Every time I hear these types of things I think back 15 years to high school, and remember how much focus there was on English classes, and how little emphasis was on science. 4 years of English was mandatory. In middle school we had both an English class *and* a literature class. We spent a massive amount of my education on what basically amounted to the useless skill of literature interpretation.

Meanwhile, Physics was optional. Required science consisted of 1 year each of Chemistry and Biology (and we had to take a generic "Physical Science" class).

I had to take year after year of literature interpretation. I took 3 years of Spanish class. We had more AP history classes than anything else in our school. Yet, science was taught by coaches.

In my opinion, most jobs out there are science based. Yes, as a computer engineer I'm biased, but still--what is more likely to get me a job, physics skills or literature interpretation? So why is there so much focus on English and literature?

In my uninformed, bound to get flamed opinion, it's because most smart science people become scientists, while most smart english people become teachers. So your average high school english teacher might have been #1 in his/her class at an Ivy League college, but your Biology teach might be the volleyball coach. Which one is more likely to inspire a student to follow in their footsteps?

There ya go. Tell me I'm wrong.

Not saying this to agree or disagree, but I was able to do an MS in computer engineering with no research (we had a non-thesis option). So there are other reasons to do it beyond just the research.

I notice you say Computer Engineering, not EE or CS. To me, this means you're probably interested in digital design or something similar. If so, definitely get the Master's degree.

I work in a microprocessor design group and we won't even interview someone without a master's degree anymore. 90% of what I learned in school that I apply to my job, I learned in grad school. Grad school teaches exactly what you need to know to do the job in our group, so we don't have to teach you much before you can get started working with us.

So it's not so much that you should do it for money as just the ability to get a job in the field you want. Plus in 1-2 years maybe the job market will be better.

"For example, in the case under review by the Supreme Court, it is currently considered illegal 'price-fixing' for a handbag manufacturer to contract with retailers to set a minimum sale price on handbags. But, at the moment, it is perfectly legal for a manufacturer with its own retail outlets, such as The Gap, to set a minimum sale price on its retail products. Why is one illegal and one not? Ultimately, because government judges and bureaucrats have said so.

Any time an article uses the word bureaucrat, you can generally discount its merit...anyway...

The reason one is illegal and one is not is because the manufacturer with its own retail outlets doesn't sell the items to the retail outlets, unlike a wholesaler. I'm sure there are some internal dollars that change hands, but all of the pricing is done at the point of sale. Not so with wholesalers--they make money selling to distributers, and if they want a higher price they can raise their wholesale price. The only reason they would set their prices at the point of sale is to favor one store over another (i.e. you want to sell your stuff at Wal-Mart but you want it to cost the same elsewhere so it doesn't look "cheap").