International students seem to be a much bigger presence in PhD programs compared to undergraduate programs, probably because of financial accessibility. International undergraduate students are much more likely to be from the tippy top SES ranges of their home countries in order to afford attending a US university as an undergraduate. The PhD students on full ride stipends may be from the higher SES ranges (who tend to have more access to undergraduate education in most countries) but are not limited to the tippy top SES ranges.
This sounds like the makings of a new thread.
2 Likes
I think a degree in history (without debt) is a luxury consumption. The most direct path out of debt ( and to a higher income bracket than your parents) is to pursue a degree with solid job opportunities and a higher starting salary.
My DD23 and I just had this conversation- should she pursue business or computer science because it will have a higher starting salary or something more liberal arts like Communications? / lucky for her I have an accounting degree and earn enough money to pay for her high cost liberal arts degree. I was a first gen college grad and was more practical about my choices than apparently she needs to be. Certainly a luxury I did not have.
Going into debt for a BA liberal arts education is very risky. It does work out for some for sure … and doing something you enjoy should absolutely be part of the picture but not enough realism is often put into the process at lower income levels. Kinda like buying the house of your dreams with a mortgage you can’t afford.
Some of the most successful (financial and otherwise) people I know have history degrees. Understanding and applying the lessons of the past is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
5 Likes
Right, but my question was not whether or not a degree in history is a luxury consumption. I asked why pursuing that degree is talked about as a luxury when having two Volvos (or 2 Toyotas or whatever) is described as a normal aspiration that most people want. I am suggesting that both might be luxury consumptions and it is in the eye of the beholder which is more important for them to consume. Probably most people crave some sort of luxuries in their life and that is fine. I’ll take mine in books and education. Others might find luxury in sports cars and designer clothing. That’s great for them. If one is self-indulgent, the other is as well (I think).
3 Likes
Oh probably though most people whom I know seem to be doing things that interest them for work. It certainly helps to be someone who has a clear preference for books over cars. I would be miserable without the former and I am mostly uninterested in the latter. Yes, I am very fortunate. And I fully admit that I might have a problem if I craved both the books and the expensive car! And it is lovely that the library will give me the first for free. 
Besides most of the threads on CC seem to be about “exceptional” students or at least a lot of time is spent talking about kids who will likely end up having a lot of options in their lives.
@mtmimd while I do know people with history degrees that are very successful/ it usually come with another more professional oriented degree after undergrad…… and that costs money! If school was free maybe we would ( and could) have more history majors but in America the high cost of school is a deterrent to this lofty goal. Those that pursue it with debt in my opinion are taking a big gamble. It’s actually unfortunate… I wish the entire country could chose to pursue higher learning without regard to finances - and everyone should travel to poorer places or places that don’t value freedom so we all would have more respect what we do have in this country - but life in the US costs a lot of money/ and working is hard / I agree it’s Important to follow a path that you enjoy but too many adults with college degrees complain about outcomes and debt without understanding that certain professions naturally make more than others.
I agree that college is too expensive. But even it it were free, I suspect the same people would be leveling the same criticisms. The focus is almost always on “return” side of the ROI calculation.
To oversimplify, many view higher education as vocational school. Develop a particularized marketable skill. Get a job. Prosper. But the US liberal arts approach was never meant to be vocational. It is meant to more broadly prepare students for a variety of potential occupations and situations, not just the requirements of one particular job. Students aren’t trained to be cogs. They are educated to be flexible, adaptable, proactive.
To paraphrase one university President, a liberal arts education prepares students for their sixth job, not their first job. This is the strength of the system, not the weakness. To write this off as a “luxury” is, IMO, not only misguided, it strips the system of its primary strength.
4 Likes
Is the professor going to pay the bills as they live through the first five jobs?
I mean, one could make that statement about any education - a LAC or otherwise.
And PS - I’m not against a liberal arts education - if that’s what someone chooses - but I do think many/most liberal art grads (by major, not college) will face a tougher future than a pre professional grad.
And I think LACs, including top ones, know this and offer things like CS, business, and more.
The cost and debt burden of higher education in the US may pressure students to prioritize the short term need to pay off the debt (i.e. the first job) rather than the long term (i.e. the sixth job).
1 Like
I think in the back of every history major’s mind is the probability that, if they don’t adequately explore every alternate career path open to them, they will wind up teaching in a public school system. That is a powerful incentive.
1 Like
Yes, and this is unfortunate.
Mmm, I’m not seeing much disagreement on that point.
2 Likes
I think so too.
1 Like
I understand this is tongue and cheek, but it is also indicative of the skewed priorities we currently have regarding higher education. Teaching young people about history ought be an esteemed profession. I have much more respect for those who aspire to be high school history teachers than I do the hordes of jockeying wannabe CS billionaires.
5 Likes
I said professor, but meant university president, although I don’t remember off-hand which one. Aside from that, I think perhaps you missed the point.
3 Likes
Brian Moynihan CEO Bank America graduated from Brown with a history concentration.
David Salomon CEO Goldman Sachs graduated from Hamilton as a Political Science major.
Jamie Dimon CEO JP Morgan graduated from Tufts as a psychology and economics major.
It may have taken several jobs but these liberal art graduates seemed to land ok😀
4 Likes
The only trouble with such lists is there are so many incredibly successful people (famous or not) who studied “worthless” liberal arts subjects that any such list barely scratches the surface.
So I just go with Conan O’Brien as the catch-all. 
Not many people are going to become CEOs of big companies, regardless of college or major. Most high school and college students are not going to think that they will become a CEO of a big company, so they are likely to consider how college or major affects more realistic outcomes other than the super reach ones like CEO of a big company.
In any case, to get to the long term, one must get past the short term. A student from a low SES family often needs assurance that paying off student loans is possible after graduation. A student from a high SES family often wants an income after graduation high enough to move out of the parents’ basement into a situation with the living standard grown up with. The latter may have the option to delay gratification, but the former is still bound by the debt repayment schedule. In other words, delayed gratification may be a privilege of the high SES in having basic needs met and no imminent fear of the debt collector.
1 Like
Love this. Yes.
1 Like