Parents who don't allow their kids to major in liberal arts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

I agree with this and what's absolutely criminal is that a professor from GMU is suggesting that students there should major in liberal arts.

I made this comment--and I am a Liberal Arts major without family connections. However, I managed to figure out what I love to do and make a great living doing it. I think the professor is spot on. As a previous person said above, the rich get richer because the middle class keep playing their game. When we stop playing into their game, life will get better for everyone!

So are you suggesting that the middle class should stop majoring in practical degrees and start majoring in the liberal arts so that they too can become rich? I'm not following the logic there.

They should major in/do what they want--STEM, liberal arts, plumber, comedian, etc.--rather than scrambling so they can live in the right DC neighborhood or buy that 10th Longchamp bag. You know the wealthy are going to change the game and start out-sourcing coders and other engineering projects that don't demand people in the room. Why pay someone six figures in the US when you can pay someone in India with the same skill set and education much less and not include benefits? Those jobs are probably going to start migrating overseas in the next generation.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

I think one important part of this argument is what "impressive" means. I don't make a lot of money in my job, which I got quite readily with my liberal arts degree, but I'm making a difference in the world, and doing something I enjoy (for the most part). I could easily support myself when I was single, while putting money into savings; now that I'm married, my (liberal arts) DH and I are supporting our family easily. So, if money is the be-all, end-all for you, that's fine. For others, it's not what's important.

You say that you and your DH can easily support your family, so what's with this "money's not all that" attitude?

I didn't say "money's not all that," I said it's not the be-all, end-all. I'm hearing people say that others should go into STEM fields because that's how they'll get rich. We're not rich by any means (at all) but we can support our family. With liberal arts educations, in jobs we love that also matter to the world.

In other words: People are arguing that liberal arts graduates won't make money; I'm arguing that liberal arts graduates can make plenty to live. People are arguing that STEM graduates get rich; I'm arguing that rich doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

Find me data that shows grads within last 10 years - in other words, isn't distorted with 40 50 and 60-yo who grew up in a different era.

Most anecdotes are Ivy grads saying how they love their History degree, or attractive women from Big State U who flirted their way to a nice job. Or the data is distorted by packing in some of the stem and business concentrations to inflate "liberal arts."

That very data is included in the article...which you clearly didn't bother reading because you aren't interested in educating yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Yes, exactly. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

Apparently, in your science studies, you missed the standard maxim that anecdotes are not data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ivy, Northwestern, GU, Williams: Liberal arts degree will get you a job on Wall St., consulting, K Street, etc.

Tailgate State, low tier private: Liberals arts = underemployed, if you're lucky

I have a liberal arts degree from "Tailgate State" as you so charmingly put it. Not everyone one wants to work on K Street or Wall Street. I make about $130K but I don't consider myself to be "underemployed." I have a low stress job that allows plenty of time and energy for other things.

Lucky.

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly, and I am speaking as manager who has been involved in hiring college graduates for many years, we prefer those who have a STEM degree for the most part.

Now if a liberal arts major is from a top notch school, that would be a positive. The only reasonably assured path for someone with a liberal arts degree is to then go to grad school, law school or the medical field or a field where there are decent employment prospects.

I am not impressed with examples of people who went to a liberal arts school and then did very well whether they majored in philosophy, etc. There was a time through the nineties when that was a viable route to well paying jobs. But the economy has changed and what worked several decades ago does not do so any longer.

Yes, there may be exceptions even today, but with the cost of college being what it is today it would be foolhardy to ignore the realities of today's economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, and I am speaking as manager who has been involved in hiring college graduates for many years, we prefer those who have a STEM degree for the most part.

Now if a liberal arts major is from a top notch school, that would be a positive. The only reasonably assured path for someone with a liberal arts degree is to then go to grad school, law school or the medical field or a field where there are decent employment prospects.

I am not impressed with examples of people who went to a liberal arts school and then did very well whether they majored in philosophy, etc. There was a time through the nineties when that was a viable route to well paying jobs. But the economy has changed and what worked several decades ago does not do so any longer.

Yes, there may be exceptions even today, but with the cost of college being what it is today it would be foolhardy to ignore the realities of today's economy.

You're assuming liberal arts people want to work for you. I think what you're seeing here is many who decide to take the unconventional path and major in liberal arts also take unconventional paths when it comes to career and find a way to make it work for them. And I'm going to bet for many liberal arts majors the idea of toiling away in an office is not super high on the desires list, hence pursuing jobs that allow for creativity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

This isn't true. Typically smarter kids and kids with math and science aptitude lean towards stem degrees. High school kids are old enough or mature enough to understand family connections or lack thereof. I suppose you could say I have family connections but that at all wasn't something I weighed when choosing my major and college.

Actually, philosophy majors are the smartest kids measured by test scores and IQ scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, and I am speaking as manager who has been involved in hiring college graduates for many years, we prefer those who have a STEM degree for the most part.

Now if a liberal arts major is from a top notch school, that would be a positive. The only reasonably assured path for someone with a liberal arts degree is to then go to grad school, law school or the medical field or a field where there are decent employment prospects.

I am not impressed with examples of people who went to a liberal arts school and then did very well whether they majored in philosophy, etc. There was a time through the nineties when that was a viable route to well paying jobs. But the economy has changed and what worked several decades ago does not do so any longer.

Yes, there may be exceptions even today, but with the cost of college being what it is today it would be foolhardy to ignore the realities of today's economy.

You're assuming liberal arts people want to work for you. I think what you're seeing here is many who decide to take the unconventional path and major in liberal arts also take unconventional paths when it comes to career and find a way to make it work for them. And I'm going to bet for many liberal arts majors the idea of toiling away in an office is not super high on the desires list, hence pursuing jobs that allow for creativity.

Sure, if you have a trust fund, you don't have to work in an office. The only other option is barista or similar service position that never required a degree to begin with. A very small percentage of those people will be able to earn a living wage working in an unconventional job. A few live that dream with a lot of talent and luck, but even most very talented people will eventually have to work for the man (or the woman, you know what I mean).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, and I am speaking as manager who has been involved in hiring college graduates for many years, we prefer those who have a STEM degree for the most part.

Now if a liberal arts major is from a top notch school, that would be a positive. The only reasonably assured path for someone with a liberal arts degree is to then go to grad school, law school or the medical field or a field where there are decent employment prospects.

I am not impressed with examples of people who went to a liberal arts school and then did very well whether they majored in philosophy, etc. There was a time through the nineties when that was a viable route to well paying jobs. But the economy has changed and what worked several decades ago does not do so any longer.

Yes, there may be exceptions even today, but with the cost of college being what it is today it would be foolhardy to ignore the realities of today's economy.

You're assuming liberal arts people want to work for you. I think what you're seeing here is many who decide to take the unconventional path and major in liberal arts also take unconventional paths when it comes to career and find a way to make it work for them. And I'm going to bet for many liberal arts majors the idea of toiling away in an office is not super high on the desires list, hence pursuing jobs that allow for creativity.

Sure, if you have a trust fund, you don't have to work in an office. The only other option is barista or similar service position that never required a degree to begin with. A very small percentage of those people will be able to earn a living wage working in an unconventional job. A few live that dream with a lot of talent and luck, but even most very talented people will eventually have to work for the man (or the woman, you know what I mean).

Actually, those aren't the only options. Not by a long shot. But keep believing what you've been told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

This isn't true. Typically smarter kids and kids with math and science aptitude lean towards stem degrees. High school kids are old enough or mature enough to understand family connections or lack thereof. I suppose you could say I have family connections but that at all wasn't something I weighed when choosing my major and college.

Actually, philosophy majors are the smartest kids measured by test scores and IQ scores.

Says you and your random list of the day. There are a hundred similar lists with whatever field you want on the top. The truth is that the scores are all within a few points of each other. It doesn't make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

This isn't true. Typically smarter kids and kids with math and science aptitude lean towards stem degrees. High school kids are old enough or mature enough to understand family connections or lack thereof. I suppose you could say I have family connections but that at all wasn't something I weighed when choosing my major and college.

Actually, philosophy majors are the smartest kids measured by test scores and IQ scores.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite frankly, and I am speaking as manager who has been involved in hiring college graduates for many years, we prefer those who have a STEM degree for the most part.

Now if a liberal arts major is from a top notch school, that would be a positive. The only reasonably assured path for someone with a liberal arts degree is to then go to grad school, law school or the medical field or a field where there are decent employment prospects.

I am not impressed with examples of people who went to a liberal arts school and then did very well whether they majored in philosophy, etc. There was a time through the nineties when that was a viable route to well paying jobs. But the economy has changed and what worked several decades ago does not do so any longer.

Yes, there may be exceptions even today, but with the cost of college being what it is today it would be foolhardy to ignore the realities of today's economy.

You're assuming liberal arts people want to work for you. I think what you're seeing here is many who decide to take the unconventional path and major in liberal arts also take unconventional paths when it comes to career and find a way to make it work for them. And I'm going to bet for many liberal arts majors the idea of toiling away in an office is not super high on the desires list, hence pursuing jobs that allow for creativity.

Sure, if you have a trust fund, you don't have to work in an office. The only other option is barista or similar service position that never required a degree to begin with. A very small percentage of those people will be able to earn a living wage working in an unconventional job. A few live that dream with a lot of talent and luck, but even most very talented people will eventually have to work for the man (or the woman, you know what I mean).

Actually, those aren't the only options. Not by a long shot. But keep believing what you've been told.

Please, supply me with a list of viable careers for a liberal arts major that does not involve working a 9-5 job. Even most photography majors have to wait tables to make ends meet.

[Anonymous]

Philosophy majors have two choices. Go to graduate school or live off of Daddy's trust fund.