Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You assume that there are employers that will hire people for certain positions regardless of major.
If this is true, then students in majors such as accounting and engineering are equally capable of getting those jobs. They simply have the added benefit of being able to pursue accounting or engineering careers as well.
Employers don't hire people "regardless of major", instead there are a lot of jobs that require a more generalized education with a focus on logical analysis. Accountants, engineers, etc are ill-suited for these jobs because their educations are very narrow.
The fact that narrow degree programs are indeed narrow...is analytic.
Employers don't hire people "regardless of major", instead there are a lot of jobs that require a more generalized education with a focus on logical analysis. Accountants, engineers, etc are ill-suited for these jobs because their educations are very narrow.
The fact that narrow degree programs are indeed narrow...is analytic.
For the claim that employers on average prefer liberal arts grads to engineers for postings that require critical thinkings skills rather than a specific degree.
For the claim that employers on average prefer liberal arts grads to engineers for postings that require critical thinkings skills rather than a specific degree.
I didn't make that claim, I said nothing about liberal arts majors, in fact I would put most liberal arts majors in the same category as engineering in terms of what I mentioned.
In terms of a citation, this isn't exactly something people are out doing studies on, but the income statistics I think provide support. The majors that provide the closest to a "good generalized education with a focus on logical analysis" not only have high median income, but are found in much higher numbers than you'd expect in the very high income earners as well.
In terms of a citation, this isn't exactly something people are out doing studies on, but the income statistics I think provide support. The majors that provide the closest to a "good generalized education with a focus on logical analysis" not only have high median income, but are found in much higher numbers than you'd expect in the very high income earners as well.
Okay, so you're talking about econ, math, stats, physics, CS?
Those are all okay, but some schools provide very poor programs in them. The degree that comes to the closest to what I'm talking about is Philosophy, but its still imperfect by itself and does vary a good deal from college to college.
My point has little to do with median incomes, just pointing out that the majors that do provide strong general educations do well in this area too. Instead, that there are many jobs that require people that have good general educations and that are very proficient at utilizing logic, these jobs tend to be very high paying jobs as well. That is, things like managers, executives, analysts, investors, etc. When you look at these people you find a far higher percentage of Philosophy majors, Mathematics majors, etc than you do in the general population.
The point being, that people that go through college taking numerous courses in many things and leave with a general degree like Philosophy have very good opportunities in the employment market. Yet, people tend to think only concrete majors like "Engineering", "Accounting" provide good opportunities. Personally, I find the concrete majors more problematic as they are very narrow and there is little an accountant, etc can do other than what they were trained to do.
My point has little to do with median incomes, just pointing out that the majors that do provide strong general educations do well in this area too. Instead, that there are many jobs that require people that have good general educations and that are very proficient at utilizing logic, these jobs tend to be very high paying jobs as well. That is, things like managers, executives, analysts, investors, etc. When you look at these people you find a far higher percentage of Philosophy majors, Mathematics majors, etc than you do in the general population.
The point being, that people that go through college taking numerous courses in many things and leave with a general degree like Philosophy have very good opportunities in the employment market. Yet, people tend to think only concrete majors like "Engineering", "Accounting" provide good opportunities. Personally, I find the concrete majors more problematic as they are very narrow and there is little an accountant, etc can do other than what they were trained to do.
What is this suppose to demonstrate? There is nothing here that looks at general educational attainment. I'm not suggesting that having a degree in accounting, etc precludes one having a strong general education, etc, instead studying accounting doesn't provide such.
Also, these are all older guys, this is a historic picture not a present picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
You have still failed to prove that a chemical engineering major's education is any more narrow or less flexible than, say, philosophy.
Firstly, my point isn't really about particular degree programs, I have only implied that some degree programs on average come closer to providing a "good general education focused on logical analysis" than others.
In terms of proof, I'm not sure what you're looking for, the curriculum of a good philosophy program provides a good understanding of logic and numerous other subjects, on the other hand the curriculum for chemical engineering is going to provide a very narrow and focused education on chemical engineering. With the exception of a few basic mathematics and science courses, all their courses are focused on chemical engineering. Chemical engineering doesn't even began to address logic as well.
What is this suppose to demonstrate? There is nothing here that looks at general educational attainment. I'm not suggesting that having a degree in accounting, etc precludes one having a strong general education, etc, instead studying accounting doesn't provide such.
Also, these are all older guys, this is a historic picture not a present picture.
Firstly, my point isn't really about particular degree programs, I have only implied that some degree programs on average come closer to providing a "good general education focused on logical analysis" than others.
In terms of proof, I'm not sure what you're looking for, the curriculum of a good philosophy program provides a good understanding of logic and numerous other subjects, on the other hand the curriculum for chemical engineering is going to provide a very narrow and focused education on chemical engineering. With the exception of a few basic mathematics and science courses, all their courses are focused on chemical engineering. Chemical engineering doesn't even began to address logic as well.
It's really quite simple. I've asked for evidence to support the idea that engineers are "ill-suited" for certain jobs or that an engineering degree is somehow less "adaptable."
Empirical evidence does not support this conclusion. You listed executives and managers as some of the people who might need the logical training you claim isn't taught in engineering programs. Yet more top execs have engineering degrees than any other major.
I'd like to see a warrant for the argument that the kinds of problem solving taught in engineering programs are inherently less adaptable than the academic logic of philosophy or mathematics. But that isn't critical to my point.
I'd like to focus on the text I bolded in your post. If it is possible for a student to major in engineering or accounting yet still achieve a strong general education, then that is quite plainly the most adaptable degree possible.
Indeed, let's take this argument a little further. While one probably cannot get a degree in philosophy or math without at least some exposure to logic, surely you agree that the quality of education varies a great deal from institution to institution and also from student to student. The quality of a philosophy student's education is ultimately dependent on the choices that student makes: do they pursue courses focused on logic? Do they study hard or party all day? And, most importantly, do they think carefully about how they can apply their degree to obtain success after graduation?
If the value of the degree is so contingent on student decisions, it is quite plain that we must redefine the way we assess the value of a particular major. The only reasonable approaches are a) the best-case scenario and b) the average scenario, given that these angles allow us to see both the full potential of a major and its most common outcomes. (EDIT: An argument can also be made for the worst-case scenario, which is clearly won by the engineer given the ready availability of a career paired to the major.) I mentioned scenario A above - the engineer who also develops logical analysis is the most employable graduate of all. That only leaves you B with which to make your argument.
So, I ask you: what evidence do you have that - on average - engineering majors are less adaptable than philosophy majors?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
