<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> is closer to how I feel by a longshot. However I disagree with the idea that academic inquiry is safe in the US, and that preprodessional interests in actual colleges and universities across the board haven’t already and demonstrably affected academia. My position is that steps need to be taken to reverse the trend… Perhaps not such drastic steps as I have offered as possible solutions, but still. I also disagree with the argument that there is no problem since elite institutions haven’t succumbed yet. First off, they might be soon to follow. Second, the kind of education I am arguing for should be available to a wider range of students, if only for the sake of social mobility.
[/quote]
Okay. It seems to me that our main dispute lies in our differing evaluations of the status quo. I look at the US today and I see the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Many fine universities (including many that are less-selective for undergrads) with top-notch departments and faculty providing theoretical rigor for undergrads who choose to seek it. I can make lists if you tell me the field.</li>
<li>Check out recent Rhodes or Goldwater scholarship winners and honorable mentions. They come from many different places.</li>
</ul>
<p>The bottom line: the supply of institutions capable of pure academic preparation meets the existing demand. If your complaint is about the demand, that’s a whole different ballgame and I might agree with you. However, that requires reform at the elementary and secondary levels and is not indicative of any problems associated with the mixing of preprofessional and academic interests.</p>
<p>Well, back then we had Cliff Notes but you actually had to walk to a
bookstore and buy a copy. Besides, it’s learning the material; not
just getting a good grade, that should be the goal, right?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, I worked 20 hours a week though college because I didn’t have
enough money to live life and see the world.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Seems to me that you’d like to reallocate the resources of others and
that’s a sure way to get into an argument.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I didn’t know any of the terms back then. Didn’t know what liberal
arts was; the distinction between a BS and BA and a lot of other
things that are taken for granted here. 18-year-old kids are often
pretty clueless about what others think they should do.</p>
<p>BTW…I don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but not all engineering is ridiculously difficult; it really depends on the sub-field and personally, I think most math and physics programs are probably more intellectually rigorous than most of your engineering tracks. If you’re not particularly math inclined, you can do bio-medical or product design, both requiring minimal math as far as engineering goes. At most some basic calc and stats. You don’t even need multivariable or ODEs let along complex analysis. </p>
<p>Outside of EE or to a lesser extent MechE, the math components should be manageable for anyone relatively intelligent.</p>
<p>If you’re particularly artsy, consider product design…the math really is minimal…and you get to be creative immediately.</p>
<p>Even the math requirements for EE and MechE don’t really compare to the upper-level math a serious math major will take. This isn’t necessarily a problem… it’s that way in physics too, just moreso in engineering. It’s a difference of objectives that causes the material, and most importantly the way in which the material is studied, to vary.</p>
<p>I would say the hardest part of an engineering degree isn’t the intellectual rigor, per se, but rather the projects and processes which they are required to employ in completing them.</p>
<p>But then you have to sell your soul to the devil. As in, all of your creations will be mindless consumer landfill someday, and most won’t have any beneficial impact on society.</p>
<p>I’d recommend landscape architecture over product design any day of the week. And that’s coming from someone who applied (and got in) to 3 of the top industrial design schools in the country. You’ll get to be creative while actually benefiting others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re not an engineer, you can’t really say “what the hardest part” is. From the outside looking in, it seems pretty damn hard.</p>
<p>If somebody pursues a technical degree for the sake of pursuing a technical degree, and not because they genuinely enjoy the material, then I think that somebody is losing out. Are they losing out on job prospects? No way. They’re at a huge advantage over the guy who is absolutely loving his liberal arts major as far as the job market is concerned. I think everybody can agree on that.</p>
<p>If one likes engineering, then odds are they’ll like their engineering job. Are they limiting themselves? Sort of, but not really. They won’t be able to be a lawyer or a philosophy professor without a complete 360 turnaround, but they aren’t REALLY limiting themselves if they enjoy their engineering profession. If their interests develop over the years, then perhaps they can go into a liberal arts masters program. Or maybe acquire their MBA to climb up the management ranks. It all depends on the situation.</p>
<p>Is the history major limiting himself? Yeah, he is. His options are teacher certification, grad school, or law school- BASICALLY. People like to say that liberal arts majors have an abundance of options after undergrad, but is that actually the case? Okay, so they can apply for sales jobs, maybe some marketing jobs. They can apply for any jobs that simply require a general four year degree. To me, that’s limiting yourself a great deal. By specializing, and let’s use engineering again, that individual can pick and choose what they want to do in engineering. In other words, the technical majors have control. The liberal arts majors don’t.</p>
<p>And this is coming from a liberal arts major.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think the curriculum weeds out anyone who is pursuing a technical degree solely for the purpose of having better job prospects. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times.</p>
<p>"If you’re not an engineer, you can’t really say “what the hardest part” is. From the outside looking in, it seems pretty damn hard. "
My bad. I guess I meant “technical”. CS is technical in the same sense engineering is in that regard… a lot of people would say that CS is closest to being an engineering major, or even is an engineering major, but a lot of people wouldn’t say that.</p>
<p>Still I think the point is a solid one. I am in CS, I have friends in engineering, and I feel qualified to speak on the subject. If you don’t want to listen to me, don’t, but don’t pretend that’s a valid argument against my point.</p>
<p>Naturally if the only confusion was my saying “engineering” and meaning “technical” and your being part of the “CS isn’t engineering” crowd, then no harm, no foul.</p>
It might be the wisest decision in terms of opportunity cost. (Speak: the extra comfort provided by a stable middle class income might beat the short-term pleasure coming from studying your favorite subject for a few years. Not that most students would consider taking classes a pleasure anyway.)</p>
<p>TheRippa: I don’t think anybody is arguing LA majors have more job prospects anymore. Really this whole stupid thread could just go away at this point. The original question has been answered a few dozen times by everybody the same way, and now we’re just throwing around snarky remarks about the state of education.</p>
<p>“Speak: the extra comfort provided by a stable middle class income might beat the short-term pleasure coming from studying your favorite subject for a few years.”
One could make the argument that studying your favorite subject for a few years might be a richer and longer-term pleasure than having an easy life with a stable paycheck.</p>
That might be true for some and not for others. Ask a random English major if they would consider taking a physics class instead of an English class this upcoming term in exchange for $10,000 cash. I bet many would take the offer.</p>
<p>^ How do you know the answer? I wasn’t aware that you could just know the answer to things like that. Wow.</p>
<p>“Don’t think you’d win that one. What’s better:”
I think you already know what <em>I</em> think would be better. Plus you’re making the assumption that I would necessarily be unhappy at my job if I didn’t get a job doing what I was academically interested in. I’d rather be a plumber with time to do what I liked and an education that would last me a lifetime than some rich IT developer who had slept through every literature class he ever went to and had no time for, inclination towards, or background in academics. In fact I would almost prefer a simple job where you can take pride in doing good simple work than a pretentious job where the people scoffed at the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. At least my plumber buddies wouldn’t do that.</p>
<p>Do you think your undergrad prepared you adequately for a theory rich grad program should you decide to go down that path ? If not, was class choice a limiting factor ?</p>
<p>"That might be true for some and not for others. Ask a random English major if they would consider taking a physics class instead of an English class this upcoming term in exchange for $10,000 cash. I bet many would take the offer. "
I think most sane people would accept that. Now if you mean that the student would never be able to take an English class they really wanted to take, and I was the English student, I’d decline the offer without looking back. I do imagine I’m different from a lot of people but I don’t think I’d be alone.</p>
<p>The liberal arts is historically a program of study exclusively for the very wealthy. It was a mark of wealth to not have to be concerned with accruing marketable skills.</p>
<p>Colleges have done a tremendous job since then (the mid-20th century) of marketing a liberal arts education to people of every socioeconomic status. There simply wouldn’t be enough fabulously wealthy people to enroll otherwise. In exchange for 30-160k in debt, anyone can get a liberal-arts education that will magically make them well-rounded workers of tomorrow. </p>
<p>This works for some people (usually upper-middle-class and above, who have the connections and the nest-egg to get anywhere), but it doesn’t quite jibe with the way our economy is structured, especially now that liberal-arts majors are a dime-a-dozen.</p>
<p>Do people from disadvantaged backgrounds deserve the opportunity to study the liberal arts? Absolutely. Should 80% of college students be studying the liberal arts? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>Now, if by “technical” degree the OP means “trade-school” degree, then yes, you are definitely limited by having that kind of degree. It is a mark that you were force-fed some set of techniques, and your skills will be obsolete in 4 years. However, a good technical degree will mix the practical and the theoretical, and require critical-thinking and problem-solving skills— preparing you to be a lifelong learner. (Which is what a liberal arts degree should also do, but without as many immediate applications).</p>
<p>…and once again you overreact and show your academic inferiority complex. Re-read my post. Read it again. Read it one more time. </p>
<p>Then respond.</p>
<p>By the way, aren’t you the one who wished your education was less technical and more academic/theory-based? If so, doesn’t that mean you haven’t actually had a “liberal arts” education"? How could you possibly discern the benefits of it when you haven’t actually had the education?</p>
![http://rlv.zcache.com/difference_between_college_degrees_tshirt-p235506429482550683q6zn_400.jpg[/url]](http://rlv.zcache.com/difference_between_college_degrees_tshirt-p235506429482550683q6zn_400.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
