Vocation or Avocation in Post Secondary Education

[EvilRoy]

A little while ago a friend and I were talking about something, and he shot over the quip "I don't trust a history major on history any more than a barrista- nothing about a BA added to your name convinces me you know any more than a renfair carnie about history".

It kind of got me to thinking about people choosing to go into things like, for instance, history where there may not necessarily be an end-game for an actual career rather than vocationally focused fields of study.

On one hand I don't really see anything wrong with a person choosing to dedicate a chunk of their life to a field of study they love, on the other hand I can't deny that I don't believe a BA in creative writing or women's studies gives you any greater insight into the writing process or women than just plopping down in a library and studying for less money and less time. This brought me to thoughts of men and women aged 18, as so many things do, who are about to make the vocation/avocation choice when they choose their field.

So this is my question to you - should people right out of highschool in a position where they have to make the decision of avocation vs vocation, given the reality of self study and free online lectures, be allowed to choose fields that are unlikely to ever yield a related job.

Keep in mind that I'm not asking to institute a draconian system where our vocations are chosen for us at birth, or standardized tests to decide in the final year - I'm just asking, since we already let people do it anyway, is it OK for someone to make a choice out of ignorance or idealism that may have serious negative repercussions for them and potentially society based on an imagined need?

***Edit***

Something that's been brought up a couple times below I should probably clarify:

I'm not trying to slag off some degrees for being easy - I'm question the necessity of schooling in a particular field if it is unlikely that you would ever become employed in that field.

The quip with regards to the BA in History was more supposed to bring attention to a major symptom of a system that seems to exist to provide a degree - any degree - to everyone regardless of whether it is necessary or even advisable for that person.

 

[Noetherian]

Yes, because more knowledge about ANY topic has value, and because people benefit in a lot of other ways from being permitted to follow their passions. It's even good for society-- would you rather have a doctor who was exhausted/bored/miserable or a doctor who genuinely believes in what she's doing?

I'll be one of the first to agree that even supposedly career-track degrees (especially in law and education) don't seem to prepare students well to become practitioners. However, to me that's another argument in favor of letting people choose their own paths. You get out what you put in, etc.

Also, while I understand and approve of your argument in favor of self-study, I do believe there's a lot to be said for having a small, dedicated group of other people who are also studying the same thing with whom you can discuss and thereby solidify your learning. It's also motivating to have classmates, especially if you're competitive...

 

[DrOswald]

Get a degree that can get you a good job. Then you can study the subject you love for the entire rest of your life at your leisure. You can even take night classes at the university.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean getting a career track degree or getting a job you hate but pays well. You want to not hate your job, but the high idealism of learning what you love and hoping it will get you somewhere in life is short sighted. Not only will you live a much lower standard of life, but you will probably spend less time doing the things you love and more time doing the things you hate.

 

[EvilRoy]

Yeeeeep... So quoting doesn't work for me lately thanks to site issues, so I'll just write in tags and hope people come back to look.

Yes, because more knowledge about ANY topic has value, and because people benefit in a lot of other ways from being permitted to follow their passions. It's even good for society-- would you rather have a doctor who was exhausted/bored/miserable or a doctor who genuinely believes in what she's doing?

I'll be one of the first to agree that even supposedly career-track degrees (especially in law and education) don't seem to prepare students well to become practitioners. However, to me that's another argument in favor of letting people choose their own paths. You get out what you put in, etc.

Also, while I understand and approve of your argument in favor of self-study, I do believe there's a lot to be said for having a small, dedicated group of other people who are also studying the same thing with whom you can discuss and thereby solidify your learning. It's also motivating to have classmates, especially if you're competitive...

At this stage in my country it would be nice to have more doctors at all, miserable or no, but I can see what you're saying. In the end though, it is a value judgement - is a miserable doctor fixing people better or worse than a very happy novelist who has yet to write a novel, or a person with a womens studies degree doing or not doing whatever that degree leads to. In particular, it is better or worse knowing that a miserable doctor can make time to write or study women after work, while a happy novelist cannot fix people in his spare time, and may never produce a novel anyone ever reads.

I agree that people can make better progress in a field given people to work with or compete against, but given the subjects under consideration, I don't know if that matters. Is it critical that you be the best poly-sci around if your learning is for personal pleasure rather than job prospects?

 

[dyre]

on the other hand I can't deny that I don't believe a BA in creative writing or women's studies gives you any greater insight into the writing process or women than just plopping down in a library and studying for less money and less time.

Sure, but how many people really do that? The education system caters to your average guy (give or take two standard deviations), not your tiny fraction of diligent, self-taught experts. For every person who really spent that time learning history, writing, etc. on his/her own, there are a thousand posers who probably just read enough on wikipedia to fool people completely ignorant to the subject. At least getting a BA proves a basic level of dedication.

A history BA represents having spent four years studying history and passing some basic requirements (aka exams) to prove it. It's just a piece of paper that proves something. If I have to make a snap judgement between two people, one who has a certificate from a reputable institution indicating that he has dedicated four years learning a subject to the satisfaction of that institution, and the other who simply claims to have studied it on his own time, I'm going to choose in favor of the first person.

 

[shootthebandit]

Its easy. Go with a degree that lands you a job. Youve paid all that money to go to uni now you need to pay it off

Youve only really given 2 options here and you havent even mentioned doing an apprenticeship or learning a trade etc. It really annoys me how vocational qualifications are seen as 'spaz courses' sure you dont have to bright to be a mechanic, bricklayer or a plasterer but it is hard work and takes a lot of skill

The school system in the UK is dreadful. Its far too academic and its designed to for people to go to uni. I went to six-form to do my A-levels and all they care about is getting people into uni. You tell them you dont want to go and they just fob you off. There is very little in the way of courses available in vocational colleges

 

[Flames66]

It is my opinion that 80% of people should not bother getting degrees. They rarely teach any useful skills and practical experience is far better.

 

[shootthebandit]

It is my opinion that 80% of people should not bother getting degrees. They rarely teach any useful skills and practical experience is far better.

I couldnt agree more. I dont mean to sound like a reverse elitist but you just cant get the same level of knowledge by studying at uni as you would actually doing something. As far as engineering is concerned you will never know as much as the guys who actually do the job day in day out

The problem with the education system is that it shepards people into uni and its not necessarily the correct choice for them. Ive seen a lot of people do child care or health and social care at uni. Why do you need a degree for this. Im not discrediting the role because its incredibly important but a degree is not necessary

 

[MysticSlayer]

It is my opinion that 80% of people should not bother getting degrees. They rarely teach any useful skills and practical experience is far better.

Keep in mind, a lot of universities offer various opportunities for hands-on experience. Outside of just lab work for classes, they also have career centers that can get you in touch with various companies for co-ops, internships, and full-time or part-time work to give you that practical experience while going to school. There are also opportunities to get in on a research project with one of your professors, even if a lot of that will be unpaid. Really, universities offer the opportunity to get their students in-touch with good companies that can offer that practical, hands-on experience that is so necessary. The problem is that far too few students know of the career center's existence or simply aren't motivated enough.

With that said, I do think that some people would be better served going for professions that don't require degrees rather than pursuing a major that is already hard enough to get a job with and then not putting in the necessary effort to stand out and get the jobs that are there. However, acting as if universities don't offer practical experience is just ignorant of the services many of them actually offer.

On one hand I don't really see anything wrong with a person choosing to dedicate a chunk of their life to a field of study they love, on the other hand I can't deny that I don't believe a BA in creative writing or women's studies gives you any greater insight into the writing process or women than just plopping down in a library and studying for less money and less time.

For starters, let's not act like this just affects those going for a BA in history or some other similar field. I'm going for a BS in computer science, but it isn't like I could learn everything I'm learning online or in a library, and I actually have learned a lot on my own. When I was originally going for a BS in environmental science and policy, almost all the information I ever needed was online or in a library. I know a couple people who could self-teach themselves everything necessary for a mathematics degree, possibly even at the graduate level. Heck, why do people bother to go for business degrees when there are highly successful businessmen who don't have a degree? This is not exclusive to those going for a history, gender studies, or art degree. Between the Internet and library, anyone can theoretically learn all they need to for a degree without paying a cent to a university.

However, what an undergraduate degree does tell us is:
1. It confirms the person's credentials. Sure, you can go a library and read history books until you are as knowledgeable as the professor teaching you, but that doesn't mean anything to employers who have to sift through potentially thousands of resumes and applications. If you can't prove that you have the credentials outside of "I decided to read a lot in a library one day," then any potential employer will pass you up for the person that has that BA.

2. It confirms that you at least have an understanding of how to research the topic. Anyone can read about a topic, but how do you recognize a reliable source from an unreliable source? How do you peruse through that reliable information and work out the fact that even the most reliable of scholars disagree with each other? A person may be able to read about history, but taking the information and thinking through it isn't as easy, and those with a degree are much more likely to be able to analyze the information properly than those without.

3. It sets you up for a graduate degree, which is necessary for a lot of jobs today. Sure, there are still plenty of majors that can offer well paying jobs at the undergraduate level, but plenty of jobs are starting to require at least a Master's degree.

Sure, in the end, a lot of history majors may end up getting a job not related to their major, and a lot of those that are left will be teaching and doing research somewhere. However, to say that the degree is useless or that those with them are no better than the cashier at your local Walmart isn't giving credit where credit is due.

 

[EvilRoy]

Website sort of fixed itself for me. Sorry for the inattentiveness, but posting is kind of a chore with whatever is going on here.

on the other hand I can't deny that I don't believe a BA in creative writing or women's studies gives you any greater insight into the writing process or women than just plopping down in a library and studying for less money and less time.

Sure, but how many people really do that? The education system caters to your average guy (give or take two standard deviations), not your tiny fraction of diligent, self-taught experts. For every person who really spent that time learning history, writing, etc. on his/her own, there are a thousand posers who probably just read enough on wikipedia to fool people completely ignorant to the subject. At least getting a BA proves a basic level of dedication.

A history BA represents having spent four years studying history and passing some basic requirements (aka exams) to prove it. It's just a piece of paper that proves something. If I have to make a snap judgement between two people, one who has a certificate from a reputable institution indicating that he has dedicated four years learning a subject to the satisfaction of that institution, and the other who simply claims to have studied it on his own time, I'm going to choose in favor of the first person.

I think that more depends on the individual university/college. Sure there are those with standards high enough to require the demonstration of aptitude you mention, but there are too many to name that would let you sleep through. The only thing I really think you know for sure looking at a degree/diploma is that a person was willing to take out a loan and drop 5 digits on school.

For Space

The things I brought up were just off the top of my (our) head examples, although I can see now that it looks like I was pissing on the arts. The distinction I'm trying to draw is not that some things can be found in the library and others cannot, but that there are a lot of degrees that people seem to want to take that don't actually lead to any sort of employment. Sure you can get a degree in philosophy or creative writing, but aside from working up to the doctorate to teach, what would you do with it? If you want to study those, maybe it would be better to do it privately and take something more career oriented in school.

A random degree may act as proof that you can work hard, but I don't agree that employers should be basing hiring decisions on that anyway - at my place of employment more than once we've had to fire people who got degrees from farms we didn't recognize.

 

[Vault101]

I don't think any kind of learning is useless

that said a lot of jobs reeeally don't require degress

 

[MysticSlayer]

Sure you can get a degree in philosophy or creative writing, but aside from working up to the doctorate to teach, what would you do with it?

I actually have friends who went with philosophy and creative writing, and they all managed to get jobs (almost) straight out of college. Granted, I know one of them got a job that had absolutely nothing to do with his major but was based entirely around just becoming a worker at a place he volunteered at for years, but I do know some of them apparently got jobs at least somewhat relating to their majors.

Now, I wouldn't know where certain majors can lead outside of teaching myself as I've never been interested in majors like philosophy. Still, even if they can only lead to teaching, I do have to ask: So what? For instance, philosophy is an incredibly important field to almost anyone's life, and plenty of people in completely unrelated fields have to study it at least partially. Having people who understand philosophy at least serves that purpose, even if their major is of little use elsewhere.

 

[zen5887]

I can't deny that I don't believe a BA in creative writing or women's studies gives you any greater insight into the writing process or women than just plopping down in a library and studying for less money and less time.

I jumped into a music degree straight out of highschool and my girlfriend just finished a creative writing degree, so I've heard this a lot. Like, a lot...

Why didn't I do something "useful" and study music on the side?

Because studying music/creative writing/history/whatever is entirely different than learning it as a hobby. When I was at uni I was playing music 4-6 hours a day not including my own practice time. Not only was I able to play that much, but I was expected to. Same with my girlfriends creative writing. Each semester she comes out with three or four short stories (short stories are her 'thing', other people did chapters of a novel/memoir for example) that she was expected to do. Now that I've graduated I play maybe 3 hour a week at band practice. I don't study theory or practice scales or read articles or anything because I don't have the time. In a creative field the biggest benefit of studying is the networks you form. I graduated with 22 other people who all know I'm a decent, dedicated bass player and I'm probably in at least one band. I've got gigs, recordings, support slots, teaching opportunities, all from people I've met at uni. And with creative writing, it's even more important because, assuming you go to a good school, the lecturers are part of the industry, all of them are published (which is a pretty big deal if you're a young writer), and probably know the publishers, and they've all been through what creative writing students are going through.

Being completely inundated with your subject and the peer network you create is why somebody studying will get a greater insight into a process than somebody sitting in a library.

As far as the topic goes?

Of course! Jesus christ... I didn't get a job out of my music degree but I don't care, I had the best 4 years of my life, I learnt a shit load and I met a bunch of amazing people. Sure, I might have got all of that plus a job had I studied business or engineering or IT instead, but I'm not interested in business or engineering or IT. If somebody wants to study history and work in retail for the rest of their days, who is anybody to question that?

 

[Rosiv]

I'm not trying to slag off some degrees for being easy - I'm question the necessity of schooling in a particular field if it is unlikely that you would ever become employed in that field.

Yea I guess thats a good thing to consider. I mean I was a comp sci major and I tried and studied at the major resonablly well, but I felt that everyone esle was just either naturally good at it or could teach themselves the subject at a competent rate. I did so badly I had to change majors, and I wasn't in the degree path for money either. I just wanted to learn how to code so maybe one day I could make video games or something.

I had to switch my major to something eaiser for me, so I went with biology, and while I enjoy STEM (science tech engineering math) fields, I feel as if the only job I could get with my BA if I manage to get it is a teacher or something which I would feally dislike.

In the end I guess if you are one of low economic means I would go for the money, which means college if you have a aptitude at something and think you can develop and make money off it. Better when your young and can havean easier time socailizing with your peers than when your older and have possibly way much more responiblities, like a job, kid, or morgage.

 

[shootthebandit]

If somebody wants to study history and work in retail for the rest of their days, who is anybody to question that?

I will question that sentiment. You get a loan to go to uni which you dont pay back until you earn upwards of £21000 a year. Working in retail is probably not going to give you that salary and your debt will then become the responsibility of the tax payer who now sees you as a 'sponger'. You have essentially fiddled yourself a free education at the expense of the tax payer

Yes feel free to study what you wish but make sure you pay your way. I dont have a problem if someone wants to study veganism or medevil pottery (if these are genuine degrees I apologise) so long as they pay for it

 

[Bellvedere]

I'm not trying to slag off some degrees for being easy - I'm question the necessity of schooling in a particular field if it is unlikely that you would ever become employed in that field.

The quip with regards to the BA in History was more supposed to bring attention to a major symptom of a system that seems to exist to provide a degree - any degree - to everyone regardless of whether it is necessary or even advisable for that person.

There's plenty of generalist positions and even some specialist positions that can be learnt on the job out there that require the same research, writing, learning and presentation skills that you would develop and be assessed on in order to get a degree. I mean my partner has a degree in music and he's working as a data analyst. If you're going to do a degree in order to get those skills (and perhaps more importantly prove that you possess those skills), might as well do a degree in something that you have keen interest in.

I don't doubt that a sufficiently motivated person could learn by themselves the same information that is found in a degree - even some that do lead directly to employment. What they miss out on is the formal recognition for knowing it and the increased opportunity for networking. Whilst a Bachelor's degree isn't a foolproof guarantee of someone's potential or intelligence, it does make more sense if you're an employee to focus on those that can prove they've done something.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It kind of got me to thinking about people choosing to go into things like, for instance, history where there may not necessarily be an end-game for an actual career rather than vocationally focused fields of study.

Eh, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Though, then again, so did getting qualifications to work in the library industry, or ICT qualifications. Or going a retail course.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I think it's vitally important that a person actually try a few jobs out before choosing a uni course or deciding what they want to be in life; spend a few weeks at different places discovering what it is like to work a drone office job, what it's like to do scientific research, manual labour, childcare, engineering etc.

I was basically shepherded by the UK school system into academia all my life. Any sort of manual vocation was quite literally touted as scummy jobs and waster positions in our school and by my parents. I went straight to uni, because that's what I was supposed to do, and got a degree in a field that interested me. When I came out and actually got into the field of work I pretty much realised that I despised desk jobs. They are just soul-sucking to me.

Got a grunt job doing scientific stuff - collecting data outdoors and mucking about with animals, and I've never been happier, even if the pay and job security are bollocks. It's something to build on, and because I actually know now what I like I can travel with certainty in that direction.

 

[shootthebandit]

I think it's vitally important that a person actually try a few jobs out before choosing a uni course or deciding what they want to be in life; spend a few weeks at different places discovering what it is like to work a drone office job, what it's like to do scientific research, manual labour, childcare, engineering etc.

I was basically shepherded by the UK school system into academia all my life. Any sort of manual vocation was quite literally touted as scummy jobs and waster positions in our school and by my parents. I went straight to uni, because that's what I was supposed to do, and got a degree in a field that interested me. When I came out and actually got into the field of work I pretty much realised that I despised desk jobs. They are just soul-sucking to me.

Got a grunt job doing scientific stuff - collecting data outdoors and mucking about with animals, and I've never been happier, even if the pay and job security are bollocks. It's something to build on, and because I actually know now what I like I can travel with certainty in that direction.

I agree. The school system in the UK only cares about sending kids to uni. It doesnt care about anything else. They treat kids like sheep and basically dismiss you if you have no interest in uni. I went to a six form college and we spent a lesson every week doing applications for uni. I told them I wasnt going to uni and I was basically told to sit and twiddle my thumbs that lesson. They couldve used that lesson to show us how to write a CV (resume if you are american) but no they literally just left you and catered to their obedient little sheep

fortunately my parents are pretty supportive and knew it wasnt for me but having said that my sister was the only person in my family to go to uni (graduated last year). Perhaps if my family had a history of going to uni they might have pushed me more

Not going to uni was definitely a good choice for me and I landed a lucrative apprenticeship in the field I wanted my job is hands on and they pay is reasonable. If I got a graduate job I wouldve earned more but it wouldve been a paperwork/management job which wasnt what I wanted.

Its a real shame that schools dont promote these sorts of things