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

Recommended Videos

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
poppabaggins said:
Political science and economics are still sciency (... a combination of philosophy and science?).
Holding both a BA and an MSc, and I can tell you that there is not this vast gulf of distinction between the 'liberal arts' and the 'social sciences'. The research methodology is often very similar. Economists are as capable of writing professorial theory as historians are capable of using quantitative statistics.

Each discipline of the liberal arts and social sciences has specific theoretical approaches associated with it, but they are all capable of a similar level of critical engagement. You're setting up a pretty arbitrary and flawed measure if you're going to judge the worth of every degree based on how close you think it is to PNS.

poppabaggins said:
If liberal arts is about teaching people how to think, why should people major in liberal arts and try to get jobs telling other people what to think?
They don't really..

Assuming they actually work in area pertinent to their degree, and relatively few do, they get jobs which utilize their research and analytical skills, for example in the civil service, the third sector or in publishing. A very small number go into academia.

Again, this is the equivalent of assuming all biology graduates immediately strap on lab coats and go work for Monsanto corporation, and trying to draw something sinister from that completely asinine conclusion.

poppabaggins said:
So yeah, philosophy et. al. are great, but, aside from teachers/professors, we really don't need people who dedicate their lives to these topics to make the world better-- science conducted by people with a general idea of liberal arts can do that.
Where are these scientists?

Science takes a lot of time and money to get anywhere in. Scientists who actually want to end up working in research do not have the time to receive a basic training in the liberal arts. Again, this is no better than suggesting that science would be better conducted by philosophers with a general idea of science.

I'm all for interdisciplinary work, but there's only so much a single person can read or understand. This is why we specialize along disciplinary lines, with different theoretical methods and practices.

As for making the world better, which has done so more for the average human being: feminist theory, or the discovery of ununoctium?
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
I have to say of all the opinions I dont keep to myself at uni and probably should is that I generally consider BA's (Bachelor of Arts for all those out you outside the UK) to be worth less than BSc's (Bachelor of Science).

They are easier to perform and anyone with a BSc is capable of getting a BA while the reverse is not true.

This statement, while not exclusively true is generally true (and I will be the first to admit that many physicists would suck at acting). You only need to look at the number of people with degrees in BA's who have jobs related not in the slightest to their degree.

Imo its fair enough to throw more funding at the sciences. We dont need more people with history degrees, or, god forbid, psychology, which has become a standing joke within just about every department except psychology itself in every university in the UK because THAT MANY people get degrees in it.

The statistics speak for themselves. People will do BA's with no prospects just because the merit of saying "I have a degree" is worth the cost of tuition and for the experience. The dire number of students studying degree level mathematics, even with subsidised tuition and living costs by comparison merits looking into. If you can up the numbers for students in this by throwing money at it, better than than another pointless dissertation on how Germany came to power, the fall of Rome, or the founding of the US.
 

Tiger King

Senior Member
Legacy
Oct 23, 2010
837
0
21
Country
USA
i think all graduates face the same problem, they get qualified then begin job hunting only to be turned away due to "not having enough experience"
 

TransContinental

New member
Oct 12, 2011
5
0
0
My father (an educated man and an English major who went on to law school) always espoused the belief that learning is it's own reward. I too have adapted much the same outlook and I inherently believe that there is a unique quality to the liberal arts education. More aptly though, there is utility in the diploma. Engineering majors, for example, are great when one is looking for an job designing suspension bridges or building complex electrical systems and you won't see many people with that major or an equally mathematically minded in other vocations or other majors working as engineers. Degrees in sciences are rigorously functional but the liberal arts education allows a broader education, and hence, job market for the graduate. However, with this broad education comes the risk of a focus in disciplines deemed soft (many of the social sciences and humanities.) Ultimately, the real difference is between the tier of ones liberal arts education. Graduates of Amherst and Williams (look 'em up) are set. Unfortunately, there can be a quick drop-off.

And another thing, DON'T specialise in the following majors:

Music Production
Media Studies
Sports Management

You will be significantly better off with a degree in physics when trying for a music industry job, then a degree in music production.

Make sure at least your discipline is a real academic study, NOT one of the above. It isn't that you shouldn't go into these industries, it is that these degrees don't help. Art history is fine, even.
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
TransContinental said:
I have to disagree. Unless you get someone like Sheldon out of Big Bang Theory, I see no particular skill or method of thinking that a BA provides over a BSc. Most of the great "thinkers" of the day who ponder on the universe abstractly are physicists, not philosophers.

Imo, most Liberal Arts subjects are glorified hobbies they people pay excessive quantities of money to pursue.
 

vfaulkon

New member
Jul 21, 2008
82
0
0
This is utterly ridiculous. "Why should the state help kids get an education if it won't turn them into valuable worker ants?" is what it sounds like he's REALLY asking. I mean, I get wanting to promote students learning more marketable skills in a struggling economy, but (aside from the anthropology gaffe that's already been pointed out) he's also made the mistake of thinking that, just because someone gets their degree in Florida means they'll be using it in Florida. I mean, will it be worth taxpayers' money if a Floridean takes their engineering degree and moves to Massachusetts to get a job? What if a non-Floridean comes here, gets a degree and plans to stay and use it here? Are THEY worth paying for, or do you still want them to pay out-of-state tuition?

The problem with the economy is huge and multi-faceted, and forcing students into given career paths because you personally deem them more valuable is not going to help fix that. Florida students are not going to always become Florida workers either. Rick Scott, please kindly shut up and stop insulting me by calling me and my education 'not valuable'.


EDIT: Thinking about it, this whole discussion could've been avoided if Mr. Scott had simply said, "our state needs more engineers, computer scientists, etc.", 'cause that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. It's how he worded it that really set us off, I think (certainly set ME off). Way for a politician to not be diplomatic.
 

instantbenz

Pixel Pusher
Mar 25, 2009
744
0
0
only if you're shit at your profession. you just have to find a niche is all. doesn't matter what gig you're runnin.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,678
3,877
118
I don't know if anyone's said this (it's 3 pages in), but he didn't say it was a liberal arts major.

OT: I'm not up enough on Florida education to make any sort of solid statement. If he's talking about funding to public colleges, I don't agree. If he's talking about some program that lets students get money to go through college, I don't necessarily disagree.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hey, I have 2 degrees, one of them a BA (History) ... and I have a job ...

When you look at the wondrous advancement of Human society the first thing I think about is is social and literary achievements. Of a growing respect for cultural identities, and understaning the innate human creature.

Sciences are purely a posteriori constructs ... but to ignore the apriori essence of Man is a fucking stupid idea. To just pave over the ideas born from exploring concepts such as cognition and intuition. Whilst it's easy to scoff at such thoughts, there's a reeason why we have ethicists in the world, or painters who have a gift to explore the absurdities of the human condition.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that an artist who communicates some of the darkest aspects of ourselves is inherently less valuable than a guy in a white lab coat who is really, really good at pereforming complex equations?

I'd say both are needed ... because you could invent faster than light travel. You could come up with a drug that cures all sickness, or find a way to feed the entire world population ... but in the end you need people who have to look beyond the science to find ethical contemplations of our actions or inactions.

Technology is great, science is great ... but they don't make me happy or help to found some transcendental leap of exploration into the Self. They don't help me learn the mistakes of the past, or better myself in some fundamental way. They don't make me look at the world and explore hidden social constructs that could help identity real social problems ...

So I'd say, in short, that its a balancing act. You don't want a society mired in cold technocracies ... nor do you want a society that thinks far too inwardly, or is paralyzed by self-contemplation or emotional gratifications. You need a bit of both.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
finnugold said:
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.
XD I am a multimedia designer I can do your job and many others wooo :p
 

Viral_Lola

New member
Jul 13, 2009
544
0
0
I?m sure anthropology is a science degree but to answer the main question, are liberal arts degrees less valuable than math, science, and technology majors? I say it depends on the liberal arts degree. Illustration and book binding---> Yes. People who study liberal arts may not get the highest paying jobs but I would still like to have them around. And it?s not so I can laugh at them because I decided to study science. Well, mostly not that. I do love classical music and classical lit, so I would love to have them around to make a few suggestions and maybe debate a few topics from my favorite novels.
 

Shivarage

New member
Apr 9, 2010
514
0
0
All degrees are inherently worthless, it depends on what you do with your standardized or pointless knowledge
 

Thaius

New member
Mar 5, 2008
3,862
0
0
Bullshit. I don't usually swear, but this just pisses me off.

You know what? Why doesn't he go make his own society with no art, literature, or philosophy? That would go great, right? Since all those things are useless anyway? Moron.

I freaking hate it when people say stupid crap like that.
 

Dirzzit

New member
Apr 16, 2009
309
0
0
Liberal arts degree's worthless? Wake me up when someone says something I don't know.
 

Hap2

New member
May 26, 2010
280
0
0
poppabaggins said:
Dense_Electric said:
poppabaggins said:
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.
Can you give me a concrete example? I'm going to give you one to back up my argument: electricity. Look, it's great teaching people how to learn for themselves and everything, but you don't have to dedicate four years of your life studying it. If someone doesn't know how to think for him/herself after high school, then I doubt college is going to do that person much good. But yeah, I'm always ready for something better than our awful two-party system.
Ethics, both theory and application in almost every area of work one can think of. Metaphysics, the nature of reality, the self, etc. Logic, theory and application. Language <--Wittgenstein has been hugely influential on modern Anthropology.

Then there are the practical skills, research, analysis, reasoning, etc. Stuff that obviously the politician presented to us isn't too well versed on.
 

GenesisCEO

New member
Apr 26, 2011
12
0
0
Math? Science? If republicans get their way you will only hear those 2 words when Jimmy has to wear the DUNCE hat for questioning the almighty will of God.
 

Prof. Monkeypox

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,014
0
0
Like all things, it depends on what you do with it.
It is worth noting, though, that most liberal arts jobs are not in high demand and the accessibility of the degree means there will be an inflation in the number of people vying for those few jobs.
 

Da Joz

New member
May 19, 2009
938
0
0
I have no problem with people studying liberal arts, some of them even take it very seriously and may do some good in the world. My problem is with the far too many that go to college and major in something silly just to get a degree. College has basically become a daycare for young adults (used loosely) that will just move back in with their parents after they fail to find a job with their 2.0 GPA and seemingly useless degree.
 

Ghaleon640

New member
Jan 13, 2011
441
0
0
I personally find that a person's choice in college is important, often moreso than elementary through high school unlike what some people are saying. Elementary, middle and high school were fine for getting a broad understanding, but I don't feel it prepares a person the way College does for a particular job.
I simply don't understand the point of history majors being so popular. Yeah, history is cool,I love history, but we can only have so many history teachers. And literature majors... I'm not trying to be mean, but I just don't get it. I understand that if you have the money and interest thats fine, but when kids come out of high school and go straight to that using their parents money, it just baffles me especially because of the job market.
Though I suppose maybe I'm just being ignorant, so if anyone has another opinion, I'd like to hear it, I won't be rude, I'm just interested. (Hmmm.. I suppose I did sound rude, but I've got to get going.)