<p>I'm an incoming Harvard freshman, and given the state of the economy, I've recently been contemplating some of the concentrations (mainly in the humanities and social sciences) that I'm interested in pursuing. I've perused other threads concerning the practicality of certain majors over others (and I can claim to have witnessed some of the ugly STEM vs. Liberal Arts wars that seem to be ubiquitous these days) and I'd like to ask: if a concentration does not directly lead into a career (except perhaps in academia), then what is the value of pursuing that field of study? Is the joy of studying something you love truly worth the price of the possibility of unemployment or underemployment? Furthermore, even though I hear about Harvard students who end up at Wall Street after studying English and other non-practical humanities subjects, how wise would it be for the average Harvard student to rely solely on internships and "networking" (how easy is it for the average Harvard student to "network" anyways?) and not on the real-world applicability of one's concentration itself when trying to land a job after college (assuming that one doesn't want to go to any sort of graduate school right away)?</p>
<p>I've browsed the websites of various departments, and I notice that not only do some concentrations (such as computer science and applied mathematics) clearly state that job prospects are very favorable for students in those fields of study, but they also back up their claims with numerous worthwhile examples of successful alumni and of organizations/firms where alumni have gone on to work. On the other hand, other concentrations (such as East Asian Studies, for example) simply state, in general terms, that alumni have gone on to careers in certain fields. Furthermore, some concentrations (such as History of Art and Architecture) don't state anything at all in regards job prospects. These observations, along with the current state of the job market, make me wonder whether the personal enrichment factor of a liberal arts concentration is good enough to look over a natural science or engineering concentration that teaches skills which have immediate real-world application (as opposed to vague skills such as "critical thinking" for which the liberal arts are usually praised).</p>
<p>I'm not one to indiscriminately denounce college students for whom vocational prospects don't constitute a primary concern in college (and I don't believe that all humanities students will starve to death), but really, does going to Harvard somehow insulate liberal arts majors from some of the unemployment that frequently affects hundreds of college graduates nationwide? I'd like to study something that I truly enjoy, but I wouldn't want to be blinded into thinking that the Harvard name and whatever connections I make in college would be enough to obtain a successful career. I don't come from a family of very wealthy means, which is why this is a pressing concern for me.</p>
<p>In addition, I've also been told on numerous occasions that the natural sciences are almost always more intellectually rigorous than the humanities and social sciences, something that I think would be true at most colleges in the United States but perhaps not true at a place like Harvard. Being someone who naturally inclines towards the liberal arts, I feel that such a belief undermines the work of many students in the humanities and social sciences who are pursuing demanding work at top universities. I'd love to hear the opinions of some current students in regards to this this idea.</p>
<p>While it’s true that some majors can more directly lead to employment in that field, for others, it’s the person who gets hired, not the major. Not the sequence of courses. A dedicated student in the humanities or social sciences is going to learn far more than the subject material. In theory, that’s critical thinking, analytical and writing skills , non-lab research, etc. As well as project management and, often, the ability to read others, defend a position and practice persuasive skills. And so much more.</p>
<p>It does seem that some colleges can harbor lots of humanities/ss majors who find the work easier- that’s more a superficial commitment in the student. </p>
<p>I was an ss major and spent most of my career in an engineering field. Whatever you choose, it’s wise to keep up the additional skills that can lead to jobs- spend summers wisely, keep up on higher level computer and math experiences. Good luck.</p>
<p>There has always been a big problem at the heart of Harvard’s selectivity. They reward people who have never made a mistake and always come out on top, and some portion of the students they get are wussies who are petrified that they might make a mistake, or somehow fall short in comparison with someone else.</p>
<p>I can give you an admittedly anecdotal response - Of many students I’ve known that have been recently hired into tech jobs (such as three at Google) all were English or humanities majors from Liberal Arts programs. There are a ton of people out there who can write code; the new tech world needs good thinking and good writing as well.</p>
<p>If I were going to stereotype H kids, it wouldn’t be “never made a mistake and always come out on top.” It would be based on the level of challenges they take on and their resiliance.</p>
<p>I realized later that OP alread bit into “vague skills such as “critical thinking” for which the liberal arts are usually praised.” The value of crit thinking is something you can’t always see, at the starting gate. It’s a characteristic that’s common to many top dogs out there and quite different than technical proficiency. It’s the ability to take multiple inputs and effectively weigh them, choose direction, and so much more.</p>
<p>Not all kids graduate with that. Are chances better at Harvard? Not necessarily. The opportunity is there in spades, but many kids will still focus on more measurable results- ie, do the work, comment a bit in class, and wait for the grade.</p>
<p>My issue with statistical studies about unemployment and salaries is that they rarely can factor in the role of the individual- or even sort by the level of colleges, kids’ experiences or the job search approach. In any pool of x grads in some major, a portion will be driven, polished and think expansively- eg, apply to Google, confident of what they offer, how they can slot in, with the ability to interview and the smarts to fuction there.</p>
<p>Btw rather than check what a dept touts about grads’ job successes, OP can go to the web sites of the respective professonal orgs and see what breadth of opps there are.</p>
<p>Current Harvard student here, with a non-STEM concentration. You seem to have a pretty reasonable take on the “Humanities vs STEM” dichotomy that always pops up on these forums–much more reasonable than I usually see. But as someone who has wrestled with this issue a lot myself, let me add a few things:</p>
<p>It’s easy to overestimate how much more employable STEM concentrations are. Despite the career focused inclinations of most of its students, Harvard ostensibly tries to avoid pre-professional concentrations. Thus, there are very few concentrations at Harvard that, in and of themselves, directly prepare you for a non-academic career. At the very least, you would have to take the “S” and “M” out of “STEM.” Science and pure math concentrations at Harvard impart tangible skills, certainly, but not skills that directly put you on a “track” to a job. A chemistry concentrator may go to work for a pharmaceutics company, but is that so different from a government concentrator going to work for the State Department? There is no “pre-____” or “accounting” major at Harvard. Engineering and CS are probably the only exceptions.</p>
<p>A better way to look at the difference between STEM and non-STEM is that the skills of non-STEM concentrators are less readily apparent. This is because a chemistry grad from Harvard can be assumed to know some level of chemistry without which it would be impossible to do the coursework that he/she did. But you can’t assume much of anything about a government grad. Do they have a theoretical or practical background? Do they have a regional specialty? Do they have any experience -doing- anything? Do they have auxiliary skills like statistics or languages? </p>
<p>The challenge facing non-STEM concentrators is to answer those questions for their prospective employers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would put very little stock in the department websites of the various concentrations. For the few concentrations I’ve dealt with, making their undergraduate websites informative and helpful isn’t exactly a high priority. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Insulate? No. If you squander all your opportunities at Harvard, it’s like squandering all your opportunities anywhere.</p>
<p>But Harvard makes a ton of resources available to the non-STEM concentrator for answering those questions I mentioned above. At Harvard, no one -just- does their concentration. I’m a Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations concentrator, but if that were -all- that I did, I’d be in trouble. Harvard allows you to broaden your skillset, in both tangible and intangible ways, and I suspect that’s the advantage that we (and other top schools) have over schools with fewer resources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, do all the non-STEM concentrators have trust funds to back them up if they end up unemployable? Obviously I’m exaggerating and putting words in your mouth, but this was a concern for me too. Honestly, if you’re worried about your financial situation after graduation, STEM vs non-STEM isn’t going to be the issue. I can show you plenty of ways to end up unemployed with a STEM concentration. </p>
<p>The issue, rather, is making sure you acquire a career plan at some point and take concrete steps to advance it. You can do this whatever your concentration is. Also keep in mind that you’ll probably do better at things that you truly enjoy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ve all heard this, and you’ll hear this probably for the rest of your life. I can’t speak for other schools but at Harvard it’s sort of based in fact, but not really. A better way to think of it is that natural sciences are more difficult on the bottom end. In other words, it’s much harder to do poorly in humanities and social science classes. The brightest students at Harvard will go to humanities and STEM alike, and they’ll have no shortage of intellectual rigor in their four years. But you can also “get by” in a government or econ class. You can’t really “get by” in orgo.</p>
<p>If you’ll indulge a bit of autobiography, I think I can tie together the otherwise scattered suggestions I’ve given above:</p>
<p>As I said, I’m a Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations concentrator. That title alone isn’t worth anything, because as I said, no employer can take that title and assume anything about my skills, except perhaps that I know something about the “Near East.” So, the burden fell on me to 1. identify a career path I wanted to pursue and 2. take tangible steps to advance it. So when I went to apply for jobs, I could say (figuratively): “sure, my concentration may not mean much to you, but here’s what else I’ve been doing”</p>
<p>For me, that meant deciding “Hey, I wanna work for the government in a foreign policy context.” The steps were getting really good at Arabic, studying abroad in a Middle Eastern country, doing research around a tangible and coherent subject, and interning at a government agency. As a rising senior, I’m expecting a job offer at the agency at which I interned, in spite of my supposedly unenemployable concentration. If I had a different career goal, such as wall street, I would have taken very different steps. Keep in mind nothing prevents you from doing a humanities concentration with a secondary in CS, if you think you would benefit from some tangible CS skills. (Hint: you would.)</p>
<p>Looking back on this post it’s quite rambly and I’ll probably want to delete it tomorrow, but I hope it helps somewhat to nuance the whole STEM debate a little bit.</p>
<p>DE’s post is pretty great; I’d definitely agree that the STEM majors at Harvard are not pre-professional. You’ve matriculated at a liberal arts school, and almost every non-engineering major will reflect that. (Applied math and CS might both be exceptions, but those are the only two possible ones I can think of.) The STM kids need to hustle to get hireable resumes with real science work experience no less than the government kids need to hustle to get real government or whatever experience.</p>
<p>I will also add an anecdote and say that the most employable person I know is an English major. She’s an accomplished writer who is about to embark on a creative writing thesis. Impractical, right? But she’s also done term-time business stuff, having held positions where she was in charge of a hundred thousand dollars or so, which she’s leveraged into some really impressive internships. (Business all, no consulting or finance.) It would be a better example if she’d graduated already and gotten a full-time position, but I have no doubt one of the businesses she’s worked at and stays involved with part-time during the year will want to take her.</p>