<p>I think you mean the technical requirements. Philosophy, history, a little bit of knowledge of the past might have helped to avoid the Lehman crash. Study what happened before the crash before the last depression and it is the SAME story. We need the tech Ed. And skills, but we also need the humanities. The colleges are failing in this way, IMHO.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I had a look at a few undergraduate business administation majors and couldn’t find one at a good school (outside of continuing ed and online) so I had a look at majors at BC’s business school. They don’t have such a major but their general management major core looks like it requires 14 business courses for the core.</p>
<p>I was referring to technical skills such as Windows, Microsoft Office, Cisco VOIP phones, various software packages, etc. It seems odd to me that these would be listed under requirements because I just assume that people know how to use software applications and a business phone but perhaps there are a lot of applicants that have had no experience at all in a business office.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We often hire people that don’t have the specific areas that we work on if they have degrees in electrical engineering, physics or other quantitative areas because we spend six to twelve months training engineers in our environment. It does help to have had a few courses in our area but I’ve seen problems with hiring people with strong quantitative backgrounds that couldn’t integrate well because they didn’t have the intense lab development experience that you usually get in good CS programs. So yes, there are companies that will train and we’re one of them.</p>
<p>But there are far fewer that want to or are willing to train than there used to be. A lot of companies want someone else to do the training these days - whether that be in school or in the workplace. It may be that there are so many with college degrees looking for work that they can demand this. It may be that they don’t want to spend the money for training when the employee may just take that training and look for a job at another company that will pay more because they have that training.</p>
<p>There’s also nothing preventing a business, physics or computer science major from taking a lot of writing-intensive courses.</p>
<p>Are you seeing a lot of job postings with no specific requirements or something to the effect that they prefer humanities majors?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My son’s school had a seminar session that went something like Job Hunting for Liberal Arts Majors. They didn’t have anything like this for engineering, business, nutrition, and health majors.</p>
<p>I think that all majors could use good advising on making themselves marketable but a job after graduation might not be the implicit focus in a humanities degree. If you’re studying accounting, you’re clearly going to focus on getting work in accounting so you’ll be looking for internships and coops related to accounting.</p>
<p>Of course we could see what an expert has to say:</p>
<p>[High-Paying</a> Jobs for Liberal Arts Majors | Monster](<a href=“Highest-Paying Jobs”>Highest-Paying Jobs)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What about the many graduates that are not that smart and not that hardworking of which there are many? Can you do better in the job market if you’re not that smart and hardworking with an accounting degree?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The stats that I saw recently on those graduating with ed degrees is that there are three graduates for every job opening. That sounds like it is worse than the statistic that half of college graduates don’t have jobs or don’t have jobs in their field. Not every graduate is really, really smart. Would these have been better off with more of a professional degree?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You don’t have to study philosophy or history to learn about crashes. You could get quite an education on crashes from reading Doug Noland’s column or reading the articles on gold-eagle.</p>
<p>You could have gotten out before the crash with a basic understanding of technical analyis too.</p>
<p>Re post 90:</p>
<p>Wow, did I read this post correctly? A soc prof (!) is telling us that <em>teaching</em> the perspective that Europeans “dominated, exploited and oppressed” native Americans is the “backbone” of critical thinking? No wonder students are abandoning the humanities. Teaching students to think critically means that one provides all available facts and objective information about a subject, and asks them to consider all perspectives and come to a conclusion on their own. Some may conclude that the Europeans were horrible monsters, others might conclude they were defending themselves. It is not the teacher’s role to tell them what to think.</p>
<p>
I think we have to go back to first principles here. A major is “an approved area of study leading to an approved academic degree” ([Definition](<a href=“http://registrar.iupui.edu/chairs/degrees/Definitions_of_Degrees_Majors_Minors_and_Certificates.pdf]Definition[/url]”>http://registrar.iupui.edu/chairs/degrees/Definitions_of_Degrees_Majors_Minors_and_Certificates.pdf)</a>). A major isn’t just about self-enrichment; there is a clear credentialing process at work here.</p>
<p>The career utility of a business degree is probably very school-dependent. As I mentioned earlier, there has been massive growth in business enrollment. I think we have substantially more business grads than jobs requiring a business major. However, well-regarded business schools do seem to have solid placement for their graduates ([Example](<a href=“http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/publications/employmentreport/]Example[/url]”>http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/publications/employmentreport/)</a>).</p>
<p>Why? I think higher education is a socialization process whereby a student “acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position” ([Definition](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialization]Definition[/url]”>SOCIALIZATION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com)</a>).</p>
<p>Business and engineering degrees from the right schools teach students social values and norms in preparation for work in related positions, usually in industry or government. I think humanities programs tend to inculcate students with the values of the academic humanities, a circular process with limited external outlets.</p>
<p>Bay, you don’t understand that to a lot of HS teachers and college professors that
is a “fact” not open to discussion. You will be ridiculed or shunned should you attempt to advance a counter-argument.</p>
<p>Well it is a fact. Like the Roman conquerors and the Greek slaves. But we also study how these classic cultures grew and led to freedom. When we study renaissance art, we don’t only study the orgies and greed of the priests and pope. Or the, again , servant and slave class. We study all of it. Students grow exhausted of hearing how bad their country is, how hopeless their future is. The humanities no longer inspire. Sad</p>
<p>poetgrl - I think I agree with you, if I understand your point. Without debating whether all Europeans “dominated, exploited and oppressed” native Americans, if your point is that it should be considered along with all other information regarding European exploration and settlement of the North American continent then we agree. I find any study of history, art or literature more interesting if I know more of the “backstory”. In the example, it is also interesting to know that native Americans also “dominated, exploited and oppressed” other native Americans, but that is a “fact” that is rarely mentioned in association with the topic because it diverts the student from the intended narrative of “how bad their country is”.</p>
<p>But you can’t win…spend more time in class talking about Native Americans, and the you’re accused of focusing too much on separate ethnicities. </p>
<p>So if you are only going to have a limited amount of time in a survey course, what had more impact on the Native American experience over the last two hundred years and is significant to what’s going on in the reservations today? What would you focus on?</p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, even Skip Gates at Harvard is trying to bring to light issues like the complicitity of various tribes in Africa in the slave trade.</p>
<p>Yes Hat, we agree</p>
<p>Its good to see that Skip Gates is “trying to bring to light” something that I have known for about 40 years. I guess if a liberal black professor says something that may be considered as impugning the African or African-American identity then it will get more attention from the media and therefore greater acceptance. The fact that he is “trying to bring it to light” says more about academia than it does about his efforts.</p>
<p>I was not understanding post 90 to say that teaching history from the point of view of the oppressed is teaching a set of facts. Rather I see it as teaching history from a different perspective than that of the conquerors. “Oppressed” and “Conqueror” are value laden words, as are conquest, colonize, civilize. When you demonstrate to a student how to analyze language and look an event from more than one perspective, aren’t you teaching critical thinking skills? </p>
<p>Postcolonial theory (in my very limited understanding) makes my brain expand. It is not a way I was taught to look at the world when I was in school. I don’t have to “believe” in postcolonialism to benefit from trying to understand this pov.</p>
<p>My3Daughters: sincere apologies if I have completely mischaracterized your post.</p>
<p>Hat, I suppose academia did not highlight African complicity in the slave trade for the same reason why academia does not highlight the role - complicity even - Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst played in the Holocaust. I suppose you can call it many things… I call it, delicacy and an understanding nothing is ever black or white, but instead highly subtle shades of gray. Go ahead, and flame me.</p>
<p>Ahl, I agree that semiotics, queer theory, etc. is one way to approach understanding. But only if it is also used to evaluate the theorists.</p>
<p>50 years ago this month, June 1963, at the school 45 minutes down the road, the govenor stood in the school house door to block the enrollment of African American students at what we would now call our ‘state flagship’.</p>
<p>So I guess you can cut liberal African American faculty a little slack over the past 40 years, because the fight wasn’t about getting more information about the African American experience into the classroom–it’s was trying to get <em>some</em>. Including bodies in the classroom at the state supported institution.</p>
<p>I’m really sorry that they didn’t focus more on that little nugget of information, when probably 50 years ago it would be hard to find a work by a black writer in a high school or college literature anthology. </p>
<p>Because we all know it’s about fairness and everyone getting a perspective, no?</p>
<p>So I have to disagree with the idea that 40 or 50 years ago, there was some ‘golden age’ where all sides/perspectives were being discussed and that somehow, over the past 40 years, liberals academicians managed to ‘cover up’ information that they didn’t like.</p>
<p>Around 50 years ago a friend was told by graduate departments at several universities that it wasn’t worth their while to let her attempt a PhD. She would never use the degree. She became one of the big name scholars of her generation in her area of interest. Thirty six years ago a law school classmate was scolded by a male professor for “leaving her children to attend school.” She wondered if she should explain about the abusive husband she had recently left and need to earn a living… if that might soften his opinion. Twenty five years ago a young assistant professor asked me to please investigate, very discreetly and without mentioning her name, what happened when female professors got pregnant. There was no official maternity policy posted anywhere. Even before we discuss canon and the like - I can’t possible see those times as the good old days.</p>
<p>I am absolutely delighted we have all these “studies” courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be foolish. We aren’t talking about elementary school Holocaust education. It is impossible to study the Holocaust in depth, or to read bibliographies of the scholarly literature on the Holocaust, without finding innumerable studies of the role played by the Judenrat and the ghetto police in various ghettos, such as in Warsaw and Lodz. (You think there aren’t literally thousands of studies of people like Rumkowski?) And without understanding the reasons for their cooperation with the Germans – to preserve their own lives (temporarily, of course, in virtually every case, since they mostly ended up murdered themselves), and, certainly for many of the Judenrat, the vain hope that the lives of many could somehow be saved by such cooperation, the drawing up of lists, etc. Complicity? That’s certainly debatable. Hannah Arendt isn’t exactly the latest word on any of this, given how thoroughly wrong she’s been proven on her estimation of Eichmann, among many other things.</p>
<p>Also, in terms of power differentials with the “bad guys,” it’s rather offensive (to say the least) to compare any of these people – whoever they were – with people engaged in the slave trade. And to suggest, as you are, that the existence of the Judenrat or the ghetto police (or the kapos, who are usually next on the list of people who make arguments like this) means that the question of responsibility for the Holocaust isn’t “black and white,” and that the Jews are partially responsible for their own slaughter. After all, asking that these things be “highlighted” is a question that contains its own conclusion regarding their significance </p>
<p>For all I know, you’re Jewish yourself. Even if you are, that was still one of the more dubious comments I’ve read in a while.</p>
<p>I’d like to step aside the debate for a moment about what is actually being taught and instead like to bring up another point which I think has brought about problems for the humanities. For lack of a better word/description, I think the problem is that over the past several decades, and this did come from the left–the humanities professor is seen less authoritative in the classroom. </p>
<p>The left challenged what was being taught in the classroom and wanted more inclusion in terms of topics/perspectives. Also during this time, at least at the some of the elite schools, there was a move toward an ‘open’ curriculum, where students get more of a say in what courses they select. The authority of the faculty diminished.</p>
<p>I think this impacted the humanities more than the sciences. Humanities courses involve more discussion, more ‘getting perspective’ from the students, asking ‘what do you think’. They are, in some ways, supposed to be ‘entertaining’. I don’t think that STEM courses are the same way, at least in terms of being entertaining. And the authority of the professor is challenged much less.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how this is a crisis. If anything it is a plus. Any university has a general education curriculum in which students take courses in the liberal arts. My university I’m require to take 8, essentially a full year of classes. We Engineering students don’t mind these General Education classes because they’re easy and normally easy A’s. One does not need to major in a Liberal Arts degree to think “critically.” Any math orientated degree, such as accounting, finance, CS, engineering gives the graduate more critically thinking skills than a Liberal Arts degree. Cs and Engineering for example are 100 percent about solving problems. In the Liberal Arts the problems are unsolvable and its basically a “what you think” kind of class.</p>
<p>Being able to communicate and write are much needed skills in the marketplace. Engineering degrees require 2 English writing classes, a Report Preparation class and a technical communication class. CS degrees are all logic and reasoning. </p>
<p>Another point I would like to make how this “crisis” is in fact a plus is because students are finally realizing that the marketability of the Liberal Arts degree is fairly low. For X amount of dollars the student wants a return on investment. That what college is for. If you want to broaden your horizons, join the Peace Corps, if you want “enrich” yourself with art and philosophy, read a book at the library. </p>
<p>If you go to college just for the sake of learning without an end goal, you end up as a fast food cook. Most student major in the Liberal Arts do it so they can have a high GPA upon graduation to get into med school/law school/business school.</p>
<p>^^ Not too easy to get a high GPA in the Humanities! No one today can write! (That’s another thread, to be based on today’s New York Times editorial on the demise of the English major.)</p>
<p>In response to post 103 and others in a similar vein:</p>
<ol>
<li> The critical look at American history, that includes examination of the exploitation of vulernable peoples by European settlers, provides a healthy balance to the prevasive attitude in our culture that America can do no wrong, and we have a society and foundation superior to all others (maybe philisophically we do; obviously not always in practice.)</li>
<li> If Africans and Native Americans exploited their own people, that would be all the more reason a “superior” group – forging a new, free way of life in a new terriroty – would NOT do likewise…not a justification for what new Americans did.</li>
<li>A “reality” that a neighbor once brought up at the school bus stop: “Slavery was an economic necessity.” (If so, then why did rich, white plantation owners not volunteer to become slaves?) That way of thinking deserves healthy debate (the Nazis may have believed that their monstrous mission was an “economic necessity”, too.)</li>
</ol>
<p>DonnaL,
Thank you for your reasoned (and even eloquent) comment, though I disagree with you that Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst, Judenrat or Rumkowsi are common knowledge. </p>
<p>I brought up Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst in context of the Africa/slavery discussion because I can see how the historical precedents of American slavery can be used by slavery apologists in the same way that references to Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst, etc., are used to this day by anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers (or mitigators - “it wasn’t so bad,” “the numbers are exaggerated”, “they were complicit.” )</p>
<p>The black-or-white comment was maladroit, I agree. There aren’t any grays in the fact of what happened to European Jews between 1938-45 (and beyond, frankly.)</p>