<p>My youngest has been playing music since about 5 years old and has continued through the years. He played multiple instruments and played in every music program there is (concert band, marching band, jazz band, orchestra, etc). He will continue to play in college but he won’t major in music since it most likely will not lead to jobs that will pay him for the standard of living he envisions. Music is a very important part of his life and it will continue to be as a hobby.</p>
<p>
Sure - that’s why I qualified what I said with ‘in the capacity of their duties’ when comparing a barista to an engineer but I also said that because this is a discussion of majors and the relevance of the particular major and this is a college oriented website after all. Obviously any individual regardless of their major or whether they even finished HS could have a positive impact on society or a group of individuals but that’s not relevant to a discussion of college majors.</p>
<p>From the congressional report:
Looks like a loaded question to me.</p>
<p>I don’t see much in the report about the merits of different majors and every discussion on that topic seems to devolve into strawman argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The key point is “today’s” market. It is common enough for various types of STEM graduate to become more or less unemployable, if industries change, supply of graduates increases, etc. Not long ago biology was considered a pretty good major, with plenty jobs in molecular biology and so on. Now we hear it is not so good. Various specialties of engineer go in and out of fashion.</p>
<p>I would hope that a barista with a good general education is learning things about customer service and the industry that could lead them to open their own business at some point.</p>
<p>I’m a scientist, but I certainly agree that the humanities are of significant value to society. Some of the things I treasure most about my education were the things I learned in the few humanities courses I took.</p>
<p>However, I have to laugh at the supposed big news that a panel called the “Commission on Humanities and Social Sciences” would produce a report favorable to the humanities. I mean what would you expect a bunch of humanities professors and college presidents to say?</p>
<p>@sorghum
True enough the engineering and tech market could saturate in the future (as in parts of Asia), however the emphasis on the STEM fields on making tangible products as well as commercially applicable research (especially engineering and tech) will probably maintain them above most of the liberal arts in terms of employer desirability. </p>
<p>Also, for biology, there are still some very lucrative areas in it: genetic counseling right now is pretty hot, biotechnology and biochemistry are still strong areas and anything in biomedical research will always have the potential to make big bucks (of course you need a Phd for that though).</p>
<p>I sent her to college to become better educated, a better critical thinker and able to plan and execute. She graduated last month and starts work later this summer. Her job is a starting point. Not lucrative but she’ll enjoy it and make a contribution. Classics major combined with a history subset.</p>
<p>Being educated in the liberal arts is not the same thing as MAJORING in the liberal arts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looking at historical career surveys (e.g. <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm</a> for 2003-2006; <a href=“http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation03.pdf[/url]”>http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation03.pdf</a> for 2003 – note that biology is course 7), that does not seem to be true, unless you are referring to the usually over-optimistic viewpoint that people have (i.e. assuming that all STEM majors have good job prospects, even though that is not true for biology). Yes, there may be biology jobs, but there are huge numbers of biology graduates every year competing for them.</p>
<p>Note that even in the 2003 surveys, in the depths of the tech bubble crash when CS majors had a really bad time finding jobs, biology majors did worse.</p>
<p>The problem with being a STEM major is that one is likely to be either underemployed or unemployed. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reports</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> STEM-Shortage Myth](<a href=“http://prospect.org/article/stem-shortage-myth]The”>The STEM-Shortage Myth - The American Prospect)</p>
<p>Maybe we should abolish the term “STEM” when it comes to job and career prospects. The various majors within that description have so widely varying job and career prospects that it makes little sense to take about them (either optimistically or pessimistically) as if they were all similar.</p>
<p>Also, CS is not the same as IT, though common belief that it is the same probably confuses people on any discussions of CS or IT related economic subjects.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus</p>
<p>I really don’t know what is your beef with biology is… Every time I seem to make a post on it you always seem to try and shoot down the employability of the entire field. I reiterate PARTS of biology may be rough for employment (eg. evolutionary biology) but other areas like genetic counseling, medical research and biomedical engineering are still in high demand. Again your sources are poor: <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Major.stm</a> is for 2003-2006. 7-10 year old pre-recession data is virtually useless for saying anything about the current job market. Also for some years listed the sample groups are under 10 people therefore the reliability of this data to predict industry trends is further weakened. Even then some fields like Bioengineering have low unemployment even in this survey (7% for 2006)</p>
<p>Your MIT survey: <a href=“http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/fi...aduation03.pdf[/url]”>http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/fi...aduation03.pdf</a> has virtually no relevant information about the employability of biology related majors. </p>
<p>Once again please read your sources CAREFULLY before you use them as proofs for your claims.</p>
<p>GMT, imo, no surprise, being better educated can converge with employment opportunities. I didn’t matter to me what she majored in, as long as it wasn’t a field I personally- and with prejudice- consider wimpy. (Not that I had that control.) On the other hand, D2 has dabbled in what I used to think was “wimpy” and stunned me with the depth of the demands and the growth in her perspective.</p>
<p>“Better educated” is broad. My core opposition is to any kid who simply accumulates the credits to get a degree, any degree, thinking that’s the magic key. They have to invest themselves in the opportunities to think, write well, develop an analytical perspective- and the rest of what it takes. Not just go through the motions.</p>
<p>I think many just superficially look at the names of some majors and assume. In a solid liberal arts program, you may not get lab skills, be able to program (well, some fields include some experience with that,) or, I dunno, build a better airplane. But not all employment is about that. The world runs on many skills. No guarantees a STEM kid will connect, nor a liberal arts kid. It’s the motivated, those who can pursue a goal, perform whatever service it is, meet the demands (including showing up and getting along.) </p>
<p>Think about the trend in med schools to accept liberal arts kids.</p>
<p>Nameless- I kind of doubt a 22 year old STEM kid is headed straight into genetic counseling. And, I see so many STEM apps from kids who are attracted to biomed engineering based on the products they know of (“I want to design the next electro-mechanical leg.”) Each start can be small, involve working one’s way into that solid role. Same with liberal arts. Just different arenas. Maybe. I was social sciences. Ended up in an engineering field. NOT engineering, but making their efforts pay off, for them and the company.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those historical career surveys were in response to a post saying that biology had good job prospects in the past. If you had read the post, you would have realized that. Also, the MIT 2003 one has a pay level chart in it on page 9, where biology majors (course 7) found pay levels only half of that of EECS majors (course 6), despite the down market for CS during the tech bubble crash at the time.</p>
<p>If you want both current and historical surveys, look in the list of <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/internships-careers-employment/1121619-university-graduate-career-surveys-5.html#post15975553[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/internships-careers-employment/1121619-university-graduate-career-surveys-5.html#post15975553</a> .</p>
<p>As an example, in the most recent survey from Berkeley at <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm</a> , molecular and cell biology and integrative biology majors found lower pay levels than those majoring in English, history, political science, psychology, and sociology. These are all large majors.</p>
<p>I read your post carefully and I reiterate: Those sources do not aid your claim that the field of biology in its entirety currently has low employment prospects, sources from 7-10 years ago say nothing about the job market today.</p>
<p>Thank you for the new list from Berkley however it still suffers from the above stated problems: small sample size and an inability to demonstrate that Biology related fields are an less marketable then other sciences or maths. For example physics has a whopping 38% of graduates seeking employment, mathematics majors have a 37% of graduates seeking employment, chemists have a 31% seeking employment rates. These numbers are comparable to integrative Biology’s 37% post graduate seeking employment. Other biology related fields actually seem to be some of the stronger areas of employment with biological engineering seems to be one of the better fields of science for employment with “only” 17% of graduates seeking employment and Microbial biology graduates having only a 13% seeking employment.
So I guess I should thank you for providing evidence against your claim.</p>
<p>Again you post that big mess of a list and again I have to point out that many of the sources that are listed on it do not proved any relevant information to your claim (eg. the Cornell and Alabama link). </p>
<p>So I ask yet again do you have any SPECIFIC sources that actually provide strong evidence for your claim that the field of biology as a whole is less employable than other sciences?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Microbial biology is a small major compared to molecular and cell biology and integrative biology. Bioengineering does not look so good compared to other engineering, in terms of pay levels of jobs found.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to ignore the information presented, that is your choice. Why don’t you try to find a career survey with better prospects for biology majors than other sciences, and better prospects for bioengineering or biomedical engineering than other engineering instead of making assertions with no evidence to back them up?</p>
<p>This is not related with discussion between NamelessStatistic and ucalumnys.</p>
<p>Some terminology/definition confusions are here.</p>
<p>Basic/pure and applied knowledge/sciences:
Basic/pure have one-to-one relationship with liberal arts (& sciences) whereas applied are related with applied sciences and technologies. Liberal arts are further classified as humanities, social sciences, natural/physical sciences and scientific method (math, CS). Applied sciences and tech refer job-related disciplines such as engineering, med, law, business and etc. Think about college of arts and sciences (CAS) on the one hand and schools of engineering/business/law/medicine/education/nursing on the orher hand at each university. Or think about liberal arts and pre-professional comparison even though two are overlap sometimes.</p>
<p>STEM:
Pure sciences at STEM like biology and chemistry are classified as physical sciences at liberal arts (and sciences). Math in STEM is just science methods/quantitative sciences at liberal arts classification. However, applied (physical) sciences and technologies at STEM are not liberal arts. They are pre-professional programs at undergrad education.
For example, biology is a discipline of liberal arts and STEM at the same time whereas biomedical engineering or science is not liberal-arts but Just STEM.</p>
<p>Basic spirit of liberal arts education at college is to let students to study humanities and basic sciences together to maximize the potential capacity of each student he/she will reach in various career paths (professional or academic jobs). In contrast with this, pre-professional program at college focuses on accumulation of knowledge and skills in applied sciences directly related with jobs.</p>
<p>Effectiveness of liberal-arts and pre-professional education:
pre-professional: increasing the opportunity of employment after undergrad study.
liberal arts: increasing the potential capability in the future career as well as during the life-long learning process.</p>
<p>" Bioengineering does not look so good compared to other engineering, in terms of pay levels of jobs found." </p>
<p>-sources please.</p>
<p>“If you want to ignore the information presented, that is your choice.” </p>
<p>-I am not ignoring evidence I am saying much of your “evidence” is irrelevant and does not even mention the topic being discussed. It is not my responsibility to sift through all the random web sites you have posted to look for proof to support YOUR argument. If you cannot be bothered to find specific sources that support your argument then there is no point in you responding.</p>
<p>"Why don’t you try to find a career survey with better prospects for biology majors than other sciences, and better prospects for bioengineering or biomedical engineering than other engineering instead of making assertions with no evidence to back them up? "</p>
<p>-Again please read CAREFULLY. My claim is not that biological fields have better employability then other sciences just a challenge to your view that they as a whole biology as a field is any worse than other sciences. The burden of proof falls on you to prove your claim. (eg. If I were to say that Lebron James was the best basketball player ever it would be my responsibility to prove it not someone else’s to disprove it)
However I will refer you to Forbes 15 most valuable majors where biomedical engineering is #1 and biochemistry is #2.</p>
<p>[Welcome</a> to Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml]Welcome”>Welcome to Forbes)</p>
<p>Well, for some of us, sweet to see that what could have been an argument about liberal arts is, instead, about some stem fields.</p>
<p>Exactly the same argument. It seems people are ignoring the hard data of article which demonstrates that business values liberal arts, and specifically values humanities.</p>
<p>It’s absurd to maintain that there isn’t value in a liberal arts education, just as there is in vocational educations, but there are some folks who can’t be convinced whatever evidence is put before them.</p>
<p>So be it.</p>