Of all the biased comments I've made in this thread, I find this one to be the least offensive (and the most likely to be true). Not sorry. Dress me down on something else.
Nobody's dressing you down. But the idea that a person's ability and desire to effect social change can be determined by their college major is ridiculous.
eclaires, I'm pretty much right there with you. I always heard that about specialization too (more likely to get a job). It's probably true to some degree, but I think it can definitely limit you. There's a huge value in a broad, well rounded education. I just don't know how to make that value translate to jobs.
And then instead of saying, "Well, I have to be practical and get a major that can pay for college" you look at people who suggest that and explain to them that that attitude is the EXACT reason why the humanities majors are important.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
The problem also is that we no longer value education for its own sake. We don't place any value on having an educated citizenry because that leads to better government, better decision making, etc. we value education only as far as its a means to an end. "Well what's the point of studying Roman history? You can't *use* that." And "why do I need to know how to analyze a novel, nobody is going to pay you to pick out themes in Great Expectations."
One, we can't seem to see beyond the immediate - that no, no one is going to hire someone to analyze novels, but being able to read something and see subtle clues and cues that mean something greater might, indeed, be an important skill for, say, a CIA analyst reading intelligence reports.
Two, we have this mindset that if it isn't directly and immediately valuable as a moneymaking skill, it's useless. We don't admire people who can recite Greek poetry and who can tell you about the primary causes of the French Revolution. That's nerdy. That's useless knowledge. Why aspire to that?
I think many people *do* value these skills and this knowledge but not at $55k a year. Back when a humanities heavy curriculum was encouraged at most schools, the kind of people attending either didn't have to worry about finding a profession for various reasons or they planned to use the good ol boys' network to find one. Things have changed a lot since then. I don't blame students wanting to be practical for the downfall of the humanities in this country.
The problem also is that we no longer value education for its own sake. We don't place any value on having an educated citizenry because that leads to better government, better decision making, etc. we value education only as far as its a means to an end. "Well what's the point of studying Roman history? You can't *use* that." And "why do I need to know how to analyze a novel, nobody is going to pay you to pick out themes in Great Expectations."
One, we can't seem to see beyond the immediate - that no, no one is going to hire someone to analyze novels, but being able to read something and see subtle clues and cues that mean something greater might, indeed, be an important skill for, say, a CIA analyst reading intelligence reports.
Two, we have this mindset that if it isn't directly and immediately valuable as a moneymaking skill, it's useless. We don't admire people who can recite Greek poetry and who can tell you about the primary causes of the French Revolution. That's nerdy. That's useless knowledge. Why aspire to that?
I think many people *do* value these skills and this knowledge but not at $55k a year. Back when a humanities heavy curriculum was encouraged at most schools, the kind of people attending either didn't have to worry about finding a profession for various reasons or they planned to use the good ol boys' network to find one. Things have changed a lot since then. I don't blame students wanting to be practical for the downfall of the humanities in this country.
No, there are individuals who value that, but we, as a society, do not value those things. At all.
I think many people *do* value these skills and this knowledge but not at $55k a year. Back when a humanities heavy curriculum was encouraged at most schools, the kind of people attending either didn't have to worry about finding a profession for various reasons or they planned to use the good ol boys' network to find one. Things have changed a lot since then. I don't blame students wanting to be practical for the downfall of the humanities in this country.
No, there are individuals who value that, but we, as a society, do not value those things. At all.
Is it society that doesn't value these things or hiring managers? Not that I've been on the job market lately but anecdotally it does appear that many people think majoring in "Business Creation and Development" cited by SBP will get you in the door faster than a degree in religious studies or Russian lit (all other things being equal like prestige, lack of connections, etc.). Is that because it's easier for HR people to figure out what the former applicant brings to the company than the latter? Or because they figure that this person will need less on the job training and will be up to speed more quickly? Because the unfortunate thing imo is that the Russian lit person could be very intelligent (as proven by a degree in what I think is a difficult subject) and learn everything they need to in an entry level job quickly but may have trouble getting their foot in the door.
No, there are individuals who value that, but we, as a society, do not value those things. At all.
Is it society that doesn't value these things or hiring managers? Not that I've been on the job market lately but anecdotally it does appear that many people think majoring in "Business Creation and Development" cited by SBP will get you in the door faster than a degree in religious studies or Russian lit (all other things being equal like prestige, lack of connections, etc.). Is that because it's easier for HR people to figure out what the former applicant brings to the company than the latter? Or because they figure that this person will need less on the job training and will be up to speed more quickly? Because the unfortunate thing imo is that the Russian lit person could be very intelligent (as proven by a degree in what I think is a difficult subject) and learn everything they need to in an entry level job quickly but may have trouble getting their foot in the door.
I think it's both. Corporate America is not interested in having educated consumers, obviously. And they aren't interested in paying for training, aren't interested in investing in employees unless they absolutely have to. Thus, they demand employees who come pre-filled with the right training to do their jobs. Whether those employees have any other sort of education or knowledge is completely irrelevant to them.
And we as a society accept this, and in fact, we encourage it. Because we encourage "practicality". We look down at people who learn for learning's sake as "nerds" and people who are too lazy to study 'real things.' We certainly aren't going to spend tax dollars so people can fool around learning useless crap like literature and history.
Is it society that doesn't value these things or hiring managers? Not that I've been on the job market lately but anecdotally it does appear that many people think majoring in "Business Creation and Development" cited by SBP will get you in the door faster than a degree in religious studies or Russian lit (all other things being equal like prestige, lack of connections, etc.). Is that because it's easier for HR people to figure out what the former applicant brings to the company than the latter? Or because they figure that this person will need less on the job training and will be up to speed more quickly? Because the unfortunate thing imo is that the Russian lit person could be very intelligent (as proven by a degree in what I think is a difficult subject) and learn everything they need to in an entry level job quickly but may have trouble getting their foot in the door.
I think it's both. Corporate America is not interested in having educated consumers, obviously. And they aren't interested in paying for training, aren't interested in investing in employees unless they absolutely have to. Thus, they demand employees who come pre-filled with the right training to do their jobs. Whether those employees have any other sort of education or knowledge is completely irrelevant to them.
And we as a society accept this, and in fact, we encourage it. Because we encourage "practicality". We look down at people who learn for learning's sake as "nerds" and people who are too lazy to study 'real things.' We certainly aren't going to spend tax dollars so people can fool around learning useless crap like literature and history.
I agree with the bolded but I'm not sure how we remedy that to be honest. I disagree though that people look down on others for studying interesting subjects. I think unfortunately that because of sky rocketing costs, a true liberal arts education is becoming one more thing that the "haves" get to enjoy and everyone else has to make do with majors like "Business Creation and Development."
FWIW, I've seen resume advice where you don't have to put your "non-relevant" degrees. Which makes me question if my History MA should even be on there. :/ But I *have* run into people in the corporate world who agree with education for the sake of education, and if nothing else, it's an interesting point of conversation. Not to mention, I did it while working (so it didn't take away from my career progression) and I can point out the intense amount of research and writing that type of degree requires and how that's translatable to many disciplines, especially marketing.
However, I also see a lot of job postings in marketing looking for people with business degrees, or web design degrees, or MBAs. Which, now that I'm thinking about it, tells you a lot about the mindset of the hiring manager. Digital marketing is a weird kind of industry because yes, computer skills are helpful, including html coding, photoshop, dreamweaver, Adobe pagemaker. But so is creativity and thinking outside the box and strong writing skills. So it's certainly not an area where English or journalism or creative writing degrees are out of place. There's really no reason to prefer one over the other, but at times, I think my long history of writing experience is really an asset that others in my position don't have.
Post by angelailovefood on Jun 6, 2013 17:25:09 GMT -5
I have a undergrad history degree. It is useless, at least where I live. I did a lot of critical thinking but that is it. I loved getting the degree, but it cost me a lot of money and I wish I would have taken a different path earlier. I wanted to be a lawyer (LOFL)but didn't really know what to do with my degree after I decided law school was not for me.
I now have a nutrition degree and am almost done with my Masters in nutrition. Jobs in nutrition are abundant here, especially with a masters and your RD. We have to use A LOT of critical thinking in nutrition and we have to take a lot of different classes in everything from poetry to macroeconomics. To get your RD, you also have to be accepted into an internship that last about 1 year.I just wish there would have been a way to combine job seeking skills with my history degree so that I could have actually used it, ya know?
Nobody's dressing you down. But the idea that a person's ability and desire to effect social change can be determined by their college major is ridiculous.
eclaires, I'm pretty much right there with you. I always heard that about specialization too (more likely to get a job). It's probably true to some degree, but I think it can definitely limit you. There's a huge value in a broad, well rounded education. I just don't know how to make that value translate to jobs.
It will not be "determined" by it, although it's hard to believe that someone with no working knowledge of history, sociology, philosophy, or literature would have the tools to effect social change. At any rate, it will correlate with it. As the kind of person interested in effect social change, does not major in "business foundations."
It's a pretty big assumption to make that non-humanities majors have no working knowledge of history, sociology, philosophy, or literature.
This thread reminds me of when I told my dad (who is in business) that I was majoring in Chemistry his response was "What is the point of majoring in science if you are not going to be a doctor or an engineer?" He has also said that when he is hiring he would not even look at someone's resume unless they had a degree is subcontracting (the field he us in).
The problem also is that we no longer value education for its own sake. We don't place any value on having an educated citizenry because that leads to better government, better decision making, etc. we value education only as far as its a means to an end. "Well what's the point of studying Roman history? You can't *use* that." And "why do I need to know how to analyze a novel, nobody is going to pay you to pick out themes in Great Expectations."
One, we can't seem to see beyond the immediate - that no, no one is going to hire someone to analyze novels, but being able to read something and see subtle clues and cues that mean something greater might, indeed, be an important skill for, say, a CIA analyst reading intelligence reports.
Two, we have this mindset that if it isn't directly and immediately valuable as a moneymaking skill, it's useless. We don't admire people who can recite Greek poetry and who can tell you about the primary causes of the French Revolution. That's nerdy. That's useless knowledge. Why aspire to that?
I think many people *do* value these skills and this knowledge but not at $55k a year. Back when a humanities heavy curriculum was encouraged at most schools, the kind of people attending either didn't have to worry about finding a profession for various reasons or they planned to use the good ol boys' network to find one. Things have changed a lot since then. I don't blame students wanting to be practical for the downfall of the humanities in this country.
Bingo.
I think the problem here is that there are two kinds of college students (and colleges). On the one hand, there are college students that had a good foundational high school education, belong in college, want to be there, and attend a college that isn't letting in every person who pays, still has some academic standards, and is what college was like 20 or 30 years ago. On the other, over the last few decades, there's been a decline in high school standards, and an increase amongst those kinds of kids that go to college because that's what you should do, because Sallie Mae hands out loans like candy, the high school was too broke, overstretched, and clueless and could not provide actual guidance to the kid, and the college is just a diploma mill where grade inflation runs rampant.
For everyone today that still fits in the first group, I don't think those people are signing themselves up for a life of unemployment by and large simply because they choose to major in history or lit.
For that latter group, humanities is a much more risky decision. Because a history major at Diploma Mill College doesn't actually signal to an employer that the student has had rigorous training in writing, analysis, and writing. (whereas even an engineer from Diploma Mill College, while still holding a less prestigious degree, will probably have *some* skills to qualify them for an entry level position.) But in that case, the problem isn't that humanities majors are unemployable, it's that these people never should have gone to college in the first place. Or that the college shouldn't have even offered the degree.
I think the problem here is that there are two kinds of college students (and colleges). On the one hand, there are college students that had a good foundational high school education, belong in college, want to be there, and attend a college that isn't letting in every person who pays, still has some academic standards, and is what college was like 20 or 30 years ago. On the other, over the last few decades, there's been a decline in high school standards, and an increase amongst those kinds of kids that go to college because that's what you should do, because Sallie Mae hands out loans like candy, the high school was too broke, overstretched, and clueless and could not provide actual guidance to the kid, and the college is just a diploma mill where grade inflation runs rampant.
For everyone today that still fits in the first group, I don't think those people are signing themselves up for a life of unemployment by and large simply because they choose to major in history or lit.
For that latter group, humanities is a much more risky decision. Because a history major at Diploma Mill College doesn't actually signal to an employer that the student has had rigorous training in writing, analysis, and writing. (whereas even an engineer from Diploma Mill College, while still holding a less prestigious degree, will probably have *some* skills to qualify them for an entry level position.) But in that case, the problem isn't that humanities majors are unemployable, it's that these people never should have gone to college in the first place. Or that the college shouldn't have even offered the degree.
I want to cry b/c I typed this gigantic WOT and proboards ate it. And now it's 11:30pm and I can only barely remember what my point was.
Anyway, I agree that the role of college has changed over time, mostly to its detriment, although I think it happened because of good intentions. The focus of this thread has mostly been on the benefit of humanities, but I think the real benefit is of a liberal arts education, of which humanities is a part. Science is also a part. Both of those areas teach people a body of facts they can apply to new situations. They both teach critical and creative thinking. So they're both beneficial and should be taught. I think a philosophy major who takes no science courses is at a loss the same way a biology major who takes no lit courses is at a loss. But having a broad base of subjects taught isn't going to solve anything because what is taught in those subjects has also changed over time. I think universities erred when they let pop culture infiltrate the curriculum. They brought education down to the level of the people - probably because they anticipated higher demand in classes people related to more. I've also read articles that say higher ed has changed educational philosophies over time. (Victor Davis Hanson gives the example of going from teaching the tragic viewpoint to a therapeutic one.) Universities need to reexamine their purpose. If it's to "translate the chaos of the present into the wisdom of the ages" then they need to ensure their classes further that aim, b/c I don't think they always are. Even in their humanities classes, even at elite institutions. I say this just to point out that some of higher ed's problems are self-inflicted and those need to be debated within higher ed even as we figure out how to fix the problems outside their control.
For diploma mills, I think you nailed the problem there. They are based on a philosophy that "everyone should go to college," which is invalid. Not everyone needs a broad-based higher education so these colleges don't really teach that. Or if they do they don't do it well. Nor should they because the cost of doing so would be devastating. They give people (what should be considered) a useless piece of paper so their graduates can check a box on a job application, because everyone knows there are plenty of people going to college who will not get a job that actually requires a higher education to perform the tasks. The solution isn't to teach these people humanities because of the argument that the arts recommend themselves. It would be better to channel these people into separate, shorter, cheaper vocational or technical colleges. Or other more creative certificate programs we can come up with to reduce the specialization in universities. That would leave universities with the task of liberally (in the classical sense ) educating smaller numbers of people who should be there. Then a utilitarian argument for liberal arts education can be made legitimately since it would be used in the workplace for those who purposefully strove for that higher level of education.
I'm not sure if vocational/technical schools are considered diploma mills or separate, but I do think they have a valid place in society. Economists, businesses, governments and universities around the world have seen the obvious need for these programs and promote matching the needs of employers to the skills taught to potential employees. It's not an American concept, or a Koch conspiracy. I posted an Economist article about this that encouraged more collaboration to reduce youth unemployment. I'm not sure if these schools should be entirely separate from universities or just a part separated within from the rest of their broader education. Either way I think they and liberal arts education benefit different people and while a little overlap may be beneficial, we shouldn't force each type of program to try to be both to both groups of people. This better fucking post this time.
This thread reminds me of when I told my dad (who is in business) that I was majoring in Chemistry his response was "What is the point of majoring in science if you are not going to be a doctor or an engineer?" He has also said that when he is hiring he would not even look at someone's resume unless they had a degree is subcontracting (the field he us in).
I'm not sure if vocational/technical schools are considered diploma mills or separate, but I do think they have a valid place in society.
No, they're not diploma mills (necessarily). A diploma mill is a "college" that basically gives a degree to anyone who sets foot inside its doors (or virtual doors as the case may be) and offers very little in the way of education. A vocational or technical school isn't Harvard, but you are going to learn the skills of cosmetology or welding or whatever you've gone to school for. Although there are varying levels of quality among technical schools too.
This thread reminds me of when I told my dad (who is in business) that I was majoring in Chemistry his response was "What is the point of majoring in science if you are not going to be a doctor or an engineer?" He has also said that when he is hiring he would not even look at someone's resume unless they had a degree is subcontracting (the field he us in).
I think a reasonable answer to this would be more experiential education. I got a degree in the humanities at northeastern, which is tops in the country for coops and internships. I had a wonderful interdisciplinary education but learned the hard work skills on the job through two years of full time work. I'm hugely supportive of this model.
I'm not sure if vocational/technical schools are considered diploma mills or separate, but I do think they have a valid place in society.
No, they're not diploma mills (necessarily). A diploma mill is a "college" that basically gives a degree to anyone who sets foot inside its doors (or virtual doors as the case may be) and offers very little in the way of education. A vocational or technical school isn't Harvard, but you are going to learn the skills of cosmetology or welding or whatever you've gone to school for. Although there are varying levels of quality among technical schools too.
thx. I was hoping they were separate. I'd like to see more programs there. For example, a (general) business major at a liberal arts college later getting a short certificate in hotel management through a vo-tech school instead of majoring in hotel management. (Non degree holders could also get the certificate only) This would keep the business major more general and allow more time for lib arts classes instead of specialized business classes. It would cost more time and money to specialize (w/ a degree), but I think it would benefit everyone more in the long run.
Vo-Techs have a place and some of them are excellent. My best secretaries came from Katherine Gibbs. but a lot get a bad reputation (deservedly) because they lie and say you can be a paralegal in 8 months and make 80k/yr when experienced paralegals in the market only make 55-60k.
My husband came out of the UK system. He is very smart, can definitely think but sometimes he's missing basic common knowledge because he wasn't required to take english/history/philosophy, etc after his O levels.
I'm still working my way through this thread, but my undergrad degree was Communications, with an emphasis in mass media. It was mostly theory and writing. I acquired almost no technical skills, save two classes that I chose on my own (like learning AVID). It was mostly classes like communication theory and media ethics. I would not consider it technical. And half of my courses were outside my major and minor fields of study. A liberal arts education is where it's at.
ETA: I can't believe I got through this whole thread without anyone quoting Good Will Hunting.
"You dropped a 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have gotten for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library."
A public library, I might add, that a capitalist pig (Carnegie) probably built.
Joking aside, let us not forget the unprecedented access to information today. The steady efforts to digitize academic works. www.google.com/googlebooks/library/index.html The free online classes by some of the country's most elite universities.
Of course I'd love if more people had the means, interest and capacity for a broader formal education, but I'm heartened by the fact that self-guided education is more possible now than at any time in history.
I haven't read all the responses but I think part of the issue with the decline in humanities majors is that the jobs for which those majors would be the most beneficial are also the jobs that happen to be declining (in numbers) right now. Journalism, academia, editing/publishing, etc. Of course humanities majors aren't limited to these jobs. I'm just speaking to why more people may be dissuaded from those majors. Sorry if this was previously discussed.
I think the real issues is a lot of major corporations have done away with their management training programs over the last decade or severely reduced their class sizes.
It used to be companies like GE/Accenture/Investment banks, etc would hire lots of History, PoliSci, Econ majors etc and put them through rigorous in house training programs where they learned the business, became consultants, etc.
Yeah I was just reading an article about this in the WSJ wrt Goldman Sachs severely cutting their analyst training program. I wonder why they thought this was the way to go. I mean, it's obviously less expensive for them to hire econ/finance majors directly into assistant or associate positions so I can see why that would be considered a plus but do they not think that humanities/liberal arts majors are worth training anymore? My (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation was that if you had an appropriate math background, you could pretty much be taught to do a variety of finance jobs through such programs.
My undergrad didn't have engineering, so if someone who went there wanted to do engineering they did a 3:2 program - 3 years at Emory, 2 years at Ga Tech. And we did have a really extensive list of core requirements, so even someone like my brother, who double majored in Math and Chem with a minor in Physics, had to take art history, two history classes, etc. He actually lucked out bc they changed it between he started and I started (two years apart) and people in my year had to take 2 semesters of a foreign language, plus like 10 history classes, 10 art classes, at least 2 sciences, 20 philosophy classes, etc (I'm clearly exaggerating but the list of required classes was ridiculous. I double majored and between Poli sci and spanish and the cores, my schedule was full).
I know a lot of people who majored in seemingly non-marketable majors. My college roommate majored in the classics. She took like 16 semesters of Latin. She got a phD and now works for a museum in the Netherlands. Another majored in anthro and journalism. She works for the wall street journal, after a stint at Fortune and Smart Money and a masters from columbia. A friend from another school started out as a engineering major, switched to Art Studio, and now works for the science center in Boston designing exhibits. Most people I know had majors that didn't seem like they would directly relate to "careers" and they are all doing really well, and most people had these jobs soon after college, if not immediately after graduating. And a lot did go to grad school which of course helps.
The issue isn't that these majors mean people can't get jobs. It's that they don't directly translate to jobs. Engineering major = okay, so you become an engineer. What does a poll sci and spanish major do? (that was me!) Or a classics major? Or an art history major? Not everyone out there who works has a degree in their specific field. But career services and employers are expecting those specific degrees, which is kind of dumb. A history major would probably be really good at doing a lot of stuff besides being a historian.
I also think this is further evidence of the growing class divide. All my friends that I mentioned above (with the semi-exception of the art studio major) came from families with a relative amount of money. Uber wealthy - no - but wealthy enough that they can go to grad school without accumulating a lot more debt (my friend in boston went to Pratt in NYC for grad school for 3 years and her parents picked up the tab. Completely). If you have that kind of financial support, you are better able to more closely consider grad school, or take a job that might not be that high paying because you have no SLs, or you have a considerable amount of family money to fall back on so you don't need to especially worry about what your starting salary is.
No, they're not diploma mills (necessarily). A diploma mill is a "college" that basically gives a degree to anyone who sets foot inside its doors (or virtual doors as the case may be) and offers very little in the way of education. A vocational or technical school isn't Harvard, but you are going to learn the skills of cosmetology or welding or whatever you've gone to school for. Although there are varying levels of quality among technical schools too.
thx. I was hoping they were separate. I'd like to see more programs there. For example, a (general) business major at a liberal arts college later getting a short certificate in hotel management through a vo-tech school instead of majoring in hotel management. (Non degree holders could also get the certificate only) This would keep the business major more general and allow more time for lib arts classes instead of specialized business classes. It would cost more time and money to specialize (w/ a degree), but I think it would benefit everyone more in the long run.
I agree with what you've said here and in your WOT. I do think there should be more emphasis on directing students to community colleges and voc schools to develop different kinds of skills. I think a lot of voc schools can err on the mill side, but I think a lot of those problems can be solved with some not too complicated modifications on the student loan side - limiting funds made available to borrowers, and also requiring of schools heightened disclosures and certain outcomes as a condition of being eligible to participate in the federal student loan program. From what I've read, the highest number of SL defaults are those associated with non-four year programs, so clearly there is a huge problem there.
I also think this is further evidence of the growing class divide. All my friends that I mentioned above (with the semi-exception of the art studio major) came from families with a relative amount of money. Uber wealthy - no - but wealthy enough that they can go to grad school without accumulating a lot more debt (my friend in boston went to Pratt in NYC for grad school for 3 years and her parents picked up the tab. Completely). If you have that kind of financial support, you are better able to more closely consider grad school, or take a job that might not be that high paying because you have no SLs, or you have a considerable amount of family money to fall back on so you don't need to especially worry about what your starting salary is.
I also think that it's not just wealth, but access to networks. If my hypothetical kid wanted to be a history major, I would know how to advise her on how to find a job while majoring in history. So even though I'm not a high earning lawyer and don't have enough cash to pay for my kid's private school and graduate education, I wouldn't really worry about her ability to find work to repay the debt. I could call up my friends with graduate degrees at fancy jobs in law firms and government and public policy and get them internships. I could offer advice as to what kinds of things to do in college to round out their resume and develop the kinds of skills employers look for. etc. And I think there are ways to do this without being a helicopter parent, KWIM?
The kids who major in history but don't have those kinds of networks are the ones that are going to suffer more. A good school can help overcome many (but not all) of those challenges, simply because you are exposed to people with those kinds of networks.
I also think this is further evidence of the growing class divide. All my friends that I mentioned above (with the semi-exception of the art studio major) came from families with a relative amount of money. Uber wealthy - no - but wealthy enough that they can go to grad school without accumulating a lot more debt (my friend in boston went to Pratt in NYC for grad school for 3 years and her parents picked up the tab. Completely). If you have that kind of financial support, you are better able to more closely consider grad school, or take a job that might not be that high paying because you have no SLs, or you have a considerable amount of family money to fall back on so you don't need to especially worry about what your starting salary is.
I also think that it's not just wealth, but access to networks. If my hypothetical kid wanted to be a history major, I would know how to advise her on how to find a job while majoring in history. So even though I'm not a high earning lawyer and don't have enough cash to pay for my kid's private school and graduate education, I wouldn't really worry about her ability to find work to repay the debt. I could call up my friends with graduate degrees at fancy jobs in law firms and government and public policy and get them internships. I could offer advice as to what kinds of things to do in college to round out their resume and develop the kinds of skills employers look for. etc. And I think there are ways to do this without being a helicopter parent, KWIM?
The kids who major in history but don't have those kinds of networks are the ones that are going to suffer more. A good school can help overcome many (but not all) of those challenges, simply because you are exposed to people with those kinds of networks.
This is a VERY good point. I have a good friend who went to school and got a history degree. He was the first person in his family to get a traditional 4-year college degree. His dad and brother work for the local utility. Uncles and Cousins also work for the utility, or are cops and firefighters and paramedics.
He graduated and had NO IDEA what to do with himself. So he kinda dicked around for a while. Went back to the marina where he had his summer jobs and picked up work there fixing boat engines. Then his wife (who is an engineer) got him a job as a surveyor. Aaaaand then he eventually ended up working for the local utility company. As a mechanic.
He didn't have anything close to the right networks to get a job with that history degree.
Companies have a larger pool of candidates right now than they've maybe ever had. So it's not surprising that they're hiring those with degrees that directly transfer. They can have the best of both worlds. Thinking candidates with directly relevant degrees. Those qualities aren't mutually exclusive.
ESF and wawa that is a really good point. I'm thinking of people I went to college with. A lot went to business school but a lot didn't, and they all seem to have these fabulous careers. Realistically, a good deal of them are because their parents called up some buddies (I'm looking at you, son of a CEO of a major athletic company, and you, daughter of a LA plastic surgeon). Or even just knowing that the jobs are out there, and that you don't need an engineering degree to be successful.
You know what's funny...I freely admit that when I was picking a college major I had NO IDEA what you do with say...a biology degree besides be a biologist or teach biology. ditto history, math, etc.
But I knew what you do with an engineering degree. So here I am. An engineer.