The US has academic majors which everywhere else in the world are considered vocational certificate programs, such as criminal justice. Part of our over-credentialing problem.
3 Likes
Some majors will always be deemed “worthy” by many people because they lead to direct employment (of course you need to like the job): nursing, education, engineering, etc. These majors are self explanatory.
Students/graduates majoring in history, psychology, biology, sociology etc are often asked what they plan to do with the major (work, grad school) or what they are currently doing with their degree. People might determine “worthiness” depending on how the student/graduate answers the question, and whether it satisfies their personal definition of success.
If somebody is a happy and self supportive sociology major…then IMO their choice of major was “worthy” for them.
5 Likes
I think awareness, not worthiness is a crucial distinction. Maybe there are no “bad” majors, but there are majors that are over-saturated and have poor job outcomes as a result. Historically, universities met the needs of society. Land Grant schools were in response to the industrial revolution and meant to train students in the practical fields of agriculture, engineering, and sciences (without excluding the liberal arts). Many directional colleges began as teacher colleges to meet a need. With the reduction in state funding, modern colleges have become more consumer-oriented. They offer the majors students want regardless of society’s needs.
I do believe that academic study is inherently valuable. I think our society is best served when people follow their passions. But, I don’t think you want a four-year college passion to become a decades-long career disappointment. I’ve seen some very unhappy college grads who can’t find a job in their field, or who can’t find a job that allows them to buy a house, raise a family and obtain financial security. Parents need to help their kids understand the realities and perhaps find a balance between the present (college) and the future (career) so that both are satisfying.
5 Likes
I rarely if ever post a disagreement; I just keep scrolling as everyone is entitled to their opinion. However I really feel compelled to respond to say I disagree wholeheartedly. I happen to know people who have Doctorates in music including oboe. Who am I, or anyone, to say it’s an unworthy endeavor? The performing arts are a passion for so many. I would not call the pursuit of knowledge unworthy. Worth, like beauty, is really in the eye of the beholder.
I honestly never understood the passion for the arts until I had children. I wanted them to follow a more “direct” path from college to a great job with benefits. They’ve enjoyed performing arts and my life is richer having been a part of that.
My only advice to any new student is go into this with your eyes wide open. Read about career paths for your chosen major(s). Talk to graduates or other students if possible. Understand debt if that’s required for your college journey. Is the total cost of attendance affordable? Would those 4 years be “worth” it to you? And that’s however you define it.
7 Likes
Most college majors are worthy for someone.
Should families take on major debt for a program that is unlikely to lead to a lucrative career? That seems like poor financial planning, but that doesn’t mean that program is an unworthy major for someone else who doesn’t have to take on debt.
You don’t know anyone else’s finances or paths. I happen to know folks who have well-paying careers in the arts (yes, they own their own homes and everything) and I have a good friend who majored in sociology and has an excellent job leading survey research for a major independent nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving the human condition — good pay, good benefits, owns her own home, etc.
Most of my kids teachers had degrees in things like English, and History, and Math. Is teaching not a “worthy” profession now?
1 Like
I totally agree, as long as that doctoral student is self-funding, either by enrolling in a fully-funded program, or by paying out of pocket. But, where society should have a say is when such student requires societal loan guarantees to pursue their personal passion. (Approximately half of federal student debt are grad/professional school loans.)
“Understand debt if that’s required for your college journey.” That’s a nice ideal, but it is virtually impossible for any 18-year olds to have any understanding of what $100k of debt will do to their future lives.
3 Likes
1 of D24’s music teachers at school ages ago got a doctorate in playing the oboe. Good for that teacher, whatever floats your boat.
But if I am footing the bill for MY kid’s education, I am not willing to pay $100k or more for a doctorate in playing ANY instrument. And if a student decides to go to grad school to get a doctorate in oboe playing and is going to go into debt for that, well, I think that’s just…not a very wise financial decision, to put it mildly. Of course, I’m also not willing to pay for my kids’ graduate school education, should they decide to pursue it.
Your mileage may vary.
3 Likes
Are you suggesting doctors are not worthy because they very very often require a LOT of federally funded loans?
One of my kids was a performing arts major who is earning a living as a performing arts person.
The other was an engineering major who decide they hated the prospect of working as an engineer. So I guess for that student, the engineering major wasn’t “worthy”. That kid has found a different profession and will be fine. But point is…the undergrad “worthy” major was not for this student. At all.
3 Likes
The problem is that people seem to have forgotten one of the main purposes of having an education.
That purpose is having an education.
Time was that it was all about class. The gentry and aristocracy gave their kids an education, while the working people trained their kids to do the jobs that kept the world running, and, more importantly, allowed the upper classes to maintain their quality of life.
Things changed, and education was democratized. However, the old classicist concept that “an education” is a luxury item and therefore frivolous for “working class”, paired with widespread American populist reverse snobbery has made the idea of “an education” seem a waste of time and money, compared to vocational training.
That is why any major which can be considered “vocational training” is considered “worthy” by people who have that idea of “an education” as being frivolous. Engineering would be vocational, lab work, etc. On the other hand, the humanities are frivolous, the arts are frivolous, and, for many, pure sciences are frivolous. The minions of fossil fuel companies like painting ecology and environmental sciences as “frivolous”, and the extreme fundamentalist religious movements try to do the same to astrophysics, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. In fact, any groups who feel that their philosophy is threatened some aspects of reality will attack the scientists who study those aspects of reality as being “frivolous”.
In a country in which 75% of all education is public, labeling a field as “frivolous” can be destructive to that field, or even fatal. That is why teaching evolution has been banned in the past, that is why climate research and conservation research has been under attack. They were first labelled as being a waste of money.
So in my experience, the labels of “worthy” and “not worthy” are almost always attached to one of two concepts. The first is “do the lower classes need this in order to serve better?”, and the second is “will this push people to question the claims of our group?”
Because of continuing reverse snobbery in the USA, the former is often taken up with pride “we don’t need this to do our job, so it’s a waste!”.
BTW, I think that reverse snobbery is not bad, if it’s limited. It only becomes bad when it either it becomes the center of somebody’s identity, or when it is the result of manipulation by the ruling class in order to keep the working class happy a the situation which is to the disadvantage of the lower income people. In the USA, the former is much more common, while in the UK, we see a lot more of the latter.
My point is that an education and training are both critical, and that nothing is frivolous.
8 Likes
Nope, I’m suggesting that society should have a say on what education ‘majors’ we choose to fund, particularly at the grad level.
2 Likes
Too bad. If, as you have repeatedly claimed, reputable colleges are doing students a disservice by allowing unprepared students with weak academic skills to graduate in bogus, pseudo-academic fields of study, then we ought to at least let these families know which majors and/or reputable colleges to avoid.
Also, while it may not have been your intent, by not naming names you have effectively denied those who might disagree a chance to directly vet your views on these majors.
Why not lay your cards on the table so that those who might disagree can respond?
Every baccalaureate major of which I am aware could easily satisfy each criterion, provided that the major was made “rigorous” enough. Would it be fair to say that your concerns have less to do with the substantive field of study and more to do with the rigor required to earn a degree?
Is that what this is really about? Outside of certain fields of study, you don’t think college is rigorous enough?
1 Like
Presumably all of us would enjoying studying all sorts of topics for free. However, we do not have free higher education; those interested in studying either self-finance ( often with family support) or take government subsidized loans to do so, which the rest of us are in effect paying for. If tomorrow I decided to pursue another degree for my intellectual interest ( why not?), I would not ask you to help pay for it. I would rather you help pay for child care or health care or the numerous other burdens in this country which are not discretionary.
I am happy to pay for free public K12 education, and free community college, and help subsidize public universities. But my commitment to anyone’s intellectual journey ends at a bachelor’s degree, and frankly, only for those bachelor’s degrees which will likely not result in default.
2 Likes
Define “society”.
1 Like
I, for one, am more than happy to “subsidize” loans for people who pursue the arts. But I don’t look at it as a “subsidy”. While I am a full pay parent, I don’t get to decide what majors other people take because they take out Federal loans. Personal loans, in other words, don’t come with control over people’s individual life choices.
IMO, personal responsibility is key to most careers.
We have one group in our family who is in the arts ( various arts in fact including visual, music and theatre) as a group they are very successful. The work is different but the pay can be high if talent and follow-through is there. Do the arts work out for all? No, but I have a friend who was an accountant and could not keep a job. She’s now a Doctor with a practice who also does research and teaches. People need to find their niche and also find what they can make a living at. There is no magic formula.
My kids lean toward STEM and the practical ( those jobs everyone says “That’s great” rather than “What’s that/What are you going to do with that?”). Doesn’t mean their choices are more “worthy” than anyone else’s.
Education, IMO has a few facets:
- Broadening the mind.
and - Giving someone the creds for a vocation/job.
Some people a major that only taps into one of those skills. Some tap into both. IMO, it’s better to tap into both. But I know many people who have taken a course of study that is purely #1 or #2 and they are happy with their path.
2 Likes
We pay for so much via our taxes. This includes arts programs, so many Federal and state programs and I’m sure you support some and don’t want to support others. We have no way to opt out. So while I can appreciate that you might not like it, I don’t think Federal programs will ever be a menu where you can pick and chose at will.
I agree with you on grad school. H and I are unwilling to pay beyond the undergraduate level but not because it would be unworthy. Nor would I recommend $100K debt for it.
Just curious as to why you singled out the doctorate in 1 instrument initially as being unworthy.
1 Like
Because it was a concrete example that I had come across in my personal life and it came to mind in the moment.
I feel the same way about ANY doctorate in a musical instrument.
I think society as a whole benefits from having a well-educated citizenry consisting of people who have the ability to think critically, debate civilly, and empathize with fellow citizens. In the ideal world, the seeds of those skills are planted early in a child’s education, but I think that often they don’t come to fruition until students are young adults with developed frontal lobes. And honing those skills can happen through the study of many different subjects --I actually agree that pursuing a bachelor’s degree and beyond should require rigorous study, but I think my definition of rigor is probably different than some people.
I get the sense that some define rigor as study that weeds out the “unprepared” or distinguishes between “worthy” and “unworthy” subject matter. In my mind, rigorous does = challenging, but it doesn’t have to mean elite or only for the “cream of the crop.” Rather, I define rigorous study as that which broadens the mind and pushes the student to look beyond easy and obvious answers. Not everyone is interested in that sort of study so I don’t think everyone has to pursue that sort of education. I actually think it is unhealthy for students who aren’t truly interested in college to be pushed into college when they don’t want to go or before they are ready.
Still, I also don’t think that higher education is a luxury that should only be afforded the wealthy or that poor people should only be encouraged towards practical vocations. I think that would ultimately be dangerous or detrimental to a healthy society because we can’t predict other people’s educational paths with that much accuracy. We have no idea what sparks might be lit unexpectedly or innovations might be born when all students who wish have the freedom to pursue a rigorous education. I think it may even be necessary for societal health for people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to access that sort of “rigorous” education. So yes, I think that it is in society’s best interest to subsidize colleges and universities.
7 Likes
I agree with you 1,000%. I also think the decline of people taking liberal arts and exploring and respecting other fields also corresponded with a couple of decades of people who are unable to appreciate a different viewpoint. I often wonder if it’s college pushing kids further and further down the path of specificity that now keeps us most of us from being balanced in multiple fields. Or, worse someone thinking their field is best/more important than someone else’s.
While, I’m not one to push someone to take something they have no interest in, I think we have an issue when we deem some things worthy and some not. IMO, we need everyone studying everything to make the world move forward.
We just don’t know which fields will be valuable to future life on earth. And we never know what is going to transform society. Lots of subjects are yet to be discovered. So we need everyone to pursue their passions and interests.
7 Likes