During the fourth Republican Presidential Debate, held Tuesday, November 10th, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said, "Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers." The comment garnered Senator Rubio thunderous applause from the live audience. Yet, grammar notwithstanding, it reveals flawed and troubling logic.
My grandfather was a welder. And then a Baptist minister. Though he worked hard doing both, and both were noble professions, he never made a lot of money doing either. Today, according to occupation net (O-net), the median salary for a welder in the United States is $37,420. In comparison, the median salary for a philosopher (philosophy professor) is $63,630. O-net also estimates the projected outlook for professions and they report that job growth for post-secondary philosophy teachers (professors) will be 15-21%, or faster than average while, for welders, growth is projected to be 3-7%--slower than average. Mr. Rubio must have consulted different statistics. Perhaps he was comparing college graduates who major in philosophy with students who pursue a certification in welding from a technical college. But then you aren't really comparing a "philosopher" to a welder. Incidentally, fellow presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major in college and today her net worth is second only to Mr. Trump's among the current Republican candidates. In any case, I can't find any figures that support Mr. Rubio.
Pointing out the problems with Senator Rubio's facts (namely that they are hard to substantiate) is not my goal here. I am more interested, and indeed troubled, by his relative valuing of professions. Since when has it been appropriate to assess an occupation's worth solely through an evaluation of the average income of a worker in that occupation? Were we to adopt this criterion, we would "need more" philosophers and fewer welders, not the other way around. If we for a moment think through the implications of this kind of evaluation of worth, we quickly discover that this is deeply problematic.
Using Mr. Rubio's logic, could we not say that any profession that out-earns another is more valuable? Investment bankers earn more than emergency medical technicians. Senators earn more than pilots. Teachers in New Jersey earn more than teachers in Florida. Philosophy professors earn more than welders. You can see my point.
We work to earn a living. That is critically important. But we also have many other reasons for working. Individual reasons vary considerably, but many workers search for (and some find) fulfillment and purpose in their craft. Others savor the camaraderie of the workplace. Many people are motivated to learn and grow in doing their jobs. Ideally, people see the social benefits of their work and care about the quality of what they do. Think for a moment about what it means to say, "S/he is in it for the money." This is not a compliment and it suggests that something is awry in the individual's motives.
Of course Mr. Rubio's comment wasn't only a comparison of occupations. It was also a statement about education. Like other Republican politicians before him, he was taking a swipe at traditional liberal arts education while he simultaneously elevated technical education. The argument is something like this: Young people, don't major in the liberal arts because you can't get a job. Pick a trade; you'll actually get a job and make some money. Never mind that competencies developed through exposure to the liberal arts (e.g., writing, argument formation, public speaking, analytical thinking) might often be more transferable across a wide variety of jobs compared to very specific skills training in a trade. Indeed, one of the problems facing many displaced American workers has been a lack of transferable skills. Don't misread me--specific technical skills are frequently very valuable. But the economic hardships of recent years should be instructive. When we conflate skills training with traditional and broad education, as Mr. Rubio does, we do so at our own peril. Specific technical skills are regularly outmoded by advances in technology. Think of key punch, for example.
Moreover, assessing the value of education by looking only at subsequent employment prospects also reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of an education. Education, particularly in the liberal arts, has never perfectly correlated with employability. A liberal arts education is about exposure to ideas, the development of writing and speaking skills, and the nurturing of critical thinking. This is a social good but not something that can be easily commodified.
This is not to say, as Mr. Rubio implies, that a liberal arts education should be a luxury. Instead, it should be seen as helping to develop a thoughtful and educated citizenry. In my view, it should be a basic part of an education and we should all receive it. Indeed, if you take a look at the modern American system of higher education, liberal arts are foundational. Students across the country take courses in philosophy, English, and economics as part of what is considered "general" education. Some students go on to major in one of these fields but most do not.
Perhaps those of us in higher education need to better articulate the value of an education. When it comes to work, my sincere hope is that we can move beyond comparisons that pit occupations against one another and rise to a conversation about making work more meaningful for everyone. In addition, I hope that we can put more effort and energy into raising the incomes of all working people. This will require good logic, openness in thinking, hard work, and creativity. These are all things that a good philosophy class or two can teach us.