Just so we're clear, I was Philosophy major. I have an MA in Philosophy (and a little bit of Linguistics) from the University of Auckland. In the second year of my MA, I tutored classes in Stage 1 Ethics and Stage 1 Reason & Argument (I think the paper's called "Critical Thinking" these days). The skills I acquired in taking this degree (critical thinking, organising information, and the ability to explain complex concepts in simpler terms in particular) have put me in good stead in both my professional and personal lives. Philosophy is a worthy subject, and the world would be a better (and more well-argued) place if more people took a few Philosophy papers -- certainly the majority of Straw-Man-slinging hypocrites that participate in what is laughingly called "debate" on NZ blogs could do with a course in reason and argumentation.
So when I hear smug Objectivist twats slagging off those airy-fairy, head in the clouds Philosophy students whose abstract musings have no relevance to the real world, well it tends to piss me off a bit. Especially since such people appear to have no idea what goes on in a Philosophy department. Let's clear a few things up, then:
Philosophy Departments do not "teach Subjectivism"
Any student who is paying attention quickly learns that Subjectivism, much like scepticism, is a waste of time. Sure, you can't actually disprove them, but they render any argument pointless as soon as they're invoked, so why waste your breath on them? Furthermore, in Stage 1 Ethics students are introduced to the ethical theory of Cultural Relativism, followed quickly by all of its many flaws and arguments against. (The same then applies to Utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.)
Philosophy Departments do not "teach" anything
Not in the sense that their critics use the word, anyway (i.e. "telling people what to think"). What is taught is critical thinking, analysis skills, formal logic and reasoning. Students are then introduced to various theories and positions, and the arguments for and against them. Students are encouraged to make up their own minds about the merits, or lack thereof, of any philosophical position they encounter, using the skills they have been taught.
Philosophy has relevance to the real world
Apparently, U of A Philosophy lecturer Robert Nola once said to prominent Objectivist Lindsay Perigo that "logic has nothing to do with reality". No context for that quote is given, so I can't say for sure what he meant by it. (It's worth noting that Bob Nola is remembered for publicly referring to Objectivists as "cultists and crazies", so I can't imagine they'd go out of their way to represent his views charitably.) I do know that reality is so complex that it is practically impossible to analyse it in terms of pure formal logic. Nevertheless, reason is used by real people to solve real problems. While some areas of Philosophy (metaphysics, I'm looking at you) debate issues that, well, they don't really affect us one way or another, other areas relate specifically to real world situations (after Stage 1 Ethics, you go on to Stage 2 Applied Ethics). And some are a bit of both -- Philosophy of Mind may be all abstract and wishy-washy now, but it has very real implications for artificial intelligence technology.
Philosophers do not deny that "existence exists"
This philosophical manifesto-cum bumper sticker is not as unique to Objectivism as its proponents maintain. If my understanding of it as being shorthand for "that things exist can be taken as axiomatic" is correct, then I know of no philosophers or philosophical positions that deny this. Sure, there are plenty of people who question the nature of existence, for instance by arguing that although existence exists, the fact that our senses can be untrustworthy may imply that existence is not as we perceive it to be. The question is not "do things exist?"; rather "what are the things that exist really like?"
Ayn Rand can suck my balls
Well, she could if she wasn't dead. Actually...