If you are going to do liberal arts..you had better think twice!! (computer science, MBA)

[historygrad]

I wont go so far as to say that engineer majors are less marketable, but when it comes to a job where everyday communication(written and verbal) plays an important part, i feel that the liberal arts degree holder will win hands down.

As for engineering students and accounting students, i have seen the degree plans for both majors as well as liberal arts majors in my college and by far the BA degree holder receives a stronger general education. I also have two friends that are engineers and granted, they are very good at what they do, so well that yes they are paid top dollar and i know that they can go far, but simple things such as making a speech or a presentation, is difficult for them and i run circles around them with my words.

Also a liberal arts degree holder can learn the basics of a job(except specialized ones like engineering, accounting) and can try to lowball themselves to at least get their foot in the door, which will allow them to receive valuable experience and this can apply to any job. An engineer though, can only do engineering...

[barney_rubble]

Originally Posted by historygrad

An engineer though, can only do engineering...

I'd be interested in your perspective as well. Why is this true?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

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.

To say it again, these are people that went to school ages ago and having an engineering degree does not preclude learning about other things formally or informally. You are looking at CEO's of large corporations, not the number of engineers in management and/or executive positions.

Many of these corporations are primarily involved in engineering, the fact that they promoted an engineer within the company as CEO says little about the general viability of an engineer as an executive. How many engineers do you see as CEOs of businesses that have nothing to do with engineering? That is the real question here...

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

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.

The only way a engineering, etc student is going to get a strong general education is if they make significant efforts to take courses outside of their degree program. But that is difficult, engineering programs have tons of requirements and there is little time to pursue other interests. On the other hand, this is a nature part of other degree programs.

In terms of being "most adaptable", no, but obviously doing two things instead of one while in college is going to result in more options. But one is going to have to spend more time in college to gain this...

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

The quality of a philosophy student's education is ultimately dependent on the choices that student makes: do they pursue courses focused on logic?

This can be said of anything, the issue is that someone following the curriculum requirements of a good Philosophy program is going to get exposed to much more than someone following the requirements of a Engineering program. And Engineering, like most subjects, doesn't even attempt to each logic.

After they graduate, excluding external knowledge from the programs, the engineering student is going to be well positioned only for engineering careers, on the other hand the philosophy student will be well position for a larger class of careers. And you most certainly find this in the real world, engineering students are almost always engineers, Philosophy students are all over the place in terms of careers.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

So, I ask you: what evidence do you have that - on average - engineering majors are less adaptable than philosophy majors?

As above, you don't find engineering students outside of engineering often. But my point is really about degree programs, individuals can learn new things, etc but this doesn't change the fact that engineer programs are indeed very narrow in their scope.

[barney_rubble]

Originally Posted by user_id

To say it again, these are people that went to school ages ago and having an engineering degree does not preclude learning about other things formally or informally. You are looking at CEO's of large corporations, not the number of engineers in management and/or executive positions.

Many of these corporations are primarily involved in engineering, the fact that they promoted an engineer within the company as CEO says little about the general viability of an engineer as an executive. How many engineers do you see as CEOs of businesses that have nothing to do with engineering? That is the real question here...

The data available is somewhat limited, but I think the study I located does present a somewhat interesting data point. I think the burden now falls on you to provide some empirical evidence to support your position.

The study I reference looked at S&P 500 companies. The S&P 500 is specifically designed to track the largest companies representative of all the industries in the US economy. If the US economy is so related to engineering, that actually supports my argument.

Further, your logic seems to imply that engineers start out working in that area and then transition into management. If this is the case, we must logically expect these companies to have many other engineers working in management along the same track as the CEOs.

If it is possible to develop management skills outside of school, that's actually another reason engineering is more versatile. Many engineering jobs require an ABET-accredited engineering degree, but if management only requires self-studiable skills there is no need to major in the fields for which you advocate.

Originally Posted by user_id

The only way a engineering, etc student is going to get a strong general education is if they make significant efforts to take courses outside of their degree program. But that is difficult, engineering programs have tons of requirements and there is little time to pursue other interests. On the other hand, this is a nature part of other degree programs.

In terms of being "most adaptable", no, but obviously doing two things instead of one while in college is going to result in more options. But one is going to have to spend more time in college to gain this...

You've never explained what you mean by the phrase "strong general education." The link you provided to professional success was based on logic, which is most directly related to mathematics and philosophy. It is certainly possible for an engineering student to take some additional courses in logic.

Originally Posted by user_id

This can be said of anything, the issue is that someone following the curriculum requirements of a good Philosophy program is going to get exposed to much more than someone following the requirements of a Engineering program. And Engineering, like most subjects, doesn't even attempt to each logic.

After they graduate, excluding external knowledge from the programs, the engineering student is going to be well positioned only for engineering careers, on the other hand the philosophy student will be well position for a larger class of careers. And you most certainly find this in the real world, engineering students are almost always engineers, Philosophy students are all over the place in terms of careers.

You concede the idea that a philosophy student must actively consider how they will apply their degree to a career. In fact, I believe you've discussed this before yourself. If an engineer does the same, there is no reason why they cannot end up with a completely versatile education.

Also, you never prove that employers actually agree with your assertions regarding the value of a diverse philosophy curriculum. Are there really positions for which engineering grads are disdained in favor of those with philosophy degrees? If so, what are they?

As for the idea that engineering grads mostly become engineers, this is neatly explained by the fact that there is a large demand for engineers. If demand for career philosophers were high, I'm sure we'd see many philosophy grads gravitate towards that field.

[historygrad]

i think that it is just the norm and that when one is interviewing and they have majored in liberal arts(english,philosophy, history), they must tailor their experiences and jobs to make that career fit since their education is so broad, however, an engineer is expected to be an engineer regardless of the job market. Its like having an accountant that does not want to be an accountant. I think that if i was hiring someone and they had a very focused degree and they were not pursing that industry then i would wonder why and it would raise some doubts.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

Further, your logic seems to imply that engineers start out working in that area and then transition into management. If this is the case, we must logically expect these companies to have many other engineers working in management along the same track as the CEOs.

You are missing the point. You will find ex-engineers in management and executive position in corporations that are involved in engineering activities, these are people that have moved up the ranks of the corporation but the vast majority of engineers stay engineers. This "data point" tells you nothing about how many engineers find their way into management or executive positions both within engineering companies and outside of them.

I have never suggested that people with engineers can't become managers, instead I stated that they have more narrow career options as a whole and this follows from the narrowness of their educational programs.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

If it is possible to develop management skills outside of school, that's actually another reason engineering is more versatile.

Umm....huh? You can learn anything outside of school, including engineering, so I guess nobody should go to college?

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

You've never explained what you mean by the phrase "strong general education."

An education that goes in depth in all the critical areas of human knowledge, namely, logic, philosophy, mathematics and science.

Undergrad degrees in Engineering, Accounting, etc don't even touch one of these in depth let alone all of them.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

As for the idea that engineering grads mostly become engineers, this is neatly explained by the fact that there is a large demand for engineers. If demand for career philosophers were high, I'm sure we'd see many philosophy grads gravitate towards that field.

Yeah, I like how you move right over the real issue. There are no Philosophy careers, why? Because its a degree program that teaches very general skills. There are direct jobs for Engineers. Why? Because Engineering programs are narrowly focused on Engineering and the skills employers in the field are looking for.

My comments about degree programs are entirely pedagogical, Engineering programs are very narrow and Philosophy programs are broad. A Philosophy program gives one a general set of skills that can be applied to many things, an engineering program gives one a very narrow skill set that can be applied to few things. You seem to be arguing that because an Engineering student can in principle learn about other things that Engineering programs aren't narrow....and that makes little sense. Engineering programs are narrow, one just needs to look at their curriculum to confirm this... This isn't just an issue of careers, indeed, the underlying issue of careers is derived from the underlying pedagogically issues. Philosophy students are given the underlying skills that make learning other subjects easy, on the other hand engineers aren't taught these things and branching out to new subjects is more difficult.

Anyhow, I think engineering, accounting, business, english, etc are very poor degree programs in isolation. These are the sorts of things that should be studied after one has gained a solid general education, but general education has been lost in the prole drift of the modern university system. Kids don't want to "take classes they don't need", its all about careers, yet ironically a career focused education is likely to result in mediocre salaries and boring jobs.

[texas69]

well user you had me all the way up until the last part. How is it that you think that engineering, accounting, and business are very poor degree programs in isolation? i think that title is referred to liberal arts degrees. i just dont see how people can major in something so general and expect a job. I was just watching a show on mtv and one girl said she was a philosphy major and i cringed. i started to think..what is she going to do with that??

[barney_rubble]

Originally Posted by user_id

You are missing the point. You will find ex-engineers in management and executive position in corporations that are involved in engineering activities, these are people that have moved up the ranks of the corporation but the vast majority of engineers stay engineers. This "data point" tells you nothing about how many engineers find their way into management or executive positions both within engineering companies and outside of them.

I have never suggested that people with engineers can't become managers, instead I stated that they have more narrow career options as a whole and this follows from the narrowness of their educational programs.

First, please look to the part of my post you ignored:

"The data available is somewhat limited, but I think the study I located does present a somewhat interesting data point. I think the burden now falls on you to provide some empirical evidence to support your position.

The study I reference looked at S&P 500 companies. The S&P 500 is specifically designed to track the largest companies representative of all the industries in the US economy. If the US economy is so related to engineering, that actually supports my argument."

Next, for so many engineers to transition to become CEOs there must surely be many others who followed a similar path but have not yet reached the top job. Unless you propose that all engineers moving into management have a near-100% chance of eventually becoming CEO.

Further, you haven't presented any data proving that "the vast majority of engineers stay engineers."

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm....huh? You can learn anything outside of school, including engineering, so I guess nobody should go to college?

Your analysis is flawed. We aren't just talking about learning. The issue is employment. Some jobs absolutely require an ABET-accredited engineering degree, not self-study. But it is quite plain that executives and managers do not require philosophy degrees, even if they have to develop some skills on their own.

Originally Posted by user_id

An education that goes in depth in all the critical areas of human knowledge, namely, logic, philosophy, mathematics and science.

Undergrad degrees in Engineering, Accounting, etc don't even touch one of these in depth let alone all of them.

You've asserted this all along, but you haven't warranted it at all. Why is your version of general education inherently superior to engineering when it comes to developing the kind of reasoning skills needed for many careers?

In any case, a philosophy program doesn't really guarantee much more of these areas than engineering. While I completely agree that most engineering programs fail to provide a truly rigorous education in mathematics and the sciences, please provide evidence showing that most philosophy programs don't fail in this way as well.

Originally Posted by user_id

Yeah, I like how you move right over the real issue. There are no Philosophy careers, why? Because its a degree program that teaches very general skills. There are direct jobs for Engineers. Why? Because Engineering programs are narrowly focused on Engineering and the skills employers in the field are looking for.

My comments about degree programs are entirely pedagogical, Engineering programs are very narrow and Philosophy programs are broad. A Philosophy program gives one a general set of skills that can be applied to many things, an engineering program gives one a very narrow skill set that can be applied to few things. You seem to be arguing that because an Engineering student can in principle learn about other things that Engineering programs aren't narrow....and that makes little sense. Engineering programs are narrow, one just needs to look at their curriculum to confirm this... This isn't just an issue of careers, indeed, the underlying issue of careers is derived from the underlying pedagogically issues. Philosophy students are given the underlying skills that make learning other subjects easy, on the other hand engineers aren't taught these things and branching out to new subjects is more difficult.

Anyhow, I think engineering, accounting, business, english, etc are very poor degree programs in isolation. These are the sorts of things that should be studied after one has gained a solid general education, but general education has been lost in the prole drift of the modern university system. Kids don't want to "take classes they don't need", its all about careers, yet ironically a career focused education is likely to result in mediocre salaries and boring jobs.

Firstly, you are once again relying on unwarranted assertion. How can you prove that philosophy students find it easy to learn other subjects while engineers fail?

Secondly, we must remember the issue of self-selection. Precisely because engineering is a good professional major, it will attract many students who are interested simply in that profession. Such students aren't likely to adapt because adaptation is not their goal. On the other hand, a student who chooses to study philosophy has already self-selected for some of the traits you describe.

Thirdly, you misunderstand my argument. Any major allows for some exploration of other areas. However, while no career requires a degree in philosophy there are many that require a degree in engineering. Thus, engineering is more flexible.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by texas69

So I just got off the phone with one of my friends and I tried to give him the best advice that I could. He got his degree in french with a business minor. While the minor is good, he doesnt want to teach. So what is he doing right now? He works at a major retailer as a cashier. I also have another friend that has a degree in history that is also working as a cashier. I feel bad because i have friends with no degrees that work in IT and make way more than them. It seems that liberal arts and BA degrees are a bad idea. What do you guys think? My friend with the french degree wants to get his masters in business but in france and the other is undecided between a masters in spanish/history or a masters in business. Both have admitted to me that they are bad in math though. So is it just me or should BA degrees in the arts be avoided?

Don't blame the degree. Blame the lack of ambition on your friend. A degree in French and business is actually a quite potent combination, particularly for international business.

I've seen English majors who wound up making six figures (I'm one), and I've seen MBAs who are barely scraping by. And while a degree is important immediately after graduation, it's what you do that matter five, ten, twenty years down the road.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

First, please look to the part of my post you ignored

I didn't ignore anything, your "data point" doesn't provide any information here. To derive any information from it you'd have to know the type of corporation the ex-engineers are employed at, most corporations are executive from within so its only natural for some engineers to pop-up in executive positions in firms that are strongly associated with engineering. This says little about how engineers, on average, do when they try to apply for management and/or executive positions.

Furthermore, even with the above information, you still only know about programs ~30 years ago and not today. Much has changed.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

Next, for so many engineers to transition to become CEOs there must surely be many others who followed a similar path but have not yet reached the top job.

Right and I've already stated this, namely, that some managers and executives in engineering oriented corporations are likely to be ex-engineers since corporations often hire within. Again, this tells you nothing about how engineers fair in general in management and executive positions.

You seem to be pretending as if I've stated that engineers (as individuals) can never go into management, but that is silly, instead I've stated that engineers due to the narrowness of their education will have a difficult time outside of engineering absent additional education. Furthermore, I've suggested that due to the time requirements of engineering programs few engineering undergrads end up doing much outside of their degree program, there just isn't time.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

Why is your version of general education inherently superior to engineering when it comes to developing the kind of reasoning skills needed for many careers?

Engineering programs don't even attempt to teach logic, mathematics, science, etc so how exactly would one come out of an Engineering program with a solid understanding of these topics, in particular, the underlying methodologies employed by them? Do they learn it via osmosis from the mere existence of the other departments on the campus?

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

In any case, a philosophy program doesn't really guarantee much more of these areas than engineering.

A graduate from a good Philosophy program will usually walk away with a good understanding of 2-3 of the topics I mentioned, an engineering student will walk away with a good understanding of none of them.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

How can you prove that philosophy students find it easy to learn other subjects while engineers fail?

By their existence in numerous fields, Philosophy students have no nature career paths yet they find reasonable employment in a variety of industries.

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

However, while no career requires a degree in philosophy there are many that require a degree in engineering. Thus, engineering is more flexible.

This makes no sense, the flexibility of the degree depends entirely on the underlying skills developed by the programs, not by the existence of jobs that explicitly require the degree.

Again, your argument seems to be that Engineering is "more flexible" because they can get the engineering jobs and if trained in other things they could get other jobs as well. This makes no sense, what you're really talking about is a double major. Whether you spend the time in school learning or outside of school is immaterial.

In terms of data, I never intended to support by position with "data", I know of no study that explicitly looks at what I'm talking about, to give you data I'd have to do the study myself.