<p>"Well, I would say that with a paycheck that every college graduate should be able to make this is not a problem."</p>
<p>Are you referring to the lack of health insurance mentioned in the previous post? If so, you are seriously misinformed.</p>
<p>"Mammall--here's where your position doesn't work for me: I was an English major. I enjoyed it immensely, and the amount of work I did (I'm guessing 80+ credits UG, plus a master's,) could not have been accomplished nibbling at the edges. You don't write scores, sometimes hundreds of pages in a semester, plus read thousands of pages, at the edges, and experiencing this rigor teaches you in a way that not doing so doesn't."</p>
<p>Yes--the idea that casually reading Jane Austen equates in any way to the depth of thought and learning involved in being a graduate student in English or or an English major in a rigorous program is ridiculous. But it is a view which is all too often held by those who think that because they can read and write reasonably competently they can do everything that a person talented in and dedicated to the study of literature does. </p>
<p>I am a fellow English major and graduate student, although I scored a 760 on the math portion of the GRE. I am perfectly capable of reading articles in Scientific American and Discover and being interested in them...and even understanding them to some degree. <g> I have taken programming courses in Assembler, and received an A. But I am not foolish enough to assume that I am doing anything other than dabbling, as an intelligent person is wont to do. Nibbling around the edges is just that.</g></p>
<p>Can I just point out that it's silly to argue about which skills or areas are more useful!?! Clearly a person can't be successful without having acquired some practical skills (by practical, I don't mean math or computer related necessarily, but nursing, architecture, management, anything!), but at the same time, nobody is denying the importance of learning about history or literature or art. By no means is my mom saying that liberal arts aren't important or necessary, she's only encouraging the incorporation of practical skills in a liberal arts courseload. </p>
<p>It takes a combination of both technical and intellectual development for a person to be successful. Some people choose to pursue both at the same time (what my mother advocates) by majoring in a technical field in college, and maybe minoring in sociology or getting that liberal arts experience through core courses or individual study. Others choose to focus solely on their intellectual development in college, and then learn those technical skills after in grad school or maybe even well into their adult years. </p>
<p>It all comes down to what works best for each person and how he or she chooses to manage time. I don't think it's fair to argue that majoring in liberal arts is a waste of money and time--those who prioritize intellectual development above everything else and have the means to do so are entitled. I also think it's ridiculous to assume that those lucky kids that are ready to delve into their careers at an early age are freakish or weird. </p>
<p>Basically, this discussion has become very polarized, and both sides of the issue have been taken to the extreme. I believe that when it comes to liberal arts majors vs. pre-professional ones, like in everything else, the truth lies in the middle.</p>
<p>Nice job, sis, good "democratizing" ;)</p>
<p>Was this like, family therapy on the cheap? Just kidding...</p>
<p>You've hit the nail on the head shrinkrap! ;-)</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, possibly the truest message on this thread. LOL!</p>
<p>And I have to tip a hat to the OP, for raising such cool daughters. Obviously, she knows what she is doing.</p>
<p>I agree. And thanks to the OP for starting the thread despite the likelihood of flames. Not only was it thought provoking, but entertaining as well. Almost thought I was in a cyber sitcom when the Ds came into the scene.</p>
<p>Wasn't Auden an accountant? Wasn't Conrad some kind of sailor? Did Jane Austen attend Swarthmore? A LA degree does not make one a profound thinker, and sometimes not even particularly literate. Moreover, a "practical" education does not make one hopelessly superficial. If my kids had sizeable trust funds in their background I would give them my blessing on whatever path they alight upon. Such is not the case. They will have to earn a living. I will encourage them to equip themselves with skills that actually produce something tangible and useful for their fellow man. Along the way I expect them to read widely as they have always done.</p>
<p>Jazzymom: sitcom, indeed! (or dramedy?) ;)</p>
<p>I agree that earning a living is certainly a foremost concern. I'll wager that most college students think about it more than they'd admit to their 'rents, even "the artsy ones". However, I do think that the notion of a "practical" degree as an automatic synonym for "technical" is drawing a faulty correlation, and that's what tends to happen for some reason...</p>
<p>mammall is absolutely correct. Every area of learning has its personal benefits and external benefits. Science and engineering are every bit as important and intellectually stimulating as are the LA's and visa versa. I would hate to live in a world without engineers as well as poets.</p>
<p>A poster describing majors with a vocational bent perjoratively as "marching in lockstep" toward their degree. This is both ignorant and bigoted. The same can be said who disparage LA students as pursuing soft degrees which will be of little use to them or society.</p>
<p>Every endeavor of study is important. Even hs voc-ed. I dont want my house plumbing to leak, my car to break down, or get a bad haircut.</p>
<p>I suggest posters who have been on one side of this discussion to say at least two good things about the other. And while I have not, being an engineer I wil start.</p>
<p>Eew thing give me more pleasure than to go to a wonderfuly produced play or an inspiring symphony concert. Thanks all you theater and music majors.</p>
<p>Thank you, Garland and Jazzymom. I am ready to entertain you more on another thread, but need to take a short break. After all, I am what one of the posters labeled as "worker bee" and need to take care of my hive now as this is starting to interfere with my bee performance.... :)</p>
<p>I'm a musician and I'm thankful for potable water and safe transportation. And I'm really thankful that my engineer H can do and fix ANYTHING that goes wrong in this old house. If your plane goes down in the Andes, he's someone you'll want in the survivor party. (Anyone remember McGiver?)</p>
<p>Auden was not an accountant. Conrad was a sailor before he started writing. Jane Austen would have gone to Oxford or Cambridge if she could have.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing that Math/Sci/Engineering are not as intellectual as liberal arts; at least I'm not. My most intellectual class was tenth grade honors math. I'm still amazed at what I learned there.</p>
<p>I am arguing that students should follow their bliss and not be forced into someone else's idea of what's "practical", especially because that keeps shifting.</p>
<p>If my kid wanted to pursue engineering I'd be thrilled. I am also thrilled that my D is pursuing American Studies. She has always been a self starter and I have no doubt she'll make it to law school. She hates ivory tower disciplines like philosophy; I love them. I make a living at them. She got an A her one philosophy class at Columbia but won't ever take another one because she thinks they're "stupid, useless, irrelevant." I would never force her to take one; I would never prevent her from being a philosophy major either.</p>
<p>I double-majored in English/Philosophy and eventually got a PhD in English. Have always been fully self-supporting, even throughout grad school. I actually paid for undergrad as well.</p>
<p>Scientists -- study on!
Actually pure math, physics, bio, chem are all part of a liberal arts education.
Liberal arts students -- study on!</p>
<p>It was Wallace Stevens -- an insurance man. You gotta love that.</p>
<p>Don't know why I was thinking Auden . . .</p>
<p>It seems the point is not the value of what a student chooses to major in , but that they make a choice. Going to university is not primarily for parties and "finding yourself", but education. People who are depending on their parents support while they take an assortment of classes that have no focus behind them are being immature. If someone can't decide what they want to study by their sophomore year, maybe they should take a break. This is not about financial potential, but personal responsibility. If a young person strongly desires to be an engineer,writer, artist, etc. and is accepted into a school that has a great curriculum, parents should be really supportive. If they are ambivalent about what interests them, they are not ready for college and should get a job. You can always apply later. Sorry, that's just my old world opinion. Understand, I think students can change their minds, I switched from Anthropology to Graphic Design, but I was following my deepest interests, graduated with honors and have had a very successful career doing exactly what I wanted to do for 30 years.</p>
<p>kittymom: I see your point, but many have pointed out that for entry business jobs it often doesn't matter what child has majored in; the degree is the entre. (Please see accents.)</p>
<p>My dad had a very prestigious job with American Management Associates which trained business people and set up showcases all over the world. He ran the marketing and packaging division. He hired scores and scores of people. His told me he hired the most English majors because he valued their communication skills, particularly writing. </p>
<p>He was just one person, and admittedly anecdotal evidence is weak, but he emphasized to my brother and me that a business degree was the least worthy. He said the business students had the smallest skill set and everything they were taught could be easily learned on the job.</p>
<p>Now, I am sure there are incredibly capable business majors, and my father was a bit biased (his own degree was in pure math and statistics.)</p>
<p>However, I think if a kid maintains a good GPA and masters a skill set s/he can find a job and enter the work force and refine goals as s/he goes along.</p>
<p>Of course it is wonderful if a kid has a strong focus,pursues it, masters it, enters the work force at a rung above starter and never looks back. It's just not that way for everyone.j</p>
<p>BTW: My brother was one of those "drifters". He majored in Radio/TV/Film at the University of Wisconsin (OOS so not that cheap), dreaming of being a TV director. He's not a self-starter and became wait staff at a restaurant. Then he became the chef. Then the general manager.</p>
<p>Fast forward twenty years, he runs all the public broadcasting, radio and tv, for the state of Wisconsin and serves on the executive board of PBS. "What a long strange trip it's been" for him (couldn't resist, he's the biggest Dead Head in the world) but he adores his career, has been man of the year for PBS numerous times and has succeeded by anyone's definition.</p>
<p>Some people's course is straight and some windy. College is part of the equation for not as defining for some as for others.</p>
<p>I majored in English; got a masters in English; got a PhD in English; teach at the college level and have written and edited numerous publications. Straight path wandering around in a humanities discipline. Have always earned my living that way, though urged by all to go to law school. I am so glad I didn't because I was a full-time mom as well as a full-time prof and never needed nannies; nursery school was enough for the hours I teach and I was able to take off four years to be with kids when they were too small for nursery school. I was able to meet all my life goals.
(Well okay, it's true, I could make more money, but I have horrible asthma and really needed to work less hours. It's all good.)</p>
<p>My point is that I am not opposed at all to vocational goals and vocational education. It just doesn't happen that way for everyone, and for some a liberal arts education is the foundation of their lives.</p>
<p>Mythmom, Most lives are windy, even those in the technical fields often find themselves doing very different jobs than they envisioned. I think that some parents on here are a bit more worried about their kids earning a living because of the globalizing economy. It is not the same world that our parents or even we in our generation launched our careers in. In those days, just having a college degree was a huge help. That's just not the case now, which is part of the reason so many parents are so fixated on the prestige of the college their kids attend. The competition is much different today. You can certainly make a strong argument that four years in pursuit of a broad humanist liberal arts education is the best preparation possible for a rapidly changing world economy. Or you could argue that it's insanely risky. Technologies do become obsolete over night. Bachelors degrees in basic sciences are woefully unemployable or at least poorly compensated. But the super applied fields are prone to off-shoring and obsolescence. I guess my main argument with you is the serenity you seem to have regarding your kids futures. I don't have that. I worrry.</p>
<p>me too
My daughter did well in college- but she is making $2 more an hour than if she worked at Arby's ( as advertised on their reader board) and her job doesn't have benefits or room to move up.</p>
<p>When I see kids take jobs that they could get without a degree at all, let alone from one of the most rigourous colleges in the country, it makes me feel ill, especially when those jobs don't have "potential".</p>