A philosophy degree is useful

Ave Philosophy major and salary1) You'll remember that in my last round I pointed out the flaws with using the Georgetown University study in this debate. The flaw was that the study combines philosophy majors with religion majors, meaning that the statistic is not specific to philosophy majors. For example, if the average salary of a philosophy was fifty thousand, and the average salary of a religious studies major was forty-five thousand, the study would list the average salary of philosophy and religion majors as 47.5 thousand dollars a year.2) Con seems to agree with point 1. However, he argues back by saying that it still means a philosophy major has a 13% unemployment rate. This is not true, because that number has the same problems with the starting salary. It is an average of philosophy majors and religion majors, not a statement about philosophy majors on their own. If the unemployment rate of philosophy majors is 5% and the unemployment rate of religion majors is 15% percent, then the study would say that the unemployment rate for philosophy and religion majors is 10%, which clearly says nothing about philosophy majors on its own.3) Con says that the Georgetown University study is verified by another study done by Virginia Tech. This reference was even more of a red herring than the first one! The Virginia Tech report deals with the average salary of philosophy majors who graduated from Virginia Tech. It has absolutely nothing to do with the average starting salary of people with philosophy majors. I encourage everyone reading this debate to read Con's reference, and it will be clear that the VT study is a complete red herring.4) The "problems" that Con points out with the payscale study are irrelevant. Researchers understand that there is no perfect methodology, so they calculate a margin of error to account for this. The margin of error for the study conducted by payscale is listed as five percent[1]. This means that the range for starting salaries, when the margin of error is considered, is between 37, 810 and 41, 790. This does not allow for the starting salary of 29k mentioned by Con. The median salary is between 68, 970 and 76, 230. This does not allow for the median salary of 48k mentioned by Con. Even if you incorporate the flaws in the methodology listeed by Con, it does not harm the statistics I gave, but it does make his impossible.5) Con argues against something I never said. I never said that a nursing major is less useful than a philosophy major. The statement I gave in my opening round was that according to my statistics, the median salary of a philosophy major is higher than that of a nursing major. That's all I had to say in comparing the two. 6) My statistics are therefore better than Con's. Payscale may have some small flaws with methodology, but that's true of all studies, and once you incorporate those flaws, my case still stands. The first study cited by Con has nothing to do with philosophy majors for reasons already stated. The second study cited by Con deals with VT graduates only, not philosophy majors in general. Con has therefore failed to provide a single relevant reference on salaries for the entire debate. Sadly, he can't provide some relevant statistics in the next round, as that would be a violation of conduct.7) Even if you're not convinced by the argument I gave for point four, payscale is the only statistic left standing at the end of the debate.Philosophy major and life skills1) Con says that if a philosophy major helped you gain skills that led to employment, they would not have such high unemployment rates. This assertion is based on the studies he provided, but these are all red herrings, as demonstrated earlier.2) Con says that I conceded that GRE scores alone don't indicate you have life skills. Well, I object to that, because you can't concede a point you never made. I restated the real point I was trying to make in my last round.3) I think a probabilistic argument can be made about GRE scores. If you score higher than other majors by large margins in regards to analytic and communication skills, then you probably posses those skills in reality. Some people may disparage that as "only passing a test", or some such statement, but it's almost obvious that you can't beat other majors so badly if you don't have those skills outside of the test.4) Learning communication skills isn't the point of a philosophy major. I haven't said as much. My point was that a philosophy major vastly improves communication skills, which helps you with getting a job and life in general. Learning communication is not unique to philosophy majors, but what is unique to philosophy majors is that they crush the other majors on the GRE when it comes to communication. A higher mean score on the Verbal section of the GRE than any other major. Scoring higher than four out of six physical science majors, and four of seven engineering majors (on the general test). Think about it.5) Ripping books makes you stronger, but it's not practical. With a philosophy major, you improve your skills in a practical way, because you have a major that has a decent starting salary and a higher mid-career salary than BBA's and nurses.6) Con's argument about ripping books is not parallel to my argument, because the skills you get from learning philosophy are part of a cumulative case for its usefulness, while the fact that you get stronger from ripping books is the only thing that could lead you to think it's useful. Philosophy major and the quest for knowledge 1) There is no evidence presented that most rational people don't find a philosophy degree useful. The best you could do is provide a poll about people's opinions on philosophy majors, but that says nothing about whether they're rational people or not.2) There is an important difference between majoring in philosophy and studying it on your own time. A potential employer wants verification of your skills when you apply to a job. Saying that you are qualified because you read books carries no weight because there is no certification of that statement. A degree from an accredited university indicating that you completed a four year philosophy program is certification of your skills. It is possible that a person could get the same skills you get from a major in philosophy on their own time, but employers aren't going to take your word for it.3) Con acts like I conceded that a philosophy degree isn't necessary for discussing ethics or the role of government in society. Again, you can't concede a point you never made. 4) Con quotes me as saying that philosophy permeates everyday life. He says this is wrong because you never consult a philosopher like you would an engineer. Had he put my statements in context, it would be understood that I was talking about philosophical reasoning, as it was followed by numerous examples of how philosophical reasoning is part of our every day life.5) Con claims that I provided no reasons to think that studying on your own is an inadequate way of learning philosophy. I provided such reasons in the previous round and they were not addressed.: "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." Studying a subject on your own with no formal education is to have a layman's understanding by definition!Vale References1: http://www.payscale.com...( I understand that there is a larger margin of error listed for Ivy League schools, but this does not matter, as I am referring to the margin of error for the study in general.)