<p>The Charles Murray article (the link to which Beliavsky shared in post #29) is very interesting. Before you discount the conclusion, I’d recommend reading it; you may not agree entirely with Murray’s conclusion (I don’t), but you might find some food for thought.</p>
<p>I had a discussion with my significant other fairly recently about whether what we learned in college was relevant to what we do today. The answer was “not relevant” in both cases. I’m not sure I’d conclude that my BF and I shouldn’t have gone to college, but for sure what we learned in college has essentially zero to do with our career success, even though we are both employed in careers where having a degree (in my case, sometimes a master’s degree, which is SILLY) is de rigueur. We were both academically strong and “college material” by anyone’s measure. But if I’m honest with myself I have to conclude that what I acquired during college and my subsequent graduate school years was maturity, some reasonably good cocktail party fodder (I did pay attention to what I learned in all those English and philosophy classes I took), and the knowledge that I, in fact, did not want to be an academic but wanted instead to edit people’s copy and boss them around.</p>
<p>Creekland #13: Interestingly enough those who participate in the arts at D’s HS are the ones at the top of their class and taking all the math and science AP classes. I saw that 70% of the commended and 85% of the NMSF in her public HS were involved in dance, theater, band, or orchestra. Most of them I have talked to are planning on majoring in stem fields and most would like to continue their performing art but few as a major. Perhaps you are correct and those that choose to major in the fine arts are less likely to be adept at stem subjects but in D school their seems to be a correlation.</p>
<p>From the Murray article. Employers use the college degree as a free test of IQ and perseverance. And the useless majors thing is probably a red flag about the lack of practicality of the applicant for anything other than foaming milk. </p>
<p>Well, you know, argbargy, many of us who studied “useless majors” are being paid good money. And we weren’t hired because the ceiling of our ability was “foaming milk.” Your comment is offensive.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the person. I’m a math person and i love art. I was weirdo with an IS major and three art minors. My photography and paintings make up almost all of my decorations. Once i have more photos of my liking i plan to start an online photography store and possibly make some digitized images of my paintings available for print on it also. </p>
<p>One of my artsy friends is the director of media and communications at a firm in ny and I’m sure makes much more then me (then again the cost of living is much more as well). Another couldn’t get a job and went back to school for biology. Some of it is the ability to relocate and look for jobs where jobs are available.</p>
<ol>
<li> Murray: There’s definitely an interesting dialogue happening right now, associated with the idea of a college loan “bubble”. For years, people have looked at the data that said college graduates earned a lot more, and have pushed a policy of sending as many people as possible to college. Not so surprisingly, (a) that turns out to devalue the college degree, and (b) there was a correlation/causation issue from the start – maybe what the data meant was that smarter people, and people who started with more wealth, tend to earn more, and also tended to go to college more, and sending someone who’s neither smart nor wealthy to college doesn’t do much for his earning power. On the other hand, I think there’s very little question that the high school system has collapsed enough so that a high school diploma in and of itself is not a sufficient basic credential for any kind of meaningful job. AA/BA degrees have taken on that function, so people who don’t go to college are far worse off than in past generations.</li>
</ol>
<p>Lots of people believe that there should be more meaningful vocational training options for young people. Let’s pause for a moment to notice that such vocational training used to be an important function performed by trades unions. Our friends on the right, Murray’s fans, having pretty much effectively destroyed the unions (with a lot of help from the unions themselves), have practically signed over the field of vocational training to a horde of federal-loan-addicted charlatans, and are busily engaged in reducing public funding of education at every level of government. Those of you who agree with Murray ought to start testifying to how you think we can build the kind of system he argues for.</p>
<ol>
<li> At my kids’ high school, drama and music (classical) were largely the province of academically high-performing kids, but with a subgroup of kids who were just skating by academically and were all-in on the art. Many of them went to conservatory programs. Visual art, on the other hand, was almost entirely conducted by dissenters. My daughter had a toe in that world at her school, but her “regular” friends barely even recognized her art friends as classmates, and vice versa. I remember one of the art kids talking after her first semester at the Pratt Institute, saying that it was nice to remember that she was actually smart, having spent her high school years trying to put as much distance as possible between herself and the “smart” kids, and largely being put down by them.</li>
</ol>
<p>The quote says “academic ability and perseverance” - NOT “free test of IQ.”
What I sudied in college and grad school formed me, shaped how I think and anlyze (even made me daring, at times.) My skills were/are valued, even if my subject kowledge or academic perspective does not directly relate to each job I have had.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, you should hear how well many art majors are doing- this is a matter of drive and savvy.</p>
<p>As for single examples- get off the far right, add a little flavor. It can be, well, educating.</p>
<p>Btw, how does sitting through the requisite courses show “academic ability?” It shows that you could identify and complete a plan or program. After that, you have to look at the individual to judge their smarts.</p>
<p>There exist hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of counter-examples. The observation was of the same quality as that which comes out of the back-end of a bull.</p>
<p>There is some sort of weird fantasy that non-STEM majors can’t earn a living or have a meaningful career. That’s not what’s happening in my children’s lives, or in the lives of their friends, and it certainly isn’t what happened in my generation, not at all. Meanwhile, there are plenty of STEM majors who have a lot of trouble getting and keeping career-track jobs. Only a portion of the STEM world consists of undergraduate education that leads into specific jobs. And the jobs they lead into aren’t so plentiful that you could triple the (relatively small) number of people in those majors and still employ them all.</p>
<p>Yes, clearly if absweetmarie was able to find a job that logically implies that everyone in her major must be able to find a job. I dont know why the government even bothers to collect statistics.</p>
<p>At some point the question “You have a degree in Library Science” becomes “You thought it would be a good idea to spend $100K to get a degree in Library Science???” and then an employer has to question the thought process and the person entertaining it. There could be good reasoning in some cases , but on balance it is going to demonstrate some very suspect decision making.</p>
<p>It’s apropos that this thread came up today, because I just had a conversation this morning about this with my daughter as we discussed her first semester at a top school. </p>
<p>As we got to taking about what she had learned in her History, Psych, and Sociology classes, I was left wondering if any of it would ever enter her consciousness again (well, maybe other than Psych).</p>
<p>To make a long story short: she has always excelled at everything, from STEM subjects to fine arts. As a scientist I look at her abilities in science and math and wish for a career path to match those abilities. As a parent I want her to be happy but would love it if she could find something she loved that would keep her highly employable.</p>
<p>She has no idea what she wants to major in, but it will almost definitely not be a STEM field, and will probably be something on the list that sparked this thread.</p>
<p>Gamesmanship is very interesting and, at times, effective. But it’s not substance. If you want to break down every academic major into unemployment rates, go for it. But, you’ll still have to account for all the other factors that affect employment. Unless one simply wants to put down others.
To what end? It’s not effective to simply go find data or conservatives who fit one’s own notions and standards of proof. Good luck.</p>
That’s a pretty weak straw man, JHS. There is a big difference between “some majors are more likely to result in jobs immediately after graduation” and “no English majors are ever employed anywhere, under any circumstances, nope, no way.” </p>
<p>To be blunt, your average classics major is more likely to be working at Starbucks after graduation than your average nursing major. A biology major may have to work hard to find a decently paying job in his field, whereas a geology major would be hard pressed NOT to find a geosciences job. A quick glimpse at the career surveys (ucbalumnus has linked to dozens over the years) reveals lots of patterns like these. I don’t see any point in getting huffy about it.</p>
<p>Obviously nobody is saying that it’s stupid to major in these fields, or that if you major in these fields, you’re doomed to a life of poverty and regret. :rolleyes: What some are saying is that some majors - or, perhaps more accurately, the skill sets that come along with some majors - are more in demand than others, and it’s something to keep in mind when preparing for the job market. A lot of people don’t really consider what they want to do after graduation until very late in the game, not always wise with something like Medieval studies or marine biology. Yes, you can get a fantastic job with the so-called “useless” majors - if you do internships, if you network, if you pick up useful experience and skills along the way, and if you think ahead and prepare for the job application process.</p>
<p>You suggested that employers should conclude that people who graduate with one of these so-called “useless majors” are not likely to be able to do anything other than foam milk. I called your comment offensive; I still think it is. As for my logic skills, I did not make a logical leap to say that every English major should be able to find a job; if we take the Daily Beast data at face value, 9.2 percent of recent college graduates and 6.2 percent of “experienced” grads can’t. But the fact is, there are plenty of people who are gainfully employed having pursued one of these fields. I am not one counterexample. There are, as JHS says, “hundreds of thousands, maybe millions” of counterexamples.</p>
<p>Edited to comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think some people are veering close to arguing something like that. You’ll see that kind of rhetoric from at least one person and sometimes more every time this subject comes up on CC.</p>
<p>The idea of a useless major is absurd. The utility of the major depends on the student and their particular circumstances.</p>
<p>My parents were blue collar. I was on my own right out of high school. I bounced around for a few years and finally went to college. I went to the local state school and the potential for a solid job was my only consideration. I had no safety net to help me find myself or develop long term prospects after college. I ended up as an accountant. Turned out to be a good choice for me as I like the work and it suits my personality.</p>
<p>I went to work for a regional accounting firm. We had recruits from all across the country. I was working with grads from Boston College, Notre Dame, etc. Their life experience was completely different than mine. They were better educated, more cultured. I realized that my education had holes…there is more to life than technical skills.</p>
<p>Both my kids are in or have graduated from LACs. I encouraged them to get solid liberal arts degrees in areas that interest them, in subjects that push them intellectually. I firmly believe that this improves their communication skills, their decision making, and their ability to see the big picture. They can always obtain specific technical skills if needed after graduation. This is a long term view that is possible because I can provide them with the safety net. In the long run they will be better off economically than I am. </p>
<p>Two generations, two different sets of circumstances, two different strategies.</p>