There's a huge backlash against AI art and writing. The average joe who isn't detail-oriented might be fooled, but most educated people can spot the issues.

If you claim AI art is good and AI writing is good, you're one of the average joes. Sorry!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

They're not. The central debate here is whether earning a high income is a marathon or a sprint. Liberal Arts majors know full well that they are running a marathon. The STEM folks seem to prioritize the sprint.

Except the topic of this thread is what do LA majors do with just an undergraduate degree. PP basically skipped over what they did between undergrad and MBA and basically said they go get an MBA and then start earning.

Yep. Most LA majors go on to grad school, probably out of necessity. Big difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Wrong answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

They're not. The central debate here is whether earning a high income is a marathon or a sprint. Liberal Arts majors know full well that they are running a marathon. The STEM folks seem to prioritize the sprint.

Except the topic of this thread is what do LA majors do with just an undergraduate degree. PP basically skipped over what they did between undergrad and MBA and basically said they go get an MBA and then start earning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

+1 also, if Sally, Jane and Karen are all liberal arts majors, statistically, their average salary will be lower than if they were STEM or business majors.

You can cut it any way you want to, but statistically, LA undergrad majors have a harder time and get lower paying jobs than STEM/business majors.

Why do you think so many LACs now are offering business and CS degrees even as some are getting rid of the things like English majors. Because that market is stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Harvard English: $49,675

Harvard CS: $256,539

Look at the enormous gap. Imagine why? LOL
Good luck with humanities majors in no name schools.

As has been noted, college score card is ONLY kids getting FEDERAL (ie Pell) FA. That's a sliver. Do you know how many liberal arts majors from Williams and Dartmouth go to GS and McKinsey? A lot. Are they the Pell kids? No. And this data is for the 4th year out of college, which is hardly mid career.

But I agree, in 2005 to 2020ish - CS was the fastest way to make money. It's also the shortest career ... which is fine, but understand you have to move into management or prepare to get aged out.

____ here's the fine print:

The median annual earnings of individuals who received federal financial aid during their studies and completed an award at the indicated field of study. To be included in the median earnings calculation, the individuals needed to be working and not be enrolled in school during the year when earnings are measured. Median earnings are measured in the fourth full year after the student completed their award.

That's why this is even more important and significant.
Federal aids include any type of loans. Most of the middle class get some sort of federal loans.
This eliminates really rich families and their fancy connections.
A kid working for dad's company or through dad's fancy connection making 200,000K don't mean shit to normal middle class people. So this is actually great information.

The status after 4 years from graduation seems important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You clearly lack the critical thinking skills that are taught in the liberal arts.

You need to choose a central tendency. You said "averages." I agree median is a better measure. However, you're treating them as they're interchangeable. Which they're usually not. As my Bezos example gives. Sometimes, it might even be appropriate to use the mode to measure, you know?

I guess you think it's moving the goalposts when you give your silly little example of four people and an average, when of course we are talking about medians and averages across thousands of kids. Again, didn't think I had to make that clear...but for you, I guess I do.

I gather you agree with the main assertion...we are talking about liberal arts degrees from a select group of schools only.

I am as pro-liberal arts and humanities as they come, and I agree that there’s a fair amount of fear in many of the anti-LAC posts, as well as a lack of vision. The best parts of my life — and my biggest financial rewards — came from having engaged deeply with huge ideas that at the time served no obvious practical outcome. (And no, I was not rich — far closer to LMC than UMC).

That said, I have real empathy for people who are concerned about ROI, and who are focused on the data that are available. College costs far too much, and we’ve probably all seen lives broken or made lesser because of crushing student debt. I’d argue that these were policy choices (as one example, we allowed 100% of the risks of student loans to accrue only to the borrower), but they happened.

And while the first job salary data is both limited and limiting, it is the only real clean data. You can’t put the same kid into two career paths concurrently. Everything after that first job gets very murky, bc there are so many variables involved in any one individual’s success.

Personally, I’m still willing to bet on the value of the liberal arts in the long term — at least for kids who are drawn to these subjects naturally, and whose guts are telling them to follow that call. But I would never, ever advise someone to take out loans for an English degree, or a classics degree, and I think it’s critically important to have conversations with liberal arts majors about career paths and calculated risk. And I absolutely understand people who have witnessed the astronomical rise in cost for an undergraduate degree, and are looking to minimize risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/3 of global CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have liberal arts degrees.

A lot of those are economics tho

Economics is a good major unlike those humanities majors like English, communications, anthropology, etc. etc.

I would argue the same skills are being taught, just looking at human behavior through different lenses.

Economics is ultimately about people and how they behave. Just like anthropology, communications, and English.

I do agree the fields those might take you into might have wildly varying pay scales, but not everyone is motivated by a top-earning paycheck. If someone has a passion for anthropology, they'll accept lower pay than a computer scientist. And the difference in an AI world is the computer scientist is more likely to be displaced than the anthropologist, who will APPLY AI to their work.

More to the point, the foundational skills of all these majors are essentially the same, which makes these people highly desirable for large global Fortune 500 companies -- should those majors even desire to work in such an environment.

I have a liberal arts degree in philosophy. I earn $275,000 a year and have earned in the $200s since my 30s.

I realize anecdote is not evidence, but the notion that there's no value in liberal arts is not grounded in reality. And it also doesn't herald the future, where humanities degrees will be more coveted than engineering or computer science. Just ask Mark Cuban.

Sorry that's not the reality.

Harvard Economics: $124,570
Harvard English: $49,570

Employers who actually pay don't agree with you.

There is a huge difference in starting salaries. Much less difference after 15 or 20 years, and some studies show the difference can even reverse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

Anyway there is a lot more to life than earning 140k at 23. I spent my 20s traveling and studying and doing some low-paid work. Now at 50 I earn $350k. I wouldn’t change a thing. History degree, by the way (where I learned not to focus unduly on the short term)…

LOL there are a lot more to life with 140k at 23 like traveling and experiencing the world.
Much harder with 60K unless you are a trust fund kid. Pay rent.

DP: Actually the opposite is more true--when you are not gunning for a high earning position, you find some teaching English internationally position or other similar, use that to travel the world and pay your rent in LCOL countries. As you meet people, you often find other job opportunities. You develop a lot of experience, develop a solid sense of your self and the world, meet a lot of people and figure out what you want to do with this one life you have. This path is easier than it ever was with the ability to stay on your parent's health insurance until age 26 and/or purchase cheap traveler's insurance or ACA in the US. This self-development plus international work history isn't too hard to then translate into a US career-oriented job in your mid-20s.

You're never going to convince the overly anxious person who's all in on being a STEM drone that their decision, however valid for them or their children, isn't without more risk in the new and emerging workplace or right for everyone. You can tell how anxious they are by their flailing, whereas the liberal arts people are calm, collected, and know their value.

what utter horse shite

Methinks thou doth protest too much. (That's a line from William Shakespeare's play entitled "Hamlet," spoken by Gertrude, who was Hamlet's mother. William Shakespeare is a famous playwright who was active in the 16 and 17th centuries; I feel the need to explain that to you since you were not a liberal arts major and probably have heard the expression before but didn't know where it came from).

lol.. I memorized the entire speech by Hamlet in HS. I majored in business then learned to code.

Wow, my retort went right over your head. Typical. Are you on the spectrum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

They're not. The central debate here is whether earning a high income is a marathon or a sprint. Liberal Arts majors know full well that they are running a marathon. The STEM folks seem to prioritize the sprint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can easily get a finance or banking job with a Math degree.

Lol could you imagine someone thinking a business degree is better.

When did the tide turn on math degrees? I have one, always keep that to myself. Polite society will act impressed but they're genuinely disgusted. Business degree passes the airport test.

I would be impressed with someone who has a a math degree, and I have a business degree + some coding experience. DC is a dual math/cs major. I find it impressive.

My DC is as well. I wouldn't discourage anyone from studying math. But in my experience it does not sell itself. This was never a secret, every department head had a spiel about glad handers and how math grads have to forge their own path and convince recruiters. I heard this as recently as DC's orientation two years ago. This time they seemed to be saying we still see push back but our students go far. I'll believe it when I see it, because the math majors I've known have had a hard time transitioning to the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/3 of global CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have liberal arts degrees.

A lot of those are economics tho

Economics is a good major unlike those humanities majors like English, communications, anthropology, etc. etc.

I would argue the same skills are being taught, just looking at human behavior through different lenses.

Economics is ultimately about people and how they behave. Just like anthropology, communications, and English.

I do agree the fields those might take you into might have wildly varying pay scales, but not everyone is motivated by a top-earning paycheck. If someone has a passion for anthropology, they'll accept lower pay than a computer scientist. And the difference in an AI world is the computer scientist is more likely to be displaced than the anthropologist, who will APPLY AI to their work.

More to the point, the foundational skills of all these majors are essentially the same, which makes these people highly desirable for large global Fortune 500 companies -- should those majors even desire to work in such an environment.

I have a liberal arts degree in philosophy. I earn $275,000 a year and have earned in the $200s since my 30s.

I realize anecdote is not evidence, but the notion that there's no value in liberal arts is not grounded in reality. And it also doesn't herald the future, where humanities degrees will be more coveted than engineering or computer science. Just ask Mark Cuban.

Sorry that's not the reality.

Harvard Economics: $124,570
Harvard English: $49,570

Employers who actually pay don't agree with you.

There is a huge difference in starting salaries. Much less difference after 15 or 20 years, and some studies show the difference can even reverse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

Anyway there is a lot more to life than earning 140k at 23. I spent my 20s traveling and studying and doing some low-paid work. Now at 50 I earn $350k. I wouldn’t change a thing. History degree, by the way (where I learned not to focus unduly on the short term)…

LOL there are a lot more to life with 140k at 23 like traveling and experiencing the world.
Much harder with 60K unless you are a trust fund kid. Pay rent.

DP: Actually the opposite is more true--when you are not gunning for a high earning position, you find some teaching English internationally position or other similar, use that to travel the world and pay your rent in LCOL countries. As you meet people, you often find other job opportunities. You develop a lot of experience, develop a solid sense of your self and the world, meet a lot of people and figure out what you want to do with this one life you have. This path is easier than it ever was with the ability to stay on your parent's health insurance until age 26 and/or purchase cheap traveler's insurance or ACA in the US. This self-development plus international work history isn't too hard to then translate into a US career-oriented job in your mid-20s.

You're never going to convince the overly anxious person who's all in on being a STEM drone that their decision, however valid for them or their children, isn't without more risk in the new and emerging workplace or right for everyone. You can tell how anxious they are by their flailing, whereas the liberal arts people are calm, collected, and know their value.

what utter horse shite

Methinks thou doth protest too much. (That's a line from William Shakespeare's play entitled "Hamlet," spoken by Gertrude, who was Hamlet's mother. William Shakespeare is a famous playwright who was active in the 16 and 17th centuries; I feel the need to explain that to you since you were not a liberal arts major and probably have heard the expression before but didn't know where it came from).

lol.. I memorized the entire speech by Hamlet in HS. I majored in business then learned to code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You clearly lack the critical thinking skills that are taught in the liberal arts.

You need to choose a central tendency. You said "averages." I agree median is a better measure. However, you're treating them as they're interchangeable. Which they're usually not. As my Bezos example gives. Sometimes, it might even be appropriate to use the mode to measure, you know?

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

Anonymous wrote:Not discussed thus far in this thread is the impact of the soaring cost of a college education and the need for many to get a high paying job in order to pay back student loan debt. This leads many to more practical, readily employable courses of study.

Overall, slightly more than half of undergraduates take on student loans, and the average loan burden of those is under 30k. The really big numbers you hear are more from graduate school. Undergraduates are limited to the loans they can take out. (Of course, parents can take out loans too--but most advise against choosing a school that requires you to do that and financial aid formulas work out so that's not necessary unless parents have a high income but didn't save).

For undergraduates, the new IDR student loan repayment plans help with those who don't have high incomes--the terms are far better than they used to be. If you are not a high earner, your payment can be calculated at $0 until your income grows and your interest won't accrue further. Contributions to your retirement plan lower your AGI which is what your income repayment is based on so your future savings aren't disrupted either.