<p>“Education is always good, imho. It is always the right way to go.”</p>
<p>I agree with most of that, but I take exception to “always.” </p>
<p>I got just a smidgen of liberal arts when I attended trade school at Arizona State many years ago. Those few classes went a long way in guiding my reading and self-study in the past 30 plus years. And trade school got me a job with a then-Big 8 public accounting firm.</p>
<p>If I had it to do over I would study classical languages. There’s absolutely no vocational value in such a pursuit but that’s not what education, as opposed to training, is about.</p>
<p>I won’t argue with anyone who doesn’t want any more education or who doesn’t want it at the present time in their lives. Education past the high school level isn’t for everyone and shouldn’t be. The problem we are seeing is the consequence of persuading millions of Americans that higher education is for everybody. Along with this idea came the implied or stated notion that a bachelor’s degree is the most important class marker used by society to determine who gets to live the good life.</p>
<p>Almost everyone wants to live to good life so increasing hordes of young Americans dutifully committed themselves to a course of study that many of them did not enjoy or even despised. And then the final joke was that when many more millions of young people made themselves special by getting a bachelor’s degree, the degree itself lost much of its specialness.</p>
<p>I don’t know the exact conclusions to draw from all of this but I do know that life is a struggle and education, for some of us, is a joy.</p>
<p>“Most people”? Who? That’s horridly vague. And just because “most people” think a certain way doesn’t make it correct. Math and science ARE part of the liberal arts, sorry.</p>
<p>I think a lot of that article and the general opinions of America are misguided. A college education is not supposed to be vocational school, if you want to learn a hard skill or trade, then there are other less time consuming and cheaper alternatives in place, but don’t degrade the college expertience because it did not live up to that. </p>
<p>What most people are overlooking is the importance of getting experience while in school and NETWORKING. I have no clue why people think sending their kids to (a great) school automatically qualifies them for a job. Sending you son or daughter to play in the sun all summer in some remote village, or letting them work at the mall is not going to contribute to their marketability. When I was in school, there were so many people BS’ing in the summer - some had that luxury, they either already had a well-connected network or rich parents, others learned later on that they did not and that they should have done something more practical with their time (sure being a camp counselor is a great feel good activity, but that shouldn’t be your only job for four summers). You need quality leadership and work experiences while in school - coming out of HS i secured a internship at a F100 in what basically is their leadership program and did that throughout college. I was a communications major and left school making more than many of the engineers you all laud. Practical experience trumps any major. I have friends who majored in art, English, sociology, classical studies, etc who work for top I-banks, consulting firms, F500 rotational programs, etc. I also have friends who were technical majors who went to “no-name” companies and are currently unhappy and underpaid, no particular major guarantees you anything.</p>
<p>I think the reason there is so much back and forth argument here is because both sides are arguing different things. </p>
<p>The Practical/Vocational side is trying to state that college is an investment and that you are entering upon it as a means to securing a good job. They are saying that they do not feel humanities or liberal arts degrees are a good investment, and also that they are not the be all and end all of attaining an education. They are saying while that vocational degrees are by definition degrees that train you to work, you are still going to receive an education beyond that, and even then you can still learn on your own. The degree does not define you or constrain you to one thing, but the degree will aid you outside of college.</p>
<p>The Liberal Arts side is arguing something different. They feel that education should not be a means to procuring a good job, but an experience. So when people come to colleges with the intent of being trained practically for the workforce, they are apart of a process of deterioration in which the initial value of universities is being lost. Schooling is about study, not making money. Yet, as a product of our society money has great influence and the luxury of an education is beginning to slip away. So what the pro-liberal arts people are getting at is that they see this as only adding to that deterioration, one which could ultimately destroy the idea of higher education itself.</p>
<p>So it is not an argument about:</p>
<p>How to Successfully Invest in College vs. The Benefits of Liberal Arts</p>
<p>but:</p>
<p>Why we need to invest in College vs. The Appreciation of Education in its purest sense</p>
<p>“some had that luxury, they either already had a well-connected network or rich parents, others learned later on that they did not and that they should have done something more practical with their time”</p>
<p>That got my attention. Yes, some students are misled into thinking they somehow share in all upper middle class privileges because they attend college among the children of the upper middle class. This is a very useful misconception for the marketers of colleges and universities.</p>
I think this was Yakyu’s point. What is printed on your diploma is not the only thing you can learn, but it is one of the few things you can learn that is verifiable by employers.
I think the boundaries of this thread have changed slightly. “Liberal arts” is now being redefined as “field that does not clearly correspond to a job”. I would argue that some fields of science do have at the very least a strong correlation to fields of employment. Sometimes it may require a graduate degree, but the point still stands.</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings on the topic. I deplore vocational pseudo-degrees that contain no real content. However, the holier-than-thou attitude of many liberal arts devotees in this thread is revolting. The implication that learning something useful somehow requires less critical thought than something unpractical is just plain wrong.</p>
Which are? Honestly I don’t think this is that big of a problem. A far bigger problem is people getting <em>some</em> liberal arts degrees that are extremely poor investments (not even counting opportunity costs).</p>
<p>And realize it’s not the people at top liberal arts colleges with 98th percentile intellects. It’s those middle schools with 75th-85th percentile intellects. Those are the people that are truly hurt by getting a degree which doesn’t help them get a job. I don’t worry about smart people getting a job ever.</p>
<p>^ I would say that “business administration” or “management” in general is only suitable for a minor and not a major. In order to run a business, their should be some sort of content attributable to the business. Those interested in the technical or legal aspects of a business should major in accounting, finance, or law.</p>
<p>I really dislike labelling people by test scores. But it does raise an interesting point: people driven to achieve will achieve regardless of their major. But if someone has no true broad intellectual curiosity, then I would NOT recommend a LA path for that person – they are better off using college as job training.</p>
<p>I would change “smart people” to “motivated people” and encourage anyone who does have inner motivation to achieve to take the long view: pursue your passion during your college years and have faith that you will make your way in the world over time. </p>
<p>I wonder if I am seen as one of those holier-than-thou LA devotees: funny, since the premise of this thread and many posts is on denying the worth of liberal arts. No apologies here for defending the ideal of college as a gathering place of mind and soul to explore great ideas.</p>
<p>Brabble, I like your synthesis of the opposing camp mindsets. Enjoy those college years!</p>
<p>I must admit I agree with Mr Payne here. Getting a WGS or ancient mythology degree from Podunk U really isn’t very useful (in both a career/job sense AND critical thinking sense). Again, though there are exceptions (there are always exceptions), someone with a WGS degree with SATs scores in the low/mid 500 range probably isn’t going to make great contributions to the field. That person would be better off studying marketing.</p>
<p>No, we’re not denying the worth of a liberal arts degree. We’re claiming that it’s a bad investment. A liberal arts degree is excellent for achieving a great education, but the vast majority of people can’t afford that luxury.</p>
<p>And, indeed, the range of this thread has changed. If we’re talking about strictly vocational majors, such as accounting and nursing, I’ll agree that those types of majors don’t do as good a job at achieving a well rounded education. However, if we’re including more career-minded liberal arts majors, such as math, science, engineering, and computer science (which are typically not thought of as liberal arts majors, DESPITE the definition of a liberal arts major), these majors do just as good a job at achieving a good education as the more traditional liberal arts majors like English and history.</p>
<p>“The 10% of americans don’t have a specific skill that they can utilize for a company. “Strong analytical skills, verbal skills, good speaking skills, etc.” these are all very vague. People need to study something practical that they can actually use to benefit an employer (or themselves) when they go to an undergrad college.” (collegebound_guy)</p>
<p>This statement is filled with a series of inaccurate assumptions. The 10% of unemployed people are not out of work because they did not major in business, engineering, etc. A year ago the united states economy fell apart because there was a correction in the housing market, financial markets took a hit, and banks began to fail. These slight catastrophes cost businesses as well as individuals a lot of money. As a result, companies cut high cost workers that they could survive without. I live on a street with several unemployed business, IT, and liberal arts majors who were simply expendable - not because they had “broad based skills,” but because they had too narrow a skills and could not shift to a more necessary position within the company. You would know this if you had a better understanding of macroeconomics - a liberal arts discipline. </p>
<p>I would just like to point out one other thing. For many jobs, it does not matter what to major in undergrad. You can’t teach business in school. Ask any business executive (I am related to a few) and they will tell you this. You learn business mostly on the job. There are a few disciplines that you have to major in undergrad like accounting. For the most part, just study a discipline you enjoy. Try to get good internships during the summer that will teach you marketable skills. If you really want to major in business. Fine. It won’t hurt you. However, I will point out that you’ll just be repeating it all when you get your MBA. But, do not stray away from liberal arts because you’re afraid of your employment prospects. In certain cases, a degree in math or economics where you have to build strong quantitative and analytical skills will be valued in the world of finance more than a business major - which sometimes lacks substance. The same goes for English and humanities majors. Human resource jobs are often given to such majors because they have strong communication skills. The rest is learned on the job. </p>
<p>Also, people often think about how much they get paid on their first job. Maybe business majors or engineers get paid more - who knows? But, it’s really better to think about your career. Most first jobs suck. But, if you have the skills to think critically, analyze data, build relationships, think creatively. You will do fine in this world regardless of your undergrad major. And, hopefully, you will be able to adapt when times get tough and not end up in that 10%. However, there are no guarantees in this world. I would hardly say that all the poor souls out of work could not adapt. Sometimes a bad economy is a bad economy and good people get the short end of the stick. Excuse any spelling errors.</p>
<p>I completely understand (and relate to) what you’re saying. My daughters–currently a junior and a senior at nice liberal arts colleges–are majoring in theater and archaeology/art history, respectively. While they’ve had a wonderful, mind-expanding education, I worry that they’ll return home post-graduation and embark upon a tour of duty, flipping burgers … until they figure out what to do with their excellent, very expensive educations. :(</p>
<p>^ Brabble, too bad it means you are doomed to a life on the dole! It seems you’ve chosen UC? Congrats!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I will directly challenge that as well. I think a liberal arts education IS also an excellent investment. First jobs are always tough. But any larger organization seeks to identify candidates for leadership/advancement. I encourage all students to explore what traits larger organizations value for leadershhip/advancement. Hint: it is not technical job competence.</p>
<p>The crushing costs of college tuition is sobering. I wouldn’t encourage any one, for any major, to take on major debt for an undergrad degree (unless parents can absorb the burden). This site is full of great threads on how to achieve a great education in an affordable way. It may not be the hot namebrand diploma, but great educations are there to be had and they ARE worthwhile.</p>
Also, I do not laugh at him. We are both much more somber because of this.</p>
Brabble, too bad it means you are doomed to a life on the dole! It seems you’ve chosen UC? Congrats!!!</p>