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

[spartan231490]

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.

In his context, he is absolutely right. Tax money should be prioritized to those programs that are more likely to generate jobs. And predicting what jobs will be needed isn't as difficult as something like number of shoes, or any consumer product. People retire at generally consistent ages, and it takes a very consistent number of years to go from a HS degree to a college degree. You don't get many people who blow out their career in a year, and you don't get many who work until they're 97 either. It's very linear.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

Frankly, liberal arts degrees are not about valuable per say for getting careers in the field (with few exceptions). HAVING a degree is extremely valuable however, and liberal arts degrees are quite useful for middle management.

 

[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.

My sister is conservative, and she's going for a major in theology. Does that count?

OT: So Governor Scott thinks that my future BA in Art is useless, hm?

Tell Governor Scott to go fuck himself, please.

It does. Congratulate her for disproving a random internet man.

 

[conflictofinterests]

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.

Plenty of work for cultural anthropologists too, as diplomats, HR reps(what I'm going for with my Anthropology degree) and pretty much anything else that involves getting two very different groups of people to see vaguely eye-to-eye.
Plenty of work for archaeologists, a third branch of Anthro majors as surveyors, making sure building sites aren't on ancient Indian burial grounds (actually a legit thing they look for).

Actually, the only branch of anthropology I CAN'T think of an immediate job for is the Linguistic Anthropologist. Wait, nevermind. Plenty of now-wealthy Native Americans are happy to hire them to reconstruct their native languages.

Anthropology is a poor example of an inapplicable study, especially in a country like the United States, with a Native population that not only has not been eradicated, but has been given extensive rights, not only to the remains of its people, but to current day activities, enabling some to amass wealth and fund private research of an Anthropological bent.

In the United States, perhaps an Art History major could only hope to secure a professor or curator's job. Not so with the Anthropologist.

 

[Hipster Chick]

Actually, within the context of the United States, I could definitely see how Liberal Arts majors can retain their value as more and more technical jobs and positions are outsourced to nations like China and India, which emphasize the importance of the maths and sciences in their universities almost to the exclusion of others. Want to know what's probably not ever going to be outsourced? Journalists. Teachers. Television writers. Chefs. All of those occupations that you can't do over telecom or the internet.

 

[Braedan]

Worth less? Absolutely. you can't discover/create a new fuel source with philosophy.

Anyone's right to tell you what you can't take in school? Absolutely not.

That said, if there is government funding going towards post secondary I think it should be focused on fields that are in demand and will help the country grow, not thrown away. Fiscal responsibility.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I think this Mother Jones article is utterly ridiculous, since it basically implies that those of us who majored in "STEM" disciplines are just idiots who can't think critically and can only rewrite the equations we were taught. Although I don't necessarily judge the "worth" of someone's education by the money they make, it's hard not to see Scott's point

http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

If you'll notice, pretty much all of the majors that make the most money are science and engineering majors. The only one that can not be considered a hard science is Economics (#12) and that's still pretty much a science. So I understand Scott's remarks when he is talking about taxpayer money going to college students.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

A liberal arts degree inherently less valuable than math/science?

No engineer can make the big bucks doing what Phoenix Wright does (from a History/Political Science major starting law school)

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Well yeah, you can get a good job with a maths or science degree. If people want to study the other things, sure, but maths and so forth is way more important.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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).

I thought MIT was pure science/technology... To that end, I wonder how places like MIT and Imperial College (essentially the British version of MIT) would persist without private funding, because they're both heavy research institutions... and life science research is easily the most expensive kind... so, most of the professors I know spend half their time shaking a can at industry...

Not quite. MIT is an interesting case, and their fame (which is deserved a billion times over) largely stems from the research in the hard sciences that is taking place there. However, there are in fact majors in the liberal arts offered: http://mitadmissions.org/discover/majors

The funny thing about places like MIT is that because they are so famous, anybody employed there wouldn't have to worry as much about money as other researchers. As such, a lot of "why the hell not" research is taking place there, things that aren't necessarily without a clear focus or intent, but rather something the PI does for fun.
To answer your question, MIT and any other major research center would essentially close if it weren't for private/industry funds. The government, which would then have to foot the bill, doesn't really care whether or not you can develop a method to make industrial process X 15% more efficient, you know..

 

[bluepilot]

It is really hard to say. It can depend on what fields you end up in. Some scientists and engineers will make a lot of money, others will not and the same can be said for those studying liberal arts.

On a personal level, I do not think that the type of degree you get in college matters, it is all about what you do with it that counts.

When it comes to this argument and society I always think of JK Rowling. A liberal arts major who wrote Harry Potter and generated millions. Engineering and science can also generate money but only if they make progress, mostly they just cost money to develop (one of the reasons why it is so hard to find a job right now even if you have a science degree). Not every arts student will write the next Harry Potter and not every science student will discover the cure for cancer.

So, my advice is, these politicians already sold out your future to the bank, so just study whatever you want.

 

[vxicepickxv]

So is goal to be sued by the University of Florida, Florida state University, and the University of Miami when they can't get any quality players anymore?

 

[vxicepickxv]

When I was talking about those universities in particular, I was thinking of the NCAA money, from the Florida Gators, the Seminoles, and the Hurricanes.

This is a double post by the way.

 

[Artina89]

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".

Same here. I graduated with honours in Biochemistry and biological chemistry and am still in contact with a lot of people that were on my course. Only three people have jobs and that is because they moved back to China after graduation.

 

[Superbeast]

I was studying Biochemistry and Biological Chemistry, and found that it absolutely crushed my love of the sciences, and the sheer boredom and repetitiveness of my degree was really hitting my motivation.

So I dropped out and now I am studying Classical Literature and Civilisation.

Do I have less job prospects? Actually, no - teaching, academic research, restoration/preservation, curatorship, accounting, politics, law (post-graduate conversion courses are more highly valued than undergraduate Law degrees), the civil service, the intelligence services and a wide variety of management roles across a wide range of fields (from retail to the health industry).

I love my degree, it is something I absolutely love doing, and I find the knowledge that it imparts to be fascinating and, I feel, makes me a far more rounded person. The history of ancient Greece/Rome, combined with the thoughts of civic identities/duties and the philosophies that were nascent then but have evolved throughout the ages, the birth of recognisable politics, the amazing art and architecture and what such things meant to people...it is far more than I could simply gain just "reading on the internet".

Would I make more money had I kept to my science degree? Possibly. It is not a dead certain - engineering seems to be where the money lies, and there is quite a small job-market for the sheer volume of science graduates (thanks to requiring very specialised knowledge) which means a large amount of competition for placements. On the whole there are not enough science graduates - but within individual fields there are often far too many. I know many of my friends from my old course who are absolutely out-of-luck when it comes to work - there aren't enough places in specialised biochemical laboratories, and they cannot get "mundane" work (such as management or the civil service) because the employers feel they are *too* specialised and will either struggle, or will just disappear at the first opportunity.

The sentiments that my degree with worth less (or even worthless) really piss me the hell off - especially when people who rant about "arts" majors tend to be the same people who complain about the lack of good teaching, that children cannot speak or write properly, that modern entertainment is going down the drain, how book stores are filled with pulp-like vampire-romance trash, how the moral decency of society is being degraded, and how no-one seems to think any more.

It all smacks of anti-intellectualism from the larger body public, and arrogance from lesser parts of the scientific community (a level of banter is acceptable, but sometimes it is an outright superiority complex and frankly offensive).

 

[Trivun]

Fair play to the guy (and by Om's turtle and Anoia's shiny ladles I never thought I'd find myself saying that about a Republican), but I reckon that the best choice shouldn't necessarily be what will get someone a job, but what they want to do themselves. I'm living proof of that. I did a maths degree and failed it, I need to go back to university to do resits this year for my exams before I can graduate. In my third year though, I realised that I was wasting my time, I was bored with my course, and that my true passion lay in film-making, which the university also taught and that I did as a hobby. But being in my third year I felt it was too late to change courses and waste those first two years of time, effort, and fees. If I'd done the film-making course from the start, then I would be much happier. And you know why I did the maths course in the first place? Because I was pushed into it by my school, which, being a grammar school, wanted us all to do academic things rather than what we wanted ourselves. Look where that got me. And I'm serious about my school being pushy, I recall one of my friends having a massive argument with the careers advisor when he said he wanted to join the Army instead of going to university, and I almost ended up the same way (I wanted to join the RAF) except they didn't want me going to university first, which was the deal-breaker for me...

 

[The Abhorrent]

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

As a student of civil engineering in the final year of my degree... well, the objective position is pretty much "Yes". The engineering profession as a whole is one which society is dependent on, and we'll always be needed; and the field being a profession, we're the only ones permitted to design and approve anything related to it. Engineers need to have a liscence, just as a medical doctor needs one. Civil engineering in particular is the field which focuses on the elements critical to the infrastructure of society: buildings, foundations, roads, environmental, and running water.

While philosophy certainly is interesting, it doesn't have the same value (to society) as engineering; this isn't to imply that philosophy is useless, it's just not something which inherently benefits a society. Arts degrees in general all have this same issue, as are sciences which predominantly create knowledge instead of value (which I would guess applies to anthropology). Unfortuantely, they just don't create the same (monetary) value that harder sciences and engineering do. They aren't to be ignored, however. There's a reason (at least at my university) why engineering students are required to take a couple complimentary studies course in some more art-oriented fields -- we'd be boring otherwise. Of course, discussing the technical aspects of the field is interesting... to us; but most people have no idea what the heck "lateral-torsional buckling" means nor how significant it is.

In the end, I think it boils down to how much (monetary) value the degree creates. Academic studies, in both the arts and the sciences, aren't good at creating explicit value; they create knowledge (implcit value?). That knowledge can then be used to create more explicit value; but in current times (where money and profits are paramount), few are willing to invest the necessary funds needed to seek out knowledge which may not be useful.
---

Anyhow, I went into civil engineering because I have an interest in the field (more or less the logical conclusion of playing with Lego as a kid) moreso than the fact it will be a great aid for me starting my career after graduation; nor will I deny that high employability is a great perk. The other reason I'm studying it is the field's focus on problem solving; it's not purely academic, you have to make things work in the real world. Sometimes working around problems requires just as much lateral thinking as it does technical knowledge, and that makes it all the more fun to figure out; even in a field so rigorously dictated by mathematics, there is still some creativity (and practicality) required.

However, I wouldn't mind being able to study some of the arts if I could. Musical theory would be neat, history is surprisingly interesting, and even sociology is intriguing. However, I'm able to look into those at my leisure and enjoy them just the same. No idea what's the appeal behind financial studies (in terms of being interesting, not they're undeniable usefulness as a means to an end), but it could simply be different strokes for different folks.

 

[Rin Little]

Unfortunately its true, I've been out of college with a writing degree for over four months and I haven't had any leads on jobs whatsoever. Do I regret getting my degree in something I love? No, but it would be really nice if technology didn't run rampant over everything.

 

[bpm195]

My experience at university has been that the liberal arts majors are in large part simply taking the path of least resistance to a degree. No matter what there will always be some easiest degree and people will pursue it just to avoid work, so I can't say we need to just start eliminating them. However, I do in general respect people that will go out and try to make a difference or just pursue their dream in spite of the cost. I laugh at people who gets liberal arts degrees and complain that they're losing at capitalism.

There's nothing wrong with trying to expand your mind, but I don't support my tax dollars going to 75% of Liberal Artisans. Take a major that goes toward something more concrete and but go for a Bachelor of Arts instead of Bachelor of Science.