So few liberal arts majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quick scan of the comments is urging kids to major in practical, hard, quantitative fields, but then says there's no use majoring in hard sciences because it's meaningless, that business is all getting replaced by AI, that all humanities are useless, and that social sciences is DEI. So I guess we should all just give up and become plumbers? How about this: Kids should work hard and pursue the life of the mind in math, science, and the arts, and will then be the well-rounded, competent-at-many-things managers and leaders we have so few of. The reductionist hysteria around the funding cuts, the STEM panic, DEI, etc. has got to stop. Let's make the academy a place of learning, with a healthy dose of realism (acknowledge people need to make money), and move forward.

As a south Asian American, I recognize a lot of the comments - they are likely Indian or Chinese immigrants - the CS or bust crew. It's a limiting view of the world and based on what they know. Their kids won't be leaders - they are training them to be worker bees. It's a very un-American mindset.

Agree with you on a well-rounded liberal arts education (guess what - math is liberal arts!!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m predicting that for RD this year kids who are not stem will do better than those in stem for admissions.

Their “research” doesn’t involve labs or funding - it’s going to the library and reading old documents and manuscripts and writing.

I see this wave of government funding cuts to stem research inadvertently pushing up the liberal arts.

Schools will need a lot of these majors this year - hopefully, your current senior applied with that in mind. Agree no impact to funding for these departments.


Anthropology
Archeology
Classics
English
History
Linguistics
Philosophy
Political Science & Government
Sociology

Group Studies Impact:
Jewish Studies remains important (esp the schools being sued - like Northwestern - need to show their commitment)
I think Women's Studies stays but drops Gender entirely from its name. I could be wrong though. It will go back to the old school programs focused SOLELY on women.
More generic group studies programs (like: Ethnic Studies & Migration - taking out specific "named" groups)

[Anonymous]

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.

Cool- the reality is that so many “technical” jobs don’t require much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m predicting that for RD this year kids who are not stem will do better than those in stem for admissions.

Their “research” doesn’t involve labs or funding - it’s going to the library and reading old documents and manuscripts and writing.

I see this wave of government funding cuts to stem research inadvertently pushing up the liberal arts.

Schools will need a lot of these majors this year - hopefully, your current senior applied with that in mind. Agree no impact to funding for these departments.


Anthropology
Archeology
Classics
English
History
Linguistics
Philosophy
Political Science & Government
Sociology

Group Studies Impact:
Jewish Studies remains important (esp the schools being sued - like Northwestern - need to show their commitment)
I think Women's Studies stays but drops Gender entirely from its name. I could be wrong though. It will go back to the old school programs focused SOLELY on women.
More generic group studies programs (like: Ethnic Studies & Migration - taking out specific "named" groups)

Jewish studies remains important for what? It’s a very narrow field compared to religious studies, and there’s not many people seeking Jewish studies majors.

[Anonymous]

As I person who hates both philosophy and upper level math classes, like many many of my fellow Americans, I am confident kids don’t need to ace either to get on a good job track.

[Anonymous]

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.

Like history majors who develop the capacity to think critically, conduct research and communicate clearly? Who also can learn from the past?

Lucky for us Trump and all of Musk coding staff know how to think things through and communicate clearly….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m predicting that for RD this year kids who are not stem will do better than those in stem for admissions.

Their “research” doesn’t involve labs or funding - it’s going to the library and reading old documents and manuscripts and writing.

I see this wave of government funding cuts to stem research inadvertently pushing up the liberal arts.

Schools will need a lot of these majors this year - hopefully, your current senior applied with that in mind. Agree no impact to funding for these departments.


Anthropology
Archeology
Classics
English
History
Linguistics
Philosophy
Political Science & Government
Sociology

Group Studies Impact:
Jewish Studies remains important (esp the schools being sued - like Northwestern - need to show their commitment)
I think Women's Studies stays but drops Gender entirely from its name. I could be wrong though. It will go back to the old school programs focused SOLELY on women.
More generic group studies programs (like: Ethnic Studies & Migration - taking out specific "named" groups)

Jewish studies remains important for what? It’s a very narrow field compared to religious studies, and there’s not many people seeking Jewish studies majors.

Its important to this admin and Justice department

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet many study the sciences...Not to be anti-intellectual, but many scientific pursuits are purely meaningless, require a PhD, and pay $30k-40k

So friggin true it hurts. Studying physics was great but possibly one of the most useless things I have done in my life. It is mostly a field that generates no profit and has been consistently a mess for the pass 50 years with little progress to the fundamental questions still lurking. Overall, I would not recommend a science degree over a mathematics or engineering pursuit.

Physics majors can opt to study engineering in grad school. At some universities applied physics is even considered a form of engineering. Physics is at the forefront of many areas expected to have high impact applications in the coming decades. Fusion, quantum computing, nano tech, directed energy systems, materials science and much more benefit from a strong foundation in physics. I would argue many of the most innovative engineers started in physics or chemistry, as understanding nature is a wise first step before trying to build things with it.

As far as salaries go, this link may be of interest. For mid-career earnings, physics majors fare reasonably well considering that many do opt for lower pay lab or academic positions for the sheer satisfaction of the work.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet many study the sciences...Not to be anti-intellectual, but many scientific pursuits are purely meaningless, require a PhD, and pay $30k-40k

So friggin true it hurts. Studying physics was great but possibly one of the most useless things I have done in my life. It is mostly a field that generates no profit and has been consistently a mess for the pass 50 years with little progress to the fundamental questions still lurking. Overall, I would not recommend a science degree over a mathematics or engineering pursuit.

Physics majors can opt to study engineering in grad school. At some universities applied physics is even considered a form of engineering. Physics is at the forefront of many areas expected to have high impact applications in the coming decades. Fusion, quantum computing, nano tech, directed energy systems, materials science and much more benefit from a strong foundation in physics. I would argue many of the most innovative engineers started in physics or chemistry, as understanding nature is a wise first step before trying to build things with it.

As far as salaries go, this link may be of interest. For mid-career earnings, physics majors fare reasonably well considering that many do opt for lower pay lab or academic positions for the sheer satisfaction of the work.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major

Are you a physicist/done a physics major? You can go into certain grad engineering programs, but it’s a big learning curve and a time sync when you can get an engineering undergrad degree. A lot of the research positions you are talking about are uber competitive- hardly anyone can get a position in quantum computing, and the training for it doesn’t begin until undergrad. Materials/energy are the most in need, but you’re competing often with people much better at chem (what you actually need). Physics is a great degree for pivoting, except most physics majors don’t have time to do physics, pick up various coding courses, work on independent projects, and get the right internships to leave college confident.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet many study the sciences...Not to be anti-intellectual, but many scientific pursuits are purely meaningless, require a PhD, and pay $30k-40k

So friggin true it hurts. Studying physics was great but possibly one of the most useless things I have done in my life. It is mostly a field that generates no profit and has been consistently a mess for the pass 50 years with little progress to the fundamental questions still lurking. Overall, I would not recommend a science degree over a mathematics or engineering pursuit.

Physics majors can opt to study engineering in grad school. At some universities applied physics is even considered a form of engineering. Physics is at the forefront of many areas expected to have high impact applications in the coming decades. Fusion, quantum computing, nano tech, directed energy systems, materials science and much more benefit from a strong foundation in physics. I would argue many of the most innovative engineers started in physics or chemistry, as understanding nature is a wise first step before trying to build things with it.

As far as salaries go, this link may be of interest. For mid-career earnings, physics majors fare reasonably well considering that many do opt for lower pay lab or academic positions for the sheer satisfaction of the work.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major

Are you a physicist/done a physics major? You can go into certain grad engineering programs, but it’s a big learning curve and a time sync when you can get an engineering undergrad degree. A lot of the research positions you are talking about are uber competitive- hardly anyone can get a position in quantum computing, and the training for it doesn’t begin until undergrad. Materials/energy are the most in need, but you’re competing often with people much better at chem (what you actually need). Physics is a great degree for pivoting, except most physics majors don’t have time to do physics, pick up various coding courses, work on independent projects, and get the right internships to leave college confident.

Yes I have a degree in physics, have hired physics majors, know well
some who have gone from physics to engineering, and all that. It is a very versatile major, and the above was far from an exhaustive list. Some of the most successful sw developers I’ve known studied physics. AI was pioneered by physicists and arguably still is. Pharma companies need physicists to predict protein folding and help design targeted drugs. Medical imaging and treatment technology is a related example. Physics and philosophy majors historically have the highest LSAT scores. Quantum computing grad work obviously benefits greatly from physics undergrad foundations. Physics itself has applications nearly everywhere, and the skills acquired in its study are also broadly applicable. I certainly wouldn’t recommend physics for everyone; it’s not as prescribed as engineering, for one. But earlier venting about how the field lacked utility or had become stagnant showed astonishingly little understanding of what a physics major is good for. But it’s certain our future adversaries are delighted by such sentiments!

[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:

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!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet many study the sciences...Not to be anti-intellectual, but many scientific pursuits are purely meaningless, require a PhD, and pay $30k-40k

So friggin true it hurts. Studying physics was great but possibly one of the most useless things I have done in my life. It is mostly a field that generates no profit and has been consistently a mess for the pass 50 years with little progress to the fundamental questions still lurking. Overall, I would not recommend a science degree over a mathematics or engineering pursuit.

Physics majors can opt to study engineering in grad school. At some universities applied physics is even considered a form of engineering. Physics is at the forefront of many areas expected to have high impact applications in the coming decades. Fusion, quantum computing, nano tech, directed energy systems, materials science and much more benefit from a strong foundation in physics. I would argue many of the most innovative engineers started in physics or chemistry, as understanding nature is a wise first step before trying to build things with it.

As far as salaries go, this link may be of interest. For mid-career earnings, physics majors fare reasonably well considering that many do opt for lower pay lab or academic positions for the sheer satisfaction of the work.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major

Are you a physicist/done a physics major? You can go into certain grad engineering programs, but it’s a big learning curve and a time sync when you can get an engineering undergrad degree. A lot of the research positions you are talking about are uber competitive- hardly anyone can get a position in quantum computing, and the training for it doesn’t begin until undergrad. Materials/energy are the most in need, but you’re competing often with people much better at chem (what you actually need). Physics is a great degree for pivoting, except most physics majors don’t have time to do physics, pick up various coding courses, work on independent projects, and get the right internships to leave college confident.

Yes I have a degree in physics, have hired physics majors, know well
some who have gone from physics to engineering, and all that. It is a very versatile major, and the above was far from an exhaustive list. Some of the most successful sw developers I’ve known studied physics. AI was pioneered by physicists and arguably still is. Pharma companies need physicists to predict protein folding and help design targeted drugs. Medical imaging and treatment technology is a related example. Physics and philosophy majors historically have the highest LSAT scores. Quantum computing grad work obviously benefits greatly from physics undergrad foundations. Physics itself has applications nearly everywhere, and the skills acquired in its study are also broadly applicable. I certainly wouldn’t recommend physics for everyone; it’s not as prescribed as engineering, for one. But earlier venting about how the field lacked utility or had become stagnant showed astonishingly little understanding of what a physics major is good for. But it’s certain our future adversaries are delighted by such sentiments!

This is honestly any stem major. You can get much further with a math degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the liberal arts face a headwind because of STEM, they also hurt themselves by shifting from Shakespeare and Plato toward wokeness. It's a different kind of person who goes for what liberal arts are today and there aren't as many of them.

Anonymous wrote:I was looking up colleges on this government College Navigator site and it was somewhat eye-opening how few students are majoring in liberal arts disciplines, with the exceptions being science and psychology. I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the high cost of college and economic uncertainty, but as a former social science major it makes me a bit sad.

Site: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

Half of STEM is a liberal art.

I've been wondering why nobody has pointed this out...

Because no one here really understands majors or the job market?

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quick scan of the comments is urging kids to major in practical, hard, quantitative fields, but then says there's no use majoring in hard sciences because it's meaningless, that business is all getting replaced by AI, that all humanities are useless, and that social sciences is DEI. So I guess we should all just give up and become plumbers? How about this: Kids should work hard and pursue the life of the mind in math, science, and the arts, and will then be the well-rounded, competent-at-many-things managers and leaders we have so few of. The reductionist hysteria around the funding cuts, the STEM panic, DEI, etc. has got to stop. Let's make the academy a place of learning, with a healthy dose of realism (acknowledge people need to make money), and move forward.

+1

[Anonymous]

Of course, the current U.S. approach to university endowments may be in need of change. There’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to move away from the endowment system.

The problem is that, in this area as in others, Trump is imposing change at random, without his people showing that they know how anything works or are even somewhat honest; in a time that’s not actually a dire emergency that could justify suspending rules; without consulting with experts or staffers in a systematic way; and without providing a reasonable amount of advanced warning.

If the Trump people are correct, and dramatic change is urgently needed at universities, they’ve crippled any serious reformers of the future by associating reform efforts with idiotic, arrogant vandalism.