Anonymous wrote:isn't "liberal arts degree = would you like some fries with that?"

I went to a highly ranked liberal arts college. My friends are all very, very professionally and financially successful. My best friend majored in philosophy, started her own company, and has published two books. She was quoted in the New York Times last month and has had articles written about her in major magazines. My friend who studied physics and French is the head of a private equity firm and has a second home in Maui and a boat. He is rolling in money. My chemistry major friend is a surgeon at the Mayo Clinic and my friend who was a geography major has her own architecture firm in Connecticut. My English major friend went to medical school and is a psychiatrist with a very successful private practice in NYC, and another English major friend is a financial reporter for a major news publication. Another English major friend has written for numerous network sitcom. Then there is the usual lineup of teachers, lawyers, consultants, policy wonks, and banking types. As far as I know, the only one who may be serving fries is the guy that opened his own restaurant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

The study isn't about majors, it's about the average return on investment for degrees from liberal arts colleges vs. degrees from other universities. When you compare a physics major or English major at a liberal arts college to a physics major or English major at a private or public university.

Well that’s just silly. They are two entirely different groups of students!! Unless you’re controlling for things like SES, I don’t really think you can make meaningful conclusions from this.

Well return on investment figures it in somewhat--if it only costs 20k to attend the public u and it cost 60k to attend the LAC, then you have to have much higher income to get a similar return.

Anonymous wrote:isn't "liberal arts degree = would you like some fries with that?"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Did you make that up yourself?

You must be a Hollywood comedy writer! Copy and paste that highly original post and sent it to Netflix and you'll have a development deal by Monday! Kudos, young Mr. Lorne Michaels!

isn't "liberal arts degree = would you like some fries with that?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

The study isn't about majors, it's about the average return on investment for degrees from liberal arts colleges vs. degrees from other universities. When you compare a physics major or English major at a liberal arts college to a physics major or English major at a private or public university.

Well that’s just silly. They are two entirely different groups of students!! Unless you’re controlling for things like SES, I don’t really think you can make meaningful conclusions from this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

I never said LACs don’t have research. Of course I think professor relationships with undergrads are important.

But it’s ridiculous to not see the benefits for some kids or having access to the resources of a research university. That’s why they’re called RESEARCH universities.

I think this is true. The flip-side of this is that the full time faculty are more likely to be engaged undergrad teachers at LACs. LAC students won't have any classes taught by grad students. They are likely to have fewer taught by adjunct professors and more interaction with full professors due to smaller class size. So, it just depends on what you value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

The study isn't about majors, it's about the average return on investment for degrees from liberal arts colleges vs. degrees from other universities. When you compare a physics major or English major at a liberal arts college to a physics major or English major at a private or public university.

So then it’s about LACs, not a liberal arts education, which you can get at a research university. They should be clear.

The article (which is describing a study) is fairly clear on this; the study is even more clear on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

The study isn't about majors, it's about the average return on investment for degrees from liberal arts colleges vs. degrees from other universities. When you compare a physics major or English major at a liberal arts college to a physics major or English major at a private or public university.

So then it’s about LACs, not a liberal arts education, which you can get at a research university. They should be clear.

Anonymous wrote:How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

The study isn't about majors, it's about the average return on investment for degrees from liberal arts colleges vs. degrees from other universities. When you compare a physics major or English major at a liberal arts college to a physics major or English major at a private or public university.

How do you define a liberal arts major? That can be anything from English to physics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP at 09:12, please share whether your undergraduate degree was a liberal arts degree (STEM major?)
I’m an uneducated fool but you = goals

I was a chemistry major at a liberal arts college (not a top 30 one). Took just as many humanities/social science courses as I did chem courses. I think it was a fantastic education.

I went to a SLAC and double majored in a humanity and a science. It was a fantastic education. It was not, however, the most lucrative route. Going to engineering school would have been a lot more lucrative.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "value."

But the study suggests that it IS on average lucrative in the long-term (lifetime income) compared to the degrees from non-LACs (except for MIT, Stanford). Going to engineering school is lucrative in the 6-10 year initial period, but not in the 40 year. Many engineers max out their income potential relatively early. I would say my chem route from a SLAC was fairly lucrative (worked in industry, started my own business and sold it).

If you check the data set, it's not as lucrative. It's about half the ROI over 40 years

Right, we shouldn't be comparing across majors in this data set. But for those few liberal arts schools that have engineering departments or kids who do the assorted 2-2, 3-2 programs (for which their are relatively few graduates as it's a tough major) they outperform the average in terms of lucrative (though don't outperform MIT). But if you go major by major the study suggests a liberal arts college degree in the same major has a better lifetime ROI than a university. Which is interesting because liberal arts majors often take fewer specialized courses in their major than they would in a university setting. I think engineering is the worst place to assess this data since so few liberal arts colleges matriculate engineers (though the ones that do seem very successful).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, when I say 98% of people graduate with a liberal arts education, I mean exactly what you said -- most of them have a core liberal arts set of classes that are required, then they add their major classes.

I went to Georgetown SFS and didn't have a liberal arts core. That's why I have a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service. I don't have a BA or BS degree.

Liberal arts, as is stated in the definition above, is not limited to "English majors reading Middlemarch."

You literally just stated that you have a Bachelor of Science.
That’s a BS degree.

No. I have a BSFS. It’s different. I did not complete a liberal arts core. I had no math or science requirement, for example. Instead I had to take 4 quarters of econ.

NP. I bet you are a female!

WTF?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP at 09:12, please share whether your undergraduate degree was a liberal arts degree (STEM major?)
I’m an uneducated fool but you = goals

I was a chemistry major at a liberal arts college (not a top 30 one). Took just as many humanities/social science courses as I did chem courses. I think it was a fantastic education.

I went to a SLAC and double majored in a humanity and a science. It was a fantastic education. It was not, however, the most lucrative route. Going to engineering school would have been a lot more lucrative.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "value."

But the study suggests that it IS on average lucrative in the long-term (lifetime income) compared to the degrees from non-LACs (except for MIT, Stanford). Going to engineering school is lucrative in the 6-10 year initial period, but not in the 40 year. Many engineers max out their income potential relatively early. I would say my chem route from a SLAC was fairly lucrative (worked in industry, started my own business and sold it).

If you check the data set, it's not as lucrative. It's about half the ROI over 40 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP at 09:12, please share whether your undergraduate degree was a liberal arts degree (STEM major?)
I’m an uneducated fool but you = goals

I was a chemistry major at a liberal arts college (not a top 30 one). Took just as many humanities/social science courses as I did chem courses. I think it was a fantastic education.

I went to a SLAC and double majored in a humanity and a science. It was a fantastic education. It was not, however, the most lucrative route. Going to engineering school would have been a lot more lucrative.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "value."

But the study suggests that it IS on average lucrative in the long-term (lifetime income) compared to the degrees from non-LACs (except for MIT, Stanford). Going to engineering school is lucrative in the 6-10 year initial period, but not in the 40 year. Many engineers max out their income potential relatively early. I would say my chem route from a SLAC was fairly lucrative (worked in industry, started my own business and sold it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP at 09:12, please share whether your undergraduate degree was a liberal arts degree (STEM major?)
I’m an uneducated fool but you = goals

I was a chemistry major at a liberal arts college (not a top 30 one). Took just as many humanities/social science courses as I did chem courses. I think it was a fantastic education.

I went to a SLAC and double majored in a humanity and a science. It was a fantastic education. It was not, however, the most lucrative route. Going to engineering school would have been a lot more lucrative.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "value."