Would you get an advanced degree just for fun?

[whodini]

I agree with Huntsman in that books can really only take you so far. Of course, so can professors that are only mildly interested in sharing their experience or who are simply horrible teachers.

Not sure what field I'd go into but if I had unlimited amounts of free time I would definitely get into something. Knowledge is a hell of a drug.

 

[Coho]

Costs way too much these days. I've got a masters...and it's kind of useless. There was a study a few years back stating that people with more years in school tend to live longer than those with fewer years.

 

[eidolon]

A highly ranked doctoral program in any subject is hell. I find it hard to believe that any person on this Earth could get a doctorate in a rigorous program if their only motivation was enjoyment.

A masters is a totally different story, and yes, I would get a masters in a field where it's too difficult to self-teach and where I want to learn more.

 

[acidboy]

I went to grad school for the heck of it and started on my MBA. Never really needed it in my line of work but just felt the need to hit the books again. I didn't finish it, though, got married and never went back for the thesis and another subject, but I learned a lot and that's the most important thing.

 

[Coho]

damn, women can be so evil.

Originally Posted by acidicboy

I went to grad school for the heck of it and started on my MBA. Never really needed it in my line of work but just felt the need to hit the books again. I didn't finish it, though, got married and never went back for the thesis and another subject, but I learned a lot and that's the most important thing.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Coho

damn, women can be so evil.

I was watching Rounders recently and there's a very true line that I never got before because I didn't know what rake was. "In the poker game of life, women are the ******* rake."

It's so true.

 

[trogdor]

I guess it depends on the field/subject, but in the humanities, the main (I'm tempted to say only, but that would be overstating it) reason for pursuing advanced degrees is for "fun" (or at least, because of personal enjoyment and fulfillment). Put it like this: you shouldn't do a PhD in philosophy because you think the job prospects or pay will provide a good return on your (temporal, emotional, monetary) investment! (They won't).

 

[rdawson808]

Originally Posted by eidolon

A highly ranked doctoral program in any subject is hell. I find it hard to believe that any person on this Earth could get a doctorate in a rigorous program if their only motivation was enjoyment.

But that's ultimately the only motivation for getting a PhD. You study what you do because you like it. I'd say that getting the degree for any other reason (money?) is the unthinkable thing.


I've always considered getting a law degree just for what I'd learn. I've always found the study of the law to be very interesting.

b

 

[Matt]

I am not a big fan of academia at the best of times, but remember, she is 40-something, evidently can afford to put herself through it, and has found an area she is interested in, so, more power to her.

 

[RJman]

I think getting an MD would be interesting and a way actually to help people.

 

[Victor123]

I know people that have done it, I guess as long as you treat it as a hobby rather than a way to make more money.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by whodini

I agree with Huntsman in that books can really only take you so far. Of course, so can professors that are only mildly interested in sharing their experience or who are simply horrible teachers. Not sure what field I'd go into but if I had unlimited amounts of free time I would definitely get into something. Knowledge is a hell of a drug.
+1 to everything. Having an uninterested Prof is such a travesty compared to what happens when the whole class gets drawn in by passion. It's electrifying. I miss that so much. ~ Huntsman

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by whodini

I agree with Huntsman in that books can really only take you so far. Of course, so can professors that are only mildly interested in sharing their experience or who are simply horrible teachers. Not sure what field I'd go into but if I had unlimited amounts of free time I would definitely get into something. Knowledge is a hell of a drug.
The third failing of professors is the most dangerous, and that is that a high percentage of them, even in great universities, have such a strong lense through which they view anything even remotely interpretive that the amount of learning available in a classroom situation is often less than that which is available from reading original sources and well thought out essays on them. The best of all is to have friends who are similarly interested, because you are able to discuss things with people who have actual life experiences in an environment in which one person does not command respect simply for being at the head of the class. I guess what I want to say is that I find that, for the most part, autodidacts in philosophy and history are infinitely more interesting and capable in the above subjects than are people who hold advanced degrees in them.

 

[unpainted huffheinz]

I spent five years teaching at a private college, and the best advice I can give students is to be extremely wary of career academics.

 

[rdawson808]

Once again feelng the need to defend my former profession:

1. A boring professor is no worse than a class full of uninterested students. I'm not there to entertain you.

2. I sound like I have a "lens" through which I view everything because I'm trying to teach you something about a particular subject. And I've learned my lesson about being too friendly with students. So yes, most things come back to economics.

3. Few things are more annoying than students who think they can learn what I know on their own. You can't. Trust me.

b