Will the Humanities Save Us? [Archive]

Stone Island

7th January 2008, 12:56 PM

Stanley Fish writes in The New York Times (Jan. 6, 2008): (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/index.html)
How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You can’t argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You can’t argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue – well you can, but it won’t fly – that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.

At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book (http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300122886), “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life,” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.” It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”

It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”

technoextreme

8th January 2008, 06:19 AM

Stanley Fish writes in The New York Times (Jan. 6, 2008): (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/index.html)
Heh... Bringing up higher education, the humanities, and New York in the same sentence makes me cringe. My brother is required to take so many humanity courses its not even funny.

Tokenconservative

9th January 2008, 02:32 PM

Jeff Corey

9th January 2008, 08:05 PM

[QUOTE=Tokenconservative;3320220]...I

I would retain Psychology, Sociology, Archelolgy, Paleontology Poli Sci--any "science" that cannot lead to anything but a job in academia would be retained only as a directed MS plans. In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded. as a BS/BA in these is spending tens or even hundreds of thousands to become a waiter.

Business, technology, hard sciences, math majors are the only degrees with any true career viability in today's world, whether we like it or not.

Tokie[/QUOTE
Siily goose. I have a degree in Psychology and I am smarter and richer than you.

ImaginalDisc

9th January 2008, 10:27 PM

Hokulele

10th January 2008, 12:00 AM

Career viablity is the criteria for which studies to keep? In that case heck, throw away everything other than the basketball and football programs. :rolleyes:

Francesca R

10th January 2008, 03:48 AM

Also, let's not conduct any more unprofitable experiments. They're a waste of cash.

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 07:26 AM

I shall notify every journalist, writer, musician, artist, anthropologist, historian, lawyer, judge and economist that the great token has declared their fields verbotten.

You'd do better to contact some sort of reading tutor....

Tokie

timhau

10th January 2008, 07:27 AM

So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.) out the window, period. They have no practical application in our society today.

I would retain Psychology, Sociology, Archelolgy, Paleontology Poli Sci--any "science" that cannot lead to anything but a job in academia would be retained only as a directed MS plans. In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded. as a BS/BA in these is spending tens or even hundreds of thousands to become a waiter.

So, foreign languages are out (as is apparently spelling), but Paleontolgy is allowed to remain? And Sociology? Do you have any idea of the :rule10 that goes on in Sociology departments?

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 07:28 AM

Career viablity is the criteria for which studies to keep? In that case heck, throw away everything other than the basketball and football programs. :rolleyes:

Hmm...how many high school basketball/football players make a career out of it? College?

I always marvel at something like this in these forums: you dislike me already (that's fine, I'm not whining....I'd rather be known by my enemies...) for my political perspective, and so rather than reading what I wrote, you read what it is you WANT me to have written, to play into your perceptions of me and to allow you to dismiss what I've said that much more easily.

You can't address what I've said fairly, and I understand that...it'd be tough. So instead you try this tack.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 07:31 AM

So, foreign languages are out (as is apparently spelling), but Paleontolgy is allowed to remain? And Sociology? Do you have any idea of the :rule10 that goes on in Sociology departments?

I'm quite cognizant of what goes on in Sociology....that's not the point. As long as cities, counties, states and some federal and even private orgs. hire people with this otherwise useless degrees, the study remains viable.

I said that ONLY directed (toward a career in academia) palontology, archeology, etc., etc. should be permitted in public unis and colleges.

Do you people ever read what I say, or do you just see that it's a post from that eeehhhvvvviiiillll stoopid consarvative redneck Tokie and just go ahead and put in whatever nonsense it is you BELIEVE I will say, based on your own ignorance and bigoted perceptions?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 07:34 AM

Also, let's not conduct any more unprofitable experiments. They're a waste of cash.

Hmm....I'd have to think this one through.

Do you mean Bio 101 students can't dissect frogs because it's "unprofitable" or do you mean...well, what DO you mean?

How do you know something is "unprofitable" until after you've done the experimentation?

If you are talking about the host of nonsense-"experiments" studies, etc. various psych, sociology, anthro and other such uni depts do (we discovered that people, when burned, tend to avoid that in the future, and the study only cost $1million!) then yeah, they should be nixed, and the saving put back into making college cheaper.

Or do you disagree...we should do everything we can to make college MORE expensive?

Tokie

ImaginalDisc

10th January 2008, 07:37 AM

You'd do better to contact some sort of reading tutor....

Tokie

*********** ******* you can't have more laywers, judges, athrolopologists, etc. unless you have people who study those fields as their majors. Perhaps it has never occured to you but those fields actually require schooling and a lot of preparation before they get higher degrees.

Francesca R

10th January 2008, 07:54 AM

Do you people ever read what I say, or do you just see that it's a post from that eeehhhvvvviiiillll stoopid consarvative redneck Tokie and just go ahead and put in whatever nonsense it is you BELIEVE I will say, based on your own ignorance and bigoted perceptions?I feel very bad that you are receiving an unfair hearing all over this forum, particularly if it is nonsense born of the ignorance and bigotry of the other members and nothing to do with you.

What can we do to stop this terrible thing from happening?

Nogbad

10th January 2008, 08:14 AM

You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.

I can't think of a more erudite and beautifully compact justification for retaining the Arts - particularly the bit about irritating those who "hate anybody who knows more than they do" :) Desolation Row I believe.

Of course practical courses in the sciences, medicine, business etc., are useful and should be encouraged but one does not cut arms off to better encourage the legs.

timhau

10th January 2008, 09:52 AM

Do you people ever read what I say, or do you just see that it's a post from that eeehhhvvvviiiillll stoopid consarvative redneck Tokie and just go ahead and put in whatever nonsense it is you BELIEVE I will say, based on your own ignorance and bigoted perceptions?

Well, I assumed that when you said "So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) ... [a list of other disciplines deleted] ... out the window, period. They have no practical application in our society today" you meant you'd toss English and other languages out the window. I still can't see what else it could mean, but English isn't my first language.

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 09:59 AM

I feel very bad that you are receiving an unfair hearing all over this forum, particularly if it is nonsense born of the ignorance and bigotry of the other members and nothing to do with you.

What can we do to stop this terrible thing from happening?

I love this sort of libbie conflation.

I never said it was a "terrible" thing...at least not from my perspective.

It's an UNFORTUNATE thing, but then I really don't expect libs to engage in any sort of rational, logical, reasoned or fair discourse, anyway.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 10:04 AM

*********** ******* you can't have more laywers, judges, athrolopologists, etc. unless you have people who study those fields as their majors. Perhaps it has never occured to you but those fields actually require schooling and a lot of preparation before they get higher degrees.

First, I never said anything about lawyers and judges (um...I believe in most cases today, the latter is the former).

As for fields like anthro. I believe I addressed this, too. Those entering those such disciplines need to do so on a DIRECTED course of study, aimed at teaching at the university (mostly--others in the typical disciplines would be trained for teaching k-12).

Can you think of any need for anthropologists in modern business outside the lucrative food and beverage services industry?

Yeah...me neither!

I have no problem with anyone taking anything they want, I just want to be sure that the limited funding available to public universities and colleges is better spent, and funneling much into anthro, or archeo, or palentology or Feminist or Ethnic studies is waste. Or do you disagree and believe that we do not graduate enough Feminist Studies majors for those industries just clamoring for people with these valuable degrees?

Tokie

Hokulele

10th January 2008, 10:06 AM

Hmm...how many high school basketball/football players make a career out of it? College?

I always marvel at something like this in these forums: you dislike me already (that's fine, I'm not whining....I'd rather be known by my enemies...) for my political perspective, and so rather than reading what I wrote, you read what it is you WANT me to have written, to play into your perceptions of me and to allow you to dismiss what I've said that much more easily.

You can't address what I've said fairly, and I understand that...it'd be tough. So instead you try this tack.

Tokie

My post was a social commentary rather than a personal attack. But if you prefer to make it personal, your choice.

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 10:06 AM

Well, I assumed that when you said "So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) ... [a list of other disciplines deleted] ... out the window, period. They have no practical application in our society today" you meant you'd toss English and other languages out the window. I still can't see what else it could mean, but English isn't my first language.

Of course you can't. You are blinded by pedantry, your leftist ideology and of course the hoary desire to "get" Tokie that so many are equally saddled with in here. I'm surprised you can see to shave in the morning.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 10:08 AM

My post was a social commentary rather than a personal attack. But if you prefer to make it personal, your choice.

When someone (attempts) to "slam" me I take it as an attack.

That's just the kinda hairpin I am!

Tokie

timhau

10th January 2008, 10:09 AM

I'm surprised you can see to shave in the morning.

Shave? Us Libbie-Hippies never shave!

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 10:18 AM

Shave? Us Libbie-Hippies never shave!

Oops!

Mea culpa!

Um...wash your...no, no...

Let's see...oh! Got it!

Light a blunt.

Tokie

Francesca R

10th January 2008, 10:21 AM

Shave? Us Libbie-Hippies never shave!
ß Yeah . . .

timhau

10th January 2008, 10:23 AM

Oops!

Mea culpa!

Um...wash your...no, no...

Let's see...oh! Got it!

Light a blunt.

Phew. I thought you'd start that sermon about getting a job again.

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 10:24 AM

ß Yeah . . .

Well, yeah..I assumed I was addressing a libbie "man."

It's a given that libbie Wymyn (hoo, YAH!) never shave.

Not even their faces.

Tokie

Nogbad

10th January 2008, 10:29 AM

Well, yeah..I assumed I was addressing a libbie "man."

It's a given that libbie Wymyn (hoo, YAH!) never shave.

Not even their faces.

Tokie

Oh for shame! How could you say that about Jane?

Barbarella was the pin up of youth and a source of joy :blush:

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 11:19 AM

Oh for shame! How could you say that about Jane?

Barbarella was the pin up of youth and a source of joy :blush:

Yeah....just ask anyone who caught her act at the Hanoi Hilton.

Tokie

Nogbad

10th January 2008, 12:00 PM

Yeah....just ask anyone who caught her act at the Hanoi Hilton.

Tokie

I suspect that would require my learning Vietnamese but nonetheless proves my point. She may have been a little to the left politically but Barbarella still rocked.

Tokenconservative

10th January 2008, 01:53 PM

I suspect that would require my learning Vietnamese but nonetheless proves my point. She may have been a little to the left politically but Barbarella still rocked.

Just find a vet who was there. Many of them prolly picked up a little Vietnamese.

Tokie

Nogbad

11th January 2008, 02:53 AM

Just find a vet who was there. Many of them prolly picked up a little Vietnamese.

Tokie

Some of those Vietnamese girls were very pretty ;)

Tokenconservative

11th January 2008, 06:57 AM

Some of those Vietnamese girls were very pretty ;)
Har-dee, har, har....

Curious: why do you suppose that in this thread, the immediate response to my post was to begin calling me an "idiot"?

Tokie

D'rok

11th January 2008, 07:16 AM

Tokenconservative

11th January 2008, 10:37 AM

I have degrees and a diploma both from Tokie's approved and unapproved lists and I am better (and more employable) for it. Not only that, the unapproved studies give/gave me a qualitative advantage in the approved studies.

In other words, give me a break. Park your bias Tokie, if you can.

Hmm....actually, the one may complement the other, but had you ONLY the one you would be LESS employable for it.

You are not making your case, I'm afraid, only bolstering mine. I did not say:

If you have X AND Y, then Z

I said: If you have ONLY X, then Z.

See the difference?

By the way, my bias on this issue is "parked." I am simply speaking from real-world experience. You may have a nice place in the world that is enhanced by the second (let's call that the one from my verbotten list) sheepskin, but the reality is (and you curiously did not argue it this way) that absent the other sheepskin, that one would be economically useless to you.

But don't take my word for it!

Test it. Go out into the employment market presenting ONLY the verbotten degree (you'll have to do this rationally, too: you'll have to figger out a way to suggest that you are just now entering the workforce to keep from being checked up on at previous employers, etc.) and see if the offers come tumbling in.

If you want to do this, I'd be happy to put some $$ up on it.

Say, $5k? We'd need to talk more about just what it is we are talking about of course.

You game?

Tokie

Tokie

D'rok

11th January 2008, 11:24 AM

Hmm....actually, the one may complement the other, but had you ONLY the one you would be LESS employable for it.

You are not making your case, I'm afraid, only bolstering mine. I did not say:

If you have X AND Y, then Z

I said: If you have ONLY X, then Z.

See the difference?

By the way, my bias on this issue is "parked." I am simply speaking from real-world experience. You may have a nice place in the world that is enhanced by the second (let's call that the one from my verbotten list) sheepskin, but the reality is (and you curiously did not argue it this way) that absent the other sheepskin, that one would be economically useless to you.

But don't take my word for it!

Test it. Go out into the employment market presenting ONLY the verbotten degree (you'll have to do this rationally, too: you'll have to figger out a way to suggest that you are just now entering the workforce to keep from being checked up on at previous employers, etc.) and see if the offers come tumbling in.

If you want to do this, I'd be happy to put some $$ up on it.

Say, $5k? We'd need to talk more about just what it is we are talking about of course.

You game?

Tokie

Tokie

Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree and opined that public funding should not flow there..

All of these things, if implemented, would severely affect my employability. I would not be in the advantageous situation that I am in now if those ideological limits had been placed on my education.

In other words, in your scenario, I could not have X and Y resulting in Z.

Also, the employment picture for humanities grads, at least here in Canada, is much more nuanced than your bias dictates:

"Surprisingly little empirical evidence is available on the relative labour market performance of university graduates from different programs. One study, which compared unemployment rates and annual incomes of university graduates in the humanities and social sciences to those of their counterparts in more applied streams, found the labour market performance of the graduates to be roughly similar (Allen, 1998). This result was confirmed by another study, which found that in 1992, two years after graduation, the unemployment rate for bachelor's graduates in humanities and social sciences was the same as the rate for engineering graduates and four percentage points lower than for applied sciences graduates (Lavoie and Finnie, 1999)."

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/00701/ar-ar_200107_02_a.html

Instead of grandstanding, how about backing up your position with some authoritative citations?

Nogbad

11th January 2008, 03:13 PM

Har-dee, har, har....

Curious: why do you suppose that in this thread, the immediate response to my post was to begin calling me an "idiot"?

Tokie

I assumed it was an ongoing love/hate thing carried over from previous threads - the history to which I am not party.

The position you hold is not uncommon and I think, to a degree, it is one that we all hold. I would look askance at a four year degree in media crocheting and feminist hanging baskets. However, I would not consider, as the opening article seems to suggest some might, Classics, History, English Lit or Modern Languages as money wasted - FFS! business needs translators and most multi-nationals look for some people with modern languages.

Cultural capital is alive and well and to my mind is the difference between civilisation and returning to the trees. The notion that business is neutral and exists separately from the history and culture of the society it springs from is erroneous in my view. Obviously, a society cannot afford to have 90% of its people studying Peruvian nose flutes to Doctorate level but is that likely to happen?

Stone Island

11th January 2008, 03:31 PM

When law schools were asked to rank the most desirable major for their perspective students they said it was a tie between philosophy and physics.

Tokenconservative

12th January 2008, 05:41 AM

Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree and opined that public funding should not flow there..

All of these things, if implemented, would severely affect my employability. I would not be in the advantageous situation that I am in now if those ideological limits had been placed on my education.

In other words, in your scenario, I could not have X and Y resulting in Z.

Also, the employment picture for humanities grads, at least here in Canada, is much more nuanced than your bias dictates:

"Surprisingly little empirical evidence is available on the relative labour market performance of university graduates from different programs. One study, which compared unemployment rates and annual incomes of university graduates in the humanities and social sciences to those of their counterparts in more applied streams, found the labour market performance of the graduates to be roughly similar (Allen, 1998). This result was confirmed by another study, which found that in 1992, two years after graduation, the unemployment rate for bachelor's graduates in humanities and social sciences was the same as the rate for engineering graduates and four percentage points lower than for applied sciences graduates (Lavoie and Finnie, 1999)."

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/00701/ar-ar_200107_02_a.html

Instead of grandstanding, how about backing up your position with some authoritative citations?

I guess we need to define some terms
1. "State schools"?
2. "Unapproved subjects"
3. "Ideological limts."
4. "Authoritative"

If I were blind and crippled and lived in Central Africa, my employment prospects would also be limited....So?

Does this 1999 study you quote indicate when/where it got it's data from? For decades in the US (by the way, I have no idea how this works in a more socialist society like Canada, nor do I really care), we were told that a college diploma...din't matter WHAT it was in...meant better employment opportunities.

Try getting worthwhile employment TODAY in the US, bringing ONLY a 4-yr English, or Philosophy, or History degree with you to the interview (outside education).

Most areas of the Liberal Arts have no practical application in America, today. In a socialist society, sure...employers are likely forced to hire people with them, but not so here. Now, that's not to say these should be banned, as your strawman argument asserts that I am suggesting, just that no taxpayer funds should go to these disciplines OUTSIDE a directed course of study in which the student is headed toward education, primary or secondary, I don't care which.

This is really pretty simple to understand and does not require a lot of convoluted reasoning, nor should it be taken personally. The reality is that post-about oh, 1990, let's call it, such degrees serve very little practical functionality in THIS society. We neeed (and pay for) engineers, businesspeople, scientists, lawyers, etc., etc. You don't need $200,000+ education in Philosophy to be a waiter. If any training for that at all is needed, trade schools at 1/10th the price can handle it.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th January 2008, 05:47 AM

I assumed it was an ongoing love/hate thing carried over from previous threads - the history to which I am not party.

The position you hold is not uncommon and I think, to a degree, it is one that we all hold. I would look askance at a four year degree in media crocheting and feminist hanging baskets. However, I would not consider, as the opening article seems to suggest some might, Classics, History, English Lit or Modern Languages as money wasted - FFS! business needs translators and most multi-nationals look for some people with modern languages.

Cultural capital is alive and well and to my mind is the difference between civilisation and returning to the trees. The notion that business is neutral and exists separately from the history and culture of the society it springs from is erroneous in my view. Obviously, a society cannot afford to have 90% of its people studying Peruvian nose flutes to Doctorate level but is that likely to happen?

The point is not whether it's "likely" to happen, the point is whether taxpayer subsidized colleges and unis. should be dabbling it what amounts to an employment program for people who have doctorates in Peruvian Noseflute.

Yes, it's nice for a culture to have folks who know what Portia means thematically, or whether this shade of magenta was or was not a favorite of Picasso's....and we have many private institutions of higher learning that (outside research) r'cv little taxpayer funding, if any. They can churn out Peruvian Noseflute Ph.Ds to their heart's content!

But I am taxed (quite heavily) and a big chunk of that change goes to state colleges and universities, and I don't see any reason why I should be paying people to study for 4 or 6 or even 10 years to then become one of the top three best educated waiters in my favorite eatery.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th January 2008, 05:49 AM

When law schools were asked to rank the most desirable major for their perspective students they said it was a tie between philosophy and physics.

Goody.

Then let THEM subsidize philosophy majors. And a lawyer can get his BA/BS in ANYTHING...So, let them get it in Business, or Geology, or Physics, or anything else that will not, if they fail in law school, or fail the bar, lead them to be asking me whether I'd like guac and sour cream on my nachos.

Tokie

D'rok

12th January 2008, 08:01 AM

There were no strawmen in my comment. Here is the evidence:

1. Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects...
In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded
2. and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools...
I would do this in state colleges
3. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects...
make any non-practical studies non-major studies
4. unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree...
unless one is seeking a teaching degree along with it.
5. and opined that public funding should not flow there.
I just want to be sure that the limited funding available to public universities and colleges is better spent...

This is an example of a strawman:

In a socialist society, sure...employers are likely forced to hire people with them, but not so here.

Terms:

I guess we need to define some terms
1. "State schools"? I may be misunderstanding what this means in context. I assume that state schools are the lower-tier institutions that the less fortunate or less intelligent students attend. Correct?
2. "Unapproved subjects"Your list: "Virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.).
"
3. "Ideological limts."Self-evident. You are not basing your argument on facts.
4. "Authoritative"Empirical evidence from a reputable source.

The following all need such evidence as defined in #4 above to be convincing:

Try getting worthwhile employment TODAY in the US, bringing ONLY a 4-yr English, or Philosophy, or History degree with you to the interview (outside education).

Most areas of the Liberal Arts have no practical application in America, today....

The reality is that post-about oh, 1990, let's call it, such degrees serve very little practical functionality in THIS society....

Tokie

Henners

12th January 2008, 08:31 AM

Most areas of the Liberal Arts have no practical application in America, today.

No, really.

Here's two clichés for you:

Liberal Education

Vocational Training

See what you're doing?

Repeating clichés.

Tokenconservative

12th January 2008, 05:36 PM

No, really.

Here's two clichés for you:

Liberal Education

Vocational Training

See what you're doing?

Repeating clichés.

No, I don't.

How are those two terms cliches?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th January 2008, 05:44 PM

There were no strawmen in my comment. Here is the evidence:

1. Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects...

2. and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools...

3. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects...

4. unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree...

5. and opined that public funding should not flow there.

This is an example of a strawman:

Terms:

I may be misunderstanding what this means in context. I assume that state schools are the lower-tier institutions that the less fortunate or less intelligent students attend. Correct?
Your list: "Virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.).
"
Self-evident. You are not basing your argument on facts.
Empirical evidence from a reputable source.

The following all need such evidence as defined in #4 above to be convincing:

1- 5.While pedantry is sometimes fun, I find it typically just gets in the way.

No, that's not a strawman, it may or may not be inaccurate, but that in and of itself is not a strawman. It's odd that you accuse me of making such an assertion when you then follow with the strawman assertion that "state colleges and unis aare 'lower tier' institutions."

Hmm...my issue is not the quality of the education obtained in these schools which in my opinion likely rivals that of many if not most private institutions if for no other reason than the very fact of what I AM opposed to (in this issue), the huge sums of money going to state institutions.

That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

You should really try to avoid USING the same logical fallacies you (wrongly) accuse others of using when rebutting them. It makes it seem as if you don't actually know what the fallacy you are calling into question actually means, and I know that can't be the case.

I'm not sure I care whether it convinces you. I don't anticipate common sense convincing doctrinaire types, typically.

Tokie

KoihimeNakamura

12th January 2008, 06:03 PM

Just to intterupt: State colleges/comm. colleges ARE considered lower-tier. While some state colleges are in the upper tier of good schools, they are few and far between (Michigan State, U of Washington and NCSU leaps to mind.)

For that matter, to address the comment:

My current degree is a Computer Science (Transfer), and at EWU I plan to make that a Major and will minor in either Political Science or History (I happen to LOVE those two fields, it's just I don't have the patience to be a full out historian.)

So: (bolded letters are my insertion)
That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on (1)"Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable (2)English, or Spanish, or (3) Aramaic Lit., or (4)Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?

Nogbad

12th January 2008, 06:26 PM

technoextreme

12th January 2008, 09:45 PM

1That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

Wow this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. English not economically viable? Haaa...

D'rok

12th January 2008, 10:48 PM

1- 5.While pedantry is sometimes fun, I find it typically just gets in the way.

No, that's not a strawman, it may or may not be inaccurate, but that in and of itself is not a strawman. It's odd that you accuse me of making such an assertion when you then follow with the strawman assertion that "state colleges and unis aare 'lower tier' institutions."

Hmm...my issue is not the quality of the education obtained in these schools which in my opinion likely rivals that of many if not most private institutions if for no other reason than the very fact of what I AM opposed to (in this issue), the huge sums of money going to state institutions.

That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

You should really try to avoid USING the same logical fallacies you (wrongly) accuse others of using when rebutting them. It makes it seem as if you don't actually know what the fallacy you are calling into question actually means, and I know that can't be the case.

I'm not sure I care whether it convinces you. I don't anticipate common sense convincing doctrinaire types, typically.

Tokie

Fairly pathetic response. It entirely lacks anything of substance. I await the evidence for your claims that the humanities are economically inviable. If you can provide it, you will have a point worth debating.

Us doctrinaire types tend to be sticklers for these sorts of things.

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 06:46 AM

Just to intterupt: State colleges/comm. colleges ARE considered lower-tier. While some state colleges are in the upper tier of good schools, they are few and far between (Michigan State, U of Washington and NCSU leaps to mind.)

For that matter, to address the comment:

My current degree is a Computer Science (Transfer), and at EWU I plan to make that a Major and will minor in either Political Science or History (I happen to LOVE those two fields, it's just I don't have the patience to be a full out historian.)

So: (bolded letters are my insertion)

Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?

Hmm...well, bigotry aside: the primary state college where I live includes several Nobel Laureattes (sp?) in, if I do not misremember, physics and genetics.

As I said, pedantry can be fun, but a purposeful misreading of what I've said just makes you sound like well, maybe YOU could use a basic English (reading) course?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 06:47 AM

Tokie

I think rather less of your hard earned taxes goes into Peruvian nose flutery than you might think and rather more into wholesome things like health care, primary and high school education, homeland security, national disasters, and a fairly significant defence budget. Whatever GW is he is not really a committed small government man.

Whilst cutting frivolous degree courses will save a few pennies I can't see it returning a lot of them to your pocket and on the practical side do you really want these people loose on the streets?

Can you give us the breakdown of social spending vs. military spending?

Sure...I don't have a problme with setting Feminist Studies and Ethnic Studies profs free to persue careers in food service and hospitality.

They are probably legal citizens, anyway.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 06:49 AM

Wow this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. English not economically viable? Haaa...

Really? Well, maybe you are right.

But just to be sure, can you go to Job.com or craigslist jobs and tell me how many want ads you find for people with BAs in Miltonian Studies or Shakespere or Romantic Andoran Writers?

I'd like to know.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 06:51 AM

Fairly pathetic response. It entirely lacks anything of substance. I await the evidence for your claims that the humanities are economically inviable. If you can provide it, you will have a point worth debating.

Us doctrinaire types tend to be sticklers for these sorts of things.

Wait...what?

Putting aside the anti-logical presentation (it's not up to me to proves something is not...):

You want me to provide a university-backed study showing that something they rake millions of dollars in on every year is NOT viable?

Ohhhkkkayy...

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 06:55 AM

Just to intterupt:

Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?

Okay, yeah....let's break this down.

1. You are confusing me with that bigot. I have no problem with state colleges and unis. They seem like a darn good idear to me.

2. I did not say English. I guess your reading comphrenshun is not as gud as yore speling
This sort of conflation is about what I anticipate, however.

3. Ok. Add another to my list, then: Religious studies.

4. Um...what? I realize you are (apparently) an English prof., but you'll excuse me if I don't (am unable) to respond to something that simply doesn't make any sense.

Tokie

D'rok

13th January 2008, 07:01 AM

Wait...what?

Putting aside the anti-logical presentation (it's not up to me to proves something is not...):

You want me to provide a university-backed study showing that something they rake millions of dollars in on every year is NOT viable?

Ohhhkkkayy...

Tokie

Your claim, your burden of proof. You'll note I provided evidence for mine.

This is a sceptics' forum. We don't care about your opinion unless it is backed by demonstrable facts.

technoextreme

13th January 2008, 08:11 AM

4. Um...what? I realize you are (apparently) an English prof., but you'll excuse me if I don't (am unable) to respond to something that simply doesn't make any sense.

Tokie
It doesn't make any sense to the ignorant of the world. Archeology has helped with our understanding of science and technology. There was a metallurgist technique that the Ancient Chinese were using that we only started using in the last fifty years. References to technology were made by the Bard in his plays. Numerous people have been influenced by films.

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 08:57 AM

Your claim, your burden of proof. You'll note I provided evidence for mine.

This is a sceptics' forum. We don't care about your opinion unless it is backed by demonstrable facts.

Hmm.

Good points.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 08:58 AM

It doesn't make any sense to the ignorant of the world. Archeology has helped with our understanding of science and technology. There was a metallurgist technique that the Ancient Chinese were using that we only started using in the last fifty years. References to technology were made by the Bard in his plays. Numerous people have been influenced by films.

Okay....and therefore, what?

Yes, I know Porky's II influenced me greatly....

?

Tokie

technoextreme

13th January 2008, 09:22 AM

Okay....and therefore, what?

Yes, I know Porky's II influenced me greatly....

This type of idiotic comment isn't that far from the truth. When I wrote that I was thinking about Star Wars and Helen Greiner. Someone who makes a lot of money. Someone who is involved with technology and science. Someone who openly admits that that a movie is the sole reason why she is working on robots. Hell I'll give you two for the price of one. The word robot originated from a play.

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 09:38 AM

This type of idiotic comment isn't that far from the truth. When I wrote that I was thinking about Star Wars and Helen Greiner. Someone who makes a lot of money. Someone who is involved with technology and science. Someone who openly admits that that a movie is the sole reason why she is working on robots. Hell I'll give you two for the price of one. The word robot originated from a play.

Sorry...no idear who Griener might be....should I?

Oh, that's right...I am sure that since I don't that's proof--PROOOOOFFFFF!!!--of my backwoodsy pig-ig'nance, huh?

Yes, the term robot did originate in literature...so? Is there some reason you have to have a degree in Medieval Andoran Lit to write plays or books or movies?

Tokie

technoextreme

13th January 2008, 10:32 AM

Sorry...no idear who Griener might be....should I?

Oh, that's right...I am sure that since I don't that's proof--PROOOOOFFFFF!!!--of my backwoodsy pig-ig'nance, huh?

No. I never said that. Your giant assumption makes you a backwoodsy pig-ig'nance.

Tokenconservative

13th January 2008, 11:09 AM

No. I never said that. Your giant assumption makes you a backwoodsy pig-ig'nance.

Which assumption is that, and why does it make me backwoodsy and pig-ig'nant?

Tokie

KoihimeNakamura

13th January 2008, 11:50 AM

Hmm...well, bigotry aside: the primary state college where I live includes several Nobel Laureattes (sp?) in, if I do not misremember, physics and genetics.

As I said, pedantry can be fun, but a purposeful misreading of what I've said just makes you sound like well, maybe YOU could use a basic English (reading) course?

Tokie

Then what did I misread? (And if you had read my post, I said I was purusing a transfer degree. I am actually attending a community college right now)

Okay, yeah....let's break this down.

1. You are confusing me with that bigot. I have no problem with state colleges and unis. They seem like a darn good idear to me.

2. I did not say English. I guess your reading comphrenshun is not as gud as yore speling
This sort of conflation is about what I anticipate, however.

3. Ok. Add another to my list, then: Religious studies.

4. Um...what? I realize you are (apparently) an English prof., but you'll excuse me if I don't (am unable) to respond to something that simply doesn't make any sense.

1. OK. I happen to agree, it's made it possible for me to attend college when I moved (no chance of me affording the out of state tutition)

2. "even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

3. There are places where it's viable, but then again, that's more cultural enrichment.

4. I'm asking why people should not take those as majors.

Tokenconservative

14th January 2008, 05:45 AM

Then what did I misread? (And if you had read my post, I said I was purusing a transfer degree. I am actually attending a community college right now)

1. OK. I happen to agree, it's made it possible for me to attend college when I moved (no chance of me affording the out of state tutition)

2. "even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

3. There are places where it's viable, but then again, that's more cultural enrichment.

4. I'm asking why people should not take those as majors.

You misread (purposefully) my comments about the use of a state college, assuming that I share your bigotry...I don't. I don't think there are any private colleges that can compare to the primary state colleges here, and I know that places like CalPolyTech, MIT, CalBerkely, U of PA, etc. have programs in valuable areas of study that put most private colleges to shame. Of course, there are Ivy League privates that this does not apply to, but overall, the US has the best, by far, public college/uni system in the world, and because of the funding these places get, they typically make private colleges pale in comparison.

I'm sorry if you disagree...you are just a classist bigot who is mistaken.

Now try and pay attention to what I'm saying (right here, right now...not in some other thread)...read what I SAY, not what it is you WANT me to say...it's a marvelously refreshing approach!

There are certain areas of study--TODAY (not in 1960)--that have virtually (sigh...that means in general and over the wider population, statistically..and no, I don't have a link--LIINNKKKKK!!!--here I again rely upon common sense) no economic viability in TODAY's economy.

These include but are not limited to 4-year (BA or BS) degrees in English (not the LANGUAGE--why is this so hard for pedants to follow? How many people in America graduate with English-language degrees? None?), most of the soft sciences (Psych, Archeo, Paleo, Socio., etc.--sigh, no...this is not a complete catalog...please stop being pedantic), literature in any language, Art, Music, etc., etc.

Sorry, it's been a while since I was in college and I don't have a course catalog before me and no, I am not going to Google it. If you want specifics get out YOUR course catalog and list them I will tell you yay or nay.

That (sigh) out of the way (I hope...IF you have put aside your padantic nature for the moment), please tell me where I can go to find ample lists of employment opportunities for those with say, a BA in 15th C. English Writers? Art Theory? Pacific Island Archelolgy?

Today's work world looks for people educated in areas valuable to TODAY's work world. Yes, in 1960, anybody with a sheepskin in ANY discipline could write his own ticket.

I'm sorry...does that remain true today? If I have a BA in Pre-Colombian Studies, I can walk into those great big glassy offices in Seattle and get a job designing the next version of Windows?

Now, is that to say that NOBODY with such a degree will every find valuable and valued employment...sigh...of course not. But in the main, these such degrees are not economically viable in our world...today.

By the way, what sort of 4-year Liberal Arts degree are YOU persuing, and what sort of career paths do you imagine will open for you with it?

Tokie

Stone Island

14th January 2008, 03:36 PM

Goody.

Then let THEM subsidize philosophy majors. And a lawyer can get his BA/BS in ANYTHING...So, let them get it in Business, or Geology, or Physics, or anything else that will not, if they fail in law school, or fail the bar, lead them to be asking me whether I'd like guac and sour cream on my nachos.

Tokie

What is it about philosophy and physics that make them the best majors for would-be lawyers? I wonder if it's not a kind of thinking, or a readiness for thinking, as opposed to the content of thoughts that are the most useful.

In any case, you have yet to present any evidence, other than conjecture, about what kinds of incomes those who have specific kinds of B.A.'s could hope to earn. I'm sure that data is available.

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/articles/majors/majorsSalaries.asp?adcode=20382

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx?page=1

Nogbad

14th January 2008, 04:12 PM

Redtail

14th January 2008, 06:55 PM

Sorry...I would do this in state colleges: make any non-practical studies non-major studies, unless one is seeking a teaching degree along with it.

So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.) out the window, period. They have no practical application in our society today.

I would retain Psychology, Sociology, Archelolgy, Paleontology Poli Sci--any "science" that cannot lead to anything but a job in academia would be retained only as a directed MS plans. In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded. as a BS/BA in these is spending tens or even hundreds of thousands to become a waiter.

Business, technology, hard sciences, math majors are the only degrees with any true career viability in today's world, whether we like it or not.

Tokie

Film and acting degrees have no practical application in our society today? Wow! Does that mean I should give back my MFA in acting? I guess I would have to give back my condo too, and the motorcycles... I wonder if my fiancee should pack it in with her MFA in costume design?

ETA: Oh and I have students that are music majors Should I push them to quit?

Stone Island

15th January 2008, 09:46 AM

Think through your day and consider the number of things that needed, at some point or another, to be written. Magazine articles, television shows, radio broadcasts, the advertisements on your cereal box, computer games, notices in the newspaper, newspaper articles, newspaper ads, the instructions that come with your newest piece of electronic gear, the cute story about Thomas Twining on my box of tea... the list goes on, and on, and on. English majors of the world unite!

Oh, and technology and scientific advancements are all well and good, but without a broad underlying culture, and an understanding and appreciation of that culture, where would we be? In other words, liberal studies are necessary to help us bridge the gap between the is and the ought.

Tokenconservative

18th January 2008, 07:10 AM

What is it about philosophy and physics that make them the best majors for would-be lawyers? I wonder if it's not a kind of thinking, or a readiness for thinking, as opposed to the content of thoughts that are the most useful.

In any case, you have yet to present any evidence, other than conjecture, about what kinds of incomes those who have specific kinds of B.A.'s could hope to earn. I'm sure that data is available.

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/articles/majors/majorsSalaries.asp?adcode=20382

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx?page=1

I have no idea why those two fields would work in a landshark's favor. I've known lots of lawyers with English degrees of one sort or another.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn in our technological age that a lawyer with a science sheepskin would be in demand. Philosophy? Beats me.

But then, I was not arguing what you are telling me I am arguing (that's a strawman, by the way). I said a BACHELOR's degree...a law degress is the equivalent of a MASTER's degree.

Do you understand the difference?

Maybe you can google it.

I don't know or care what your links say. I can look in the want ads here and find no ads outside education looking for anyone with the sorts of degrees I am talking about.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

18th January 2008, 07:52 AM

Tokie

I do agree that there are courses that one might reasonably wonder if there is any possible practical application (ever), although a good pass from a good university does indicate an ability to apply oneself and to articulate a point of view. These are skills an employer can utilise and it is surprising to discover the range of degrees held by people in a range of jobs from management, marketing, HR and the like.

Nevertheless some of the courses that have been mentioned do have resale value,

Aramaic, for example, places like the Billy Bob University of Bibliosity pay good money for people that can actually translate or read Aramaic.

Palaeontology and Archaeology are popular interests - people can't get enough of old stuff and museums pay good money for good specimens. One will not get rich doing this kind of work but the people who do it are not the Porsche driving types anyway (not enough room for the spades and muddy boots).

Art and Music - those who do well do very well but just about every advertising company employs graphic artists and media experts.

OK a degree in Feminist Yak Milking might have limited value outside of Outer Mongolia but to be honest there probably isn't such a degree.

One could take the Golgafrincham route and round them all up but then we might find we needed them after all.

One thing I am unclear about is your view that there was more opportunity to study fringe subjects in 1960 but that times have moved on. I can only speak for the UK but I would have said there is a far broader range of fringe subjects now and far more colleges than there were in 1960.

You would think...I did, to be sure. But the "any degree shows that ol' stick-too-it'ivness" is not valid today. Sure, in the 60s and 70s (plastics!) any degree would do. But it's not the 60s and 70s today, and we require far more speciliazation and employers looking for college graduates have so many to pick from they can be more choosey...and are. So the English major who used to be able to land a job as a bank examiner, and be trained to do that work with the expectation that his/her education prepares him/her is a thing of the past. Why would they hire an English major when they can hire Bus, Fin., Accounting, etc. majors who will take about 1/4 of the training? Management: they hire people with Management degrees, or degrees more related to the business...if it's a business that sells 14th Century Spanish Literature, then sure...someone with a degree in 14th Century Spanish Lit would be the way to go.

I don't see many such companies in my local want ads.

I am not talking about special circumstances. Yes, of course, someone with a degree in Aramaic may well find a job...in fact, it's likely they will since so few people have that skill. In GENERAL (sigh) I am talking about the hoardes of graduates from US colleges who come out with (only) 4-year degrees in some discipline that does not have direct application to a SPECIFIC, viable industry TODAY.

I'm not sure whether people replying to this are being purposely obtuse or are just reacting to the person posting it and are attempting (without much success) to show what a "dumby" that poster is. Clearly, the odd graduate with a Feminist Yak Milking degree is going to get a job in which the skills and knowledge she gained getting that degree will serve her well. Perhapst the local zoo has a herd of Yaks, and as she lives in a very liberal city the fact that she is a FEMINIST, makes here a shoo-in, but that won't help her secure such employment on a yak farm in Montana necessarily.

I did not say "round them all up." I said make disciplines with little-to-no applicability in TODAY's work force more specialize: you want a degree in 14th Century Spanish Lit, you have to sign up to get at LEAST a master's and you MUST be directing your efforts toward a career teaching that subject in college, meaning before you are permitted to begin majoring in that, you need to prove there is a current and future demand for x-number of people to fill that job and sign some sort of contract (public colleges only...sigh) stating that if you don't secure related work after graduation, you need to pay the state back for wasting its money. Now, of course special circumstances will apply: you get a Animal Psych degree and still manage to get a job at Microsoft running their new projects dept..fine! But the reality is, very, very, very, very (did I say "very?" few such graduates will land such jobs, and that's just reality.

Again, not sure whether I am being unclear or you are being obtuse. I am not talking about "fringe" subjects, necessarily. The reality is that an English (rational people not trying to shriek "dumby!!" at Tokie understand that this is going to be a degree in the LITERATURE of English-speaking peoples, not in the LANGUAGE). I am talking about subjects that yes, in 1960s were fine. Then ANY sheepskin was a wonderous thing given that so few were issued, here or there. Now? Most waiters have masters degrees here...not sure how that works out there. Most of these degrees are not in particle physics or financial management. They are in things like English (sigh...no, not the LANGUAGE...), Psych, Arecho, Philosophy, etc.

Here too there are more colleges, and especially those that cater to very directed learning--specific, very needed fields such as nursing and truck driving, etc. Again, in 1960, having a 4-year college degree was viewed as quite a prize because so few had them, here or in the UK. Today (here, anyway) it's more like having a high school diploma was in 1960, whether or not those desperate to prove what a "dumby" Tokie is care to admit it or not, or whether they demand a link--LIIIINNKKKKKK!!!!--proving it.

It is what it is.

Tokie

Stone Island

18th January 2008, 10:34 AM

I have no idea why those two fields would work in a landshark's favor. I've known lots of lawyers with English degrees of one sort or another.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn in our technological age that a lawyer with a science sheepskin would be in demand. Philosophy? Beats me.

But then, I was not arguing what you are telling me I am arguing (that's a strawman, by the way). I said a BACHELOR's degree...a law degress is the equivalent of a MASTER's degree.

Do you understand the difference?

Maybe you can google it.

I don't know or care what your links say. I can look in the want ads here and find no ads outside education looking for anyone with the sorts of degrees I am talking about.

Tokie

Shorter Tokie:

Evidence? Who needs evidence?

D'rok

18th January 2008, 10:58 AM

But then, I was not arguing what you are telling me I am arguing (that's a strawman, by the way). I said a BACHELOR's degree...a law degress is the equivalent of a MASTER's degree.

Do you understand the difference?

Maybe you can google it.

Just a heads-up: A law degree is in fact a Bachelor's degree. LL.B. = Bachelor of Laws. It is not the equivalent of a Master's degree, even with the extra entrance requirements and extra prestige.

Stone Island

18th January 2008, 11:25 AM

Just a heads-up: A law degree is in fact a Bachelor's degree. LL.B. = Bachelor of Laws. It is not the equivalent of a Master's degree, even with the extra entrance requirements and extra prestige.

In the U.S., it's a J.D., or Juris Doctor, which, according to Wikipedia (a.k.a. We're As Wrong As Often As the Encyclopedia Britannica), is different than Canada's degree.

D'rok

18th January 2008, 11:51 AM

In the U.S., it's a J.D., or Juris Doctor, which, according to Wikipedia (a.k.a. We're As Wrong As Often As the Encyclopedia Britannica), is different than Canada's degree.Ah, I see you are correct.

Wackypedia says this about the difference:

"The primary difference between a LL.B. and J.D. degree is that the LL.B. is an academic undergraduate degree, and often requires the study of the history and philosophy of law, while the J.D. is a professional graduate degree that concentrates on practical skills and requires no study of the history and philosophy of law."

So a J.D. has all the good stuff taken out. ;)

Stone Island

18th January 2008, 12:13 PM

jimbob

18th January 2008, 02:00 PM

...I

I would retain Psychology, Sociology, Archelolgy, Paleontology Poli Sci--any "science" that cannot lead to anything but a job in academia would be retained only as a directed MS plans. In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded. as a BS/BA in these is spending tens or even hundreds of thousands to become a waiter.

Business, technology, hard sciences, math majors are the only degrees with any true career viability in today's world, whether we like it or not.

Tokie
Siily goose. I have a degree in Psychology and I am smarter and richer than you.

I hope you don't think that is a particularly impressive achievement...

How would history get taught if not by history graduates

Sorry...I would do this in state colleges: make any non-practical studies non-major studies, unless one is seeking a teaching degree along with it.

So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.) out the window, period. They have no practical application in our society today.

From everything I've seen and read and heard over the years the simplest answer is: a damn sight better'n they are taught INSIDE America.

By far.

Tokie

So it doesn't matter that it is taught so badly, and that by removing any history graduates, the knowledge and understanding would get worse.

The history of the UK Civil service mightn't be a brilliant advertisment for organisations with their upper echelons dominated by humanities and classics graduates, but that is not to say the education is without merit.

Foreign policy considerations should be informed by history, because the attitudes in different countries are formed by their local history.

In the last Gulf War, it would have been a propaganda disaster for the British to march into Baghdad as the (1925?) invasion is an important local story.

Further to this, if one knows what happened in previous similar situations, one could be aware of similar events happening again, and prepare for them.

I am choosing history, but could have chosen many other subjects.

I am dubious about the academic merits of certain voccational degrees, however, but then so are employers.

If someone wants employability, then they can choose an employable degree. Its a market.

Nogbad

18th January 2008, 02:21 PM

Tokie is still begging the question, of course. Why would a philosophy degree, one of the most practically useless degrees, be the most sought after degrees for the study of law?

Also, should college studies be little more than fancy, gussied-up vocational studies?

I would guess because Philosophy is partly an exercise in semantics and law requires people who can think like that.

Tokie

There is obviously a question of supply and demand and although there is undoubtedly a place for English Lit. one can get too much of a good thing. ;)

I don't know enough about the numbers being produced in the States in relation to where the shortfall of skills are. Here, typically Maths and Engineering tend to be under-subscribed and the Arts over-subscribed and it is true that graduates in the latter find it harder to secure a well paid job - not sure they are quite at the waiting tables and serving in fast food joints after graduation though.

Tokenconservative

19th January 2008, 06:20 AM

Tokie is still begging the question, of course. Why would a philosophy degree, one of the most practically useless degrees, be the most sought after degrees for the study of law?

Also, should college studies be little more than fancy, gussied-up vocational studies?

I get the feeling you really don't know what "begging the question means."

Then you ask ME to explain why this would be. I have no idea.

You claim to have come across that tid-bit...did it make any explanation? I thought it did? Why is it necessary for me to back down from my broader assertion that most such degrees do not serve those who get them very well because in a few cases they do?

Are you at ALL able to engage in LOGICAL discourse?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

19th January 2008, 06:23 AM

Shorter Tokie:

Evidence? Who needs evidence?

You need me to post a link to what...Wiki in order for you to believe there is a difference between a degree bearing a "B" and one bearing an "M"...?

Sorry, I assumed I was dealing with debators who had at least a minimum understanding of these things. I am not going to attempt to do this. If you don't know the difference, go look it up.

Educate yourself, then come back.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

19th January 2008, 06:30 AM

I hope you don't think that is a particularly impressive achievement...

How would history get taught if not by history graduates

So it doesn't matter that it is taught so badly, and that by removing any history graduates, the knowledge and understanding would get worse.

The history of the UK Civil service mightn't be a brilliant advertisment for organisations with their upper echelons dominated by humanities and classics graduates, but that is not to say the education is without merit.

Foreign policy considerations should be informed by history, because the attitudes in different countries are formed by their local history.

In the last Gulf War, it would have been a propaganda disaster for the British to march into Baghdad as the (1925?) invasion is an important local story.

Further to this, if one knows what happened in previous similar situations, one could be aware of similar events happening again, and prepare for them.

I am choosing history, but could have chosen many other subjects.

I am dubious about the academic merits of certain voccational degrees, however, but then so are employers.

If someone wants employability, then they can choose an employable degree. Its a market.

Sigh...it's so imporatant to read what other actually write, rather than what it is your leftist ideology DEMANDS they write... a refreshing approach that I highly recommend!

I said that yes, of course, those intending to teach in these areas wouldl um..yeah, get degrees in these areas.

Duh. If you'll partdon the expression.

The point was (had you actually read what I wrote, rather than what you need me to write to support your leftist view of me) that those planning to teach would declare that at the outset. Those planning to "get a college degree" would have to (sigh... in state subsidized...sigh, yes...I know that many private institutions get government money for specific studies...sigh...colleges) be more specific. If they want a history degree but do not plan to teach, they'd have to demonstrate where people with such degrees are in demand in the workforce.

This is really pretty simple stuff if you read what I write, rather than what your leftist ideology forces you to believe I am writing.

I am not discussing the quality of the education here. I imagine you can find schools that teach everything that is taught badly-to-very well. What does this red herring have to do with anything?

UK Civil Service until very recently was also closed to anyone without the right accent....So?

Again...can you tie this to the subject? I'm not sure some GI needs to know what happened to the Brits in '25, old sock!

I say, old chap, do try and stay on topic, won't you?

Tokie

jimbob

19th January 2008, 07:49 AM

The point was (had you actually read what I wrote, rather than what you need me to write to support your leftist view of me) that those planning to teach would declare that at the outset. Those planning to "get a college degree" would have to (sigh... in state subsidized...sigh, yes...I know that many private institutions get government money for specific studies...sigh...colleges) be more specific. If they want a history degree but do not plan to teach, they'd have to demonstrate where people with such degrees are in demand in the workforce.

So you could be able to get a degree in teaching a subject but not in the actual subject?

It would make more sense to have a postgrduate qualification in the teaching, once you have demonstrated adequate mastery of the subject, with a degree. Maybe we could call it a "Postgraduate Certificate in Education".

The GIs didn't need to know what happened to the British in 1925, their commanders needed to know what happened to the Iraqis, and thus why they would react badly to something that might otherwise seem innocuous.

IIRC, the US DoD is now employing anthropologists.

If history graduates can't get jobs, then very few people would take history. If they can get jobs, and consider a history degree not to be beneficial, then they wouldn't bother putting this on their CVs.

If they want a history degree but do not plan to teach, they'd have to demonstrate where people with such degrees are in demand in the workforce.

My guess is that prospective students would all claim to be planning to teach, and then many would "decide that it is not for them", and get other jobs. If they do get a job how do you demonstrate that their degree didn't help them get it?

volatile

19th January 2008, 08:10 AM

I have a degree in languages, and was employed for a good few years in the automotive and manufacturing industries as a translator and multi-lingual purchase agent. How do you think manufacturing plants in the UK would cope if they weren't able to recruit people who could talk to their suppliers in Germany, for example?

I also have a Master's Degree in Critical Theory, and am pursuing a PhD in the History of Art. Whilst I may not be pursuing a cure for cancer, I hope you can at least accept, Tokie, that a country with a rich and vibrant cultural economy is better than one without.

My students, art history undergraduates, go on to find work in the field as museologists, librarians and curators but also as lawyers, civil servants, teachers, journalists, designers, writers, recruitment consultants, politicians, press relations agents... the list is endless.

Now, I agree that we should probably be doing more a society to encourage the uptake of vocational training and elevate the social status afforded to plumbers, builders, plasterers and all the rest, and I'd certainly agree from a pedagogical point of view that there are plenty of teenagers at university studying courses they don't want to be studying, but this is not just true of the "useless" disciplines you cite.

I would hazard a guess that there are as many people doing chemistry or engineering degrees because they (or their parents) thought it would be "useful" for their kids to "learn a trade" who subsequently end up as bus drivers or minstrels than there are people in the Humanities who think it's an easy option (which, of course, it isn't).

For example, how useless can a media studies degree really be in a society in which we now have 24 hour news, a radically shifting media climate, ever-more-pervasive advertising and all the rest? I'd say the production of students who are capable of understanding and negotiating society's relationship with its media institutions is pretty darned important, actually.

korenyx

19th January 2008, 10:08 AM

[quote=Stone Island;3336287]What is it about philosophy and physics that make them the best majors for would-be lawyers? I wonder if it's not a kind of thinking, or a readiness for thinking, as opposed to the content of thoughts that are the most useful.

My brother told me that the women in law school who had majored in English or psychology were better at writting briefs. He had majored in business and was better at oral arguments. No suprise to me, his younger sister. :p

Tokenconservative

19th January 2008, 10:21 AM

So you could be able to get a degree in teaching a subject but not in the actual subject?

It would make more sense to have a postgrduate qualification in the teaching, once you have demonstrated adequate mastery of the subject, with a degree. Maybe we could call it a "Postgraduate Certificate in Education".

The GIs didn't need to know what happened to the British in 1925, their commanders needed to know what happened to the Iraqis, and thus why they would react badly to something that might otherwise seem innocuous.

IIRC, the US DoD is now employing anthropologists.

If history graduates can't get jobs, then very few people would take history. If they can get jobs, and consider a history degree not to be beneficial, then they wouldn't bother putting this on their CVs.

My guess is that prospective students would all claim to be planning to teach, and then many would "decide that it is not for them", and get other jobs. If they do get a job how do you demonstrate that their degree didn't help them get it?

Depends on the subject. Let's take History as a catchall (because it has so little utility outside the teaching of um...history): yes. You'd have to agree that your aim in studying History in college would be to teach it at some level. If you are not getting a masters in it, then that would by definition mean you'd also have to get a Edu (teacher) cert along with it. If your plan is to teach at post-secondary levels, then clearly you are going to need a Ph.D (yes...sigh...there may be some community colleges that hire those with only a masters or even 4-yr institutions who have a few oldsters hanging on who only have a masters..TODAY, teaching anything in the Lib Arts at a 4 yr college requires a Ph.D....generally...sigh).

Not sure what you are talking about. In order to teach in American public schools (sigh...generally....) you have to have gone through a teacher-ed program (sigh...generally). Agreeing at the time you state your major that you will ALSO be taking this course of study would be enough for me.

How MANY anthropologists does the US military employ (and what do you mean "now" This isn't new)? Enough so that everyone who wants to study Anthro will be if not guaranteed, at least have high hopes? And are they employing anthro bachelors, or masters and Ph.Ds? I don't require a link...just take an...educated guess.

Not bother putting it on....sigh. That's the point. And yes, you are right. Used to be ANY college degree was a big plus when seeking employment. Today, if you went back to school and got your computer engineering degree, you'd probably do well not to mention that you got a History degree first. They might want to know why you were so stupid as to do that.

By the way...that's PRECISELY what I encountered in the early-90s, (before the boom) when I was seeking a job (before I figgered out I'd rather make ME rich, than someone else). I had been working in computers since the late 70s, but had an English degree. I actually had interviewers on more than one occasion cock their heads and ask in incredulous tones, "why do you have THAT!?"

Tokie

Stone Island

19th January 2008, 06:56 PM

Jeff Corey

19th January 2008, 07:30 PM

It's the "liberal" part of liberal arts that he objects to. Neocon arts are more his style.

Tokenconservative

20th January 2008, 08:14 AM

The state ought not teach subjects which are useless.
Philosophy (or history, or anthropology) is useless.
The state ought not teach philosophy.

Contra,

Philosophy isn't useless. A philosophy degree is very useful for preparing one to earn a law degree. If philosophy is useful for this, it may also may be useful for other things. Tokie needs to show us that a B.A. in philosophy is completely useless for everything except getting a degree in law, or going on to some form a higher education.

Of course, Tokie is begging more than one question. One doesn't merely earn a degree in philosophy, one earns a liberal arts degree with a major or concentration in philosophy. Philosophy is but one subject of many that one studies and, generally, a liberal arts degree is about a broad exposure to a number of subjects.

Where did I say "the state ought not..." Can you provide a link--LIIINNNKKKKKKK!!!--?

Yeah...thot not....

Anyway, regardless of how you parse it and play semantic games: "it's not a Philosophy degree!!! It's a Lib Arts degree emphasizing....!!!" Sheesh.

Okay...and therefore what?

It's Sunday. Get your local news paper's want ads (or goto Craigs List or Jobs.com...makes no diff to me) and tell me how many jobs you see advertised asking for someone with a Philosophy degree (or Liberal Arts with a Philosophy Emphasis!!!) or for those with degrees in 14th Century Andoran Tapestry (oh...sorry..Lib Arts with an EMPHASIS is 14th Cen. Andoran Tapestry...sheesh).

No, actually...speaking of logical fallacies, I do not have to show that something is NOT. You have to show that it IS. And sorry, that's regardless of my original assertion. It's not possible for me to list everyone who is NOT looking to hire someone with a Liberal Arts degree, 14th Century Andoran Tapestry emphasis. It IS possible for YOU, to find those want ads looking specifically for people with Liberal Arts, Philosophy Emphaiss degrees.

I'll wait.

By the way...learn what "begging the question" actually means, before just tossing it out there to "sound" smart.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

20th January 2008, 08:16 AM

It's the "liberal" part of liberal arts that he objects to. Neocon arts are more his style.

This is precisely what I was talking about previously.

If I came in here as someone else and posted this exact same assertion, it would not drag my stalkers out of the woodwork to take these kinds of gratuitous, childish (ooops! First warming since I got back!) shots at me.

Does anyone deny this is gratuitous and childish?

Tokie

Stone Island

20th January 2008, 09:59 AM

Where did I say "the state ought not..." Can you provide a link--LIIINNNKKKKKKK!!!--?

Yeah...thot not....

Anyway, regardless of how you parse it and play semantic games: "it's not a Philosophy degree!!! It's a Lib Arts degree emphasizing....!!!" Sheesh.

Okay...and therefore what?

It's Sunday. Get your local news paper's want ads (or goto Craigs List or Jobs.com...makes no diff to me) and tell me how many jobs you see advertised asking for someone with a Philosophy degree (or Liberal Arts with a Philosophy Emphasis!!!) or for those with degrees in 14th Century Andoran Tapestry (oh...sorry..Lib Arts with an EMPHASIS is 14th Cen. Andoran Tapestry...sheesh).

No, actually...speaking of logical fallacies, I do not have to show that something is NOT. You have to show that it IS. And sorry, that's regardless of my original assertion. It's not possible for me to list everyone who is NOT looking to hire someone with a Liberal Arts degree, 14th Century Andoran Tapestry emphasis. It IS possible for YOU, to find those want ads looking specifically for people with Liberal Arts, Philosophy Emphaiss degrees.

I'll wait.

By the way...learn what "begging the question" actually means, before just tossing it out there to "sound" smart.

Tokie

Why don't you restate the argument to your satisfaction, then?

Being a lawyer is a job, is it not?

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

Tokenconservative

20th January 2008, 10:08 AM

Why don't you restate the argument to your satisfaction, then?

Being a lawyer is a job, is it not?

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

The state(s...at their discretion) should cease subsidizing higher education pursuits at the 4-year level that are unlikely to lead directly to employment.

You keep conflating the issue. Can you identify one--just one--person (today) who has ONLY a 4-year Philosophy degree and who is a licensed attrorney anywhere in the US?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

20th January 2008, 10:12 AM

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

Not sure what you mean by "a Liberal Arts degree" Is there such a thing? I don't know, maybe there is. If so, include it. But I was talking about specific degrees w/in the broader scope of the Liberal Arts: History, English (sigh...literature, not the language...God this is tiresome) or any other languge's LITERATURE (sigh), a general "Music" or "Art" degree, Philosphy, any of the "soft" sciences and any hard science in a 4-year degree plan that does not include teacher education.

These are all specialized. You dont get a degree in 14th Century Andoran Tapestries and get the "wide exposure" you are talking about. You'd get a wider exposure to more theory and different ideas in a Business program.

Now, run around shouting about all the people with masters and Ph.Ds in these disciplines who are professors or some such somewhere.

If you don't, I'll really be disappointed.

Tokie

Stone Island

21st January 2008, 09:29 AM

The state(s...at their discretion) should cease subsidizing higher education pursuits at the 4-year level that are unlikely to lead directly to employment.

How directly is directly enough? How should the State determine that it was the degree itself that led directly to employment?

People who major in English don't only take English classes. In fact, there are all sorts of diversification requirements such that a broad education is gained. People, at least in the liberal arts, only begin to really specialize at the graduate level.

As the data presented earlier demonstrated, people who get these kinds of degrees do find work, even if they don't go on to law school or graduate school.

Well, according to wikipedia (We're as Wrong as the Encyclopedia Britannica!), 7 states don't require a law degree to sit for the Bar.

Tokenconservative

21st January 2008, 10:02 AM

How directly is directly enough? How should the State determine that it was the degree itself that led directly to employment?

People who major in English don't only take English classes. In fact, there are all sorts of diversification requirements such that a broad education is gained. People, at least in the liberal arts, only begin to really specialize at the graduate level.

As the data presented earlier demonstrated, people who get these kinds of degrees do find work, even if they don't go on to law school or graduate school.

Well, according to wikipedia (We're as Wrong as the Encyclopedia Britannica!), 7 states don't require a law degree to sit for the Bar.

Sigh...once again, you are being purposely obtuse. I have an English degree. At no time while I was obtaining it did anyone in the program, when I said I was taking English 307, or whatever, require me to explain that this was not an English LANGUAGE course.

Why do you keep doing this?

When I am talking about an ENGLISH degree that's a general heading for English Lit, or even Writing degrees, not for teaching the LANGUAGE.

Once we get you past this purposeful misrepresentation of what I am saying, then, maybe we can move into an actual discussion of what it is I am actually saying.

Serious question: are you doing this because you really don't understand the distinction (maybe you are not an American?) or because of who it is you are addressing?

Tokie

Stone Island

21st January 2008, 10:25 AM

Sigh...once again, you are being purposely obtuse. I have an English degree. At no time while I was obtaining it did anyone in the program, when I said I was taking English 307, or whatever, require me to explain that this was not an English LANGUAGE course.

Why do you keep doing this?

When I am talking about an ENGLISH degree that's a general heading for English Lit, or even Writing degrees, not for teaching the LANGUAGE.

Once we get you past this purposeful misrepresentation of what I am saying, then, maybe we can move into an actual discussion of what it is I am actually saying.

Serious question: are you doing this because you really don't understand the distinction (maybe you are not an American?) or because of who it is you are addressing?

Tokie

No, no, I get it. You took English Literature (or whatever). That doesn't really matter. A liberal arts degree is a basic, broad introduction to the liberal arts. Whatever you concentrated in, like a Philosophy and Political Science double major for me, doesn't take away from the fact that in most colleges and universities there is either a core curriculum or diversification requirements.

Again, you are begging the question: how does one determine whether a degree is useful or not? How does the state determine the directness of the usefulness of a degree? A philosophy is indirectly useful for becoming a highly skilled, highly paid lawyer. A philosophy degree may be directly or indirectly useful for any number of other careers, in so far as there are other careers that require the analytical skills that a highly shilled, highly paid lawyer employs.

I have a buddy who is a highly paid, highly skilled engineer and manager at a well known consulting firm who didn't even finish his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at a small, Midwestern Liberal Arts college. They wanted people with good analytical skills who would be lifetime-learners; they taught all the specifics on the job. Did he know anything about banking when he didn't graduate college? No, but now he manages people who write code for large Banks. All with almost a History B.A. (not even specialized!)

I can't believe, at least in the realm of writing code for banks, that a History degree is any more useful than an English Literature degree.

Stone Island

21st January 2008, 10:27 AM

Tokenconservative

21st January 2008, 11:04 AM

No, no, I get it. You took English Literature (or whatever). That doesn't really matter. A liberal arts degree is a basic, broad introduction to the liberal arts. Whatever you concentrated in, like a Philosophy and Political Science double major for me, doesn't take away from the fact that in most colleges and universities there is either a core curriculum or diversification requirements.

Again, you are begging the question: how does one determine whether a degree is useful or not? How does the state determine the directness of the usefulness of a degree? A philosophy is indirectly useful for becoming a highly skilled, highly paid lawyer. A philosophy degree may be directly or indirectly useful for any number of other careers, in so far as there are other careers that require the analytical skills that a highly shilled, highly paid lawyer employs.

I have a buddy who is a highly paid, highly skilled engineer and manager at a well known consulting firm who didn't even finish his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at a small, Midwestern Liberal Arts college. They wanted people with good analytical skills who would be lifetime-learners; they taught all the specifics on the job. Did he know anything about banking when he didn't graduate college? No, but now he manages people who write code for large Banks. All with almost a History B.A. (not even specialized!)

I can't believe, at least in the realm of writing code for banks, that a History degree is any more useful than an English Literature degree.

No, I am not begging the question, I am simply a bit frustrated with what (in your case appeared to be) a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and misinterpret what I was saying.

Now that we are on the same page, we can move forward and others, such as Volotile can carry the "Tokie don't think teaching languages is a good idear!!!" cant.

First, the double major is telling. A very good idea. Not many my age did that, however. It's become very common in the last, oh...15 years, anyway.

One looks at the job market to determine whether a degree (and here we are talking about a single, 4 -year degree) is useful to that market or not. Given, it's sometimes tough to tell whether a degree WILL be useful in the near future, but in this case, we can be pretty sure that we are not going to go back to 1960s (as an arbitrary "old days" date) in which ANY sheepskin was worth its weight in gold simply by dint of rarity (supply and demand applies to this just as much as it does to widgets).

By the way: just because it is traditional for colleges to "require diversification," that does not necessarily mean that MUST be a good thing. It just means its traditional. I, by the way, agree that a diversification of knowledge is a good thing, as far as it goes. Should it be required of a computer sci. major to know who Monet is, or to have read Miltion...nope. Does them no good at all, and you can bet that computer sci majors in India are not being required to read Omar Khyam....

You keep refering to yourself, but seem to yourself be begging the question via that route. You have TWO degrees, do you not? Poli Sci is not on my list. Many lawyers do Poli Sci, do they not? So someone with a ONLY a Poli Sci degree will probably not be as employable as are you (don't you also have a law degree?), but they will be much more marketable than someone with ONLY a Philosophy degree, though far LESS employable than someone with an engineering, math or hard science degree.

That's just the way it is.

Yes, I know people like the one you note.

How old is he? Was that his first job? I remember having this debate with a newspaper reporter some years ago. She scoffed when I suggested that specialization was the future..told me why, her desk partner had an English degree and look at him, he was a working journalist!

I asked: how long's he been at it (nearly 20 years)...silence on the other end of the phone.

I am talking about TODAY and I am talking about conditions in GENERAL.

Yes, there will always be those who buck the trends...I believe Bill Gates never graduated college (apochraphal? I don't know).

But in GENERAL, my subsidizing a 4-year Philosophy or English (sigh...no, not the LANGUAGE) degree is a waste of money.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

21st January 2008, 11:06 AM

Also, there are (at least) two kinds of law schools. First, bad ones that teach a vocational skill: how to pass the bar. Second, good ones that teach legal theory. After you graduate you have to learn on your own how to pass the bar.

That's a completely subjective view, though.

For some lawyers, it's enough to only pass the bar. Not all lawyers can be Flea Bailey, after all, can they?

Tokie

Stone Island

21st January 2008, 11:18 AM

No, I am not begging the question, I am simply a bit frustrated with what (in your case appeared to be) a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and misinterpret what I was saying.

Now that we are on the same page, we can move forward and others, such as Volotile can carry the "Tokie don't think teaching languages is a good idear!!!" cant.

First, the double major is telling. A very good idea. Not many my age did that, however. It's become very common in the last, oh...15 years, anyway.

One looks at the job market to determine whether a degree (and here we are talking about a single, 4 -year degree) is useful to that market or not. Given, it's sometimes tough to tell whether a degree WILL be useful in the near future, but in this case, we can be pretty sure that we are not going to go back to 1960s (as an arbitrary "old days" date) in which ANY sheepskin was worth its weight in gold simply by dint of rarity (supply and demand applies to this just as much as it does to widgets).

By the way: just because it is traditional for colleges to "require diversification," that does not necessarily mean that MUST be a good thing. It just means its traditional. I, by the way, agree that a diversification of knowledge is a good thing, as far as it goes. Should it be required of a computer sci. major to know who Monet is, or to have read Miltion...nope. Does them no good at all, and you can bet that computer sci majors in India are not being required to read Omar Khyam....

You keep refering to yourself, but seem to yourself be begging the question via that route. You have TWO degrees, do you not? Poli Sci is not on my list. Many lawyers do Poli Sci, do they not? So someone with a ONLY a Poli Sci degree will probably not be as employable as are you (don't you also have a law degree?), but they will be much more marketable than someone with ONLY a Philosophy degree, though far LESS employable than someone with an engineering, math or hard science degree.

That's just the way it is.

Yes, I know people like the one you note.

How old is he? Was that his first job? I remember having this debate with a newspaper reporter some years ago. She scoffed when I suggested that specialization was the future..told me why, her desk partner had an English degree and look at him, he was a working journalist!

I asked: how long's he been at it (nearly 20 years)...silence on the other end of the phone.

I am talking about TODAY and I am talking about conditions in GENERAL.

Yes, there will always be those who buck the trends...I believe Bill Gates never graduated college (apochraphal? I don't know).

But in GENERAL, my subsidizing a 4-year Philosophy or English (sigh...no, not the LANGUAGE) degree is a waste of money.

Tokie

My friend who didn't finish his B.A. in History got his job in consulting straight out of college in 1997.

I don't have a law degree.

Political science, especially at the B.A. level, is very, very rarely anything that resembles "science."

You're begging the question (again): are you sure that Monet is not useful to a computer science major? How so? Isn't being a well-rounded human being better than the alternative?

Also, specialization is a double-edged sword; markets move and change. I want employees who can move and change, who aren't caught when their specialization is no longer relevant. We aren't working in factories, we're dealing with a dynamic, information rich environment. Philosophy as a course of study, for example, or the liberal arts generally, develop analytical skills necessary for making sense of a world that won't remain static long enough for you to earn your retirement and put paid to your specialized, vocational education.

Ought the government to be subsidizing any degree, no matter how allegedly useful?

In general, being a well-rounded human being is better than the alternative. In general, one should be a life-time learner as opposed to highly skilled in some static, specialized discipline (how many times should the average worker today expect to change his job/career?). In general, consumers make better choices about alternatives and their pay-offs than government agencies.

Stone Island

21st January 2008, 11:20 AM

That's a completely subjective view, though.

Subjective? Or just a fact in the world that is in disagreement with your premise and thus necessitates dismissal? They're not one and the same, you know.

You know those lawyers who just want to pass the bar? They're called hacks and their life-time expected earning suffers for it (another verifiable fact).

Tokenconservative

29th January 2008, 06:10 AM

My friend who didn't finish his B.A. in History got his job in consulting straight out of college in 1997.

I don't have a law degree.

Political science, especially at the B.A. level, is very, very rarely anything that resembles "science."

You're begging the question (again): are you sure that Monet is not useful to a computer science major? How so? Isn't being a well-rounded human being better than the alternative?

Also, specialization is a double-edged sword; markets move and change. I want employees who can move and change, who aren't caught when their specialization is no longer relevant. We aren't working in factories, we're dealing with a dynamic, information rich environment. Philosophy as a course of study, for example, or the liberal arts generally, develop analytical skills necessary for making sense of a world that won't remain static long enough for you to earn your retirement and put paid to your specialized, vocational education.

Ought the government to be subsidizing any degree, no matter how allegedly useful?

In general, being a well-rounded human being is better than the alternative. In general, one should be a life-time learner as opposed to highly skilled in some static, specialized discipline (how many times should the average worker today expect to change his job/career?). In general, consumers make better choices about alternatives and their pay-offs than government agencies.

I'm not begging the queston (tossing these terms around is fun, but you need to know what they mean, too). You are, in fact begging the question.

I did not say that in every case, anyone with one of these degrees will this, that or the other thing I said (sigh)...in GENERAL, this is the case.

I am not a scientist, engineer, etc...I don't even play one on TV, but even I know that we cannot rely upon anecdotal and individual experiences to set policy.

Is that harsh? Yes, I suppose. There're no doubt many brilliant young people who want to study the humanities and who have friends or family eager to give them a 6-figure job whether they graduate or not, and even a few who will get an Art or History, or Philosophy degree who will snag some nice position, maybe because some boss decides he needs someone like that on staff.

Hell, it happened to me once upon a time...guy really needed a sales rate with computer background, hired me instead because he like my record, and had no problem with my lib. arts degree. The business folded 8 months later...possibly because he hired ME instead of someone more technologically-centered.

So yeah, lots of "my friends" have managed to get fine jobs despite the handicap of a lib arts/humanities degree. But again, I challenge you to pick up the want ads and find just ONE ad (outside education...sigh...) where the employer is specifically seeking someone with one of those degrees.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

29th January 2008, 06:13 AM

Subjective? Or just a fact in the world that is in disagreement with your premise and thus necessitates dismissal? They're not one and the same, you know.

You know those lawyers who just want to pass the bar? They're called hacks and their life-time expected earning suffers for it (another verifiable fact).

No, actually, your other posts indicate a very subjective perspective on your part. You keep telling me about individuals and I keep telling you to look at the market.

Tokie

Oroborus

29th January 2008, 06:34 AM

In the intrests of being concise here's what I think about all this. Nothing ever learned is wasted unless you fail to make a use for it.

Stone Island

29th January 2008, 09:38 AM

No, actually, your other posts indicate a very subjective perspective on your part. You keep telling me about individuals and I keep telling you to look at the market.

Tokie

You're hilarious. I gave you Census data and you said, "Yeah, but..."

Then I gave you an anecdote and you said, "Yeah, but..."

No, really. That's too funny. I can admit when I've been trolled. Good job, you had me really going.

For a moment, I thought you were serious. Gosh, how wrong was I? Ha, ha! Keep up the trolling, you're obviously very good at it!

Stone Island

29th January 2008, 09:46 AM

From, Salary Survey Report for All People in All Surveys: (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_People_in_All_Surveys/Salary/by_Degree)http://www.payscale.com/chart/16/Median-Salary-by-DegreeMajor-Subject---All-People-in-All-Surveys-United-States_USD_20080123111139.jpg

Tokenconservative

29th January 2008, 11:40 AM

In the intrests of being concise here's what I think about all this. Nothing ever learned is wasted unless you fail to make a use for it.

Indeed.

Can you tell me where I might look for a bunch of want ads looking for folks with degrees in modern art...or Philosophy? Or English?

History?

Feminist or Ethnic studies?

I'll wait.

While you are finding those, think about this: for a time in the 90s, Ethnic Studies depts in US colleges were teaching "Afro-centric studies." Can you tell me where an "Afro-centrist" Anthropologist might get a job?

Today?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

29th January 2008, 12:04 PM

You're hilarious. I gave you Census data and you said, "Yeah, but..."

Then I gave you an anecdote and you said, "Yeah, but..."

No, really. That's too funny. I can admit when I've been trolled. Good job, you had me really going.

For a moment, I thought you were serious. Gosh, how wrong was I? Ha, ha! Keep up the trolling, you're obviously very good at it!

Let's try this again...the data you provided, in the one case bolster MY assertion, not yours...while (if I do not misremember) the census data indicate that while any college degree is better than none, they also show that more specialized, techincal, scientific, business, engineering etc. degrees earn you more money.

The anecdote is just that. Interesting, and telling to be sure, but simple common sense should tell you that your friend's situation is not the norm.

The data table you then provide following this post seems to say nothing about non-tech/sci/business/engineering degrees, and to indicate that the more specialized your degree the more you earn.

Tell me where I am misreading this data?

Tokie

Stone Island

29th January 2008, 12:20 PM

Let's try this again...the data you provided, in the one case bolster MY assertion, not yours...while (if I do not misremember) the census data indicate that while any college degree is better than none, they also show that more specialized, techincal, scientific, business, engineering etc. degrees earn you more money.

The anecdote is just that. Interesting, and telling to be sure, but simple common sense should tell you that your friend's situation is not the norm.

The data table you then provide following this post seems to say nothing about non-tech/sci/business/engineering degrees, and to indicate that the more specialized your degree the more you earn.

Tell me where I am misreading this data?

Tokie

Shorter Tokie: "Yeah, but..."

I'm confused: are we talking about getting a job at all or earning more money?

But, anecdotally, since I can't find a want ad specifically asking for a philosophy degree and despite the fact that a Bachelor of Arts degree pays better than a Bachelor of Business Administration degree, you can still make the point that a Bachelor of Arts degree is useless. I suppose it doesn't matter that you already took Masters degrees off the table for consideration, as my point that a Philosophy BA was an excellent way to get a J.D. was difficult for you to explain away.

Listen, you're a troll. There is, as far as I can tell, no evidence that you would accept, even theoretically, should I produce it, that would make you change your position other than a want ad specifically asking for one of your verboten degrees. Why this would matter, or get to the truth of the matter, or count as evidence of anything, I don't know. Census data? Yeah, but.... Anecdotal data? Yeah, but... Payroll data? Yeah, but...

Listen, great troll. No, really. EXCELLENT TROLL, TOKIE! You've made fools of us all for taking the time to argue with you. I'm putting you up for troll of the year honors. How do you like that?

volatile

29th January 2008, 12:25 PM

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:l4sZv6vWz-QJ:www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/07/12/57/employment%2520stats%2520undergrad%2520CB.doc+job+ %22philosophy+degree%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

"3. Relevance of Philosophy degree: 88% of respondents said that their Philosophy degree had helped in some way to qualify them for their job."

http://www.philosophy.bham.ac.uk/ugadmissions/careers.shtml

"Some applicants may worry that whilst studying Philosophy may be intellectually satisfying, they will emerge with their heads in the clouds, unfitted for the world of work. While there are few jobs which specifically call for a Philosophy degree, it should be borne in mind that nearly 50% of all vacancies advertised for new and recent graduates do not require you have studied a specific subject, and your choice of occupations, as an Arts graduate, is very wide indeed. Any sort of Arts or Humanities background will be a positive advantage for e.g. journalism and the media, many branches of the civil service, personnel work, publishing, industrial relations, accountancy, local government, many fields of management, computing and information technology, etc. etc. Many employers are primarily interested in a well developed and receptive cast of mind, uncluttered by rigid preconceptions; someone they can 'train up' in their own way. A Philosophy degree is increasingly coming to be recognized as a excellent preparation for this. "

http://faculty.cbu.ca/philosophy/jobs.htm

"a philosophy degree will get you a job – often a very good one. But very, very few jobs depend upon a particular undergraduate degree. People rarely get jobs because of a degree in a specific discipline, whether it is philosophy, political science, english or history. Rather, they get jobs because they are bright, well-educated, articulate and enthusiastic people with good reasoning skills which allow them to identify, analyze, and find solutions to problems. Philosophy offers an exceptional training in this regard because it requires an excellent grasp of logic, an ability to make sense of abstract conceptual problems, and a familiarity with some of the world’s greatest thinkers and ideas. Studies of SAT results consistently show that philosophy students perform better on average on these tests than students of all other disciplines except mathematics."

And as for "Afro-Centric Anthropology", this (http://www.wadsworth.com/anthropology_d/special_features/anthro_jobs.html) is a list of jobs for anthropologists, a large number of which have an international dimension (WHO, Department of State) or require specialities which include particular regional knowledge (archivist, librarian, social work, charities).

Tokenconservative

29th January 2008, 04:32 PM

Shorter Tokie: "Yeah, but..."

I'm confused: are we talking about getting a job at all or earning more money?

But, anecdotally, since I can't find a want ad specifically asking for a philosophy degree and despite the fact that a Bachelor of Arts degree pays better than a Bachelor of Business Administration degree, you can still make the point that a Bachelor of Arts degree is useless. I suppose it doesn't matter that you already took Masters degrees off the table for consideration, as my point that a Philosophy BA was an excellent way to get a J.D. was difficult for you to explain away.

Listen, you're a troll. There is, as far as I can tell, no evidence that you would accept, even theoretically, should I produce it, that would make you change your position other than a want ad specifically asking for one of your verboten degrees. Why this would matter, or get to the truth of the matter, or count as evidence of anything, I don't know. Census data? Yeah, but.... Anecdotal data? Yeah, but... Payroll data? Yeah, but...

Listen, great troll. No, really. EXCELLENT TROLL, TOKIE! You've made fools of us all for taking the time to argue with you. I'm putting you up for troll of the year honors. How do you like that?

You've offered nothing outside a few instructive anecdotes as "evidence" that does much but prove MY point...the chart you supplied doesn't do what you think it does. A BA-Business is a very specific degree. A BA--period, is not. My brother has a BA in math...that's far more marketable, today, than say, a BA in Art History. Is that to say that if you get a BA in Art History and your Auntie is curator of the MOMA you will never be employed? No.

What it IS to say is that today, a BA in most of the liberal arts is NOT marketable. That's not saying that a MA, MS, or Ph.D (or JD) in anything is not. It's saying what it is saying.

The point IS that you can't find such a want ad. And you should really either learn what "begging the question" means, or stop employing it in every post...while howling that that's what I am doing.

Nowhere have I said that a JD (which, if I do not misremember, is a doctoral degree) has no marketable value. But that's just you, begging the question, isn't it?

More, you shouldn't follow a string of other logical fallacies with an ad hom: YOU A TROLL!!!

It's...unseemly and makes you seem, again, as if you don't know how to engage in rational discourse.

The evidence you can produce is to direct me to a Jobs.com or Craigslist want ad for a job asking for an Art History major, or Medieval Languedoc Literatur major....should be easy enough since you say there are job aplenty out there, just looking for those with these sorts of degrees.

Tokie

Jeff Corey

29th January 2008, 06:21 PM

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 06:30 AM

Let's talk about "begging the question" (circular argument or petito principali). In this logical fallacy, the conclusion is implied, embedded or included in the premise or premises. Maybe I'm missing this, but where has this arisen in recent posts?

Sure: the poster who is arguing with me here (sorry...I am terrible with SNs and since I've been suspended for shortening or otherwise failing to "properly" cite them, not gonna take any chances) states that since "some guy" he knows and "others" have (also; along with JDs and master's and Ph.Ds) the BAs in Liberal Arts, have "jobs" or are lawyers/judges that this is self-evidentiary proof of his assertion that possession of a BA in Liberal Arts is not worthless. In essence, he is claiming that since A is (undeniably/conclusion) A, then A is proof of A.

Now, begging the question is just ONE of the logical fallacies he's using, to be sure...like...many in here, he tends to employ nearly the entire catalog (nice Wiki'ing, on that, by-the-by!): a phalanx of strawmen (saying that I am claiming ALL BAs..such as my brother's in Math...he's one of the most sought after software developers in his particular field in the Western US, so clearly his BA in MATH has served him well), false analogy (a BA in MATH is not equivalent to a BA in...History in the marketplace), false authority (supplying stats that use the above false analogy), false dilemma (there are BAs in the maths and hard sciences), oversimplification (just because his cousin, whose mother is a curator at MOMA got a job with HIS Art History major....), and of course, the ad hom (you won't accept my data at face value and/or have pointed out its flaws, therefore "yer a troll!!).

Best wishes,
Tokie

volatile

30th January 2008, 06:53 AM

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 07:00 AM

"3. Relevance of Philosophy degree: 88% of respondents said that their Philosophy degree had helped in some way to qualify them for their job."

"Some applicants may worry that whilst studying Philosophy may be intellectually satisfying, they will emerge with their heads in the clouds, unfitted for the world of work. While there are few jobs which specifically call for a Philosophy degree, it should be borne in mind that nearly 50% of all vacancies advertised for new and recent graduates do not require you have studied a specific subject, and your choice of occupations, as an Arts graduate, is very wide indeed. Any sort of Arts or Humanities background will be a positive advantage for e.g. journalism and the media, many branches of the civil service, personnel work, publishing, industrial relations, accountancy, local government, many fields of management, computing and information technology, etc. etc. Many employers are primarily interested in a well developed and receptive cast of mind, uncluttered by rigid preconceptions; someone they can 'train up' in their own way. A Philosophy degree is increasingly coming to be recognized as a excellent preparation for this. "

http://faculty.cbu.ca/philosophy/jobs.htm

"a philosophy degree will get you a job – often a very good one. But very, very few jobs depend upon a particular undergraduate degree. People rarely get jobs because of a degree in a specific discipline, whether it is philosophy, political science, english or history. Rather, they get jobs because they are bright, well-educated, articulate and enthusiastic people with good reasoning skills which allow them to identify, analyze, and find solutions to problems. Philosophy offers an exceptional training in this regard because it requires an excellent grasp of logic, an ability to make sense of abstract conceptual problems, and a familiarity with some of the world’s greatest thinkers and ideas. Studies of SAT results consistently show that philosophy students perform better on average on these tests than students of all other disciplines except mathematics."

And as for "Afro-Centric Anthropology", this (http://www.wadsworth.com/anthropology_d/special_features/anthro_jobs.html) is a list of jobs for anthropologists, a large number of which have an international dimension (WHO, Department of State) or require specialities which include particular regional knowledge (archivist, librarian, social work, charities).

LOL!

88%: That's good to know. Nothing like hearing a wholly objective perspective. Did that breakout how many of them have something MORE than a BA Philosophy?

And...more logical fallacies! A veritible forest of them! Can you point out where I said that obtaining, specifically, a degree in philosophy excluded one from gainful employement, throughout time? This is called a fase dilemma for those keeping score at home.

Let's recap my many recaps: a BA (only) in many/most of the LIBERAL ARTS, offered in AMERICAN public colleges are not marketable in TODAY's employment marketplace. Because of this, since many univs/colleges are public, and thereby subsidized by taxpayer funding, unmarketable degrees should fall outside the aegis of such funding; I exclude education-directed BAs in these disiplines.

Now, let's look at some of the things I am NOT arguing, but which others are saying that I am:

1. That no univ/colleges put some otherwise useful BAs (math, some sciences) in the general category (as, mostly, a matter of tradition) of the "Liberal Arts." Some, perhaps most, do,
2. That having a BA in XYZ, excludes EVERYONE holding one from employment for all time, past and present,
3. That having one of these with a masters or Ph.D, or medical degree, or double, triple, etc., major, excludes you from employment for all time, past and present,
4. That anyone holding one of these degrees is a big dumby!

Now, all emotional, subjective screaming aside...can someone please point me to the Jobs.com or Craigslist (or other) or newspaper want ads that (outside education) show ad after ad looking for folks with those (apparently, according to my detractors herein) valuable BAs (only) in Philosphy, Ethnic Studies, Literature (any language), or even soft sciencens such as Psych, Sociology, Anthro, Archeo, etc., etc.? If, as this poster and others is (apparently) claiming, it's the case that the market is just begging for folks with BAs (only) in these liberal arts, such ads should be plentiful.

I will agree that such specialities have some utility to the marketplace. I am sure that if you are one of 3 people in the nation with a BA in Medieval Andoran Tapestries, you will find yourself in demand among collectors, museums, etc. If, howmsoever, you are among 250,000 coming out of college, this year, with such a degree, your value to that market will decline accordingly. The marketplace is not DEMANDING a SUPPLY of people with such knowledge, at this time.

Most of those that public (esp.) colleges and univs. churn out every year with BAs of these sorts, will no doubt find employment as receptionists, assistant store managers, sales "associates" and of course in food service. However, it will not be their SPECIFIC degree that lands them these valuable positions.

That being the case, I'm not sure I, as a taxpayer, should be subsidizing such educations when in all liklihood, such employees need, at most, a high school or perhaps associates (2-year) degree in something like marketing, food service, management, etc.

Best wishes,
Tokie

mrund

30th January 2008, 07:02 AM

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 07:05 AM

Tokie... I teach BA Art History. Pretty much all my students graduate and get jobs. Do all of them have relatives at MoMA?

I posted statistics and employment opportunities for Philosophy and Anthropology, too. Are you done with talking nonsense yet?

Ah.

And jobs in...um, what? Where I live, there are a million resorts...their concierge and front desks, their restaurants and shops are filled to overflowing with folks degreed (and often not just with BAs) in Art History, Philosophy, Lit, etc.

I'm not sure MOST of them had this in mind when they pursued that valuable degree...what do YOU think?

How do you KNOW "pretty much all of them" get jobs in which their training as art historians (you are talking about graduating with an actual degree in Art History, right?) is the thing that cinched it? And are these jobs as "decorators" for furniture stores. Don't get me wrong...you can make a lot of money as an entrepreneurial decorator, and have to start somewhere...but the marketplace demands very, very few of these people--which is my point, or do "most" of them (how many, exactly?) get jobs with MOMA?

Best wishes,
Tokie

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 07:08 AM

I'm a humanities PhD (archaeology isn't organised under social sciences in Europe), and believe me kids, it's *********** useless. But fun! If you can somehow support your humanities habit without resorting to prostitution or 10-hour days of menial labour.

Though politically a liberal, I am of the opinion that liberal education is a sham. Study weird subjects and become an over-educated bus driver, it's as simple as that. Unfortunately, this is not something that deters 19-year-olds when they choose their specialism. In fact, many are never even told the truth at the time.

I often encounter the argument that the specifics of e.g. an archaeology degree may be useless, but that the general skills one acquires through it are marketable. I always give the same reply: you're not competing with other archaeologists for jobs outside archaeology. You're competing with people who have all your useful general skills and a set of relevant specific skills.

Absolutely! If I could go back to college for fun, I'd do Palenontogy and rent my tired old body out, for nothing, to any of the fine Paleo schools in this part of the world, digging up dino (actually, I like mega fauna) bones all over our wonderful deserts.

Unfortunately, I have bills to pay. And I'd have to get at LEAST a masters in that to actually seek EMPLOYMENT in any of those schools, and frankly...they really don't take anyone (permanent, contract) without a Ph.D.

Best wishes,
Tokie

mrund

30th January 2008, 07:14 AM

I think you're understating the case. Paleontology departments don't take anyone permanent, contract with a Ph.D. either.

volatile

30th January 2008, 07:31 AM

Jobs.com redirects to Monster.co.uk in the UK, so excuse the British focus of this. I know you won't care, I know you won't admit you're wrong and I know you won't change your mind, but here we go anyway. This is a very quick search:

Philosophy, Ethnic Studies: Social Worker (http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/job-J9AZT3XED5H;_ylt=AgOOcsoLcPNWwBhI6PEEpI36Q6IX?sear ch_url=%2Fjob-search-k-%2522ethnic%2520studies%2522) - "Two (2) years of full-time experience as a Social Worker in a public or private agency. and thirty (30) college semester units, including fifteen (15) units in social welfare, social/human services, sociology, or other social or behavioral science behavioral science*.

*Examples of social or behavioral science courses include: anthropology, criminal justice, economics, education, ethnic studies, history, human development, law, nursing, nutrition, philosophy, political science, psychology, public health, religion, social welfare, sociology, welfare, women’s studies. "

Literature (any language): All my searches for "literature" bring up job responsibilities (e.g "proof-reading product literature") rather than qualifications required.

Psych: Educational Psychologist (http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=67855485&JobTitle=Educational+Psychologist&q=psychology&cy=UK&vw=d&AVSDM=2008-01-28+06%3a04%3a00&pg=1&seq=3). It's not teaching, but maybe it doesn't meet your criteria closely enough? How about Research Psychologist (http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=65228367&JobTitle=Research+Scientist+%2f+Psychologist&q=psychology&cy=UK&vw=d&AVSDM=2008-01-28+00%3a06%3a00&pg=1&seq=5) ("Degree in Psychology Desirable"). Does need a Master's, but that doesn't mean that the Psych degree is useless. After all, one has to do a BA before you can do an MA.

Sociology: Nursing Home Ombudsman (http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/job-JD2HDHW418B;_ylt=AjBTO4asGXansddds4r9qQn6Q6IX?sear ch_url=%2Fjob-search-k-sociology). "A Bachelors Degree in gerontology, sociology, psychology, education, nursing, or other related areas is preferred"

Anthro: Organisational Researcher (http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/JP236/Organisational_Researcher_Consultant/), "The person appointed should have a good degree in one of the social sciences, an eclectic approach, and some working experience outside the academic world. Any of the following would also be relevant: knowledge of organisation theory; knowledge and/or experience of action research; experience of sociotechnical analysis and design; understanding of system psychodynamics and group functioning;" (Advertised on Jobs.ac.uk but is not a job in education)

Archeo: Environmental Manager (Construction) (http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=66520354&JobTitle=Environmental+Manager+%28Construction%29&q=archaeology&cy=UK&vw=d&AVSDM=2007-12-18+18%3a00%3a00&pg=1&seq=3). Not a graduate job, granted, but does specify expertise in archaeology as a pre-requisite. "Key activities will include ensuring quality and timeliness of a range of environmental activities including: ecological and archaeological works, construction water managment, etc."

Now, for none of these jobs is a simple humanities degree sufficient in and of itself. I'd hazard to guess that there are also very few jobs for which a simple undergrad science degree suffices. Nevertheless, all of these are explicitly asking for academic qualifications in the very fields you deride.

Care to concede?

volatile

30th January 2008, 07:42 AM

Ah.

And jobs in...um, what? Where I live, there are a million resorts...their concierge and front desks, their restaurants and shops are filled to overflowing with folks degreed (and often not just with BAs) in Art History, Philosophy, Lit, etc.

I'm not sure MOST of them had this in mind when they pursued that valuable degree...what do YOU think?

How do you KNOW "pretty much all of them" get jobs in which their training as art historians (you are talking about graduating with an actual degree in Art History, right?) is the thing that cinched it? And are these jobs as "decorators" for furniture stores. Don't get me wrong...you can make a lot of money as an entrepreneurial decorator, and have to start somewhere...but the marketplace demands very, very few of these people--which is my point, or do "most" of them (how many, exactly?) get jobs with MOMA?

Best wishes,
Tokie

Some of them get jobs in galleries, auction houses, museums and libraries. Some of them become lawyers, civil servants. And yes, some of them become receptionists, housewives and drug dealers. But that's true of physics, engineering and computer science graduates too; it's certainly not unique to BAs.

There's a weird presumption to your train of thought that a degree is useless unless it leads directly to a job in the same exact field, which is clearly absurd. Aside form the fact that education is sufficient as an end in itself (a different argument for another day), there are far more types of job than there are types of degree. It would simply not be practical or sensible to run degree courses in every conceivable possible job; rather, an undergraduate education, in any field, arts or science, should aim to produce well-rounded, articulate, well-read human beings who are adaptable, capable and innovative; skills which are of use in a wide range of skills.

You were an English teacher, right? Surely you must understand the value in having a culturally-literate society? Surely you understand how an awareness of literature and its history is inordinately beneficial to both individuals and societies?

Is the only purpose of education to produce employees?

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 08:19 AM

volatile

30th January 2008, 08:31 AM

Oh, and now shriek at me "you asked for the ads!!! Here they are!!!"

Well, you did ask for the ads. "Show me the ads on Jobs.com", you said. So I did.

Don't put your back out moving those goalposts, will you now?

LOL. I love this...some Art Hist. prof. who has not been in the real world in...well, probably forever, telling me that there are plenty of jobs out there for folks with these degrees...ever applied for one, V? You'll note at the top of this very page I pointed out that I worked in the industry as a translator, interpreter and purchasing agent. That was 2002-2006. I also worked in Europe doing similar jobs between 1999-2000, as a sandwich year from my degree.

My undergrad job was in French and German, so I haven't applied for any jobs that required a sociology undergrad, no. I do, as I said, now teach undergrad and Master's art history, and my students do apply for, and do get, jobs (including ones similar to those I posted ads for). I don't know what more I can tell you.

And let me see if I understand you: someone with a 4-yr degree in Psych or Art History, in the US, will get a job in GB doing this...okay.Errrm. Well, some of those links were to US jobs. And yes, they specifically asked for Psych. None of them were for art history, because that wasn't on your list. Nevertheless, a 2-second search on Jobs.com turned up Senior Buyer (http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=67780419&JobTitle=Senior+Buyer%2f+Buyer&q=%22history+of+art%22&cy=UK&vw=d&AVSDM=2008-01-25+06%3a44%3a00&pg=1&seq=1), "A love of history, or history of art, is an advantage".

Also, even if we presume you're correct is assuming that those jobs do go to Masters or (more unlikely) doctoral candidates, all of those people will still have done these supposedly irrelevant undergrad degrees. You can't get a Psychology MA without a BA! If, as these ads show, there is an market need for liberal arts graduates, then liberal arts degrees are useful.

As usual, TC, evidence trumps opinion. You said "No-one wants liberal arts grads". They do. Demonstrably.

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 08:36 AM

Some of them get jobs in galleries, auction houses, museums and libraries. Some of them become lawyers, civil servants. And yes, some of them become receptionists, housewives and drug dealers. But that's true of physics, engineering and computer science graduates too; it's certainly not unique to BAs.

There's a weird presumption to your train of thought that a degree is useless unless it leads directly to a job in the same exact field, which is clearly absurd. Aside form the fact that education is sufficient as an end in itself (a different argument for another day), there are far more types of job than there are types of degree. It would simply not be practical or sensible to run degree courses in every conceivable possible job; rather, an undergraduate education, in any field, arts or science, should aim to produce well-rounded, articulate, well-read human beings who are adaptable, capable and innovative; skills which are of use in a wide range of skills.

You were an English teacher, right? Surely you must understand the value in having a culturally-literate society? Surely you understand how an awareness of literature and its history is inordinately beneficial to both individuals and societies?

Is the only purpose of education to produce employees?

Ah...an intelligent argument...

First, are you a Brit, Vol? Teaching in a Brit college? Wonderful if so, sort of like most folks idea of a dream come true...but if so, you have no idea in hell what you are talking about on THIS side of the pond (just as I don't on YOUR side).

It's not an issue of what is possible (what jobs these folks will get) it's an issue of what's likely. Again, you need to stop throwing "lawyer" into this, too. That's begging the question...not sure how it works there, but in the US, a legal degree (essentially a masters) is required (sigh....generally) to become a lawyer.

I make no such presumption...that's your non sequitur...has nothing to do with me. I covered waht I "presume": that today's marketplace is looking for more and more specialization, not less and less. Are there some few career areas where this is not true...I suppose. But in the US economy, today, specialization is the rule, not the exception.

Your non sequtur extends to a false dilemma. I am not stating that it is an either/or situtation in ALL cases, nor am I saying that every career has a specific degree attached to it. You don't go to a business school and get a MBA in Hedge Fund Management, of course. Wild, illogical claims of what I am saying, notwithstanding.

But your chances of entering the hedge fund management industry with a BA in Art History, while not entirely impossible, is highly unlikely simply because of the numbers of better(likely-qualified entry-level candidates coming out of MBA programs competing with that BA in Art History.

I was a 5th grade teacher; I sub teach when I have time, at all levels and do indeed understand the importance of a culturally literate (to a degree) population...I see the lack of that ever time I teach high school literature--in the teachers (most of them) who I am filling in for who lack any deep understanding of their subject.

Once again: I excluded those heading for teaching from this, not that I think that would improve their skills in that regard.

It is important for students to be exposed to a wide range of things, including what most of us thing of as the "liberal arts." This is why in the US, college students must take "elective" courses outside their major/minor areas of study, regardless of what those areas are.

Does this mean a software engineer needs to be able to quote Milton, spot a Monet from across the room, identify Mahler from 3 bars, or expound on Jungian vs. Freudian theory?

Good idea to know a bit about all sorts of things, but you still are not going to go into Chase Manhattan with your BA in Art History and get a job running their acquisitions dept.

Tokie

Tokie

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 08:43 AM

Well, you did ask for the ads. "Show me the ads on Jobs.com", you said. So I did.

Don't put your back out moving those goalposts, will you now?

You'll note at the top of this very page I pointed out that I worked in the industry as a translator, interpreter and purchasing agent. That was 2002-2006. I also worked in Europe doing similar jobs between 1999-2000, as a sandwich year from my degree.

My undergrad job was in French and German, so I haven't applied for any jobs that required a sociology undergrad, no. I do, as I said, now teach undergrad and Master's art history, and my students do apply for, and do get, jobs (including ones similar to those I posted ads for). I don't know what more I can tell you.

Errrm. Well, some of those links were to US jobs. And yes, they specifically asked for Psych. None of them were for art history, because that wasn't on your list. Nevertheless, a 2-second search on Jobs.com turned up Senior Buyer (http://jobview.monster.co.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=67780419&JobTitle=Senior+Buyer%2f+Buyer&q=%22history+of+art%22&cy=UK&vw=d&AVSDM=2008-01-25+06%3a44%3a00&pg=1&seq=1), "A love of history, or history of art, is an advantage".

Also, even if we presume you're correct is assuming that those jobs do go to Masters or (more unlikely) doctoral candidates, all of those people will still have done these supposedly irrelevant undergrad degrees. You can't get a Psychology MA without a BA! If, as these ads show, there is an market need for liberal arts graduates, then liberal arts degrees are useful.

As usual, TC, evidence trumps opinion. You said "No-one wants liberal arts grads". They do. Demonstrably.

I fail in these debates in this regard: I always assume I am talking to reasonably rational adults. Teenagers believe things are black and white...and college profs.

Don't put your back out moving my goalposts....

Once again: why would an employer (and I happen to be one in the private sector) employ someone at the same wage who holds only a BA when there are plenty of people with MAs also applying for the job? Now, is that to say that an particular employer won't? No. But I am not talking about a particular employer...we can't do that in a real discussion about this sort of thing. I am talking again, sigh, in general.

Do you even know what a "senior buyer" is, by the way?

Tokie

volatile

30th January 2008, 03:02 PM

Once again: why would an employer (and I happen to be one in the private sector) employ someone at the same wage who holds only a BA when there are plenty of people with MAs also applying for the job? Now, is that to say that an particular employer won't? No. But I am not talking about a particular employer...we can't do that in a real discussion about this sort of thing. I am talking again, sigh, in general.

To get an MA, you need a BA. Note also that most of those ads I linked did not specify qualifications beyond Batchelors.

Do you even know what a "senior buyer" is, by the way?

Yes. Do you?

Tokenconservative

30th January 2008, 03:38 PM

To get an MA, you need a BA. Note also that most of those ads I linked did not specify qualifications beyond Batchelors.

Yes. Do you?

That's one of the (many) benefits of working withing the cloistered Ivy Halls, you really don't have to pay much attention to the real world.

Also, I believe you are in GB?

Things may be different here. Whereas 40 years ago a BA (in anything) was a relative rarity and such ads would've read "high school graduate required," today they require a BA. The problem is that BAs are rare as water molecules. Even MA/MS and MBAs are not so rare any longer. I think most of the people I know who have college educations have masters degrees.

Indeed, some of the profs I learned from in college were older hires (nearing retirement) and several of them had only MA/MS degrees...one, who retired while I was there (early 90s) and had been there since the place opened in the early 70s had only a BA in History.

You can't get a job at a rural junior college today, in America, without a minimum MA/MS.

Things change. Apparently. Maybe I'm mistaken. Back in the day, when I was growing up, we were told get ANY sheepskin and you write your own ticket. And then, it was probably true (60s and 70s when, again, even a BA/BS was a rarity). Today...your ads for what are virtually minimum wage jobs notwithstanding, things seem to be different.

I believe I know what a senior buyer is, but since you are claiming this is some sort of dream job that anyone with an Art History major has set his or her sights on since childhood, and since you say that you know what it is, why don't you just tell us instead of playing this childish game?

Tokie

technoextreme

7th February 2008, 06:11 AM

Does this mean a software engineer needs to be able to quote Milton, spot a Monet from across the room, identify Mahler from 3 bars, or expound on Jungian vs. Freudian theory?
I love it when you hurt your argument unknowingly. The answer is yes an engineer should know some psychology. I would also throw some theater into that too. I would also say music is a good idea. It all depends on what you want to do. Psychology and theater are utilized in robotics. When I first started college music classes were recommended if I wanted to go work at a company like Bose.
It's not an issue of what is possible (what jobs these folks will get) it's an issue of what's likely. Again, you need to stop throwing "lawyer" into this, too. That's begging the question...not sure how it works there, but in the US, a legal degree (essentially a masters) is required (sigh....generally) to become a lawyer.
Nope. That isn't even correct. If you want to become a patent attorney you do not get your law degree first.

Zenskeptical

9th February 2008, 12:49 AM

mrund

10th February 2008, 04:11 AM

Sociology includes the sociology of science, that is, the study of how science is organised and performed from a social point of view. Out of this field grew the "strong program", or post-modernist hyper-relativism.

The sociologists of the strong program, which is luckily on its way to extinction, argued that scientific research and results are not just influenced by the social context in which they are produced. The strong program held that scientific knowledge is entirely reducible to such social factors, that is, that it has nothing to do with any objective reality. Simply put, it only rains outside if most of us agree to believe that it rains.

Mobyseven

10th February 2008, 05:18 AM

It wouldn't surprise me to learn in our technological age that a lawyer with a science sheepskin would be in demand. Philosophy? Beats me.

Beats me too. I have no idea how studying logic, ethics, or political philosophy could possibly be useful in a law degree.

Mobyseven

10th February 2008, 05:30 AM

Indeed.

Can you tell me where I might look for a bunch of want ads looking for folks with degrees in modern art

Museum curator.

...or Philosophy?

Ethics committee member. Lawyer.

Or English?

Journalist. Novelist. Teacher.

Feminist or Ethnic studies?

Macdonalds crew member.

Mobyseven

10th February 2008, 05:42 AM

volatile

10th February 2008, 05:59 AM

Mobyseven

10th February 2008, 06:07 AM

I do believe I already asked him that... :)

Well, yeah, but you had so many words in your post. He might've missed it or glazed over (mmm...donuts) or sumfing. :p

Mobyseven: Giving the benefit of the doubt since about 11.45 Australian Eastern Standard Time (Daylight Savings applies).

Stone Island

11th February 2008, 10:50 AM

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.

technoextreme

11th February 2008, 08:23 PM

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.
A troll by definition is a person who does stuff to annoy people. I don't think Token is a troll.

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 09:42 AM

I love it when you hurt your argument unknowingly. The answer is yes an engineer should know some psychology. I would also throw some theater into that too. I would also say music is a good idea. It all depends on what you want to do. Psychology and theater are utilized in robotics. When I first started college music classes were recommended if I wanted to go work at a company like Bose.

Nope. That isn't even correct. If you want to become a patent attorney you do not get your law degree first.

Um...okay...

It would be NICE if an engineer knows Monet from Gauguin, sure...is it necessary to MOST engineering jobs? Prolly not.

As to the other bit of pedantry...okay, so a patent attorney (very small area of specilization) gets what, first? An English degree? Philosophy?

When you say things like this, do you actually think about them first, or is it that your knee is jerking so violently up into your keyboard that your fingers just dance across the keys mindless of what it is you actually mean to say?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 09:44 AM

Beats me too. I have no idea how studying logic, ethics, or political philosophy could possibly be useful in a law degree.

Why is it that in this conversation, logic utterly escapes those taking the opposite stance?

Let's revisit:
I say: most BS/BAs in the liberal arts are valueless in today's economy.

You say: What about a Law degree!!!????@2111!!!??//?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 09:47 AM

TokenConservative:

If there is a demand for graduates with masters level degrees in the liberal arts, how exactly do you propose we get those graduates unless they have completed a bachelors degree in liberal arts first?

I believe I covered that. I guess you were so busy believing yourself oh, so clever, you missed it.

Anyone taking one of the non-economically viable degrees would have to agree to do so through at least the masters level, or would not be permitted to take out loans or get (non private) grants, etc. to do so.

By the way...I am talking about America, not Australia. Mayhaps in Oz, there are employers stupid enough to hire say, a English major to design hydroelectric dams...we do it...differently here.

Tokie

Stone Island

22nd February 2008, 12:20 PM

I say: most BS/BAs in the liberal arts are valueless in today's economy.

And we present all kinds of evidence (including Census data) that people who get these kinds of degrees happily go on making a living at levels quite a bit above the median for poverty. And you say, "Yeah, but, we're is the ad on Monster?" Begging the question, "Why does an ad on Monster matter when it's clear that people who earn those kinds of degree do in fact earn livings in today's economy?"

You've still never begun to grapple with the question of why is a philosophy degree tied for the number 1 most useful degree for getting a law degree in the United States when, on a knee jerk level, a philosophy degree is as far away from a vocationally useful degree as one could get?

Another question you're begging: what is the connection between particular vocational skills, general or liberal education, and fruitful employment?

Come on Tokie, quit trolling around.

Segnosaur

22nd February 2008, 01:37 PM

And we present all kinds of evidence (including Census data) that people who get these kinds of degrees happily go on making a living at levels quite a bit above the median for poverty. And you say, "Yeah, but, we're is the ad on Monster?" Begging the question, "Why does an ad on Monster matter when it's clear that people who earn those kinds of degree do in fact earn livings in today's economy?"

You know, there are 2 possible factors that could explain people with 'useless' degrees having statistically higher income....

Factor 1:

While most people who get "liberal arts" degrees (example: B.A. in basket weaving), there is still SOME demand for people with those skills. So, if 100 people get a degree in basket weaving, 1 person ends up getting a job where those skills are useful and the remaining 99 get the exact same job they would have had they not had any degree, then yes, the average income will be higher, even if the vast majority of people with the degree are no better off.

I have seen some arguments in this thread about how a degree in philosophy might help someone in a law career. That may be true... but what percentage of philosophy majors actually go on to become successful lawyers? Is it worth us (as a society) to subsidize the 99% of people who get a (relatively) useless degree, in order to help the 1% that actually benefit from the degree?

There were also postings in this thread regarding job ads that included liberal arts education in their qualifications. Those jobs may exist, but are they really significant? Or do such available job openings accept only a tiny fraction of those people with a liberal arts education.

Factor 2:

Ok, getting a degree in English Literature, Poetry or basket weaving may be useless to many people; however, it still requires a certain amount of intelligence and work ethic. People who get 'worthless' degrees, and then go on to be financially successful, may not owe their success to their degree, but to their skills.

Earlier in the thread someone posted a statistic which showed certain philosophy graduates used their education in their general life. Isn't it just as likely that they naturally had the ability to be adaptable, etc. prior to getting their degree, and it is this natural skill that is useful rather than their actual education?

Stone Island

22nd February 2008, 02:11 PM

Factor 2:

Ok, getting a degree in English Literature, Poetry or basket weaving may be useless to many people; however, it still requires a certain amount of intelligence and work ethic. People who get 'worthless' degrees, and then go on to be financially successful, may not owe their success to their degree, but to their skills.

Earlier in the thread someone posted a statistic which showed certain philosophy graduates used their education in their general life. Isn't it just as likely that they naturally had the ability to be adaptable, etc. prior to getting their degree, and it is this natural skill that is useful rather than their actual education?

One of the first things you learn when studying political behavior, for instance, is that the direction of influence (say the relationship between public opinion and the behavior of political actors) is that the arrow in the flow chart often points in several directions, with mediating influences, unintended consequences, and feedback.

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 02:18 PM

And we present all kinds of evidence (including Census data) that people who get these kinds of degrees happily go on making a living at levels quite a bit above the median for poverty. And you say, "Yeah, but, we're is the ad on Monster?" Begging the question, "Why does an ad on Monster matter when it's clear that people who earn those kinds of degree do in fact earn livings in today's economy?"

You've still never begun to grapple with the question of why is a philosophy degree tied for the number 1 most useful degree for getting a law degree in the United States when, on a knee jerk level, a philosophy degree is as far away from a vocationally useful degree as one could get?

Another question you're begging: what is the connection between particular vocational skills, general or liberal education, and fruitful employment?

Come on Tokie, quit trolling around.

That's not begging the question...it might be oversimplification.

To be sure, most people, regardless of what degree they get do eventually find a job. The point is this: is having an English or Psych or Philo degree something that is necessary when asking "do ya want fries wit dat"?

I would submit that it is not. I can find no want ads anywhere saying "We are looking for Eng., Psych, Philo, etc. BAs/BSs..." Granted, some ads demand "a" college degree, not seeming to care which, but if you really believe that an insurance company is going to hire (generally) an Eng major over a Bus. major with otherwise similar qualifications, it only means that you don't know much about business.

Why WOULD I "grapple" with YOUR (actual) begging of the question about a Philo degree being this, that or the other thing related to getting a JD?

I suggest you revist the term "begging the question."

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 02:36 PM

You know, there are 2 possible factors that could explain people with 'useless' degrees having statistically higher income....

Factor 1:

While most people who get "liberal arts" degrees (example: B.A. in basket weaving), there is still SOME demand for people with those skills. So, if 100 people get a degree in basket weaving, 1 person ends up getting a job where those skills are useful and the remaining 99 get the exact same job they would have had they not had any degree, then yes, the average income will be higher, even if the vast majority of people with the degree are no better off.

I have seen some arguments in this thread about how a degree in philosophy might help someone in a law career. That may be true... but what percentage of philosophy majors actually go on to become successful lawyers? Is it worth us (as a society) to subsidize the 99% of people who get a (relatively) useless degree, in order to help the 1% that actually benefit from the degree?

There were also postings in this thread regarding job ads that included liberal arts education in their qualifications. Those jobs may exist, but are they really significant? Or do such available job openings accept only a tiny fraction of those people with a liberal arts education.

Factor 2:

Ok, getting a degree in English Literature, Poetry or basket weaving may be useless to many people; however, it still requires a certain amount of intelligence and work ethic. People who get 'worthless' degrees, and then go on to be financially successful, may not owe their success to their degree, but to their skills.

Earlier in the thread someone posted a statistic which showed certain philosophy graduates used their education in their general life. Isn't it just as likely that they naturally had the ability to be adaptable, etc. prior to getting their degree, and it is this natural skill that is useful rather than their actual education?

These are some good points; hopefully, since they are not being made by the hated Tokie, they will pass through the Gates of Ignorance into the Field of Consciousness.

I won't hold my breath.

It is probably the case indeed that as FEWER people get what are useless degrees today, the very scarcity of those holding those degrees MAY put them into the cat bird's seat in the future.

Or it may not. The point is, having a computer science BS is far more valuable today, in today's workplace than is having an BA in English. In fact, outside of education (and having a teaching cert, essentially a MA) you cannot be employed as anything other than possibly an editor for a book publisher IF you are also related to someone at the publisher with a BA in English, but just about any company doing just about anything will hire someone with a BS in computer science, even if it's not specifically to work with computers.

The others responding in here are obtuesly missing the point: If you go to a private college and get a BA in basket weaving that mommy and daddy pay for entirely out-of-pocket, good for you! If, on the other hand, you go to a state uni, all of which are subsidized, and maybe get subsidized state and federal loans and grants to do so, then it's my bidness, because I pay a LOT of taxes and would prefer that that money not be used to indulge childish whimsy.

And there are very, very few jobs posted anywhere that specifically call for such degrees. About the only one you ever see is ads for "designers" who need an Art degree of one sort or another. And again, you hit the nail on the head: why should I subsidize the 99 of 100 art majors for whom the nadir of their career will be moving up to the fryer, so that the one can get a job with Design on a Dime?

Factor 2:
I know dozens and dozens of people who have gotten such degrees (including myself) since 1990. None of them have jobs in which the specific degree was required and most have had to seek other training/education in order to make themselves employable.

Only those who've gone on to get higher degrees (Masters, Ph.D) have found employment in areas in which the degree was a factor...but, and here is the begging of the question others in here MUST rely upon, they would not have gotten the jobs they now hold with ONLY that BA/BS.

Which seems to be something my detractors want to avoid addressing while they scream at me to address their begging of the question about lawyers and philo BAs/BS.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 02:47 PM

One of the first things you learn when studying political behavior, for instance, is that the direction of influence (say the relationship between public opinion and the behavior of political actors) is that the arrow in the flow chart often points in several directions, with mediating influences, unintended consequences, and feedback.

Indeed.

This doesn't change the fact that US public colleges and universities churn out x-number of graduates in liberal arts every year who have no prospect of finding gainful employment related to the specific degree they got. They might as well get a more useful and marketable degree, at minimum in Bus.

So, here again is my notion: no one seeking such a degree should be SUBSIDIZED while doing so absent a contract saying they intend on getting at minimum an MA in that discipline (or a teaching cert, or going on to law school, etc.). If they do not then, w/in a proscribed time period (say 3 years) persue that higher degree, then the subsidized portion of their education will be back-charged to them.

Of course, if mommy and daddy are footing the bill for Junior to become a Great Poet or some such, that's nobody's business but theirs. When I'm paying for it, it's my business, and we can hire high school kids to run the fryer at McDonald's we don't need people with BSs in Philosophy to do it.

Tokie

Stone Island

22nd February 2008, 03:13 PM

That's not begging the question...it might be oversimplification.

To be sure, most people, regardless of what degree they get do eventually find a job. The point is this: is having an English or Psych or Philo degree something that is necessary when asking "do ya want fries wit dat"?

I would submit that it is not. I can find no want ads anywhere saying "We are looking for Eng., Psych, Philo, etc. BAs/BSs..." Granted, some ads demand "a" college degree, not seeming to care which, but if you really believe that an insurance company is going to hire (generally) an Eng major over a Bus. major with otherwise similar qualifications, it only means that you don't know much about business.

Why WOULD I "grapple" with YOUR (actual) begging of the question about a Philo degree being this, that or the other thing related to getting a JD?

I suggest you revist the term "begging the question."

Tokie

From a January 31, 1934, letter by Wittgenstein to Piero Sraffa, in the March 2007 issue of Harper’s:
I wish to say one more thing. I think that your fault in a discussion is this: YOU ARE NOT HELPFUL! I am like a man inviting you to tea in my room, but my room is hardly furnished; one has to sit on boxes, and the teacups stand on the floor, and the cups have no handles, etc., etc. I hustle about fetching anything I can think of to make it possible that we should have tea together. You stand there with a sulky face, say that you can’t sit down on a box and can’t hold a cup without a handle, and generally make things difficult. At least that’s how it seems to me.

Jeff Corey

22nd February 2008, 04:48 PM

Only those who've gone on to get higher degrees (Masters, Ph.D) have found employment in areas in which the degree was a factor...but, and here is the begging of the question others in here MUST rely upon, they would not have gotten the jobs they now hold with ONLY that BA/BS.

scream.

Tokie
Bull. Many of my undergraduate psychology students have found jobs where their degree was directly relevant. They have worked as program managers in group homes for the developmentally disabled, gone into Child Protective services, worked for vets training abused animals, developed recycling programs that work.
You have no idea about what relevance of a degree in behavioral psych has, do you?

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 05:04 PM

From a January 31, 1934, letter by Wittgenstein to Piero Sraffa, in the March 2007 issue of Harper’s:
I wish to say one more thing. I think that your fault in a discussion is this: YOU ARE NOT HELPFUL! I am like a man inviting you to tea in my room, but my room is hardly furnished; one has to sit on boxes, and the teacups stand on the floor, and the cups have no handles, etc., etc. I hustle about fetching anything I can think of to make it possible that we should have tea together. You stand there with a sulky face, say that you can’t sit down on a box and can’t hold a cup without a handle, and generally make things difficult. At least that’s how it seems to me.

Point?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 05:05 PM

Bull. Many of my undergraduate psychology students have found jobs where their degree was directly relevant. They have worked as program managers in group homes for the developmentally disabled, gone into Child Protective services, worked for vets training abused animals, developed recycling programs that work.
You have no idea about what relevance of a degree in behavioral psych has, do you?

Apparently not.

And how many of the English or History majors at your college have gone on to rich, fullfilling careers in which their BAs in those areas are directly called for?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

22nd February 2008, 05:07 PM

Bull. Many of my undergraduate psychology students have found jobs where their degree was directly relevant. They have worked as program managers in group homes for the developmentally disabled, gone into Child Protective services, worked for vets training abused animals, developed recycling programs that work.
You have no idea about what relevance of a degree in behavioral psych has, do you?

By the way: my youngest is interested in going into behavioral psych...I've made it very clear to her that if she intends to make a career of any meaning AND financial success out of it, she'll need at minimum a MS and she is planning for a Ph.D or whatever the equivalent is.

My guess is that as a prof. of such...YOU have Ph.D....no?

Tokie

Jeff Corey

22nd February 2008, 05:28 PM

.. I can find no want ads anywhere saying "We are looking for Eng., Psych, Philo, etc. BAs/BSs...
That's what I was responding to.

Jeff Corey

22nd February 2008, 06:55 PM

By the way: my youngest is interested in going into behavioral psych...I've made it very clear to her that if she intends to make a career of any meaning AND financial success out of it, she'll need at minimum a MS and she is planning for a Ph.D or whatever the equivalent is.

My guess is that as a prof. of such...YOU have Ph.D....no?

Tokie

How astute of you to guess. Tell me Sherlock, what gave you the freakin clue?

zeusbheld

23rd February 2008, 03:18 AM

Sorry...I would do this in state colleges: make any non-practical studies non-major studies, unless one is seeking a teaching degree along with it.

So virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language).... Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) .... They have no practical application in our society today.

i suppose the mere fact that some people make their living making movies and paintings is not enough to justify these, or are you saying that state schools "specializing" in art are alright?

also, it's worth noting that an MFA is a terminal degree and therefore a 'teaching' degree. or do you mean teaching grade-schoolers? but you DID already say that your state schools would have these subjects, just not as majors. so um.... in your perfect world, i guess no one can teach film unless they went to a private film school like Columbia or NYU?

Business, technology, hard sciences, math majors are the only degrees with any true career viability in today's world, whether we like it or not.

yet strangely, i know quite a few film school grads making a decent living. even having no idea how much you make, i'd bet i've met a few film school grads who make more money than you do. granted the top 5 film schools are private, but even there many of the students went to public unis as undergrads.

never go to the movies? don't subscribe to cable? ever read the paper? if you do, where do you think that content comes from? someone found it under a rock, perhaps?

right then. the 'entertainment industry' has been made redundant. all you film and TV people, go get real jobs.

zeusbheld

23rd February 2008, 03:25 AM

Really? Well, maybe you are right.

But just to be sure, can you go to Job.com or craigslist jobs and tell me how many want ads you find for people with BAs in Miltonian Studies or Shakespere or Romantic Andoran Writers?

I'd like to know.

Tokie

ever see any jobs on craigs' list for editors, writers, etc? strangely, i have. many go to j-school grads but many go to um... people with BAs in Miltonian Studies or Shakespeare etc.

while no 'art' job checks for credentials... maybe, just maybe a person with a modicum of talent *might* hone their craft at a good school? just a thought. you think maybe, just maybe, the study of Shakespeare *might* be useful to an aspiring writer? probably not, writing for a living just isn't practical.

zeusbheld

23rd February 2008, 03:59 AM

The state(s...at their discretion) should cease subsidizing higher education pursuits at the 4-year level that are unlikely to lead directly to employment.

but what if, like the philosophy degree, it gives you a significantly better chance of getting into a good law school? apparently you're not aware that the study of analytical philosophy is about nothing BUT making logical arguments. seems to me that might be a good preparation for a career in law, do you think?

incidentally, my undergrad degree was a BFA in painting from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and led *directly* to my first job out of collge, painting animation backgrounds.

that said, such degrees aren't about the sheepskin but about honing and refining whatever talent you may have. i realize that you're an ex-english-major bitter from years of rejection, but maybe, just maybe IS possible to get a job based on your abilities rather than your credentials, no?

You keep conflating the issue. Can you identify one--just one--person (today) who has ONLY a 4-year Philosophy degree and who is a licensed attrorney anywhere in the US?*

Tokie

now there's a red herring. can you identify one person with a ONLY a year degree from a US University in ANYTHING who is a licensed attorney in the US? <<and if it is possible to practice law without a law degree (i have no idea i'm not a lawyer), why not yank funding of law schools from the public books? >> (added later)

on the other hand, *if* you wanted to be a lawyer, *might* it not make sense to study that which a) best prepares you, in your judgment and the judgment of the school you apply to and b) increases your odds of getting in?

ps you don't need to sign every post, i'm guessing i'm not the only one who can see your screen name at the left of every post you make.

biostudent

23rd February 2008, 04:32 PM

zeusbheld

24th February 2008, 02:17 AM

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever read. It seems like Tokie's real complaint is the devaluation of arts degrees, yet his solution would lead to the same problem with science degrees.

I think that the devaluation of degrees is a real problem, personally, but I would like to see a different solution: shove more material into high school so that high school diplomas are worth something again. That, and stop telling kids that they must all go to college/university in order to get anywhere in life. You don't need a degree to work in a factory, for instance. (unless you want to be a plant engineer or something like that) (edit... oh I must add, in case someone gets the wrong idea: I'm very much PRO education!!! I do worry about the devaluation problem, though.)

i like your solution better than his. seems to me the reason bachelors' degrees (INCLUDING business and science degrees) are next to useless as a credential has more to do with the fact that back in the day, they were scarce, but now EVERYONE has a degree.

i too would like to see people actually receive an education in high school, i'm not terribly impressed with the curriculum. i definitely agree that you don't need a degree for most jobs. not just factory worker, but programmer, for example. i know many self-taught programmers making a lot of money. i know many with cal tech and standford comp sci degrees. most of them in BOTH categories say that the main purpose of the degree is to convince a manager who hasn't the faintest clue in the world about writing good code to hire you to write code. anecdotal evidence, i know, but why not defund comp sci as well?

hiring based on degree is sorta like hiring graphic designers based on their having passed the typing test (true story, happened to me, fortunately i passed).

the purpose of education should not be to obtain a scrap of paper, but to learn. if you learn how to either a) do stuff or b) think and express yourself, you will get a job. if you can't, maybe you need to move to where the jobs are. (good luck sitting around in Wyoming looking for a job as a movie producer).

i understand the "tokie" plan a little better now that i've caught up on reading this thread---if you study, say, art, then you must sign an agreement to go straightaway into grad school in order to get loans or een be able to major in art, as an undergrad at a state school (like where i studied art, UNC-Chapel Hill). if this is wrong, correct me, but that's my understanding.

had i done so i a) wouldn't have gotten a job in my field right out of school because i'd still have been in school. i wouldn't have been able to work for 15 years in my chosen field(s) before grad school, as i would have had to commit to a state grad school in order to major in art. a state school would have been all i could afford had i gone straight to grad school without that 15 years of work. in real life, thanks to that 15 years of 'real world' experience, i went to grad school at an ivy league school.

anecdotal, sure. doesn't prove anything. basically, if "Tokie" were in charge, i most likely would have found a way to get where i wanted to be, but it would have been more difficult. arguably i might be better off without any degrees and certainly could still be doing the work i want to do. that said, i learned how to paint and how to think about and tell stories at UNC, and found my 'art' degree with a lot of comp lit and short story writing courses quite useful.

and "Tokie"--are school loans really the problem? do elaborate, as government loans are available at private universities also.

volatile

24th February 2008, 06:40 AM

Is your caps lock key broken, Zeus? I sense there's some real substance to your post, but I can barely bring myself to read it.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 04:05 AM

Is your caps lock key broken, Zeus? I sense there's some real substance to your post, but I can barely bring myself to read it.

i think you mean the "shift" key, do you not?

no, it isn't broken, and i intend to keep it that way, through sparing use of capital letters. additionally skipping the capitals boosts my typing speed approximately 10 wpm. lastly, i'm lazy, is that so wrong??

if the absence of the appropriate caps is so daunting that it prevents you from reading 'em, feel free to skip my posts...

volatile

25th February 2008, 04:30 AM

i think you mean the "shift" key, do you not?

no, it isn't broken, and i intend to keep it that way, through sparing use of capital letters. additionally skipping the capitals boosts my typing speed approximately 10 wpm. lastly, i'm lazy, is that so wrong??

if the absence of the appropriate caps is so daunting that it prevents you from reading 'em, feel free to skip my posts...

You'll note that, in general, the level of discourse here is pretty high. Spelling and grammar is much more highly prized than it is at other forums. I'd suggest that your sloppy adherence to the rules of grammar significantly undermines the credibility of your posts and the seriousness with which they will be taken on this forum. You seem like a smart enough guy; it's a pity you don't post like one.

Just a friendly word of advice to a n00b. Ignore it if you fancy, but don't be surprised if I'm not the only one to point it out.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:05 AM

How astute of you to guess. Tell me Sherlock, what gave you the freakin clue?

Well, it explains much of your....brittleness on the subject, but, laughably, proves exactly my point...tell me, how many of your colleagues there have only a BS or BA in Psych?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:15 AM

i suppose the mere fact that some people make their living making movies and paintings is not enough to justify these, or are you saying that state schools "specializing" in art are alright?

also, it's worth noting that an MFA is a terminal degree and therefore a 'teaching' degree. or do you mean teaching grade-schoolers? but you DID already say that your state schools would have these subjects, just not as majors. so um.... in your perfect world, i guess no one can teach film unless they went to a private film school like Columbia or NYU?

yet strangely, i know quite a few film school grads making a decent living. even having no idea how much you make, i'd bet i've met a few film school grads who make more money than you do. granted the top 5 film schools are private, but even there many of the students went to public unis as undergrads.

never go to the movies? don't subscribe to cable? ever read the paper? if you do, where do you think that content comes from? someone found it under a rock, perhaps?

right then. the 'entertainment industry' has been made redundant. all you film and TV people, go get real jobs.

I seem to have gathered a covey of academicians, so I'll have to lower my expected comprehension level to what, 8th grade or so?

It's amazing how obtuse you people can be. There are no state schools here specializing only in art. If there are in your state, then you must live in a very rich or very stupid (maybe both) state.

There are a number of PRIVATE institutions here that specialize in only art. Good for them. I don't subsidize their students....they can teach whatever they want to whomever they wish.

Not sure why you are being this obtuse...maybe you don't understand how it works. Where I live you need, regardless of anything else, an Ed. cert to be certified as a teacher, and yes, I am talking about k-12 teaching, not the kind you and JC seem to assume is the only kind of teaching.

By the way...how many full profs. do you know with ONLY an MA/MS? I realize your inclination here will be to find a few (I used to know several, even one with only a BA/History--all are either dead or long-retired now...), but let's limit them to folks who are teaching in the liberal arts and who have become tenured in the academy in say, the last decade, shall we? Please acquire a current calendar before doing your count.

Your last few paras, at least, tell me where YOUR brittleness arises from.

First of all, yeah...MOST of what I see coming out of the "film" (do you mean movies?) and virtually everything coming from the journalism industry does indeed look as if it might've crawled out from under a rock.

You know that Paris Hilton is a big star, right? Have you ever watched anything on Lifetime or the Sci Fi. Ch?

Right?

Anyway...do you have any idea how many people with "film" degrees are waiting tables--and will be forever--in LA and NY?

Tokie

volatile

25th February 2008, 05:19 AM

Just for info: In the UK, you can teach at Universities without any "teaching" qualification. A PhD is the usual minimum qualification for a Lectureship position. Surprisingly enough, you need a Batchelor's and (usually) Master's to get a PhD.

In the UK, there are a large number of State tertiary education institutions dedicated entirely to art.

Tokie - earlier in the the thread I gave you a long, specific and evidenced list of job adverts seeking humanities graduates. You are demonstrably and laughably wrong.

volatile

25th February 2008, 05:21 AM

Anyway...do you have any idea how many people with "film" degrees are waiting tables--and will be forever--in LA and NY?

I can guarantee you there are plenty of science graduates waiting tables too. This is not a sleight on the value of BScs. In fact, I know a guy with a PhD in soil physics who's currently working in a shoe store for minimum wage. Should we cut all state funding for physics degrees?

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:22 AM

ever see any jobs on craigs' list for editors, writers, etc? strangely, i have. many go to j-school grads but many go to um... people with BAs in Miltonian Studies or Shakespeare etc.

while no 'art' job checks for credentials... maybe, just maybe a person with a modicum of talent *might* hone their craft at a good school? just a thought. you think maybe, just maybe, the study of Shakespeare *might* be useful to an aspiring writer? probably not, writing for a living just isn't practical.

I see a few such jobs, very, very occasionally. Of course, if you know ANYthing about that industry, you know that most of those jobs are posted only because they have to in order to look like they are not doing what that industry does when it comes to such jobs.

If you are the niece (nephews, generally, unless Gay, need not apply) of an ed. already working in the industry, you have a job. Otherwise, look into the exciting opportunities in food service.

What do you mean when you say "writer"? Fiction? Non-fiction?

Fiction: anyone who can write can do this, they don't need a degree in Willie S. to do it.

Non-Fiction: anyone with a degree in Art, writing about say, forensic medicine, has an icicle's chance of succeeding.

All this aside, you essentially prove my point. Sure, there have also been one or two people who never played high school or college football who went to the open try outs for a pro football team and made the cut.

So, we should encourage anyone aspiring to play football at the pro level (about the same chances as becoming a professional novelist, these days) to skip those unnecessary steps?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:23 AM

I can guarantee you there are plenty of science graduates waiting tables too. This is not a sleight on the value of BScs. In fact, I know a guy with a PhD in soil physics who's currently working in a shoe store for minimum wage. Should we cut all state funding for physics degrees?

I know a guy with a English degree who studies water and soil samples for the city...so?

I don't think this can be discussed on an individual level.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:26 AM

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:29 AM

I love it when you hurt your argument unknowingly. The answer is yes an engineer should know some psychology. I would also throw some theater into that too. I would also say music is a good idea. It all depends on what you want to do. Psychology and theater are utilized in robotics. When I first started college music classes were recommended if I wanted to go work at a company like Bose.

Nope. That isn't even correct. If you want to become a patent attorney you do not get your law degree first.

You are quite comical...so every engineer is hired by Bose?

Hmmm....

I know several patent attorneys, all of them have degrees in some sort of engineering...um, of course, you apparently don't understand that you can't (normally, today, in the USA) get a law degree without getting a BA/BS in SOMETHING else, first, but I love your begging of the question here to make that ol' dumby Tokie look even dumber!

Tokie

volatile

25th February 2008, 05:31 AM

I know a guy with a English degree who studies water and soil samples for the city...so?

I don't think this can be discussed on an individual level.

Tokie

Your entire argument - that some people with arts degrees wait tables for a living and thus we should cut funding for arts degrees - relies on an argument about individuals.

Are most arts graduates employed? Do arts graduates earn more than non-graduates? Do arts degrees provide training relevant to a wide variety of fields? Do employers actively seek out arts graduates? The answer to all these questions is, manifestly, yes. It is only to appeal to individual cases that your argument makes any sense, and even then it barely makes any. The broader statistics do not support your case at all.

You want to cut funding for arts degrees because some people with history degrees aren't working as historians. This is silly. There are probably fewer people with degrees in maths working as mathematicians than there are people with history degrees working as historians, but I note you're not calling for all maths funding to be cut, or mocking those with maths degrees.

There are also many, many people with BScs waiting tables too, and many working outside the field of their major. So what? That has no bearing on the validity of their degrees or the amount of funding their subjects should receive. Degrees are not (necessarily) vocational training, and one need not get a job in the exact field you studied for that degree to have been "worthwhile". Your argument is grounded in that flawed premise, and it's absurd.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:35 AM

i like your solution

i understand the "tokie" plan a little better now that i've caught up on reading this thread---if you study, say, art, then you must sign an agreement to go straightaway into grad school in order to get loans or een be able to major in art, as an undergrad at a state school (like where i studied art, UNC-Chapel Hill). if this is wrong, correct me, but that's my understanding.

had i done so i a) wouldn't have gotten a job in my field right out of school because i'd still have been in school. i wouldn't have been able to work for 15 years in my chosen field(s) before grad school, as i would have had to commit to a state grad school in order to major in art. a state school would have been all i could afford had i gone straight to grad school without that 15 years of work. in real life, thanks to that 15 years of 'real world' experience, i went to grad school at an ivy league school.

anecdotal, sure. doesn't prove anything. basically, if "Tokie" were in charge, i most likely would have found a way to get where i wanted to be, but it would have been more difficult. arguably i might be better off without any degrees and certainly could still be doing the work i want to do. that said, i learned how to paint and how to think about and tell stories at UNC, and found my 'art' degree with a lot of comp lit and short story writing courses quite useful.

and "Tokie"--are school loans really the problem? do elaborate, as government loans are available at private universities also.

Just because you follow every example you provide with, "yeah, I know that's anecdotal, but..." does not excuse its anecdotal nature. Apparently you learnt to read and write, but not to think.

But thank you for helping prove my case.

Yes, federally-backed loans, grants and stuff are available for people going to private colleges....who said they weren't?

You really need to learn to read more closely...my issue is with my taxes going to subsidize state colleges and unis where they churn out thousands of these useless BAs and BSs ever year. Why should I be tapped to pay someone to party for 4 or 5 years and then get the exact same job they could've gotten right out of high school, waiting tables or selling cell accessories from a kiosk in the mall?

"Tokie"

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 05:39 AM

Your entire argument - that some people with arts degrees wait tables for a living and thus we should cut funding for arts degrees - relies on an argument about individuals.

Are most arts graduates employed? Do arts graduates earn more than non-graduates? Do arts degrees provide training relevant to a wide variety of fields? Do employers actively seek out arts graduates? The answer to all these questions is, manifestly, yes. It is only to appeal to individual cases that your argument makes any sense, and even then it barely makes any. The broader statistics do not support your case at all.

You want to cut funding for arts degrees because some people with history degrees aren't working as historians. This is silly. There are probably fewer people with degrees in maths working as mathematicians than there are people with history degrees working as historians, but I note you're not calling for all maths funding to be cut, or mocking those with maths degrees.

There are also many, many people with BScs waiting tables too, and many working outside the field of their major. So what? That has no bearing on the validity of their degrees or the amount of funding their subjects should receive. Degrees are not (necessarily) vocational training, and one need not get a job in the exact field you studied for that degree to have been "worthwhile". Your argument is grounded in that flawed premise, and it's absurd.

Those with math degrees are widely employable (and sought after) in many other fields than "mathematician" from banking and bookkeeping to compters and manufacturing. Those with history degrees are sought after only in food service, or as history teachers.

See the difference?

Yes, there are many people with all sorts of degrees doing all sorts of jobs. There are FEWER people with economically viable degrees (to today's marketplace) waiting tables than are there people with "arts" degrees doing so.

Tokie

volatile

25th February 2008, 05:44 AM

Those with math degrees are widely employable (and sought after) in many other fields than "mathematician" from banking and bookkeeping to compters and manufacturing. Those with history degrees are sought after only in food service, or as history teachers.

Demonstrably false. I provided a list of links to jobs at Jobs.com which sought humanities graduates. You can also check the statistics for the average wages and employment rates for such graduates to see how very wrong you are. Are you willfully ignorant? Are you so tied to your weird, dogmatic ideology that even naked facts cannot break the barrier of your obstinate cluelessness? It's almost as if you want to be wrong.

Yes, there are many people with all sorts of degrees doing all sorts of jobs. There are FEWER people with economically viable degrees (to today's marketplace) waiting tables than are there people with "arts" degrees doing so.Prove it.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 06:14 AM

Demonstrably false. I provided a list of links to jobs at Jobs.com which sought humanities graduates. You can also check the statistics for the average wages and employment rates for such graduates to see how very wrong you are. Are you willfully ignorant? Are you so tied to your weird, dogmatic ideology that even naked facts cannot break the barrier of your obstinate cluelessness? It's almost as if you want to be wrong.

Prove it.

Let's see whether I follow you: those with "arts" degrees in today's economy are more employable and at a higher rate of pay than those with business or science or technologcial/engineering degrees.

Ah.

I see.

Tokie

volatile

25th February 2008, 08:06 AM

Let's see whether I follow you: those with "arts" degrees in today's economy are more employable and at a higher rate of pay than those with business or science or technologcial/engineering degrees.

They are not less employable, and do not necessarily earn a lower rate of pay. I believe statistics to back this up have already been provided - if you care not to read them, that's your problem.

In some respects, I'd wager that humanities degrees are becoming more sought after as manufacturing and engineering jobs are off-shored and we, in the UK at least, move towards a knowledge economy. No good having a degree in electrical engineering in Britain if all the electrical engineering jobs are in China.

And in any case, you're still presuming that the only value of a degree is employability. This is very, very simplistic, especially coming from someone who, as an English teacher, should value cultural literacy.

I know you're bitter about the shoddy hand life dealt you (being sacked for being too good must be a hard blow to take, after all), but to extrapolate that to conclude that everyone with a humanities degree is undeserving, wasteful and unemployable is pretty absurd. Maybe you need to look closer to home?

Stone Island

25th February 2008, 09:28 AM

now there's a red herring. can you identify one person with a ONLY a year degree from a US University in ANYTHING who is a licensed attorney in the US? <<and if it is possible to practice law without a law degree (i have no idea i'm not a lawyer), why not yank funding of law schools from the public books? >> (added later)

In a few U.S. states a law degree is not necessary to sit for the bar. So, theoretically at least, there is the logical possibility that there is someone out there with a B.A. in Philosophy who is now a practicing attorney.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 09:31 AM

They are not less employable, and do not necessarily earn a lower rate of pay. I believe statistics to back this up have already been provided - if you care not to read them, that's your problem.

In some respects, I'd wager that humanities degrees are becoming more sought after as manufacturing and engineering jobs are off-shored and we, in the UK at least, move towards a knowledge economy. No good having a degree in electrical engineering in Britain if all the electrical engineering jobs are in China.

And in any case, you're still presuming that the only value of a degree is employability. This is very, very simplistic, especially coming from someone who, as an English teacher, should value cultural literacy.

I know you're bitter about the shoddy hand life dealt you (being sacked for being too good must be a hard blow to take, after all), but to extrapolate that to conclude that everyone with a humanities degree is undeserving, wasteful and unemployable is pretty absurd. Maybe you need to look closer to home?

First of all, this is not GB. I have no idea what your economy might be looking for. I would guess, from what little I know, that your economy is much more....forgiving, as well. Here, we are very specialized. While it's true that SOME who have say, an Art degree will end up running a medical database, the reality is that those few will be very, very few.

Your nearly constant slams, by the way, are a bit childish. What happened is what happened; that it would likely not happen in a school in GB, speaks to your ignorance of how things are run here, not to my being a nutcase. If you don't believe me, move here for a time and take a job as a public school teacher. Until then, I'd suggest shutting your fat, flapping pie hole on that particular subject.

My argument here has nothing to do with my former teaching or my education. It has to do with a rational, practical appreciation for today's employment market.

It is not, today, any longer, simply enough to have a sheepskin--in anything--and you get to write your own ticket. It was when I grew up, to be sure, but a college degree (even a 2-yr one) was a relative rarity in those days and was viewed in a much more...liberal light than today, with the expectations that you bring to this argument, today (suggesting your own advanced age).

Yes, yes...it's all well and good for a college prof to tell me how a good education is its own reward and if you spend $30-$250k (USD) getting one, so what if the only job you ever have is waiting tables (actually, some wait jobs pay very well...I know this. So please don't now turn this around...very, very few people are going to go through the trouble and expense of a college education with their goals set on a waiting job...they may fall into that after school, figure out they can make a good living at it and as an indidental fact have a college degree, but there are no 4-year degrees in Waiting, that I am aware of).

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 09:33 AM

In a few U.S. states a law degree is not necessary to sit for the bar. So, theoretically at least, there is the logical possibility that there is someone out there with a B.A. in Philosophy who is now a practicing attorney.

Yes, theoretically. Try getting a job in a law firm after passing the bar, but not having attended law school.

Good luck!

And yes, there are those who do this, and then make a reasonably good living filling out forms for folks, and that's fine. But most legal careers demand law school.

Tokie

Stone Island

25th February 2008, 09:33 AM

There are a number of PRIVATE institutions here that specialize in only art. Good for them. I don't subsidize their students....they can teach whatever they want to whomever they wish.

Uh, wrong. Their students get subsidized student loans too, you know. Subsidized by whom, you might ask? That's right, the American tax payer. The only school that I know of that doesn't accept government money of one kind or another (and isn't an uncredited diploma mill) is Hillsdale College (http://www.hillsdale.edu/) in Michigan.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 09:41 AM

Uh, wrong. Their students get subsidized student loans too, you know. Subsidized by whom, you might ask? That's right, the American tax payer. The only school that I know of that doesn't accept government money of one kind or another (and isn't an uncredited diploma mill) is Hillsdale College (http://www.hillsdale.edu/) in Michigan.

Why is this so difficult for those with a vested argument to understand: I said nothing about loans (though I think those should have similar restrictions)...the state colleges and universities here are subsidized directly, by taxpayers. In some regards that's good, because it keeps tuition lower than it would otherwise be.

But it's not good if it's paying some idiot to get a useless degree for "the love of learning."

Tokie

Stone Island

25th February 2008, 09:48 AM

Why is this so difficult for those with a vested argument to understand: I said nothing about loans (though I think those should have similar restrictions)...the state colleges and universities here are subsidized directly, by taxpayers. In some regards that's good, because it keeps tuition lower than it would otherwise be.

But it's not good if it's paying some idiot to get a useless degree for "the love of learning."

Tokie

Most colleges and universities in the United States are non-profits. They aren't taxed like other institutions of similar size or asset base. That's another example of subsidization by the state (federal and state level).

If you're going to be consistent, you'll need to go all the way to the bottom, rooting out any entanglement of education and the state.

volatile

25th February 2008, 10:01 AM

It is not, today, any longer, simply enough to have a sheepskin--in anything--and you get to write your own ticket. It was when I grew up, to be sure, but a college degree (even a 2-yr one) was a relative rarity in those days and was viewed in a much more...liberal light than today, with the expectations that you bring to this argument, today (suggesting your own advanced age).

I'm 28 next month, thanks for asking.

In any case, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that a degree, in anything, is a passport to a job. Of course it isn't. But the facts remain that a) graduates of all disciplines are more employable and earn more than non-graduates and that b) that's generally irrelevant, given that the point of a degree is not to get you a job at the end of it. How many chemical engineering graduates do you think end up not working as chemical engineers? How many law graduates end up working in fields other than law? I have a friend with a first in Geology from Cambridge who is working as a medical journalist. Was her degree a waste of time and / or money?

Your whole argument is predicated on two misunderstandings. The first is the obvious one that, as has been shown, there is a demand for humanities graduates in the marketplace, and that companies (in the US and the UK) are actively and explicitly seeking out those with humanities degrees. The second is that (virtually) no-one goes into a history or art degree with the pretense of coming out and walking into a job as a Historian (with a capital H) or Artist (with a capital A) (or even Engineer, Mathematician or Physicist). This does not matter, because the point of a degree is to get a degree, and not to learn a narrow set of vocational skills. In fact, were this the case it would actually be harder for graduates (of any discipline) to find work, because their would be lots of people trained to very high proficiency in a very, very narrow field of knowledge. A degree is not wasted, or pointless, or irrelevant just because someone who has studied it does not get a job in the exact, narrow field that shares its name with the one on their diploma.

How many physics students do you suppose end up as working physicists? Were we to follow the model you propose for humanities in this instance, there would be no state funding for physics.

We cannot, practically or pedagogically, have a specific, vocational degree course for every conceivable career. Thus your argument, such that it is, is absurd from its very outset.

Yes, yes...it's all well and good for a college prof to tell me how a good education is its own reward and if you spend $30-$250k (USD) getting one, so what if the only job you ever have is waiting tables (actually, some wait jobs pay very well...I know this. So please don't now turn this around...very, very few people are going to go through the trouble and expense of a college education with their goals set on a waiting job...they may fall into that after school, figure out they can make a good living at it and as an indidental fact have a college degree, but there are no 4-year degrees in Waiting, that I am aware of).College graduates earn considerably more, on average, than non-graduates. Of course some courses have higher returns (on average) than others, but that's just an obvious truism.

The percentage of graduates, of any stripe, working tables is slim and / or temporary. I know plenty of people who worked in menial jobs or as temps for a year or so after graduating (often, might I add, out of choice rather than need) before landing excellent, high-salaried positions.

Your bald assertions have no basis in reality (as usual).

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 11:35 AM

Most colleges and universities in the United States are non-profits. They aren't taxed like other institutions of similar size or asset base. That's another example of subsidization by the state (federal and state level).

If you're going to be consistent, you'll need to go all the way to the bottom, rooting out any entanglement of education and the state.

I don't know that "most" are non-profit....there are a helluva lot of little trade and tech schools out there.

Most state and large unis CLAIM they are...they of course are not, but whatever.

I really don't care. And I don't care about "going to the bottom." I care about subsidizing "educations" that are valuless in the marketplace.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 11:43 AM

I'm 28 next month, thanks for asking.

In any case, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that a degree, in anything, is a passport to a job. Of course it isn't. But the facts remain that a) graduates of all disciplines are more employable and earn more than non-graduates and that b) that's generally irrelevant, given that the point of a degree is not to get you a job at the end of it. How many chemical engineering graduates do you think end up not working as chemical engineers? How many law graduates end up working in fields other than law? I have a friend with a first in Geology from Cambridge who is working as a medical journalist. Was her degree a waste of time and / or money?

Your whole argument is predicated on two misunderstandings. The first is the obvious one that, as has been shown, there is a demand for humanities graduates in the marketplace, and that companies (in the US and the UK) are actively and explicitly seeking out those with humanities degrees. The second is that (virtually) no-one goes into a history or art degree with the pretense of coming out and walking into a job as a Historian (with a capital H) or Artist (with a capital A) (or even Engineer, Mathematician or Physicist). This does not matter, because the point of a degree is to get a degree, and not to learn a narrow set of vocational skills. In fact, were this the case it would actually be harder for graduates (of any discipline) to find work, because their would be lots of people trained to very high proficiency in a very, very narrow field of knowledge. A degree is not wasted, or pointless, or irrelevant just because someone who has studied it does not get a job in the exact, narrow field that shares its name with the one on their diploma.

How many physics students do you suppose end up as working physicists? Were we to follow the model you propose for humanities in this instance, there would be no state funding for physics.

We cannot, practically or pedagogically, have a specific, vocational degree course for every conceivable career. Thus your argument, such that it is, is absurd from its very outset.

College graduates earn considerably more, on average, than non-graduates. Of course some courses have higher returns (on average) than others, but that's just an obvious truism.

The percentage of graduates, of any stripe, working tables is slim and / or temporary. I know plenty of people who worked in menial jobs or as temps for a year or so after graduating (often, might I add, out of choice rather than need) before landing excellent, high-salaried positions.

Your bald assertions have no basis in reality (as usual).

1. If you are 28, your thinking is calcified somewhere in the 80s, at most.

2. No, that's exactly what you and others ARE "suggesting." In fact, you are making that point as a matter of "fact." And while it WAS true up until even as late as the late 80s that "any" degree was better than none and it got you hired just about anywhere, it's not been the case for some time now (in the US, anyway).

3. It's true that graduates of say, an Art program are more employable than dropouts from that program. Are they more employable than graduates (sigh...same level) computer sci or engineering graduates? How about more employable than people graduating from plumbing, electrical or HVAC trade schools (sigh...yes, all other market considerations being equal)? I have an English degree. My plumber lives in a house worth, oh...maybe 2x what mine is. I know the guy personally and he's not upside down in it or any such...very responsible guy who thinks things through. Actually, he hates the place because the neighbors are prissy asswipes, but his wife, a stay-at-home mome who is homeschooling their kdis, wanted a "new" house...

4. Of course your friend's degree was not a waste of money. If her writing job goes away, there will be dozens of jobs writing for geology companies that will come banging on her door. Do you have any friends who have Art or History degrees who are site managers for oil exploration companies?

5. Once again, you mus--MUST--beg the question in order to arrive at your convoluted and false conclusions about what I am saying and what reality shows us. Of course most physicists don't end up working as such. But they don't end up being waiters, either.

Tokie

volatile

25th February 2008, 12:04 PM

2. No, that's exactly what you and others ARE "suggesting." In fact, you are making that point as a matter of "fact." And while it WAS true up until even as late as the late 80s that "any" degree was better than none and it got you hired just about anywhere, it's not been the case for some time now (in the US, anyway).

It is still the case that people with degrees (in any subject) earn more than those without.

3. It's true that graduates of say, an Art program are more employable than dropouts from that program. Are they more employable than graduates (sigh...same level) computer sci or engineering graduates? How about more employable than people graduating from plumbing, electrical or HVAC trade schools (sigh...yes, all other market considerations being equal)? I have an English degree. My plumber lives in a house worth, oh...maybe 2x what mine is. I know the guy personally and he's not upside down in it or any such...very responsible guy who thinks things through. Actually, he hates the place because the neighbors are prissy asswipes, but his wife, a stay-at-home mome who is homeschooling their kdis, wanted a "new" house...

Jealous, much? Your whole argument seems to stem from the fact that you feel hard done by in life. As I said, maybe you should start looking closer to home rather than blaming "society".

Arts grads do not, on average, earn as much as compsci grads, this much is true. And yes, we need more plumbers. But that is quite a different thing from asserting that all arts grads are wait-staff, or that there are no jobs for arts grads. This is manifestly not the case.

Of course your friend's degree was not a waste of money. If her writing job goes away, there will be dozens of jobs writing for geology companies that will come banging on her door. Do you have any friends who have Art or History degrees who are site managers for oil exploration companies?

Do you think my friend could get a job running an oil company?

Once again, you mus--MUST--beg the question in order to arrive at your convoluted and false conclusions about what I am saying and what reality shows us. Of course most physicists don't end up working as such. But they don't end up being waiters, either.

Some do, some don't. Just like arts grads. And you're still presuming the value of an education is only in its economic return.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 12:14 PM

I seem to have gathered a covey of academicians, so I'll have to lower my expected comprehension level to what, 8th grade or so?

It's amazing how obtuse you people can be. There are no state schools here specializing only in art. If there are in your state, then you must live in a very rich or very stupid (maybe both) state.

to my knowledge, "specialize" doesn't necessarily imply that's all they do. East Carolina University "specializes" in various types of art, but that isn't all they do.

Not sure why you are being this obtuse...maybe you don't understand how it works. Where I live you need, regardless of anything else, an Ed. cert to be certified as a teacher, and yes, I am talking about k-12 teaching, not the kind you and JC seem to assume is the only kind of teaching.

not sure why you are being this obtuse. last i checked, k-12 teaching isn't the only kind of teaching there is, either.

By the way...how many full profs. do you know with ONLY an MA/MS?

anyone teaching art (as in art-making) or film (as in film-making) will have an MFA. there is NO SUCH THING as a Ph.D.FA.

First of all, yeah...MOST of what I see coming out of the "film" (do you mean movies?) and virtually everything coming from the journalism industry does indeed look as if it might've crawled out from under a rock.
whereas *your* prose glitters and dazzles. i'm not at all surprised you couldn't find a job anywhere on Earth with *your* English degree.

You know that Paris Hilton is a big star, right? Have you ever watched anything on Lifetime or the Sci Fi. Ch?

Right?
and?

right then. so it's all terrible. 3:10 to Yuma terrible. The Departed? terrible. Boston Legal?? Terrible. therefore, *everything* that comes out of hollywood, and *everything* on TV is garbage because.. um. Paris Hilton exists. interesting argument.

Anyway...do you have any idea how many people with "film" degrees are waiting tables--and will be forever--in LA and NY?

strangely, none of my classmates are waiting tables. so i guess you'll have to provide me with a number. got one? oh no you don't that's right you don't do LIIIINNNNKs.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 12:21 PM

I can guarantee you there are plenty of science graduates waiting tables too. This is not a sleight on the value of BScs. In fact, I know a guy with a PhD in soil physics who's currently working in a shoe store for minimum wage. Should we cut all state funding for physics degrees?

as long as we're picking nits to maintain the high standard of discourse in this forum;

the word you're looking for is "slight," as in snub or affront.

"sleight" means skill or dexterity, as in "sleight of hand."

or is usage less important than capitalization? maybe so, but usage certainly affects meaning more.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 12:29 PM

I see a few such jobs, very, very occasionally. Of course, if you know ANYthing about that industry, you know that most of those jobs are posted only because they have to in order to look like they are not doing what that industry does when it comes to such jobs.

If you are the niece (nephews, generally, unless Gay, need not apply) of an ed. already working in the industry, you have a job. Otherwise, look into the exciting opportunities in food service.

and this is according to... what? do you work in "that industry"? just asking, because i do.

yet strangely, i work in the film industry, and have written travel articles (journalism 'lite'). even more strangely, my father is a retired executive at a company that manufactures optical cable, and my uncle is a machinist. keep the sweeping generalizations coming.

What do you mean when you say "writer"? Fiction? Non-fiction?

Fiction: anyone who can write can do this, they don't need a degree in Willie S. to do it.

and anyone can run a business, you don't need a degree for that. in fact, only a very small percentage of successful entrepreneurs i've met have business degrees. i guess business should be defunded too.

Non-Fiction: anyone with a degree in Art, writing about say, forensic medicine, has an icicle's chance of succeeding.

i have a degree in art and have gotten work writing about evolution.

All this aside, you essentially prove my point. Sure, there have also been one or two people who never played high school or college football who went to the open try outs for a pro football team and made the cut.

So, we should encourage anyone aspiring to play football at the pro level (about the same chances as becoming a professional novelist, these days) to skip those unnecessary steps?

not sure where you're going with this one. seems to me *your* program is suggesting that the novelist doesn't need any training. seems like *your* analogy proves *my* point. whatever, at best it's a non sequitir in relation to your point.

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 12:38 PM

Just because you follow every example you provide with, "yeah, I know that's anecdotal, but..." does not excuse its anecdotal nature. Apparently you learnt to read and write, but not to think.

you have made claims, failed to support them in any way, equivocate all over the map, and then accuse *me* of not being able to think? seems to me, the fool who knows he is a fool is wiser than.... you.

Yes, federally-backed loans, grants and stuff are available for people going to private colleges....who said they weren't?

You really need to learn to read more closely...my issue is with my taxes going to subsidize state colleges and unis where they churn out thousands of these useless BAs and BSs ever year. Why should I be tapped to pay someone to party for 4 or 5 years and then get the exact same job they could've gotten right out of high school, waiting tables or selling cell accessories from a kiosk in the mall?

you're aware that the interest on some federal loans is SUBSIDIZED by your tax dollars? yet you have no problem with it?

and you reek of hypocrisy, sir: what are your many claims about "waiting tables and selling cell phone accessories" if not anecdotal?

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 12:41 PM

Stone Island

25th February 2008, 01:02 PM

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 01:44 PM

It is still the case that people with degrees (in any subject) earn more than those without.

Jealous, much? Your whole argument seems to stem from the fact that you feel hard done by in life. As I said, maybe you should start looking closer to home rather than blaming "society".

Arts grads do not, on average, earn as much as compsci grads, this much is true. And yes, we need more plumbers. But that is quite a different thing from asserting that all arts grads are wait-staff, or that there are no jobs for arts grads. This is manifestly not the case.

Do you think my friend could get a job running an oil company?

Some do, some don't. Just like arts grads. And you're still presuming the value of an education is only in its economic return.

1. This is still the case of you begging the question--do you know what that means?

2. As the old saying goes, I've been rich and I've been poor and rich is better. You'd probably call me "rich." So "done in?" Not really, but I do wish I'd either had the smarts or had had a bit more direction available to ME when choosing my educational (college) path, to be sure.

3. Beg the question much? Oh..wait, # 1 answers that, huh?

4. Don't know, but I sense a clever trap!

5. You do know that anecdotes care a bit more weight than begging the question, but not much, right?

6. I'm not "presuming," I am applying the only rational metric possible. Again, you can play that old saw, "an education is it's own reward!" all you want, but I still don't want to indulge an Art History major by subsidizing his education when that money should go to subsidize people who want to study things the market is demanding.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 01:51 PM

you have made claims, failed to support them in any way, equivocate all over the map, and then accuse *me* of not being able to think? seems to me, the fool who knows he is a fool is wiser than.... you.

you're aware that the interest on some federal loans is SUBSIDIZED by your tax dollars? yet you have no problem with it?

and you reek of hypocrisy, sir: what are your many claims about "waiting tables and selling cell phone accessories" if not anecdotal?

It's been a long, long time since I recognized how ignorant and foolish I am...I guess you thought you were gonna slam me with that or sumptin...not sure why it is that folks arguing with me always assume I think I am some sort of Einstein or Kant or something.

Quite the opposite, I assure you. Thanks for the compliment, but I assure you as well, I am only slightly educated and not a very good thinker and pretty damned ignorant, too.

I am very aware that interest for some federal loans is subsidized... the clue might be in the phrase "federally subsidized student loans...." And therefore, what?

I am not the one claiming some sort of rational and educational superiority...you are. I am calling things as I sees 'em, that's all. You are the one claiming that a Art History BA is as marketable as a computer science BS.

I may not have any links--LIIIINNKKKKSSSSSS!!!--to offer, but I do offer up common sense. Something you, apparently yourself an academician, sorely (big surprise) lack.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 01:58 PM

Should the U.S. Government only subsidize educational pursuits that are shown to directly relate to certain vocations?

How is the government to decide that a vocation is economically viable? What if they get it wrong, and refuse to subsidize certain fields of study that later prove themselves to be valuable? Shouldn't the government respect the individual decisions of its citizens and allow them to pursue their own ends and interests in a free market of educational opportunity?

First, I didn't say the US government, but that's a thought.

Second...they've gotten it wrong in most of the liberal arts for oh, 10-20 years now...so if they get it wrong some more, not sure what difference it makes.

Yes, they should permit citizens to pursue anything they like that legal. I just shouldn't have to subsidize some nitwit's Art History major.

Tokie

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 02:08 PM

It's been a long, long time since I recognized how ignorant and foolish I am...I guess you thought you were gonna slam me with that or sumptin...not sure why it is that folks arguing with me always assume I think I am some sort of Einstein or Kant or something.

because of your apparent smugness and the certitude with with you claim to have answers, in spite of offering nothing to back it up.

Quite the opposite, I assure you. Thanks for the compliment, but I assure you as well, I am only slightly educated and not a very good thinker and pretty damned ignorant, too.
well then thanks for the moment of refreshing honestly. welcome aboard.

I am very aware that interest for some federal loans is subsidized... the clue might be in the phrase "federally subsidized student loans...." And therefore, what?

therefore *your* tax dollars subsidized *my* film school adventure at a private university.

I am not the one claiming some sort of rational and educational superiority...you are. I am calling things as I sees 'em, that's all. You are the one claiming that a Art History BA is as marketable as a computer science BS.
a) i have limited my claims to art (not art history) and film, as that's what i know.
b) i have never claimed that they are AS marketable, just that they are marketable enough for the holder thereof to find a job in their chosen field. if a college grad can't find a job maybe it has more to do with them than the field? just a thought.

I may not have any links--LIIIINNKKKKSSSSSS!!!--to offer, but I do offer up common sense.
in other words, you excuse yourself from having to back up ANY of your claims or having to be in any way consistent by appeal to "common sense." what your'e really offering up is hypocrisy and BS.

Something you, apparently yourself an academician, sorely (big surprise) lack.

among the many things you lack is reading skills. i don't work in academia, i've already said that.

and if inconsistency, rigidity, and stubborn refusal to back up your claims are what constitute "common sense" i'm proud to be bereft of it thanks.

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 02:23 PM

because of your apparent smugness and the certitude with with you claim to have answers, in spite of offering nothing to back it up.

well then thanks for the moment of refreshing honestly. welcome aboard.

therefore *your* tax dollars subsidized *my* film school adventure at a private university.

a) i have limited my claims to art (not art history) and film, as that's what i know.
b) i have never claimed that they are AS marketable, just that they are marketable enough for the holder thereof to find a job in their chosen field. if a college grad can't find a job maybe it has more to do with them than the field? just a thought.

in other words, you excuse yourself from having to back up ANY of your claims or having to be in any way consistent by appeal to "common sense." what your'e really offering up is hypocrisy and BS.

among the many things you lack is reading skills. i don't work in academia, i've already said that.

and if inconsistency, rigidity, and stubborn refusal to back up your claims are what constitute "common sense" i'm proud to be bereft of it thanks.

Your...interpretation of my words as evidence of my "smugness" is your own.

Refreshing honesty is my middle name.

Well, I doubt MY tax dollars subsidized anything more than your federally subsidized loans...we don't have a film school here as far as I know.

a) I use Art History as an example because it's really one of the least useful sorts of liberal arts degrees one can get. Film studies is right up there, to be sure!
b) I never said that you said that I said that you said.... Indeed, a grad has to offer something more than just being a grad (sometimes--if you'd been here in the mid-90s when computer and 'net companies were offering snotty, zit-faced high school kids with "cool" web sites $75k/year to design for them, you might see it differently...)...which is what I believe I have been saying...like being a graduate of a program that has some use in the marketplace. Like those snotty zit-faced kids had. Not many jobs for Art History majors in those software development companies, I'm afraid (now someone will come in with an anecdote about their "friend" who did just that! Yeah, I have a friend with a Psych BA who runs the computer database for a multinational medical billing company...so?)

I may be offering BS...that remains to be seen, you've certainly not proven it. You'd have to go a bit further defining my "hypocrisy." My guess: you don't know what the word means.

Tokie

zeusbheld

25th February 2008, 02:34 PM

Refreshing honesty is my middle name.

so you accept that what makes your "honesty" refreshing is its scarcity? thanks for clearing that up.

Well, I doubt MY tax dollars subsidized anything more than your federally subsidized loans...we don't have a film school here as far as I know.

nonetheless your tax dollars did subsidize my loans, and the loans of people like me.

I may be offering BS...that remains to be seen, you've certainly not proven it.

difference being, unlike you i neither pretended to prove it nor offered it up as a foregone conclusion.

You'd have to go a bit further defining my "hypocrisy."

My guess: you don't know what the word means.

i'd define your hypocrisy as " "Tokie" professes qualities or virtues he doesn't actually possess. like his alleged common sense. "

you can look it up and see if i know what the word means; i'm too lazy.

SezMe

25th February 2008, 02:39 PM

Psst, Tokie, I'm with you on this one but don't let on. You're right, if we start funding all these edumacasional courses of study, people will learn to think, see the world from different perspectives, will see the nuance instead of black and white, and all such dangerous, non-patriotic things. And we both know where that leads ... they turn into pinko commie liburls and vote - ugh, do I have to say it - Democratic.

You're right. Give the ignorant masses glorified vocational training but no more. The working stiffs can be hoodwinked by our clever propaganda machine and those who rise to the top will stay with us as long as we keep those tax loopholes intact.

So by god hang in there Tokie and keep up the good fight because the future of our country, nay, of the world, depends on it. But keep the agenda a secret, OK?

Tokenconservative

25th February 2008, 03:10 PM

biostudent

25th February 2008, 07:04 PM

For a science student, I presume, you have a remarkably...limited grasp of how assertions of the sort you are making here are to be made...

How would this possibly devalue a science degree?

Where do you get the idea that I am opposed to teaching more to kids in high school? That's a big part of the problem in higher ed. Not that they don't like it, by the way...all those kids coming to them every year, year after year in need of remedial courses in...well, everything, means $$!

Tokie

I think you missed my point. Anyway, whatever.

NobbyNobbs

26th February 2008, 10:23 AM

I know several patent attorneys, all of them have degrees in some sort of engineering...um, of course, you apparently don't understand that you can't (normally, today, in the USA) get a law degree without getting a BA/BS in SOMETHING else, first, but I love your begging of the question here to make that ol' dumby Tokie look even dumber!

Tokie

Interesting....you berate him for not knowing that patent attorneys don't get a law degree first, but earlier in the thread you seemed not to know it yourself:

As to the other bit of pedantry...okay, so a patent attorney (very small area of specilization) gets what, first? An English degree? Philosophy?

When you say things like this, do you actually think about them first, or is it that your knee is jerking so violently up into your keyboard that your fingers just dance across the keys mindless of what it is you actually mean to say?

Tokie

And in any case, you're still presuming that the only value of a degree is employability. This is very, very simplistic, especially coming from someone who, as an English teacher, should value cultural literacy.

Seconded. When I applied for my current job, a technical degree was required, but it was my experience in the humanities that convinced the interviewer that I was worthy of being hired. This is not a guess; this is what he told me himself in the post-interview.

1. If you are 28, your thinking is calcified somewhere in the 80s, at most.

So, when did yours calcify?

Do you have any friends who have Art or History degrees who are site managers for oil exploration companies?

a) I use Art History as an example because it's really one of the least useful sorts of liberal arts degrees one can get. Film studies is right up there, to be sure!

My wife majored in art history. As a direct result, she landed a job as a graphic artist for a major metropolis newspaper. She has also been hired to do consultant work for a major drug company, concerning the layout of their brochures for a new drug, and she has been hired to design company logos and business cards.

Why is the ability to be a site manager for an oil exploration company the pinnacle of success for an art history major?

I may be offering BS

For sure.

ZenFountain

26th February 2008, 11:19 AM

Nope. That isn't even correct. If you want to become a patent attorney you do not get your law degree first.

That curious, because my brother and his wife are both IP lawyers in Chicago and both got their JD's beforehand, in fact they had to stick it out in non-IP work for a few years before finding IP work. Of course, referances to friends and family are anecdotal but I would endeavour to say that in all law fields there is no standard career paths.

Continuing on the law school theme, courses in logic and the humanities as a whole for the sole purpose of analyzing abstract ideas and improving writing abilities will help a great deal as an L1. The thought of eviscerating the humanities from the curriculum simply because they are not of intrinsic job getting value is ridiculous and flies in the face of the original purpose of university education. If it's going to go that far, perhaps universities should be clearly divided into traditional schools and four year vocational schools.

Stone Island

26th February 2008, 11:37 AM

Here are the organized sections within the American Political Science Association.

Tokie has already said that Political Science is an approved discipline, i.e., a discipline that has a vocational component that it is justified for the government to subsidize. Which of these subgroups, Tokie, ought the government to subsidize and which ought they not subsidize? Which are useful for getting a job and which are not. On what grounds? They're all Political Science broadly understood, they're are all subjects that can be focused on at the undergraduate level, but if you have a government technocrat deciding which studies are approved and which are not, how fine is your cut going to be?

1. Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations (http://www.apsa.com/section_304.cfm)
2. Law and Courts
(http://www.apsa.com/section_305.cfm)3. Legislative Studies
(http://www.apsa.com/section_306.cfm)4. Public Policy
(http://www.apsa.com/section_307.cfm)5. Political Organizations and Parties (http://www.apsa.com/section_308.cfm)
6. Public Administration (http://www.apsa.com/section_312.cfm)
7. Conflict Processes (http://www.apsa.com/section_313.cfm)
8. Representation and Electoral Systems
(http://www.apsa.com/section_314.cfm)9. Presidency Research (http://www.apsa.com/section_315.cfm)
10. Political Methodology (http://www.apsa.com/section_316.cfm)
11. Religion and Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_317.cfm)13. Urban Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_318.cfm)15. Science, Technology and Environmental Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_320.cfm)16. Women and Politics Research (http://www.apsa.com/section_321.cfm)
17. Foundations of Political Theory
(http://www.apsa.com/section_322.cfm)18. Information Technology and Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_323.cfm)19. International Security and Arms Control
(http://www.apsa.com/section_324.cfm)20. Comparative Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_329.cfm)21. European Politics and Society (http://www.apsa.com/section_330.cfm)
22. State Politics and Policy
(http://www.apsa.com/section_331.cfm)23. Political Communication (http://www.apsa.com/section_332.cfm)
24. Politics and History (http://www.apsa.com/section_333.cfm)
25. Political Economy
(http://www.apsa.com/section_334.cfm)27. New Political Science
(http://www.apsa.com/section_335.cfm)28. Political Psychology
(http://www.apsa.com/section_336.cfm)29. Political Science Education
(http://www.apsa.com/section_337.cfm)30. Politics, Literature, and Film
(http://www.apsa.com/section_338.cfm)31. Foreign Policy
(http://www.apsa.com/section_339.cfm)32. Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior (http://www.apsa.com/section_340.cfm)
33. Race, Ethnicity and Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_341.cfm)34. International History and Politics
(http://www.apsa.com/section_342.cfm)35. Comparative Democratization (http://www.apsa.com/section_343.cfm)
36. Human Rights (http://www.apsa.com/section_344.cfm)
37. Qualitative and Multi-method Research (http://www.apsa.com/section_345.cfm)
38. Sexuality and Politics (http://www.apsa.com/section_737.cfm)

Tokenconservative

26th February 2008, 04:26 PM

1. Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations
2. Law and Courts
3. Legislative Studies
4. Public Policy
5. Political Organizations and Parties
6. Public Administration
7. Conflict Processes
8. Representation and Electoral Systems
9. Presidency Research
10. Political Methodology
11. Religion and Politics
13. Urban Politics
15. Science, Technology and Environmental Politics
16. Women and Politics Research
17. Foundations of Political Theory
18. Information Technology and Politics
19. International Security and Arms Control
20. Comparative Politics
21. European Politics and Society
22. State Politics and Policy
23. Political Communication
24. Politics and History
25. Political Economy
27. New Political Science
28. Political Psychology
29. Political Science Education
30. Politics, Literature, and Film
31. Foreign Policy
32. Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior
33. Race, Ethnicity and Politics
34. International History and Politics
35. Comparative Democratization
36. Human Rights
37. Qualitative and Multi-method Research
38. Sexuality and Politics

Those that would not qualify:
5,7,8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36 37, 38

Tokie

Jeff Corey

26th February 2008, 08:22 PM

And here I was, thinking all the time that "political science" was an oxymoron. Sorta like "creation science" and "social science".
All useless for going out and being a productive member of our great nation.

Darat

27th February 2008, 02:49 AM

I have attempted to clear up the off-topic personal bickering from the last few days.

To all participants going forward remember your Membership Agreement, especially Rule 11 and Rule 12.

Stone Island

27th February 2008, 10:12 AM