A philosophy degree is useful

Ave FrameworkI apologize if I was “jumpy” about the framework. I didn’t want the debate to be taken places it wasn’t supposed to go. My fears were wrong, however, so let’s get into the debate. Philosophy major and salary1) The two articles I gave were part of a year-long study conducted by payscale which tracked the salaries of 1.2 million people with bachelors degrees who did not go on to get their masters.[1] It is true that they collected this information from those people using a survey.[2] Con does not provide any references that indicate problems with this methodology. The description of my statistics as inaccurate is therefore just his opinion. The study conducted cannot be accurately described as user-submitted, because the people conducting the study went to the employees, not the other way around. Any reference about the inaccuracy of user-submitted data would be a red herring.2) Con references a study by Georgetown University called “Hard Times: College Majors, Unemployment, and Earnings”. According to Con, this study says that the starting salary of a philosophy major is a mere $29,000, with an unemployment rate of 9.8%. If you read the reference he provided, this statistic is actually for Philosophy & Religious Studies majors combined, not philosophy majors. The statistic comes from the US Census Bureau, which combines philosophy majors with religion majors when they calculate starting and median salaries. [3] This statistic is not representative of the starting salary for philosophy majors, but philosophy and religious majors combined, meaning that the average salary for philosophy is brought down by being combined with religious studies. Con has yet to provide a reference which talks about philosophy majors specifically.3) In my last round, I noted that mid-career philosophy majors make more than biologists, nurses, zoologists, business majors, psychologists, and criminal justice majors. Con takes this argument out of context. He tries to show that nursing majors are better off than philosophy majors using statistics that relate to starting salary and employment. Con quietly switches from mid-career to starting in order to take down an argument I never made. The only justification for his assertion that the starting salary for a nursing major is more than the long-term pay for a philosophy major is the study mentioned earlier, but as I showed, that has nothing to do with philosophy majors alone.4) Con says the data proves philosophy is behind other majors when it comes to getting income and a job. This is not the case, as the study I provided shows that philosophy majors make more than people with a BBA (mid-career), which is frequently cited as one of the best degrees for income and employment. The study he provided is useless because it combines philosophy with religious studies, and does not have any data on philosophy alone.5) The last three paragraphs from Con in regards to this argument are purely his opinion, as no references are provided to substantiate his assertions.Philosophy major and life skills1) Con argues that connecting GRE scores and valuable skills for getting a job is disproven by the data on philosophy majors and employment. This argument depends on the previous study he referenced, which I demonstrated to be irrelevant. The quote from Carnegie Mellon University describes the traits that employers are looking for, and the GRE scores show that philosophy majors have those valuable traits.2) I haven’t said that GRE scores alone prove you have the verbal and analytical skills to succeed in life. I have only said that philosophy majors score higher on these tests by huge margins, which is proof that philosophy majors build these skills. These skills are helpful for employment, which is proven by the provided quote.3) Con argues that even if a philosophy major gives you these skills, it does not make the degree useful. That statement can’t be described as anything else but absurd. The philosophy major is the sufficient reason as to why the person has gained those skills. Part of the utility of the major is that you gain those skills from it, which can be helpful when getting a job or going about everyday life.4) If a doctor who had just graduated medical school were asked to list all of the things she gained from her degree, the improved memory would no doubt be on that list. She might put it below the obvious benefits like saving lives, but this does not entail that improved memory was not a benefit of the degree.Philosophy major and the quest for knowledge1) The argument that a philosophy major helps you with knowledge and understanding reality is part of a cumulative case. I am not trying to affirm the resolution based on this fact alone, but a number of other facts combined.2) The argument that Con gives against philosophy being useful can be reduced to absurdity. An overwhelming amount of human activity requires no thought about physics. When it’s raining and thundering, nobody thinks about the fact that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, or electrostatic phenomena. People simply, as Con puts it, get an umbrella and walk outside of the door. Does this mean that physics and its quest for knowledge are not useful? The answer is clearly "no". I argue that physics, just like philosophy, is useful for how much it tells us about reality.3) The fact that people think about ethics without philosophy majors is irrelevant. I was not arguing that a philosophy major is a necessary condition for thinking about ethics or government. I was only arguing that it would improve your thinking about these subjects.4) I stated in my last round that a major in philosophy is the best and easiest way of learning about philosophy. Con responds by listing the things you have to do for a philosophy major, such as student loans and four years in college. This doesn’t matter to my case. I was not arguing that getting the major was easy, just that it was the easiest way of learning philosophy. He describes a philosophy graduate as working for low pay, but that’s based on a study that I already demonstrated to be irrelevant. The only alternative way of learning philosophy that Con suggests is to read books and other material on the subject. I preemptively answered this argument in my last round. The best that reading philosophy can do is give you a layman's understanding of it. I cannot have a fully informed opinion on philosophy from reading it in the same way that I don't become a physicist because I've read popular science. Reading on your own time is simply not an adequate substitute from learning about philosophy in a college setting with philosophy professors. This is why getting a philosophy major is the best way of learning philosophy.Concluding Points 1: Con has not provided any good reasons for why the study I cited is inaccurate. It's just his opinion, no references.2: The Georgetown University study cited by Con cannot be applied to this debate because it comes philosophy majors with religion majors, meaning that the numbers aren't specific to philosophy majors.3: Despite Con's objections, getting a major in philosophy is still the easiest and best way of learning it.4: Con's argument against philosophy being applied to everyday life is a straw man, because I did not say that a philosophy major is a necessary condition for talking about ethics or government, just that it helps you with doing so.5: Con's other argument against philosophy being applied to everyday life can be reduced to absurdity if you apply it to physics.6: The philosophy major is a sufficient cause of gaining life skills such as analytic abilities, communication, etc, which can help you secure a job.Vale References1: http://online.wsj.com...2: http://www.payscale.com...3: http://www.oswego.edu...