Are liberal arts degrees inherently less valuable than math, science, and technology majors?

[Brawndo]

The governor of Florida certainly feels so. Gov. Rick Scott, a staunch Republican, stated:

"You know, we don't need a lot more anthropologists in the state. It's a great degree if people want to get it, but we don't need them here. I want to spend our dollars giving people science, technology, engineering, math degrees. That's what our kids need to focus all their time and attention on. Those type of degrees. So when they get out of school, they can get a job."

"If I'm going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I?m going to take that money to create jobs," Scott said. "So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state."

"Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don't think so."

Read more: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/rick-scott-liberal-arts-majors-drop-dead-anthropology



What are your views on the subject? Is a civil engineer more valuable to society than a philosophy major?

Personally, I'll admit that I can't help but snicker a little when I hear someone is majoring in Medieval Literature or Art History. But that's their choice, and if they can't get job after they graduate they should have to deal with that too. What Gov. Scott is proposing requires that the state government be able to accurately predict future demand for certain careers, and then fund their departments accordingly at the collegiate level. To me this sounds exactly like USSR central planning - i.e. "We predict the people will need 4000 pairs of shoes", only to find out the true demand is much higher or lower.

 

[Yokai]

There's really not much point in paying $10,000 a year for college if you're discouraged from choosing the major you want. General, useful education is what grade school is for--college is just for expanding your mind and studying what interests you, which is why it's optional and there are hundreds to choose from.

Governor Scott should be concerned with the failing state of elementary and high school education, not nitpicking over how legal adults choose to study in a supposedly free country. Although it doesn't surprise me all that much. I'd love to meet a conservative philosophy major, just so I know they exist.

 

[Grospoliner]

Anthropology is not a liberal arts degree. Anthropologists are just as much scientists and historians as scientists and historians.

 

[Berethond]

Anthropology is a social science. It's not a liberal arts degree. And there is a FUCKING TON of work for physical anthropologists, especially applied/medical anthropologists.

 

[JaredXE]

Speaking as someone pursuing a liberal arts degree, yeah they are pretty worthless. But then, I just want to get out of school finally. Just need a piece of paper that says I put in my time and then I can go out and get a real job that doesn't require a specialized degree that I don't have.

My roommate is in grad school for neuroscience after having two bachelors in biology and psychology, now HE'S going somewhere and has a bright future ahead of him.

Also the governor is an idiot, like the man said above me, an anthropologist is a scientist. That's why they get degrees in Bachelor of SCIENCES, not Bachelor of ARTS.

 

[QuantumT]

I agree with his point that generally engineers are more useful than anthropologists, but what's great about the system is that gets taken into account already when people are allowed to choose their careers by themselves. There's no need for the state to step in and do anything, because supply and demand will sort it out by itself.

As mentioned by Yokai, where his time needs to be focused is on elementary/high school education.

 

[darkcalling]

I can't really say as I've never really known what a "Liberal arts" degree would cover. Math, science, etc would certainly seem more practical though.

But like those above me have said, anthropology is a science not an art. Stupid politician.

 

[lovest harding]

Wait. So now a Glee storyline has become real life? What the hell real life?

Everything else can be summed up in a quote:

There's really not much point in paying $10,000 a year for college if you're discouraged from choosing the major you want. General, useful education is what grade school is for--college is just for expanding your mind and studying what interests you, which is why it's optional and there are hundreds to choose from.

Governor Scott should be concerned with the failing state of elementary and high school education, not nitpicking over how legal adults choose to study in a supposedly free country. Although it doesn't surprise me all that much. I'd love to meet a conservative philosophy major, just so I know they exist.

 

[everythingbeeps]

The problem is that this debate is taking place in the context of Rick Scott, who might be the worst governor in the country. Certainly bottom 5.

 

[LetalisK]

Anthropology is not a liberal arts degree. Anthropologists are just as much scientists and historians as scientists and historians.

I think history is considered a liberal arts degree. But then again, a lot of people misuse the term and use it to mean anything that doesn't involve crunching numbers. In reality "liberal arts" includes math and science

Anthropology is a social science. It's not a liberal arts degree. And there is a FUCKING TON of work for physical anthropologists, especially applied/medical anthropologists.

Social sciences, ie "soft" sciences, are generally lumped in with the "liberal arts" degrees for some reason.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To oversimplify, nothing is inherently more or less valuable, it depends on supply and demand.

If there are more qualified engineers than there are engineering jobs, but historians are in short supply, a history degree is more valuable than an engineering degree.

On the other hand, this tends not to happen, so once you've got your history degree, you go get something more practical like a library technician diploma which makes you qualified to actually work as one, only there aren't any of those jobs going either so you end up wasting a year on the net while mucking around with Centrelink and Salvation Army Employment Plus, who aren't helpful at all.

Or at least some of us do.

 

[FangShadow]

It's comment like these that make me hate the fact that I have to call this guy my governor.

His focus should really be trying to improve the basic education of grades K-12 (elementary through high school) first, as well as trying to figure out a way to improve public transport...especially after the fiasco with the High-Speed rail....

but I digress, that is not the issue. I think that liberal arts degrees have a place as they give people who aren't sure what to do yet a chance to at least get the basics out the way, as well as those who just want to expand their knowledge base a way to do so with out being locked into a program.

 

[Togs]

If you were to ask me this 2 maybe 3 months ago I would have said "damn straight", but after graduating and suffering the jobhunt Im not so sure.
I graduated with an honours degree in biochemistry and am finding just as hard to get employed as my friends who took art history or media, if not more os with the art historian recently getting a job at a local art musuem as a "restoration technician".

But in saying that I do have a hard time believing that say, someone like Damian Hirst is contributing more to society then a bunch of clinical scientists searching for the cure to cancer.

[sub]Flame shield at the ready....[/sub]

EDIT= Although in saying that a world without art or poetry or music or film or games would be a pretty bloody bleak one.

EDIT 2= Just had it pointed out to me that what Mr Scott is talking about is an effort to rearrange the availability of said degrees- jobs in those fields are at less of a demand but yet we've got an overabundance of graduates hunting for them.

 

[Volkov]

"inherently less valuable" is an undefined expression here. Harder to get a job with? Absolutely. Generally far less useful for solving what can be considered "humanity's problems"? (I.e., hunger, energy, lack of adequate health care, etc.)? Absolutely. 100% useless for doing the above? No. 100% impossible to get a job with? No.

 

[Antonidious]

Less valuable? Not really, you get your education and skills just like any other degree.

Harder to find a job since there are less jobs that actively seek students with those specific degrees? Yes

 

[Dense_Electric]

As a Floridian working on an AA degree at the moment, fuck Rick Scott. Fuck him up the ass with a rusty spatula embedded with razor blades and a tiger holding an M16. I love science, technology, engineering, and math when it's applicable, but if he really thinks those are the only things worth perusing, then he's an idiot. Without the arts, without the humanities, where would we be? Our cities would be one grey box after another, our clothing would be drab and identical, and there would be no music, no visual art, no films, no games, no theater, nothing.

I'll have it known that I did not vote for him.

As for the degree itself, it's absolutely not worthless. Of course a more specific degree is going to get you a lot farther depending on your career (though it could limit your options in other areas), but it's damn near impossible to get any sort of a real job with only a high school diploma these days - you've got to have at least an Associates to get real work.

 

[poppabaggins]

Apparently everyone is missing the point where he's talking about cutting funding to liberal arts programs in PUBLIC universities. Granted, he's a bit wrong in calling anthropology a liberal art (still pointless, in my not-so-humble-opinion). This isn't a question of people being able to pick their own majors, it's a question of taking money from the public to fund, say, a philosophy program. Math and science move the economy and the world, not Kant, Sartre, or Descartes.

Sure, it's nice to think about philosophy, history, comparative literature, etc., but does it accomplish anything tangible? Not really. If public education is going to exist, then it might as well focus on things that will move society further.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Math and science move the economy and the world, not Kant, Sartre, or Descartes.

Sure, it's nice to think about philosophy, history, comparative literature, etc., but does it accomplish anything tangible? Not really. If public education is going to exist, then it might as well focus on things that will move society further.

Suggesting that those things don't contribute anything? To the contrary, we should spend more money funding philosophy and related fields (ethics, critical thinking, etc.). It absolutely has tangible value, in that it really does get you to think. Most people do not think, they follow whatever the prevailing opinion (or the counter to that opinion) is without question, and they don't even realize it. If we spent more time teaching people to form their own opinions based on known facts and logical reasoning, we'd be in a lot better shape.

Of course this means that two-party politics would cease to exist, and hence they'll never get more funding.

 

[kzeelio]

I'm getting a degree in graphic design. Yeah, liberal arts. Yeah, I'll have a hard time finding work. But look at every website and every billboard and every sign and every logo and I could go on... Someone with skills in art designed almost everything visual and some things material. Desks and lamps are concept sketches before they are ready for production. So are clothes. People need to stop taking designers for granted.

Basically, dude is an idiot and needs to think deeper about the role of liberal arts in society.