Is college now just transactional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at 80K a year for a private school, it’s changed what people expect.

OP here. I figured this would be the first response. But, for $80k, don’t you want your kid to be more interesting than just technically capable?

Assuming 4 classes/semester, $80k/yr comes out to about $10k per class. Why spend $10,000 on some fluffy intro to world lit class when you can just read the same half dozen books on your own time?

Because people don't read them on their own time, and because if they do, they don't talk about them with a PhD in the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me or is college now more transactional than it was 20-30 years ago? It seems like students and parents are overwhelmingly focused on ROI, career earnings, next-step professional schools, etc. Extracurriculars and internships are all about landing a great job. Classes outside of one’s career path are a “waste of time,” and kids seek classes that are “easy” and “fit their lifestyle schedule.” I don’t hear kids talk with any excitement about a philosophy, religion, anthropology, fine arts, or history class. I don’t hear about kids working on research papers. I don’t hear kids grappling with social and political issues. Is it just me or has college become just another hurdle to adulthood that many feel they must jump, but really have no genuine interest in?

What?! I feel like way more undergrads are doing research with professors now than they were 30 years ago when I was in school.

Agreed. Though I think some of this is more the research faculties need to use undergrad students’ unpaid labor than the urge to give students more rigorous opportunities. It still benefits the students, but at least some of it seems a response to grad students unionizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at 80K a year for a private school, it’s changed what people expect.

OP here. I figured this would be the first response. But, for $80k, don’t you want your kid to be more interesting than just technically capable?

Assuming 4 classes/semester, $80k/yr comes out to about $10k per class. Why spend $10,000 on some fluffy intro to world lit class when you can just read the same half dozen books on your own time?

Because people don't read them on their own time, and because if they do, they don't talk about them with a PhD in the subject.

Into to world lit is likely taught by an adjunct or grad student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

you were passionate about history, so majored in history, then find a job history related lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

That is simply not true. Corporate jobs require strong interpersonal and writing skills and CS majors do not study or care to perfect those skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

That is simply not true. Corporate jobs require strong interpersonal and writing skills and CS majors do not study or care to perfect those skills.

Stereotyping much? You have a massive chip on your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

That is simply not true. Corporate jobs require strong interpersonal and writing skills and CS majors do not study or care to perfect those skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNuu9CpdjIo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

That is simply not true. Corporate jobs require strong interpersonal and writing skills and CS majors do not study or care to perfect those skills.

Stereotyping much? You have a massive chip on your shoulder.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

+100

A CS major can go into almost any corporate job, but a History major will be limited to low-paying ones like copywriting or marketing.

Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power

That is simply not true. Corporate jobs require strong interpersonal and writing skills and CS majors do not study or care to perfect those skills.

Stereotyping much? You have a massive chip on your shoulder.

You’re hilarious - did you feel the same way when you read: “ Because CS is something that requires much higher brain power”? Or does the chip on your shoulder get in the way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

It’s still there - at the t15 schools at least where consulting firms/IB are hiring - DH - was a history major at T10 school - Moved his way up the ranks in a finance job to eventually going to the corporate world. Became CEO.
He still talks about his undergrad history classes as being formative - in how he thinks about leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem is the way that corporations hire. There was a time that you could major in history and get a good job. For example, Sam Palmisano was a history major that went into sales at IBM and became CEO. I wonder if he would be hired today. Seems that many corporations want to hire students that have technical skills (engineering, business ...) rather than students that have potential that they will train. I believe in a liberal arts education but it can be tricky to get the first job, and college is stupid expensive.

It’s still there - at the t15 schools at least where consulting firms/IB are hiring - DH - was a history major at T10 school - Moved his way up the ranks in a finance job to eventually going to the corporate world. Became CEO.
He still talks about his undergrad history classes as being formative - in how he thinks about leadership.

Your husband graduated 30 years ago. Things are different now. BB IB/MBB prefer quantitative majors, even from HYPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at 80K a year for a private school, it’s changed what people expect.

OP here. I figured this would be the first response. But, for $80k, don’t you want your kid to be more interesting than just technically capable?

Assuming 4 classes/semester, $80k/yr comes out to about $10k per class. Why spend $10,000 on some fluffy intro to world lit class when you can just read the same half dozen books on your own time?

Because people don't read them on their own time, and because if they do, they don't talk about them with a PhD in the subject.

Into to world lit is likely taught by an adjunct or grad student.

Not at a liberal arts college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s partly that academia no longer seems like a viable path. It used to be that if you majored in anthropology or comparative lit or philosophy you could get a PhD and teach (or it seemed like you could). But now almost everyone knows those jobs don’t exist.

But also—I was a humanities major and believe the humanities are dying in part because of the orientation of the disciplines themselves. Where is the study of English going? Literary theory is not a productive direction, imo. What exciting new developments are on the horizon?

This.