<p>
Yeah, but can you get it chicken-fried? ;)</p>
<p>Of course:</p>
<p>[Chicken-Fried</a> Tofu Recipe - Every Day with Rachael Ray](<a href=“Everything to Make Rachael's Favorite Recipes | Rachael Ray”>Everything to Make Rachael's Favorite Recipes | Rachael Ray)</p>
<p>Lulz at all the socially awkward nerds who think this is a good idea. Way to live in the bubble your overbearing parents created.</p>
<p>I think the poster just thrives on creating controversy. I have known so many like this person over the years. You can’t even carry on a decent conversation with them, they can not think outside the box. I for one am very, very happy my dgt is choosing a liberal arts degree, she is majoring in dance. Will she make much money, probably not, will she be happy, exceedingly so. I have a degree in social work, if I wasn’t married I would probably be considered making just above the poverty level. But, am I making a difference, do I help people on a daily basis? You bet your boots I am. I hope you never have a family member needing help making end of life decisions and only have a STEM major to talk to about it. Sure I would like to earn more money, but that is not how I base my personal worth and I am sorry that you feel that is one of only measures that can determine that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love that zinger! Did you just invent that? It is brilliant.</p>
<p>First, I would like to say that I in no way want to devalue or eliminate the humanities. That said, can people lay off the implications that STEM majors are mindless robots devoid of critical thinking skills? Maybe I’m full of baloney, since I’ve never quite been able to pin down a definition of critical thinking. Roughly, I think of it as the ability to look at a complex problem with a lot of information, and pick out the important parts of the problem, and what information is credible. The majority of my physics coursework; particularly beyond the introductory classes, and especially in the research I’ve done, has not been looking at formulaic problems, and applying an algorithm to obtain a solution, but rather looking at a system, and figuring out how to learn what I want to know, and what approximations are justifiable to use, and clearly expressing my thoughts on paper, beyond just equations. Is some of this not critical thinking?</p>
<p>I’m a science major myself… And while I have trouble respecting <em>some</em> students who are in fields like history, psych, and english, I have difficulty respecting some of my fellow science majors as well. I base my opinions on how hard you are willing to work and how much passion you have for what you study. Any time I see this discussion I think back to Brave New World by Huxley, where one of the main ideas is similar to the cliche “It takes all types to make the world go round.” And I think that’s absolutely true. I hate to see people bashing the more “humanities” side of liberal arts just as much as I hate to hear people complaining about science.</p>
<p>
It’s an adaptation of a statement by a preacher named Wilfred Meloon, who wrote, “There’s good food in the garbage can, but I don’t let my children eat there.” He was explaining why he thought it was wrong to go see movies, even G-rated ones.</p>
<p>It is time to abolish many surplus and mediocre liberal arts PhD programs.</p>
<p>Hunt, I’m afraid that logic would keep me off C.C. entirely. Come to think of it, that is one wise preacher!</p>
<p>He also said you shouldn’t “vote wet,” which suggests how long ago I read his tract.</p>
<p>The OP has illustrated the antithesis of his statement.</p>
<p>No intelligent person would ever suggest abolishing any type of learning. Therefore, I’m convinced the OP is a ■■■■■. </p>
<p>Either that or he’s unintelligent.</p>
<p>There are innumerable ways to approach the issue raised by the OP. What occurs to me is that the study of technical fields helps the student to gain the knowledge and develop the skills to capably identify and address problems that call for precise methods and precise solutions. These skills can prove to be very valuable in a number of subject areas and can aid the student in performing a great many different jobs and tasks. However, so many of the challenges every human being faces involve solving problems that are not well-defined and that may involve so many variables that the development of precise methods and solutions is not feasible. Social problems are typically of this variety. The skills, and knowledge, to address these broad, poorly defined problems are more likely to be developed through coursework that introduces the student to similar broad problems of the past and present and to methods tried and used to address them. This coursework can be referred to as “Liberal Arts.”</p>
<p>When I went to a liberal-arts-college-with-engineering-programs, nearly a half century ago, humanities and social science majors were required to complete a year of college-level math and two years of lab science (in two different sciences). Engineering majors had substantial requirements to fulfill in the humanities and social sciences (including a requirement that ALL freshmen complete full-year courses in English comp and Western Civilization and a sophomore course in world religions).</p>
<p>I perceive that is now the exception rather than the rule. One of the colleges my D is looking at (she’s a HS junior) prides itself on telling potential non-STEM majors “come here and you’ll never have to take another math or science course if you don’t want to.” And this is a well-regarded, very selective research institution that’s not far below the Ivies in reputation. The same school tells its potential STEM majors that the only humanities course they’ll have to take is a single-semester freshman writing course. I think that the STEM major who never has to engage humanities courses at a serious level is ill-prepared for life, as is a humanities major who never has to master a college-level lab science course. Neither ever gets a full picture of the world in all its marvelous and maddening complexity.</p>
<p>I love the irony. Antipacifist posits that we should ban liberal arts and then leaves the issue for our discussion. We then use the Socratic method to discuss the merits of the proposal. Bravo!</p>
<p>I followed the pre-professional path in college and wish, in hindsight, that I’d been able to fit in more liberal arts classes. While you can continue to study liberal arts on your own it is difficult to achieve the comprehensive understanding of the liberal arts that’s possible in a more structured university program. On the other hand, I can understand Antipacifist’s antipathy towards some liberal arts majors that make their way in the world by BS’ing their way through meetings (e.g., rephrasing and repeating what has already been said by others). And, I’ve never seen the value in spending a month deconstructing Shakespheare.</p>
<p>Which school? Brown University is well known as a “no breadth requirement” school (other than for students in ABET-accredited engineering programs).</p>
<p>I haven’t read many posts past the OP so I apologize if I sound at all redundant but…</p>
<p>1) It’s really unfortunate that you feel the need to quantify your happiness. You’re in for a rough life if you associate happiness and success with the amount of money you make.</p>
<p>2) If everyone studies STEM fields, the demand for STEM majors will decrease and jobs in the STEM field won’t pay as much. My liberal arts education taught me that.</p>
<p>It’s not Brown. It’s a step down from the Ivies, but nonetheless a stretch school for my D.</p>
<p>Perhaps the OP would be happier at a technical/vocational school. My daughter is currently pursuing dual liberal arts degrees, and I suspect that she will find many uses for them. I, on the other hand, have a BS in Medical Technology, a field that I have not worked in for about 20 of the 30 years I’ve been out of college.</p>
<p>The OP is clearly young…he hasn’t yet figured out that all of life is not about marching in a narrow line toward some mythical happiness bestowed upon him by the size of his paycheck.</p>