what made it truly worth it.
Dixie, even though I'm not in the humanities I would agree wholeheartedly with #3 and #4 for anyone considering a PhD of any kind. I left a fully funded STEM PhD program because no one told me what getting a PhD really meant, but in their defense, I didn't really ask! My discernment was basically, "I like school, I like to learn things, other people seem to think this would be a good thing for me to do, so OK." This is . . . insufficient to say the least ;-) My advisor told me that a PhD requires a "fire in your belly" to know as much as possible about your specific area, and I was definitely lacking in that.
But my dad gave me some good advice when I graduated from college that I think ties in to the question of being prepared to shift roles in life - "You can lose a lot in this life; people you love, money, your reputation, even your health. But no one can ever take the things you learn away from you." This is why I hate the notion (or even the implication!) that anyone who isn't "using" their college degree is "wasting" it. Nothing that you learn is ever, ever wasted.
Amy, thank you so much for chiming in from this STEM viewpoint! I was hesitant to speak about doctoral work beyond the humanities because I know those fields can be somewhat different in form, experience, and professional outcome, and so I'm glad to see your perspective here.
Your description of the "I guess I'll go" reflexive kind of decision-making is perfect. When you're good at school, it's easy to just decide to keep going with school. But grad school really is a whole different ball game!
I love your dad's advice. I completely agree with you!
I will say that my master's degree has opened up many, many doors for me! For reference, I'm a part-time civil engineer, and the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum is VERY regimented and also very broad. The engineers who build roads, buildings, foundations, water systems, and airports are ALL civil engineers, and they have to cover all that in just two years because your first two years are spent on prerequisites like calculus, chemistry, physics, and mechanics of materials. A master's degree allowed me to spend two additional years learning more about the specific aspects of civil engineering that were most interesting to me, and because it was fully funded it raised my starting salary while essentially giving me six years of education for the price of four. But just like college in general, one of my primary pieces of advice is, "Don't go unless you know why you're going, even if it's only generally." It's perfectly fine with me if my kids would prefer to enter a trade rather than a four year university, but they'd better have a reason to go to college BEFORE they enroll. General idea is good enough - if you know you want to be in health care you can discern between nursing or dental school or pre-med as you learn more. But if you have no idea? Don't just go to go. Join the military, the Peace Corps, do a post-HS year of volunteering, get a job, whatever. You'll learn a lot about yourself and what type of work you're interested in as part of those experiences, and there's no rule that says you have to start college at 18 and finish at 22.
Yes, a Master's degree can be a huge help professionally, and is less of an investment of time and money (especially if it is fully funded, but sometimes is worth it even if it is not). I think it's often a good choice. But I do still advise most students to take a year "off" in between college and grad school to work in the field and see whether they really enjoy it. That first year in the adult working world after college -- providing for your own housing and other needs and being accountable to a boss -- is so packed with maturation that it's often worth taking that time before getting the Master's. But I also think it can work well to go right into the Master's from college, if you're really sure of what you want to do!
Also, re: the "fire in your belly," in many ways, I tend to agree with Cal Newport's argument that following your passion is not necessarily the road to contentment. But a multi-year project that also requires considerable personal sacrifice does require a certain "fire" in order to fuel the determination needed to see the project through!
A mentor of mine wrote in his recommendation for my grad school application, "I am convinced that she has the perseverance needed to see her through to degree completion." He also told me that grad school was the most challenging intellectual, emotional, and physical experience of his life.
I really didn't understand at the time why he said either of those things, but after a few years in grad school I completely got it!
I also agree with Newport on this. I think in a society that has trouble valuing things without dollars attached to them, it's natural for people to think, "This is my passion and the way I will be the happiest is to find a way to get paid for it." But the structural realities around certain ways of life may not support that! I was in choir all through high school and college and I love to sing, but I would be MISERABLE if that was how I was trying to make my living. The uncertainty, the competitiveness, the travel . . . these are all at odds with my preference for structure and general homebody-ness. That's not the life for me because the juice isn't worth the squeeze, as they say.
The juice isn't worth the squeeze! I love that!
Your example of choir is perfect.
I was so excited to read your opinion on this!
I think you've got great advice! I simply still do not understand how so many of our generation wasted years of their lives, and so much money pursuing degrees that would never in many hundreds of years pay for themselves, let alone if they became stay at home parents. And that's not to say that that education is in itself bad, or not useful, but we really were living in a dream world of actual usefulness when so many of us pursued degrees. I think the problem is how we view a college degree as a social status thing. If everyone had a degree in a solid liberal arts/humanties education that would be one thing--obviously everyone would be so much smarter, or other practical degrees that equal jobs, but for most people to have useless degrees in psychology or theatre design that they can never feed a family on is really sad and unfortunate. There were a few people I knew who, like you, had the genuine desire to keep learning and to pursue academia and have been really successful, but there were so many others who collected degrees and debt and no longer work in any of those fields today. I would definitely give your advice to my own kids and to constantly remind them that they should include practicality and the value of education in their discernment as much as possible.
And now I prepare myself for the barrage of millionaire psychologists and theatre designers in your audience who will come at me.
Hahaha!
It really is, I think, a question of discernment. Often, there is simply no discernment -- except maybe *where* to go, often with status boundaries playing a large part in that!
I agree with Amy in her comment on this post that education is never wasted (and I think you agree, too), but something like student loans can quickly become much more of a burden than many young people realize when they are first taking them on, and if you take them on and then you can't get your magical high-paying dream job, well...down to the insurance office you go to fill out an application for "salesman."
Essentially, you need to know what you are getting into. I think the growing practice of the gap year (especially if it is spent working, rather than playing) before college is a good one because it can create a sense of realism along with rapid growth in maturity and self-knowledge. Again, it would not be needed or good for everyone, but it might be something to consider. Same thing with taking a year to work and live "real adult life" between college and graduate school.
Degrees in theatre and psychology are good things, but they, like others, are best entered into via good discernement. So is an econ degree, for that matter!
One last thought: from the perspective of the Academy, I have actually *not* been successful. I got my degree, but then I "only" adjuncted while raising four kids. I have been blessed with writing success lately, but that has been a steeper climb than it might have been otherwise, largely due to not having a title or an institutional affiliation. BUT -- I still think I am carving out a good professional life for myself while also attending to my primary vocation as wife and mother in the way that I see fit. I've also been helped by a number of generous editors and colleagues who are wise enough to know that women who are committed to homemaking can also be smart, thoughtful writers.
There are lots of women doing this sort of carving...but boy, it sure is a different path than the one laid out as the ideal in the Academy!
I think you're successful because you are using your degree the way you want to, and you acquired it without regrets exactly as you say! Your degrees are successful even if you *just* use them to teach your children! I think I agree exactly with what you're saying, there has to be discernment. And I think inherent in good discernment is understanding and valuing the education you're receiving which I think in general for our generation, especially in undergraduate studies, there was no appreciation. People treated undergraduate studies oftentimes as either a mere stepping stone that didn't matter on the road to more letters after their names, or as something they had to do because their parents wanted them to and so they did the least amount of actual coarse work required for their degree in effect, learning not much of value. And if they don't understand why they're acquiring this education, what it can actually do to improve their life, then they appreciate it even less.
The benefit and good side of our generation is the craving out and creating of new ways to use our gifts/education. But it is so much more than traditional academia. I think women who want to stay at home with their kids in the future do have to bear this in mind when they're taking on more debt with more schooling. Because there are now so many options to making a job and career you want that doesn't necessarily require more degrees. But at the same time, if it is what lights you on fire as you say it's still a good and worthwhile endeavour because we don't know the future! I think the whole issue just needs some eyes of practicality.
So true. I am 100% against debt for doctoral studies, would be cautious about it for and M.A., and, if I could go back in time, would try to find a way to take on less college debt. I thought of my college loans as "worth it" at the time, and I'm very grateful for the college education I received. But it was too much money -- and there are ways to get a college education without spending so much money. I had no concept of how long it would take me to pay off my college debt.
Some eyes of practicality -- YES!
"...remind them that they should include practicality and the value of education in their discernment as much as possible."
Yes to allllll of this response.
When I went into undergrad, and honestly well into my 20's I had nooooo idea what I was doing. Changed majors, had a million jobs afterwards. I wish I had been given better tools of discernment, even—especially—if my parents did pay for a private undergrad education. (I think maybe this was one part of the problem, there was no fire of responsibility in me to make sure I was doing what was prudent and not just expected.)
More people should consider even undergrad more carefully. Although for many jobs, even the lowest entry level jobs I worked, a college degree was necessary..... also I loved it! But in real life, where down the road someone in your family needs to make money, you need to figure out if it's 1) trades 2) entrepreneurial or 3) white collar work that needs degrees... and kids need better discernment in these things. I had no idea what I was doing at 17!
It's as a 32 year-old that I'm even beginning to consider more robustly formal education down the road, and why. We are all different, though, and some people have the wisdom and foresight to recognize these things earlier in life. And some are best not going down those roads at all and doing something differently!
But I love your point Christy that the world would be a better place if everyone had an amazing liberal arts education but that's just not the reality of education these days. *Sigh...*
Christy is so wise, and so are you, Haley. We need to *think* about what we're doing before we spend $100K doing it. This goes for grad school, law school, med school, trade school, whatever.
I was fortunate to get a very good liberal arts education (although it was not as classical as the one students get at the college where my husband teaches), and I really believe it helps form human beings for virtue and civic responsibility and parenthood and work and and and...so I agree with you both about how valuable that is. But I am glancing at Laura's comment below about high school...if college is the new high school in terms of both education and status, that is a financial terrible situation to be in.
Haha, not wise, but a liberal arts girl! So I'm biased because that was my very practical post secondary education! I didn't even finish my degree because I got married across the country. But that's a story for another day!
I would love to hear it sometime!
I have just as many problems with the accepted college education system as I do with the regular education system! I would be all for everyone getting their degrees if it was in liberal arts so that people actually knew how to think! I think your experience is the default experience of what people my age and your age did after high school! It was just what you did! As my rant in the above comment goes off about undergrad attitudes I obviously agree with you. Why do we treat them as given and unimportant? There were so many people I knew who didn't really even expect to learn anything useful in all of undergrad! They were just going through the motions and taking random courses. And then the fact that every entry level job requires a degree but pays you basically minimum wage makes zero sense. Our whole system is so screwed up. I don't think all jobs should require a degree, probably most jobs shouldn't, there are so many ways to be trained in doing a good job that $100,000 or whatever the average is now for four years of education seems ridiculous. But I also think education is valuable and great and everyone should have it! For its own sake! But an education that actually pursues knowledge and wisdom, not one that just lets you pick classes on Taylor Swift.
It would be *so great* if a high school liberal arts education were widely available and such a degree considered enough for most decent jobs.
A lot of undergrads are there mostly to drink, in my experience. Ugh. At $100K, that's an expensive bender!
That's why serious liberal arts colleges are so valuable! They are places where young people really can go to be spiritually and intellectually formed and then go out into the world carrying that light.
Exactly! Support good liberal arts schools, people!
I have so much to say but am going to limit it to this: in an ideal world, I think I would want everyone to have a truly classical / liberal education through high school, and then either start working, or move into a specialised field, whether it be a trade or white-collar profession, etc. I don't think a random BA or BS should be required for most jobs (and they aren't at least a lot of the time in the UK). Basically, I think that post-secondary education should be specialised because everyone will have received an amazing liberal education up to that point. (In my dreams :)) Then, if people want to take out loans to gain degrees or training in their chosen field, the money is well-spent. And if someone doesn't know what they want to do, they can try out different forms of work in different fields in order to discover it.
So - having attended and taught at a liberal arts university - I think that these places are great but in an ideal world, *ought* to be unnecessary.
But then I was chatting with a prof whose kids are heading to university and grad school now, and he was saying that he would prefer they first read Aristotle and the Western canon at 20 rather than 16, because if they do it at 16, they'll assume they've read it and can just be done. I was surprised to hear this.
I was wondering about that while reading your comment. I agree about what high school *ought* to be, but at least in our current social context, I found it so much easier to study well and have good discussions and things like that at ages 17-22 than 14-18. In college, everybody was less cliquey, more open-minded, more grown-up. It was easier to learn from people who had different opinions from yours, and I do think the different level of maturity probably contributed to how well we were able to read, write, and discuss important works. There's something about having this intellectual and discursive experience being a part of your first years of adulthood that is really fitting.
Perhaps this was something that younger students attained more readily in periods wherein a 16-year-old functioned essentially as an adult.
I'd love to see stronger lib arts in high school, and then a deepening and revisiting of that in college for many students.
College as licensure for joining the middle class is not ideal, however.
Yes! I agree completely with the ideal being that everyone have a solid liberal arts education at the high school level!
My kids are doing a classical high school program right now and I actually think that them reading the classics for the first time in high school is a good thing. I think the classics need to be read many times in order to plumb their depths and to adequately appreciate them, and the experience of many of my peers in college who were reading Homer for the first time was that they were so at sea that they appreciated very little even from well taught lectures. I'd rather have kids have a cursory knowledge of the classics, so that they will be able to further learn from them in college. It also takes off weird pressure that kids should absorb and understand everything while they're in high school. But I could be wrong!
Yes! I love the idea of coming back again and again to the classics, going deeper and seeing new things.
And wouldn’t it be great if more students could get a solid liberal arts education in high school? I think a lot of the high school years are wasted and four year degrees shouldn’t be necessary for a well rounded education. I think my four year liberal arts degree was great for me but it was a blessing to have it paid for and I know it’s not feasible for everyone. This is something I’ve been thinking about lately.
I agree -- the problem begins with the state of education before college and graduate school.
I've been thinking a lot about the trades lately, and how people say "I want my kids to go into a trade instead of college," and how 22-year-old guys working for a local roofing company can be making salaries almost right of the bat that are bigger than that of, say, oh, I don't know, a tenured professor ;).
One thing I don't know, however, is how good of a longterm plan that is. It's physically dangerous and difficult, much more suited to a young person than even to a middle-aged one. How likely is it that, for example, as you approach 40 you would be able to become a contractor, doing little to none of the physical labor yourself? Surely not everyone can. What happens if you injure your back disastrously at 35? Will you wish you had more education so that you could start a new career in white collar work?
I really don't know the longterm path in the trades, and I'd love to know more.
My husband after college got two trade tickets while working, and if I remember while having three kids under three, but yes you're correct that there should be a path and there usually are paths in the trades that allow progression and job stability. One path is business ownership which is definitely an honourable and noteworthy way of creating a career, the other is using your trade in different industries that promote you further up companies like my husband who now manages 14 tradespeople for a large petrochemical plant. But he definitely counsels boys in high school to look at the current economic situation, what trades are in demand, which ones have a longer career lifespan, and which ones can be stepping stones to good jobs in different industries. Again, it's a viable path, but one that needs some forethought. Also, when doing a trade you're earning money while you train which is beneficial, and my husband has found that the more tickets you have on your resume the more likely you are to be hired in different industries. So just like having a degree gets you in the door, so having a ticket can get you in the door to a different job within an industry.
That's really interesting and helpful. Thank you!
Yes, my husband has done a lot more trades type work. He really prefers the hands on; however, as we were discerning things we realized that while his current business setup as sole entrepreneur has been completely fine, it’s not a good long term fit for a family. There’s too much precarity; so we were either going to be starting a new business with someone else (which is the plan) or expanding his business and hiring employees. We have a ton of conversations about this at home with our kids (even though they’re young). College isn’t bad, but needs to have a purpose in mind. We both have undergraduate degrees but were so fortunate to have gotten scholarships that left us without debt. It’s one of the things I’m most grateful for and has afforded the flexibility to start a business and try new things. I do think so much of it depends on the type of person — my husband would be so miserable in front of a computer all day. We’ve tried parts of that on, but he thrives when he gets to manage people and relationships and invest in people and solve problems. So much of career advice seems to be given around what will make money with very little credence given to what suits your gifting and capabilities.
It must feel like a big change (and I know you're moving, too!) but I am so excited to see where this new business takes you.
I am coming more and more to think that college with significant student debt is usually not a good idea. Some debt is fine, but lots? Why do we say "just take the loans and go" rather than "why don't you work full-time for a couple of years and save, and then go and finish in three years?"
Flexibility is a good thing.
Or is it that our communities and families are so broken that kids can't bear to stay for that year or two?
Yes, fully agree!
This is really wise! I loved the conclusion:
"You just can’t know the future – but you can make choices that will serve you well now. You can’t anticipate what the job market will be like eight years hence, you don’t know what your family situation will be, and you’re not likely to make very much money as compared to others with similar levels of education in different fields. But you can discern whether you would like to give yourself over wholeheartedly to the pursuit of wisdom in graduate school if the spark drives you there right now – and in later years, you can let that same wisdom guide you as you make decisions about wage-work and family life."
Thanks, Haley!
Graduate school (PhD) is generally fully funded. Masters degrees are generally not. Around 60K is what I see most running around for a counseling degree.
I would implore people to first think of family life and then a career that can go along with that. I turned down a funded Masters degree in accounting because I would have to take on more debt (non-tuition costs like rent etc) and I would have to delay having a family until my early 30s while I got the degree, worked for the credentials, slaved away at the cube farm and then could take maternity leave and put my child in day care.
Women and men are different. Our biological clocks are on different timelines. It would make more sense for society to push men into college/trades at 16 and women into practical life skills training if they even for a second think they want children/family. And by push, I don't mean force.
I somehow stumbled into a relationship at 24 and decided to become a homemaker who plans to homeschool and now have 2 children and I'm pretty happy with the decisions. I'm sure I would've been depressed on a cube farm.
But, this isn't to say that once my children are older, I can't go back to college and get another degree. It goes back to the different clocks/timelines for men vs women.
I just wish people were told the truth, at young ages in mass.
I hear you, but I think people are too diverse for pushing for college/trades at 16 to be the norm for men and practical life skills the norm for women. We all need basic practical life skills and benefit from having basic trade skills to some degree, but these things also can be learned in the home or on the job, so to speak. Pushing practical skills as the *main* education for women who "even think for a second they want to have a family" doesn't track with the overall formation of persons or the variety of gifts that women may have.
Everyone, whether male or female, should learn how to make a decent meal and fold laundry and care for children in a basic manner. Ideally, this would happen during childhood and adolescence. I do not think that higher education should be so easily dismissed, however. A huge number of women and men find it quite supportive of family life.
I hear you, but I think you have a rose-colored lens on your perspective because it has worked for you. The amount of people I meet who's parents did not prepare them with practical life skills and also went to college with no direction incurring thousands in debt, has led me to think that college being pushed for all, is not a workable nor feasible long term solution.
With the rise in single-parent families and dual-parent that both working and not preparing their children for life itself, I think it would be good to go back to the basics and what works.
4 years in college can cost over 100K at a public university, that is not sustainable. And I think you also read "push as force," if a woman wants to go to college and a man wants to learn practical life skills, that's totally fine. But, society pushing college for everyone has been a net negative. Especially with jobs, what jobs are there that people want to do without a degree? Not many.
Respectfully, friend, you know little of me and my experiences and background, so it is not appropriate for you to make assumptions about my perspective.
In any case, I do agree with you that going to college or graduate school should be something that is discerned rather than expected, which is (regarding graduate school) in fact the gist of my post at Current.
But "push" is indeed how I read it (you clearly said not force); pushing means encouraging something as the norm, and I disagree with you about making switching to practical skills education for women beginning at 16 the norm. I don't think it would be good discernment for most women to base their education at 16 on the presumption that they will be full-time homemakers and that a liberal arts college education is not worthwhile preparation for that work.
Respectfully, we aren't friends. We don't know each other and one can make assumptions from what someone posts online, til the cows come home.
Have a good day.
Gosh, Nicole. I guess we'll end the conversation there. I can't agree with you that it's right to make such assumptions.
Wishing you a good day, too.
What a great conversation! (I'm gone for one day and I feel like I missed so much, ha!)
I love the way you highlight the importance of discernment. I did not discern well regarding grad school, despite getting some good advice. Janet Smith said she would tell people not to go to grad school unless they couldn't *not* go. I was more in the "I'm good at school and everyone says I should and what would I do otherwise, anyway?" camp. I even had one theology prof tell me, multiple times: "you will never make any money. You have to be ok with never making money. If you ever want to support a family, this isn't a great fit." At the time, I didn't have a lot of concerns about making money (I figured I'd find a way - I was good at living frugally, etc.). Maybe I was just particularly deaf in my 20s!
I think the other thing is that graduate school is not necessarily the same as "an education." I know many well-read, interesting and interested people, who do not have graduate degrees. The older I get, the less of a snob I become about it all. I think grad school/ academia can be a good fit for those who have a particular, narrow, interest or question and are happy to spend 30+ years in the weeds about it: those are the people I've seen happiest in their fields, if that makes sense.
I agree. I think a lot of the joy of grad school in the coursework stage is studying and discussing with profs and colleagues who are just as thrilled by the subject and its questions as you are. When you're all "clicking" together with that particular drive, it is such a pleasure to dive in headfirst! But that's going to be a really small group of people -- people who have that level of interest and motivation. If you're not quite at that place with it it's just not going to be worth it. It's a really particular kind of formation and it's not really suited to most people. And then if you do become a professor, that subject matter is going to be your bread and butter -- that and the relationships with students and colleagues.
Reading widely is such a gift -- also a wonderful way to get an education!
Also, 22-year-olds can just be kind of cocky...I can totally see being told "there will be no money" and saying HA THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK. Despite all evidence to the contrary ;)
It's a good point to bring up the relational aspect: having other people who are just as keen to talk about the same things! I think my experience was that overall I was always wanting to talk about things that were slightly adjacent and broader, and it was a case of one foot in and one foot out. When I had students who were keen for these adjacent matters, it was wonderful!
Also, the social aspect of grad school almost disappears entirely once you're ABD. So you can't rely on that overall! And later, a lot depends on your particular students and colleagues.
It's true! I think finding ways to continue interesting conversations (like here on Substack :)) throughout life is really key. I know many people who mourn for their grad school years of community because it's hard to replicate.
I think another thing I would encourage people to think about — especially women perhaps — is that it IS possible to go on to have a second career later in life. I have several wonderful examples of this in my life. An aunt who had ten children, returned to school for an MA in counseling when her youngest was in middle school and is now in private practice. My husband’s grandma became a direct entry midwife when her youngest of 7 was in high school. So I really love examples of women like this; it gives me a lot of hope that there’s so many ways to do things.
It feels to me as if that is what is happening to me! In the last couple of years new opportunities have opened up and there are new possibilities and, although I still intend to homeschool and be primarily a homemaker, suddenly I've re-entered professional life, too, in quite unexpected ways! What a gift. We never know what the good Lord has in store for us!
I think you offer wonderful advice in this essay about tempering expectations, making sure you have full funding, and doing it primarily for the love of it rather than for career prospects. My husband and I both have PhDs in the humanities. Overall, this career path has worked for us in that we've both held tenure-track positions and been able to grow intellectually over the years. Neither of us, however, would recommend this path to our kids unless, as you say, they absolutely don't want to do anything else.
The biggest struggles for us have been the following:
-stretches of unemployment, adjunct work, and struggles with the job market.
-salaries that don't always keep up with the cost of living (particularly in California, where my husband's tenure-track job at a state school has us barely affording our two-bedroom apartment and living without a car).
-the demanding nature of tenure-track positions that make a healthy work-life balance difficult.
After earning tenure at a small liberal arts college, I quit my job last year and I am currently teaching online as an adjunct so I can focus on homeschooling my kids. I'm thankful for the flexibility, but recognize that getting another tenure-track position after the kids are grown could be very difficult unless I continue to publish during these years.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom on this important topic!
Thank you for sharing this, Kathleen! We seem to have a lot in common.
I have a masters in writing. I taught middle school for three years and then left to get that degree. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. I love to write, and doing it for two years with mentorship and community helped me grow so much. I'm back to teaching now, and the master's degree entitles me to a yearly stipend, so that's an obvious plus, but my growth as a writer is what made it truly worth it.
Sounds like a wonderful experience! I am so glad I went to graduate school, too.