<p>If you are referring only to Women’s Studies, Music, Creative Art, and Literature, why not refer to them by their names?</p>
<p>If I want to talk about disliking Chemistry, would I say “College majors are bad” or “Chemistry is bad”? Actually, I don’t think Chemistry is bad, just had to use an example.</p>
<p>Notice the little “etc.” after my statement. There are more, but it would take awhile to name them all. It is easier to just say liberal arts. Especially if you consider Liberal Arts and Liberal Sciences to seperate things. </p>
<p>I mean, when and engineer talks bad against Liberal Arts, you really think he means stuff like Math and Physics? Saying “Oh, if we got rid of LA there would be no Math and Physics and then what?” And engineer obviously isn’t talking about the roots of his own field. </p>
<p>I don’t really want to get dragged into this debate. I know my stance and it’s not like anyone is gonna change anyone else’s minds.</p>
<p>Okay. I choose to believe Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, Reference Dictionary, and colleges themselves over you.</p>
<p>But cool, maybe I’ll head over to South America one of these days. I hear Namibia is really nice this time of year.</p>
<p>One could just as easily argue that a lot of people who major in Engineering do so because they think that it will automatically lead to a high-paying job and are in it for the money. Keep in mind that I don’t actually believe this viewpoint at all, but it’s the equivalent of calling all Liberal Arts majors lazy morons. So I don’t believe for a minute that all STEM majors are intellectually driven, while all Liberal Arts majors are useless and generic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah but there’s no such thing as “Liberal Sciences”</p>
<p>I agree with the original poster that math and science are far more important than liberal arts, but I disagree with the idea that some people shouldn’t be allowed to major in them.</p>
<p>Everyone isn’t fit to be a math in science. Liberal arts are not useless, and are important for our society. I agree wholeheartedly that they aren’t nearly as important as engineering or medicine, but all liberal arts majors shouldn’t be looked at with disdain.</p>
<p>Many people major in the liberal arts to avoid hard work to have a light major while they party, but people who are deeply interested in it and work hard should not be ridiculed by haughty science majors.</p>
<p>What is with this stereotype of the liberal arts major who’s only in it to party? I’m in 17.5 units and if I take a personal day to catch up on sleep, go out for dinner with an evening drink I catch hell by Tuesday for not sacrificing that time to study. God forbid I should be incapacitated by a stomach flu for a few days. At least jduster is more on our side… but cormy, Jan and wishwanderer all seem to have this “they’re all partiers all day every day, they’re only here to party, not one of them’s worth a damn” thing going on. Maybe it’s because I deal with mostly honors students and don’t generally hang out “where it’s at” so while I see partier types I’ve never associated them with liberal arts as a whole.</p>
<p>Of the “party” type college students I know, almost all are engineers… One was a philosophy major, but he’s going for business grad school and knew that going in.</p>
<p>“Hey guys, I heard liberal arts are useless. No way man, I heard science kids aren’t well educated. Everyone knows that if you take an English degree you’re not going to get a job. All engineers are employed. People only take liberal arts majors because they don’t know what else to do. Engineers are heartless and only in it for the money. I KNOW these things, I hearditfromafriend/knowalotof<em>majors/aminthesuperior</em>major!”</p>
<p>How long can this debate go on and on and on and on? Can we not just acknowledge that each discipline in academia exists for a reason, and not have to be so certain that our particular discipline has the best one?</p>
<p>Physics, especially advanced things like string theory, cannot (and would not) exist without philosophy. Psychology informs everything from business to engineering. History helps us understand our world, our societies, our cultures. Literature is an artistic window into the human experience itself. Everything has a value in society, and to give each subject an arbitrary ranking on a scale of importance is intellectually lazy and wrong. </p>
<p>Lets not forget that what you learn in college does not define you; adults these days change careers several times. Unless you are set on being one thing for the rest of your life, which is a perfectly fine choice, your college education should be focused on exploring your interests and developing your ability to think and reason. There’s a reason that universities do not go by the name “vocational college”, you know.</p>
<p>Also, who gives a **** how the “average liberal arts student” or the “average engineering major” acts? Anyone who defines their interests and their own intellectual growth in such shallow terms should not be in college in the first place. All that matters is the work that YOU put into your education, an what YOU want to do with your life. </p>
<p>On another note, loving the tags in this thread!</p>
<p>This is so stupid. Just MYOB.</p>
<p>Sadly but not surprisingly, the opposing camp has decided to harp on semantics. One wonders if this is all they’ve got.</p>
<p>There’s no precise definition that I wish to provide for my use of “liberal arts.” I’m broadly talking about the humanities and social sciences. I’m aware that liberal arts is actually wider than my intended meaning. I had no choice. There’s a good term for what I’m not talking about: STEM fields. But there isn’t a good term for what I am talking about, so I chose “liberal arts,” assuming that people could take a hint. Guess not. I would like to ask the various posters who think they know better, to give me the more precise term then. Go on, I’m sure you have it. Guess not.</p>
<p>As I wrote to conclude my original post, I’m vaguely referring to subjects that would best be viewed as avocational. In other words, they don’t lead to a job which uses the specific skills acquired in the study of said subject. They are studied mainly out of interest. Right now that happens to be the humanities and most of the social sciences. I chose to base my post on these broad parameters to recognize the possibility that one day engineering may deserve the scorn I’m currently piling on english and philosophy, and that this is nothing to do with the subject matters themselves, but rather with how and whether they fit in our society. (Of course, whether I think that scenario is likely is another question altogether. But at least I recognize the possibility.)</p>
<p>Now understand that I never proposed their abolition as college majors, let alone abolishing the fields themselves in study or in practice. We definitely need students studying liberal arts, and we need them to become the professors, researchers, authors, theorists, thinkers, and leaders of their respective fields in the future. What we don’t need are the hordes of psychology and english majors who end up with jobs unrelated to their majors. Not that there is anything wrong with an individual pursuing an unrelated job after realizing he doesn’t like the jobs available in the field which he studied in college, but there is something wrong when the jobs of today’s economy are systematically out of sync with the skills taught in the classrooms of fields like literature and sociology. Please don’t retort with the paltry few exceptions like jobs in academia or publishing or something like that.</p>
<p>It has been my experience, and I think this is what wishwanderer wanted to say, that those in liberal arts fields, because of the disconnect between classroom skills and employment skills, see their time in college as more a rite of passage than doing anything substantive. As in, they are not there literally to learn, but to show and tell others in the future that they are college graduates. Employers in liberal arts associated fields, i.e. those don’t require a concrete skill set, similarly use the degree as a signal that a job applicant has demonstrated an array of positive persona qualities, not that he has developed a skill of real use. This is related to b@rium’s point that many liberal arts majors are not that interested in what they are going to do in college, but rather excited by the mere idea of going to college, hence picking the easier liberal arts majors (refer to: my hierarchy thread). I’m talking about the average liberal arts student, not the ones at the tippy-top schools. Yes I’m aware that at some schools liberal arts majors go on to do investment banking or consulting. Unfortunately that’s not average.</p>
<p>Understand also that I’m in no way denigrating a “liberal arts education.” Everyone should be well-rounded to an extent. There’s an ideal equilibrium between breadth and depth, depending on the person, and I’m quite liberal with where I would place a societal guideline. I endorse fabrizio’s point that a vocational major should be combined with many liberal arts courses. The point is that a liberal arts education, at least according to any reasonable definition of the term, is not inconsistent with holding a vocational major. The general perspectives and skills, like reading and writing and critical thinking, or thinking philosophically, can be preserved to a large extent, even if they are unique to the liberal arts, which I don’t believe they are (refer to: my hierarchy thread).</p>
<p>To address concerns about the positions in society that legitimately require broadly educated people, or an eclectic assortment of differently educated people, positions like lawyer or businessman or politician, remember I said we should still retain the top 10% (or insert number here) of liberal arts majors, and that they will enjoy the same benefits and status that they currently do. Nothing will change for this still quite sizable portion of college students, except that their fields will become suddenly more elitist, which is a good thing in this context. They should be trained, as they currently are, as if preparing for a career in academia, and later they can and will probably decide to drop out of the academic track and enter law school, leaving the small minority of the brilliant and dedicated to continue through academia, again as they currently can and do.</p>
<p>Note that my argument is founded on what I believe colleges and society should promote as subjects of study, not claims about what is intrinsically hard or valuable. I believe that everyone having exposure to literature is a good thing, but that the state subsidizing such activity for all but the brightest is a bad thing. There are simply too many liberal arts majors who will never ever use their skills that they spent four years and thousands in public funds to acquire. It’s neither good for them nor for society. I agree with wishwanderer that many liberal arts majors don’t even care particularly for the subjects themselves, just defaulting towards the easier ones. I’m not blaming them. I blame the system, which I think should be changed. If employers need a signalling mechanism for the personal qualities that make for a good employee, I understand, but four years of college is overkill.</p>
<p>I hope that the net result of such action will be an influx of students into the STEM fields. But given the hierarchy of majors will I posited (and which remains undefeated) in the previous thread, that seems unlikely. What’s more likely is that many fewer people of lower academic capabilities will attend publicly funded college. That’s a healthy result. Keep in mind that many other people have pointed out we should restrict college attendance, that the costs are too large for mostly imaginary benefits. My argument is therefore a version of that argument, with the necessary reduction taking primarily, or even strictly, by field of study. My contention, spun another way, a perhaps more familiar and therefore acceptable way, is that in order to reduce college attendance along the most agreeable terms, we have to cull from the liberal arts.</p>
<p>Let me point out also that these issues have huge implications for society, so don’t be surprised if people aren’t willing to ‘agree to disagree.’ Posting on an internet forum may not change anything, but at least it’s a start. The public perception that getting any liberal arts degree is worthwhile is, simply, a large part of the problem. You’re using public funds to get a useless education. If you’re not, but still disagree with me, you’re feeding those who are, as well as reinforcing employer practices of relying on worthless degrees as popular signalling mechanism. You can’t hide or bury your head. This issue runs too deep. If you’re not part of the answer, you’re part of the problem.</p>
<p>tl;dr. Go be useful, we’re sick of you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humanities and Social Sciences would work… you could throw in fine arts too if you’re ranting against them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ohh, OHHHHH <em>raises hand</em> may I? I’ve already addressed many of the individual topics that fall under “Humanities” and “Social Sciences” that you take issue with, and gave support for my argument. It’s right there, just because you ignored it the first time doesn’t mean it disappeared. And how arrogant are we “Sadly but not surprisingly” do you know how condescending you sound? How would you like it if I went “Sadly, but not surprisingly, cormy3 has decided to continue ignoring all relevant counter-arguments and keep his fingers in his ears going la-la-la while believing that his argument is irrefutable.” Actually, I kind of like that, I’d like to go into more detail on that…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ohh, yeah, we wouldn’t want people to remember that since Math and Science fall under the liberal arts it makes you a hypocrite. So you’re going to define liberal arts the way YOU feel like and if we use the classical (read: real) definition to argue against you WE’RE the ones who’re wrong? Dude, Charlie Sheen called, he wants his Head-Reduction cream back, he says it’s starting to affect his career.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My Psychology degree doesn’t lead me specifically to studying the mind of other people in counseling situations, Neuropsychology and research to add to the field? If I majored in History could I not get a job as a Historian? If I was a Philosopher (of which I may double major) would I not be able to also pursue a degree in Law?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, except I’m going to be USING my Psychology degree to get a job in NEUROPSYCHOLOGY. If I was still majoring in English I would probably become a teacher, I only ever majored in it because I was trying to become a novelist, which doesn’t require the major behind it first (novel’s going great, btw). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>gomennasai, I’m sorry that a perfectly good answer to the hole in your logic is “out.” Then your argument that I would be an “exception to the rule” is out too, mmkay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is sociology out of sync? I took a Sociology of Human Sexuality just last Spring that while it was mostly dolled-up social psychology taught me plenty of interesting things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not that they’re “excited about going to college” it’s that they know they HAVE to go to college to get a living wage in their futures. God forbid they should know what they want to do in concrete detail by the time they’re 17-18. Sorry they’re human and can change their minds. Pretty sure you were told this several pages ago. Silly that you chose not to listen. They can be PERFECTLY interested in what they want to do, but maybe they find out after Freshman year “oh, hey you know? I actually enjoyed my History class much more than my Philosophy class, maybe I’ll major in it instead… well, I really enjoyed my Cultural Anthropology class so maybe I’ll double major! I can combine the two for my fieldwork!” Apparantly the only people perfect to cormy knew what they were going to do with their lives before they turned 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except… you are. That’s exactly what you’re doing. You can’t punch someone in the face and then tell them you were straightening their glasses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reasonable in whose opinion? Yours? Show me the unbiased body whose reasonable definition shows this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duly Noted, but Note yoursel that we knew what your argument was founded on the entire time. Your own opinion, what you “believe.” Note “believe” is not fact, cormy. “Believe” is your own personal opinion of which you are entitled as a human being. What you are not entitled to sweety, are your own facts. And the FACT is that you’re wrong. You’re VERY wrong. And to express my opinion, I find your opinion highly offensive. Note this too: you’re entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn’t mean you’re free from having it criticized.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you believe in Eugenics and Social Darwinism. Only the best deserve to be helped. Screw the poor, screw the kids who were downtrodden by negative forces in their lives. Screw the poor a second time for good measure. How privilaged are you that you think you have the right to “decide” who deserves state moneys to go to college?! If it was up to you I wouldn’t even be able to go to a CC with the hope of transfer someday. Because I got bad grades in high school due to depression and complete apathy towards school (because of the depression). No, if mighty cormy decided, I’d be on the street right now. Because “only the best and the brightest deserve state money.” Basically, you advocate “I’ve got mine, too bad for you.” And that’s just sick dude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See “I’ve got mine, too bad for you” above. How do you determine which are the ones “who will never ever use their skills” Oh wait, you can’t. That’s right so you discriminate against all of us. Again, that’s a selfish, short-sighted attitude. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You agree with him an awful lot, are you sure you two aren’t the same person? Common and confess, he’s your sockpuppet, right? For your more offensive views? The ones you don’t want tied to you yourself? Or is he your Strawman so you can appear more reasonable by comparison?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ohhh, so now helping subsidize someone’s education for 4 years is too much and you’re mad at the college huh? While the system may be broken and need an overhaul, the things you’re proposing would just make college impossible for thousands of people. Again, a selfish short-sighted and arrogant gesture. Just how privilaged are you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhh, no. Just no dude. I defeated it myself. Several times. Every time I did you insulted my intelligence and claimed my arguments were useless. You refused to even address me when I pointed out exactly where you had gone wrong. Here I am again, telling you you’re wrong. Just because you’re incapable of arguing and take your ball and go home does NOT mean you won the argument. As I recall your topic was locked, that doesn’t mean you won, that means it caused too much drama. Less than ten hours later wishwanderer came out and directly referenced it which made me assume he was your sockpuppet. Case in point: YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT, get OVER it already. Your hierarchy of majors is a mess. While it’s true some majors are harder than others, the premise that some are intrinsically better is insanely riddiculous, wildly offensive, lacking in ANY critical thinking skills WHATSOEVER and shows an alarming need to feel better than everybody else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s certainly contentious. But it’s hardly agreeable to anybody. Who? You? Wishwanderer (also you)? Who are you? And who are you to decide these are “agreeable” terms? Why don’t we cull from STEM majors? Because you’re “better” and therefore immune to it and how dare we not recognize your obvious greatness? Dude, get over yourself. Seriously. Look, don’t propose something like that unless you’re willing to cull from your own as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read: Liberal Arts Majors (intended: people of lesser intelligence).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, no, not gonna happen. I don’t agree with you, at all. Out of the dozens of people who’ve posted here, you’ve only gotten Jan and wishwanderer to agree with you, and one of those is likely you in sockpuppet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There you go again stating that ALL liberal arts degrees are worthless. Didn’t you say just above that you recognized finally that they served a purpose? Contradicting yourself now? You can’t even keep your story straight. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My we’re privilaged. Again, I wasn’t aware that my Psychology degree with specialization in Neuropsychology was “useless.” I’ll go tell Stanford that I won’t spend a year there during graduate school and work there afterwards. I’ll let the doctors who treated my MoyaMoya as a child know that I’ll no longer be able to pursue a degree that will contribute to the body of knowledge they used to save my life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why yes, I agree, you are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I’m proposing a drastic reduction in something, in my proposal I’d better refer many times to the thing in question. Do you honestly expect me to say “almost all the humanities and most of the social sciences and the non-remunerative of the arts” every time I want to write a sentence?</p>
<p>Besides why other choices don’t work, I think ‘liberal arts’ works quite nicely if you’re not a pedant. It has a decidedly non-vocational connotation. Plus a touch of decadence. The first subjects brought to mind are philosophy and english. Perfect.</p>
<p>For the record, I’m not responding to itachimron because he can’t think straight. If he actually has a good argument somewhere in there, I’m sure someone else will bring it up. I’ll respond to them, not the guy who screams social darwinism. LOL</p>
<h1>I’m reposting my post #10 because in my opinion, there is a lot of posting going on but little dialogue.</h1>
<p>I graduated from Georgia Tech, where liberal arts takes a back seat to applied and natural sciences, and I believe there is value in an education that incorporates the liberal arts. By that, I mean taking courses in Shakespeare or Chaucer, for example, even if you are an engineering or business major (i.e. “practical”).</p>
<p>If you just want a job that pays reasonably well after graduation, enter a local two-year technical college in an in-demand field. Unless you have an expensive lifestyle, you should never be without shelter or without food. Of course, given the target audience for CC, that is not what most people have in mind.</p>
<p>But at the same time, what’s the point of studying four years of Shakespeare if you can’t get a decent-paying job afterward? We’re all familiar, by now, of the “horror stories” of grads with six-figure student loan debt who can’t find gainful employment with their liberal arts degrees.</p>
<p>Could there be a balance here? Yes. There used to be (still is?) a poster here named taxguy. He recommended, and I heartily agree, choosing a “practical” major but making sure to take a lot of liberal arts courses. Without those courses, you cannot claim to be “educated.” You would be an individual with a college degree but no sense of culture. But without the “practical” courses, your chances of getting a fulfilling job that pays well goes down, way down. So why not combine the two and get the best of both worlds?</p>
<p>Some may retort that the liberal arts prepare you for law school, medical school, and so forth. But these people are admitting that the liberal arts education by itself does not lead to a well-paying job, for if it did, the student wouldn’t HAVE to attend these professional schools. You don’t NEED a Masters to be a professional engineer. You don’t NEED a Masters to be a public accountant. You can be those with a bachelor’s and passing some exams.</p>
<p>Really, there is no conflict here. Everybody needs shelter and food. Not everybody needs to be “educated,” but you cannot claim to be “educated” if you do not have exposure to the liberal arts.</p>
<p>
If I was talking about something that applied to Peru and Chile, but NOT to Brazil and Argentina, should I say “South America” every time, or maybe take the effort to type a few more words and be accurate? How the hell are we supposed to know what “almost all of the humanities” excludes and which of the social sciences you do like?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If I’m imprecise, it hardly matters. You know what I meant. Or are you saying you’re blockheaded?</p></li>
<li><p>I’m not really wrong. I forgot who posted this in the last thread, but here: [YouTube</a> - The Big Bang Theory - Liberal Arts](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhX_NSUUjU]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhX_NSUUjU). The dude is a physicist. Do you think he doesn’t realize physics is technically part of the liberal arts?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Also:
</p>
<p>Nice failed analogy though.</p>