Would you apply this advice to even a master's degree? In my experience, it is exceedingly rare for universities to offer tuition reduction for a master's degree, unless it's a pure research master's degree. Some offer a limited number of scholarships, but other financial aid is rare.
And I actually think paying for certain masters degrees, for example in computer science or engineering, is a better financial investment than paying for most law schools, particularly in the present environment.
I do agree that one should not pay anything for a PhD.
A master's degree is almost certainly worth less than than a year of full-time work experience on your resume.
So, the master's is potentially costing you triple - you're paying for it, you're not getting paid, your value as an employee isn't going up as much as someone who is working.
If you can't find a sponsor to pay for a master's degree, then I would assume that nobody values you having that master's degree.
>A master's degree is almost certainly worth less than than a year of full-time work experience on your resume.
For how long is this true? I mean, at this point, I have "more than a decade" of experience - and, considering, I think I'm likely to say 'more than a decade' even when I have two or three decades of experience; no reason to point out that you are old.
On the other hand, people leave their degree on their resume forever.
My point here is that years of experience seem to have, ah, a diminishing marginal return.
(that said, I'm almost certain that you are correct for the first five years of your career... /if/ you can get a good job without a degree and without experience, which in my very relevant experience, depends a whole lot on the shape of the job market at the time.)
Actually, as someone without a degree... the 'perishability' of my credentials is something I think about often. I mean, i wrote a book, [1] which is a pretty strong credential, but will one obsolete book mark me as 'middle class' 20 years from now? probably not. A masters degree would. (Now, would that masters, if it was fallow for a decade or two, get me a job? probably not by itself. But, my impression is that it keeps it's value as a credential longer than, say, my book, and certainly longer than work experience.)
> I actually think paying for certain masters degrees, for example in computer science or engineering, is a better financial investment than paying for most law schools.
Considering putting cash under your mattress is a better investment than paying for law school, yes, you are technically correct.
However, I don't know how "worth it" financially even a master's degree in Computer Science is. At best, I feel like it's break even in most cases: the year or two you spend getting the degree might be better spent on the job, especially if you have a decent mentor.
In one case, a guy I mentored directly out of undergraduate ended up going back and getting his master's. I think he'd say that it made him feel more confident with certain concepts, but then, I picked up the equivalent information in the course of my 10-year career with only an undergraduate degree. Any reasonably curious programmer would. It certainly did not make a difference in his income.
As for PhDs, I have never hired one. They seem to universally have an inability to think concretely or in a step-by-step manner. They have the skill set of a junior developer but expect the salary of a senior developer (at least). Ultimately, I can only imagine hiring one if they had significant experience in a very specific area that is difficult to hire for.
> As for PhDs, I have never hired one. They seem to universally have an inability to think concretely or in a step-by-step manner.
Could you elaborate on why you think that "PhDs have an inability to think"? If anything, I would have thought that a PhD will be extremely methodology and think through every step (after all, that is what you are supposed to do in a PhD).
"And I actually think paying for certain masters degrees, for example in computer science or engineering, is a better financial investment than paying for most law schools, particularly in the present environment."
Maybe. You can't just compare the outcomes of people with these degrees, though, you have to consider their prospects going in. Typically, someone who applies to cs or engineering already has a closely related undergraduate degree.
A history major who attends an elite law school probably does see a pretty dramatic jump in salary prospects. A computer science major who gets an MS? Probably a bump, but the undergraduate degree is pretty employable already.
A master's in a science or most scholarly fields is just a signal that you crashed out of a Ph.D. program - it's better not to admit to having one.[1] But you remind me that I left out another reason you might want to pay for graduate school: to get an MBA or other specialized business-type degree (international finance, accounting, etc.), that can be a good strategic move for some people - and can actually be rewarding and interesting if you get it at a good institution.
[1] Some Ph.D. programs routinely award Master's on the way to the doctorate; I'm talking about terminal Master's.
Most people with Masters in engineering degrees got them as part of a BS/MS program in 5 years. If you're doing that then it seems reasonable to pay for the MS part as you would normally pay for the BS part.
And I actually think paying for certain masters degrees, for example in computer science or engineering, is a better financial investment than paying for most law schools, particularly in the present environment.
I do agree that one should not pay anything for a PhD.