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.
For those on this thread who keep insisting a liberal arts degree is a one-way ticket to unemployment and poverty, here is Payscale.com's 2011 list of "degrees that pay you back". Listed by major/ avg starting salary/ avg "mid career"salary. You may find it quite surprising that the mid-career salaries of the following business & liberal arts majors are so close together. It really doesn't pay that much better to pick accounting over history or international business over drama. The only degrees that pay substantially higher are engineering and technology. But in the vast majority of cities/ towns in the US, a couple with two average "mid career" history major salaries @ $146k household income would be doing pretty damn well financially.
$78k Accounting
$77k Marketing
$74k International Business
$73k History
$73k Philosophy
$73k American Studies
$71k Business
$68k Drama
And that is based on what? Long-term studies show that, after their initial struggles in the job market, liberal arts majors do fine over the course of their careers.
My comment about English majors? Its based on the educational qualities of the English programs which has more than to with (intellectually) sticking your head in the sand than actually learning and developing skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
It's hardly anecdote, either, since I encounter liberal arts majors in well-paid fields all the time.
umm.....huh? No, its still an anecdote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Here's the problem with your obsession with this subject. You are looking at college as job training, whereas a liberal arts major learns a method for acquiring and assessing abstract information.
Firstly, you have obviously not read what I have written here, my points have had nothing to do with "college as job training", instead with pedagogical matters. Secondly, I said nothing about liberal arts majors in general, my comment was about English and English only. Its a terrible degree program that teaches pretty much nothing, English majors even get bested in the one thing they should be really good at (writing) by other liberal arts programs.
No, my argument doesn't support the flexibility of anything because there are often arbitrary lines drawn by society that can restrict career adaptation. In my current state, it is possible - though quite difficult - to gain PE registration without an ABET degree.
Right, so as I said before, your underlying thinking here appears to be that an Engineer can learn Philosophy, Mathematics without much effort after they graduate where as the Mathematics student would have to get a degree in Engineering to do Engineering. But this is far from the truth and whether one studies a subject formally at college or informally really doesn't matter, indeed, they are likely to spend more time learning about it informally because they will lack appropriate mentors.
Engineering + Philosophy = Philosophy + Engineer
Which one you study first doesn't matter, you'll spend the same time regardless.
Claim that Engineering is more flexible because you can add to it, is absolutely bizarre. To add some concreteness here, take a "time spent learning" function timeSpent(), then for most X:
I'd suggest a major M is flexible when for most X, timeSpent(M + X) < timeSpent(M) + timeSpent(X).
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
...discussion based on nothing but unsubstantiated opinions.
More cop-outs, I provided arguments for most of my position, just in case you weren't aware empirical data is not the only way to provide support for an assertion.
Also, the topic really hinges on the definition of "flexible" and that isn't an empirical matter. What you are trying to do here is ridiculous, you are trying to augment an Engineering education by potential outside education. That and apparently you think addition is not symmetric...
Last edited by user_id; 07-13-2011 at 02:34 PM..
Reason: adding details.
Right, so as I said before, your underlying thinking here appears to be that an Engineer can learn Philosophy, Mathematics without much effort after they graduate where as the Mathematics student would have to get a degree in Engineering to do Engineering. But this is far from the truth and whether one studies a subject formally at college or informally really doesn't matter, indeed, they are likely to spend more time learning about it informally because they will lack appropriate mentors.
Engineering + Philosophy = Philosophy + Engineer
Which one you study first doesn't matter, you'll spend the same time regardless.
Claim that Engineering is more flexible because you can add to it, is absolutely bizarre. To add some concreteness here, take a "time spent learning" function timeSpent(), then for most X:
Am I being unclear or are you not bothering to read my posts? My argument has nothing to do with what is learned and everything to do with whether this learning is recognized. There are state licensure boards that will not allow you to become registered as a professional engineer without an ABET-accredited degree and there are employers that require ABET degrees for engineering jobs.
More cop-outs, I provided arguments for most of my position, just in case you weren't aware empirical data is not the only way to provide support for an assertion.
Also, the topic really hinges on the definition of "flexible" and that isn't an empirical matter. What you are trying to do here is ridiculous, you are trying to augment an Engineering education by potential outside education. That and apparently you think addition is not symmetric...
I'm afraid your arguments have yet to fully develop in this thread.
First, you need to explain the process by which a philosophy education causes a person to develop greater ability to adapt and learn other skills. Then I would like you to give me some idea as to how much philosophy education is necessary for this shift to occur. Finally, explain how engineering curricula teach a problem solving mentality that doesn't apply to other areas as well.
But even if you do all this, I'm afraid you can't support your position in this particular situation without empirical evidence. The reason is quite simple: we are talking about career flexibility, not just education. It isn't enough for you to show that philosophy is indeed better than engineering at developing logical analysis. You also have to show that employers a) agree with you on this and b) care about it when making hiring decisions. And because human beings are not always fully informed and rational actors, there's no way to prove that without empirics.
There are state licensure boards that will not allow you to become registered as a professional engineer without an ABET-accredited degree and there are employers that require ABET degrees for engineering jobs.
Its odd that you suggest that I'm not reading you, yet you keep ignoring what I'm saying in response to this. You are trying to separate formal and informal education, in a way that makes no sense.
There is nothing materially different about an Engineer learning about Philosophy by spending 4 years reading and talking with people outside of school and a Philosophy student going back to school for a BS in Engineering. Now, perhaps going back to school is going to be more expensive and less convenient, but there is no material difference otherwise. But really, how many Engineers know enough experts in Mathematics, Philosophy, etc to actually learn these subjects well?
And this goes back to something you've said and is the underlying basis of your claims, namely, that you think Philosophy is the sort of thing you can learn "on the side" by reading a few books. Its not, you're not going to get a good Philosophy education by just reading some books over the weekend. Just as I'm not going to get a good Engineering education by building some things over the weekend.
There are a lot of hidden assumptions in your claims and you just aren't addressing them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
Finally, explain how engineering curricula teach a problem solving mentality that doesn't apply to other areas as well.
Already went over this, Engineering doesn't even attempt to teach:
1.) Scientific methodology
2.) Logic
3.) Mathematical reasoning
4.) Critical thinking
So how exactly are Engineering students going to come away with an understanding of them? On the other hand Philosophy will teach most of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
I'm afraid you can't support your position in this particular situation without empirical evidence. The reason is quite simple: we are talking about career flexibility, not just education.
I'm talking about education, the career flexibility is just an outcome of the education. The career flexibility of a major is certainly something you can study empirically, but I don't know of any such studies.
In terms of empirical evidence, to say it again, scientific studies aren't the only way to support an assertion. If there were appropriate statistics on this topic we could look at them, but there isn't so you have to analysis it by other means.
Now, do these "other means' guarantee the truth of the assertion? No, but nothing would.
Its odd that you suggest that I'm not reading you, yet you keep ignoring what I'm saying in response to this. You are trying to separate formal and informal education, in a way that makes no sense.
There is nothing materially different about an Engineer learning about Philosophy by spending 4 years reading and talking with people outside of school and a Philosophy student going back to school for a BS in Engineering. Now, perhaps going back to school is going to be more expensive and less convenient, but there is no material difference otherwise. But really, how many Engineers know enough experts in Mathematics, Philosophy, etc to actually learn these subjects well?
And this goes back to something you've said and is the underlying basis of your claims, namely, that you think Philosophy is the sort of thing you can learn "on the side" by reading a few books. Its not, you're not going to get a good Philosophy education by just reading some books over the weekend. Just as I'm not going to get a good Engineering education by building some things over the weekend.
There are a lot of hidden assumptions in your claims and you just aren't addressing them...
The separation I create describes the real world accurately in many scenarios. Let's say you get a degree in philosophy but somehow study engineering to the extent that you feel as educated as any engineering graduate. When you go to some state licensure boards and ask to take the PE exam because you know just as much about engineering as an engineer, they will throw you out. And when you go to many employers asking for engineering grads and ask for a job because you know as much about engineering as an engineer, they will throw you out.
And even for regulators and employers with less rigid requirements, related experience will usually be necessary to circumvent an actual engineering degree. And the only way to get such experience will probably be to study and work in one of the trades for several years, at which point a significant amount of time and earning potential will be lost.
And you assume too much about my advocacy. Most engineering programs have more room for other courses than many people think, especially for a smart student coming into college with AP credits. Since you've never explained how many classes are needed to cause critical thinking skills to develop, I can't really give an adequate response.
It isn't a core part of this argument, but just for completeness let me add one more thing: because many engineering courses are lab-intensive, they can be almost impossible to duplicate outside of class. While I agree that weekend philosophers will probably not have much success, they still have a better chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Already went over this, Engineering doesn't even attempt to teach:
1.) Scientific methodology
2.) Logic
3.) Mathematical reasoning
4.) Critical thinking
So how exactly are Engineering students going to come away with an understanding of them? On the other hand Philosophy will teach most of them.
Please define "critical thinking"
You haven't completed the link. How does education in these four areas cause a person to become more adaptable? How does this process work? And how much education is necessary to achieve such a shift?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm talking about education, the career flexibility is just an outcome of the education. The career flexibility of a major is certainly something you can study empirically, but I don't know of any such studies.
In terms of empirical evidence, to say it again, scientific studies aren't the only way to support an assertion. If there were appropriate statistics on this topic we could look at them, but there isn't so you have to analysis it by other means.
Now, do these "other means' guarantee the truth of the assertion? No, but nothing would.
Trust me, I know the value of analysis as a means of supporting assertion. But it won't work in this scenario because your argument describes the actions of human beings who may not be fully informed and logical actors.
The separation I create describes the real world accurately in many scenarios.
You're just not addressing what I'm saying, I'm not disputing the fact that some jobs may have rigid requirements for an Engineering degree. My point, as stated, is that whether you study a subject formally or informally you're going to do the same sorts of things and spend the same amount of time. Learning outside of an university isn't magically easier or faster, it involves the same things.
So, again as stated previously, a philosophy major who decides to go back to school for engineering is no different than an engineer who learns Philosophy informally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
Since you've never explained how many classes are needed to cause critical thinking skills to develop, I can't really give an adequate response.
There is not some threshold where after you've exceeded it you "understand" and below it you don't, its gradual and varies. But we are back to the idea that an Engineering student can learn these things by just taking a few courses, while Philosophy, Mathematics, etc majors have do it full-time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
because many engineering courses are lab-intensive, they can be almost impossible to duplicate outside of class.
The learning that goes on in a lab can easily be duplicated outside of an university, there is nothing special about a university its just a big place with professors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
You haven't completed the link. How does education in these four areas cause a person to become more adaptable? How does this process work? And how much education is necessary to achieve such a shift?
Because those four areas are the basis of most fields and understanding them enables one to quickly learn these fields. In terms of "how much education", a solid undergrad education in the topics will work just fine.
Completing a program in Engineering does not put anybody in a position to learn other fields, one has to start fresh as there is little to no skill/knowledge over-lap. There is a reason the Engineering schools at universities are rather separate from the main academic units, its materially different in scope.
Shouldn't these be things you learned in high school?
Sure, if high schools in the US actually provided solid educations, but with the exception of elite private high schools, they don't.
But there is also an age issue, the areas of the brain critical to abstract reasoning aren't fully developed until roughly 17~18 so further instruction is required regardless of the merit of your high school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiogirl22
And "Logic" and "Critical Thinking" aren't these fancy words for common sense?
You're just not addressing what I'm saying, I'm not disputing the fact that some jobs may have rigid requirements for an Engineering degree. My point, as stated, is that whether you study a subject formally or informally you're going to do the same sorts of things and spend the same amount of time. Learning outside of an university isn't magically easier or faster, it involves the same things.
So, again as stated previously, a philosophy major who decides to go back to school for engineering is no different than an engineer who learns Philosophy informally.
There is not some threshold where after you've exceeded it you "understand" and below it you don't, its gradual and varies. But we are back to the idea that an Engineering student can learn these things by just taking a few courses, while Philosophy, Mathematics, etc majors have do it full-time.
The learning that goes on in a lab can easily be duplicated outside of an university, there is nothing special about a university its just a big place with professors.
Okay, you say that there's nothing special about a university setting. Let's remember that moving forward.
I have never contended that it is easier or quicker to study outside of school, just that the studying completed in school carries a certification that can be essential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Because those four areas are the basis of most fields and understanding them enables one to quickly learn these fields. In terms of "how much education", a solid undergrad education in the topics will work just fine.
Completing a program in Engineering does not put anybody in a position to learn other fields, one has to start fresh as there is little to no skill/knowledge over-lap. There is a reason the Engineering schools at universities are rather separate from the main academic units, its materially different in scope.
You say the basis of "most fields." Which fields are we talking about here?
What constitutes a "solid undergrad education," and why is this the standard?
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.
