Science Is a liberal arts degree a useful education?

[Konosuba]

This was sparked by the TA complaint post.

I personally can't find the validity in liberal arts degrees, specifically English, Art and Philosophy. That isn't to say what is produced by those fields is bad but that education in them is egregious. A writer can learn tips to write but they don't become a writer by studying, they become a writer by writing. Mankind doesn't hash out their differences in carefully timed debates but in everyday life. Great works of art may move people but they move through inner-reflection and interpretation.

What is the point of having a liberal arts degree? Does it provide for others? Does it make the world a better place? Does it make bridges, create new technology or truly provide anything in a pragmatic sense?

What about psychology? Does one become a healer or has one always been a healer?

But someone can write an incredible book with no previous experience or education and in fact those who have are often given honorable scholarships.

The amount of science, technology, engineering and mathematics students is surprisingly low in the world because they are not easy fields. I can write seven twenty-page papers on seven different novels if I need to but I find it is a much harder to determine the final amount of force a particle traveling around a set gravity with air resistance... See where this is going? Science isn't something pulled from the ether.

So RPN, why should anyone go to school for a non-STEM program? Why do liberal arts thrive as a field of study? What use is an " economics" degree versus a degree in engineering ? Shouldn't colleges start concentrating on what really matters : STEM degrees. STEM= science , technology, engineering, mathematics .

After all an engineer is worth their weight in gold today versus someone who can spout off the common sense mechanics of economics.

 

[Sway]

Liberal arts are highly political. Politics decide what STEM does and does not do.

 

[Windsock]

"Why do liberal arts thrive?"

Because; colleges can make you pay more for less, and sheeple hear 'liberal' and automatically think it's good.

 

[welian]

Cuz we need 'em. STEM isn't all that useful without a softer understanding of the world we live in. If STEM is a thoughtful quote, then liberal arts is the context that adds more nuanced meaning to the quote.

English classes taught me how to construct (and deconstruct) arguments, types of fallacies, effective research techniques and how to identify sources of information and gauge the validity of them.

Public speaking teaches pathos, ethos, and logos. STEM is full of logos, but you still need pathos and ethos for effective communication and persuasion - I've never taken a philosophy course, but I bet that's where it would come in handy.

Government class taught me American nation politics, how our government functions, and major changes to it; effectively, I became educated in the federal machinations of our government and recent history regarding political parties.

History of western civilization and survey of western culture, I can't even begin to describe how much I learned from those classes. Modern American society has customs and ideals that stem from the early modern states of Europe, we float on a raft made of the driftwood of movements past (especially italian humanism) and strung together by... god knows what, really.

Fine arts taught me how to observe without making assumptions, to depict what I see without getting lost in what I think I should see, or what I think what I see should look like. I also learned very practical skills, such as using a variety of heavy power tools, how to stretch a canvas, and the precautions necessary when working with toxic chemicals.

Graphic design taught me not how to make advertisements look pretty, but how to to create an experience, how to create a visual item that is pleasing for people to engage with and most effectively gets my point across. It overlaps a bit with interface design, which is somethig a lot of engineers and programmers could stand to take a lesson or ten in.

STEM is all well and good, I learned a lot of important and practical information as an IT major. But you can't expect to be taken seriously as a person if you start circlejerking about the seeming uselessness of liberal arts degrees relative to STEM degrees. There's a lot of important shit out in the world that isn't about numbers - and just because it's called "liberal" arts, doesn't mean it's a politically liberal education. Liberal arts as a whole includes the study of logic, and by extension, also mathematics, so, you know. That's a thing.

 

[Idea]

Well, I would argue this: Education as it exists is very flawed. Yes, the way liberal arts are taught is a bit of a sham that really doesn´t go to the point of being educated in it. You are taught mostly by examples rather than rules, and often things are so vague that you can have near zero for an answer with one teacher and full marks with another. HOWEVER!

1. Human civilization cannot be built on experience alone
As much as one might say "Oh, but you learn things by doing them in pratice" that´s quite absurd. Learning the theory behind things is a help because it puts you several thousands years in advance to your first ancestors. Someone had to discover fire. Someone had to discover the rules of mathematics. Someone already explored different genres and tried out different types of characters. Someone has already made their contribution to the philosophical field of ideas. And unless you are taught these directly, you may find yourself having to discover them on your own. Everything you learn by the books, is something you learn that tooks others years or even centuries to discover.

Furthermore, experience only allows you to work on a very superficial level that is bound by habit. You cannot learn about particles by experience because your sense can´t perceive particles in their fundamental state or identify processes by themselves. And accidents aside, how can you come up with something knew without understanding the theory behind something? A child putting their hand in fire will understand that it burns by experience. But unlesss they understand the larger picture- that it´s not just what they experienced the fire burning that fire will burn, but that fire burns anything because it´s hot- you might still find yourself putting other things in it.

Pratice is extremely important as well, of course, but the theorical understanding of something shouldn´t be underrated either.


2. Maybe the liberal arts degree isn´t particularly useful or it´s education well-designed, but it has potential
The rules of writing, art, and philosophical debate are centerpieces of a variety of things. Their mere existence allows you to recognize patterns and understand subversions of their ideas in the past and in the present better. Literature, art and ideas are often lost to time or their meaning muffled by the chronoligical and spatial difference, but knowing basic rules of how it works is a big step foward to trying to understand those past cultures via their art, writing and ideas.

A few years ago, I was about as shitty a roleplayer as one can get. Then I did some research and today, I´m giving advise on a regular basis. While my case isn´t exactly perfect to exemplify my point, I think it still points towards a very simple fact: If you understand how something works, you can make it work better than someone just doing it blindly. Now, I´m the kind of person who finds that the quality of a piece of art or writing is entirely separated from anyone´s enjoyment of it, and of it´s popularity, but merely steems from properties within the product itself. Still, even if you disagree with that notion, then there is still the fact that there are millenia of people who tried making their way in life by writing and other forms of art. In a world as competitive as the one we live in today, isn´t having that little edge of understanding what worked in the past worth in the trouble?

As for philosophy, I sure hope it´s common sense that having established and clear rules for how to argue like civilized rational beings is a good thing all around. If nothing else, you can completely cut the absurd, and if people actually put their minds and hearts to it, they can reach so many deeper levels of understanding about the reality around them, morality, all those shenanigans. All that because they decided to put their egos aside for a bit and realize sometimes people are wrong and it´s important to listen to what others have to say and consider it. You mentioned the world isn´t improved by debate, but actually that´s EXACTLY how you improve the world. Otherwise you´re just streamlining new weapons for the war-mongerors. No, it´s precisely when people agree to sit down and talk things out, discuss them right, that progress to one´s mentality can be made. And THAT is the most important thing there is to improve.


3. "There is nothing more pratical than a man´s view of the universe"
That´s a little quote by Chestterton, and it speaks to a very important truth: Your beliefs, especially your most intimate beliefs, shape EVERYTHING you say and do. You probably wouldn´t dare touch the ground if you believed it could turn in lava at any second. You wouldn´t walk towards a door to leave a room if you didn´t believe a door was in that direction. And what you view as the meaning of happiness, the meaning of life, the reason you exist, the importance of others, your sense of morale, those things all factor to your every action, whether you realize it or not.

That said, where do you go to sharpen your understanding of those things? Media and philosophy. Media influences people, right from a young age where they are watching cartoons, to their older selves as they watch the news and whatever netflix is streaming (maybe not like this every time, but you get the point). What people consume goes to the back of their minds, and maybe not in atronomical ways, it normalizes certain behaviors and beliefs, making them easier to accept.

On the other hand, philosophy is the active persuit of the truth, it´s you purposely trying to refine your beliefs, even when it hurts to, and learning to defend your conclusions.




All in all is the liberal arts a useless degree? I would say yes. But it´s supposed content can be among the fundamental things to learn, and whose actual understanding is sorely lacking. I didn´t even get to really explaining the absurdity of many of the other degrees. The fact that 90% of what they teach you in science degrees is blantant lies, because they cannot teach you without simplefying it, but when they do they create false statements with potentially fatal imprecisions in the real world. 50% of mathematics is crap you will never even hear about again once you´re out of college. And by the time you´re done, any marketing tip they gave you is probably either tired or an outright abuse of loopholes. What needs to be fixed is not what courses there are, but rather the way people are educated during and after school years that really needs the fixing.

 

[Omnimon]

Well its not like there aren't any articles that support this as well :

A few citations ( that would support the OP ) :

By the NYT :

A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/...m-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html

and :

Only 2% of companies seeking to hire liberal-arts majors, poll finds

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-companies-hiring-liberal-arts-majors-jobs-20140521-story.html



In a way colleges would be cheaper if they do cut out the classes that do not deal with your major however ( if your able to cut out even a few classes to obtaining your degree, the price of tuition WILL drop ) .

Wouldn't it make sense that the " Return on Investment" is one of the key reasons why people *should * be going college for ? If the ROI is low...then it means that the major isn't in demand ( Philosophy , economics, etc ) . Just because you have a few examples of successful people does not mean that its not a viable option for everyone else.

A citation here : https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html

1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed

" College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level; those with nursing, teaching, accounting or computer science degrees were among the most likely "

Notice how the the college majors who have obtained jobs, received degrees in practical fields that can be applied immediately .

After all with the climbing costs to tuition , wouldn't it make sense to cut down on the classes that inflate the cost of a college education ?



=========================================================================

The argument that would go against the OP :

Granted though this wouldn't make students less well .... rounded though in the workforce ? Isn't the purpose of college to educate, but really " on the job training" should be done by the companies themselves ?

However if there truely is a " shortage of skilled workers " , wouldn't that imply that there should be more on the job training done by companies ? Or should colleges just only be there just to do " Job training" only ?

This wasn't the case in the past because companies did train their workforce .....now with the short term thinking.... training is all but an afterthought since it is another cost item to be eliminated.

So the question should be:

Should companies expect on the job training from colleges only ? Or should colleges only educate, but not provide on the job training ?

 

[Konosuba]

Well, I would argue this: Education as it exists is very flawed. Yes, the way liberal arts are taught is a bit of a sham that really doesn´t go to the point of being educated in it. You are taught mostly by examples rather than rules, and often things are so vague that you can have near zero for an answer with one teacher and full marks with another. HOWEVER!

1. Human civilization cannot be built on experience alone
As much as one might say "Oh, but you learn things by doing them in pratice" that´s quite absurd. Learning the theory behind things is a help because it puts you several thousands years in advance to your first ancestors. Someone had to discover fire. Someone had to discover the rules of mathematics. Someone already explored different genres and tried out different types of characters. Someone has already made their contribution to the philosophical field of ideas. And unless you are taught these directly, you may find yourself having to discover them on your own. Everything you learn by the books, is something you learn that tooks others years or even centuries to discover.

Furthermore, experience only allows you to work on a very superficial level that is bound by habit. You cannot learn about particles by experience because your sense can´t perceive particles in their fundamental state or identify processes by themselves. And accidents aside, how can you come up with something knew without understanding the theory behind something? A child putting their hand in fire will understand that it burns by experience. But unlesss they understand the larger picture- that it´s not just what they experienced the fire burning that fire will burn, but that fire burns anything because it´s hot- you might still find yourself putting other things in it.

Pratice is extremely important as well, of course, but the theorical understanding of something shouldn´t be underrated either.


2. Maybe the liberal arts degree isn´t particularly useful or it´s education well-designed, but it has potential
The rules of writing, art, and philosophical debate are centerpieces of a variety of things. Their mere existence allows you to recognize patterns and understand subversions of their ideas in the past and in the present better. Literature, art and ideas are often lost to time or their meaning muffled by the chronoligical and spatial difference, but knowing basic rules of how it works is a big step foward to trying to understand those past cultures via their art, writing and ideas.

A few years ago, I was about as shitty a roleplayer as one can get. Then I did some research and today, I´m giving advise on a regular basis. While my case isn´t exactly perfect to exemplify my point, I think it still points towards a very simple fact: If you understand how something works, you can make it work better than someone just doing it blindly. Now, I´m the kind of person who finds that the quality of a piece of art or writing is entirely separated from anyone´s enjoyment of it, and of it´s popularity, but merely steems from properties within the product itself. Still, even if you disagree with that notion, then there is still the fact that there are millenia of people who tried making their way in life by writing and other forms of art. In a world as competitive as the one we live in today, isn´t having that little edge of understanding what worked in the past worth in the trouble?

As for philosophy, I sure hope it´s common sense that having established and clear rules for how to argue like civilized rational beings is a good thing all around. If nothing else, you can completely cut the absurd, and if people actually put their minds and hearts to it, they can reach so many deeper levels of understanding about the reality around them, morality, all those shenanigans. All that because they decided to put their egos aside for a bit and realize sometimes people are wrong and it´s important to listen to what others have to say and consider it. You mentioned the world isn´t improved by debate, but actually that´s EXACTLY how you improve the world. Otherwise you´re just streamlining new weapons for the war-mongerors. No, it´s precisely when people agree to sit down and talk things out, discuss them right, that progress to one´s mentality can be made. And THAT is the most important thing there is to improve.


3. "There is nothing more pratical than a man´s view of the universe"
That´s a little quote by Chestterton, and it speaks to a very important truth: Your beliefs, especially your most intimate beliefs, shape EVERYTHING you say and do. You probably wouldn´t dare touch the ground if you believed it could turn in lava at any second. You wouldn´t walk towards a door to leave a room if you didn´t believe a door was in that direction. And what you view as the meaning of happiness, the meaning of life, the reason you exist, the importance of others, your sense of morale, those things all factor to your every action, whether you realize it or not.

That said, where do you go to sharpen your understanding of those things? Media and philosophy. Media influences people, right from a young age where they are watching cartoons, to their older selves as they watch the news and whatever netflix is streaming (maybe not like this every time, but you get the point). What people consume goes to the back of their minds, and maybe not in atronomical ways, it normalizes certain behaviors and beliefs, making them easier to accept.

On the other hand, philosophy is the active persuit of the truth, it´s you purposely trying to refine your beliefs, even when it hurts to, and learning to defend your conclusions.




All in all is the liberal arts a useless degree? I would say yes. But it´s supposed content can be among the fundamental things to learn, and whose actual understanding is sorely lacking. I didn´t even get to really explaining the absurdity of many of the other degrees. The fact that 90% of what they teach you in science degrees is blantant lies, because they cannot teach you without simplefying it, but when they do they create false statements with potentially fatal imprecisions in the real world. 50% of mathematics is crap you will never even hear about again once you´re out of college. And by the time you´re done, any marketing tip they gave you is probably either tired or an outright abuse of loopholes. What needs to be fixed is not what courses there are, but rather the way people are educated during and after school years that really needs the fixing.

It doesn't make logical sense:

1) See what degree is worth it ( STEM) versus what degree isn't worth it ( Liberal arts)
2) Major in a degree that is in your words " Worthless " .
3) Start living off of the government because you can't take care of yourself. While taking money from those who earned their $$ through hard work .

 

[Konosuba]

Cuz we need 'em. STEM isn't all that useful without a softer understanding of the world we live in. If STEM is a thoughtful quote, then liberal arts is the context that adds more nuanced meaning to the quote.

English classes taught me how to construct (and deconstruct) arguments, types of fallacies, effective research techniques and how to identify sources of information and gauge the validity of them.

Public speaking teaches pathos, ethos, and logos. STEM is full of logos, but you still need pathos and ethos for effective communication and persuasion - I've never taken a philosophy course, but I bet that's where it would come in handy.

Government class taught me American nation politics, how our government functions, and major changes to it; effectively, I became educated in the federal machinations of our government and recent history regarding political parties.

History of western civilization and survey of western culture, I can't even begin to describe how much I learned from those classes. Modern American society has customs and ideals that stem from the early modern states of Europe, we float on a raft made of the driftwood of movements past (especially italian humanism) and strung together by... god knows what, really.

Fine arts taught me how to observe without making assumptions, to depict what I see without getting lost in what I think I should see, or what I think what I see should look like. I also learned very practical skills, such as using a variety of heavy power tools, how to stretch a canvas, and the precautions necessary when working with toxic chemicals.

Graphic design taught me not how to make advertisements look pretty, but how to to create an experience, how to create a visual item that is pleasing for people to engage with and most effectively gets my point across. It overlaps a bit with interface design, which is somethig a lot of engineers and programmers could stand to take a lesson or ten in.

STEM is all well and good, I learned a lot of important and practical information as an IT major. But you can't expect to be taken seriously as a person if you start circlejerking about the seeming uselessness of liberal arts degrees relative to STEM degrees. There's a lot of important shit out in the world that isn't about numbers - and just because it's called "liberal" arts, doesn't mean it's a politically liberal education. Liberal arts as a whole includes the study of logic, and by extension, also mathematics, so, you know. That's a thing.

If your working in the tech field , do you ever use that politics class ? No .

Sure I can see how that English class is needed .

Public speaking ? Depending on the job role, it could be fairly useful, or it could be nearly worthless . \

History ? Since when does one in the tech field look back to revive an old method that's been triumphed by the newer technology for today ?

Fine arts ? If a child can become an expert at that field, what else is there to say about that field ? There's countless examples of that on DA anyhow.

 

[Konosuba]

"Why do liberal arts thrive?"

Because; colleges can make you pay more for less, and sheeple hear 'liberal' and automatically think it's good.

Well, they say a fool is parted from their money quickly ......

 

[Idea]

1) See what degree is worth it ( STEM) versus what degree isn't worth it ( Liberal arts)
2) Major in a degree that is in your words " Worthless " .
3) Start living off of the government because you can't take care of yourself. While taking money from those who earned their $$ through hard work .

Those STEM degrees are just as flawed. It just happens that there is a simpler method to teach those subjects than those in liberal arts, AND the current market favors STEM degrees. But some people have more in mind in their education than a well-paying job, which is often something you win out of factors that can´t be considered anything other than sheer luck, not your hard work. Connections, the mood of the interviewers, demand, all those factors are what makes someone get a job for real. Demand is especially important, because the fact is, the reason why liberal arts is not as employed is because you no longer have to really pay for their services. There are TONS of free options, and people will only pay if they are the kind of person who feels they should contribute to their favorite artist´s, philosopher´s, etc.. survival. In the market, on the other hand, no one gives a crap about your actual contribution. They care about how much money you make and how flashy you are. The streamlines of bullshit "scientific" studies, the overwhelming rate of shady forms of doing business, government bribery, those are all symptoms of money being the central value in modern culture, which as far as I am concerned is A PROBLEM.

Yes, the degree is pretty much worthless, but it´s a degree you chase for it´s worth on the market. In the market, most degree are worthless. In the real world, no degree is worth anything at all, only your own contributions and understanding of reality is.

 

[Konosuba]

Liberal arts are highly political. Politics decide what STEM does and does not do.

Which is sad really ..... colleges used to entertain freedom of ideas. Now its just become another authoritarian paradise .

 

[Konosuba]

Well its not like there aren't any articles that support this as well :

A few citations ( that would support the OP ) :

By the NYT :

A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/...m-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html

and :

Only 2% of companies seeking to hire liberal-arts majors, poll finds

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-companies-hiring-liberal-arts-majors-jobs-20140521-story.html



In a way colleges would be cheaper if they do cut out the classes that do not deal with your major however ( if your able to cut out even a few classes to obtaining your degree, the price of tuition WILL drop ) .

Wouldn't it make sense that the " Return on Investment" is one of the key reasons why people *should * be going college for ? If the ROI is low...then it means that the major isn't in demand ( Philosophy , economics, etc ) . Just because you have a few examples of successful people does not mean that its not a viable option for everyone else.

A citation here : https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html

1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed

" College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level; those with nursing, teaching, accounting or computer science degrees were among the most likely "

Notice how the the college majors who have obtained jobs, received degrees in practical fields that can be applied immediately .

After all with the climbing costs to tuition , wouldn't it make sense to cut down on the classes that inflate the cost of a college education ?



=========================================================================

The argument that would go against the OP :

Granted though this wouldn't make students less well .... rounded though in the workforce ? Isn't the purpose of college to educate, but really " on the job training" should be done by the companies themselves ?

However if there truely is a " shortage of skilled workers " , wouldn't that imply that there should be more on the job training done by companies ? Or should colleges just only be there just to do " Job training" only ?

This wasn't the case in the past because companies did train their workforce .....now with the short term thinking.... training is all but an afterthought since it is another cost item to be eliminated.

So the question should be:

Should companies expect on the job training from colleges only ? Or should colleges only educate, but not provide on the job training ?

Exactly ! You should go for a STEM degree ....its common knowledge, why even link sources?

 

[Konosuba]

Those STEM degrees are just as flawed. It just happens that there is a simpler method to teach those subjects than those in liberal arts, AND the current market favors STEM degrees. But some people have more in mind in their education than a well-paying job, which is often something you win out of factors that can´t be considered anything other than sheer luck, not your hard work. Connections, the mood of the interviewers, demand, all those factors are what makes someone get a job for real. Demand is especially important, because the fact is, the reason why liberal arts is not as employed is because you no longer have to really pay for their services. There are TONS of free options, and people will only pay if they are the kind of person who feels they should contribute to their favorite artist´s, philosopher´s, etc.. survival. In the market, on the other hand, no one gives a crap about your actual contribution. They care about how much money you make and how flashy you are. The streamlines of bullshit "scientific" studies, the overwhelming rate of shady forms of doing business, government bribery, those are all symptoms of money being the central value in modern culture, which as far as I am concerned is A PROBLEM.

Yes, the degree is pretty much worthless, but it´s a degree you chase for it´s worth on the market. In the market, most degree are worthless. In the real world, no degree is worth anything at all, only your own contributions and understanding of reality is.

" Yes, the degree is pretty much worthless, but it´s a degree you chase for it´s worth on the market. In the market, most degree are worthless. In the real world, no degree is worth anything at all, only your own contributions and understanding of reality is. "


So your saying that a college degree is worthless and a college education is worthless now ?

Why even go to college in the first place ?

Is that what you are trying to say ?

That " college" is worthless ? People go to college for a better chance at " life" aka a better job . I don't know what world you live in where people have that kind of money to throw away , including their own futures.

 

[Idea]

" Yes, the degree is pretty much worthless, but it´s a degree you chase for it´s worth on the market. In the market, most degree are worthless. In the real world, no degree is worth anything at all, only your own contributions and understanding of reality is. "


So your saying that a college degree is worthless and a college education is worthless now ?

Why even go to college in the first place ?

Is that what you are trying to say ?

That " college" is worthless ? People go to college for a better chance at " life" aka a better job . I don't know what world you live in where people have that kind of money to throw away , including their own futures.

In pratice they are worthless. It doesn´t mean they are meaningless. You HAVE more chances in the market if you go for a STEM degree. But the world is NOT all science. The world is NOT all mathematics. Shifting more people from one area is NOT a smart decision for the group. Why? Because, for one thing, even STEM doens´t have jobs for everyone. For two, even if there are fewer jobs in liberal arts there are still some jobs. So long as you aren´t too picky with the paycheck and you actually chose it because it´s your passion, then you probably have an opening somewhere.

And three, because historically what you are proposing has resulted in total failures. ESPECIALLY in the free market. More people means less demand for each one, which means all jobs in that area will have worse conditions, because employers can just fire you and move on to a guy who WILL take the conditions they were offering. And if you´re lucky, they won´t try to fuck with your resume.

College education (or rather, education in general) is not void, but it´s too flawed in it´s making to be really valuable by itself. The worth of college education is symbolic and learning a bit more of something you want to persue. Which honestly, is probably more than you would have learned studying something you hate for several more years. If you´re out of highschool, you got your basics. If it´s work experience you want, go work. If you want knowledge about a specific subject, look it up. If you want to learn something a little bit better while getting what´s the adult equivalent of a "golden star", go get it.

In short, college is not without importance, and it´s neither a waste of time nor money, but the existence and attendance of liberal arts courses is a benefit for those who attend it, for the market in general and for progress of society.

 

[welian]

If your working in the tech field , do you ever use that politics class ? No .

Yes. Yes, I do. One: I'd like to have a government job at some point. It's slightly important to understand the field I would be supporting with my IT skills. Two: I am a citizen of the USA, and one method of performing my civic duties to educate myself and understand the civilization I live in, and my government can and cannot do for me.

Public speaking ? Depending on the job role, it could be fairly useful, or it could be nearly worthless . \

The skills used in public speaking are extremely useful for any situation in which you are interacting with strangers and need to actively present some sort of information, message, or agenda. It's useful for meetings, it's useful for teaching junior staff members, it's useful for making wedding speeches, etc.

History ? Since when does one in the tech field look back to revive an old method that's been triumphed by the newer technology for today ?

Since always! Newer technology doesn't always mean better, it depends on the context and environment that it is deployed in. Even at NASA, rocket science doesn't use the latest and greatest tech - it uses the tried and true, older electronics and machinery that are just simple enough to take a beating, and just powerful enough to provide the computing necessary for the mission. In agriculture, we often have to step back and see what ancient and folk traditions persist in the area in regards to farming. The farming techniques that work best along the Yellow River are not going to be the exact same as the techniques that work best along the Nile River, as the Amazon River, as the Mississippi River.

But without studying history, we not realize that the shiny new tool we're using isn't the best tool for the job. And furthermore, we need to study the history to understand WHY things are built the way they are. Like, the space shuttles:

"For example, NASA planned a 40 feet-long and 12 feet-wide cargo bay, but NRO specified a 60 feet by 15 feet bay because it expected future intelligence satellites to become larger. When I'm unculturedet again proposed a 12 feet-wide payload bay, the military almost immediately insisted on retaining the 15-feet width. The Air Force also gained the equivalent of use of one of the shuttles for free despite not paying for the shuttle's development or construction. In exchange for the NASA concessions, the Air Force testified to the Senate Space Committee on the shuttle's behalf in March 1971.[3]:216,232–234[4]

As another incentive for the military to use the shuttle, Congress reportedly told DoD that it would not pay for any satellites not designed to fit into the shuttle cargo bay.[5] Although NRO did not redesign existing satellites for the shuttle, the vehicle retained the ability to retrieve large cargos such as the KH-9 HEXAGON from orbit for refurbishment, and the agency studied resupplying the satellite in space.[6]"

Fine arts ? If a child can become an expert at that field, what else is there to say about that field ? There's countless examples of that on DA anyhow.

My dear, sweet summer child. Fine arts is far, far more than foppish, pompous Jeff Koons wannabes, and splashing paint on a canvas and calling it a day. Art is an expression of culture, and is inseparable from history and politics. You can't talk about abstract art without unraveling the despair and cynicism of post-war culture. And where would modern propaganda be without the intersection of Napoleon, the Byronic Hero, and Romanticism? How about the development of photography as both an art and a science? Architecture is art as well, are you telling me that because a child can walk across a canvas and someone will call it art, that there is no fine art or beauty in the engineering of a gorgeous Gothic cathedral that steals our breath away and celebrates the ways in which its architects perceived the glory of their God?

Do you seriously not appreciate education in fields that don't pull in as much of a salary, and how you've benefited from liberal arts? Is money the only how you consider the worth of this kind of stuff? At the very least, you should reconsider your stance on history. Time goes by like a river, sure, but have you considered that events happen sequentially like a line-by-line program? Even like a more complex program, with subroutines and modules. It's easy to segment a program and work on it piece by piece, module by module, to study history and only focus on particular eras and events. But, if you never look at the entire program, can you honestly say that you understand what your program does and what it is meant to do? Like, do you feel comfortable not having that larger context, of not knowing how the world arrived at the argument that's being passed down to you for processing?

If you want to argue numbers, fine. Currently, as a whole, STEM careers have a better return on your investment, if you're looking at cold hard cash. This makes liberal arts careers "worth less" if you are solely looking at salary. That does not make them "worthless", or unnecessary, or pointless. They do however, facilitate the building of bridges. They inspire new technologies, they help locate societal issues that can be solved or mitigated through discerning application of engineering.

 

[Omnimon]

Exactly ! You should go for a STEM degree ....its common knowledge, why even link sources?

You can't just assume that this is just common knowledge .....after all .... doesn't an opinion need sources to back up said argument ? Though it is tougher to find other articles to back up the other side of the argument .....

 

[Hall Kervean]

Without reading most responses, I'll toss in my opinion. If it's been addressed, oh well.
Basically, every course you just mentioned can be used. Will be, ehhh. Can be, yup.
Yes, english doesn't isn't learned entirely by classes, but it can help. I've learned a lot, and believe me, I have improved by multiples since eighth grade, let alone 1st.
Yes, art isn't learned by classes, but it can help. I learned new techniques and new things in art class. Yes, I needed to practice, and without practice, I could never have applied what I learned. What I did learn, however, I was able to use when practicing.

On the other hand, gender studies is one of the most worthless courses ever. Outside of a very few specific jobs, anyone who majors in that will not have a job career to go into. Gender studies is really one of the most, if not the most, useless courses ever.
And if the apocalypse happens, I'd bring a lawyer into my bunker before anyone who majored in gender studies.

 

[magsi]

>>>In English, it is always important to learn about the structure. It's not about the writing alone. It includes the language as well. Learning the basics because the world did not achieve communicating English right away. The reason we exist in this world with a fighting chance to hold off wars and the likes is because we learned how to communicate properly. Just because a person speaks English, it does not mean that this particular English means the same. It varies depending on usage and origin of words.

"Great works of art may move people but they move through inner-reflection and interpretation." <- I don't really know how to follow through this line of thought. :/ would you mind elaborating?

Art even as a topic. When a person learns Art, do they immediately know how to structure buildings? It's a branch of art and yet, it's also a combination of many. In terms of a writer learning tips, not everyone practices or understands this logic. Half of the human population do not know that they were meant to write and that is why we have the school system to support us. Often times, we may or may not know already what we want to write.


What is the point of having a liberal arts degree? Yes. it's a stepping stone to building a path for you portfolio and job experience.

Does it provide for others? it does. it opens opportunities.

Does it make the world a better place? Yes. It does.

Does it make bridges, create new technology or truly provide anything in a pragmatic sense? It improved the way we make bridges, create new technology and pragmatic sense. Then again, sometimes it varies depending on the person who is learning the specific fields.

What about psychology? Does one become a healer or has one always been a healer? Learning psychology does not necessarily mean that someone can become a healer. I'm studying psychology and philosophy and the mind is a deadly weapon indeed.

But someone can write an incredible book with no previous experience or education and in fact those who have are often given honorable scholarships. >> Usually its because of how they expressed their view points. Topics they've chosen and the likes. it sometimes sound like an excuse to make bad things look better but, its not really the case.

The amount of science, technology, engineering and mathematics students is surprisingly low in the world because they are not easy fields. I can write seven twenty-page papers on seven different novels if I need to but I find it is a much harder to determine the final amount of force a particle traveling around a set gravity with air resistance... See where this is going? Science isn't something pulled from the ether. > Good point on this one though. Although, I highly doubt science was for everyone to begin with.

So RPN, why should anyone go to school for a non-STEM program? Why do liberal arts thrive as a field of study? What use is an " economics" degree versus a degree in engineering ? Shouldn't colleges start concentrating on what really matters : STEM degrees. STEM= science , technology, engineering, mathematics . > The mind, when it's not kept in check, falters. I used to think about it this way, growing older. I soon came to realize how grateful I should have been being kept in check of what I'm learning. Even if its a different version of what I originally studied. After graduation, I'm focusing on my work ad I still have to go back tot he basics of what I've learned because, it helps me understand leadership, code and ethics.

I'm not sure if I managed to catch what you actually meant but, hopefully I did. Let me know. >>After all an engineer is worth their weight in gold today versus someone who can spout off the common sense mechanics of economics.

 

[JayTee]

You get a Liberal Arts degree to enrich yourself.

You get a STEM degree to make yourself richer.

It ultimately comes down to what you value most.

 

[Konosuba]

You can't just assume that this is just common knowledge .....after all .... doesn't an opinion need sources to back up said argument ? Though it is tougher to find other articles to back up the other side of the argument .....

Its harder to find other article to back up the other side of the argument because that other side of the argument doesn't exist.... For good reason .

 

[Konosuba]

In pratice they are worthless. It doesn´t mean they are meaningless. You HAVE more chances in the market if you go for a STEM degree. But the world is NOT all science. The world is NOT all mathematics. Shifting more people from one area is NOT a smart decision for the group. Why? Because, for one thing, even STEM doens´t have jobs for everyone. For two, even if there are fewer jobs in liberal arts there are still some jobs. So long as you aren´t too picky with the paycheck and you actually chose it because it´s your passion, then you probably have an opening somewhere.

And three, because historically what you are proposing has resulted in total failures. ESPECIALLY in the free market. More people means less demand for each one, which means all jobs in that area will have worse conditions, because employers can just fire you and move on to a guy who WILL take the conditions they were offering. And if you´re lucky, they won´t try to fuck with your resume.

College education (or rather, education in general) is not void, but it´s too flawed in it´s making to be really valuable by itself. The worth of college education is symbolic and learning a bit more of something you want to persue. Which honestly, is probably more than you would have learned studying something you hate for several more years. If you´re out of highschool, you got your basics. If it´s work experience you want, go work. If you want knowledge about a specific subject, look it up. If you want to learn something a little bit better while getting what´s the adult equivalent of a "golden star", go get it.

In short, college is not without importance, and it´s neither a waste of time nor money, but the existence and attendance of liberal arts courses is a benefit for those who attend it, for the market in general and for progress of society.

The world *is* nearly all science and its nearly all about math . We are LIVING in the 21st century . Why is it that we still harken back to the past ? That kind of thinking is toxic . The way forwards is to concentrate more on STEM . Its backwards thinking like that , which will ultimately hamstring human progress. Human progress *is* about scientific breakthroughs, not about philosophy or the arts.

If you are for the free market, you should also believe that the market should decide the value of a person's degree as well as their job. What a person should be doing ? Is to serve the needs of the market, it should not be the other way around. The free market is the key driver to human progress in the past few centuries, why deny that?

Is it right to advocate for such worthless degrees when you have businesses who are unable to advance and push humanity forwards ? Are there any businesses that rely only on liberal arts majors who utilize their majors only ? Without using the government as a means to support their own businesses .

That " gold star" ? It should be about money .

 

[JayTee]

Only on the first page and shit is going south. Record time.

 

[welian]

Hahaha, oh my god. I'm not dying on this hill today, I'm not getting paid to change minds here.

 

[Konosuba]

Without reading most responses, I'll toss in my opinion. If it's been addressed, oh well.
Basically, every course you just mentioned can be used. Will be, ehhh. Can be, yup.
Yes, english doesn't isn't learned entirely by classes, but it can help. I've learned a lot, and believe me, I have improved by multiples since eighth grade, let alone 1st.
Yes, art isn't learned by classes, but it can help. I learned new techniques and new things in art class. Yes, I needed to practice, and without practice, I could never have applied what I learned. What I did learn, however, I was able to use when practicing.

On the other hand, gender studies is one of the most worthless courses ever. Outside of a very few specific jobs, anyone who majors in that will not have a job career to go into. Gender studies is really one of the most, if not the most, useless courses ever.
And if the apocalypse happens, I'd bring a lawyer into my bunker before anyone who majored in gender studies.

If your talking about generalized classes, sure there is some value in that. However that kind of value should only be taught early on. That should not be a core concept that should be focused on later on . Later on in life, everyone should be focused on what kind of job that the market needs.

Currently the market needs more STEM degrees, not worthless liberal arts degrees. Your right about gender studies, but my friends your still a bit short.

Who needs liberal arts degrees when we are living in the 21st century ? Outside of primary school, the need for such degrees , its fast becoming ....obsolete .

 

[JayTee]

Hahaha, oh my god. I'm not dying on this hill today, I'm not getting paid to change minds here.

Wait, doesn't that imply you CAN get paid for this shit?