Anonymous wrote:Majoring in and then pursuing a career in the fine arts, museums, English/writing, Classics, or the like has become again what those things originally were: elite niche fields for those rich enough to be unburdened by the need to prepare to work for money. These are not jobs for upper middle class privileged kids whose parents pay full-ride for them to study engineering or business, they are "passions" for people who will never have to think about money, ever.
When I was at Harvard, I met people like this and realized very quickly that there was a level of wealthy I had never imagined.
Most kids today can't afford to major in the humanities, and need a utilitarian business or STEM degree because they need a high-paying job to maintain the standard of living their parents hold. The trustfund kid who attended Rosey in Switzerland for boarding school and is a billionaire just for her name can afford to major in English or Latin or Art History and have a "passion." That is not a rational choice or option for the majority of college kids today, though. It's a big change from decades ago, when just getting a BA in anything was enough to ensure an upper middle class lifestyle.
Anonymous wrote:DD is applying this year to jobs in the humanities sphere (Public facing careers mostly, along with publishing, editing, and copywriting). She has grown up in a generation where STEM has been thrown down the throat of every child in the education system, and people find humanities education a complete joke. Year over year, humanities departments are seeing reduced enrollment, funding cuts, and less cultural significance; yet, to get a job or to practice the humanities is very elitist and gatekept. What's going on here and will we ever see a resurgence in a literate, culturally-aware society?
Anonymous wrote:Threads like this make me sad.
A lot of lawyers I know were English or Philosophy majors, and they’re some of the highest paid people I know.
What’s scary is this—-people crap on education degrees, “soft” sciences like psychology and sociology, and they don’t want their kids to go into these roles. But they still want and need teachers to exist, they still want and need professors to exist so their grandkids can go to college and take a variety of classes that widen their thinking. Some of the most revered people in the world are music artists and actors. You want your kid to take piano lessons—from whom? A musician. You go to the theater several times a year and it brings you joy? Theater graduates. These professions wouldn’t exist if the arts and humanities were not funded. I go to the bookstore and it’s packed with people buying books—you know who writes these books? English majors! You know who edits them?? Also English majors!
We have a sad society when these important roles that bring a richness to our otherwise dull lives are seen as worthless or bad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Majoring in and then pursuing a career in the fine arts, museums, English/writing, Classics, or the like has become again what those things originally were: elite niche fields for those rich enough to be unburdened by the need to prepare to work for money. These are not jobs for upper middle class privileged kids whose parents pay full-ride for them to study engineering or business, they are "passions" for people who will never have to think about money, ever.
When I was at Harvard, I met people like this and realized very quickly that there was a level of wealthy I had never imagined.
Most kids today can't afford to major in the humanities, and need a utilitarian business or STEM degree because they need a high-paying job to maintain the standard of living their parents hold. The trustfund kid who attended Rosey in Switzerland for boarding school and is a billionaire just for her name can afford to major in English or Latin or Art History and have a "passion." That is not a rational choice or option for the majority of college kids today, though. It's a big change from decades ago, when just getting a BA in anything was enough to ensure an upper middle class lifestyle.
Unpopular opinion but these takes that the humanities are inaccessible are nonsensical. Do you all not read books, listen to podcasts, watch movies, read the paper, ever visit a museum, ever go to an art fair or try a pottery class? I love my engineering degree and have my own woodworking studio and constantly buy new books, am subscribed to the Economist, New Yorker, and LA times, and am considering taking up sewing, so will likely go to a sewing house with my wife.
It’s concerning to me that so many people seem okay that their lives are filled with nothing but a corporate job and their phones. The AI might actually take over our lives, because people were too stupid to look out their window and attempt to engage in community.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Majoring in and then pursuing a career in the fine arts, museums, English/writing, Classics, or the like has become again what those things originally were: elite niche fields for those rich enough to be unburdened by the need to prepare to work for money. These are not jobs for upper middle class privileged kids whose parents pay full-ride for them to study engineering or business, they are "passions" for people who will never have to think about money, ever.
When I was at Harvard, I met people like this and realized very quickly that there was a level of wealthy I had never imagined.
Most kids today can't afford to major in the humanities, and need a utilitarian business or STEM degree because they need a high-paying job to maintain the standard of living their parents hold. The trustfund kid who attended Rosey in Switzerland for boarding school and is a billionaire just for her name can afford to major in English or Latin or Art History and have a "passion." That is not a rational choice or option for the majority of college kids today, though. It's a big change from decades ago, when just getting a BA in anything was enough to ensure an upper middle class lifestyle.
Unpopular opinion but these takes that the humanities are inaccessible are nonsensical. Do you all not read books, listen to podcasts, watch movies, read the paper, ever visit a museum, ever go to an art fair or try a pottery class? I love my engineering degree and have my own woodworking studio and constantly buy new books, am subscribed to the Economist, New Yorker, and LA times, and am considering taking up sewing, so will likely go to a sewing house with my wife.
Your cute little "pottery class" or "art fair" or woodworking studio and...sewing hobby...are not the type of humanities referred to in that post.
Philistine.
It’s concerning to me that so many people seem okay that their lives are filled with nothing but a corporate job and their phones. The AI might actually take over our lives, because people were too stupid to look out their window and attempt to engage in community.
Anonymous wrote:Majoring in and then pursuing a career in the fine arts, museums, English/writing, Classics, or the like has become again what those things originally were: elite niche fields for those rich enough to be unburdened by the need to prepare to work for money. These are not jobs for upper middle class privileged kids whose parents pay full-ride for them to study engineering or business, they are "passions" for people who will never have to think about money, ever.
When I was at Harvard, I met people like this and realized very quickly that there was a level of wealthy I had never imagined.
Most kids today can't afford to major in the humanities, and need a utilitarian business or STEM degree because they need a high-paying job to maintain the standard of living their parents hold. The trustfund kid who attended Rosey in Switzerland for boarding school and is a billionaire just for her name can afford to major in English or Latin or Art History and have a "passion." That is not a rational choice or option for the majority of college kids today, though. It's a big change from decades ago, when just getting a BA in anything was enough to ensure an upper middle class lifestyle.