How Important is an Elite College Degree?

Applying to College
121

<p>
[quote]
However, to suggest that someone can pick up "the equivalent of one of those easy liberal arts educations on the side" simply displays the writer's ignorance. We all discount what we don't understand. Preparing a halfway decent undergraduate thesis is, in itself, a major undertaking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Engaging in personal insults, are we? I'd caution you from going around casually calling people 'ignorant' when you know nothing about them. Are you looking to get banned? </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Not to pat myself on the back, but I would like to think that I have managed to pick up quite a bit of social science and humanities knowledge on the side, despite having no degree in the field, to the point that people who actually have bachelor's degrees in those fields have on occasion told me personally that they think that I know their own field better than they do. I'm not trying to brag, I'm just saying it wasn't that hard for me to pick up along the way. Nor am I the only one. I know quite a few other people with engineering degrees whose knowledge of topics like political science, sociology, or economics is, at this point, probably indistinguishable from somebody who actually earned a bachelor's degree in that subject. </p>

<p>And besides, I don't see what your tangent of preparing a decent undergrad thesis has to do with anything. The fact is, the vast majority of schools out there do not require a thesis to complete an undergraduate degree. In fact, of all the people I know with bachelor's degrees in liberal arts, which is a lot of people, I can think of a grand total of one person who actually wrote an undergraduate thesis. </p>

<p>Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but the fact is, there are indeed many liberal arts degrees out there that honestly don't involve a lot of work. That's the brutal truth. Go to your local state school and look at how hard the Film Studies majors are studying. Or the "American Studies" students (yes, American Studies is an actual major). You know what I'm talking about. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I say again, look at what the leaders in almost every area of American society studied as an undergraduate. I think you will find that the vast majority studied some aspect of what are commonly referred to as the "liberal arts." Now, perhaps engineers should be running the world, but by and large, they aren't. Most of those who are studied the humanities seriously at some point in their educations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, I'm not trying to say that engineers should be allowed to run the world. But first, I would say that it is perfectly obvious that the vast majority of our leaders would be students of the liberal arts, if, for no other reason, that the vast majority of undergrad college degrees granted out there are in the liberal arts. Hence, simply from a pure numbers standpoint, the more liberal arts graduates there are, the more of society's leaders should be liberal arts graduates.</p>

122

<p>Sakky:</p>

<p>At Berkeley practically all of the undergraduate liberal arts majors, and social studies majors for that matter, have to write senior theses to graduate. (You actually take a course that is solely based on writing your thesis.)</p>

<p>I don't understand how you haven't met anyone who has had to write one? </p>

<p>As for engineers understanding economics; they could not grasp the knowledge and magnitude of economics without studying it. Economics isn't just understanding about the exchange ratio; it's much more than that. It's unfair for you to generalize that engineers have better/same understanding of certain subjects without focusing on them.</p>

123

<p>
[Quote]
Preparing a halfway decent undergraduate thesis is, in itself, a major undertaking.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>And what would a chemical engineering or biology major (as the one you first called out) do their thesis on? Something tells me it would be related to their major, not liberal arts.</p>

124

<p>Boshi,
Good luck at Oxford! My daughter is completing a six-weeks summer school program there in Victorian fiction and poetry and absolutely loves the one-on-one tutorial approach to education. It has been exactly what she needed for a change of pace this summer, and her tutor, a very polished older gentleman, has been exceptional in every way! If she didn't love her home university (Duke) so much, she would be at Oxford full-time without a second thought.</p>

125

<p>Sakky, no personal insult intended. I was addressing the notion floated out by you and several others that the liberal arts are trivial. My point is that people who under value a liberal arts education often don't understand a liberal arts education. It is more than reading a few books on a topic.</p>

<p>This thread is about the relative value of a degree from an elite college. Of course there are diploma mills out there in some liberal arts disciplines. I bet there are even some in engineering, though at least engineering has the FEEs to assure competency. The question is, what is the value of those hollow degrees you complain about? Do you think that top grad school admissions officers or employers are so obtuse as to be snowed by them?</p>

<p>The elite undergraduate colleges with which I've been involved place pretty high demands on their students in all majors, even the humanities and the arts. I assure you that, even today, if you do ALL the reading you are supposed to do as a history major, you will have no more free time than an engineering or premed major, even if you are a speed reader ... in fact, you had better BE a speed reader (it's a highly recommended noncredit freshman course at West Point). </p>

<p>The biggest problem on the elite campuses in this regard is grade inflation, especially outside the hard sciences and math. Rampant grade inflation makes it much harder to differentiate between the student doing just enough and the dedicated scholar. </p>

<p>That's where the undergraduate thesis comes in. Despite your experience, most elite colleges I know require it, or something analogous. My son's history thesis ran to just under 10,000 words and went through several dozen drafts. He did research in archives and libraries in New York, Washington, and London and at several US and foreign college libraries. He had over 150 footnotes and his bibliography included over five dozen sources, some of which had been buried for decades and some of which were consulted in the original Arabic. He collected at least twice as much background material as he included, though that did come into play during his oral defense of his thesis in front of a panel of professors. He may or not end up as a professional historian -- he'll be a soldier for a while before he has to confront that decision, but his thesis is an undeniable credential that, according to his thesis advisor, department head, and visiting professors, promises likely admission to most any graduate program in history, political science, law, or business. Anyone who reads it knows that he has an inquiring mind that challenges orthodox thought. They'll also know that he can really write. </p>

<p>A sloppy or superficial thesis, no matter what the grade given, is equally revealing. That's why a strong thesis often will trump a higher undergrad GPA in grad school admissions, assuming GMATs, LSATs, etc., are similar.</p>

126

<p>Sakky wrote, "...simply from a pure numbers standpoint, the more liberal arts graduates there are, the more of society's leaders should be liberal arts graduates."</p>

<p>That would be true if the rigor and value of liberal arts and engineering programs were comparable and if students in the programs were comparably intelligent and diligent. </p>

<p>However, you argue the opposite. You suggest that engineering programs are universally more rigorous and that engineering students are, if not necessarily smarter, much harder, more diligent workers. If that were true ... and if the necessary liberal arts knowledge and skills could be picked up by osmosis or with minimal effort as you suggest, then you would expect engineers to rise disproportionately to leadership positions in society.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
Sakky:</p>

<p>At Berkeley practically all of the undergraduate liberal arts majors, and social studies majors for that matter, have to write senior theses to graduate. (You actually take a course that is solely based on writing your thesis.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe you are mistaken.</p>

<p>Let's look at the major requirements for several liberal arts disciplines at Berkeley.</p>

<p>English:</p>

<p><a href="http://english.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/major.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://english.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/major.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Polisci
<a href="http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/ugrad/requirements.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/ugrad/requirements.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Psychology
<a href="http://psychology.berkeley.edu/undergrads/majorrequirements.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://psychology.berkeley.edu/undergrads/majorrequirements.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Sociology
<a href="http://sociology.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/ughandbook/ughmajor.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sociology.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/ughandbook/ughmajor.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Econ
<a href="http://emlab.berkeley.edu/econ/ugrad/hb1.shtml?hb04%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://emlab.berkeley.edu/econ/ugrad/hb1.shtml?hb04&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Notice how there are no requirements for any senior undergraduate thesis in any of these fields.</p>

<p>Note, that's not to say that you can't do a senior thesis. Most majors provide you with that option. But it's an OPTION. You can choose to do it, you can choose not to do it. And the fact is, most people choose not to do it. </p>

<p>Also, note, I'm not saying that you won't be doing any writing of papers. Obviously if you want to get a degree in English, you will be writing quite a few papers. My point is that you are not required to have to write a senior thesis. And none of the papers that you will write will compare in any way to a thesis of any sort.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for engineers understanding economics; they could not grasp the knowledge and magnitude of economics without studying it. Economics isn't just understanding about the exchange ratio; it's much more than that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I don't disagree that it requires study of some sort. But that's what I'm getting at. I know plenty of engineers, including myself, who have actually read numerous economics textbooks and journals on the side, either because we felt we needed to know that stuff to help our careers advance, or just for general interest. </p>

<p>Look, again, not to pat myself on the back, but while I don't have a degree in econ, I'm fairly certain that my knowledge of economics is probably greater than a guy who barely graduated with a degree in economics from a no-name school. By that I'm not saying that I know a huge amount about economics, what I am really saying is that that guy who barely graduated with the econ degree from that no-name school probably doesn't really know a huge amount about economics either. This is a topic I'm going to return to later in this post. See below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was addressing the notion floated out by you and several others that the liberal arts are trivial. My point is that people who under value a liberal arts education often don't understand a liberal arts education. It is more than reading a few books on a topic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look, I'm not trying to say that all liberal arts are trivial. What am I saying is that the grading and rigor of some liberal arts is indeed trivial. Again, not all, but some. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The question is, what is the value of those hollow degrees you complain about? Do you think that top grad school admissions officers or employers are so obtuse as to be snowed by them?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first of all, we need to talk about grad-school. Not everybody is interested in grad-school. </p>

<p>What I am saying is this. At every school, including the elite ones, there are some students who just want to get a degree without having to work very hard. Not everybody walks into college really wants to study. Some people are just looking to get their tickets punched. They don't really care what the degree is in, all they care about is doing something that is easy. </p>

<p>This situation is exacerbated by the employers. We live in a world where having a bachelor's degree - any bachelor's degree - is far better than nothing at all. Many employers won't even grant you an interview if you don't have a bachelor's degree. The rule for many companies is, you must have a bachelor's degree (regardless of your major) to be considered for employment. A lot of people see that and decide that if that's the case, then they're just going to get a degree in whatever happens to be easiest. And rarely if ever does that turn out to be an engineering degree. It's almost always one of those easy liberal arts majors.</p>

<p>So, laxdad, I agree with you that just coasting your way through an easy liberal arts degree is not going to fool a grad-school or fool a highly selective employer. However, a lot of people don't care about that. They're not interested in going to grad school, they're not that interested in getting into a big-time company, they're just looking to get an easy degree so that their tickets are punched. Come on, you know it's true. </p>

<p>Let me give you some examples. Not to bring politics into the fray, but look at the academic careers of people like George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore. We all know that Bush was basically a party-boy during college. Kerry's grades weren't exactly stellar either - he himself admitted that he was more interested in flying planes than in his Yale coursework. Al Gore's grades were also not exactly the greatest. The truth is, none of these guys could be said to have been the most motivated students in the world. The truth is, all of them were in college just to get their tickets punched, nothing more. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So I reiterate, there are a lot of students at the elite schools who are just interested in taking it easy and getting an easy degree. In many cases, they know full well that their futures are already secure - all they have to do is graduate. Doesn't matter what they study, doesn't really matter how much they actually learned, all that matters is that they graduate. That seems to be the attitude that Bush, Kerry, and Gore took, and things obviously worked out very well for all of them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The elite undergraduate colleges with which I've been involved place pretty high demands on their students in all majors, even the humanities and the arts. I assure you that, even today, if you do ALL the reading you are supposed to do as a history major, you will have no more free time than an engineering or premed major, even if you are a speed reader ... in fact, you had better BE a speed reader (it's a highly recommended noncredit freshman course at West Point). </p>

<p>The biggest problem on the elite campuses in this regard is grade inflation, especially outside the hard sciences and math. Rampant grade inflation makes it much harder to differentiate between the student doing just enough and the dedicated scholar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aha, now I think you're getting to brass tacks. You say that if you do all the reading for your history courses, it will require a lot of time. I agree. However, the fact is, you don't have to do it all. In fact, you can get away with doing only a fraction of the work you are assigned, and still pass. Sure, you probably won't get the best grade, but you will pass. Why? You said it yourself - grade inflation. </p>

<p>You also said another telling phrase: you said grade inflation makes it difficult to distinguish between those students who really are working hard and those who are just trying to coast. And that's my point exactly - there are a lot of students who are just trying to coast. </p>

<p>Hence, getting back to a point I made before. I know a guy whose studied engineering at MIT, but I would argue knows more about history than somebody who has an actual degree in history, but coasted his way to that degree. I know another guy who studied engineering, also at MIT, who knows Asian-American issues to an unbelievable degree. If I want to have a conversation about interesting Asian-American issues, I would rather have it with him that with some guy who coasted his way through to an Asian-American Studies degree, because I am convinced that that MIT guy would actually know more about the subject. Again, not to brag, but I would argue that I may know more about economics than a guy who coasted his way through to an econ degree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's where the undergraduate thesis comes in. Despite your experience, most elite colleges I know require it, or something analogous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess that all depends on what you define to be 'analogous'. As I stated above, I don't believe that most Berkeley majors require a thesis of any sort. </p>

<p>But I'll have it your way. Let's name some colleges, and we can go investigate whether they really do require undergraduate theses of all their liberal arts students. Let's go and see. Note - I don't dispute that you can choose to do such a thesis. And in particular, I know that it is often times a requirement to graduate with honors. And, yes, I'm sure that certain specific majors at certain schools do require a thesis. However, what I am saying is that it is not required at most schools simply to graduate at all with some know of liberal arts degree. The only one I know about is Princeton, which does require a thesis from all students. But at the other schools? I don't know about that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
A sloppy or superficial thesis, no matter what the grade given, is equally revealing. That's why a strong thesis often will trump a higher undergrad GPA in grad school admissions, assuming GMATs, LSATs, etc., are similar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, yeah, but again, the presumption is that you actually want to go to graduate school. Plenty of people don't care about that. They just want to get their tickets punched. It's easier to do that in the liberal arts than in engineering.</p>

128

<p>
[quote]
Sakky wrote, "...simply from a pure numbers standpoint, the more liberal arts graduates there are, the more of society's leaders should be liberal arts graduates."</p>

<p>That would be true if the rigor and value of liberal arts and engineering programs were comparable and if students in the programs were comparably intelligent and diligent. </p>

<p>However, you argue the opposite. You suggest that engineering programs are universally more rigorous and that engineering students are, if not necessarily smarter, much harder, more diligent workers. If that were true ... and if the necessary liberal arts knowledge and skills could be picked up by osmosis or with minimal effort as you suggest, then you would expect engineers to rise disproportionately to leadership positions in society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yup, and that's exactly what I've found.</p>

<p>There were only about 61,000 engineering bachelor's degrees conferred in the US in 2002. While that was a depressed year, even in some of the best recent years like 1985, there were only 76000 engineering bachelor's degrees conferred in the US.</p>

<p>"Engineering degrees conferred in the US dropped from a high of 76,200 in 1985 to 60,600 in 2002, declining 20 per cent."</p>

<p><a href="http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/apr/12bpo.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/apr/12bpo.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Contrast that with the total number of bachelor's degrees given out in the US. According to the Department of Education, in the latest academic year for which data is available (which is the 01-02 academic year), a total of 1.3 million bachelor's degrees were conferred by US degree-granting institutions.</p>

<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt264.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt264.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hence, what that means is that engineering degrees make up only about 5% of the total number of degrees out there. </p>

<p>You said it yourself - there have been 3 Presidents, out of 43 total, who were trained as engineers. Well, 3/43 = 7%. 7% is greater than 5%. So just looking at the numbers in that straight-up fashion, you could say that engineers are disproportionately represented in the ranks of Presidents.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would argue that the above analysis is unfair because the fact is, engineering didn't even really exist as an academic course of study until the late 1800's or so. Many strong engineering schools like MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley, Cornell, Illinois, weren't even founded until the latter half of the 1800's, and some of them like the Carnegie Institute (now Carnegie-Mellon) weren't even founded until the 1900's. Most of the Ivies didn't start their engineering programs until the late 1800's. For example, the Columbia School of Mines (which is now the Columbia Fu School of Engineering and Applied Sciences) wasn't even founded until 1865. Princeton didn't have most of its engineering programs until the late 1800's - for example, Princeton's largest engineering program (EE) was founded only in 1889. </p>

<p>So really, if you want to be fair in your analysis, you should discount all those US Presidents who lived their lives when engineering didn't even exist as an academic discipline. How fair is it to point out that people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson don't have engineering degrees when there was no such thing as an engineering degree back in those days? Of course they are not going to have an engineering degree if engineering degrees didn't even exist. {Incidentally, if you really want to get into it, you should note that George Washington, while never earning a degree at all, did earn a certificate in surveying from William&Mary, and worked for years as a surveyor. I would argue that that certificate in survey would probably be the equivalent of a Civil Engineering degree today}. </p>

<p>So, to be really fair, you should only be looking at the US Presidents who actually had the opportunity to get an engineering degree, which basically means we should not be looking at any Presidents that were born before, say, 1840 (and hence, would have taken office in the late 1800's or early 1900's). That cuts out about half of the Presidents. Hence, to look at the remaining 20-25 Presidents, and note that 3 of them were engineers (Hoover, Eisenhower, Carter), clearly shows that engineers are disproportionately represented.</p>

129

<p>Touche! Well supported and reasoned.</p>

<p>You can add Grant (USMA '43) to your list of presidents trained as engineers. (Stretching it, you can include Jefferson Davis '28.) </p>

<p>West Point, founded in 1802, was the country's first engineering school. Jefferson switched from opposing a military academy to proposing and signing legislation to establish the place when he recognized the country's need for engineers. Prior to the Civil War, USMA graduates were responsible for the construction of the bulk of the nation's initial railway lines, bridges, harbors, and roads. In those days, more West Point graduates were railroad presidents than were generals. West Point graduates also founded many of the country's other early engineering schools.</p>

<p>Your annual graduation numbers are troubling when you consider that a high percentage of US engineering grads are not US citizens. </p>

<p>However, how many of the non-engineering grads are in fields like business that can't really be considered liberal arts?</p>

130

<p>
[quote]
Your annual graduation numbers are troubling when you consider that a high percentage of US engineering grads are not US citizens.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I think there are many reasons as to why so few US citizens don't study engineering, I am convinced that at least part of the reason has to do with the fact that engineering is difficult, and a lot of people just don't want to have to study hard to get their degree. Like I said, some people just want to get their tickets punched with an easy degree, and you can't get that in engineering. </p>

<p>Now obviously there are many other factors at play. For example, some people really are more interested in the liberal arts than in engineering. Some people are aiming for law school, which is easier to do through a liberal arts degree than an engineering degree. There are many factors at play. But I can't help but conclude that part of the reason has to do with the fact that in some liberal arts disciplines, you can pick up an easy degree without much work, but in engineering, you can't.</p>

<p>Some other statistics to mull over:</p>

<p>"Last year, 46 percent of Chinese students graduated with engineering degrees. In the US, that number was 5 percent. "</p>

<p>"Europe graduates three times as many engineering students as the US, Asia five times as many. "</p>

<p>"Less than two percent of U.S. high school graduates will earn an engineering degree."</p>

<p>"In the US, more students are getting degrees in “parks and recreation” than in electrical engineering [which is far and away the largest engineering discipline]"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/press/company/2003/c03033.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/press/company/2003/c03033.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

131

<p>Don't you think that the lack of engineering majors also has to do with the lack of luster and wealth in the field? I just recently had this conversation with someone. Engineers out of school with their bachelor's degrees and PE cert make about 58,000 in my state. Just about as much as a registered nurse. This is probably along the same reason why many young men are choosing not to go into the Priesthood these days too. Look at the numbers going to med school, law school, etc. Nursing is becoming a hot option these days too. For 4 (or just 2 in some states) you can make upwards of 60k a year. Not that I condone the thought...but why do something hard when you can do something easy and get the same results?</p>

132

<p>Just a quick note - one of the reasons you see so many more engineers from certain other countries (e.g. Asian ones) is because in those cultures, engineering is an uber-prestigious field, like medicine. My dad's actually doing some research on this precise topic for a government agency, becuase people are becoming concerned about the fact that so many of these foreign engineers that used to stay here are now returning home, because wages and standard of living have gone up.</p>

<p>BTW I have to agree that the average engineering student is more intelligent and/or motivated than the average liberal arts major. It's in comparing the cream of the crop of each that you wouldn't see a difference.</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
Don't you think that the lack of engineering majors also has to do with the lack of luster and wealth in the field? I just recently had this conversation with someone. Engineers out of school with their bachelor's degrees and PE cert make about 58,000 in my state. Just about as much as a registered nurse. This is probably along the same reason why many young men are choosing not to go into the Priesthood these days too. Look at the numbers going to med school, law school, etc. Nursing is becoming a hot option these days too. For 4 (or just 2 in some states) you can make upwards of 60k a year. Not that I condone the thought...but why do something hard when you can do something easy and get the same results?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, yes and no. First off, I would remark that I think there is something to what you just said. And in fact, I have debated this very point on other parts of CC, most notably the 'Engineering Majors' section.</p>

<p>However, let's be clear. Whatever else you might say about engineering, it does tend to deliver one of the highest, if not usually the highest, starting salaries of any other bachelor's degree - yes, even higher than nursing. I don't want to cast aspersions, but take a gander at the kinds of starting salaries that the liberal arts majors are getting. </p>

<p>In particular, I would point you to the following quote:</p>

<p>"Chemical Engineering - $54246
Electrical Engineering - $52009
Registered Nurses - $38775 [note you have to scroll down to see this figure]</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I would also point out the data given out by the Department of Labor that indicates that the median annual earnings of registered nurses in 2002 was $48090, whereas the median annual earnings of electrical engineers in 2002 was $68180, and that of mechanical engineers was $62880. I don't doubt that being a registered nurse in certain parts of the country can be very good, and nationwide, it's still good, but it's not THAT good. Nationwide, the engineers got the nurses decisively beat on salary. </p>

<p><a href="http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm#earnings&lt;/a>
<a href="http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos033.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos033.htm#earnings&lt;/a>
<a href="http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nevertheless, I suspect there is something to the notion that the increase in salary you would get from the bachelor's degree in engineering (vs. the bachelor's in something else) does not adequately compensate you for the difficulty of the curriculua. I think what could be said is that you don't really get an 'efficient' return on your investment of engineering studytime. Specifically speaking, I would say that the difference in outcome between the guy who studied extremely hard to get top grades in engineering vs. the guy who barely studied at all to barely graduate with a liberal arts degree may not be large enough to justify the first guy's time and effort. I would argue that the second guy doesn't really deserve much of anything at all, because all he did was just coast for 4 years, but the sad reality is that a lot of companies aren't really going to care about that and are going to hire him anyway. Not the best companies, mind you, but the mediocre companies are going to hire him, despite the fact that he's lazy. </p>

<p>And personally, I think there is a greater issue at stake here. The fact is, American popular culture does not respect education, especially technical education. Go to a guy on the street and ask him to name 10 famous scientists or engineers. He probably can't do it. Then ask him to name 10 famous athletes. Or 10 famous movie stars. Or 10 famous rock bands. That, he can probably do, and with ease.</p>

<p>The fact is, most Americans famous movie stars or rock stars or sports stars than to be famous scientists or engineers. I'm sure you've seen it in school - the star football quarterback is 'cooler' than the guy who gets straight A's. Lots of kids figure - why grow up to be an engineer that makes 60k a year when you can be LeBron James and make 6 million a year? And I'm sure you've seen that a lot of poor kids don't see education as a way out of poverty - instead, they see athletics or entertainment as a way out of poverty.</p>

134

<p>College is what you make of it. If you're a Harvard grad, sure you might get the job. But if you can't do the job as well as a UCLA grad, no elitist degree is going to help you.</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
BTW I have to agree that the average engineering student is more intelligent and/or motivated than the average liberal arts major. It's in comparing the cream of the crop of each that you wouldn't see a difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. I am perfectly willing to bet that the top liberal arts students are completely comparable to the top engineering students in terms of natural intelligence and motivation. The problem is that the liberal arts also tend to carry a long tail end of unmotivated, low-quality students who are doing those liberal arts majors not because they are really interested in it, but just because the classes are easy to pass. Maybe not necessarily easy to get a top grade in, but easy to pass. </p>

<p>Again, not to be overly political, but I would point to people like George Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore, all of whom were, at best, middling college students. Let's face it. While in college, none of these guys were particularly highly motivated to study hard and learn. All they really wanted to do was graduate without having to work hard at it. There are many liberal arts student today who are the same way.</p>

136

<p>
[quote]
George Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore, all of whom were, at best, middling college students. Let's face it. While in college, none of these guys were particularly highly motivated to study hard and learn.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have only skimmed this thread, but it struck me as extremely ironic that one would point to these three examples (Bush, Kerry, Gore) as "middling college students" = and thus proving your point that what? </p>

<p>in that shortlist you've got:</p>

<p>POTUS (President of the United States)
Former Vice-President of the United States
US Senator and Former Democratic Party Presidential Candidate</p>

<p>Was it your point to prove that "liberal arts majors" carry a "long tail end of unmotivated, low-quality students"... well, maybe we'll give you that. And in a world where your career or life accomplishments END when you graduate rather than BEGIN (hence the word commencement, meaning beginning) you would have a meaningful point.</p>

<p>As it is, however, those exact three "mediocre" liberal arts students, PROVE that in the "real" world, grades, sheer brain power, geeks, engineers, etc. aren't everything. In point of fact, this "meritocracy" within the far removed Ivory Towers quickly fades away in the "real" world. </p>

<p>You can't readily measure things like charisma, leadership, teamwork skills, negotiations, communication skills, etc. with a slide ruler and HP calculator. I'd argue that on balance your typical "lazy liberal arts student" have an edge over the the "hard core engineer" when it comes to these "softer" skills. </p>

<p>And if you ask leading captains of industry, CEOs, politicians etc. you'll find that those individuals with those innate skills (with a certain measure of intelligence of course) have a decided edge in the "real" world.</p>

<p>You can't "measure" a person's future success via some mathematical equation. Otherwise, the world would be run by engineers and PhD's instead of people like the "Gentleman C" student from Yale who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office or the liberal arts Yale flunkie who happens to be next in line for POTUS.</p>

137

<p>Ivy grad, you wrote, "the liberal arts Yale flunkie who happens to be next in line for POTUS." Who would that be? Do you know something about 2008 that we don't?</p>

138

<p>Laxdad,</p>

<p>No I was not referring to the '08 elections.</p>

<p>I was referring to the person who is "a heartbeat from the presidency" in the presidential line of succession, current VPOTUS, Dick Cheney. Cheney flunked out of Yale and then went onto study (<em>engineers gasp in unison</em>) political science at the University of Wyoming.</p>

139

<p>
[quote]
I have only skimmed this thread, but it struck me as extremely ironic that one would point to these three examples (Bush, Kerry, Gore) as "middling college students" = and thus proving your point that what? </p>

<p>in that shortlist you've got:</p>

<p>POTUS (President of the United States)
Former Vice-President of the United States
US Senator and Former Democratic Party Presidential Candidate</p>

<p>Was it your point to prove that "liberal arts majors" carry a "long tail end of unmotivated, low-quality students"... well, maybe we'll give you that. And in a world where your career or life accomplishments END when you graduate rather than BEGIN (hence the word commencement, meaning beginning) you would have a meaningful point.</p>

<p>As it is, however, those exact three "mediocre" liberal arts students, PROVE that in the "real" world, grades, sheer brain power, geeks, engineers, etc. aren't everything. In point of fact, this "meritocracy" within the far removed Ivory Towers quickly fades away in the "real" world. </p>

<p>You can't readily measure things like charisma, leadership, teamwork skills, negotiations, communication skills, etc. with a slide ruler and HP calculator. I'd argue that on balance your typical "lazy liberal arts student" have an edge over the the "hard core engineer" when it comes to these "softer" skills.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! Very nice try to couch things in terms of mere pure soft skills, but when you're talking about Bush, Gore, and Kerry, you forgotten by far the most important aspect of their success - namely NEPOTISM. Again, I don't want to take political sides here, but the fact is, all 3 of those guys came from rich, prominent, and well-connected families and that goes a very long way towards explaining their success. A very long way. We all know who George W's father was. Bush's grandfather was a US Senator. Al Gore's father was a US Senator (in fact, Al Gore eventually ended up taking his father's old Senate seat). Kerry's family was likewise quite prominent. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, all 3 of these guys knew full well that they didn't have to work particularly hard while they were in college, because they knew that they were going to get hooked up through their family's connections no matter what their grades were or what they majored in. </p>

<p>Come on. Be honest. You know it's true. You know their family connections helped them out a lot. What the example of Bush, Gore, and Kerry show me is not the importance of soft skills, but rather the power that dynasty and wealth has in the country. Basically, these guys were born into the American equivalent of nobility and royalty. Heck, if I had been born into that kind of wealth and power, and knowing that I'm going to get hooked up through my family connections, I'd probably have little motivation to study hard too. To paraphrase cadet0509, why study hard when you don't have to?</p>

140

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>Well, nice summary dissertation on nepostism. Nobody's denying that. I certainly wasn't. That's life. BUT, that's NOT even the point.</p>

<p>What is? MY POINT was only that I found it extremely ironic that the three cited examples that you gave were extremely poor ones given that those three individuals have acheived so much -- have had extraordinary careers above and beyond 99.9% of people who visit this website can hope to achieve.</p>

<p>In other words, you start to talk about "mediocre" "lazy" "underachieving" liberal arts college students - THEN - you point to Bush, Gore and Kerry - who, in fact, have had extraordinary lives and have accomplished above and beyond any geeky engineer in their class.</p>

<p>Basically, your examples totally undermine your whole point.</p>

<p>It's called IRONY dude.</p>