Certainly STEM majors are required to take a third of their transcript in non STEM classes of various kinds. If the reverse is an absurdity, why is this not an absurdity?
1 Like
Because much of STEM training is, after a certain level, specialized and vocational. It has very little practical application outside of the field. That is not necessarily the case outside of those fields. Take History (which you maligned above) as an example. Understanding history has much broader application, as does the thought process which goes into understanding history, discussing history, writing about history, etc.
2 Likes
Because about half of the time spent is typically in a lab. How many lab courses does the average person need to be considered well-educated?
2 Likes
He said numeracy.
Today’s world is vastly different than the past - it’s a quantitative, data driven world - and most social science majors have a statistics course.
It’s funny - my STEM son wants zero to do with humanities or non-science electives. His minor is geography - but he focuses on the atmospheric sciences part. His second minor but he’ll be a bit short credit wise was math. I think he tested out of all Humanities classes although I remember he did take a Women’s Studies class - and hated it.
My daughter, on the other hand, is/was counting down the quant classes. Since she didn’t do well on her AP Calc AB test, she required a class in college but it was too difficult and ended up withdrawing. She then had to take two “easier” classes. Science wise - she wants nothing to do with it and took a geology class at a CC over the summer and now needs to take the 2nd class (which she’ll also do over summer because it’s easier).
After that, she’ll need one stats class.
That’s it.
That’s not prepping anyone (IMHO) for today’s world.
Even fluff majors - like my marketing MBA - today it’s a whole different world, at an entirely quantitative level than it was 24 years ago. What that will look like in 24 years from now? That I don’t know.
Today, data moreso than intuition, derives decisions. Even in such old school industries as… professional sports.
So I agree with @neela1 in that respect. And that does worry me for my kid.
The world has changed - it’s not the same as it was when I was in school.
A long time ago on my first day of work a very highly regarded business leader welcomed us to our new careers and the firm.
I am paraphrasing but his message had a huge impact on me such that I remember it pretty clearly.
Now that you are here we will teach you what you need to know to be successful bankers, traders, sales people, etc. We didn’t hire finished products but instead hired people that can contribute to our culture and serve our clients.
The reason you are here and we are confident you will be successful is because you were selected based on our belief you possess the abilities, attributes and skills we can’t teach. Specifically you were hired based on your intellectual curiosity, capacity to analyze and synthesize information, ability to communicate in both written and spoken form, to be principled and are driven to learn and understand beyond your comfort zones.
These words were music to my ears as a previously low income pure liberal arts kid who had absolutely no practical skills. I think many top tier firms in certain industries still follow this approach and view themselves as best served by recruiting kids based on perceived capacity to grow and thrive versus arriving with a predefined professional skill set.
This clearly doesn’t apply for all industries or firms nor does it make sense for all kids but reading through this thread I think all posters share a grain of truth as long as they don’t attempt to generalize or extrapolate their views as universal.
7 Likes
Then there is also “the Fonz” himself. Henry Winkler’s parents were the mid-century version of “Tiger Parents;” recent immigrants, incredibly demanding, locked him in his room forcing him to study, calling him “dumb dog” (“dummer Hund”) for not being academically successful (turned out he had dyslexia.) Eventually ended up a theater major, which I guess in his case may have been worthwhile vocational training.
He also writes children’s book aimed at helping kids overcome their obstacles and be true to themselves, despite the obstacles (including overbearing parents). A great guy.
In the vast majority of cases, one need not devote 1/3 of their college education in order to grasp “numeracy”
2 Likes
After a long hiatus from the board I return to it to find that I am in almost complete agreement with everything @mtmind has had to say on this subject. That will be as shocking to her as it is to me. However, I admired her spirit then as now.
There is only one sovereign rule in life, and it applies as much to the choice of studies as it does to everything else a free human being does: You must follow your own spirit. And, yes, you will have to pay the price of your choices, whatever they may be. But there’s a corollary to the rule: In the end it all works out. Or at least it does for one who has, as the Bard put it, “to thine own self been true.”
It has been my observation in a fairly long life that things work out less well for those who distort their natures to do what others, even well-intentioned others, such as parents, tell them to do. The only paths worth following, the only lessons worth learning, are those you discover in your own tussle with existence. A liberal education, exposing us to the wisdom of all who have come before us, assists in that struggle. It functions as a gyroscope and a way of thinking, not a how-to-do-it manual. It causes us to think thoughts that have fallen into neglect. It is a corrective to our present-focussed era. It is the treasury of our civilization, containing “the best that has been thought and said.” It has always been endangered and always on the verge of extinction. Yet it is always awaiting rediscovery. At least until we become zombies incapable of thinking - or God puts out the light.
2 Likes
I wish we had the old emojis still available. I want to say more than the fact that I agree with your post, but also that I’m going to be stealing key parts of it. Someone call the Honor Board.
Isn’t journalism more of a pre-professional / vocational major, rather than a liberal arts major?
Isn’t economics a social science (not humanities), and is often used as a proxy business major by students at prestigious colleges aiming for management consulting and similar elite business jobs?
1 Like
I am not sure that I would attribute Gary Marshall’s eventual success as a creator of sitcoms to his “Pre professional” journalism degree (nor his first job as a joke writer) but we can disagree with civility. If he had become a journalist perhaps.
Unless you are going to be an economist an economics degree gives you few if any directly practical skills. It does however prepare the student to be thoughtful, communicate etc. I hardly view the study of economics as vocational to any greater extent than many soft sciences nor have the forms I have worked at. Once again my experience and opinion.
1 Like
Approximate H/A/SS requirements seem to be less than 33% in most colleges:
- MIT ~25%
- Columbia ~28-41%
- Chicago ~21-29%
- Brown ~0-13%
- California State Universities ~25%
However, math and science requirements are commonly lesser in volume than H/A/SS requirements.
- MIT ~28%
- Columbia ~12%
- Chicago ~14%
- Brown 0%
- California State Universities ~10%
Duke’s economics department does seem to cater to proxy business (particularly finance) majors with courses like ECON 235, 246S, 247S, 254, 255S, 256, 274, 281, 281A, 324A, 333, 372, 373, 374S, 375, 376, 377, 378, 381S, 382, 384, 471, 472S, 473, 474S, 476, 477, 512, 513, 571, 572, 581, 621, 623, 671, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 821, 823: Courses | Economics Department .
Are you suggesting I banks or management consulting firms are recruiting Duke Econ majors based on an assumption they have acquired Pre professional skills based on the course list you provided?
If so we will agree to disagree and at least in terms of I banking I am fairly confident. Disclaimer I do think prestige and alum network still have influence.
I go back to my prior post. I Banks recruit based on perceived intellectual ability, communication skills etc with an intention to leverage that skill set via training and targeted education (accounting, financial analysis, spread sheet training, trading scenarios, etc).
Never has been heard take the Econ major because we won’t have to train him/her. You always higher the best fit, smartest, curious and passionate candidate not the kid that took accounting 101. Frequently in practice that translates to the history, comparative religion or English major.
This article linked below is 6 years old but I think covers Wall Street well.
We all know the M in STEM is a wonderfully employable major and that Econ is a similarly quantitative discipline vs something like Classics or Sociology.
And let’s stop highlighting the .1% who had either good luck, an initial wealthy upbringing, or the ‘it factor’ vs the other 99.9%. Yes, anyone can become President but it’s more likely them than their education. They just have the ‘it’ factor as many leaders do.
And let’s stop saying but someone had an English major or Poli Sci major from wherever when they also had a JD from Notre Dame (as kids from 117 colleges come from in the current cycle including many not from perceived top colleges (sorry St. Bonaventure and more) or an Mba from Harvard (apologies Arizona State, LSU, Montana State, U Maine for inferring you are subpar to Brown, Vassar, Tufts and similar per this discussion…but hey you still represent)!!
Every college graduate in America has the same opportunity to apply for that Notre Dame JD or Harvard MBA. And that terminal degree and the education gained there likely is what led them to their position. Did that undergraduate education help ? Of course. Is 2022 the same ? Nope. Today you need to work for a few years to get into a top 50 mba and this is happening more and more at top law schools. So that Sociology major or Classics major still has to land a job (not well paying) to advance to that next level. I hope they are but I don’t believe they are based on the school parent Facebook groups I’m in.
2 Likes
This thread is going around in circles because I posted exactly what you just wrote 180 posts ago:
Sorry - it’s a long chain - and yes it is - because in the end, what defines an LAC/LAU is in the eye of the beholder 
The “other 99.9 percent” includes plenty of people who have been extremely successful in a variety of occupations, including law and business. Their History, Political Science, and English Lit degrees provide a terrific foundation for success not only in law school or business school, but in practice as well. That is the strength of a liberal arts education. Yet your precontrived analysis biases the sample by throwing out the results of many of those who have become highly successful.
No one is disagreeing that first jobs out of undergrad pay better in vocational fields. But that’s not the point of a liberal arts education.
3 Likes
How’s this for an heretical thought - being successful includes more than financial accomplishment. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
2 Likes
I came into this thread with my opinion largely formulated based upon my first hand observations and experiences during a long career on Wall Street. Now having been enlightened by a 6 year old article and the persuasive non first hand impressions of others I have changed my mind.
I now believe as suggested that any liberal arts student pursuing their degree at a school better known for partying versus academics is bordering on unemployable. It it sad for me to reach this conclusion as a LAC alum but that is a great thing about CC. You can learn from other posters and allow their experiences to enlighten you.
Thankfully my kids are gainfully employed (although I try not to be self indulgent and focus on my kids) because I pity the soon to graduate liberal arts kid.
Sorry @mtmind and @circuitrider you have lost me.