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

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

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

****ing ******* 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

****ing ******* 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

Rika

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

Rika

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

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