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

[AdumbroDeus]

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)

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5297504




(obviously post contained within)

 

[Low Key]

Of course liberal arts degrees aren't as good as something like mathematics, computer engineering, chemistry, etc. There is no question about it.

Before I got my ass in gear for computer sciences, I wanted to get into film. Everyone, yes, EVERYONE wants to be a film director these days. With a liberal arts degree, most of what that person is doing is entertaining. No more, no less. With a degree in, say mathematics, it's a concrete subject understood around the world, and a breakthrough could reshape our future.

I'm certainly not to discourage those who have a liberal arts degree. My dad is an Emmy winning television writer and producer. It takes a sophisticated society for liberal arts to be tangible, and there are plenty of those around. You just have to look.

 

[Vault101]

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.

just out of pure interest why are they useless in regards to the music industry (I dont want to work in that area but I am genuinly curious)

anyway fact is if its a path you want to go down I guess you gotta know what your doing, to say its useless full stop is stupid..SOMONE paints the prettty picures, and makes the movies we all enjoy so much

in my case...Ive got no friggen clue what to do with my life, somone care to tell me what to do?

 

[smithy_2045]

The best use for a B.A. is toilet paper.

 

[Johann610]

The long-term statistics of which degrees generate the most income bear out some of what he meant to say: a hard-sciences degree or engineering might add a million lifetime dollars, but others (no, I can't be specific) might be as little as 300,000. Figure in debt for student loans (please) and you see where some people might be unhappy.
Still...the upside is that all across this land of ours, people with big ideas and college degrees are jerking sodas and coffees, driving trucks and shopping trolleys, and selling books, while on the side they write novels and music, dreaming of a big break. Intellectual diversity in the Retail sector, for instance, makes things much more entertaining for the people whose college career was all work and no play.
Can I draw on a Simcity / SMAC example for a moment? At some point, you have to furlough some "hard workers" to be entertaining, or the unrest and "drones" will break your economy.

 

[Low Key]

in my case...Ive got no friggen clue what to do with my life, somone care to tell me what to do?

Panhandle? You'd meet a lot of interesting people.

 

[Alexnader]

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).

I agree entirely. Thing is this "governer" person seemed to be referring to some kind of subsidies and on that point I think it's valid for the state to incentivise the study of degrees which will be of the most benefit to the country. I'm in Australia and can't comment on how the system works in America and really I'm not all that qualified to talk about how it works over here but when I see the cost for various degrees it goes science < engineering < business/economics < law/arts or something similar. (I'm really not all that familiar with the system despite me now finishing my first year of an engineering degree).

I have no issue with that kind of degree discrimination as Australia has a skills shortage and on a large scale 1000 extra engineers would most likely be a damn sight more "useful" than 1000 extra philosophers.

On an individual level you can't really compare them. Sure an engineer might design a bridge but we need philosophers too. We need authors, political commentators, people trained to think critically. That's why I'm going Engineering/Arts. That and doing 4 years of just maths would drive me crazy.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Engineers are the fingers of humanity, philosophers are the brain. You need both, but I know I'd rather lose a hand than my head when the apocalypse comes.

I might even go so far as to say that philosophy makes people happy, while engineering makes people greedy.

No doubt I'll have a million geeks jump down my throat proclaiming that science and maths are the best things evar.

Sure, it's nice to think about philosophy, history, comparative literature, etc., but does it accomplish anything tangible? Not really.

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Where would all you engineers be without a fiat currency to pay you in, hm? Or a government to stop your stuff being stolen from your construction site? Or a foreign office to facilitate trade? Or a patent office to ensure you get rewarded for your discoveries?

The extent to which philosophy permeates life, especially in the USA with your exceptionalism and political activism and religion, is huge. The death penalty, gay marriage, and your constitution are all the products of the 'liberal arts'- which I'm assuming to be anything that doesn't involve hardcore mathematics and natural studies. Any kind of politics, economics, and philosophy. Those are very important things which do a lot of good for mankind- not least by providing the environment for these huge engineering projects to even be possible.

Hell, have you ever heard of epistemology? It's the bedrock of that scientific method you revere.

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.

You know who had a PHD in Philosophy?

Sergio Vieira de Mello. He accomplished more in his short life than an engineer ever will by building things. You've just never heard of him.

All those great presidents in your past? How many pure natural scientists?.

I can't believe that the belief that philosophers don't work is so ingrained. It astounds me. Look around you at great men throughout history. The majority are not scientists, and when they are scientists, they are almost always also philosophers in the modern sense of the word.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Why doesn't he go make his own society with no... philosophy?

A society with no philosophy is an oxymoron. Impossible.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm kind of torn, of course what we need right now is more people with the qualifications necessary to move into work.

Yet, as a species, how much should we sacrifice investment into arts and culture to push more profit, which as we've seen, rarely 'trickles down' to those in need, instead being stored so people can see the number of zeros they've amassed on their bank balance.

Agree with Johann above, in that what's the point of us all being rich if there's no longer anyone creating music, movies, books, games and the rest to entertain us?

I believe that Winston Churchill, during World War II, was informed by his military advisors he'd need to slash funding to libraries and art galleries and the like, to fund the war effort.

He refused, stating that 'if we sacrifice those things, then what are we even fighting for?'

I'm obviously making light here, but surely now the universities are costing £27,000 for a 3 year course, but you don't have to repay the government until you're earning over £25,000 a year, then that's actively supporting music, writing, and movie careers, as you tend to either just get by or really make it

 

[Vault101]

in my case...Ive got no friggen clue what to do with my life, somone care to tell me what to do?

Panhandle? You'd meet a lot of interesting people.

*sigh* yeah but for that you need a bachelors in Pandahdling sciences...not to mention at least two years experience

 

[Superbeast]

I agree entirely. Thing is this "governer" person seemed to be referring to some kind of subsidies and on that point I think it's valid for the state to incentivise the study of degrees which will be of the most benefit to the country. I'm in Australia and can't comment on how the system works in America and really I'm not all that qualified to talk about how it works over here but when I see the cost for various degrees it goes science < engineering < business/economics < law/arts or something similar. (I'm really not all that familiar with the system despite me now finishing my first year of an engineering degree).

I have no issue with that kind of degree discrimination as Australia has a skills shortage and on a large scale 1000 extra engineers would most likely be a damn sight more "useful" than 1000 extra philosophers.

On an individual level you can't really compare them. Sure an engineer might design a bridge but we need philosophers too. We need authors, political commentators, people trained to think critically. That's why I'm going Engineering/Arts. That and doing 4 years of just maths would drive me crazy.

Hm, true - my tirade was more at the posters in this thread, rather than the comments of the governor.

Whilst it may make sense for the state to "incentivise the study of degrees which will be of the most benefit to the country" [sub](leaving aside exactly how you quantify benefit - for instance, JK Rowling has probably had more benefit to the UK in terms of increasing literacy and revenue from taxation than my engineering mate who now works in McDonalds)[/sub] his ideas run into the brick wall of practicality.

The simple fact of the matter is that science/engineering ("real degrees" as some say) are really, really expensive for the university to run. Without taking in so much money from the tuition fees of the students studying the various arts degrees, which are very cheap to run, then the universities simply couldn't afford to produce enough "real graduates" (urgh) to meet the demand within the economy. In certain fields they are struggling now - but places/courses would have to be cut by necessity without the cash flow from the "soft" students.

 

[Nickolai77]

In terms of supply and demand, a science degree is more valuable than an arts or humanities one. This is because typically a developed society needs more scientists than philosophers, so to speak. That said of course, say everyone started doing a science degree, arts and humanities graduates would suddenly become very valuable because there would be too many science graduates. As i said, it's all about supply and demand.

In essence, society needs the right mix of scientists, artists, engineers and humanities students in order to function. Generally speaking, at the moment, we need more scientists and engineers as the ratio's between the above mentioned graduate types are not in the right balance.

 

[KiKiweaky]

I'd agree with him the amount of people studying arts in my local college is hilarious.

I remember the first time I actualy heard about it was when a friend of mine said he was starting arts in college and another friend replied 'Shit I thought you were going to college to get a job'

 

[mortimer657]

I myself am a BA (Hons) History graduate (on a 1ST full honours) and chose to go on to study the subject at Masters level. Is it a useless degree to have? Well if we are talking employability then in short, HELL NO. I'll provide a copy and paste,, it should answer those who believe people studying history is a waste of time:

" In an age when "so last week" is a withering insult, what are the prospects for graduates who, like Euan Blair, have just spent three or four years stuck in previous centuries?

Very good, according to two reports on the employability of history graduates, published by the Higher Education Academy. A string of successful careers in the media, business, politics and even spying have been built on a history degree, found the reports' author David Nicholls.

"A remarkable number have gone on to become the movers and shakers of modern-day Britain," he notes. Highflying historians range from the chancellor, Gordon Brown, and four other members of the cabinet to the head of MI6, John Scarlett; from radio presenters Nicky Campbell and Simon Mayo, TV presenters Jonathan Ross and Timmy Mallett to the general secretary of the TUC, John Monks, the chairman of Woolworths, Gerald Corbett, and the outgoing chairman of Manchester United, Sir Roy Gardner. History graduates are found in disproportionate numbers on the boards of the UK's top 100 companies.

In a survey of 84 famous historians carried out by Prof Nicholls, Princess Diana's biographer, Andrew Morton, said a history education "helps with judgment and at the top level judgment counts more than knowledge (Prince Charles is also a history graduate, although his views are not recorded in the report).

The most frequently mentioned advantage the famous history graduates mentioned was the ability to read quickly and effectively and process large amounts of information, think deeply about a subject, develop cogent arguments and communicate clearly. All this young Mr Blair will be able to put on his CV from Bristol, from where he graduated yesterday.

Turning to present day history degree courses in his report for the academy's subject centre for history, Prof Nicholls concludes they are preparing students well for employment, with particularly good writing skills, although they could do more on numeracy and oral communication. He suggests university history courses could make more use of spreadsheets and databases to improve this, but he says it would be a mistake to try to impose transferable skills at the expense of enjoyment of the subject for its own sake.

"Students were not choosing history at school or university because of its skills content or because they saw it as a passport to a job. Rather they saw it as an opportunity to study something that interested them," he writes. Killing enjoyment with an obsession with employability skills would be counterproductive, but skills could be improved with minor adjustments to the curriculum.

Prof Nicholls also discusses whether history attracts a certain type of personality. As a historian, he is a bit sceptical of this theory, although he feels there is some substance to it. Historians are more likely to see themselves as sceptical, iconoclastic, ideas-oriented, warm and socially pushy, as opposed to trusting, conservative, solution-oriented, emotionally distant or shy (you recognise the engineers).

He concludes: "With a history degree you can aspire to be prime minister, press baron and media mogul, overlord of the BBC, 'the most famous lawyer in the land', archbishop of Canterbury, top spook, leading diplomat, police chief, Oxbridge chancellor and vice-chancellor, England footballer and football manager, or chairman of the richest football club in the world, famous comedian or celebrated pop musician, bestselling novelist, trade union boss, business millionaire and perhaps even one day monarch of the realm."

So, History graduates are found in "Disproportionate numbers on the boards of the top 100 UK's Companies"

So to those that harp on about "my friend read history at X University and he is now a waiter blah blah", thats one person. My article says otherwise for the majority of us. Me personally, i work for price waterhouse coopers, i am not struggling to earn a crust, oh, sorry, an entire loaf in fact. Suits me just fine.

 

[AdamC86]

I firmly believe that getting a degree, no matter what it is, will be useful to a person's future. I went to school for sociology, and I was told that I wouldn't be able to do anything with it, but now I am doing research and loving my job every day. I created a website to help others interested in the social sciences find the right school for them, so check it out if you get the chance ( http://socialsciencedegree.net/ ).
There are so many different aspects to the social sciences, and I love going to http://obssr.od.nih.gov/index.aspx to read up on the latest research. It just proves that there are lots of people with these "lesser" degrees that have been able to succeed in life.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

No, not inherently less valuable. What kind of society would we have if it consisted solely of hospitals, laboratories and industry? Not one I would like to live in. Human society is about a range of pursuits, of which many are enriched by the work done by people who have taken liberal arts degrees. And the work of social sciences etc., is seeing how science and technology will affect individuals - which is an important, if often overlooked, aspect of science; you can't just invent something and have done with it.

 

[Heronblade]

Depending upon how you look at it, yes they are.

Get rid of everyone with or currently earning a liberal arts major and our culture takes a sharp hit, but can and will recover before too long, albeit with incredibly reduced media quality for several decades.

Get rid of everyone focused on science based majors and the structure supporting our civilization collapses, taking culture down with it.

The governor above has a point, if he can encourage people to focus on practical courses of study (up to a point), the state and country both benefit. The problem I see with this issue lies in the fact that one can never simply abandon arts programs, not least because quite a few people are far more suited for them, and because in terms of simply generating free revenue, the entertainment categories can't be matched.