Does anyone know the earning potential of a Philosophy graduate?

Voyager2002

samc1234 wrote: »

Although I agree that the skills aren't directly transferable, by the same logic one could ask you explain when an economics graduate is asked to utilise matrix algebra in their working life? They're not- its the analytical ability that the employers want. Which, fortunately Philosophers have in bags.

Actually, I suspect that quite a few do: most professional roles around investment banking would involve some element of matrix algebra. Mind you, a lot of what people do with Excel spreadsheets is an application of matrix algebra!

The more serious point is employer prejudice: the content of an Economics degree is perceived to be practical and relevant (actually most of it is mythology IMHO!) in a way that is not true of a Philosophy course.

Voyager2002

poet123 wrote: »

The legal profession is going through huge changes at the moment. Firms who have trainees are telling them bluntly there will not be a job when training finishes.

The new fee structure means that firms are not really in need of fully qualified staff as they obviously have to pay them at a higher rate, they need those who can do the job but who do not have to be paid for their qualifications. Funding for the LPC from firms is largely a thing of the past unless you are extremely lucky. So that is a cost in the region of £12,000 that will need to be factored in. It is certainly not the best time to be taking up a career in law so if that is your aim you need to put yourself ahead of the pack with the way you approach it.

If, for example, you wanted to do Medical Ethics then using Philosophy as as launch pad may not be a bad way to start. One of my relatives is a top ME barrister and he didn't go into it via a traditional route. If you are a forward thinker you can turn any degree into a positive at interview.

Qualified lawyers are still in a far stronger position than most of us. The real bottleneck is getting a position as a trainee: no matter how much training you do and how many exams you pass, you cannot qualify as a lawyer unless you work in a trainee role for the required amount of time. Note that anyone who does not get at least a 2(i) in their first degree has zero chance of becoming a trainee: although Law schools are very happy to take the money of people in this position and allow them to take and pass professional exams, their career prospects are zilch.

poet123

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Qualified lawyers are still in a far stronger position than most of us. The real bottleneck is getting a position as a trainee: no matter how much training you do and how many exams you pass, you cannot qualify as a lawyer unless you work in a trainee role for the required amount of time. Note that anyone who does not get at least a 2(i) in their first degree has zero chance of becoming a trainee: although Law schools are very happy to take the money of people in this position and allow them to take and pass professional exams, their career prospects are zilch.

You can qualify by the ILEX route and if you look at many firms, a lot of partners actually took that route. Years ago a 2.2 in law was perfectly respectable, now it is not.

I agree that unless you get a 2.1 you cannot even apply for the training schemes and would have to look at another route.

ILW

First week to discuss and confirm definitions of the terms "earnings" and "potential".

rageagainstessays

ILW wrote: »

First week to discuss and confirm definitions of the terms "earnings" and "potential".

Second week is to discuss and confirm the definitions of the terms 'condescending' and 'patronising'.

saker75

You may also find this website useful:
http://wlgd.thecareersgroup.co.uk/

Type in philosophy and it'll tell you salaries, jobs, employers of Phil graduates from across London.

ILW

samc1234 wrote: »

Second week is to discuss and confirm the definitions of the terms 'condescending' and 'patronising'.

Would that be from a a primarily objective or subjective viewpoint?

rageagainstessays

ILW wrote: »

Would that be from a a primarily objective or subjective viewpoint?

Prior to that comment it was subjective, but I can feel it getting more objective as I'm typing

ILW

samc1234 wrote: »

Prior to that comment it was subjective, but I can feel it getting more objective as I'm typing

So we have demonstrated that the act of typing will increase objectivity. An interesting theory.

TopQuark

In my own work experience (hard science), a philosophy degree is seen (rightly or wrongly) as 'arm-waving'.

That's not to say that the subject itself isn't immensely interesting and important. However, I'd echo the thoughts of other posters and say that it is not viewed as being particularly practical.

Another useful tip for the world of work is 'nobody likes a smart alec', especially not a teenage smart alec.