Of 55 students in my class at Columbia’s Film program, 4 made a career out of it

When I got to university that was confirmed in spades (and I was glad to actually get something for my money, because the subject was "useless", I got great teaching, great feedback on my work, etc.). Obviously, business was the absolute worst (one professor taught a course on investing, he literally wrote a book on investing, he left at the same time I graduated to run a fund...just before the pandemic, he got fired because his fund was down 10-20%/year, he was one of the worst-performing fund managers in the UK at the time), stuff like law was pretty decent (although most people who studied law never became lawyers either, I don't understand how because the school was number #1 ranked for law...after I left, I saw quite a few lawyers who got a job due to family...so it might be that), and even CS had a great reputation in teaching but the actual linkages with industry were non-existent, so the teachers taught the theory and things they thought were fun to teach (lots of students struggled, I spoke to startups who said they had trouble recruiting, even though this school turned out hundreds of grads every year, because they all just went to larger companies that didn't require actual development skills).

It isn't the case everywhere but I think the idea that university is required for success outside university is misleading, particularly for high school students. A lot of the knowledge is definitely very useful but life outside university tends to be about things that aren't in any books. University is orthogonal to life.

The connections that he made in his Masters program led to him founding a security company with his professors and landed government contracts through their contacts in the federal government. That infosec company is one of the most competitive/exciting local employers.

You end up paying $340,000 to take the same classes as regular Columbia students while being almost cut off completely from the college social experience.

Universities still think that there is a large enough population that is only interested in the pursuit of higher knowledge, but the private sector formed around attending these universities prompting the underclass (sorry, no other word in this context) to clamor to attend them and simply become debt serfs

So we can complain about the universities, refrain from calling the debt laden alumni dumb simply because they are so numerous now (degree-positive movement?), or complain about the federal government but the question is:

What organization does exist just for the upper class to pursue knowledge and maintain their connections?

Universities and fraternities were doing that loooooong before the private sector noticed

and its only controversial (it being: college admissions practices, debt, purpose, degree choice, admission corruption etc) because people that were never intended to be there feel they need to be there

So what is the replacement? Private clubs with professors? Summits and exclusive apprenticeships? Just admitting the same family’s children to universities anyway and they just pretend to be struggling students indistinguishable from the proletariat?

Sharp analysis. For film, an NYU degree is less bad (I hesitate to say “better”) bc at least you’re in the village, where some of the art scene still remains, rather than stuck in the boonies uptown.

But the real issue is that a masters in the humanities is only for the independently wealthy. In particular the MFA gets you a pan unpaid internship at a gallery where they home you’ll bring in your parents’ wealthy friends. In that regard not that different from the private banking business.

And get this: turns out I hated film production itself and the long hours as well as unreliable life of a freelancer. This meant taking a day job and missing out on a lot of freelance gigs due to weekday availability, but even with that handicap I managed to be gainfully employed (although the first 5 years out of college were pretty rough).

Because, for the world around me it was obvious that I would be studying medicine or engineering (I chose engineering as I had seen number of thick books a relative had - he was a medical student - that had scared me).

Fine arts and creative fields are reserved around there for people who didn’t score well in school level, or have very rich patents or are women (don’t kill me, I am just stating it), or have rich patents and are kinda “aware” (in a “woke” sense; hope this term is not highly offensive). For the rest it’s just - what will pay and pay ASAP.

Almost after more than a decade and a half later when all this happened and now that I am a senior software developer I really wish I had picked creative fields to study but that thought goes for a long pause, every time, the moment I think about the definite hardships I would have had to face and almost definite failure (statistically).

I do believe the ecosystem around me at that time collectively nudged me towards a wise and practical choice, even though I barely do not hate software development (sure I do not like/love it) and almost every day I think/fantasise about getting into writing, history, film making etc. I hope I am able to maintain this dream and reality balance for long enough to retire safely and comfortably.

This is not limited to just physics, but all STEM PhDs.

Actually, you should never join a PhD program if it’s not funded! As for the pay.. you’ll need to define “living”.

Yes, you will likely travel, but research funding is more often than not very tight and restricted. As a result, travel conditions are not always ideal.

As far as the subject matter goes, it’s as interesting as you make it out to be. The more crucial point is that you must enjoy what you’re doing to be able to pull through the 5 year+ program.

Your peers can be collegial and friendly, yes, but make no mistake: competition can get fierce in academia too.

Exiting is always an option, but once you’re a few years in, it can be hard to jump ship due to the sunk cost fallacy.

Specifically, let's talk about "cost." I did a biology PhD at a respected school in a low COL area. The annual stipend, when I graduated in 2019, was around $31k. It was enough to afford basic necessities (rent, food, car) with a few hundred dollars to spare. Obviously, not enough to start a family, but I wasn't subsisting on ramen noodles either. Plus, the work I did as a researcher is something I can put on my resume as actual work experience.

Stories like the above, about people going into massive debt for graduate degrees, send chills down my spine. I can't imagine the cost/benefit calculus that steers people onto that path.

On the other hand, delaying my career by X years probably came with an opportunity cost. That's more speculative. I could have skipped college and become a computer programmer, in 1982. How long would I have lasted at that? Would I have enjoyed it enough to stay motivated? Would I have been any good at it?

Would I have enjoyed working in finance? Another unknown. The one person I know who got a lucrative "superstar" career in NYC burned out of it and went back for a second degree in journalism.

But a widely known rule of thumb is: Never go to grad school unless either someone else is paying for it, or you are in a job where each degree level guarantees an automatic salary bump.

This is what's known as a "dick move" in academia, and it's a good way to burn bridges. Generally, the academic who is putting down the money to pay your tuition and stipend is making an investment. In return for a free education and $30k per year, you do research, you study, and eventually you are expected to graduate. Good academics will make sure you don't fail at this. Then, when the academic goes up for tenure or promotion, the committee will be looking at among other things, the students who graduated under their tutelage. If you decide you'd rather not stick it out, that's potentially years of work they invested in you, gone.

All in, a graduate student can cost an academic upwards of $50-100k per year, and they are typically expected to foot that bill for at least 4 years, up to a max of 10. To get this money, the academic needs funding from grant agencies, whose funding rates can be as low as 20%. When submitting a grant proposal, academics generally do so with a particular student in mind who will do the research. If you leave in the middle of the grant, it likely spells failure (or at the least a huge setback) for the project, and possibly future grants, as it's too late to train up a brand new student to the point you were at.

Just something to think about before entering a Ph.D. program. Remember these communities are small and have a long memory. Best not start something unless you really are committed, and won't just pack up shop at the first hint of dollar signs from Wall Street or Silicon Valley.

I work in both and routinely interview PhDs in physics. I would not say that the transition is immediate nor easy, as the quote implies. Both tech and finance have specific knowledge, e.g., programming skills and understanding of the markets, and most PhD graduates have to pick those up on their own. Having a degree from one of the Ivies will facilitate the screening round, but past that point it hardly counts.

The question for me in a country that almost (90%) fully funds students going to college, is about whether we fund them as much as students going for degrees that will lead to jobs.

The government's role would likely be to collect and distribute the income, but the actual financing would be set up between colleges and banks, both of which would have a vested interest in student success.

I have a masters degree in Japanese studies. It helped me get my first commercial software job at Sybase, testing localized products for the Japanese market. I have not done anything related to Japan since then, but the critical thinking skills and understanding of economics stayed with me my whole career. Not to mention the discipline of defending ideas when other people try to beat the crap out of them.

Looking back, it was one of the more worthwhile things I've ever done, up there with learning Latin and reading Cicero.

I would hate to see a scheme of incentives against following your curiosity.

If you study math, and then go coding videogames.... technically, you're not in a math field anymore, but a math degree helps you a lot with programming.

On the other hand, if you flip burgers in McDonalds, no matter which degree you have, it's gone to waste.

What you measure is what you will get.

* Anecdotally, I’ve never seen a group of students more willing to undermine each other than the architecture students where I took university. Because of the “accept many then weed the lowest XX%” approach it seemed like they were always trying to tear each other down. I’m sure it’s not like that everywhere, but I saw this firsthand at one school and heard secondhand for another.

There is just not much demand for certain jobs while it is a dream of many many people. As an average software engineer you'll still easily make an above median salary somewhere. But from what I've seen, as an artist, if you are not in the top few percent, not in terms of skill but perseverance, networking and self-marketing, you'll starve.

If you do UI, its essentially the abstraction of the architect profession.

Looking forward to an immersive vr web where I can start really building out digital built environments.

How many high level artists were taught their art in a prestigious university setting? And those that did.. how many actually finished their degree versus those that dropped out early because they were already on their way to success and didn't need the stamp of approval?

Having worked in the film industry, you’re more wrong than right here.

I am all for the government potentially paying for degrees, but I do see how it would be helpful for taxpayer dollars to pay for hundreds of kids to get a Columbia MFA.

That said, it's probably no coincidence that all this happened after massive amounts of federal money started pouring into higher education starting in the 1950s, and the academization of arts and crafts (a term I use with great respect!) seems to have proceeded in lockstep in many fields after that.

Heck, there is a huge amount of social pressure pushing 18 year old kids to do this. They can’t possibly know better, but the adults encouraging such reckless behavior really should not be doing this.

Indeed. The only question is, do you crush their dream now or later? Is more evil to crush their dream now without debt or later with debt?

And the kids? What are the odd they are know and would prefer a fun youth to an ordinary career? If we're talking a world where global warming looks like doom?

50% agree, and I'm not in the US (UK) so our experience (and reality) may differ.

But are 'upscale [up-market?] universities marketing', or are governments and people with votes deciding that everyone needs a university education (because people with degrees have higher income and correlation is synonymous with causation) and when 'everyone' inherently isn't interested in.. 'traditional' subjects, we end up with this? Vocational degrees not even leading to the vocation.

Person doesn’t find meaningful employment after step 1, it is natural to assume (and universities push too) that a higher degree is the differentiator.

But also kinda Darwinism at work? Ask 100 random strangers to clean a loaded gun while staring down its barrel. You'll probably get at least 5 people to do it. Student debt isn't even that evil.

We can try to say that students should educate themselves about the odds, but that's kinda like telling someone sitting in a McDonalds that they should get something healthy.

Even students going on to MA/PhD programs have a good chunk of sunk cost fallacy goading them on. No one entered these degrees without honestly wanting to make a go of it, but when they pop out the other end with 120k in debt, no idea how to pay it and a ~10% job placement rate - deferring for another 4 years and getting more credentials sounds pretty appealing.

I don't want to dismiss this guy's tweet thread or anything. He definitely seems to be saying Columbia tried to market the program as giving you a better chance, but students have to know becoming any kind of artist at all, filmmaker included, is purely a lottery. There's at most a few hundred people in the world at a time making any real money doing it. Schools can't just pretend that isn't the case.

For what it's worth, I think it's a disastrous career choice either way, unless you're relying on nepotism and your parents were famous actors or directors. I had a girlfriend 20 years ago going through Rutgers' MFA program, and she realized some of her dream for a little while, being a working producer for a cartoon studio and even moving to LA for a few years, but burned out eventually from every place she ever worked going out of business and moved back to Jersey and opened a bakery. My best friend from college actually did not study film, but did succeed in becoming a Hollywood writer and even won an Emmy a few years ago. It didn't make any difference. He's even poorer and in more debt than my ex who owns a bakery now. Even "success" in the art world doesn't mean you won't be begging for table scraps for the rest of your life. Hundreds of people work on any given project, but even if a project is wildly successful, wins a ton of awards, and makes a billion dollars, maybe five actors, the director, and possibly the head writer if that isn't also the director, actually see any of that money. The rest goes to the studio.

There's a pretty good book that explores that phenomenon and what happens when people don't "get the memo": Paying For The Party: How College Maintains Inequality, by Elizabeth A. Armstrong (https://www.amazon.com/Paying-Party-College-Maintains-Inequa...).

To a degree, many of these 'prestige' degrees amount to a kind of version of "become the next president of the USA and if you don't, you can become a volunteer part-time mayor of a small town"

If they sold it like this, people would see the odds in this lie. Very few people in the US will become president of the USA. And while filmmakers are somewhat more abundant, it cannot accommodate as many as there are enthusiastic pupils, so they end up doing other things like massage therapist when thigs don't work out but they now have a mountain of debt.

There are many more degrees like that. Ironically, when there is some slack in demand for something like EEs, suddenly people abandon that track en-masse. But these liberal arts degrees don't seem to suffer the same attrition they actually deserve.

There’s lots of arguments to be made about how having lots of history/English/whatever graduates benefits society in some intangible way, and they might have a lot of merit to them. But that’s not the purpose of federal student aid. The purpose is to improve social mobility. It’s not difficult at all to measure which programs achieve that goal, which don’t, and which are in fact harmful to social mobility.

And the world would be no worse off if only rich children with trust funds got degrees in film, Russian literature, or art history. And if the Government stopped propping up college loan programs, tuitions for practical degrees would drop like a rock.

Since little short of death can cause a student loan to be discharged, I don't think that would actually put any skin in the game.

Lets call it what it is: institutionalised debt bondage. Non dischargeable debt is a mind-boggling violation of liberty.

It's creating a class of serfs that will always owe their lord.

Having been on both sides. I can sympathise.

In the UK the responsibility of preparing students for wider world lies with the University. (this is the perspective of many lectures who teach within stem)

The departments believe their commitment to teaching is finished after assessing the students ability within their chosen field, that's their job and the universities provide external optional support material which they believe covers everything else.

The students that teaching staff spend the most of their time with are doctoral students. Speaking frankly these students have passed a filter to being students willing to work at a problem for hours. This is not a guarantee they're the best, but they are normally the most hardworking. There is a huge expectation that these students teach themselves missing skills and abilities. This is what teaching professors expect from all students. Although it would help if they said that.

Some lectures are just plain awful at teaching. Like some Coders make bad managers. Some are doing it because their successful position to pay for their really expensive toys in labs demands it. Imo these lecturers need to be taken aside and disciplined for failing at their job because a single bad lecturer in the wrong topic can do a _lot_ of damage to a department's reputation and functioning...

However most lecturers work assuming they're speaking to PhD students mainly because they spend so much other time with them. It's difficult to identify that for 2 hours a week you're speaking to a room of people without the common skillset to be a PhD student. (I'm not spreaking of raw ability and intellect, it's the mindset to focus on a problem for days or weeks until you understand it by yourself)

The problem is for UG students that often don't know what skills they're missing to be of most use to outside academia. Being about to identify and work on this is askill in and off its own right.

Imo it's much less that staff try to mould students to academia and much more that students who are of the correct mindset find their way there.

The expectation is that UG students would identify where they need to work to become more attractive to an employer. And that they will seak extra material out and train for this. (academics are the people who setup how the university works and they follow the academic model amidst everywhere, which, well... works when you understand the unwritten rules)

This is different to the expectation that teachers teach you everything you need to be useful. (my background is coming from a state school which was demolished down for failing)

I can see how paying huge amounts of money creates an expectation now that the university should prepare you to enter the workforce straight away.

It took me until PhD to appreciate this and my grades at UG weren't exceptional but from comparing notes to colleagues over the years this is one of the cultural differences which seems to come from expensive private schools vs state funded local failing "sports specialist" schools.

Fighting against this at a institutional level is like shouting at a wall imo so I just make the best effort I can to make a difference with students who cross my path who are falling into the same traps and feeling let down by the uni overall. (my favourite being a lecturer I keep arguing with that is bad at his teaching because I (a native English speaker) need a thesaurus to follow his lecture slides, this does not help meaningfully convey the finger points of data driven physics labs to international students, despite the fact that's how it was taught at Eaton)

I know little about film school, but in many research-based departments, there's a very practical motive for this. PhD track students work in your lab, and you are listed as an author on their papers. Basically, they help accomplish the first goal.

I will say though, that I know a lot of people with MAs in Art History who work in museums, galleries, art dealers and markets, conservation and restoration projects. The experience in research and scholarship is useful for museums and other art institutions. I imagine every modern curator has a grad degree in art or art history.

Note another industry with zero regulation - software - where costs have declined to zero. Capitalist swine that I am, I also give away the software I write for free.

A lot of these cultural elite journalism/media/creative jobs do not pay enough even for those that make the cut, and it really turns into a combination of nepotism & having rich enough parents to fund your Manhattan lifestyle while you make barely enough money to even cover rent.

1. https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes

2. https://johnaugust.com/2015/scriptnotes-ep-215-pg13-blood-bo...

(I put "free" in quotes because high school diplomas cost the taxpayers plenty.)

Not saying the 2nd case is 'fair' or 'good' - but it's super useful to the individual who goes in knowing what they're doing.

I finished a two year online MS in Comp Sci. last year, and I often tell people it’s really a Master’s in Self-Discipline with a focus on CS. I definitely had primarily challenging classes, more so for the content amount and work expectations than understanding the material, but that’s to be expected with a program targeted at professionals.

I went into getting it because I knew I had some holes in my knowledge, and I felt like I needed something to really stir up my career. I funded it entirely myself, to the tune of ~50k, but halfway through completion also switched companies for a ~30k raise.

I can’t necessarily make an objective argument that it has paid for itself, as I might have been able to get the new job without it, but I without a doubt have a different level of self-confidence and time management discipline that I would not have without going through the program, especially considering my first-born came a month after that job switch, with 4 classes to go!

"The degree along with $1.75 can buy you a cup of coffee.”

Are you saying that's a good thing or a bad thing?