By Trevor Hedberg

Going to graduate school in any humanities field has significant financial costs – the job market is uncertain (to put it mildly), and the pay is relatively modest even if you land a permanent academic position. These facts are well known, but the actual monetary cost of the time spent in graduate school is often not fully appreciated. Drawing in part on discussion from my recent appearance on the Personal Finance for PhDs Podcast, I aim to remedy that problem in this post.

I do not view this argument as providing a decisive reason not to pursue graduate studies in philosophy or the humanities: most who are drawn to pursue such a path are motivated by non-monetary reasons. Even so, I think we do ourselves – and the students we mentor – a disservice if we do not seriously try to quantify the opportunity costs of pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy.

When I was still considering whether to apply for graduate school, I was asked to consider an alternate version of myself that worked an entry level job while I was in graduate school. So, for those 6 or 7 years, that hypothetical person would earn $50,000 – $60,000 annually, and as a graduate student, I might only make $20,000 per year during that time. So even if I was only in graduate school for 6 years and would have only made $50,000 per year in my alternative career during that time. That’s still a loss of pre-tax income of at least $180,000 – a sizable sum of money.

Later in life, some folks pointed out to me that in that alternative career, I would also reach my highest career earnings faster because the process of securing stable employment and earning promotions does not begin for academics until after graduate school concludes. The version of me that didn’t go to graduate school gets a 6 or 7 year head start on that endeavor. Combining that with the relatively modest salaries that academics tend to have, the potential loss in career earnings is much higher.

But neither of the two pictures presented above captures the real, long-term financial cost. To illustrate this, we need to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that our hypothetical could-have-been philosophy graduate student takes a non-academic job with a starting salary of $50,000 at the age of 22. Each year for the next 6 years, he puts $5000 into a Roth IRA and invests the money in an index fund. Roth IRAs are retirement accounts that allow you to pay taxes on the initial contribution so that you can withdraw the money tax free later in life, and index funds are investment funds that give you a share of the stock in the companies associated with a particular index (such as the Dow Jones or the S&P 500). This form of investing is perhaps the most reliable way to build wealth over a long time horizon.

Over 6 years and assuming even just modest investment returns on the $5000 invested each year, this person will have $35,000 ($30,000 in contributions and $5000 in investment returns) in their account at age 28. Now let’s imagine, for the purposes of illustration, that this money is just left alone in that index fund – no further contributions are made. At a 7% rate of annual return – a rate significantly lower than the average annualized returns for some index funds since their inception – this money will double about every 10 years. So, at age 38, it will be $70,000. At age 48, it will have doubled again and be $140,000. Another doubling cycle pushes that sum to $280,000 at age 58, and one more would bring it to $560,000 at age 68.

This is the power of compound interest. It is an exponential growth function, and the variable that helps your long term investment gains the most is time. The numbers are even more staggering if we imagine a rate of return closer to what is normal in the history of the stock market – 10%. At that rate of return, it takes slightly longer than 7 years for a sum of money to double, so after 5 doubling cycles, that $35,000 would become $1.12 million at the age of 63.

Most people don’t go to graduate school in philosophy for financial reasons, but the financial opportunity costs are much greater than they may realize. Because the amount of time money is invested influences its value so powerfully, being unable to invest much money during your 20s is a heavy price to pay to pursue graduate studies. For those who take on debt to pursue their degrees, the costs may be even higher: paying off that debt may cause even greater delay in their ability to start investing and saving for their eventual retirement.

To reiterate, I do not think this consideration is a decisive reason for everyone to abandon the pursuit of graduate studies in the humanities. But imagine how different the deliberation is if you ask, “Would I rather go to graduate school in philosophy or have an additional $500,000 (or even $1 million) when I reach retirement age?”

Does this mean I regret going to graduate school in philosophy? No. But thinking about it this way would have changed some of my financial behaviors. The biggest thing I would have done differently is that I would have opened a Roth IRA in my mid-20s and started making small monthly contributions to it, and that’s something I would absolutely recommend any graduate student in their 20s do if they can save a little money to get that process started. Even if it is something seemingly trivial like $20 per month, the process of saving and investing is worth starting as soon as possible. Whatever you invest in graduate school could be worth anywhere from 16 to 64 times its original value by the time you are approaching retirement.

Posted in

15 responses to “The Financial Argument Against Graduate School in Philosophy”

  1. Michel

    You could probably scrimp and save and odd-job your way to sparing $5k a year during graduate school, though. (Depending on where you are, and thus what your stipend is, it might not even be such a difficult task.)

    Doing so, of course, may come with its own opportunity costs, or its own discomforts, though these last are probably easier to bear in your twenties and before you have dependents.

  2. This seems to me more like an argument against doing a phd in the us than doing a phd per se. Say, in Northern Europe doctoral positions are paid employment and you are expected to be done in 4 years.

    1. It is probably most applicable to graduate students at North American institutions. Even then, the numbers (e.g., stipend, cost of living, salary of possible alternative employment) will vary. My general point is that the lost earnings are often greatly underestimated and that folks considering this career path should crunch these numbers to better understand what their alternative future could look like.

      1. Yes, I understand. Just wanted to point out, since I suppose not all readers of the blog are from the US, that different calculations apply to different countries. At the Nordic end of the scale, doing a PhD, even in the humanities, might actually be a prudent choice for some. (Most people I know in Norway who did a PhD went on to get either an academic job or a job at university and because of the flat salary structure, I think they did about as well as if they had not done a PhD.)

        But I understand that my intervention is of no use to most readers of this blog. So I stop here.

  3. Anonymous

    Another important consideration here is that your preferences will likely change a lot from the beginning to the end of your program. At the beginning, you may be fine working for no money and landing a temporary position for a couple of years before you place somewhere permanently at a middling salary. But at the end of the program, it’s harder to be okay with this if you want to be married and start having children.

  4. Meaningful Work

    Hear ye hear ye! There are also lots of other (sometimes more) meaningful jobs out there. (Those who do enter grad school should at least start looking for alternatives immediately.)

  5. Anonymous

    Not sure if this is true, but I feel that the mindset about money has changed and people are on average getting more anxious in today’s economy. When I was starting grad program, despite I was relatively old and quite poor, I never worried about money. Like, NO. And I have never talked about finance with fellows students, and we talked very often. This has really changed now. I started to worry about money recently even though I made 5-6 times as much. So, even though I wouldn’t appreciate Trevor’s advice back then, I can see the point now…

  6. Anonymous

    This is really good info about particularly the North American system, as other comments note. I agree with them but will add a couple other considerations that I think are relevant.

    First, when it’s said that permanent positions offer a ‘modest’ salary, I think that depends greatly on one’s location. Faculty salaries vary hugely across locations, as does cost of living. Research faculty at some US institutions make what I perceive as very high salaries; calling such salaries modest or middling or whatever comes across as disingenuous to me. Moreover, as a ‘mere’ postdoc I’ve already been in the position of earning more than a country’s median salary. I think the huge disparities across academic salaries, particularly in the US, make it hard to generalize about what to expect financially speaking. In northern/central Europe people with even temporary academic positions tend to be very comfortable, whereas in the US there are adjuncts who don’t even get healthcare let alone a living wage. So rather than everyone earning a ‘modest’ salary, there are people who are earning a lot mixed with people who cannot live on their salary.

    Second, the comparison assumes that one finds a decently paying long-term career straight out of one’s undergrad, which in my personal experience is very uncommon. I went through the US education system and I have friends with varying education levels who, in their 30s, are still struggling to find jobs that they find tolerable, let alone fulfilling. Moreover, most Americans come out of their undergrad in a huge amount of debt, making it unlikely that they are going to be able to immediately start setting aside thousands of savings a year. Many of my friends struggle to afford an emergency car repair although they’ve been working continuously since (during) their undergrad. I think the setup of the comparison assumes that one is already in a very good financial position coming out of undergrad, which is simply not realistic for many Americans.

  7. Hermias

    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance. – Ali Ibn Abu-Thalib (ft. Leonard Nemoy)

  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous (March 25) makes a good point about the alternative to graduate school, and it’s an important one when considering the opportunity cost grad school is imposing on people.

    Yes, some people will enter a generic white collar job at 22, at a salary around $60 or $70k. They will hold that job for years, maybe get an MBA, climb the corporate ladder, get regular salary increases and be able to take full advantage of the compounding OP describes. Of course, this can include some bumps in the road, a few months or a year of unemployment that might stall the savings project temporarily.

    But it is also common for the children of the middle classes and upper classes to spend their 20s in ways that don’t allow for this kind of saving and foundation-laying for a middle class life. When I was in graduate school, I had peers who spent years interning in Washington DC, making modest stipends, not saving and not building much in the way of long term career advantages. Others might pursue artistic interests, or just move to a city for 2-4 years and work in a service job with no career ladder, again, making only enough to pay for current needs. Compared to these common paths of America’s comparatively privileged youth, graduate school doesn’t seem that bad: you are at least acquiring a lifelong credential in the PhD (of course that credential’s value alone, without adding the title “Professor” to it has long been declining).

    Graduate school though is usually 6-8 years, and that’s longer than many people spend spinning their wheels and having fun in Brooklyn or interning on the Hill. The European who mentioned that PhDs over there are only four years is teaching us a good lesson: time to degree needs to go down. That’s harsh (and probably requires exceptions) for people who need time to master language or do archival work (history of philosophy), but for people doing an “NYU Dissertation,” i.e., three papers stapled together, it’s actually achievable.

    Even if policies do not change on time to degree, chairs and advisors need to intervene here. Any teaching relationship is a paternalistic, quasi-fiduciary one, so the teacher is required to act in the best interests of the student–consistent with academic integrity and the student’s intellectual growth. Too often, advisors let people who are listless and depressed persist in a PhD program well past the 6 or 7 year mark. That needs to stop, and professors need to intervene to graduate the person and enforce deadlines (one chapter by the end of this semester).

    We need fewer PhDs. Whether we accomplish that by bringing back rigorous comps, closing programs, reducing cohorts, or transforming programs into MA programs–we need to be producing fewer PhDs! Two years spent in an MA is great life enrichment for someone who might otherwise be waiting tables and partying with their college friends in Brooklyn. No professor should feel guilty about participating in such a program if the students are funded–he/she can get TAs without compunction!

    I ended up coming to my present white collar career late because of time spend in graduate school. Sometimes I regret it, but I also often am glad that I did not spend my 20s under fluorescent lights in my present office. I got plenty of sleep, plenty of intellectual and cultural stimulation; I had plenty of time for exercise; I had plenty of time for just being outdoors in the afternoon, walking and reading in the park and at cafes; and I had enough work TAing or teaching to avoid ennui but not feel stressed.

    So, my final recommendation is that we need to reduce PhD cohorts and create more truly terminal MAs (not paths to a PhD). This is great life enrichment, especially for people with a financial cushion from family or a spouse. But asking people to spend 6-8 years on a degree for a job they probably won’t get (but is terribly tantalizing for people who like to think and read all day), has become irresponsible and morally dubious on the part of the TT profs and chairs with power over this.

    1. Rob

      Hey now — that’s an MIT dissertation not an NYU one.

    2. Anonymous

      The reason European PhDs are shorter (3-4 years) is because (a) they require that you do a master’s first and (b) they usually include no coursework. In effect, by being admitted to a European PhD program you go straight to the equivalent of ABD status. Someone who does BA->PhD in the US versus someone who does BA->MA->PhD in Europe will spend a similar total amount of time in education.

      It’s not possible or reasonable to take most US PhD programs, as they are currently organized, and require people to complete them in fewer years. My PhD included 3 years of full time coursework, comprehensive exams AND a dissertation of usually four chapters – you can’t do all that in 3-4 years total. Rather, we’d need to restructure the system so that everyone completes an obligatory coursework-based masters first before enrolling in a dissertation-only PhD. There may be good reasons for doing that but it cannot be achieved by just telling students in existing programs to complete faster.

      I also used to think that we need to produce fewer PhDs, but since moving to Europe I’m not so sure anymore. Outside the US, the PhD degree per se often has value on the non-academic market, and doing graduate study is not viewed as being only, inherently or necessarily for the purpose of becoming a professor. Moreover, outside the US, PhDs are often hired as regular employees who are on the pay scale and get the same social benefits as everyone else, so that doing your PhD *is* your job rather than being seen as an *alternative* to working. I think the US would benefit from this type of culture shift rather than making graduate study even more exclusive and inaccessible.

  9. Anonymous

    Hedberg’s argument from personal finance all seems correct to me with respect to many students. However, I think that it is classist in the following way. Some or most working class or poor, first-generation college students who major in philosophy do not have the same immediate postgraduate career prospects as those from the middle and upper classes. I attended a “public ivy” university as an undergraduate, but I worked nearly full time to support myself. As a result, I had very little time to do anything other than study and work, including participating in any of the career building or networking aspects of college life. I had a difficult time finding work following graduation. (This was during the GFC, which also had an impact.) Attending a well-funded Ph.D. program was actually the best paying *job* I could get at the time. This has been true of several of the first-generation and working class students I have taught.

    I do not think this supports much with respect to the question of encouraging students to pursue graduate studies in philosophy, though.

    1. Anonymous

      FWIW when I was deciding whether to pursue grad school my other main option at the time was applying for a manager job at a restaurant (I was already a cook there). The pay would’ve been around 60k circa 2014 and in the Midwest, so it was good pay. And I was basically guaranteed the job if I applied. It was a thoroughly working class job which, had I taken it, I’d be more financially secure than I am now (TT job on East Coast, making around $110k). Obviously this is just one data point, but I think there are many working class opportunities that pay relatively well while not requiring an advanced (or sometimes any) degre. The main challenge is that the work may be physically demanding or otherwise undesirable.

  10. Anonymous

    I know this isn’t the primary point of the post, but I would’ve figured that one of the main financial arguments against graduate school in philosophy is the low chance you’ll get a job at the end. If you don’t, then you’ll have lost ~6 years and then have to start training/credentialing for another couple years to compete with others.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading