Reply to Would you let your child study liberal arts?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Would you let your child study liberal arts?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

"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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Different poster.

[i]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."[/i][/quote]

"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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.   [/quote]

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/[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics