Mexican Office Doctorates for less than 8K

Depends on the program and the school. If it's not necessary to give up a job or reduce hours, why do people still do it? And why do schools provide stipends to Doctoral students, to offset (at least somewhat) that reduced income (opportunity costs). It's not out of the goodness of their hearts. It's to get more people into programs that require F/T campus attendance - and still earn tuition revenue. That's a clawback that works for the Uni.

Rich Douglas holds a PhD. Not every person who holds a PhD is Rich Douglas.

 

Indeed it did. It's even larger now. A quote - post by me in another thread:

National U. is a large, well-known distance university, founded on the principle that students could study while working F/T. Using your word, Rich - this is "situational." Depends on the school and the student.

Not every University is National U. And National U. is not for everybody. Diff'rent Strokes etc.

 

That should be "Depends on the school, the program and the student. Dang that timer.

 

And Rich, you're a fine contestant. Better fighter than me. Another Tyson Fury -- you have persistence, like the other guy who just wouldn't quit, in this thread. I'm gonna concede here.

I'm exhausted, my eyes are acting up funny and I've taken I dunno how many mandatory 8-counts. That's it. Take your winnings and enjoy, Rich. I'll take the loser's purse to the Salvation Army Thrift Shop. I hear a rich lawyer, my size, died a month or two ago and his missus just gave his duds to the Sally Ann. The guy was a real fashion-plate. It's 4 am here. G'night.

 

I do think my LLM paid off handsomely in a major promotion despite the fact that I never actually practiced tax law. I'm not sure why this should be so nor was the degree the sole reason for my advancement but it did matter.

Master's degrees in general may offer a better ROI than most doctorates because a Master's takes much less time and is generally less expensive than a self funded Ph.D. yet still make the holder something of a subject matter expert.

 

I think that if I were to have pursued a doctorate I'd have done so only if it was fully funded which I guess means in residence.

Funded graduate degrees are very rare in law in the U.S. Yale Law School said that all of their Ph.D. candidates would receive full funding but that was twenty years ago.

 

The odd thing for me is that for years I didn’t think U.S. law was worth studying as an academic research field. Now that I'm old and happily retired I have changed my mind about that. Our political and legal systems are in a period of upheaval, even crisis. There is much to examine there.

 

What is happening is the attempted overthrow of the positivism based legal system I grew up with. This isn't the first time in our history. It may be the last for a long while. I think it would be interesting to compare developments in constitutional law in the last twenty years, say, with the developments between 1830 and 1860. Something similar is happening now as happened then, a revolt against an authority that perhaps threatened the social fabric of a large fraction of the population.

 

I'm not talking about MAGA. Trumpism is a result of larger forces. Take a look at "legalized" marijuana and Texas Gov. Abbott's nonsense border control measures and vicious efforts to punish even U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants. Both are examples of state governments simply declaring that federal law doesn't matter.

 

Sorry. Thinking aloud.

 

Degrees can be done with zero interruption in one's career and earnings. There is no longer a need to consider a trade-off between earning credits and earning dollars; one can do both.

 

PhDs experience unemployment at much lower rates than does the general population. According to BLS, their unemployment rate was under 2%, while their median earnings were spectacularly above, say, the median wage of high school graduates.

The facts belie the notion of the "unemployed PhD." Sure, there are always anecdotes--and some people love to read about the big shot educated dude serving it up at Starbucks. But again, the numbers tell a very different story. And for every story like that, there's one like mine.

 

OK. But I took your supplied "average." That's definitely unspectacular. Quite contrary to your own experience.

 

These are people, typically, at the beginning of their careers--still preparing to enter them, in fact. Not exactly our demographic. Yes, they have an opportunity cost. But mid-career professionals? They don't have to face that dilemma. Yes, someone can choose to take that route--quit their careers and go to school full-time. But it's not like quality degrees are unobtainable to the working person.

 

I question the marijuana conclusion. I think a lot of that is being caused by the federal government. For decades it has maintained marijuana as a Class I drug. This has always been an absurd position. Decades of hypocrisy later, people wanted change. They found the prohibition of marijuana ridiculous. Generations of Americans grew up with this attitude, yet nothing changed. And yet, the federal government not only failed to fix this, they made it worse with their own laissez-faire attitudes about enforcement. And when the states took up the nullification mantle, did the federal government step in (like they had done with civil rights)? No. They turned a blind eye. And people noticed.

 

Not everybody can. Time constraints. Studying while also working is a longer degree path. Some prospective PhDs need to get it done in a shorter timeframe, so they cut down hours or quit work. Others go to campus f/t because their program is only offered that way, by the University of their choice. Or because that's where the Lab is -- and their discipline requires long lab hours.

It's not as cut-and-dried as you present it. Not everyone is Rich Douglas. Not everyone can be Rich Douglas. Not everyone can do what Rich Douglas did. Gee, maybe some even don't want to? Strange thought, but...

 

And you have to book the Cyclotron -- for whatever time you can get it.

 

That’s EXACTLY my point!

 

No argument, Rich. I believe the average you supplied takes both extremes - and their rarity - into account. It is what it is - an average, and I pointed that out clearly and admitted that the financial ROI can be spectacular for those who achieve much better than average income results after earning a PhD. - e.g. Rich Douglas, PhD., D. Soc. Sci., MBA, B.A., B.S., A.A., A.A.S., PCC, CPTD, SPHR, Graduate, The Art of Leadership, JFK School, Harvard University, GS-15 (Retired), Captain, US Air Force, (Retired).

And I also pointed out, I think accurately, that your ROI flatlines - if you get an average earnings increase of $300K and you've taken Student Loans. You say they are trivial in your case -- but that's a case of a far above-average earnings return, post-degree. IIRC you've also used the phrase "hundreds of dollars a month" and that you'll be paying into your 80s and 90s. That doesn't sound "trivial" - but I'm convinced you can afford whatever it is. Outliers can do that. Average people can't.

I'm getting a nonexistent ROI for the time I've spent on this. As I say, there's no prize. So...

Regards. Me go nap now.

Johann von Biersaufen, S.F.A. (I'm sure you know the acronym - sweet * all.)

 

Be reasonable. No one said "everyone." You can't negate an entire model by pointing out that there are a few exceptions. We've both been around to know:
a) When there was a serious trade-off that had to be made when going back to school: work or school but not both, and
b) That it is simply not the case anymore for the vast majority of working people.

For nearly everyone, there is no opportunity cost involved, except what could have been done with the money spent on tuition. ("Honey, is my MBA, er, I mean dune buggy, in the garage?)