Choosing a Degree

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights, and this week we're talking about choosing a degree. I love this subject. Let's see if we pull this off. Nick.

Speaker B: 00:00:37

The reason we're talking about this is because there's a really interesting paper which I saw recently. I think it's a recent publication or is still being published, but it's by John Conlon and Dev Patel who looked at what kinds of careers students imagine they're going to have when they choose degrees, and they found using various instruments that generally, or at least a large number of students, choose degrees based on what they call a stereotypical job. In other words, if you study art, tell me a stereotypical art job. Artist. Correct, and if you study communications, a stereotypical job might be? PR. Yeah, well, writer. And if you study nursing? You might want to become a nurse. Right. Stereotypical jobs are associated with lots of different degrees, right? So now I can tell you that a single figure percentage of people who study communications become writers, whereas freshers, 40% of them think that they're going to be a writer when they do communications. And something like just over 60% of art students in their first year think they will be an artist, whereas just under 20% do become artists. Hold on, so you can do a degree in communications? Okay, all right. And so, and whereas, you know, some of them, it's not the case. I mean, as you might expect, you know, the number of people studying education who want to be a teacher is about 80%, but about 60% actually become teachers. So, you know, not as big a discrepancy, but there is always a discrepancy. And on average, that discrepancy, you know, is around about sort of 50%. So in other words, you've got probably, on average, half the chance of becoming the thing you're studying than you think you have, right? So anyway, so they found, obviously, that what this means is that people are making decisions, particularly what they call about risky degrees, which are the ones that have low frequency typical jobs. And of course, this is probably leading to a lot of people with the wrong degree, it may be, depending on what that means. So the question is, I suppose, what does this tell us about the way that we make these sorts of life decisions? But also, how could we do better? What methods can we use to try and do better at making these kinds of decisions, which really

Speaker A: 00:03:15

are going to affect the rest of your life? Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, nice intro. Immediately, I've got a couple of thoughts from that, which is, you know, I'm not sure, the very premise of that research, I'd have to have a closer look at it, of basing degree of matching degrees to jobs, right? Because it talks that that immediately has an assumed

Speaker B: 00:03:45

judgment about a degree is for a job, right? Well, let's just say that when you ask people, so a lot of this is based on surveys of what people say, you know, you find the job that most people doing that degree expect to be doing. So it's not saying, they're not making a judgment about it. Okay, what do most people who study, you know, what's the what's the job most frequently cited by people studying education as the thing they'll be doing? Yeah, so notwithstanding that

Speaker A: 00:04:15

as well, I think the sort of mismatch, let's call it a mismatch for a moment. I think first of all, yeah, this mismatch is well, the age that we are when we choose a degree, because fortunately, or not, you know, we're not, our thoughts are not fossilized from about the age of 17 onwards. And you know, we change and what we want. But also, I think also, why, you know, what's a degree for and what you want to get from it? What's the aim of it, which seems quite close to the kind of things we like to think about in decision making. Anyway, Chris? Yeah, so I came across a study by a couple

Speaker C: 00:04:50

ngham University academics in: 2014

Speaker A: 00:07:21

Yeah, yeah. So loathing is people going, oh, this will be easier. Yeah, I might as well go to

Speaker C: 00:07:27

university. Yeah, I'll get a degree and it'll be the easiest degree to get. And those Fortune

Speaker B: 00:07:32

500 companies will be snapping me up with my art degree from Loughborough. Yeah, exactly.

Speaker C: 00:07:37

And interest didn't really feature particularly strongly, but in any subject versus another. But the only group that wasn't was sort of underrepresented definitely didn't associate with interest were engineers, apparently. And then career was well represented in medicine, engineering, science degrees, but not in arts and humanities. So actually, they didn't feel that their arts and humanities degree would get them a job. They were literally going for the easiest option to keep them off the streets, I suppose. So but I thought that that sort of zeroes in a little bit on your point, Fraser, about what are degrees for? Why are people doing them? That, at least, reflects the sort of concerns of students as they're doing that, you know, I'm sure there's other things, other factors going on as well. But I thought that was quite an interesting breakdown of looking at. Well, also, let's delve into that a little bit

Speaker A: 00:08:46

personally in a moment. Let's just talk about what degrees we did. So, Nick, you did philosophy and economics. Yeah. Right. What did you do? I did sport and exercise. Sport and exercise. I did theology. And then you've got a doctorate as well. You've got a master's, haven't you? You've got a master's in economics? Yeah. Okay. And your doctorate? Physiology. Physiology. And I've got a master's in international relations and also doing another master's now in documentary photography. Hang on, you're a theologian, aren't you? Yeah. Did I not say? You just said you did international relations. No, for my MA. Oh, you didn't mention that. Yeah, yeah. I did mention, yeah. You didn't. I did theology. And then you've got a doctorate as well. Anyway, Chris, thinking about those different sort of reasons, which I think are nice reasons to look at, why did Nick

Speaker C: 00:09:48

study economics and philosophy, do you think? I think he is an intrinsic interest person. So, I think he found those areas to be reflective of the best way to understand the world around him. And I think he was intrinsically interested in that. And we'll see how he feels about himself doing

Speaker A: 00:10:16

that. He might be lying to us or misguided, I don't know, deluded. But why did, so Chris, I think you studied sport, because also interested, I think. But also, but thinking, hey, my interest really might fit. There's definitely a tangible career in that direction, maybe. And so I'd like to say 50-50 between those two elements, maybe. Nick, me and theology. Career driven. To get girls,

Speaker B: 00:10:43

definitely. But I would guess, I think you've said before that the reason you did it was so you could argue more effectively against religious people. But if it wasn't that, I would guess that it's, I mean, it's the kind of subject which you is probably disconnected from reality more than many others, to the extent that you can really learn all you need to know about theology by reading books, you don't really have to kind of go out and do field studies or do some data analysis to find out the nature of God, you know. But yeah, so but I think probably, like many other things in life, it would have been some kind of whim. Okay. Yeah, so let's just see how accurate we

Speaker A: 00:11:34

all are. Yeah, no, is the answer to what you're saying. Is that, I can't believe you said that theology is detached from reality. But no, I will, I think it was a mixture of first of all, I was very, very interested in it from a very, very young age, coming from a very irreligious background. So I had that kind of space to sort of explore, as it were. But it's definitely, there was a short period where I thought, hey, I think I want to be a lawyer, maybe study law. But theology is much easier to get into. But I honestly do think that that's not quite true. And I did, I was genuinely interested in the subject and remain so. Definitely not to get girls. And if so, I failed miserably. Nick, for you, was that the case? I am actually really interested in philosophy

Speaker B: 00:12:24

and economics. So I mean, if I would, if I had known everything I know now, and I was choosing an intrinsic interest subject, it probably would be philosophy and certainly be my top five. But tactically, it was merely because I was applying to Oxford to do PPE, which is like the ultimate generalist course. And I sort of just quite like the idea of that. But anyway, I didn't get in.

Speaker A: 00:12:48

You should have applied for theology. I mean, they'll take anyone.

Speaker B: 00:12:51

Apparently. But I didn't get in. And so I ended up doing some very, you know, my other applications were various combinations of philosophy and economics. But I'm really glad I ended up with philosophy economics, because they go together far more than you might imagine. And as Chris said, I actually loved turned out, I turned out that I loved philosophy, all the things I was interested in, which I didn't know was what philosophy was turned out to be encompassed in philosophy. So yeah. So in fact, Chris is right, but it's the other way around. It's not why I did it. But it's probably why I, you know, really enjoyed doing it.

Speaker A: 00:13:25

Sure. Yeah. Just as an aside, if there's any comfort, I sometimes think about you and the fact that you nearly studied PPE there. And I think that can't be true, because I really like you, right? I think you're a nice person. I think you're my mate. I like you, right? However, every single person I knew at university who studied PPE was a total, what are the words I can say? They were just complete, overly ambitious arseholes, nasty, awful people. Awful. And you're not like that. Awful, well that's probably it then, that'll be one. That's why. And just an extra side, I chose one paper at university that was a pure philosophy paper. I hated it. And the tutor was awful and just so anti me, just because he thought all the theologians were mad evangelical Christian types. And he was the only tutor who was not nice because all the rest were lovely vicars. But what about you?

Speaker C: 00:14:21

So I actually started doing Italian and Classics was my initial first degree. And I completely dropped out in my first year. I basically didn't attend any lecture. After the first term, I don't think they saw me. So I had to make- It was a fiasco. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Although if only I'd gone to some of my Italian lectures, I might have been able to understand what you said there, Fraser. So I then had to make a decision about what I could stomach for three years. And I was very sporting. And so it was really about this will be tolerable for three years. And I'm very glad I did it because I mean, it wasn't actually all about practical sport, I should say. You know, Sport and Exercise Sciences is really about, it's about physiology and human physiology. It's about psychology of performance. And it's about the biomechanics, the sort of physics behind optimal movement and, you know, and an element of how do you encourage people to exercise for their own benefits? You know, like, how do you influence the population? So it was actually having picked it sort of because I was like, well, I like doing physical activity. That's what I'll do. I ended up, you know, learning about a way of, you know, several different disciplines with one sort of topical

Speaker B: 00:16:10

focus. So we've got this problem, which is that you don't know really what a subject is at the point you choose it. If you knew, if I'd known all about economics by the time I signed up to do it, then I would already have been an economist and it would be unnecessary.

Speaker A: 00:16:26

Are you going to link this in as well with what we do career wise as well?

Speaker B: 00:16:30

Maybe, we could do. But I mean, you know, so I mean, intrinsic, it's an intrinsic problem that you're signing up to do something for three years, which you know nothing about. Or at least you perhaps know the tip of the iceberg and that the tip of the iceberg may be a bit unrepresentative of the rest of the iceberg. You know, and probably some subjects have that more than others, like some are harder to read. So, you know, I feel like if you were sort of interested in engineering, you'd probably have a pretty good idea about what engineering will involve. I think you can read it, it's a legible sort of subject, you know. Whereas I suspect economics is actually what economics feels like when you're doing it. It's probably nothing like what people think of when they think of economics. And so, yeah, so there's a problem right away. So how should we, how do we make a decision where we're, you know, uninformed? And in fact, it's going to have very significant consequences. I think the study that I talked about shows that if you are making it on the basis of some expectation about your career, you don't. That's a bad way of doing it, right? And it is, to some extent, the representativeness heuristic, which we know causes people to make bad judgments about things, where, you know, people think of the most typical example of something and then attach all of the other attributes of that thing to that topic. So, you know, if you think of, oh, if I'm going to study biology, what's the most typical thing? A doctor. And then you just sort of think, right, so, you know, everyone studying biology must be like a doctor. And it's, yeah, so that, and of course, that's worse in what they call the risky degrees. So the ones where the most representative thing is actually very, very unrepresentative on account of being still very unlikely. You know, when there's a very broad spread of possible things you could

Speaker A: 00:18:34

do with something. Sorry, what is a risky degree? A degree that, so I don't, tell me, remind me.

Speaker B: 00:18:38

Where your chance of doing the typical thing is very, very low. Okay. That's what they, so, so even though the most typical thing that an arts graduate would do, the most typical thing is perhaps be an artist. Hardly any artist, you know, hardly any of them actually do become artists. So the point is that it's not very, whereas let me give you a counter. But I'd be

Speaker A: 00:18:56

interested to know the percentage of people who don't study art, what, how many of them, because it still might be a much, presumably a far higher percentage than in the general

Speaker B: 00:19:05

populace or even just degrees. So just to finish the point, if you study, if you study to become a vet, right, you really are very likely to become a vet. Same with dentistry, right? So those, those are, if you think of, oh, a person studying vet, studying to be a vet, are they a bit like vets? The answer is yes. You can draw inferences from the population of vets to the population of vets, veterinary students, but you can't do that with art. That's all I'm saying. So, you know, the typical art student is not going to be an artist. So it's not a good way to think about, you know, if you think, oh, I want to be an artist. Don't, don't think, oh, I am, you know, if I study art, I'll become an artist. You may still have more chance of becoming an artist than you do studying engineering. But the baseline is pretty low. Yeah. Yeah. So that's, that's the, that's the key point really. But he's actually, they, they have got this very handy matrix, which they put together, which is a sort of riskiness. And what it, what it shows is one axis, how many people end up doing the stereotypical job. And on the other axis, what is the average salary if you don't have that job? So I think this is a really good decision tool, right? Because you can look at what you're thinking of studying and really the things that the worst are in the bottom left. So there are things where you've got a low chance of hitting the jackpot of getting that job. And if you don't, you're going to end up with a low salary.

Speaker A: 00:20:34

What's the name of the study again?

Speaker B: 00:20:36

It was called, actually I can't remember the name of it. It's like degree stereotyping. We'll put a link to it. So bottom left, so liberal arts, English, communications, recreation, fine arts, all things where you got a low chance, like under a quarter chance on average of becoming the thing associated with that degree. And if you don't get it, your average salary will be, will be quite low. On the far, on the bottom right, so that sort of things where you've got a good chance of getting that job, but the, but the salaries are still relatively low. You've got health and education. At the top right left, where you've got a low chance of doing the stereotypical thing, but you get paid well, even if you don't, you've got economics, maths, physics. And in the top right, right, this is the sweet spot where you've got a good chance of being that thing. And your salary is going to be good anyway. Engineering. Basically, I think if you're generally good at things and you know, you don't want to be sort of overly specialized and you're generally good at sort of science-y type, science-y engineering-y type things, engineering is a good fallback. There's a lot of things you can do with engineering. So, so yeah, I think basically that would be my, it's worth being aware of that when you go in. And one of the things that they looked at was, can you de-bias people by making them, by exposing them to this information? And apparently it does work. And that really, yeah. And that falls, that shouldn't be a surprise because what that boils down to is taking the outside view, as it's known, which we talk about, I think quite a lot, but the outside view is where you, instead of thinking about yourself and your motivations and thinking how special you are, you start by going, well, what am I, what population am I part of? And let's look at the outcomes for that population. And forget about you and your quirks and your special, just say, okay, if this was just a random person on the street doing art, I don't care how much you think you care about becoming an artist, how many people become an artist? And the answer is like, you know, 10%. You just need to, that's a more realistic assessment of what is going to happen to you than the one that you will come to by inventing a story about yourself and how you're totally driven by art. And you can imagine your future of living in a garret in Paris painting

Speaker A: 00:23:02

sunflowers. I kind of like this, but it is a kind of way of looking at things that only an economist would. There's something about it. You mean sort of rational? Exactly. Well, the thing

Speaker B: 00:23:15

is that rational, you say rational as if it's a good thing. The rest of your life is going to be significantly affected by this choice. It really, I like the way you're talking to me, you're like my father. Yeah. But I, well, I mean, look, do you think you did the right thing by studying

Speaker A: 00:23:31

theology? Definitely. Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean, that's what's got me this Rolls-Royce that I

Speaker B: 00:23:38

Well, yeah, I mean, so that I guess partly there is going to be an element of, and I often think about this with how many other things could have accidentally happened to you and things would have been different and how much should you sit down and nurse your regrets about the path you didn't take? And I sort of think, well, probably as we've discussed before, you know, wherever you go, there you are. And the biggest driver of your life outcomes ultimately is probably you. And your degree probably doesn't make as much of a difference as you think it does. And if you're really motivated by something, you can study it later. And, you know, but yeah, so but I mean, there's no doubt that, you know, it does have an impact. So it's worth trying to get it right.

Speaker C: 00:24:26

ege system. And it contrasted: 2009

Speaker B: 00:25:02

of late millennials, if it's: 2010

Speaker C: 00:25:15

like the percentage of things? So they were looking, they looked at a few things. So first of all, who does degrees, right, which is quite interesting. So they found, for example, that the gender balance hadn't really shifted. In 10 years ago, it was 57% of students, undergraduate students were females, 43% males. More recently, 58% and 42%. So very little shift. Ethnicity, 70, back, you know, 10 years or so, a decade ago, hence. 71% of students were from a white background, or were white. And more recently, that's dropped to 58%. That's quite a change. Yeah. Now, the number of students in the US system has gone up by 24%. So it's not necessarily that fewer white people are doing degrees. It's that more people are doing degrees, and that has been taken up by other ethnic groups. So that's quite interesting in terms of who's doing degrees, who's deciding to do degrees, and so on. But in terms of subjects, the top losers, i.e. the ones that had shed most numbers of students over that 10 years were education, English language literature, social sciences and history, foreign languages, liberal arts, humanities, theology, philosophy, architecture, and weirdly, or at least I thought weirdly, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies, which I would have thought would have given, you know, current interests and so on, would have gone on a sort of growth thing. The top gainers were engineering, computer and information sciences, psychology, things related to homeland security and law enforcement, health professionals, communications and journalism, environmental type stuff, and maths and stats. So big winner for STEM subjects over arts is the first thing. Subjects like computer science, for example, had undergone a 250% increase in the number of students over that 10 years. So interesting, like I guess a shift towards more vocational type things would be my sense in that period. So maybe the meaning of a degree and the reason, you know, it's not like 10 years ago, we had loads more translators and well, maybe there were more translators, but there weren't loads more social scientists and writers and so on and so forth. So maybe people back then were selecting degrees based on other factors, whereas now it's got a more vocational

Speaker B: 00:28:08

focus. Yeah, I mean, I know, anecdotally, and I don't have the data to back this up, but the anecdotal evidence feels very strong is this thing about how, you know, obviously, loads more people have degrees now. I mean, tonnes more people have degrees than they did, in the 60s and 70s, when my parents went to university, you know, sort of two, three percent of British people went, you know, it was the cream of the grammar school crop, who were already the cream of the school crop, you know, who went to university. And of course, all upper middle class people went to university. And in general, you didn't, most people who went to university didn't really need a career. You know, they typically had plenty of money already. Or at least they were going to get one, whatever they did for their degree. Right, because they had got a degree of any kind, that was sort of 90% of the interview over. Congratulations, can you start on Monday? And whereas now, of course, you know, if everyone's got a degree, necessarily, it is not going to have that kind of sorting effect. It can't, it doesn't act as much as a filter. And costs have gone up as well. So you're paying for it. Yeah, exactly. So now you've got to really, it is about what you study and about whether it's making you more productive. So look,

Speaker A: 00:29:26

it's obviously such a vast subject, it's quite difficult, because one thing we just talked about is the changing landscape of funding of degrees in the UK, amount of people going to university in the UK. And also, which sort of changes why people go to university was slightly reflected in those US things you were talking about, which, again, sort of worries me, turns me into a grumpy old git. Because, you know, just people just doing stuff purely vocationally, I think you just less interesting population, to be honest. No, but you want to you want to meet someone who does studies, who is, you know, analysis and decision making, and did a degree in sports and sports psychology, and so on. That's kind of what you want, I feel. But if you want that, you should pay for it. Well, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, I need to sort of bring us around to the end. Well, I've got my three part advice. Great, because I've got questions. Let's have the advice first, dad.

Speaker B: 00:30:24

e outside view. So in the UK,: 2014

Speaker A: 00:32:31

Because it sounds like a nice little earner, you know, just a bit on the side, as it were, and different bit on the side. And that how quick can one qualify? Can't be that difficult.

Speaker C: 00:32:43

I think it's a good five years of training, something like that.

Speaker B: 00:32:47

It's weird, isn't it? Because you could be a doctor and and you study for the same amount of time and a doctor is every bit of your body. Yeah, except one bit. And then to study that one bit, which is your teeth. Apparently, that's a whole degree as well. It's really strange. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Why is it a doctor for everything unless you're a dentist and unless it's teeth? It's weird, isn't it? It is. It is. We need to explore this further. But then it's the same with vets. Like vets.

Speaker C: 00:33:11

Have to cover all animals.

Speaker B: 00:33:12

They know every single animal. So it's like, you know, the real niche is being a dentist for tortoises. That's what people, there's a huge market.

Speaker A: 00:33:21

I think there's a reason why there aren't any. Right. So going going back to something that you said then, Nick, we kind of touched upon this a little bit. But just think about what degree, you know, we've talked about what degrees we did do. What degree would you have liked to have done if you had your time again? What would you do instead?

Speaker B: 00:33:36

Are we allowed to have independent earnings or do we still have to think about our career?

Speaker A: 00:33:41

As you like. I don't know. I don't really understand the question. But so just interpret

Speaker C: 00:33:45

exactly what he wants to pick, what he would do if money were no object. Yeah.

Speaker A: 00:33:51

Or does he have to think about his. OK. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll go first. Go on. Art. I wish I'd done an art degree. Really? Like actual fine art? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the reason why is because I dropped art relatively early, actually. I was I was OK at it, but I dropped it because I was doing RE for GCSE, which is a bit of a, you know, silly subject. And I was also did drama as well. And I thought, oh, doing art as well. And by the way, those two, those first two, I got A's in. And so I thought, I can't do art as well. It's a bit wishy washy. But I kind of wish I'd continued with it. And, you know, who knows? And maybe done it for a degree as well. Who knows? I'm actually not that great at art, but I'd given it a bash. I think I've enjoyed that.

Speaker B: 00:34:34

Well, you know, turning up is what? 80% of. Yeah.

Speaker C: 00:34:40

Unless it's an art degree where nobody becomes an artist after it, in which case turning up is pointless.

Speaker A: 00:34:46

Yeah. And actually, I was talking to someone about this the other day. All the artists I knew, the only two people who actually went everywhere every single day at university to do stuff were the scientists because they're going to the lab to do stuff. And the artists, they went off every single day to the park to smoke weed. Probably. Yeah. Chris, what would you have done?

Speaker C: 00:35:05

Well, when I was 17 or 18 or whenever you make these choices, there was no such thing as a creative writing degree. It was English literature. I was very good at English literature. I didn't like English literature. And that was the only real sort of choice. It was very mechanical. I just worked out what the formula was for, you know, dissecting other people's writing and didn't find it intrinsically interesting. And that was the only sort of option really as an English degree. I think there was one creative writing degree, UEA. And basically you had to be a professional author at the time to, you know, it was really for. And that's a bachelor's, is it? Yes, I think it was a bachelor's. Now there's a proliferation of creative writing degrees. I dare say, you know, very few. It's one of those. It must be a risky degree, right? I suspect very few of the people who do it end up as a professional writer. However, the thought of having spent three years sort of honing your ability to write creatively, I think would have been.

Speaker B: 00:36:10

Well, it sounds it's almost like let's turn, let's take it, but turn it vocational, you know, and I think that's what the sort of creative writing degree was very, well, the Malcolm Bradbury one in UEA was very focused on that. Like, how can you be a writer? And also how do you sell your stories? You know, what do you what do you what do you look for in an agent? And that kind of stuff, from my understanding, which is probably, you know, very much towards the harder end of those sorts of arts degrees.

Speaker A: 00:36:37

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, nice. Nick?

Speaker B: 00:36:39

Well, I really enjoyed philosophy. And I almost became an academic philosopher. And I suppose so just doing philosophy, dropping the economics might have been too close. Well, I suppose then I would say, probably engineering, maybe, maybe sort of software engineering or computer science or something like, yeah, I mean, that that is really my bag. And

Speaker A: 00:37:05

So you're more like Peter than I realise?

Speaker B: 00:37:08

Well, maybe so. But, but yeah, there isn't it's just that I just feel like, what's the point of studying something which I can study myself? I don't need I'm no offence to like art historians out there. But I really don't feel like I have to do an art history degree, if I want to know about the history of art. Like, I'm not going to

Speaker A: 00:37:28

It's more just like accumulating knowledge, it feels.

Speaker B: 00:37:30

Yeah, I don't want to say that because I don't, I'm obviously haven't studied. So I don't know, there could be loads of hardcore data analysis in art history, for all I know. But, but it just feels like the kind of subject which I can teach myself, whereas I can't teach myself computer science, really, because I don't know where to start. And it's hard, and I won't. Whereas,

Speaker A: 00:37:49

Okay, felt a little bit, I know we need to start felt a little bit like that, when I did my Masters in international relations, very little of it, actually, I would call academic, purely in the way you're doing theory of international relations. In inverted commas.

Speaker B: 00:38:02

Most theory in inverted commas.

Speaker A: 00:38:04

Well, no, but I mean, but that bit was, but it was quite small. Most of it, it just felt like a history degree of like recent, but without going into the history theory. It's just like, oh, this is what happened and remember this stuff, kind of thing. Anyway. All right, we've done it. That's it. Nice. What was the question we asked? Well, how should you choose a degree? Yeah, I think we've covered that. Be a dentist. Yeah, there we go. All right. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.