What do liberal arts majors do?

[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:1/3 of global CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have liberal arts degrees.

A lot of those are economics tho

Economics is a good major unlike those humanities majors like English, communications, anthropology, etc. etc.

I would argue the same skills are being taught, just looking at human behavior through different lenses.

Economics is ultimately about people and how they behave. Just like anthropology, communications, and English.

I do agree the fields those might take you into might have wildly varying pay scales, but not everyone is motivated by a top-earning paycheck. If someone has a passion for anthropology, they'll accept lower pay than a computer scientist. And the difference in an AI world is the computer scientist is more likely to be displaced than the anthropologist, who will APPLY AI to their work.

More to the point, the foundational skills of all these majors are essentially the same, which makes these people highly desirable for large global Fortune 500 companies -- should those majors even desire to work in such an environment.

I have a liberal arts degree in philosophy. I earn $275,000 a year and have earned in the $200s since my 30s.

I realize anecdote is not evidence, but the notion that there's no value in liberal arts is not grounded in reality. And it also doesn't herald the future, where humanities degrees will be more coveted than engineering or computer science. Just ask Mark Cuban.

Sorry that's not the reality.

Harvard Economics: $124,570
Harvard English: $49,570

Employers who actually pay don't agree with you.

There is a huge difference in starting salaries. Much less difference after 15 or 20 years, and some studies show the difference can even reverse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

Anyway there is a lot more to life than earning 140k at 23. I spent my 20s traveling and studying and doing some low-paid work. Now at 50 I earn $350k. I wouldn’t change a thing. History degree, by the way (where I learned not to focus unduly on the short term)…

LOL there are a lot more to life with 140k at 23 like traveling and experiencing the world.
Much harder with 60K unless you are a trust fund kid. Pay rent.

DP: Actually the opposite is more true--when you are not gunning for a high earning position, you find some teaching English internationally position or other similar, use that to travel the world and pay your rent in LCOL countries. As you meet people, you often find other job opportunities. You develop a lot of experience, develop a solid sense of your self and the world, meet a lot of people and figure out what you want to do with this one life you have. This path is easier than it ever was with the ability to stay on your parent's health insurance until age 26 and/or purchase cheap traveler's insurance or ACA in the US. This self-development plus international work history isn't too hard to then translate into a US career-oriented job in your mid-20s.

You're never going to convince the overly anxious person who's all in on being a STEM drone that their decision, however valid for them or their children, isn't without more risk in the new and emerging workplace or right for everyone. You can tell how anxious they are by their flailing, whereas the liberal arts people are calm, collected, and know their value.

what utter horse shite

Methinks thou doth protest too much. (That's a line from William Shakespeare's play entitled "Hamlet," spoken by Gertrude, who was Hamlet's mother. William Shakespeare is a famous playwright who was active in the 16 and 17th centuries; I feel the need to explain that to you since you were not a liberal arts major and probably have heard the expression before but didn't know where it came from).

lol.. I memorized the entire speech by Hamlet in HS. I majored in business then learned to code.

Wow, my retort went right over your head. Typical. Are you on the spectrum?

LOL. I think you are the one who doesn't understand my retort. Your LA major didn't teach you reading comprehension skills?

You wrote that shite about Hamlet thinking I don't know Hamlet or the lines from the play. I retorted that I actually memorized Hamlet's speech in HS (and read several of his plays).

You really think non LA majors have never read Shakespeare? Your understanding of non LA majors makes it clear that you are the one who doesn't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a huge backlash against AI art and writing. The average joe who isn't detail-oriented might be fooled, but most educated people can spot the issues.

If you claim AI art is good and AI writing is good, you're one of the average joes. Sorry!

And yet, so many companies are now using AI for those things. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/3 of global CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have liberal arts degrees.

A lot of those are economics tho

Economics is a good major unlike those humanities majors like English, communications, anthropology, etc. etc.

I would argue the same skills are being taught, just looking at human behavior through different lenses.

Economics is ultimately about people and how they behave. Just like anthropology, communications, and English.

I do agree the fields those might take you into might have wildly varying pay scales, but not everyone is motivated by a top-earning paycheck. If someone has a passion for anthropology, they'll accept lower pay than a computer scientist. And the difference in an AI world is the computer scientist is more likely to be displaced than the anthropologist, who will APPLY AI to their work.

More to the point, the foundational skills of all these majors are essentially the same, which makes these people highly desirable for large global Fortune 500 companies -- should those majors even desire to work in such an environment.

I have a liberal arts degree in philosophy. I earn $275,000 a year and have earned in the $200s since my 30s.

I realize anecdote is not evidence, but the notion that there's no value in liberal arts is not grounded in reality. And it also doesn't herald the future, where humanities degrees will be more coveted than engineering or computer science. Just ask Mark Cuban.

Sorry that's not the reality.

Harvard Economics: $124,570
Harvard English: $49,570

Employers who actually pay don't agree with you.

There is a huge difference in starting salaries. Much less difference after 15 or 20 years, and some studies show the difference can even reverse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

Anyway there is a lot more to life than earning 140k at 23. I spent my 20s traveling and studying and doing some low-paid work. Now at 50 I earn $350k. I wouldn’t change a thing. History degree, by the way (where I learned not to focus unduly on the short term)…

LOL there are a lot more to life with 140k at 23 like traveling and experiencing the world.
Much harder with 60K unless you are a trust fund kid. Pay rent.

DP: Actually the opposite is more true--when you are not gunning for a high earning position, you find some teaching English internationally position or other similar, use that to travel the world and pay your rent in LCOL countries. As you meet people, you often find other job opportunities. You develop a lot of experience, develop a solid sense of your self and the world, meet a lot of people and figure out what you want to do with this one life you have. This path is easier than it ever was with the ability to stay on your parent's health insurance until age 26 and/or purchase cheap traveler's insurance or ACA in the US. This self-development plus international work history isn't too hard to then translate into a US career-oriented job in your mid-20s.

You're never going to convince the overly anxious person who's all in on being a STEM drone that their decision, however valid for them or their children, isn't without more risk in the new and emerging workplace or right for everyone. You can tell how anxious they are by their flailing, whereas the liberal arts people are calm, collected, and know their value.

+1

Their currency is just different from ours. Most people can appreciate those who do things they can't. There are a few STEM-obsessed people here who don't understand why anyone would want to be on a different path than the one they are on, which is kind of sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Methinks thou doth protest too much.

"Thou dost" not "thou doth."

If you're going to rephrase making "thou" the subject instead of "the lady," you need to switch from "doth" to "dost" for agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

They're not. The central debate here is whether earning a high income is a marathon or a sprint. Liberal Arts majors know full well that they are running a marathon. The STEM folks seem to prioritize the sprint.

Except the topic of this thread is what do LA majors do with just an undergraduate degree. PP basically skipped over what they did between undergrad and MBA and basically said they go get an MBA and then start earning.

+1 The answer seems to be that most LA majors go to graduate school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a huge backlash against AI art and writing. The average joe who isn't detail-oriented might be fooled, but most educated people can spot the issues.

If you claim AI art is good and AI writing is good, you're one of the average joes. Sorry!

And yet, so many companies are now using AI for those things. Oh well.

Experimenting with, at any rate. Time will tell what sticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a huge backlash against AI art and writing. The average joe who isn't detail-oriented might be fooled, but most educated people can spot the issues.

If you claim AI art is good and AI writing is good, you're one of the average joes. Sorry!

Check out GTP-4o
o stands for Ominous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/3 of global CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have liberal arts degrees.

A lot of those are economics tho

Economics is a good major unlike those humanities majors like English, communications, anthropology, etc. etc.

I would argue the same skills are being taught, just looking at human behavior through different lenses.

Economics is ultimately about people and how they behave. Just like anthropology, communications, and English.

I do agree the fields those might take you into might have wildly varying pay scales, but not everyone is motivated by a top-earning paycheck. If someone has a passion for anthropology, they'll accept lower pay than a computer scientist. And the difference in an AI world is the computer scientist is more likely to be displaced than the anthropologist, who will APPLY AI to their work.

More to the point, the foundational skills of all these majors are essentially the same, which makes these people highly desirable for large global Fortune 500 companies -- should those majors even desire to work in such an environment.

I have a liberal arts degree in philosophy. I earn $275,000 a year and have earned in the $200s since my 30s.

I realize anecdote is not evidence, but the notion that there's no value in liberal arts is not grounded in reality. And it also doesn't herald the future, where humanities degrees will be more coveted than engineering or computer science. Just ask Mark Cuban.

Sorry that's not the reality.

Harvard Economics: $124,570
Harvard English: $49,570

Employers who actually pay don't agree with you.

There is a huge difference in starting salaries. Much less difference after 15 or 20 years, and some studies show the difference can even reverse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

Anyway there is a lot more to life than earning 140k at 23. I spent my 20s traveling and studying and doing some low-paid work. Now at 50 I earn $350k. I wouldn’t change a thing. History degree, by the way (where I learned not to focus unduly on the short term)…

LOL there are a lot more to life with 140k at 23 like traveling and experiencing the world.
Much harder with 60K unless you are a trust fund kid. Pay rent.

DP: Actually the opposite is more true--when you are not gunning for a high earning position, you find some teaching English internationally position or other similar, use that to travel the world and pay your rent in LCOL countries. As you meet people, you often find other job opportunities. You develop a lot of experience, develop a solid sense of your self and the world, meet a lot of people and figure out what you want to do with this one life you have. This path is easier than it ever was with the ability to stay on your parent's health insurance until age 26 and/or purchase cheap traveler's insurance or ACA in the US. This self-development plus international work history isn't too hard to then translate into a US career-oriented job in your mid-20s.

You're never going to convince the overly anxious person who's all in on being a STEM drone that their decision, however valid for them or their children, isn't without more risk in the new and emerging workplace or right for everyone. You can tell how anxious they are by their flailing, whereas the liberal arts people are calm, collected, and know their value.

what utter horse shite

Methinks thou doth protest too much. (That's a line from William Shakespeare's play entitled "Hamlet," spoken by Gertrude, who was Hamlet's mother. William Shakespeare is a famous playwright who was active in the 16 and 17th centuries; I feel the need to explain that to you since you were not a liberal arts major and probably have heard the expression before but didn't know where it came from).

It was "the lady doth protest too much, methinks," said while they were watching a play where an actress was basically being Gertrude in the performance.

The funny thing is that I remember watching an episode of the original MacGuyver back in the day where he said "methinks thou doth protest too much" and I started laughing and went to pull Hamlet out to find the line.

Anyway, it makes you wonder how much sails over people when their education is "professional" (a sensitive word for vocational, job training)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:English major to bank training program to top 10 MBA program. I wish people would stop with the liberal arts hate. It’s really getting tiresome.

People are just looking at the data. Just because you and other DCUM posters have done well doesn’t mean all graduates with liberal arts degrees will do well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Harvard English: $49,675

Harvard CS: $256,539

Look at the enormous gap. Imagine why? LOL
Good luck with humanities majors in no name schools.

I think this data will be skewed because probably a higher portion of those entering low salary jobs from Harvard have trust funds. Probably more so than "no name schools" (pps words), where students will be more motivated to secure a higher paying role

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Harvard English: $49,675

Harvard CS: $256,539

Look at the enormous gap. Imagine why? LOL
Good luck with humanities majors in no name schools.

I think this data will be skewed because probably a higher portion of those entering low salary jobs from Harvard have trust funds. Probably more so than "no name schools" (pps words), where students will be more motivated to secure a higher paying role

It was mentioned little earlier.
This data actually eliminates trust funds kids.
This is for kids whose family got any sort of Federal aid including Pell grant, Stafford loans(sub or unsub), parent loans, etc. Thus it covers majority of lower-mid-upper mid class, but eliminates trust fund kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Harvard English: $49,675

Harvard CS: $256,539

Look at the enormous gap. Imagine why? LOL
Good luck with humanities majors in no name schools.

I think this data will be skewed because probably a higher portion of those entering low salary jobs from Harvard have trust funds. Probably more so than "no name schools" (pps words), where students will be more motivated to secure a higher paying role

It was mentioned little earlier.
This data actually eliminates trust funds kids.
This is for kids whose family got any sort of Federal aid including Pell grant, Stafford loans(sub or unsub), parent loans, etc. Thus it covers majority of lower-mid-upper mid class, but eliminates trust fund kids.

Anyone know how that's impacted at school's with aid that eliminates all loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading in one of the other threads that even physics and math majors are considered borderline employable these days, and have to double up in something "practical". Normally I would take that as normal DCUM overreaction but I'm starting to sweat it for a niece of mine.

Consider the following scenario. You're at a school ranked somewhere in the 20s on the US News liberal arts colleges list, majoring in some branch of literature. It's too late to transfer out or switch majors. You might want to do a professional degree (e.g. law school) at a later date, but you want to work a few years first.

What's the play here? Is there a reasonably straightforward path to good earnings? Or are you doomed to penury til you snag your J.D. or whatever?

Oh boy! I didn't read all the responses but judging by the number of pages, I suspect it's a lot .

Liberal Arts peeps are very defensive and prickly and take offense to any question about the viability of their degrees. Some do very well (just like some community college-->GMU students do very well) and they will paint a picture that leads you to believe that they are the rule and not the exception. In general, you need grad school or beyond when you get a non-professional degree. There are no free lunches. Of course, there are exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

Show me the averages. Not the averages for Pell kids, the averages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading in one of the other threads that even physics and math majors are considered borderline employable these days, and have to double up in something "practical". Normally I would take that as normal DCUM overreaction but I'm starting to sweat it for a niece of mine.

Consider the following scenario. You're at a school ranked somewhere in the 20s on the US News liberal arts colleges list, majoring in some branch of literature. It's too late to transfer out or switch majors. You might want to do a professional degree (e.g. law school) at a later date, but you want to work a few years first.

What's the play here? Is there a reasonably straightforward path to good earnings? Or are you doomed to penury til you snag your J.D. or whatever?

Oh boy! I didn't read all the responses but judging by the number of pages, I suspect it's a lot .

Liberal Arts peeps are very defensive and prickly and take offense to any question about the viability of their degrees. Some do very well (just like some community college-->GMU students do very well) and they will paint a picture that leads you to believe that they are the rule and not the exception. In general, you need grad school or beyond when you get a non-professional degree. There are no free lunches. Of course, there are exceptions.

This is the problem with expressing an opinion without reading the source material -- you make a lot of incorrect assumptions.

The prickly ones in this thread have been the STEM-obsessed people who can't fathom that someone might choose a different path. The LA majors are not taking offense since any question about the "viability of their degrees" is just a premise that can be rejected out-of-hand -- it's not a valid perspective. That's the backwards looking conversation, anyway. The real question is what does the future hold.

But the "prickly" ones here aren't the LA majors. They're the ones who are very confident.