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.
The United States would not be harmed one bit if for ten years liberal arts degrees were suspended. The economy could then absorb these over educated and under employed people. Maybe then we need to replenish the supply of indebted college graduates.
That field I talked about above... it was actually suspended in Europe for a few decades as a major.
The result? It is the whole reason that every major company in my field (including the largest single owner private company in the world) is based in the United States. An industry with tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and it is essentially dead in Europe and dominated by the US. All because Europe deemed it a worthless major and, as a result, is playing catch up with the United States. Similar thing has happened in the US as certain engineering majors have gone out of vogue, only to leave us with enormous skills gaps in when those engineering specialties suddenly became extremely useful to manufacturing.
No one has the ability to foresee that in a five year time chemistry and architecture will go from virtually no unemployment to dead fields while agriculture and geography will suddenly rise from the dead to become economically critical. Your plan would almost certainly lead to disastrous economic outcomes.
Really, though,it's not just the "educated folks who have no choice but to work in retail/restaurants are fools" argument. I mean, these are the same people who contend that those of us with liberal arts/humanities-related degrees who have chosen professions such as social work, teaching, community organizing, nonprofit work, etc. also fall in the "overeducated and underemployed" category, because they don't value working for anything less than top dollar and can't comprehend why anybody else would, either. These are people who literally cannot understand why you wouldn't obviously choose to work for a large corporation, why you wouldn't obviously choose the highest paying profession you can possibly get, regardless of whether or not it fits your interests or skill set. For those who are SOLELY motivated by earning power, talking about any other values that may drive you is equivalent to shouting at a brick wall and expecting some type of reasoned response. You can't explain your motivations to someone who simply doesn't and can't share them. Might as well be speaking completely different languages. *shrugs*
100% accurate. If earning power were the *only* thing I valued in a career, I would immediately apply for a sales position at my company. However, I value lots of things including interesting work, work-family balance and, yes, salary.
The "hot" degree to have comes and goes and waves, too.
Nursing was hot until it was flooded. Teaching was hot until it was flooded. When I was graduating, business-related degrees were king, even at my liberal arts college...there were more business and accounting and econ majors in my graduating class than any other degree...because it was, at the time (just barely pre-Enron scandal/convictions for obstruction of justice), a significant recruiting school for Arthur Andersen.
100% accurate. If earning power were the *only* thing I valued in a career, I would immediately apply for a sales position at my company. However, I value lots of things including interesting work, work-family balance and, yes, salary.
Yes, I, too, would go into sales. If I wanted to hate my life, every second of the day, anyway. Jeez, I couldn't even tolerate selling Girl Scout cookies when I was nine.
Earning power is important, obviously. But for some, it trumps absolutely everything else. I don't relate to that mentality, anymore than the people who have that mentality relate to the concept of possibly sacrificing where you are on the pay scale if it means doing something that matters more to you, or allows you to obtain other things that are important to you. If earning power is your highest, or only, priority, it must be hard to wrap your head around people who adjust to serve other priorities that are higher on their lists.
I'm talking about degrees like arts, music, sociology, psychology, gender studies, and general studies. If people aren't going to get engineering degrees or go to medical school, why even bother? It just seems like a big wast of time when you'll just end up working at Starbucks anyway.
If nobody got those degrees, than we would have no professionals in those areas. That means no psychologists, sociologists, music professors, art directors etc. The difference is that you can get a good paying job in the medical field or in something like engineering or accounting without going to grad school, which is something not all students are able to do. It takes 8-10 years to be a clinical psychologist versus only 4 years to be an engineer or even less than that to be an RN, paramedic or PTA. People go to school in areas like sociology, music, or psychology because they're interesting fields of study. What they don't realize is how few jobs there are and how fierce the competition is in those fields. Who the heck wants to be a nurse, engineer or a CPA. People get into those fields because they pay well and you don't have to go to school the rest of your life to get into them.
Earning power is important, obviously. But for some, it trumps absolutely everything else.
Well, the reason for this is because we live in a society where having more money is critical to your quality of life in most ways since money buys you practically everything - including, of course, a higher standard of living compared to people with less money.
You're right not everyone is cut out to be an engineer. But for every liberal arts person you highlight above witha good job, there are 100 of each working retail or in a restaurant. The spend $100,000 to earn that history degree and make $12/hour. If that makes them happy - great. But if they have to repay a student loan - not so great.
The United States would not be harmed one bit if for ten years liberal arts degrees were suspended. The economy could then absorb these over educated and under employed people. Maybe then we need to replenish the supply of indebted college graduates.
I guess this turns into more of a statement that kids should not be taking out $100K in student loans and that maybe they should all be required to take a one credit hour course online over the summer to overview student loan financing or something (ha - like that'd happen!)
Maybe it was just me and the people that I chose to surround myself with, but I really don't know any who have stayed in retail as a gig longer than two years unless they used working retail as a springboard to the store management trainee programs. I've seen more liberal arts majors working at call centers or as leasing agents for apartment complexes, but many of them had also worked their way into supervisory roles after 2-3 years. The history majors I know aren't working retail or at Starbucks or restaurants, but a few are in web design, another works doing sales/promotions at Colonial Williamsburg, another is an archaeologist in Indiana, and another works for a big library in DC. In every scenario, it was the person who made the degree of value.
I guess I just feel that a degree is exactly what a person makes of it and that all of it has value to our society, so I don't think we should suspend liberal arts degrees. I am strange in that I was a dual major, one of which is considered liberal arts. I majored in finance and writing. Everyday, I see how beneficial it was for me to be able to write a clear, coherent argument when writing to persuade. Every. day.
Well, the reason for this is because we live in a society where having more money is critical to your quality of life in most ways since money buys you practically everything - including, of course, a higher standard of living.
I didn't make up the rules.
Except that there are plenty of people who took the lower paying job that was more appealing to us and are living quite comfortably. It's not really true that you MUST earn XYZ to be able to live a quality life. My standard of living on a teacher salary has suited me quite well...I am located in a place where it buys a perfectly enjoyable standard of living, and my tastes are such that my lifestyle is affordable.
There are so many variables involved, when you get into the standard of living discussion that it's essentially an impossible discussion to have. But it's ultimately the same argument as I noted earlier...people who cannot imagine that you wouldn't want X lifestyle are not going to be able to wrap their heads around why you would enter a lower paying career by choice. They are not going to identify with the tradeoffs you might easily and gladly make if it means having a job that is better for you and better fits what you want in life. There are those who are absolutely happy with a modest home, a non-flashy vehicle, food in the cupboards,bills paid, and work they adore doing.
The "rules" only matter to those whose values are reflected in them, and people have different values.
I guess this turns into more of a statement that kids should not be taking out $100K in student loans and that maybe they should all be required to take a one credit hour course online over the summer to overview student loan financing or something (ha - like that'd happen!)
My college actually did require attendance at various sessions each year you were enrolled that were overviews of student loan financing. They were mandatory for anyone with federal loans. Not a bad thing at all.
25 years ago, I majored in a "worthless degree"... Been happily employed ever since, recruited for jobs, offered sign on bonuses, and full relocation packages.
Done pretty good...not a doctor, or an engineer. And have managed to maintain employment. Never laid off.
Irony, my family told me to go to law school. I didn't. My Mother, still can't wrap her head around my being employed...and the salary I command.
Yes, but there are also high school diploma holders who make over six figures. I'm not even talking about computer whiz Harvard dropouts from trust fund families. I'm talking about guys who weren't that good at school and started their own business or got in somewhere, got lucky and do very well. But there's a lot less of them than pharmacists who make six figures.
The key is percentages.
Otherwise, why bother going to school at all? Because a college degree gives you an edge and certain majors are more confining, weed out more candidates.
In my field of engineering, even after you have 20 years of experience, they still require the applicable degree. Says so on every job description.
And I don't mind saying once again, it is tough out there. So, if I had a loved one, I would convince them to try and go for that which gave them the best chance.
Yes, things are cyclical. You can study that to an extent.
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.
