Would you let your child study liberal arts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on what your child is studying in liberal arts. If she is studying math and has a plan to be a math teacher, go for it. If she wants to study sociology because she likes sociology, I probably wouldn't be funding something like that. Honestly, college is more about making yourself marketable and checking a box than anything else. Most majors are repetitive (read, write, memorize, test, over and over and over) so you aren't actually learning applicable skills anyway.

Umm…what about college for the education? In college history classes, I learned about revisionist history (something DJT and his cronies are attempting in real time). I learned how to think and write in undergrad; MBA was for skill-building, and by then I had learned most on the job. It was all about OJT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things I have learned from this thread:

- Liberal Arts graduates remain jobless
- Liberal Arts does not include math or sciences
- Liberal Arts students all cheat
- Liberal Arts professors are lazy and don't do their jobs

Glad I got this straight. Glad I now know that the educational approach that had tremendous successes for thousands of years and gave us virtually all of Western culture is now suddenly worthless.

Thanks for setting me straight, geniuses of DCUM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

"Genius" trolls of scum, more like it. Or former business majors, currently unemployed, who can post all day. They have absolutely no idea what a classic education comprises.

You would've been able to employ some critical thinking skill and writing skill with your reply if you had actually written some of the college papers that were assigned to you when you were obtaining your liberal arts degree instead of regurgitating profanity and non-arguments.

Different poster.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"The difference in pay is evident right after graduation. The average college graduate earned $37,000 at the entry-level, the report found. But those with STEM degrees averaged $43,000, while their classmates with arts, humanities, and liberal arts degrees averaged $29,000. Both figures far outpaced the entry-level pay of recent high school graduates, who averaged $22,000 annually.

STEM majors between the ages of 25 to 59 earned a median annual salary of $76,000, while the median salary of those with arts, humanities, or liberal arts degrees was $51,000. Median incomes for teaching or serving degrees—including education, psychology, and social work majors—were lowest, at $46,000. Business majors were in between, at $65,000."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/091015/worstpaying-college-majors-america.asp

So many facts about joblessness, cheating liberal arts students, and professors who ignore cheating.

Oh, wait, I mean no, there are none of those things.

Did you read the posting with the report that showed that when you look 10 years out the salary differences between STEM and liberal arts majors notably converge and that the lifetime return on investment is nearly the same? STEM is more likely to get you a high-paying job from the get-go, but your salary, on average, doesn't continue to grow and your technical skillset may become less relevant through promotions.

My advice is to go for a major that suits your strengths and interests and be proactive about a career plan if you aim for more than a middle class life (not DCUM middle class). If you go for humanities and social sciences, be sure to acquire some skills that will get you a good first job--perhaps outside your formal schooling, be assertive about internships and proactive in your first job and be thinking about the skills/graduate education you will need to advance from there. Liberal arts grads should be thinking about 10 year plans--but keep them flexible to opportunities that arise. STEM majors can get a job right away, but they should be thinking about what next or they will soon top out and plateau. All majors--particularly STEM--need to think about threats of automation to their sub-specialty and diversify their skills/experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things I have learned from this thread:

- Liberal Arts graduates remain jobless
- Liberal Arts does not include math or sciences
- Liberal Arts students all cheat
- Liberal Arts professors are lazy and don't do their jobs

Glad I got this straight. Glad I now know that the educational approach that had tremendous successes for thousands of years and gave us virtually all of Western culture is now suddenly worthless.

Thanks for setting me straight, geniuses of DCUM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

"Genius" trolls of scum, more like it. Or former business majors, currently unemployed, who can post all day. They have absolutely no idea what a classic education comprises.

You would've been able to employ some critical thinking skill and writing skill with your reply if you had actually written some of the college papers that were assigned to you when you were obtaining your liberal arts degree instead of regurgitating profanity and non-arguments.

Different poster.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"The difference in pay is evident right after graduation. The average college graduate earned $37,000 at the entry-level, the report found. But those with STEM degrees averaged $43,000, while their classmates with arts, humanities, and liberal arts degrees averaged $29,000. Both figures far outpaced the entry-level pay of recent high school graduates, who averaged $22,000 annually.

STEM majors between the ages of 25 to 59 earned a median annual salary of $76,000, while the median salary of those with arts, humanities, or liberal arts degrees was $51,000. Median incomes for teaching or serving degrees—including education, psychology, and social work majors—were lowest, at $46,000. Business majors were in between, at $65,000."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/091015/worstpaying-college-majors-america.asp

So many facts about joblessness, cheating liberal arts students, and professors who ignore cheating.

Oh, wait, I mean no, there are none of those things.

Did you read the posting with the report that showed that when you look 10 years out the salary differences between STEM and liberal arts majors notably converge and that the lifetime return on investment is nearly the same? STEM is more likely to get you a high-paying job from the get-go, but your salary, on average, doesn't continue to grow and your technical skillset may become less relevant through promotions.

My advice is to go for a major that suits your strengths and interests and be proactive about a career plan if you aim for more than a middle class life (not DCUM middle class). If you go for humanities and social sciences, be sure to acquire some skills that will get you a good first job--perhaps outside your formal schooling, be assertive about internships and proactive in your first job and be thinking about the skills/graduate education you will need to advance from there. Liberal arts grads should be thinking about 10 year plans--but keep them flexible to opportunities that arise. STEM majors can get a job right away, but they should be thinking about what next or they will soon top out and plateau. All majors--particularly STEM--need to think about threats of automation to their sub-specialty and diversify their skills/experiences.

Did you read the posts and their responses above?

I repeat: No facts about joblessness, cheating liberal arts students, and professors who ignore cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things I have learned from this thread:

- Liberal Arts graduates remain jobless
- Liberal Arts does not include math or sciences
- Liberal Arts students all cheat
- Liberal Arts professors are lazy and don't do their jobs

Glad I got this straight. Glad I now know that the educational approach that had tremendous successes for thousands of years and gave us virtually all of Western culture is now suddenly worthless.

Thanks for setting me straight, geniuses of DCUM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

"Genius" trolls of scum, more like it. Or former business majors, currently unemployed, who can post all day. They have absolutely no idea what a classic education comprises.

You would've been able to employ some critical thinking skill and writing skill with your reply if you had actually written some of the college papers that were assigned to you when you were obtaining your liberal arts degree instead of regurgitating profanity and non-arguments.

Different poster.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"The difference in pay is evident right after graduation. The average college graduate earned $37,000 at the entry-level, the report found. But those with STEM degrees averaged $43,000, while their classmates with arts, humanities, and liberal arts degrees averaged $29,000. Both figures far outpaced the entry-level pay of recent high school graduates, who averaged $22,000 annually.

STEM majors between the ages of 25 to 59 earned a median annual salary of $76,000, while the median salary of those with arts, humanities, or liberal arts degrees was $51,000. Median incomes for teaching or serving degrees—including education, psychology, and social work majors—were lowest, at $46,000. Business majors were in between, at $65,000."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/091015/worstpaying-college-majors-america.asp

So many facts about joblessness, cheating liberal arts students, and professors who ignore cheating.

Oh, wait, I mean no, there are none of those things.

Did you read the posting with the report that showed that when you look 10 years out the salary differences between STEM and liberal arts majors notably converge and that the lifetime return on investment is nearly the same? STEM is more likely to get you a high-paying job from the get-go, but your salary, on average, doesn't continue to grow and your technical skillset may become less relevant through promotions.

My advice is to go for a major that suits your strengths and interests and be proactive about a career plan if you aim for more than a middle class life (not DCUM middle class). If you go for humanities and social sciences, be sure to acquire some skills that will get you a good first job--perhaps outside your formal schooling, be assertive about internships and proactive in your first job and be thinking about the skills/graduate education you will need to advance from there. Liberal arts grads should be thinking about 10 year plans--but keep them flexible to opportunities that arise. STEM majors can get a job right away, but they should be thinking about what next or they will soon top out and plateau. All majors--particularly STEM--need to think about threats of automation to their sub-specialty and diversify their skills/experiences.

1) they converge after 10 years. Do you understand the time-value of money?
2) does this account for adult education? It seems that liberal arts (undegrad) majors are likely to get more useful education as a master's degree. STEM majors who continue their education move up as well. Also, active practice in most STEM fields generally keeps themselves sharp.

Entry into the "High-Skill Labor L2 or Transitional Gentry G4" Classes. May continue into the "Primary Gentry G3"
My advice: if you're top 20% nationally in test scores (the only reliable and objective comparison) go to the best school you can, and study the hardest interesting subject you can at that school. Take the best job you can with that career, and live in the cheapest possible place you can. Continue with a graduate degree that will give you a better job.

If you're not in the top 20% nationally in test scores, but have another angle for free or massively-reduced-cost no-or-low debt college education, take the angle you have, and take the hardest major you can. Same career advice as above.

Entry into the "High Skill Labor L2 via the Primary Labor L3" Class. May continue into "Labor Leadership"
If you're not in the top 20% scores-wise, and don't have another angle, DO NOT TAKE DEBT TO GET A DEGREE. This includes debt from your parents. If you have financial support, use it to buy a house, or fund a conservatively-imagined business. Get the highest-paying / hardest job you can get, potentially in a trade, such as HVAC. Pay your way through an associates' degree in a STEM/Medical field that interests you or expands your ability to manage a small business in your existing trade.

If you're family is in the top 0.1% of wealth, none of this applies to you. You're already "Elite"

https://indiepf.com/michael-o-churchs-theory-of-3-class-ladders-in-america-archive/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The liberal arts crowd sure is worked up! So many of these anecdotal stories are pretty much meaningless. My college dropout neighbor makes over 500k in pharma sales. You should just get a GED and make big bucks in pharma sales!

When people goof on liberal arts degrees, they aren't talking about someone who uses their liberal arts degree to get into law school. They are talking about someone who majors in something useless like sociology.

Sociology isn’t useless. I work as an attorney for a federal agency and most days use my sociology degree more than my English degree or even my law degree.

You make decent money because you have a law degree and work as a lawyer. Majors like psychology or sociology are a joke, especially now that college can easily cost well over 100k. The classes are pretty much all the same. You have some nutty professor rambling on about stuff that is borderline insane and has no relevance to the real world.

DP here. You seem to have disdain for the inherent value of education and how it prepares one for varied success. You not only express that disdain, you demonstrate it.

That depends on your chosen career. A college degree absolutely makes you more marketable and will likely create opportunities that don't exist without a degree. But most majors don't even come close to giving you the skills you need to do a particular job. I probably learned more from working crappy jobs than I did reading books and writing papers. You are literally doing the exact same thing over and over again for four years. What a bore.

Your anti-intellectual position is consistent. But what you learned in college may not be the same as what others learn. And this is me responding kindly.

I'm anti-intellectual because I'm a realist and decided to study in a field with a relatively high starting salary?

What you learned doesn't matter because it doesn't mean that you have a marketable skill. And trust me, the market has determined that a 4 year degree in sociology or psychology is one step above burger flipper at McDonalds.

No, you are anti-intellectual because you literally disdain the benefit of “reading books and writing papers”.

Many liberal arts majors choose such majors since those majors have many courses that do not have any tests and the final grades are dependent on papers and essays that can be purchased on line. These papers are customized to ordering customers and are relatively inexpensive. These students can graduate without taking any tests or actually writing any of the required papers themselves. Such is not possible for STEM courses or majors.

This was absolutely not the case when I did my BA in Comparative Literature at Harvard (with Language Citation in Latin!). You have very little understanding of how this kind of course is implemented, and you don't appear to grasp the idea that professors can recognise when a student submits work that is not her own.

Perhaps you attended a sub par university at which students throng together in huge classes so large that the professors cannot actually communicate properly with the students and teach? In that case, I suppose it is possible that students may purchase and submit compositions with no penalty, but I would imagine even your STEM courses are inferior at such an institution. Your REAL issue, then, is with "allowing" one's child to study liberal arts at the kind of inferior school to which you and your child were admitted.

You can’t handle the truth.

You are poorly educated and can't understand the truth.

And that's OK. It is good you are happy with your situation and station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things I have learned from this thread:

- Liberal Arts graduates remain jobless
- Liberal Arts does not include math or sciences
- Liberal Arts students all cheat
- Liberal Arts professors are lazy and don't do their jobs

Glad I got this straight. Glad I now know that the educational approach that had tremendous successes for thousands of years and gave us virtually all of Western culture is now suddenly worthless.

Thanks for setting me straight, geniuses of DCUM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

"Genius" trolls of scum, more like it. Or former business majors, currently unemployed, who can post all day. They have absolutely no idea what a classic education comprises.

You would've been able to employ some critical thinking skill and writing skill with your reply if you had actually written some of the college papers that were assigned to you when you were obtaining your liberal arts degree instead of regurgitating profanity and non-arguments.

Different poster.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

"The difference in pay is evident right after graduation. The average college graduate earned $37,000 at the entry-level, the report found. But those with STEM degrees averaged $43,000, while their classmates with arts, humanities, and liberal arts degrees averaged $29,000. Both figures far outpaced the entry-level pay of recent high school graduates, who averaged $22,000 annually.

STEM majors between the ages of 25 to 59 earned a median annual salary of $76,000, while the median salary of those with arts, humanities, or liberal arts degrees was $51,000. Median incomes for teaching or serving degrees—including education, psychology, and social work majors—were lowest, at $46,000. Business majors were in between, at $65,000."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/091015/worstpaying-college-majors-america.asp

So many facts about joblessness, cheating liberal arts students, and professors who ignore cheating.

Oh, wait, I mean no, there are none of those things.

Did you read the posting with the report that showed that when you look 10 years out the salary differences between STEM and liberal arts majors notably converge and that the lifetime return on investment is nearly the same? STEM is more likely to get you a high-paying job from the get-go, but your salary, on average, doesn't continue to grow and your technical skillset may become less relevant through promotions.

My advice is to go for a major that suits your strengths and interests and be proactive about a career plan if you aim for more than a middle class life (not DCUM middle class). If you go for humanities and social sciences, be sure to acquire some skills that will get you a good first job--perhaps outside your formal schooling, be assertive about internships and proactive in your first job and be thinking about the skills/graduate education you will need to advance from there. Liberal arts grads should be thinking about 10 year plans--but keep them flexible to opportunities that arise. STEM majors can get a job right away, but they should be thinking about what next or they will soon top out and plateau. All majors--particularly STEM--need to think about threats of automation to their sub-specialty and diversify their skills/experiences.

1) they converge after 10 years. Do you understand the time-value of money?


2) does this account for adult education? It seems that liberal arts (undegrad) majors are likely to get more useful education as a master's degree. STEM majors who continue their education move up as well. Also, active practice in most STEM fields generally keeps themselves sharp.

Entry into the "High-Skill Labor L2 or Transitional Gentry G4" Classes. May continue into the "Primary Gentry G3"
My advice: if you're top 20% nationally in test scores (the only reliable and objective comparison) go to the best school you can, and study the hardest interesting subject you can at that school. Take the best job you can with that career, and live in the cheapest possible place you can. Continue with a graduate degree that will give you a better job.

If you're not in the top 20% nationally in test scores, but have another angle for free or massively-reduced-cost no-or-low debt college education, take the angle you have, and take the hardest major you can. Same career advice as above.

Entry into the "High Skill Labor L2 via the Primary Labor L3" Class. May continue into "Labor Leadership"
If you're not in the top 20% scores-wise, and don't have another angle, DO NOT TAKE DEBT TO GET A DEGREE. This includes debt from your parents. If you have financial support, use it to buy a house, or fund a conservatively-imagined business. Get the highest-paying / hardest job you can get, potentially in a trade, such as HVAC. Pay your way through an associates' degree in a STEM/Medical field that interests you or expands your ability to manage a small business in your existing trade.

If you're family is in the top 0.1% of wealth, none of this applies to you. You're already "Elite"

https://indiepf.com/michael-o-churchs-theory-of-3-class-ladders-in-america-archive/

1. Of course, there is some benefit to having a higher salary for 9 years at the beginning. Most people start contributing to their retirement funds at 25. If there was a 20k average difference in starting salaries and people contributed 15% on average, this would constitute 3K a year for 6 years -- 18k more invested early on.
But at the 10 year mark there is little difference. If you're not interested in STEM, not particularly good at STEM, love something else, the time value of a salary difference for 9 years might not matter to that much. ALso, if you're not interested in/good at STEM you're likely to get a salary below average and advance more slowly.

2. I didn't dig into whether the study posted addressed those questions--I don't think it did, but you can look at the link.

3. SAT scores may be "objective," but they are not very predictive of academic success in school nor career success, controlling for socioeconomic status. GPA with all its subjectivity and variability is a better predictor.

[Anonymous]

What a dumb thread.

I would fund whatever my kid wants to study, be it clown college or astrophysics or anything in between. I want my kid to be happy with his/her career choice. I'm not going to live his/her life, he/she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a dumb thread.

I would fund whatever my kid wants to study, be it clown college or astrophysics or anything in between. I want my kid to be happy with his/her career choice. I'm not going to live his/her life, he/she is.

in poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a dumb thread.

I would fund whatever my kid wants to study, be it clown college or astrophysics or anything in between. I want my kid to be happy with his/her career choice. I'm not going to live his/her life, he/she is.

in poverty.

FWIW, Sacha Baron Cohen and his wife, Isla Fisher, both graduate from competing clown colleges and both are doing quite well.

My view is the best thing you can do for your children is support them in making their own decisions. Absolutely provide relevant information for them to consider but then step away.

[Anonymous]

Of course. Just have a plan. Supplement a technical minor, consider professional graduate degrees, target an occupation that is in demand, or go to an ivy league. q

[Anonymous]

Yes, if they are truly interested.

You don't make as much money when you first graduate, but usually have a more flexible degree than a professional degree. I make much more money than my business degree friends 20 years later, as an English major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if they are truly interested.

You don't make as much money when you first graduate, but usually have a more flexible degree than a professional degree. I make much more money than my business degree friends 20 years later, as an English major.

DD loves to major in English.
What was your job after graduation?

[Anonymous]

Yes only if it's T10 school.

[Anonymous]

You don't study "liberal arts,", that is a huge bucket of disciplines. You sound ignorant and biased towards whatever field you chose.

Children are not robots you can program. You question is disturbing.

Good parents want to help children figure out their passions, then help them identify pathways to support themselves that incorporate what they care about.

You have a lot to learn about the "liberal arts" as well as parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are too many extreme viewpoints on both sides here. If we’re looking at pure financial return on investment (which is really the only objective measure for comparing majors), it’s going to be a sliding scale in reality depending upon school ranking, type of major, whether grad school is required, etc. Whether someone is personally fulfilled by a particular field is totally subjective and up to the individual - I certainly wouldn’t advocate my own children to go into a field that they despise for financial reasons, but I also think there’s a middle ground between a whimsical “follow your heart at all costs” justification for chasing jobs with low pay and/or lottery-type odds of getting and being forced into a job someone hates purely because of money.

For instance, my ultimate dream job would be one where I get paid for watching sports all day, but those jobs are few and far between (and many don’t pay a living wage even if you got hired). However, I did find a job that I *like* as far as a job goes that also pays enough to provide a comfortable living and gives me enough time and resources to enjoy my hobbies in my free time (including watching sports and helping coach my kids’ teams). I like my job enough that I’m happy going to work and believe that I’m receiving fair compensation, but my work is also not my core identity and I’m not going to be one of those people that will hem and haw when I’m ready to retire - I work to live as opposed to live to work.

Bottom line: no one should do a job that they hate for money, but by the same token, “love” for a job can only go so far if it doesn’t pay the bills (or even worse, simply doesn’t exist due to scarcity). It’s almost as of though people forget to ask their kids what they *like* to do (which might not be a “love” or “passion”) and explore options on that front.

FWIW, I was a finance major in undergrad at a Big Ten state school that then went to law school. My fellow finance majors tended to do well financially and my fellow law school grads that had humanities majors (which is what we’re really talking about when we say “liberal arts majors”) also generally did well. I’ll be honest that the pure humanities majors that I knew that didn’t go onto law school or some other professional school have had a harder time financially overall in average than STEM or business majors. To deny that would be disingenuous - those are simply the odds (even if there are many individual anecdotes to the contrary).

Now, it’s likely very different if you’re a humanities major at an Ivy/Ivy-level elite school - there’s a lot more leeway because the brand of your school means more than your major in those instances. However, the same advice realistically wouldn’t apply to even my Big Ten state school (which always ranks fairy high in academic rankings) for the average student. I’d imagine that grass from lower-ranked schools would have an even harder time. Circumstances are simply going to be different depending upon the student, institution, etc.

This is a really compelling point. Should I encourage my DD to look into economics since she has always liked math and social sciences when she also wants to study history? I know she can continue to study history but as a major, economics might be better suited towards Dad's career interests in data science and she doesn't hate the subject. DD has met several international students at college and is amazed that some of them are able to power through double majors in quantitative fields like math, economics, and computer science (aka liberal arts subjects) with some ambivalence towards the specific subjects. She's kind of inspired because some of these kids have career aspirations in finance, tech, and consulting and like their majors enough to pursue them even if it isn't their "passion" but also find time to take courses in languages and humanities/social sciences to not only balance out their schedule but also to pursue their other academic interests. (This is not a post about international kids who can "grind" and fulfill nerdy stereotypes, we ourselves are an immigrant family, but it was interesting to reflect on kids who feel that a specific major will help them land a specific career or at least a career with financial stability and security and international demand, even if it isn't their utmost passion.)For families who are more concerned about their kids' employment, it could provide some potential guidelines where their child's strengths and interests are still reflected in the choice of major but that the major also allows their child to pursue their own interests on the side, both at college and as a working adult.