Parents who don't allow their kids to major in liberal arts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

I am a liberal arts major, I read the article, and I can tell it's absolute B.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

You know there's no point in reading an article that you haven't read... and yet your commenting on it? Wow, that makes perfect sense

[Anonymous]

I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

This isn't true. Typically smarter kids and kids with math and science aptitude lean towards stem degrees. High school kids are old enough or mature enough to understand family connections or lack thereof. I suppose you could say I have family connections but that at all wasn't something I weighed when choosing my major and college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

I think one important part of this argument is what "impressive" means. I don't make a lot of money in my job, which I got quite readily with my liberal arts degree, but I'm making a difference in the world, and doing something I enjoy (for the most part). I could easily support myself when I was single, while putting money into savings; now that I'm married, my (liberal arts) DH and I are supporting our family easily. So, if money is the be-all, end-all for you, that's fine. For others, it's not what's important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

That's EXACTLY what it is. Just like you see a lot more writers/comedians/creative types who were able to go after their passions, last out a few years after college where they weren't making money, because they came from an upper-middle-class or better background and they knew they had that parachute if things didn't work out.

It's funny because I was listening to a podcast with Nick Kroll, who is an extremely successful comedian and also happens to be the son of a billionaire. When he was asked about that he said it didn't change things too much EXCEPT THAT he was always able to go after what he wanted to. Even if he had to work odd jobs to make rent he knew that if things were bad he could call his dad, and that goes a long way into allowing someone the mental headspace to be successfully creative.

On the other hand, if your family is only middle class, and you had to take out loans, and you know they DESPERATELY want to know you have an okay future, you probably don't have the luxury of betting it all that you can make your writing career work, no matter how much you love it/how good you are.

And that is one reason why the rich get richer- their attitudes towards wealth allows their children the freedom to find and foster their passions. Meanwhile the non-rich are funneled into prescribed careers they may not love, because it brings guaranteed financial security. Even if they would have done much better financially had they roughed it for a few years as a barista after majoring in liberal arts- they'll never know that, because they don't take that route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

I agree with this and what's absolutely criminal is that a professor from GMU is suggesting that students there should major in liberal arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

This isn't true. Typically smarter kids and kids with math and science aptitude lean towards stem degrees. High school kids are old enough or mature enough to understand family connections or lack thereof. I suppose you could say I have family connections but that at all wasn't something I weighed when choosing my major and college.

The smart kids with family money and connections drop out of college to start their own company--how do you think SV is what it is now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

I agree with this and what's absolutely criminal is that a professor from GMU is suggesting that students there should major in liberal arts.

I made this comment--and I am a Liberal Arts major without family connections. However, I managed to figure out what I love to do and make a great living doing it. I think the professor is spot on. As a previous person said above, the rich get richer because the middle class keep playing their game. When we stop playing into their game, life will get better for everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just repeats the same old canards that the WaPo piece attempts to debunk, namely:

--that recent liberal arts majors have much higher un- and under-employment rates (not true)

--that liberal arts majors don't make enough to support themselves (not true)

--that one's major dictates one's job choices (biology and math majors don't usually become biologists and mathematicians; history majors don't usually become historians; English majors don't usually become English teachers.)

--that the world has changed so much that the experience of the former liberal arts majors posting here is irrelevant (not true, unless they are attorneys)

etc.

There are even posts here arguing that the author of the WaPo piece is just another ivory tower professor lamenting the decline in popularity of his liberal arts field. Except the author of this piece is long-time business/economics writer for the WaPo who teaches a few classes on the side.

I'm starting to think the liberal arts bashers (who are presumably ones who didn't go the liberal arts route and wouldn't want their kids to) are proving the point of the piece. They are demonstrating a complete inability to actually READ THE ARTICLE and synthesize that knowledge. The liberal arts majors, on the other hand, seem to be doing that quite well. Huh.

Because there's no point in reading the article. It's not like I can go back and change my major from science to liberal arts. I already have an opinion on the value of a liberal arts degree based on what my husband's college classmates are doing compared to my college classmates. He went to a top tier achool and unless they went to law school their career paths aren't that impressive. My classmates went on to Silicon Valley, finance, research scientists etc. I've noticed a huge difference and I wouldn't spend a lot of money sending my child to college for a liberal arts degree.

I think one important part of this argument is what "impressive" means. I don't make a lot of money in my job, which I got quite readily with my liberal arts degree, but I'm making a difference in the world, and doing something I enjoy (for the most part). I could easily support myself when I was single, while putting money into savings; now that I'm married, my (liberal arts) DH and I are supporting our family easily. So, if money is the be-all, end-all for you, that's fine. For others, it's not what's important.

You say that you and your DH can easily support your family, so what's with this "money's not all that" attitude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

I agree with this and what's absolutely criminal is that a professor from GMU is suggesting that students there should major in liberal arts.

I made this comment--and I am a Liberal Arts major without family connections. However, I managed to figure out what I love to do and make a great living doing it. I think the professor is spot on. As a previous person said above, the rich get richer because the middle class keep playing their game. When we stop playing into their game, life will get better for everyone!

So are you suggesting that the middle class should stop majoring in practical degrees and start majoring in the liberal arts so that they too can become rich? I'm not following the logic there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

That's EXACTLY what it is. Just like you see a lot more writers/comedians/creative types who were able to go after their passions, last out a few years after college where they weren't making money, because they came from an upper-middle-class or better background and they knew they had that parachute if things didn't work out.

It's funny because I was listening to a podcast with Nick Kroll, who is an extremely successful comedian and also happens to be the son of a billionaire. When he was asked about that he said it didn't change things too much EXCEPT THAT he was always able to go after what he wanted to. Even if he had to work odd jobs to make rent he knew that if things were bad he could call his dad, and that goes a long way into allowing someone the mental headspace to be successfully creative.

On the other hand, if your family is only middle class, and you had to take out loans, and you know they DESPERATELY want to know you have an okay future, you probably don't have the luxury of betting it all that you can make your writing career work, no matter how much you love it/how good you are.

And that is one reason why the rich get richer- their attitudes towards wealth allows their children the freedom to find and foster their passions. Meanwhile the non-rich are funneled into prescribed careers they may not love, because it brings guaranteed financial security. Even if they would have done much better financially had they roughed it for a few years as a barista after majoring in liberal arts- they'll never know that, because they don't take that route.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting topic to me - We were at Ponte Vedra Beach in Florida a couple of weeks ago and I sat across from a guy at dinner who does all the executive level hiring for a large company based in Jacksonville. He said the trend now is swinging towards a preference for liberal arts majors. He said he can teach things specific to his industry, but he can't teach people to write. And the ability to write well is the most important thing. His experience is that liberal arts majors are better writers and better at thinking critically and solving complex problems.

Of course that's just one company. I'm sure there are examples of hiring managers who don't like liberal arts majors. I just thought it was interesting because his company is definitely what most would consider techy.

Ha! We've heard the same thing about the large tech companies! We've also heard that medical schools are beginning to look at liberal arts majors over biology majors, for example - that the liberal arts majors are better at the patient assessment and diagnostics because of the critical thinking skills they practiced with a liberal arts major.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: liberal arts does not just include humanities and social sciences.

Biology is a liberal arts subject. Chemistry is a liberal arts subject. Computer science, mathematics, biochemistry, and physics, are all liberal arts subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think we are seeing a class divide in the vocationalism of higher ed. Upper-class people go to college and are fine majoring in the liberal arts; they have the connections to get a job after graduation either through family or an alumni network. For people with out connections or money, they see STEM degrees or anything practical like business or accounting as a way to pay off debt/loans and compensate for lack of family connections and alumni networks.

I agree with this and what's absolutely criminal is that a professor from GMU is suggesting that students there should major in liberal arts.

I made this comment--and I am a Liberal Arts major without family connections. However, I managed to figure out what I love to do and make a great living doing it. I think the professor is spot on. As a previous person said above, the rich get richer because the middle class keep playing their game. When we stop playing into their game, life will get better for everyone!

So are you suggesting that the middle class should stop majoring in practical degrees and start majoring in the liberal arts so that they too can become rich? I'm not following the logic there.

They should major in/do what they want--STEM, liberal arts, plumber, comedian, etc.--rather than scrambling so they can live in the right DC neighborhood or buy that 10th Longchamp bag. You know the wealthy are going to change the game and start out-sourcing coders and other engineering projects that don't demand people in the room. Why pay someone six figures in the US when you can pay someone in India with the same skill set and education much less and not include benefits? Those jobs are probably going to start migrating overseas in the next generation.