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

[Toriver]

No, they're not inherently less valuable degrees, but as the practical skills learned within are less useful than those learned in hard science, applied science and mathematics degrees, they are presently less valuable as a component of modern society. Then again, I'm horribly biased - I haven't been outside the science departments in either place of higher education I've been in.

That said, Rick Scott is a complete hypocrite - he left university with degrees in business and law. Neither of these is a mathematics, science or technology degree.

Pretty much this. And to clarify, as I went to a liberal arts college to graduate with a political science major, I just thought I would outline the definition of liberal arts for people who may not understand.

Liberal Arts basically means you don't put a particular focus on one course of study. If you go to a place like your local public university and get an art history or anthropology degree, that's not liberal arts. You likely put a lot more time and energy into art history or anthropology classes than other subjects to get that degree. Whereas, in my college experience, I did take enough credits to earn a political science major (and two minors: Spanish and history), in order to get my degree, the general requirements were higher than for places like public schools, taking up roughly a good third to half of my college education, and they spanned humanities, social science, natural science and fine arts classes. Even the engineering, pre-med and other science majors had to fulfill them. Technically, my degree is both a liberal arts degree and a political science degree. On the other hand, a liberal arts major from any institution means that yeah, you build your own course of study that gives you a degree in nothing in particular. My dad is a liberal arts major out of a public university. He's held basically a bunch of blue collar jobs his whole life and it hasn't really gotten him much, sad to say. I have a feeling that once I return to the US, even when this recession is over, I'm destined for the same fate. With the job I'm holding now, I could have majored in anything to get it, whereas any jobs that require actual specialized study usually either want a Master's degree or a Bachelor's in the fields the governor mentioned.

And business and law degrees are still more likely to get you somewhere than liberal arts or what many falsely believe to be liberal arts.

 

[SovietPanda]

All depends on your idea of valuable. Knowledge for knowledge sake holds true and any learning gained in one field is just as worth attaining as any other. Maths science and engineering are areas that are important to growth and development of industry and infrastucture and in alot of places are under supplied with proffesionals. Probably why whatever public official you quoted said what he did.

Is liberal arts 'less valuable' not in my opinion.. Are you going to have alot less higher paying jobs and career paths available to you if you study liberl arts quite possibly.

 

[Aviyur]

Physics maybe not so important now...olol.

 

[Esotera]

Yes, at least until most of the work/applications gets done in science/tech, at which point it's pretty pointless studying them. Obviously that's a long way off. If you want to learn about art in your spare time then you should, but there are definitely too many people with degrees around in general, having them in a field with few jobs doesn't help. So I'm not entirely against cutting back the number of people on those types of courses in a traditional university setting.

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".

Our professor gave a lecture about methanol/ethanol competively inhibiting Alcohol Dehydrogenase, and said that in the few cases of students being poisoned its always those doing art degrees; they just see "ALCOHOL" on a bottle of paintstripper and think nothing of it. Don't give up the superiority complex, it's what makes us scientists!

 

[Flight]

Frankly, I think he has no bloody clue as to what he's talking about. Was da Vinci useless? Tchaikovsky? Petipa? Of course they weren't. Art has an integral role in society, no matter that is supposedly has no "practical" application. I believe encouraging people to think and look outside the box through art (and other means) is quite practical, as a matter of fact.

 

[Dr_Baron_von_Evilsatan]

I'd love to meet a conservative philosophy major, just so I know they exist.

I was considering it for a time, but went with computer science instead. I had a friend that was double majored in philosophy and computer science and I believe he was a conservative. Do those count?

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.

I wouldn't put too much weight into the degree title. I Have a BA in Computer Science just because of the school I went to. (Cost me an interview, once).

 

[Togs]

Our professor gave a lecture about methanol/ethanol competively inhibiting Alcohol Dehydrogenase, and said that in the few cases of students being poisoned its always those doing art degrees; they just see "ALCOHOL" on a bottle of paintstripper and think nothing of it. Don't give up the superiority complex, it's what makes us scientists!

Pretty funny story, but I gotta say I disagree with you about that superiority complex- its what makes people distrustful and often dismissive of science- we use big fancy words that sound complicated (but often aren't) making science seem overly dense and difficult, if the common layman knew a bit more maybe all that "science is evil" BS would go away.

[sub]For example the number of times I've had to explain evolution to people who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick is ridiculous[/sub]

 

[LordFisheh]

The thing is, universities aren't about getting you a job or being of maximum economic effectiveness. They're the centres of the most advanced knowledge of the human race. So sure, certain subjects may have less value in the university-as-a-production-line-to-get-me-a-job context, but other than that, who knows?

Should a subject be valued on how much money it can make? That logic would suggest we should all be optimising our lives for top productivity, culture and recreation be damned. Perhaps we should go by value to society - but who gets to decide what's 'valuable', or what's 'good' and 'bad' for us to do and think. A friend studying medieval history mentioned discussing political freedoms; while the 'liberal arts pansies' could draw on their areas of study, the 'useful, practical' scientists and mathematicians contributed less. But it would be absurdity to say that such discussions have no value.

As far as I'm concerned, all knowledge has value, because there's no reliable way to determine whether this bit should be focused on or that bit is useless without descending into subjective it's like this just because it is rules.

And as for getting you a job at the end and providing future opportunities, frankly, I don't care, because that's not what academia is about. The employment prospects are an important part of many lives, mine included - but in the end, in any truly academic institution, they're a side effect.

 

[bastardman25]

one of my friends started a degree in popular music recording, he said in their first lecture they were told none of them would be able to find a job..
not a great intro really.

"liberal arts" though? surely there?s some right wingers doing art courses, and anthropology is neither inherently liberal or arty.
id bet media / art / history courses have the same job prospects as business studies or IT grads
because so many people take those courses, and I suppose the more creative courses have the benefit of not being so dry and boring you drive a powerdrill into your skull.

I do physics, but I certainly didn?t pick it because of anything so tedious as "job prospects".
apparently lots of physics graduates go into accountancy......
where did I put that powerdrill?

 

[Rufei]

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.

I think the governor is more pointing towards what is an oversupply of "liberal arts" majors and an undersupply of technical degrees, such as the sciences and engineering. This is definitely true - for my field, computer science, jobs are goddamn everywhere... and the supply of willing computer scientists is piddling. (I know a lot of biomedical engineers though and they have a lot of difficulties, but that's because of the scope of research and the youth of the industry, so...)

I'm inclined to agree with the governor's intent here - technical degrees are worth more to society, which needs vital stuff produced. One can live without art (though that kind of life would suck), but one cannot live without food, water, infrastructure, medicine, and that general idea we call "technology." And we are not in a post-scarcity world (in fact, resources are getting scarcer now).

I'll put it out there: I find that degrees that teach a craft are perfectly fine - you're learning to produce something. But degrees that simply inform... I have a hard time believing that the person will exit college with any appreciable skill set pertinent to production.

 

[Gluzzbung]

Well, if he wants to have a person give him a triple bypass operation when really he's thinking about art, or manage his accounts when really he's writting a psycological thriller behind his back, then he's welcome, I'd rather have professionals do my accounts and operations sir.

 

[Puddleknock]

I would agree that liberal arts degrees are inherently less valuable than the sciences and technology degrees. This is not to say that liberal art degree are valueless, just that science degree are particularly valuable. Liberal arts degrees still have a place and a value. I've completed both a BA in History and a MA in Arts Management, both are valuable degrees and I do not regret my time studying either.

If I had a masters degree in a subject such as maths or chemistry there would be more jobs open for me and could be deemed a more valuable degree. But that is not to say there are no jobs for liberal arts students. Many graduate level jobs require a degree, for which a liberal arts degree would count. Liberal arts degrees teach students to be analytical and to present arguments in a coherent manner, as do most other degrees. These skills, regardless of the subject matter studied in the degree, are important skills that will always be required by employers. For instance for my history degree I studied modern Israeli history, now this knowledge itself will more than likely not be useful for future employment, but the skills I used in producing academic papers for my degree will be.

Also I hope I understand the term 'liberal arts' correctly, its not a term that I've come across much here in the UK.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Is a civil engineer more valuable to society than a philosophy major?

So you have someone who actually contributes/works, and someone who sits around and talks about the meaning of work.

Yeah, no, screw the philosophy major. I'd take a civil engineer over twenty philosophy majors. A hundred, even.

 

[teknoarcanist]

"Statistically less likely to comfortably produce an immediate post-education career" is probably a better way to put it. If you love math and your brother loves art, who is inherently more 'valuable'? And the answer is that there is no answer. "Valuable" is a loaded word, without a more specific semantic definition.

 

[Esotera]

Pretty funny story, but I gotta say I disagree with you about that superiority complex- its what makes people distrustful and often dismissive of science- we use big fancy words that sound complicated (but often aren't) making science seem overly dense and difficult, if the common layman knew a bit more maybe all that "science is evil" BS would go away.

[sub]For example the number of times I've had to explain evolution to people who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick is ridiculous[/sub]

Was half-joking on the superiority complex. I think there's nothing wrong with being proud that you've completed a hard degree, as long as you're not flaunting it. Seem to have broken my own rule here...

The thing is, universities aren't about getting you a job or being of maximum economic effectiveness. They're the centres of the most advanced knowledge of the human race. So sure, certain subjects may have less value in the university-as-a-production-line-to-get-me-a-job context, but other than that, who knows?

I'd say that's largely been surpassed by the internet these days, there's lots of open courseware from the best universities all round the world. Don't MIT or Stanford make all their course resources open to the general public, so you're basically just paying for the piece of paper?

As far as I'm concerned, all knowledge has value, because there's no reliable way to determine whether this bit should be focused on or that bit is useless without descending into subjective it's like this just because it is rules.

And as for getting you a job at the end and providing future opportunities, frankly, I don't care, because that's not what academia is about. The employment prospects are an important part of many lives, mine included - but in the end, in any truly academic institution, they're a side effect.

I agree with this very much, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Universities should really pick one or the other; focussing on either training for the world of work, or pure study of a field. Presently there are a lot of strange degrees out there (like degrees in childcare) that would be better suited by apprenticeships or some other method of study.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Yes.
Ok, I'm a grad student now, and I hold two of those damn BS degrees in sciency fields, so take my criticisms of the o-so-glorious liberal arts with some salt.

Now on to that Scott idiot. Why are Liberal Arts degrees perceived as being less valuable? Has the market (and by that I mean the application box at Starbucks) been saturated with graduates in liberal arts seeking a job? And if so, what competitive skills does each "branch" of liberal arts teach the student? Let's for the sake of argument assume that we cancel all liberal arts degrees and courses, and instead invest solely in science and engineering majors. Most modern research institutions exist only because there is the money of a large student body supporting it (tuition->salary->professors->research->renown for university->more students->more money->etc), although I should make it absolutely clear that research is not financed by any significant contribution of the student body. As such, it would be imperative to maintain a high student count at the university, and since all of those students would be in the toughest (no, this is not an exaggeration, math/science/engineering are the hardest majors by far), the rigor of study would have to be dialed back some. In other words, we are left with a choice of saturating the market (in this case the application box at Best Buy) with hordes of unqualified science graduates, or reducing the number of active researchers at universities while still maintaining a high level of education. I suppose it would be possible to finance research directly in lieu of universities, but how would the next generation of scientists be trained? In other words, it's a loose-loose situation, which is why a wide range of degrees are offered at most universities, including the most famous research universities (Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, etc). Scott is an idiot, but what did you expect from somebody with his political orientation?

 

[Rufei]

The thing is, universities aren't about getting you a job or being of maximum economic effectiveness. They're the centres of the most advanced knowledge of the human race. So sure, certain subjects may have less value in the university-as-a-production-line-to-get-me-a-job context, but other than that, who knows?

Should a subject be valued on how much money it can make? That logic would suggest we should all be optimising our lives for top productivity, culture and recreation be damned. Perhaps we should go by value to society - but who gets to decide what's 'valuable', or what's 'good' and 'bad' for us to do and think. A friend studying medieval history mentioned discussing political freedoms; while the 'liberal arts pansies' could draw on their areas of study, the 'useful, practical' scientists and mathematicians contributed less. But it would be absurdity to say that such discussions have no value.

As far as I'm concerned, all knowledge has value, because there's no reliable way to determine whether this bit should be focused on or that bit is useless without descending into subjective it's like this just because it is rules.

And as for getting you a job at the end and providing future opportunities, frankly, I don't care, because that's not what academia is about. The employment prospects are an important part of many lives, mine included - but in the end, in any truly academic institution, they're a side effect.

If you want to look at it that way, unversities are businesses looking to improve their name brand and resources so that they can attract better (and richer!) students and continue to grow. Of course, there's this nice goal of teaching stuff, but that's a secondary concern.

A degree should tell an employer what skill set should be expected from the alum. Learning for the sake of learning is great, but ultimately you are expected to do something with that knowledge. If that something is not that useful, well, that's the cold, hard truth. It's just not that useful.

 

[Zach of Fables]

To be perfectly frank, they probably aren't as useful. But they aren't useless. But it will be harder to get a job with a degree like that.

 

[zehydra]

Is a civil engineer more valuable to society than a philosophy major?

So you have someone who actually contributes/works, and someone who sits around and talks about the meaning of work.

Yeah, no, screw the philosophy major. I'd take a civil engineer over twenty philosophy majors. A hundred, even.

This is essentially why I'm a philosophy minor. I'm currently a Computer Science major, so I'm becoming an expert in a very useful field, and one that pays well. But philosophy is very important, so I'm using this opportunity being a student at a College to learn more about what other Philosophers have had to say.

 

[Togs]

Pretty funny story, but I gotta say I disagree with you about that superiority complex- its what makes people distrustful and often dismissive of science- we use big fancy words that sound complicated (but often aren't) making science seem overly dense and difficult, if the common layman knew a bit more maybe all that "science is evil" BS would go away.

[sub]For example the number of times I've had to explain evolution to people who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick is ridiculous[/sub]

Was half-joking on the superiority complex. I think there's nothing wrong with being proud that you've completed a hard degree, as long as you're not flaunting it. Seem to have broken my own rule here...

In all honesty Ive got a bit of an axe to grind when it comes to that topic- sorry about the unprovoked rant.