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.
Been sitting here thinking on this. I've often wondered how those with college educations are so often pulled down pseudo scientific paths. Essentially you have stated the dilemma of LA education in science. It is a smattering of a lot of things, just enough to believe it's understood, but not enough to really understand.
It sounds like you didn't take much science in college. Those intro courses are quite good, just as "509" described. I don't see how that would lead one to buy into pseudo-science. To the contrary, it's the antidote to falling for pseudo-science. Was your dismissal perhaps based on the fact that I mentioned global warming?
It sounds like you didn't take much science in college. Those intro courses are quite good, just as "509" described. I don't see how that would lead one to buy into pseudo-science. To the contrary, it's the antidote to falling for pseudo-science. Was your dismissal perhaps based on the fact that I mentioned global warming?
Sadly no. My response was trying to lead you to understand that an intro course does not provide someone with the expertise you assumed in the earlier post "...those who took geology could easily analyze the geologic forces that shaped the landscape you travel through around the world. Those who took atmospheric science could explain the chemistry behind the weather ... ." If science were really that easy, everyone would do it. But it isn't. It takes years of study. Years of math. Time in the lab. Publishing and defending your conclusions to others equally intent on proving theirs. Once you've had those, you realize those intro courses are just a skimming overview and shouldn't be confused for deep knowledge.
Sadly no. My response was trying to lead you to understand that an intro course does not provide someone with the expertise you assumed in the earlier post "...those who took geology could easily analyze the geologic forces that shaped the landscape you travel through around the world. Those who took atmospheric science could explain the chemistry behind the weather ... ." If science were really that easy, everyone would do it. But it isn't. It takes years of study. Years of math. Time in the lab. Publishing and defending your conclusions to others equally intent on proving theirs. Once you've had those, you realize those intro courses are just a skimming overview and shouldn't be confused for deep knowledge.
I disagree. 509's examples are similar; no one needs time in the lab and years of study to understand the night sky wherever one may find oneself in the world, nor to understand some of the environmental forces shaping the conditions around one. Clearly, 509 didn't go into any more depth in some of the science fields he studied than a LA major would.
And there's no reason for LA majors to stop at an intro course; they're free to take a more advanced course in any discipline as part of their general studies requirement. Your post doesn't refute the point made in response to 509's implied claim that LA programs are devoid of science, and that LA students aren't able to appreciate the scientific principles that shape some aspects their environment. Astronomy is, in fact, a popular course for LA students, and LA students who take astronomy courses are no more prone to fall under the sway of pseudo-science than 509 would be. In fact, it's unclear what field his science degree is in, and how astronomy is relevant to it, if at all. He may have taken that course as a survey course in fulfillment of general science requirements prior to deciding on a major, just as LA students do. His argument as he presented it doesn't hold water; that's all I was pointing out.
I have to chuckle at people saying that they're "against funding for the liberal arts" or saying that everyone should major in STEM.
Biology, chemistry, physics...those ARE liberal arts subjects. And, there are engineering programs at liberal arts colleges. Business programs too.
Even engineering majors at tech institutes are still required to take courses in the liberal arts. It's part of being a well educated person who can think for oneself.
How can people STAND to write code all day??? How can people STAND math???
Everybody's different. My assistant at my last job LOVED to build spreadsheets. When he was not doing it for profit he did it for fun. He was president of the spreadsheet group at the New York personal computing club.
He also had a literary and artistic side so he was anything but one-dimensional.
I have some math and computing ability but I certainly could not stand to do it all day.
Sadly no. My response was trying to lead you to understand that an intro course does not provide someone with the expertise you assumed in the earlier post "...those who took geology could easily analyze the geologic forces that shaped the landscape you travel through around the world. Those who took atmospheric science could explain the chemistry behind the weather ... ." If science were really that easy, everyone would do it. But it isn't. It takes years of study. Years of math. Time in the lab. Publishing and defending your conclusions to others equally intent on proving theirs. Once you've had those, you realize those intro courses are just a skimming overview and shouldn't be confused for deep knowledge.
Well, sure, doing original scientific research is hard. But I (who am not a scientist) can tell a sandstone bluff from a granite outcropping and I have some idea of the processes that created them. That's better that just being able to say "that's pretty." I can tell you which of the 88 constellations you're looking at, and possibly identify a deep-sky object or other item of interest in it. I am very grateful for my non-scientist's science education.
Ok, so down to business, I was online and looking at my university's commencement page and they put out the names of all students and what they majored in online. It was nicely done. The person that did the undergraduate address was this cute girl that majored in English and she had had scholarships and a perfect 4.0 average. They always write stories about these people and she said that she wanted to go and get a MA in English and either work at a university or in a publishing house. It was refreshing to read her hopes and dreams. She is married to another person who also graduated from there last year who was also an English major. Cute story.
Anyways, when I compare her story to my own, I have the same goals and dreams. I have a BA in History which I abhor and regret, but I have always wanted to work in a college setting. I went back and counted some of the subjects and how many people majored in things that are most likely to be deemed "useless" and here is what I came up with..
How many students majored in..
MA in English- 5, MA in History 0(thank god), MS in Criminal Justice 36
BA in English-8, BA in History-9 (why??), Bachelors of Applied Arts and Sciences(B.A.A.S)- 78(wth??), Bachelors in General Studies(BGS)- 47(double wth?)
So I guess my question is why do these people study these things if society has deemed them to be useless? I certainly don't understand why anyone would major in History these days, let along General Studies and the applied arts and sciences degree. To me, those degrees are worse than mine, at least mine has an appropriate title.
So what do you guys think? Do these people have a future? Should I say screw it and follow my dreams like this young lady is doing, instead of listening to "woe is me" stories on the internet from CD and other message boards?
I read a lot of posts on another popular message board(rhymes with edit) and there seem to be a lot of people that major in English, History, and Psychology that cannot find a decent job. I truly wish all these people the very best, but when I hear those stories, I wonder if I just let too much of the "couldn't find a job with this degree" stories get to me. I have no one to help me financially and I worry that I might be wasting time and money(or both). I just have so many goals and dreams, I just don't know where to start.
They take these courses because they are easier. Period. Linear Algebra is a tad more difficult than US History, don't you think? I have a neighbor that sent their daughter to Auburn to get a liberal arts degree. She's now 31, living at home because she can only get a job as a middle school, teachers assistant.
She can't get a teachers job. I think'they spent upwards of 100k on her education including out of state tuition, books, meals, car, room, etc...well, I know one thing, she says she learned more managing her debt than what she ever learned about Melville. Oh, and she has massive credit card debt too.
We really do need to push trade schools a bit more. Don't you think?
Universities are not trade schools. If you just want to learn a trade - be taught the skills necessary for a particular job - then go to a trade school. But if you want a more rounded, complete education, go to a university. That "rounded" education is delivered in part by those "liberal arts" courses.
The point of a university education is not to teach you a vocational skill, it is to teach you how to think critically. As part of my requirements as an English Major, I had to take a year and a half of college-level Spanish and that taught me a lot more about languages, linguistics, and how people think than you might have expected (in addition to some rudimentary language skills).
All of these things make me a more well-rounded person. More flexible.
I certainly don't think university is for everyone; I most certainly do think it is a shame that rising costs has intensified the amount of calculus needed to determine if it is "worth it" or not. Life is about a lot more than just "getting a job". "Getting a job" really should be the least important thing, but... here we are.
I think this is the post most accurately conveys the situation. The problem is not the liberal arts themselves, but that there simply aren't enough decent paying jobs for the bulk of medium skilled people. There are jobs available in certain high demand, high skill sectors and jobs available in low wage, low-skilled sector. For the rest of us, we're all chasing the same jobs.
For things like nursing, the pool is somewhat reduced and there are somewhat more jobs. However, with the increase in popularity for degrees like that, I expect in another decade or so we will have saturated the market. We have a quite good nursing school at my college, but in the past few years our nursing graduates have had to increase their search radius to hundreds of miles to find jobs. We've saturated our own hospital system and clinics with qualified nurses.
The problem really is the economy. I don't understand why people are so self-flagellating here. The economy has changed.... the liberal arts are what they always were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazeddude8
I agree mainly with the above. Now that is not to say that if you go LA then its all "GLOOM and DOOM" and minimum wage until you die. There are successful people with LA degrees and I just don't mean people how graduated 10+ years ago. You certainly can be successful with the LA degree.
However the biggest challenge I find is the sheer number of people applying for the LA type job vastly outnumbers the actual # of job openings. So for instance, yes Norton, Penguin, Scholastic, Macmillian would certainly hire that LA grad for that publishing job opening, but I bet that publishing company probably have 60+ English, History, Sociology, etc... type grads applying for that 1-3 open publishing jobs, so what the heck does the 57 + people who applied for that job do?
So then you turn to the Customer service, admin assistant, sales assistant, marketing assistant etc...the very basic, bottom of the totem pole type office job that generally don't require a specific degree or years of experience. Well you with your history degree will be competing against every other LA grad for those limited # of customer service positions and again the number of applicants probably vastly outnumbers the amount of people they are looking to hire for that customer service, sales position-good luck, truly good luck.
Now compared to pharmacy or nursing or accounting, you are only competing against Nursing grads for that nursing job, pharmacy grads for that pharmacy job. You are not competing against the English grads, the history grads unless he/she went back to pharmacy, nursing school. Now let me be clear, that is not to say that pharmacy, nursing and accounting are "you will never be unemployed" proof but at the very least you are competing against a smaller pool of applicants than the generic "customer service job" that anyone regardless of major can apply to.
Perhaps then the problem is not so much "LA grads are useless" but rather the number of people applying for work severely out numbers the number of people an employer is actually looking to hire.
They take these courses because they are easier. Period. Linear Algebra is a tad more difficult than US History, don't you think? I have a neighbor that sent their daughter to Auburn to get a liberal arts degree. She's now 31, living at home because she can only get a job as a middle school, teachers assistant.
She can't get a teachers job. I think'they spent upwards of 100k on her education including out of state tuition, books, meals, car, room, etc...well, I know one thing, she says she learned more managing her debt than what she ever learned about Melville. Oh, and she has massive credit card debt too.
We really do need to push trade schools a bit more. Don't you think?
If what passes for a history class is memorizing a few facts and then recalling them for a multiple choice test, yes.
They shouldn't be, though. Look at the notes section of any published history book by a professional historian and tell me if you could do it.
Math can also be taught easily. I remember having algebra instructors that wrote tests that basically answered themselves.
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.
