Mastery past the master's degree

Today the New York Times carried an opinion piece about the value of a master's degree. A panel of financial pundits and academic gurus commented on how a higher qualification could be necessary or not. I was thoroughly frustrated after reading the whole thing, something that rarely happens when reading NYT, because it reached no definitive conclusion. Yes, perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a clear-cut answer. But a more concerted effort in the direction would have been appreciated. The article just seemed to skirt around the issue.

Anyway, what I took away from the text was that graduate schooling in engineering, medicine or law were obviously valuable while the same for the liberal arts or social sciences was a waste of time and money. Let's remember this was an opinion piece.

I scouted Romanesko for the latest posting of jobs and was pleased to find that most preferred master's degrees and some specified one from a J-school. But that's not the point. Whether you choose to get a master's degree in business management or oceanography, my opinion is that it should reflect a thought-process behind the decision. The person needs to seem, at least on paper, like someone who made the effort of investing in themselves to be better at their job and not a wanderer who enrolled because they couldn't figure out what to do with their life. Students forced into college to wait out the recession are more easily forgiven. The person should come across as someone interested in life and have a sharp sense of curiosity with a definite drive to bring excitement to their work. If an employer recognizes these qualities in someone who actually possess them, it's hard for it not to be a win-win situation. And in that case, a master's degree in infant-rearing, needlework or any other seemingly useless concentration is well worth the investment. But that's just my two cents.

Answers anyone?

Judith Miller visted campus two days ago - the journalist who spent 85 days in jail after refusing to reveal the name of her source during an investigation of the Valerie Plame case. She's advocating for a shield law that will guard journalists from disclosing their sources, much the same way in a patient-doctor relationship or the way a person and their priest share confidentiality.

I'm no one to pass judgment on these issues but it definitely stirs some questions. Is it likely that this law could be misused, becoming another loophole through which dirty secrets can remain hidden or the weak barrier behind which the cowardly can hide? If the press is allowed complete freedom, would this rule being enforced become the price it pays or the reward it earns?

Miller raised some other interesting points. What is the future of journalism, as it stands today? What can we (the journalists) expect from the profession and what can they (they consumers) expect from it? Does the profession have a chance of surviving or is it just another money-spinning degree for universities where those who love the written word will enroll? Is journalism about the tools and toys that have become imperitive to it - technological gadgets and gizmos - or is it about the content which is reaching the public through these fancy contraptions.

The questions tease me. I'm as eager for the answers as the next nervous journalism student in the seat next to me. We're both here to find out what happens a few years from now and if we'll be able to do our expensive degrees their due justice.

And finally, who is a journalist? The lines are blurring, with bloggers and just about anyone with access to the Internet, is able to make their opinion public. I just realized that there's a great irony in this message being declared here. Heck, who makes the rules anyway?