<p>@tetrishead</p>
<p>It is not a matter of whether I think that line of work is good or not. It is the practicality. Soon, China will be the next US and the US will be like Switzerland (doing well but removed from the sphere of influence).</p>
<p>@tetrishead</p>
<p>It is not a matter of whether I think that line of work is good or not. It is the practicality. Soon, China will be the next US and the US will be like Switzerland (doing well but removed from the sphere of influence).</p>
<p>afruff23, first I think from your perspective America would become more like an Britain, which lost its old power and prestige.
And second, I believe you're wrong. China might equal the US or perhaps surpass it slightly, but the rest of the world is too interdependent with the US for it to shy from the political limelight.
And don't let all of this current expansion woo you. Remember that many other asian countries expanded with incredibel growth and then faltered (the so-called "Paper Tigers"). While China might have more stability due to its size and natural resources, it has to slow eventually.</p>
<p>
[quote]
@tetrishead</p>
<p>It is not a matter of whether I think that line of work is good or not. It is the practicality. Soon, China will be the next US and the US will be like Switzerland (doing well but removed from the sphere of influence).
[/quote]
I'm not talking about law. China will not be the next US, and the US will never be removed from the sphere of influence due to GDP spent on the MIC and the proliferation of Americans and American PE in the developing world. Globalization mitigates us, but it also puts a floor in on how far we can fall. The US was probably the last great overwhelming superpower, although the possibility of a pandemic or some kind of massive catastrophe doesn't make it impossible.</p>
<p>What you said just fundamentally makes no sense. Lawyers have little to nothing to do with the human rights situation in China, they aren't set up the way we are judicially and they can't challenge certain issues. The US has nothing to do with it, nothing you said really has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter if the US is the dominant country or not, mutually assured destruction exists amongst all countries with the capability of firing long distance nuclear warheads, and if China was a fraction of their strength in every way we still wouldn't do anything other than slightly prod them and make "recommendations."</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do you mean? Any 4-year college degree will get you a job that can sustain a small family. If not at the very beginning, then over time your salary will rise and it will be more than sufficient. By "decent", I do not mean living it easy and having a paid-off house, but able to make ends meet as well as have some cash on the side.
[/quote]
Depends on your loan level.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not talking about law. China will not be the next US, and the US will never be removed from the sphere of influence due to GDP spent on the MIC and the proliferation of Americans and American PE in the developing world. Globalization mitigates us, but it also puts a floor in on how far we can fall. The US was probably the last great overwhelming superpower, although the possibility of a pandemic or some kind of massive catastrophe doesn't make it impossible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>GDP is not really a good indicator because it only reflects expenditures rather than production. Back when the economy was in its early blooming, it might have been more accurate but know it holds little basis in our heterogenous dynamic economy.</p>
<p>But anyhow, the US is going to crash. This recession is only the beginning of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you said just fundamentally makes no sense. Lawyers have little to nothing to do with the human rights situation in China, they aren't set up the way we are judicially and they can't challenge certain issues. The US has nothing to do with it, nothing you said really has anything to do with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Human</a> Rights First - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Even if these groups of lawyers did have any influence now, it will be gone after China succeeds the US. It'd be like people of Switzerland trying to tell Soviet Russia not to do bad things.</p>
<p>I think we are on the same page here, namely that lawyers in the US have nothing to do with human rights in China.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GDP is not really a good indicator because it only reflects expenditures rather than production. Back when the economy was in its early blooming, it might have been more accurate but know it holds little basis in our heterogenous dynamic economy.</p>
<p>But anyhow, the US is going to crash. This recession is only the beginning of it.
[/quote]
GDP spending on the MIC is relevant when the discussion is... relevance. Military + economy = relevance, we're the leader in pretty much all things military. Except for the whole not having enough troops and running those we do into the ground with extended tours of duty, but whaddayagonnado. At least we're #1 in military innovation! USA! USA! USA!</p>
<p>I don't buy it. The world is much more stable compared to the times of the fall of the Roman and British empires. The Romans were the last great implosion anyway, so if anything it'll be a slow slide.
[quote]
Even if these groups of lawyers did have any influence now, it will be gone after China succeeds the US. It'd be like people of Switzerland trying to tell Soviet Russia not to do bad things.
[/quote]
I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that China will ever "succeed" the US (I assume you mean surpass, because China can't really be considered a replacement for America when the countries are so different), because it implies that the EU is not considered a singular entity and India will somehow magically disappear into space. The American issue is one of degrading infrastructure + massive debt. I think we'll see a large amount of debt forgiveness in the future and a strengthening of NAFTA (no matter what presidential candidates may say), leading to a strengthened North American continent. We were the singular dominant force for a long period of time (not as long as certain empires historically, but we live in an accelerated time) in this world after the dissolution of the USSR, and I can't see how we're going to see another singular dominant force without some unexpected and cataclysmic event that shifts the way we look at everything.
[quote]
I think we are on the same page here, namely that lawyers in the US have nothing to do with human rights in China.
[/quote]
And where we diverge is that you thought independent citizens of the United States ever had any influence on internal issues in any country that has nuclear strike capability. 20 years ago these people meant nothing, today they mean nothing. You cannot argue legalities in a country that does not recognize you and does not recognize the same legalities, and "discussions" on the issue are almost always useless. Expensive lawyers and celebrities and think-tanks and NATO and the UN couldn't do anything about poor, broken African countries--and you're surprised they can't do anything about abuses in China?</p>
<p>The only leverage the government has with a country is (1) aid, (2) threat of war. Aid with India and China and other countries is irrelevant as long as they are weaponized, we were never able and will never be able to direct the internal government policy of a country that we are giving aid to if they have nuclear weapons (as opposed to South American countries, who we toy with regularly). As for the second, the last time we went to war to stop a genocide was WW2--and the Jewish issue was not even what got the US to declare.</p>
<p>You think this somehow relates to "power," that the strengthening of China and the weakening of the United States means we can't tell them what to do when it comes to how they run their country. I'm telling you that for the last 50 years we haven't been able to do that with a lot of countries in this world, and it has nothing to do with fluctuates in perceived economic, political or military strength.</p>
<p>@tetrishead</p>
<p>The st johns pmax's son was accepted to doesn't have a basketball team (that's st johns university in NYC),and it actually is pretty well known among intellectual types</p>
<p>@pmax</p>
<p>any kid who spends his senior year in China and wants to return in order to advocate is a unique independent, free-spirited kid who's going to be fine no matter where he goes to college. I would be, however VERY concerned about the loans he takes on. I don't think he's going the 9 to 5 route straight out of college no matter where he goes. He sounds to me like he'll go to grad school to pursue the path he has already begun. That may be law school, or something totally unpredictable combining his interests as they evolve through college. He needs to avoid loans as much as possible in undergrad, so that there is money or room for loans for grad school. </p>
<p>If money is not significantly different between the 2 schools, it sounds to me as though St Johns would be a great fit for him where he can be himself and add to his existing base of knowledge. The world really needs more like him. Trust him to find his way. Sounds like you already have - it can't be easy for you to have a young son so far away.</p>
<p>@afruff23</p>
<p>You're forgetting one thing in assuming that China succeeds the U.S. in terms of economic power and that is demographics.</p>
<p>Due to the one child policy, China will likely grow old before it gets rich. </p>
<p>The U.S. will continue to grow in population (ironically due to its more liberal immigration policy - which we were discussing in another thread).</p>
<p>I think I'm going to bow out of this one, since I find the original topic interesting.</p>
<p>I am sorry. I did not mean to change the subject. As for studying philosopy and the question of whether or not that pursuit is worth it I would have to say yes. If we study any subject with our eye on money alone we may very well be dooming ourselves. If you have ever seen an Warren Buffet speak of the reasons why he does what he does you will see the joy on his face and the sparkle in his eyes as he explains how he reaches decisions of where he will invest. I work as a nurse and heard 2 physicians talking. One told her child that to be a physician you must love it, especially under todays rules. Philosophy teaches us how to think. It helps us know ourselves, our morality and ethical standards. Yes philosophy is worth it.
By the way my son does not want to return to China to help with rights there. Instead while there he felt a new appreciation for our laws and rights and would like to help promote and uphold them in the country he loves and respects even more than he did before he left. It seems to me that many men that put together the Declaration of independence and The Bill of Rights probably spent some time reading philosophy. Good footsteps to follow.</p>
<p>^sorry to change the subject, but we were just discussing the declar of independ in phil class, and it was pointed out how they made a mistake in their reasoning for the DoI. lol!</p>
<p>I think Mr. Jefferson knew what he was doing. Rhetoric does not have to be logically sound, just effective...</p>
<p>This China debate is just stupid. Lawyers becoming irrelevant? IR Law makes up an incredibly small percentage of lawyers in America and whatnot. The majority of them do fairly mundane preceding. Unless there's a major major catastrophe, these lawyers will still be there.</p>
<p>pmax57, my dtr is a 2nd sem soph on a full ride at our state university. I too am a Ca survivor and on disability for a bad heart condition. My ygr dtr is a HS sr with her sites set on a pharmacy degree (and $120K+ in loans to get it). Older dtr was majoring in psych and minoring in poli sci and studio art. (She loves art but knows it is very hard to make a living in it. esp with her eclectic but $$$ tastes.) She was in a moot trial club in HS and won art and English awards. She is planning to go on to law school, in intellectual property/entertainment law. (includes copyright, art and museums). She called this week to say she can't stand psychology (after completing 2 classes and sitting in on 1st day of next 2). She spoke with her law prof mentor and is switching her major to philosophy (keeping her 2 minors). All our family/friends have said to me, "What can she do with THAT?" To which I reply, "the same thing as she could with a BA in psych, Eng lit, history, poli sci or anthropology." She still intends to apply to law school, and she is ecstatic about philosophy, talking all the time about the things she is studying in those courses--so I know she made the right decision for her own intellectual curiosity. If she decides against law school, she knows she will need another advanced degree but isn't bothered by that--it was always in her plans one field or another. I can see her being happy as a college prof in philosophy or lit or poli sci--or art as well as an attorney. Your son will be fine--the UG years are the "safest" time in a young person's life to explore their interests and goals, which will clarify as they mature during those years. Most good humanities grads who go on to grad school will receive assistantships or other FA to get them through. I considered SJ's great books program 35 yrs ago, but decided it wasn't for me (I think U Chicago has a similar program??) but it may be just what yr son wants/needs. Whichever choice he makes, things will work out.</p>
<p>bump. 10char.</p>
<p>And the irony is, if you're going to college to obtain a degree simply because you think it's going to make you tons of money or if your primary aim in life is to make money, you desperately need an exploration into philosophy.</p>
<p>I'm responding to the initial discussion about usefulness of Philosophy. One career that I didn't see listed in a quick scan is sales. </p>
<p>Business to business sales can be VERY lucrative and they usually don't give a hoot what your degree is in. Just having a degree can qualify you for a higher salary. I know because I left a 10 year sales career to earn a degree because I reached the ceiling of income with out it. However, I did quite well with out and those who had one did far better. </p>
<p>Sales is fun and if you feel great about what you are selling, can be intellectually challenging. I'd suggest looking at intangible companies (i.e. selling consulting or services of some kind). Selling to c-levels and vp-levels is also far more challenging and stimulating. The best and brightest are at that level and I've made some great friends selling to them.</p>
<p>As a Philosophy, Politics and Law major at Binghamton University, which combines philosophy, political science and history, I think the skills I gained from philosophy far outweighed any other analytical, reading and writing skills that I learned in the other classes. More than any other major, Philosophy will teach you to construct well reasoned arguments and help you better communicate your thoughts. Two skills that a lot of people have a hard time developing. Any job you get, you need the ability to read, understand and analyze information and be able to write your thoughts. Philosophy will give you those skills in abundance. Plus I think people tend to have a lack of curiosity about themselves. Philosophy will make you curious and force you to question the world around you.</p>
<p>I agree, I am going to grad school for philosophy. What I willl do? I am not sure, but I expect to come out on the other side much better off as a person.
I’ve already made money in It, it doesn’t excite me or motivate me though. The entire corporate world doesn’t either.</p>
<p>You said it, jaykoblives!</p>
<p>I graduated in 1990 from a good but obscure college with a degree in philosophy and a minor in econ. Not knowing what I wanted to do, but knowing I didn’t want to go to grad school I found myself applying for an entry-level project management job with a large manufacturing company.</p>
<p>The interviewers were professionals who asked tough questions, but it was clear they were fascinated to have an applicant with a degree in philosophy. They wanted to know what kind of person studies philosophy, why they do it, and why such a person would then want to work in manufacturing.</p>
<p>I think the critical question of the interview was the obvious one, “Why did you major in philosophy?” I answered that I didn’t think most employers expected to hire someone who knew everything they needed for a job right out of school, but were looking for people who could think critically and communicate effectively, which was what I had learned in my studies. I got the job.</p>
<p>I’ve had a great career in business, tons of fun, I make good money and travel internationally. Luck played a part at times but I’ve observed a few constants along the way:</p>
<p>First, after I landed that first job prospective employers cared more about my actual experience than my major; HR managers want to see at least a Bachelors but beyond that field of study is less important unless the job is highly technical.</p>
<p>Second, I saw that same curiousity about philosophy majors in many interviews later on. To get a job you want, distinguishing yourself from the mass of other applicants is half the battle. I am certain that seeing philosophy on my resume landed me interviews I would not otherwise have had, with hiring managers who had more interest in me off the bat than might otherwise have been the case.</p>
<p>Third, my economics minor was probably reassuring to hiring managers as evidence of some level of practicality. Certainly preparation in a quantitative discipline has been very useful working in business & engineering environments.</p>
<p>Finally, my answer about thinking critically and communicating effectively turned out to be absolutely true. I can approach any new situation with a skeptical eye and not be bound by conventional wisdom or “that’s how we’ve always done it”. Some of my biggest wins came by doing things that were the exact opposite of conventional wisdom. But you can’t just be a rebel (and people resent devil’s advocates). If you’re going to be unorthodox you must explain very clearly why it’s going to work - which is where the effective communication comes in.</p>
<p>My experience is certainly not universal, but at least proves what is possible. If there are sophomores or juniors asking yourselves (or being asked by your parents!) what can I do after school with a major in philosophy? The answer is: anything. There are a lot of rewards to being a practicing philosopher in the “real world”. Minor or double-major in something quantitative as insurance, but remember that your prospects of employment & career depend on you much more than a diploma. I wish we’d get more bright young men & women who’ve studied philosophy in the business world - if we did we could make it a more humane, ethical place.</p>