Will the Humanities Save Us?

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by volatile

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

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

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

Is the only purpose of education to produce employees?

Ah...an intelligent argument...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by volatile

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

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

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

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

Errrm. Well, some of those links were to US jobs. And yes, they specifically asked for Psych. None of them were for art history, because that wasn't on your list. Nevertheless, a 2-second search on Jobs.com turned up Senior Buyer, "A love of history, or history of art, is an advantage".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

Quote:

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

Yes. Do you?

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by volatile

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



Yes. Do you?

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

Also, I believe you are in GB?

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[technoextreme]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Zenskeptical]

Originally Posted by timhau

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

what goes on in sociology departments??

[mrund]

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

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

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Indeed.

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

Museum curator.

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

...or Philosophy?

Ethics committee member. Lawyer.

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Or English?

Journalist. Novelist. Teacher.

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Feminist or Ethnic studies?

Macdonalds crew member.

[Mobyseven]

TokenConservative:

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

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

TokenConservative:

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

I do believe I already asked him that...

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by volatile

I do believe I already asked him that...

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

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

[Stone Island]

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

Please, guys, don't feed the troll.

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

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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

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

Um...okay...

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

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

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

TokenConservative:

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[Stone Island]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

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

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

Come on Tokie, quit trolling around.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

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

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

Factor 1:

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

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

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

Factor 2:

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

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

[Stone Island]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Factor 2:

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

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

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

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

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

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

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

Come on Tokie, quit trolling around.

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

Factor 1:

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

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

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

Factor 2:

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

Tokie

[Stone Island]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

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

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

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

Tokie

From a January 31, 1934, letter by Wittgenstein to Piero Sraffa, in the March 2007 issue of Harper’s:

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

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

scream.

Tokie

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

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

From a January 31, 1934, letter by Wittgenstein to Piero Sraffa, in the March 2007 issue of Harper’s:

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

Point?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

Apparently not.

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

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

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

Tokie

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

.. I can find no want ads anywhere saying "We are looking for Eng., Psych, Philo, etc. BAs/BSs...

That's what I was responding to.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

Tokie

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

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Really? Well, maybe you are right.

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

I'd like to know.

Tokie

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

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

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Tokie

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

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

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

[biostudent]

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

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

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by biostudent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[volatile]

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

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by volatile

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

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

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

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

[volatile]

Originally Posted by zeusbheld

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

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

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

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

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

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

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

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Originally Posted by zeusbheld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right?

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

Tokie