"Personal Enrichment" Degrees

OK, so this is nice. We've had a little discussion about "enrichment" and what does it mean. Lots of good comments and clearly there is a segment of our community that can get behind that general concept.

So here's my next question (not meaning to eclipse the previous):

If we believe in the general concept of an enrichment degree, what does that do to the overall concept of ROI? Here's an example. I'm a Boston kid and one result of that is that I'm a big fan of Boston College. It's a great school but very expensive. the sports teams at BC are the Eagles and something that most people don't know is that there is a very exclusive club/status of being a "triple eagle" this means graduating from BC High School, BC, and BC grad school. In Boston it's more than a small thing, and not talked about too openly (we know who we are and we don't need to brag). I might be a double eagle and want a grad degree to enhance my career. I can't really afford it but I could get into a BC grad program and in the process make myself a triple eagle. Is it worth the money? What happens to ROI in that sort of case? I might be paying 3 times the money that I'd pay at UMass but are the intangibles worth the cost?

ROI is a tricky thing. I think that maybe it's not just about money (which is the original definition of ROI). Emotions become involved. Personal identity becomes involved. Some people don't care about these things and they will say, "Nebraska-Lincoln or UMass-Amherst? Who cares? But there are probably intangibles at play and people should be mindful of that as they ask for and give advice.

*Please note: I have never attended any Boston College schools/programs and have no affiliation with that system.

 

Most of my pursuit of advanced degrees is a result of a desire to keep learning. Degree plans are great. They include short term and long term objectives which are measurable, achievable, and time-based. Without those objectives, one will most likely flounder and take a long time to learn little of value.

 

You can't quote someone and then inject your own words. LOL that's hilarious. You completely misunderstood what I wrote, and then cut - added - and pasted your words.
I'm not going to explain it again, I stand by my original words, I picked each of them carefully to express exactly what I intended them to mean. Nuff said.

 

Then I'll stand by mine.

Johann

 

Yes it is tricky - because there are now intangibles in the equation. Intangibles, as non-cash assets, don't always lend themselves easily to valuation.

The ROI in case of a degree may consist of increased earning power + intangibles, including social/workplace prestige + personal satisfaction + an abiding, life-long love for the beauty of particle physics, or the human psyche.

Indeed hard - if not impossible to put a dollar figure on. Accountants can value intangibles of an enterprise, such as goodwill, software, patents, licences etc. - but I wouldn't expect them to assign a hard-cash figure to the intangibles we're talking about. I think it has to be an eye-of-the-beholder valuation.

Johann

 

Economists try to do this all the time - quantify intangibles such as well-being and, or, happiness. You can quantify some aspects of well-being: food, shelter, work, health, a basic education. These are needs, however. But they cannot quantify what fufills one's soul, or personal identity. Isn't the question, "Who am I?" one of the most basic of philosophical questions? Sometimes answering this question defies the logic of ROI.

 

Well-put, all of it -- especially that last sentence. And, in the unlikely event that any of those economists you mentioned are wondering what it would take to ensure my personal happiness, let's say ten or twelve million for starters -- but I'd probably settle for a little less...:smile:

Johann

 

This exchange is pretty funny overall. Forget intangibles, ROI, and all of that. How about, "because I want to?"

 

So I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here. Do you know how you know someone is a BC grad within 5 minutes of meeting them? They tell you. I know two "triple Eagles" and they are both d-bags. I have lived in Boston and will be moving back to area in the near future. While the BC alumni network in metro-Boston is supposedly strong, I know plenty of BC alums that have done nothing since graduating. The only time you'll see a BC student or graduate be humble is when they are in the presence of a Harvard student and/or alum and as soon as that Harvard guy or girl is gone the BC kid starts telling you how BC is a "Catholic Ivy". They will show some modicum of respect to Notre Dame and Georgetown alums, as they should since they are both superior schools, but thumb their nose at any other Catholic school graduate. Holy Cross is an infinitely better school and BC kids know it. They walk around with a chip on their should because they know they are only the 4th best school in metro Boston and a better Catholic school is only 30 minutes up the Mass Pike.

 

You don't see that as intangible?

 

OK, thanks for the rant.

 

I guess it is. Thanks for the correction-

 

tell us how you really feel brand whore

 

I say to each his own. If someone has the time, money, and desire to earn a degree just to broaden their horizons and fulfill a personal goal, then I say go for it. It's not personally affecting me one way or the other. I don't see anything wrong with getting a degree to specifically gain (or move up in) a particular job/career, and I also see nothing wrong with getting a degree just for personal enjoyment and satisfaction. Education is a GOOD thing, no matter the reason for getting it.

 

I've written about that. I'm very passionate about it, since it's always been my primary motivation for learning, and right now, it's the only reason for whatever interest I still retain in higher education.

Being motivated by interest in what one is studying isn't inconsistent with being employed in that field, or if that isn't possible, with making contributions to it in some avocational context.

That assumes that learning is "nothing". That's kind of a strange idea to see floated on what's at least ostensibly a higher education discussion board.

I think that professors do add something valuable to the higher education experience. I think that interacting with fellow students adds something, as does actually doing work in the field and having that work judged according to the standards of the field.

Certainly attending a university program isn't the only way to get that kind of interaction, guidance and feedback. There are all kinds of associations, groups and organizations out there involved with academic subjects. But universities are obviously one of the primary ways of doing it, since they are created to teach students. And keep in mind that wherever a student ends up learning the material, he or she is still going to have to put time and effort into it.

Sure, that's all true. Universities not only teach, they grant certifications that students have met some socially recognized standard. That's improves a graduate's credibility, which is often a good thing.

Sure it's possible. But do intellectually motivated people really have to have that expectation? One of the things that's attractive about university programs is precisely that they give students access to other people interested in the same often arcane subjects that they are. We needn't assume that because a student is intellectually motivated, that he or she must not care what anyone else thinks.

Of course.

Perhaps the problem is thinking of "ROI" (return on investment? I'm not entirely familiar with business-major jargon) purely in terms of making money, accumulating power or moving rapidly up some organizational chart. So if somebody isn't primarily motivated by the business-major stuff, one assumes that they have no interest in "ROI" at all, however "return" might be defined. But that's not very likely or very realistic.

What I'm saying is that if somebody actually studies physics or philosophy because they are passionately interested in studying the subject, the fact that they don't just perceive their education as an annoying and inherently valueless speed-bump on the way to a totally different goal that does have intrinsic worth (wealth, power etc.) needn't imply that our damnable intellectual is totally uninterested in getting anything out of studying, in what anybody else thinks, or in accomplishing anything with whatever they learn.

 

Welcome to the club.

 

Yes, I think we've mostly agreed on this - maybe somewhere on page 2 or 3, I'm not sure. I admire the phrase "damnable intellectual" - it certainly conjures up an image! However, I don't think any of us really think of intellectuals as truly "damnable," do we? How could we and still, in good conscience, post to a higher-ed forum? :smile:

"Damnable intellectuals" - not that many. "Frustrating intellectuals" - quite a few, I'd wager. Even some around here, occasionally. :smile:

As I wrote earlier:

Many times (I hope) it's not earning power at all. The reward is simply the intangibles - especially the last type listed.

Johann

 

Broadens it. The word "enrichment" itself suggests that students who use the word think that they are receiving some sort of value from doing it.

That's a very different kind of value, almost the opposite of what this thread started out talking about. But if it's true (I don't know whether it is) that BC graduates in the Boston area give preference to hiring other BC graduates, and if this is widespread enough to make a significant difference in somebody's subsequent professional success, then they might conclude that it's worth their paying more for a BC degree. Arguably, the better job prospects later would balance it out. I'm a little skeptical, but certainly it's possible.

I suspect that most of the Ivy League schools operate on that kind of principle. Here in California, we definitely see it at UC Berkeley. (Many if not most of its undergraduate applicants, especially in Asia, choose it because... well, because it's Berkeley. Not because they know anything about the reputation of the particular department they are applying to.) People are always assuming that even if the education they receive is no better than they would receive at a good but lesser-known school, the prestige-school name on their diploma will open additional doors. And that makes some additional sacrifice to attend these schools worth it, in these people's estimation at least.

It's going to be awfully hard to quantify though. A tremendous amount will depend on how a graduate proposes to use the degree, and where.

Yeah, that was my point yesterday.

There are lots of variables, that's for sure. I just want to make sure that actual intellectual interest in studying one's subject remains in the mix and doesn't end up on the floor and trampled upon.

I agree. But of course, Degreeinfo "advice" is basically just other people's opinions. Those opinions may or may not be relevant, informed or useful. (I think that a great deal of what's said on this, and on most internet discussion fora, is kind of doubtful, actually.)

In a Nebraska-Lincoln vs UMass-Amherst choice, probably the biggest variable in my opinion would be program reputation in the proposed subject. Is there a significant difference in their reputations among employers and in the professional community? Do the schools favor different approaches to their subjects or something?

Other than that, just speaking generically, they seem to me to be kind of equal. UMass probably has quite a bit more clout in New England, while Nebraska is that state's flagship university and probably is very influential in Omaha and probably in the other Great Plains states. You're just likely to find more of each school's graduates working for companies and public agencies in its own region, so graduates from the local school may get a small boost from that.

Here in California, outside both schools' regions, I think that degrees from both schools would generally be perceived pretty much the same way, unless there happens to be a big and widely known reputational difference between the departments in the graduate's field. (If we are talking about doctoral level hiring, we can assume that interviewers will have inquired into that.)

BC has a very good academic reputation out here. I didn't know that it's perceived as snobby in the Boston area.

That brings up another thing. BC is a Catholic university. And out here at least, there's a bit of favoritism among some Catholic graduates for graduates of other Catholic schools. (Especially when it comes to undergraduate degrees, I think.) They are more apt to take notice if somebody drops the word 'Jesuit' or something. There's definitely a traditional pipeline from University of San Francisco (Jesuit) into the San Francisco city government, dating back to the 19'th century when Irish immigrants exercised disproportionate local clout. Given its ethnic history, I expect that might be an even bigger deal in Boston. So there's a Catholic old-boy's network, though I'm not sure how pervasive it still is. (I don't think that it has as much impact down in Silicon Valley, for example.) We still see Catholics around here identifying themselves to other Catholics by the parishes they grew up in, like a secret handshake.

 

Don't worry, that's just a Templar thing.

 

Wasn't Bill from Louisiana at one point? I think he just might have been, because that State has 64 parishes - instead of counties. Doesn't matter if you're Catholic or not - you still come from a parish, not a county. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parishes_in_Louisiana

"Catholic old-boy network?" You mean Dan Browne was right? :smile:
Nothing more uncomfortable than wearing a cilice on a hot day on the Bayou, I'd bet! :jester:

Aieeee! Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Johann