The Death of Liberal Arts?

[cluelessdad]

<p>^ The problem here is your insistence in attempting to impose a universal rank/superiority to everyone/everything. It’s the trap of a narrow tech “hard data” mind (not that broader minds don’t exist among techies).</p>

<p>I can tell you that I am much happier in MY liberal arts studies and career than I would have been in tech training. You are obviously happy in YOUR techie pursuits as well. Nothing mutually exclusive about happiness however one finds it (or does that not compute?).</p>

<p>Peace out</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

I was referring to the exit opportunities that navy is talking about. Exit opportunities, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean avg. income. And like classicskid said, higher income =/= higher level of happiness

And you seem to think a UCLA psych grad has better “exit opps” than an employed Chemical Engineer? What exactly do you mean? Because I think on both respects the ChemE would be superior.</p>

[cluelessdad]

<p>^ Thart’s an interesting homepage, Navyarf, ranking attractiveness by race. I made the mistake of returning to this thread once, now I’ll pursue my own brand of happiness with dialogues elsewhere.</p>

[arrowheadd]

<p>@navy</p>

<p>lol i’m talking about scenarios… and a scenario matching that description would be easy. Student wants to pursue psychology and is something he/she wants to study but decides to go into ChemE just to make money. But yes, in terms of money, sure a CSU could provide better opportunities in terms of financial gain but like we both agree on money is not happiness. And i’m not saying a UCLA psych grad has better chances at a higher level of happiness than an eng. from csu, I’m saying its all relative to the person.</p>

<p>@payne
A lot of the pro-engineer anti-LA people on this thread make it sound as if engineering degree=guaranteed job/financial stability. Getting an engineering degree does not equate to a secure job. “Exit opportunities” can be something like pursuing a higher degree, leaving a more broad field to explore, etc.</p>

[bobk187]

<p>@tax guy I laugh at your perception of “trickle down” economics. You need to take a look at the role government intervention played in the uneven distribution of wealth. For someone who boasts of highereducation you sound quite narrow minded and misinformed.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

A lot of the pro-engineer anti-LA people on this thread make it sound as if engineering degree=guaranteed job/financial stability. Getting an engineering degree does not equate to a secure job. “Exit opportunities” can be something like pursuing a higher degree, leaving a more broad field to explore, etc.

</p>

<p>Where have I ever said the word “guarantee”? It’s a question of probability. Getting an engineering degree gives you a better chance of being employed upon graduation and a chance at a larger income. That is merely a recitation of the facts, there is no subjectivity.</p>

[arrowheadd]

<p>“UCLA psych grad has better “exit opps” than an employed Chemical Engineer”</p>

<p>my statement was just inferred from the implication of your statement</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>Oh, I see. Yeah, that’s stupid. They should be on the same career footing.</p>

[sigurros]

<p>Sophist ~~ ^^</p>

[grapico]

<p>“people picking respective major because they enjoy it”</p>

<p>that is funny… I’m sure job prospects and money factor in big time as well. Not to say people do not pick this way but, the influence is trending to the latter in my opinion.</p>

[nepatsfan]

<p>Liberal Art majors are declining becuase more skilled workers are having a hard time finding a job in this economy as it is. Nowadays, people want to major in something that will enable them to get a certain type of job such as engineering or accounting. I think it makes sense because the purposes of getting a college education nowadays is not only increasing knowledge but increasing the chances of getting a decent job.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

@noimagination

The lack of minimum objective standards makes it difficult for employers to identify liberal arts grads who might contribute greatly to their businesses. I think this is a terrible shame, because as you point out there are countless skilled thinkers who major in the liberal arts at lower-ranked schools and have the potential to achieve highly. But as long as an English major can skate by easily, the degree will not be recognized

</p>

<p>

@cluelessdad

However, speaking from experience, it really is not difficult to identify quality liberal arts grad job candidates. For all the claimed “softness” of LA majors, resumes/GPAs/transcripts do reliably identify the students of depth and drive. The non-engaged students simply do not pull As or even consistently Bs in upper division coursework, nor do they tend to communicate well orally (some surprises here) or in writing (rarely surprises here)

</p>

<p>I think these are some good exchanges, amidst a thread with plenty of junk. Might I add one point here - it’s important in the real world that a liberal arts major actually have competent reasoning power. Depending on what kind of writing and thinking they have done in their educations, their degrees could correlate very poorly with logical thinking ability. </p>

<p>Other than this, there’s another consideration - coming out of college, if a liberal arts major, say studying literature, has had an education totally based on reading books and writing essays, and didn’t step out and do plenty of real world work when getting the chance along the way, the degree possessed is simply less indicative of necessary skills. For instance, engineers (certainly computer engineers) have to work in groups and teams for long hours to implement solutions to difficult problems. Also, a practical degree is probably more likely to land one a meaningful internship early on, which means exiting college, a lot of these folks have very impressive experience, and the starting point that leads you to upon exiting college can be a very welcome boost. </p>

<p>

@cluelessdad

I’m not concerned that LA will disappear because some weaker students may be in the mix; I’d rather see those students get exposed to some breadth of education rather than none at all. Anyone who does not take the quality of their education into their own hands has only themselves to blame for limited prospects.

</p>

<p>Very true.</p>

<p>

@arrowheadd

The same argument could be made for engineering majors. In a sense, its the easy way out. Student A doesnt know what he wants to do, has no real passions, doesn’t really care, just wants to make a decent living and be the average joe and just die. He decides to major in some type of engineering, but doesn’t do so with passion. Graduates, ends up with mid-salary job and stays at that position til the day he retires. Sure, he “contributed” to society by not being a bum, but he hasn’t really done anything to make society any better.

</p>

<p>Why on earth is this discussion getting so drawn out? Everyone knows it already - practical majors are the “easy” way out because they directly train you for a strong level of <em>baseline</em> success in career. Liberal arts majors are “easy” because there is a higher chance that such a major will be a complete flake, because the baseline difficulty level is lower. But to do anything more than baseline, it’s stupid to say any major adequately prepares you - you have to prepare yourself and smell out what the real world asks of a very career-ambitious individual.</p>

[kartwheelie]

<p>If the issue of axing liberal arts is being well-rounded enough to get a job, that is just short-sighted. Unless, of course, if you want me, who is definitely NOT a math major sort, working in your bank…because I could, you know. A friend of my mom’s is a VP for a major east coast bank, and she was a music major in school. They didn’t have to take math in school.</p>

<p>Of course, we on the LA side could argue that in order for a student to truly develop all of the multiple intelligences, and be truly “well-rounded” enough to get a job once they graduate, that every student should have to learn to play a sport to the max level, draw/paint/sculpt, write poetry, act on stage, AND learn an instrument. To advanced levels, of course, since we would have to learn advanced level math. Does that sound “easy” to you? </p>

<p>That’s ALL part of liberal arts. Can You do it?</p>

<p>If it has to do with getting a job, then it is only reasonable, to me, that you wouldn’t want people who aren’t good at math or technology (and there are a lot of people who aren’t!) anywhere near it. Think with sense.</p>

[kartwheelie]

<p>Sorry if I screw up the quote thingy. I am still a noob, for all intents and purposes…</p>

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>The same argument could be made for engineering majors. In a sense, its the easy way out. Student A doesnt know what he wants to do, has no real passions, doesn’t really care, just wants to make a decent living and be the average joe and just die. He decides to major in some type of engineering, but doesn’t do so with passion. Graduates, ends up with mid-salary job and stays at that position til the day he retires. Sure, he “contributed” to society by not being a bum, but he hasn’t really done anything to make society any better. <<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>That engineering major, who would really rather be using his talents in building to be a sculptor, is told by his employer to design the bridge in your town…that eventually falls in when a school bus crosses it…That, of course, because he really didn’t have any passion for his job.</p>

[pandem]

<p>Jumping in here to make a comment to the above post: please. Engineers don’t randomly build bad bridges because they aren’t “passionate about it”. </p>

<p>Technical knowledge = not affected significantly by passion.</p>

[zapfino]

<p>Good column:</p>

<p>[Robert</a> D. Atkinson, Ph.D.: The Failure of American Higher Education](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>The Failure of American Higher Education | HuffPost College)</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

Unfortunately, for most college graduates and for most jobs (one exception being science and engineering jobs), it really doesn’t matter if they learn English literature or 20th century comic books. What does matter is if they acquire needed skills. And this kind of 21st century skill acquisition is at best something they pick up by chance in the course of learning about French literature or 20th century American politics. The result is that too many graduates have grown in knowledge on various subjects but not developed practical skills.</p>

<p>So, how do we change this? Here are three ideas. First, we need a national test that all college grads should take to measure skills competency. This wouldn’t measure whether you know that Adolph Hitler was Chancellor of Germany or other “facts,” but rather skills like logic, reasoning, basic writing and math, etc.

</p>

<p>My fundamental agreement with the article: people do too much wishy washy junk in the American system, and aren’t held to actually having the important skills that matter. College is treated not as a means to really figuring out what you want to do and doing it, but rather as a place to “kinda grow and pick up skills” … </p>

<p>My fundamental disagreement: why send someone to a university with tons and tons of experts on topics in philosophy, literature, mathematics, engineering if you just want to certify them with basic skills? The real problem is that universities do not do an adequate job of checking kids are extremely smart before entering them. We need a baseline standardized testing mechanism that enforces higher standards in high school, which is where you’re meant to get strong basic reading, writing, and thinking skills. College is a place you should be able to further the skills you want to further by exploring topics you want <em>IN DETAIL</em> with an expert. Then, graduate school should be (as it is correctly done in the U.S.!) for overspecializing in a <em>specific</em> topic for professional or personal reasons.</p>

[rocket6louise]

<p>I really think both Liberal Arts and more career-centered majors are good and necessary in society.</p>

<p>I plan on going to a LAC(Smith) and will probably major in Anthropology or Jewish Studies or maybe even study of Women and Gender coupled with Middle East Studies. I want to go abroad and work in humanitarian aid. The Liberal Arts are the ONLY majors that make sense for ME. Sure, I’m worried about not having a career ready made, but I think the skills I’ll gain-like writing, analysis, and how to LEARN, will last me a lifetime and make me a very adaptable worker.</p>

<p>On the flip side, one of my very best friends is going to be majoring in Chemical Engineering. She wants job security and doesn’t want to have to carve out a career. Her skills will be useful for a number of things, as society basically always needs engineers. She is also worried about NOT being flexible enough of an employee. She worries about not having the writing skills or the humanities knowledge to get her through life. But, she also thinks the Engineering could open many doors for her. </p>

<p>See, each has it’s pros and cons and each has it’s place in society. We need both to make the world go round, so the loss of liberal arts is VERY troubling for someone like me. We need the thinkers and the problem solvers if we want to progress as a society.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>^^^^^^^^</p>

<p>You have a very incorrect assumption that “thinkers and problem solvers” are unique to the Liberal Arts - which is completely untrue.</p>

<p>Before you make that kind of assertion, you first must provide some parameters of what problems you feel need to be solved, and what skills you feel are necessary to solve them.</p>

<p>“Problem solving” to “progress society” is not only vague and general, but it ignores very basic logic. Considering that the very nature of engineering (the example you provided) is rooted in problem solving, and the direct application to any science also has a direct problem solving conclusion.</p>

<p>Another very severe misconception you make is the is a correlation between problems solved and majors. Some majors provide practical skills - others do not (Liberal Arts), however it would be very arrogant to imply that the people who aren’t equipped with practical skills would then in turn be the ones to solve societies problems. There is a major breakdown in logic there.</p>

<p>In fact, the majority of discoveries, inventions, “Eureka” moments that have progressed society have been rooted in engineering, mathematics and the sciences.</p>

<p>An engineer or scientist is just as capable of providing the same skills (if you want to call them that) as a Liberal Arts major, yet the same is not true in reverse.</p>

<p>If I’m an engineer and want to brush up on my writing skills, I can just go down to a community college and take some writing courses, or some other easy and efficient way of acquiring the skills. To write acceptably in standard business environments does not take much effort and it’s an easy “skill” to learn or be trained in. Basically, the learning curve for writing is extremely low - but the learning curve for engineering/science is extremely high.</p>

<p>Again, what problems need to be solved in your opinion?</p>

<p>Most of these major issues in society can only be solved via scientific advances - not liberal arts style methods.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<h2>She is also worried about NOT being flexible enough of an employee. She worries about not having the writing skills or the humanities knowledge to get her through life. ~ Rocket6louise</h2>

<p>If your “friend” is worried about writing, she should just take some writing courses in college - problem solved.</p>

<p>lol - what is humanities knowledge needed to get through life?</p>

<p>I’ve been in the workforce, in multiple environments and never have I been asked to provide humanity knowledge - whatever that is.</p>