<p>But what makes you think there aren’t art history and classics majors that have decent-paying jobs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. And so could lots of theater majors, art history majors, etc. who also could give a you-know-what about making HUGE bucks.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, Believe it or not,I have family members myself who are professors of art history (husband and wife). It was the right career for them and they teach at a top university and both lecture internationally. Engineering was the right career though for my husband and sons. Believe it or not , there are actually people out there who have the aptitude and interest in engineering. It’s a clich</p>
<p>Art history is fine, but why not combine it with History major? Then, if you can’t get a job in the museum or auction house, you can teach.</p>
<p>And to answer the question addressed to me, I would absolutely refuse to pay for Women Studies at NYU, or Pop Culture major (I am not kidding, it exists).</p>
<p>If my kid wanted to study these fields, I would not prohibit it, but I would not pay for them either, unless they are taken as minor in addition to a major that leads to employment.</p>
<p>I have nothing against performing arts, as long as there is a clear understanding that the chance of making it to the Broadway, Carnegie Hall or Hollywood big movie is not very good, and plan B must be in place.</p>
<p>There are people who don’t care how much they make, and some work without pay just because they enjoy what they are doing, and I am happy for them. Unfortunately, my kids or I not among them. I like my job, but need pay to be adequate to afford a normal life style.</p>
<p>I don’t pizzagirl is denying that. I think she is saying that kids shouldn’t be forced into engineering as a savior profession. For kids who want to be engineers of course it’s a great profession.</p>
<p>Good grief, where did I say elsewhere? Where did I say there was something wrong with being an engineer?</p>
<p>If you <em>want</em> to be an engineer, then great! But as I said above, I think there is a lot of naivete and fear that “omg, the engineers will be employed and do well and the art history majors will be making the lattes at Starbucks and never get out of their parents’ basements.” Which is not true, and overstates the long-term prospects for engineers.</p>
<p>So if I understand busdriver and others with her viewpoint correctly, you dictate certain majors as being off-limits because in the future your kids MIGHT have a family that they MIGHT need to support in a certain style that you feel is appropriate? Also, that you feel certain majors MIGHT mean they cannot support themselves in a certain manner and MIGHT not have the money for insurance? So it’s all based on possibilities of things that may or may not happen, not whether you think your kids are going to be adept enough to make their way in the world well enough for THEM.</p>
<p>What do you do if your kids PAY THEIR OWN WAY but aren’t making enough money for YOUR tastes? Do you spank them?? I’m serious-how can you “expect them to support their family” short of living their lives for them? </p>
<p>Kids have a way of doing their own thing, despite our expectations, sometimes good, sometimes not. I’m sure in the eyes of some, my son is a failure what with living on his own, no dating, no family to support, living weekends on a boat he’s fixing up. He never went to Harvard, despite having the brains to have done so. And my older D is working and studying culinary arts, and has to share an apartment to afford living out of the house. But they are HAPPY with their lives. I am not independently wealthy-it’s laughable to even put me in that category. I still would support what my kids want to do with their lives, because, it is THEIR LIVES.</p>
<p>mythmom. Engineering is not a “savior” profession and I think any kid that was "forced " into it would have a tough road to hoe .
Becoming an art historian for my BIL and SIL was possible because they had support from their families (who both were academically inclined and SIL’s father was a college president). If they had come from different families , pursuing a PhD in Art History would have no doubt been more difficult . As alluded to earlier, for all but the very fortunate,most people need to get out there and get jobs and make a living (in a fairly timely fashion).
sseamon, My kids could have done anything they wanted to do and were not pressured into engineering. They just happened to both choose engineering because that’s where the aptitude was. Nothing wrong with that. As there is nothing wrong with any kid gravitating to any major.</p>
<p>That’s not the discussion though, is it? How often do we hear of high-aptitude students who want to major in engineering whose parents say, no! go major in one of the classical liberal arts instead, for that is what makes a person educated! Even if the parent vigorously believed that, I can’t see the parent withholding financial support from a prospective engineering student. </p>
<p>It seems to me that we are talking about kids who have the drive, passion and aptitude for fields that are traditionally thought of to be impractical, and who are being asked to decide between that and a field that is thought of as practical. (We could expand this to include students who are undecided as freshmen but have talent in such a field, and make the decision at the end of soph year.) Let’s also say that rigour is similar in both programs - we’re not comparing engineering with underwater basket weaving. Neither are we talking about the tone-deaf kid who insists on majoring in music, any more than we are talking about the wannabe engineer who can’t calculate the differential of a quadratic equation. Let’s say the kid has a decent shot at being good at both, but his heart is in the “impractical” major.</p>
<p>If loans were in the picture I would say yes, in that case, ROI is absolutely a factor. But to say “we’ll pay $50k for major x and only $10k for major y” (or any other pair of numbers, if you want to change this argument so it doesn’t assume that the family can be full pay), with the kid knowing full well that the parents are withholding $40k that they could afford because of parental disapproval of the major - I really don’t see what good can come out of that. You’re not going to be able to choose what the student’s job or career is. If he/she doesn’t want to do the practical major but did it anyway just to be able to get that degree, how long do you think he/she will last as a professional in that field? Where is your payback then?</p>
<p>To answer the original question-Would you pay for ANY major?
Yes, We did not/would not have dictated choice of major in paying for kids’ undergraduate education. In fact, I was surprised younger son wanted to be an engineer. I personally thought he would make a cool high school AP Physics or Calculus teacher, coaching high school volleyball on the side. But, it’s his life and he chose engineering. I was a sociology major/MSW myself so I would have had no problem supporting a non technical major.</p>
<p>I didn’t say you were saying that sevmom. Sorry if I got your name incorrect. This device is a but difficult right now.</p>
<p>As for Hidtory and Art History they absolutely don’t go together for most people. I have a kid pursuing each on the grad level. Art history is sufficient for auction houses and museums. The way history is taught these days (mostly about examining the lenses we view it through) wouldn’t be useful.</p>
<p>Agree with mythmom, Art history and history (and all its’ specific fields) are really not related. I could see art history majors ending up as professors, curators, in arts management,etc. (or Wall Street or business). As Pizzagirl noted, many people hire art history , classics majors,etc., nurture them , and most end up making a decent living.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What was that you were saying PG, about other people being concerned with money money money? 
I know, you say later that if people want to be engineers because they like it then more power to them. But that wasn’t your first reaction. Your assumption was pretty clearly that engineering students and their parents are primarily choosing the major for the money. Might be true. FWIW my anecdotal experience is that students pursue engineering because they love it. For those who want to do it for the money–they generally don’t last long.</p>
<p>Agree, SlitheyTove. Thank you.</p>
<p>“So if I understand busdriver and others with her viewpoint correctly, you dictate certain majors as being off-limits because in the future your kids MIGHT have a family that they MIGHT need to support in a certain style that you feel is appropriate? Also, that you feel certain majors MIGHT mean they cannot support themselves in a certain manner and MIGHT not have the money for insurance? So it’s all based on possibilities of things that may or may not happen, not whether you think your kids are going to be adept enough to make their way in the world well enough for THEM.”</p>
<p>Nope, that’s not what I said. I can’t speak for others. But I think that people need to consider the possibilities and consequences of what they do. It affects people other than themselves. There are many middle income people on this board who are paying full freight, and they may consider paying for Women’s studies or Pop Culture at a school as expensive as NYU (to quote newstudentmom) as frivolous. The student or parent taking out big loans to support a desired career field that is notoriously low paying is just plain stupid.</p>
<p>I don’t think the major defines a person one bit, nor does it necessarily define their career field. A major is merely a group of classes taken, not a skill set. A motivated student who has a number of internships will probably do just fine. A math/science kid who wants to be an engineer should go for it, and a kid who loves liberal arts should follow their desires.</p>
<p>It is patently unfair to teach your child that money doesn’t matter, because it does. Money is freedom. Freedom to live in safe places, get a good education, and take care of your health, to do what you want and not depend upon anyone else. Anyone who has lived in poverty is aware of how crummy it is. I’m not talking about fancy vacations, cars or houses, I’m talking about things that most of us take for granted here. Your choices will dictate your life, you can’t just blame your predicament on society and everyone else. It may be fine to be poor when you’re in your twenties, but it is not so romantic when you’re trying to take care of your kids. To mislead your children that money doesn’t matter isn’t doing them any favors.</p>
<p>“Your assumption was pretty clearly that engineering students and their parents are primarily choosing the major for the money. Might be true. FWIW my anecdotal experience is that students pursue engineering because they love it.”</p>
<p>That’s a completely unfair leap. I never said that engineering students are primarily choosing it for the money. I said that people often overvalue what engineers make as if it is a golden ticket to riches, when in real life I’ve observed engineers simply do a little better the first few years out and then plateau and often fall behind those “impractical” humanities majors. </p>
<p>And I find it more than a little amusing when people don’t ever seem to think about the many opportunities open to humanities or arts majors – when their frame of reference is so narrow they can’t conceive of jobs or careers other than the linear ones. Refer back to what blossom said about jobs in marketing, advertising, non-profit management, museums and so forth. I mean, really, now. Your towns / cities don’t have theaters? Art museums? Music venues?</p>
<p>And because money does matter, a Liberal Arts/Humanities degree is a great way to assure versatility in the workforce.</p>
<p>Who are all these people out there that think engineering is a “golden ticket to riches” ? I wish it were !</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we? So everyone who decides to pursue a humanities or arts major is automatically “passionate”? Maybe the field just takes less hours of homework, leaving more party time?</p>
<p>What percentage of students are truly passionate about any major? 20%? For the rest, it’s what they might be able to tolerate 40+ hours a week. In that case, one might as well pick a highly-marketable major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is indeed. Sometimes it even is the freedom to pursue your passions without worrying about making enough money at it to pay your rent.</p>
<p>Wow, busdriver. I never said money doesn’t matter. I never said parents should give their kids no guidance. But many posters besides myself have given example after example of people in decent jobs with humanities degrees. That’s my only point-that a student can get a “useless” degree and not be living on mom’s couch forever, if at all. I know many people like that myself. </p>
<p>My H grew up poor. As in, sometimes his parents had to go without food to feed the kids. As in, both worked themselves to death in hard labor jobs to give their kids more than they had growing up. H and his siblings were still supported in what they wanted. His brother was allowed to major in drama. While he was indeed poor in his twenties, he never took his parents’ help after he left home, and he worked his way up to a good life in the arts. My H majored in humanities. So not all poor people force their kids to give up dreams of working in arts and humanities because of what might happen.</p>
<p>As others have said, a kid with drive can do well no matter what they study. A slacker can be a slacker with any educational background.</p>