<p>Engineers are the foundation of the company; they architect, design and construct the products that cost $3.99 to manufacture that sell for $60 to $1,299.</p>
<p>And yet the guy who gets the customer to issue a PO makes the biggest bucks.</p>
<p>Ok ya- but not to name drop or anything- but I have observed over the past few decades of rubbing shoulders with CEOs of national companies and other " movers & shakers", that they are more likely to have an undergrad degree that does not seem directly related to their current position.</p>
<p>If you want to stay at the grunt level- then get a tech degree and you won't be without a job ( although you may have to relocate to the indian sub continent) but if you want to be more flexible with your career path, then aspire to a broader based education.</p>
<p>Comments on several posts. </p>
<p>I disagree that Brown (or other elite colleges) students have proven themselves to be smarter by virtue of going there- most top students, especially those away from the east coast, will not attend one of those schools. Flagship U's have a lot of better students who chose to stay in their home state, often for economic reasons. There is a whole world outside of those schools and that geographic region. There are also more top students than these schools accomodate- or a lot of students going to them wouldn't get in. One must also realize that some lesser schools may actually have a better department in some fields, even for undergrads. I was surprised to find that at the elite schools so many only get a bachelor's degree- why not grad/professional school?</p>
<p>Yes- liberal arts does not equal humanities (or social sciences). Hence a scientist can get a lot of liberal arts courses plus a top science education. I wonder if overseas colleges require their math/science/engineering students to take as many humanities/social science courses as US schools do. I also wonder how much critical/creative thinking is emphasized versus learning through memorization and standardized problem solving. </p>
<p>Yes- not everything should be looked at from a cost/benefit analysis- especially since intangibles are hard to quantify. I also wonder what so many business majors will do with the changes in our economy- an engineer with business courses may have an advantage.</p>
<p>Ah another thread discussing the liberal arts vs vocational education conundrum. The value of critical thinking, historical context and civil engagement vs uninspiring analytical processes, formulae derivations and, heaven help us, application of scientific principles.</p>
<p>As an engineering grad I can state, with some authority that the two are not as mutually exclusive as most believe. With the exception of foreign language(which I regret-though I am self-taught in basic Spanish) I can attest to the fact that university can provide a decent liberal education for even geeks like me if so inclined. I was.</p>
<p>The liberal education is not only to be obtained in the classroom and in fact some of the best learning opportunities occur outside their doors. Yes, I took more than full advantage of electives and overloads to take coursework in macro econ, social cybernetics, Reconstruction history, rennaisance music, contemporary music, Serbo-Croatian lit, urban planning, ethics, the race dilemma taught by Gunnar Myrdal, among others. But the university also allowed me to attend many great lectures, symposia, concerts and social action opportunities(it was the late 60's in Ohio after all). And the coup de gras was working on the set crew in the world premier of the Jerome Lawrence play "The Night Thoureau Spent in Jail" thanks a friend in the theatre department. He owed me one.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problems, an in fact admire those who choose to study in the liberal arts colleges. It merely bugs me that some do not have a similar admiration for student toiling in engineering, science, business and the academic breadth which these students are able to pursue if they choose.</p>
<p>"It merely bugs me that some do not have a similar admiration for student toiling in engineering, science, business and the academic breadth which these students are able to pursue if they choose"</p>
<p>Those would be the "open minded" ones.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Note that the tougher the times, the more everything is scrutinized. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. EVERYTHING has to justify its worth in these tough times, not just humanities.</p>
<p>Ironically funny geeps.</p>
<p>Seems to me the score is CC parents xxx points, article author 0. Just because you read it in the paper doesn't make it so.</p>
<p>Agree post 45. The two are not mutually exclusive. DS's classmates in his CS major were some of the most well rounded and intelligent people I've ever met. I'd hardly call their education vocational training. They're learning problem solving, teamwork, public speaking, logic, in a rapidly evolving and expanding field. These skills make them employable, especially in this economic climate. DS wasn't there to get job training. He liked the material, and it made him think.</p>
<p>Because you enjoy math/science/CS enough to major in it doesn't mean you're not intellectually curious. I sense a bit of superiority from lib arts majors. Lib arts people are "educated", science and business majors are "trained". Learning, as we know, isn't limited to the courses we take in college.</p>
<p>^ From my experience, it’s the humanities and social science majors that are looked down upon.</p>
<p>The loss of interest in the humanities goes very deep, much deeper than the current recession.</p>
<p>Since the 1960’s, the idea of a “canon” or body of knowledge to pass down from generation to generation has mostly gone by the wayside, due to the increased emphasis on diversity and respect for many cultures. In the heyday of liberal arts, the history, literature and culture of white, Western civilization formed the body of this canon. This no longer interests the majority of students. So, what exactly should the liberal arts be teaching?</p>
<p>In addition, higher education , at least the top schools, was generally for upper class white male students, whose background made this canon appropriate. Additionally, upper class values supported the idea of learning for learning’s sake, and generally, these young men were already headed to management positions in the financial, law or medical sectors. Women took liberal arts so that they could be literate and cultured and could hold conversations with their husbands, or hold parties for the company or firm, and be impressive conversationalists. This only goes back a generation of two.</p>
<p>I am overstating a bit, but you get the idea. As one small, selective college still puts it: “this four years is (was?) to make your mind a comfortable place to live in for the rest of your life.” </p>
<p>The decline of liberal arts is, therefore, caused by the entrance into the academy of diverse groups with goals and opportunities that are quite different from the elite who formerly attended universities and colleges. People of all different ethnic, racial, and income backgrounds, and women. And people who have financial worries for the future.</p>
<p>Perhaps most interestingly, I believe that the rise of financial aid as a means to socially engineer society, and fulfill the promise of equal opportunity (which started with the GI Bill after WWII), may have made liberal arts less relevant, and contributed do the rise in vocationalism. First, the elitist if admirable values that supported “learning for learning’s sake”, are not shared by the middle or lower class students who now can attend college. Many people in American are quite anti-intellectual. Now, the most often-heard advertisement for college is to get a career. and to make a higher salary. </p>
<p>The fact that college students are no longer a wealthy elite also means that students have to worry about paying off loans, and do not have an assured job in their father’s firm, either- or a trust fund in the background while they study literature. Again, I am exaggerating a bit, but the point is, different social classes have different agendas with education, and these days, these classes and agendas mix a lot more than they used to.</p>
<p>Another factor is the change in our economy’s priorities. Manufacturing, farming, even fishing, used to mean people without higher education could make a decent living. Many jobs now require more training, more of that training is technical, and where else could this happen but in colleges?</p>
<p>Some of this degree-getting is unnecessary in a practical sense, but once a majority is doing it, then everyone else has to do it too. To be a childcare assistant, you now need a degree, but the job itself does not really demand that academic training. Almost all the wants ads now ask for a BA- regardless of the relevance of the degree- let alone the major-to the work itself. A degree may just be a measure of determination, commitment and responsibility, rather than academic learning, at this point.</p>
<p>This also means that colleges are full of people who do not really want to be there, and the emphasis in classes is often on grades, not the substance of the learning. I read recently about an older professor who left his job because students cared only about grades these days, and he no longer liked teaching them.</p>
<p>Personally, I would love it if, financially, everyone could go to college to learn and think, in the old-fashioned sense. I am encouraging my kids to do what they love, and hope things work out. One of my kids loves computer science, and is doing fine after college. He did not, in my opinion, become an educated person in school, but he can read for the rest of his life, I suppose. Other kids in our family are following their hearts in the arts, and I worry about them. Maybe they’ll have to go back to the ancient paradigm of marrying someone who got that vocational/technical training, for money, so they can do their artistic work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mr. Holland’s Opus</p>
<p>Bravo, pageturner. I like CS Lewis’ quote here–he was referring primarily to friendship, but also peripherally to ‘philosophy and art’: “it has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.” </p>
<p>The apparent “irrelevance” of the humanities–i.e., the fact that the college years may be the only time in a student’s life where he has any substantial involvement with them–is the very reason to protect and even to emphasize them in that context. If our kids don’t become conversant with literature, art and philosophy in college, when will they? And do we really want the answer to be “never”?</p>
<p>compmom, you make some good points, but I have to point out that if working-class and first-generation college students are really uninterested in the humanities, then it’s mighty odd to see English as the #4 major in popularity at the urban public university where I make my living, an institution whose undergraduate population includes roughly 50% first-generation students. I’ve talked to people in our English department–people with pretty impressive CVs who could certainly be working at more highly ranked schools if they chose–who have specifically told me that one of the things that has kept them here is the excitement of teaching working-class and immigrant kids for whom serious engagement with literature is a new and intoxicating experience, not something they’ve been born and bred to take for granted.</p>
<p>I have to agree a lot with compmom on this one.</p>
<p>My heart is breaking a bit to see how little defense a liberal arts education seems to be getting here among my well-educated friends! </p>
<p>The tough times are precisely when we are most in need of history, literature and the arts! They help us know how to solve our problems. (And give us the courage to want to.) Do we not study the writings of those who have gone before us to gain wisdom? How can we know joy if we don’t recognize beauty?</p>
<p>Also, please remember that science and mathematics are part of a liberal arts education–they are not the enemies of it. Science and art, mathematics and music, wine and chocolate.</p>
<p>Language is fundamental to most concepts of being human. The Humanities exist, in part, to hone language skills.</p>
<p>That is not to say that Stephen J. Gould wasn’t a gifted writer; he was. And many scientists are.</p>
<p>However, the Humanities devote themselves to providing a skill set to describe and communicate human experience.</p>
<p>Call me crazy, but I think this will always be a significant contribution to human culture.</p>
<p>Unlike psychology, the Humanities insist on the value of the experience of the individual. This belief is the foundation of our political system. No I am not a neo-Conservative but a lifelong leftie.</p>
<p>This is no diss to psychology or any social science. Nor would I diminish the important of any science.</p>
<p>People will always need to be taught how to write well. For a lucky few, it is innate, but most folks benefit from devoted English teachers who laboriously correct awkward and incorrect usages.</p>
<p>I have edited many scientific doctoral dissertations; my PhD in English has served me well. I have never been unemployed; I have built a 30 year career in academia. I also have more offers to write and edit than I could ever fulfill.</p>
<p>I am not sure I would have fared as well had my degree been in Philosophy, and that is a real shame. But writing teachers will always be employed.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Learning doesn’t stop when you get the sheepskin, so don’t fear for humanity. I didn’t come to music and art until later in life (starting in late twenties), but have enjoyed learning about the subjects in the ensuing years. </p>
<p>Thank goodness for friends, articles in Smithsonian Magazine, public TV, visits to museums, kiddie field trips, etc.</p>