So few liberal arts majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

There’s quite a few students interested in math and philosophy. Not sure how this isn’t brought up, since this is one of the most common math double majors. Any stem student interested in logic should take some philosophy coursework and a philosophy major should do the same with proof-based math coursework. They aren’t that incompatible, and one actually feeds off the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Physics and philosophy grad smiling hard at this conversation. Most undergrads would fail if they had to attempt either.

Seriously. Like a business student knows anything about gauge theories or deconstruction, nor would they excel in either. I don’t see why 40+ year old mothers care either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

[Anonymous]

Obligatory reminder here that math and physics are liberal arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

Isn’t this just because “proof” is its own language? This is as groundbreaking as any student entering an upper division German course with never having taken German.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Physics and philosophy grad smiling hard at this conversation. Most undergrads would fail if they had to attempt either.

Seriously. Like a business student knows anything about gauge theories or deconstruction, nor would they excel in either. I don’t see why 40+ year old mothers care either.

They don’t. This is some weird obsession by two parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

There’s quite a few students interested in math and philosophy. Not sure how this isn’t brought up, since this is one of the most common math double majors. Any stem student interested in logic should take some philosophy coursework and a philosophy major should do the same with proof-based math coursework. They aren’t that incompatible, and one actually feeds off the other.

That was me. By the time we got to deconstruction and structuralism, I don't think anyone including the professors (I might throw in some authors too) really had a deep grasp of the concepts. It wasn't hard to use the right terms and stumble into a decent grade. The same would have been impossible in any upper level math class because the because the text books would look like gibberish if you didn't have a proper grounding. I went to a T20 with a respected philosophy department

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

Isn’t this just because “proof” is its own language? This is as groundbreaking as any student entering an upper division German course with never having taken German.

Correct...point I have been trying to make. For some reason humanities folks keep pushing back. I don't know why.

[Anonymous]

What an obnoxious group of people. No one is excelling in anyone’s upper division coursework without previous coursework. Now shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

DP and big Chemistry nerd, decided to test this out and…what the hell does any of this mean? I’m shocked people CAN understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

I have read that 50% of women leave the STEM workforce and far fewer men do the same (probably for obvious reasons around tech bro culture)...where are you getting your 70%?

E.g. referenced here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/2024/02/09/few-stem-graduates-pursue-jobs-or-careers-related-fields. Regardless, point is management is the more valued job, people who can get out do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

I have read that 50% of women leave the STEM workforce and far fewer men do the same (probably for obvious reasons around tech bro culture)...where are you getting your 70%?

E.g. referenced here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/2024/02/09/few-stem-graduates-pursue-jobs-or-careers-related-fields. Regardless, point is management is the more valued job, people who can get out do.

I am not sure you are drawing the correct conclusion. As an example, only 50% of UPenn engineering grads work in engineering. The others go work at quant funds or consulting or banking. These jobs pay a lot...but have long hours and are stressful.

Also, the management folks you are even referring are management people at STEM companies. I think anyone that wants to move up in an organization has to become management at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

“Inconceivable?” Really? I dropped physics for history, because, frankly, 3 courses in quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and QED taught me that physics wasn’t going to magically become interesting to me, no matter how much I tried to lie to myself that it could. Most of my coursework involved applying knowledge from a textbook and once you learn the lingo (or really the principles of linear algebra), you could easily get at least a B in the class.

No math or STEM major would call that an advanced Math class. Hence the fallacy of the argument.

DP but you seem to be the ignorant one. Stanford Quantum Field Theory course is a 330 level class: “300 and above: courses for graduate students” according to Stanford. Quantum mechanics alone is an upper division undergraduate course.

Linear Algebra. Hence what was highlighted.

They were explaining that you need to understand linear algebra to get QM. Also linear algebra doesn’t stop at your baby intro you took freshman year. It has upper division and graduate level coursework that is foundational to Machine Learning, Quantum Mechanics, etc. A math major who dismisses linear as non important or easy…isn’t a math major.

Truth. Off to brush up on Number Theory 2 ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

I have read that 50% of women leave the STEM workforce and far fewer men do the same (probably for obvious reasons around tech bro culture)...where are you getting your 70%?

E.g. referenced here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/2024/02/09/few-stem-graduates-pursue-jobs-or-careers-related-fields. Regardless, point is management is the more valued job, people who can get out do.

I am not sure you are drawing the correct conclusion. As an example, only 50% of UPenn engineering grads work in engineering. The others go work at quant funds or consulting or banking. These jobs pay a lot...but have long hours and are stressful.

Also, the management folks you are even referring are management people at STEM companies. I think anyone that wants to move up in an organization has to become management at some point.

When did it become students dream to work 100 hours and have no time for yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

I have read that 50% of women leave the STEM workforce and far fewer men do the same (probably for obvious reasons around tech bro culture)...where are you getting your 70%?

E.g. referenced here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/2024/02/09/few-stem-graduates-pursue-jobs-or-careers-related-fields. Regardless, point is management is the more valued job, people who can get out do.

I am not sure you are drawing the correct conclusion. As an example, only 50% of UPenn engineering grads work in engineering. The others go work at quant funds or consulting or banking. These jobs pay a lot...but have long hours and are stressful.

Also, the management folks you are even referring are management people at STEM companies. I think anyone that wants to move up in an organization has to become management at some point.

You’re deluded. There aren’t quant jobs for half the Penn grads, and the bulk of STEM grads are state school schmucks, who certainly aren’t getting those positions. When industry says there’s a STEM shortage, it translates we need more people to punch in the face.