Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

+1

Also, it's not really the child who decides at age 12. It is decided based on testing. So yes, a late bloomer would miss out. I personally don't think it's a good idea to track kids at age 12. I know kids who were only on grade level for math in 6th grade and who hate science who go on to be successful engineers and doctors. But they wouldn't have been put on the "stem college track" under this system.
I much prefer our way of kids getting to select their major path when they are adults/18+.

I do agree we need more Vocational High schools as an option for kids who want that. No kid should be forced to take ALG 2 like most states require----a kid not heading to college would be much better off having some modified version that focuses more on practical applications/math for the vocational areas/financial literacy than being forced to struggle thru normal Alg 2. Likewise, rather than taking a FL in HS a kid not planning on college who loves to work "with stuff" would benefit from HVAC, auto mechanics, basic IT training, etc as half their day. It was done in the 80s/90s and was a huge hit for those kids on that path. 2nd half of the day they take eng/hist/math requirements but focus 3-4 periods a day on something the kid actually likes and is learning skills for going onto the trades upon graduation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

That’s the problem with DC educated elites. That’s not my problem or the rest of the society’s problem. They would rather have their boys get useless degrees than skilled labor jobs. The HVAC technician who fixed my AC in 2018 (long before this era of high inflation) told me that he was making $130k and needless to say, started earning positive income early with no student debt.

HVAC technicians in Virginia average less than 50k a year and most top out below 100k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Germany also has a very progressive tax structure, a massive social safety net, incredibly strong unions, and powerful worker rights laws. All of that make it much more palatable for parents to track a 12 year old into the trades (of course the rich parents would still just send their kids to a private school).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I do NOT want to see universities eliminating humanities departments. But I don’t think that producing millions of young adults with bachelor’s degrees in humanities each year is beneficial to the society either.

Why? When you major in humanities it doesn't mean that's what you do the rest of your life. What a ridiculous notion.

Also who do you think is going to teach the next generations or make the creative content you crave? Thank god for humanities majors. Imagine how incredibly dull and stupid our society would be without them. If you can read this and write a reply back. thank a humanities major.

lol.. actually, thank a programmer. Otherwise, you'd be reading and posting this in the newspaper.

And thank engineers for inventing printing machines to print your post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I do NOT want to see universities eliminating humanities departments. But I don’t think that producing millions of young adults with bachelor’s degrees in humanities each year is beneficial to the society either.

Why? When you major in humanities it doesn't mean that's what you do the rest of your life. What a ridiculous notion.

Also who do you think is going to teach the next generations or make the creative content you crave? Thank god for humanities majors. Imagine how incredibly dull and stupid our society would be without them. If you can read this and write a reply back. thank a humanities major.

lol.. actually, thank a programmer. Otherwise, you'd be reading and posting this in the newspaper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

That’s the problem with DC educated elites. That’s not my problem or the rest of the society’s problem. They would rather have their boys get useless degrees than skilled labor jobs. The HVAC technician who fixed my AC in 2018 (long before this era of high inflation) told me that he was making $130k and needless to say, started earning positive income early with no student debt.

If only the local school system would accept this and stop trying to force everyone on the same path and focusing on pointless gaps.

Agreed! 👍👍

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some circles, humanities majors are thought to be future Starbucks baristas. For the middle of the road school, not as many jobs for soft science.

English and History have always been a great entry into the world of coffee making.

You sound rather ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

That’s the problem with DC educated elites. That’s not my problem or the rest of the society’s problem. They would rather have their boys get useless degrees than skilled labor jobs. The HVAC technician who fixed my AC in 2018 (long before this era of high inflation) told me that he was making $130k and needless to say, started earning positive income early with no student debt.

If only the local school system would accept this and stop trying to force everyone on the same path and focusing on pointless gaps.

Anonymous wrote:In some circles, humanities majors are thought to be future Starbucks baristas. For the middle of the road school, not as many jobs for soft science.

English and History have always been a great entry into the world of coffee making.

Here we are at ten pages, and what, no one read the article? It profiles five current grads, and sure that's anecdata, but it's more relevant than rehashing the pet theories that clog every other thread. Notable, most the students were shaped by humanities classes, some are taking jobs that involve more than their CS degree. The one person who has more to say about a CS class than the headcount, came in as undecided, yet is finishing with CS in four years, and going to Microsoft (DCUM, loves to say only direct admits can get there). The former barista profiled, started at MC as a CS major, but switched to English, he wants to be an author, and has a job at the university (that's not good enough for DCUM, but more stable than a coffee shop, and uses his skills).

The article may be grad season click bait, but it's well done, much more nuanced than the comments posted here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am have a BA in art, DH has a BA in English, we both have law degrees and successful public policy careers.

Our kids will study what they are passionate about, likely not STEM (their decision not ours) and we are lucky they will come out of college without student debt. That would be my goal for them regardless of whether we were full pay or full FA and regardless of major. We fall in the middle, the proverbial donut hole that can afford a private school with decent merit aid or public.

I strongly believe that engaging deeply in subjects that interest you will lead to stronger critical thinking skills than forcing a particular major because of perceived marketability. My kid’s are good at math but their greatest strengths lie in the humanities. We also will support them in learning how you turn a humanities degree into a career. It’s not that we don’t believe they should get good jobs, we just don’t agree there is only one way.

I am a BA history with a law degree. I will never advise my kids to follow a career path that is not a skill that is marketable. Maybe at an Ivy League, never at a state school. Their college and grad school is paid for, but never for a soft degree without a skill attached. I was pushed to be a History major over a business degree, and it made everything more difficult.

i tend to agree with this. I was a history major at Duke (econ second major) and found a transition to work more difficult than if, let's say, I took one of the several Big 10 offers, and majored in finance. I was in an honors program, and was a serious NCAA scholarship athlete, so I knew how to work and compete, but focusing on a skill would have been helpful. My first job was trading commodities at the CME, and the history major was enormously helpful. I did use algebra in that job at lightning speed (meat and livestock futures and determining yields was important), but I didn't need a college education to use algebra. The history major was better than economics in terms of assimilating vast amounts of information and prioritizing that information, but the trick today would be persuading someone that a history background would be relevant. It did help to come from a well thought of school, but even then, hustle matters.

I saved my trading money and did not spend it. Went on to a top law school which I found somewhat easy relative to my undergraduate experience. Top of the class, law review and so on.Worked most of my second and third year - the firms wanted me - and as a consequence I have not had a mortgage for decades. I would not recommend law school today because the return on investment is too low and opportunity costs are too high. On my own entirely since age 18, I had no debt whatsoever and think the experience could not be replicated today, even with (as exist today in sizeable numbers) people more talented than me. The industrial education complex works against people from the lower middle class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

That’s the problem with DC educated elites. That’s not my problem or the rest of the society’s problem. They would rather have their boys get useless degrees than skilled labor jobs. The HVAC technician who fixed my AC in 2018 (long before this era of high inflation) told me that he was making $130k and needless to say, started earning positive income early with no student debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society devalues the humanities. That's why our society is in such a sad state.

Wrong. The society of today is not devaluing humanities. Universities’ humanities departments have devalued humanities degrees in the last few decades. In the good old days when few people went to college and fewer studied humanities, those with humanities degrees were the few, the elite of the society. Most of them came from noble families. They didn’t need to get “jobs” to make a living. Then starting in the 1980’s the society was sold the idea that EVERY high school graduate should go to college. Or at least most of them. It was easy money for universities. No labs were needed (unlike science and engineering), and a history class can be held in a big lecture hall of 500 people. Therefore, the society has not devalued humanities, but universities have definitely devalued humanities degrees.

Er, Hello, the universities don’t exactly operate in a vacuum. They mirror what society wants

Agree. But the society “wanted” it because the political elite has been pushing this ridiculous idea of “every child must go to college” for the last 40 years. Germany and Japan are advanced economies but they are fine with most of their youths not going to college. In Germany, a child as young as 11 or 12 years old decides whether he/she wants to go on college track or trade track.

Do you think it is a good thing to decide at 12? What about late bloomers? Also, in Germany, you learn one skill and people don’t really ever switch careers. I can’t imagine not having that flexibility.

I agree, though, that pushing everyone to college is probably not the best thing. The problem is it was (still is?) very much a class thing. Which of us wants to be first in not sending our child? We do it because we think it is expected of our class and we want them to have the opportunities. I don’t see that ever changing. UMC/UC folks will always send their children to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am have a BA in art, DH has a BA in English, we both have law degrees and successful public policy careers.

Our kids will study what they are passionate about, likely not STEM (their decision not ours) and we are lucky they will come out of college without student debt. That would be my goal for them regardless of whether we were full pay or full FA and regardless of major. We fall in the middle, the proverbial donut hole that can afford a private school with decent merit aid or public.

I strongly believe that engaging deeply in subjects that interest you will lead to stronger critical thinking skills than forcing a particular major because of perceived marketability. My kid’s are good at math but their greatest strengths lie in the humanities. We also will support them in learning how you turn a humanities degree into a career. It’s not that we don’t believe they should get good jobs, we just don’t agree there is only one way.

I am a BA history with a law degree. I will never advise my kids to follow a career path that is not a skill that is marketable. Maybe at an Ivy League, never at a state school. Their college and grad school is paid for, but never for a soft degree without a skill attached. I was pushed to be a History major over a business degree, and it made everything more difficult.

Exactly this. ROI is everything. I would never pay for a humanities or art major.

Well everyone is different. Some of us value a life of the mind and don’t view the point of this world through transactional, ROI lens.

[You don't need to pay $90k/year to have a "life of the mind". ]

We could afford to pay for our kids’ schools and let them decide what to study. If we couldn’t have afforded college for them, they would have done what I did which was get some loans, work, and receive lots of financial aid/grants. My parents paid nothing for my expensive private university. Majored in something you’d roll your eyes at and now have a job making 6 figures at a prominent institution working on things that matter to me. So glad I wasn’t forced to major in something that didn’t interest me.

[We're not rolling our eyes at your major, we're rolling our eyes at you bragging about your "job making 6 figures at a prominent institution working on things that matter to me." ]

Hit a nerve. LOL Sorry your job is so tedious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m married to a Humanities major from a top 10 university. He went into software consulting started @$39k and was making $300k when he went independent 5 years later and makes around $550k. Just a BA.

It's always hilarious when someone trots out a predictable, stupid anecdote like this, as if this experience, even if actually true, is in any way typical of people who have a humanities BA.

For every humanities BA like this guy making $550k per year, there are hundreds if not thousands of history BAs sitting in their mommies and daddies’ basements.

And yet you still cannot cite a proper source for your claim. Is that because you lack the proper research skills to find such a source to back it up? Probably because you didn't take enough humanities classes.