Are you Major-ist?

[gorcee]

Persistence is admirable!

Nope! Too broad. All things in context. Persistence for the right cause is admirable. Persistence for its own sake is just bullheadedness. Choosing the hardest path for no reason other than "because it's the hardest" isn't a virtue, it's just masochism.

Fair points.

Sure, but I'm not talking about bullheadedness, really. And I'm not suggesting that anyone is choosing the hardest path for the sake of choosing the hardest path. If I were suggesting that, then I'd be suggesting that STEM students don't care about STEM, they just care about doing hard things. So I am implicitly focusing on the "good persistence", that is, sticking with your chosen field despite all odds to the contrary. You say all things in context. I have already constructed the context.

So in light of your comments, I'll amend point three:

3.) Persistence, in seeking a goal of one's desire, is admirable!
3a.) STEM students desire a goal. Sometimes the goal is a well-paying job. Sometimes the goal is the ability to work with things you think are really cool. Sometimes the goal is just the desire to learn.
3a1.) Learning for learning's sake is not the same as suffering for suffering's sake.

[gorcee]

To succeed at engineering, you have to combat a lot of statistics that are not working in your favor,

Statistics aren't personal experiences. You don't have to fight them.

I'll inform the feminists. The glass ceiling is a myth!

Persistence, as I'm using it, is the drive to succeed despite the odds being against you.

I see your definition is wrong. Persistence is just continuing to do a thing in spite of some reason it is difficult to do. You can be 100% certain to succeed at a task that is very easy to do and still have to be persistent, for instance if it is simply a long and boring task. It's nothing to do with your odds of success.

It can mean both. It is usable in both settings. Seriously, like dictionary entries 1 and 2:

1.
persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement, etc.; persevering: a most annoyingly persistent young man.
2.
lasting or enduring tenaciously

You cannot admit a definition that specifically says "in spite of opposition" and not acknowledge that it refers to a condition where success is not guaranteed. (oof, triple negative?)

In the usage below, I doubt Calvin Coolidge was referring to the ability to sit through a line at the DMV:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

So my definition is most certainly not wrong.

[Dream]

3.) Persistence, in seeking a goal of one's desire, is admirable!
3a.) STEM students desire a goal. Sometimes the goal is a well-paying job. Sometimes the goal is the ability to work with things you think are really cool. Sometimes the goal is just the desire to learn.
3a1.) Learning for learning's sake is not the same as suffering for suffering's sake.

Now all you're saying is that it is admirable to study technical disciplines. Not very controversial, is it?

I'll inform the feminists. The glass ceiling is a myth!

No, the glass ceiling is a concept. It's misogyny that stops women at certain points in certain careers, not statistics on employment.

[gorcee]

3.) Persistence, in seeking a goal of one's desire, is admirable!
3a.) STEM students desire a goal. Sometimes the goal is a well-paying job. Sometimes the goal is the ability to work with things you think are really cool. Sometimes the goal is just the desire to learn.
3a1.) Learning for learning's sake is not the same as suffering for suffering's sake.

Now all you're saying is that it is admirable to study technical disciplines. Not very controversial, is it?

Not at all, but points 1 and 2 still stand. Which would seem to imply that more persistence (point 1) leads to greater admirability. Of course, that conclusion is a bit of nonsense. I think anyone successful should be admired. But those who had a more difficult path should get some acknowledgement for that*, not necessarily extra admiration.


*and STEM majors do, in the end, because they tend to make more money. But I'm trying to convince the Internet, dammit, where there is no such thing as money!

I'll inform the feminists. The glass ceiling is a myth!

No, the glass ceiling is a concept. It's misogyny that stops women at certain points in certain careers, not statistics on employment.

Even still, women do have to fight the statistics that result from this. For example, because of lower earnings potential, women have smaller retirement savings than men, despite having a 5-6 year longer average lifespan and requiring on average 1 more year of long-term care than men. So, even though the cause might be systematic, the effect results in women having to work harder to ensure the same level of late-life prosperity.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Once again, sticking "once again" in front of a point you haven't yet made doesn't make it stronger. We can nitpick pedantry all night. You know what I'm trying to say.

I'm surprised nobody jumped on this, but either it's not at all clear what you're trying to say, or what you're trying to say is bullshit. This is because, as gmal said in the post that you were directly responding to, saying "I think" in front of something does not make it an opinion. Thus, pointing out that you said "I think" in front of some shit does nothing to change the fact that the things you are thinking are factual claims, and that they're bullshit.

Shouldn't that alone have been sufficient evidence to say, "hey, he's referencing a religion and/or philosophy, not making a scientifically provable statement about the universe."

The second one looks an awful lot like something that a psychologist could test, and my preliminary anecdotal experience (which is presumably all the Buddha had) suggests that it's false.

[gorcee]

Once again, sticking "once again" in front of a point you haven't yet made doesn't make it stronger. We can nitpick pedantry all night. You know what I'm trying to say.

I'm surprised nobody jumped on this, but either it's not at all clear what you're trying to say, or what you're trying to say is bullshit. This is because, as gmal said in the post that you were directly responding to, saying "I think" in front of something does not make it an opinion. Thus, pointing out that you said "I think" in front of some shit does nothing to change the fact that the things you are thinking are factual claims, and that they're bullshit.

Shouldn't that alone have been sufficient evidence to say, "hey, he's referencing a religion and/or philosophy, not making a scientifically provable statement about the universe."

The second one looks an awful lot like something that a psychologist could test, and my preliminary anecdotal experience (which is presumably all the Buddha had) suggests that it's false.

Ok you're right.

By being right, you have sent a magic bullet of rightness through the universe and invalidated all of my other points that have been supported by research. The editors of the journals will be sending retraction notices out tomorrow.

That whole thread was a complete tangent to the main point. It's over now. I communicated poorly, I acknowledge that, and I need more humanities courses. Fine. It doesn't at all affect the other points I was making.


Oh, and also, the other day on Facebook, I wrote "it's" instead of "its." I am writing to inform my alma mater that they should retract my degree.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

[Dream]

So my definition is most certainly not wrong.

Nothing you cited says anything about persistence having to do with low odds of success. Your definition is wrong.

So, even though the cause might be systematic, the effect results in women having to work harder to ensure the same level of late-life prosperity.

Women as a group. Not any individual woman in particular. Same for students. A higher drop out rate doesn't mean that Little Billy is more likely to drop out, because the statistic does not inform his personal experience.

[EsotericWombat]

This thread has inspired me to, when and if I ever return to college, carry a spritzer at all times, so as to give the misbehaving cat treatment to anyone offering a similar flavor of bullshit to the one found in abundance here.

[gorcee]

So my definition is most certainly not wrong.

Nothing you cited says anything about persistence having to do with low odds of success. Your definition is wrong.

I didn't say low odds of success. I said "odds being against you", which is pretty much saying the same thing as "there are obstacles in your path."

I guess one inference here could be that I am saying that persistence is a quality when you have a strictly less than 50% chance of succeeding. That's not what I meant. What I mean is having a strictly less than 100% chance of succeeding.

So, even though the cause might be systematic, the effect results in women having to work harder to ensure the same level of late-life prosperity.

Women as a group. Not any individual woman in particular. Same for students. A higher drop out rate doesn't mean that Little Billy is more likely to drop out, because the statistic does not inform his personal experience.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUDENTS AS A GROOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Each individual woman enters a working society that, statistically, makes her chances of (for example) having late-life prosperity more difficult. Although each woman's individual experience is different, they are all more or less in the same system that has sustained this inequality.

Each individual STEM student enters a system that, statistically, makes his or her chances of success smaller than his or her equally-skilled humanities student peer. Although each student's individual experience is different, they all more or less operate in the same environment that has sustained this inequality.

Ergo, STEM have more obstacles to success than the humanities. It is, statistically, a more difficult environment in which to find success. Hardness, in this sense, means overall systematic difficulty. Therefore, STEM majors are in fact statistically "harder" than humanities majors, although individual experiences vary.

This is my final point. If you want to argue with my philosophy, go ahead. It's probably pretty retarded, but it's my philosophy, not yours, so I don't really care. And if you want to argue pedantic points about word usage and grammar, and completely ignore the statistics presented before you, go ahead. You're just enforcing my opinions.

If you want to present evidence that the cumulative humanities college experience is as difficult as that of STEM, I'm all ears. But so far, I have presented evidence suggesting the opposite, and I've let myself get baited into meaningless arguments over writing styles and personal philosophies.

Seriously, I'm never going to convince you that I'm not an asshole. I'm not even trying. But you're not earning yourself, or your discipline, any respect by ignoring the evidence I set before you, and instead choosing to employ poor debate tactics ranging from grammar pedantry, to invalidation of personal belief, to flat out ad hominem attacks. Also, you're not going to change my personal philosophy.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUDENTS AS A GROOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So how long do I have to babysit this sort of thing before I get a persistence medal?

[Dream]

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUDENTS AS A GROOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So how long do I have to babysit this sort of thing before I get a persistence medal?

If you don't forget to start again tomorrow, you get a Persistence of Memory medal. It's floppy and melted.

[gorcee]

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUDENTS AS A GROOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So how long do I have to babysit this sort of thing before I get a persistence medal?

If you don't forget to start again tomorrow, you get a Persistence of Memory medal. It's floppy and melted.

I chuckled.

[Dream]

But you're not earning yourself, or your discipline, any respect

For the record, I failed a BA and aced an MSc.

Whose discipline am I earning for again?

[Bakemaster]

Do all of you who have been arguing so relentlessly for the past half-dozen pages really care that strongly about the opinions of people who are going to pre-judge you based wholly or primarily on your field of study?

Really?

[gorcee]

But you're not earning yourself, or your discipline, any respect

For the record, I failed a BA and aced an MSc.

Whose discipline am I earning for again?

Neither. In this case it's just you.

[gmalivuk]

Do all of you who have been arguing so relentlessly for the past half-dozen pages really care that strongly about the opinions of people who are going to pre-judge you based wholly or primarily on your field of study?

Um, no?

Since when has caring what the other person thinks of me been relevant to whether they're being wrong on the internet?

[KestrelLowing]

Dang, I don't even know where this discussion is anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we basically arguing whether it takes more persistence to get through a STEM degree and therefore is more 'noble' or something?

If so, I flat out disagree. While I'm annoyed by people who have a smaller workload and complain about it (who isn't!) I don't think that's the reason that I believe STEM degrees are more useful and more advisable to go into. While fighting thru a STEM degree is difficult and possibly arguably more difficult than a fair number of humanities degrees (STEM GPAs are generally lower, not fully understanding an early class is very severe in STEM but less so in humanities) that doesn't really matter that much to me. Does it contribute to the fact that I am majorist? Yeah. Because I am in STEM, I understand what they've gone thru and that allows me to have empathy and I also know exactly how hard that is. I've taken humanities courses and they've been very easy so I usually don't have as much respect for a humanities major due to just their major. If they're an amazing person, that's fine. Obviously your major isn't the be all, end all.

Something that I really wish would happen though is for the amount of humanities majors to decrease to just those that actually need the major for their jobs. Now, this would require industry to realize that you don't need a college degree to do typical office work so that's a huge problem. Obviously there will always be those who fully intend on getting a job in their major but circumstances just don't work out. I just want to lessen that so that there will be less student debt and so that maybe I wouldn't hate the humanities so much!

Here's my thought: the economy arguably needs more STEM majors than humanities majors. However, society obviously needs at least some humanities majors or life would kind of suck. But, the humanities majors we really need are the top-notch ones. What I'd like to see is for all humanities programs to suddenly get way more difficult and way more challenging. I want a humanities degree to really mean something, to make me realize how much work people have actually gone through. I want humanities majors to have the generally lower GPAs. How does this happen? More restrictive enrollment. Often getting into an engineering college at a university is more difficult than the general arts college. Switch that. Make it so that humanities creates only the top-notch people in that field.

At the same time, I don't want the STEM requirements to lessen. They should still be the same. They can't be any less, or you'd have buildings falling down and I think we can all agree this shouldn't happen. This would make it so that college enrollment would be down, but if you've been keeping an eye on the "higher education bubble" issue, most people realize that probably would be a good idea.

Hmm, just thought about something: maybe grade inflation seems to be more rampant in humanities degrees because there are no catastrophic consequences if they do something incorrectly. While this isn't true for all STEM majors, a good portion deal with things that can kill you. If you produce an engineer that can't properly calculate stresses, they could kill someone walking by when the machine malfunctions. If you produce an art history major that thinks Degas painted hippos, they'll just get fired from their job - no real permanent harm done.

[gorcee]

Do all of you who have been arguing so relentlessly for the past half-dozen pages really care that strongly about the opinions of people who are going to pre-judge you based wholly or primarily on your field of study?

Um, no?

Since when has caring what the other person thinks of me been relevant to whether they're being wrong on the internet?

Dude that's like the Fundamental Theorem of the Internet.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

You keep saying that humanities courses are easy. What level have you taken them at? 1st year? 3rd year? Whatever the US equivalent to honours is? Post-graduate? Post-doctoral? Were you the only STEM student in the course? Did you pick it solely to get it out of the way? Were you trying to challenge yourself? Challenge the instructor? Challenge the rock? Do you think your college offers a fair representation of the humanities, or does its STEM focus hurt it?

[ShootTheChicken]

Something that I really wish would happen though is for the amount of humanities majors to decrease to just those that actually need the major for their jobs.

But... but... no!

Since when did learning for the sake of learning become such a bad thing? When did the aspiration to learn simply to better yourself become so unfavourable? The idea or a university or college is so romantic, a place populated by people with the goal of learning. Why is one type of knowledge so valued over another?

Perhaps it's time you accept that some people aren't motivated by money, and don't want the next 30 years of their life planned out by the time they're 20. And respect them for that.

[gorcee]

You keep saying that humanities courses are easy.

Who, me, or Kestrel?

Because I've said many times that they are not any easier than engineering courses. This is also supported in the studies I've linked.

[gorcee]

Something that I really wish would happen though is for the amount of humanities majors to decrease to just those that actually need the major for their jobs.

But... but... no!

Since when did learning for the sake of learning become such a bad thing? When did the aspiration to learn simply to better yourself become so unfavourable? The idea or a university or college is so romantic, a place populated by people with the goal of learning. Why is one type of knowledge so valued over another?

Perhaps it's time you accept that some people aren't motivated by money, and don't want the next 30 years of their life planned out by the time they're 20. And respect them for that.

I agree with this right up to the point that the student loan bubble fucks up the economy.

[ShootTheChicken]

EDIT: Fuck that, completely off topic.

[KestrelLowing]

You keep saying that humanities courses are easy. What level have you taken them at? 1st year? 3rd year? Whatever the US equivalent to honours is? Post-graduate? Post-doctoral? Were you the only STEM student in the course? Did you pick it solely to get it out of the way? Were you trying to challenge yourself? Challenge the instructor? Challenge the rock? Do you think your college offers a fair representation of the humanities, or does its STEM focus hurt it?

I took three 3000 level courses - 2 in German, but also a 3000 level history class. (1000 = freshman, 2000 = sophomore, etc.) I also took 3 of the 4 humanities classes that everyone must take (had AP English credit for one), but I really can't hold the humanities department responsible for those. They all suck and everyone knows it. The German I wanted to do, and some portions of it were challenging (Kafka. In German. Heck, I don't understand him in English!) but was, in general, quite easy, and not because I was already at an understanding past the class. I actually started in a little behind as I tested in from high school.

The history fit decently into my schedule and didn't sound too horrible. It was American history of technology or something like that. I basically just BSed the papers and I still got an A.

I totally think the focus on STEM at my school would create a humanities department that isn't as good. The professors are very passionate and love to tell you that your major doesn't mean anything because there's no humanity in it (I so want to yell back at them, but whatever) but they might not be as good of professors as you'll find at some liberal arts schools. Still, from what I understand, our humanities grads are actually fairly desirable because they know how to deal with STEM people, although that might just be for the Scientific and Technical Communications major.

But... but... no!

Since when did learning for the sake of learning become such a bad thing? When did the aspiration to learn simply to better yourself become so unfavourable? The idea or a university or college is so romantic, a place populated by people with the goal of learning. Why is one type of knowledge so valued over another?

Perhaps it's time you accept that some people aren't motivated by money, and don't want the next 30 years of their life planned out by the time they're 20. And respect them for that.

It became a bad idea when the debt you might be sucked into might not ever get paid off.



College tuition has been rising far, far above what would be expected for inflation. You know what else did that? Housing. Yeah. That went well. See that trail off on the housing trend-line? That's probably going to happen for education, and it's not going to be pretty.

If you're independently wealthy or are good enough to get a full ride, I don't really see the problem for learning for learning's sake. It's when you're not - lower to middle class A/B student - that it's a problem.

The reason that one type of knowledge is valued over another is simple economics. What profits can you get from a chemist? What profits can you get from someone that studies gender studies? Obviously the chemist would just win economically.

No, you don't need tons of money to live but you'd be much better off working at Starbucks trying to become a manager right out of high school than to go, get your degree along with $24,000 of debt (average in 2009 - note that this will be skewed by those that can independently afford college and have scholarships that don't need loans, so in all likelihood, your debt might be greater, particularly if you go private or out-of-state) and then go apply to Starbucks and get told you're overqualified.

[EsotericWombat]

So if you're poor, you shouldn't go to school in the pursuit of knowledge that you want, just knowledge that you need to have in order to make money. I understand perfectly.

[gmalivuk]

Something that I really wish would happen though is for the amount of humanities majors to decrease to just those that actually need the major for their jobs.

Where you live, are there tons of humanities majors working at jobs that don't require a college degree? Because that's not really the case here, but then I live in Boston, with its exceptionally high number of universities per capita.

[Puppyclaws]

Kestrel, you are an idiot with no idea what working life, office environments, HR, and a real career are actually like. People who make decisions on college majors based solely on economic factors are foolish, plain and simple. The only way to have a good quality of life is to enjoy what you are doing, and people interested in English as a degree program are far more likely to enjoy a life as middle management in an office environment than a career in engineering. The real thing that the college debt issue shows is that fewer people should be going to college and fewer entry-level positions should require college degrees, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

In the long term, if you want to make as much money as possible, you are also better off going into a business program and then getting an MBA than going into most STEM programs. Sure, evidence shows that nobody learns anything in these programs, but it also shows they go on to make a lot of money, and if that's all you're after, hey.

On the topic as it started: Yes, I am totally "major-ist." People like KL and gorcee are the definition of why. The tendency to be condescending and call it "logic" is not the sole property of STEM students, but they are in my experience the biggest offenders, far and away.

[doogly]

There are two sentiments here:
--- making money is not the main goal of education. knowledge for its own sake is great. if you have values that are not primarily about money, then living your life according to your values is a great thing.
So much agree! but:
--- debt is a cycle of shit, a trap into which many colleges are happy to lure the idealistic youths
Agree also! It's one thing to eschew wealth, it's another entirely to let yourself be taken advantage of. Debt is *bad.*

College debt is even worse than regular debt. Student loans and court ordered restitutions are the only kinds of debt that you can't declare bankruptcy to escape.

And look puppy, I already kicked Gorcee out of the club. What more do you want from us? We can't all police our majors.
... I think Kestrel does understand her career though. Let's not be completely patronizing.

[Izawwlgood]

The only way to have a good quality of life is to enjoy what you are doing, and people interested in English as a degree program are far more likely to enjoy a life as middle management in an office environment than a career in engineering

THE ONLY WAY!!!

Personally, I can attest to the fact that a bunch of Art/Humanities/Theater majors I know regret studying what they studied in the face of their crappy jobs, and wish they had better spent the time focusing on something more marketable. Not to say that that's true for everyone, but I object to how binary you're stating your case.

[fuzzycuzzy]

Dang, I don't even know where this discussion is anymore.

Welcome to my lifetime.

So just to clarify, do you guys consider Arts to be part of Humanities? I never understood whether Arts fell into Liberal Arts or not. Also, that very well completely changes a lot of your arguments, because there really is not much more for an Art major to do besides make something artistic, or to teach.

[Dark567]

You keep saying that humanities courses are easy.

At least at my Alma Mater, my personal anecdotal evidence and the data* seem to imply that Humanities are easier then STEM at the undergraduate level. Just looking at the most basic comparison the average GPA or a BS v. BA you see that the BS has 3.16 and the BA has a 3.2. Not too much of a difference. But if we dig deeper we will start to see something more interesting. Lets use an aeronautical engineering major as an example, if you look at only zis STEM coursework the average has around a 2.8-2.9 GPA within his math, stats, science and engineering. Yet zis overall GPA is 3.14. Zi's getting higher grades in zis humanities classes then ze is in his field and STEM. Now if we look at Humanities majors, they seem to do better in their own field then their other classes(Albeit I don't have enough info on which particular other classes they don't do well in, it could be in their STEM credits, it could be in other humanities courses outside their field).

Now at the same time its not necessarily that the subject matter in STEM is harder, the professors could just be hardasses with regards to curves(It really wouldn't surprise me if engineering faculty position self select for hardasses). That's little consolation though when you fail a class. The other possibility is that engineering self selects for people that are bad at STEM.... but that flies against all intuition.

My personal path seems to match it. I majored in Electrical and Computer Engineering, minored in Philosophy. Dabbled in some Anthro and Dance for fun, had to take some English and Communication courses. I can't think of one humanities course that was as tough as a mid level math or engineering course.

*http://registrar.wisc.edu/documents/Stats_distribs_2010-2011Spring.pdf
*http://registrar.wisc.edu/undergraduate_grade_point_averages.htm

[gorcee]

The tendency to be condescending and call it "logic" is not the sole property of STEM students, but they are in my experience the biggest offenders, far and away.

And the tendency to look a bunch of well-studied facts in the face, and then shoving your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala I choose to not accept that reality because it conflicts with my idealistic worldview" is not the sole providence of humanities students, but in my experience they are the biggest offenders, far and away.

[Bakemaster]

College tuition has been rising far, far above what would be expected for inflation. You know what else did that? Housing. Yeah. That went well. See that trail off on the housing trend-line? That's probably going to happen for education, and it's not going to be pretty.

I'm having a pretty tough time untangling the convoluted mess that is your interpretation of that chart. Suffice it to say that if college tuition tanks the way home prices have tanked, that is unequivocally a good thing, and these "markets" are not even remotely equivalent.

People like KL and gorcee are the definition of why [I am totally "major-ist"].

Responding to a stupid position by taking the opposite stupid position—are you a member of Congress?

[Puppyclaws]

Izawwlgood: You may be right, I was a bit over the top. Notably, I also include getting a job that you can stomach as part of doing something you enjoy. I thought that was fairly clear. Obviously if you have a crappy job, you aren't going to be happy about the choices that lead you there regardless of what that path was. I know more than a few STEM program graduates who have unfulfilling jobs that are not related to the degree they received, and at least a couple who have gone back to school in social science programs. I don't think the fact that some of your friends are unhappy with their degree choices means they would be as happy as they might think they would be after getting a degree in "something more marketable." It's a lot easier to say that than to do it, and they may well find themselves just as unhappy in their new field, if they even managed to secure a job in it. It has been my experience that, at least among those I know well, people who are happy with their degrees and careers did what they wanted to and it took them to some level of success; people who are unhappy with their degrees/careers went into things for reasons like theoretical future monetary rewards or, to quote an unhappy former psychology major, "because it sounded easy."

Doogly: I am fairly confident in saying that based on these posts it is clear that Kestrel does not understand the work place in general, however well she may understand her particular situation.

Fuzzycuzzy: My impression is that "Humanities" is being used as a catch-all for anything from soft sciences (psychology/sociology/anthropology) to languages and literature to art and music, even though many of those things do not classically fall under the humanities designation. As many people have pointed out, there are many diverse directions that "art" can go in, and teaching is certainly a legitimate career.

Gorcee: That's cool. I'm being a dick kind of on purpose, but obviously also you refuse to understand that certain subjects are naught but reasoned and arguable opinion. Facts can be used to back up an argument, but if they can be interpreted multiple ways or the conclusions drawn from them do not necessarily follow, you can't just shout "but I cited something!" and expect to win the internets.

[gorcee]

Gorcee: That's cool. I'm being a dick kind of on purpose, but obviously also you refuse to understand that certain subjects are naught but reasoned and arguable opinion. Facts can be used to back up an argument, but if they can be interpreted multiple ways or the conclusions drawn from them do not necessarily follow, you can't just shout "but I cited something!" and expect to win the internets.

No, I refuse to accept that peer-reviewed, published, hard data is just "opinion".

The studies I pointed out went beyond counting the number of people who graduated and not. They went through exquisite pains to control for a number of factors. There are many ways to consider the conclusions, but the studies pretty much un-arguably suggested that the experience of STEM majors was not equal to that of non-STEM majors.

[KestrelLowing]

Dang, I don't even know where this discussion is anymore.

Welcome to my lifetime.

So just to clarify, do you guys consider Arts to be part of Humanities? I never understood whether Arts fell into Liberal Arts or not. Also, that very well completely changes a lot of your arguments, because there really is not much more for an Art major to do besides make something artistic, or to teach.

I was adding arts in there, and I'm still not entirely sure where along the social sciences that the cut should be made. I really do consider economics to be a STEM field, but I'm not really sure if political science or linguistics is. I could probably be persuaded either way.

Kestrel, you are an idiot with no idea what working life, office environments, HR, and a real career are actually like. People who make decisions on college majors based solely on economic factors are foolish, plain and simple. The only way to have a good quality of life is to enjoy what you are doing, and people interested in English as a degree program are far more likely to enjoy a life as middle management in an office environment than a career in engineering. The real thing that the college debt issue shows is that fewer people should be going to college and fewer entry-level positions should require college degrees, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.

In the long term, if you want to make as much money as possible, you are also better off going into a business program and then getting an MBA than going into most STEM programs. Sure, evidence shows that nobody learns anything in these programs, but it also shows they go on to make a lot of money, and if that's all you're after, hey.

On the topic as it started: Yes, I am totally "major-ist." People like KL and gorcee are the definition of why. The tendency to be condescending and call it "logic" is not the sole property of STEM students, but they are in my experience the biggest offenders, far and away.

Thank you ever so much for saying I'm an idiot. I really didn't see it before, but now, with you're magnificent rhetoric, I can totally understand[/sarcasm]

I have worked in an office environment for nearly two years in three different industries and I still have three semesters in college to go. I've worked at a small manufacturing facility, a large aerospace company, and a nuclear power plant. I think I know just as much about working life, offices, HR, and a real career as the average 25 year old that got an office job right out of college. I'm actually quite knowledgeable in that area with several different kinds of companies.

So I know exactly how it feels and how horrible it is if you don't get to use the abilities you learned in college. I don't want all humanities majors to be stuck in an entry level office job or working for Starbucks. If you're good, you won't be, but if you're average, there's a good chance you might be. If you have marketable skills, you might be able to get into a better job. Typically, marketable skills come from STEM majors. Yes, I'm lucky that my interests happen to align with something that is economically viable, and I realize that if they didn't, it would be very difficult to go against that, but it's something you have to consider.

I agree that less jobs should require college degrees, as I've said before, and I totally understand that some people would much rather have a management job than an engineering one. (HOWEVER, if you are ever managing anyone in the STEM field, please, please try to do some research and learn what it is they actually do. So many problems are caused because management doesn't understand what it is their 'minions' do.[/soapbox]) The question is then, how likely will it be than a religion studies major will be able to get a management job and not be filing papers? It might actually be more likely that you'd rise to middle management from a tech field than from humanities, although I don't know.

Also, I never advocated for getting the most money possible. I just want everyone to think a bit about how much debt they'll be getting into. Is it worth it? Can you manage to keep your head above it all? Could you support a family if you want one? Ideally, everyone would be above the level where they had to worry about whether the bills could be paid or not. I think one way to help with that is to objectively determine if you'd be able to get a good job with your major. Look at your abilities, look at the abilities of others. Does it make sense? Not sure? Maybe take a STEM major and humanities minor, or if you're a bit more confident take a humanities major with a STEM minor.

Oh and doogly, thanks. I think you set things out nicely.

[LaserGuy]

The reason that one type of knowledge is valued over another is simple economics. What profits can you get from a chemist? What profits can you get from someone that studies gender studies? Obviously the chemist would just win economically.

Ah, I think I see your problem. You are assuming that most people who graduate with STEM degrees actually go and work in their fields of study, whereas most people who work in humanities don't. Allow me to disillusion you a bit. I graduated with a physics degree; my wife has a biology degree. Most of our friends tended to be in sciences--physics, chemistry, biology. A few engineers and mathematicians. My sample size isn't that big, but maybe 100 or so people. Of those who finished with a B.Sc in math or science, I'd estimate that probably <5% were able to find employment in their fields. The vast majority either went to work in other fields or had to do post-graduate studies--not necessarily grad school, but extra certifications for education, technician work, nursing, whatever, much of which, again, took them out of their fields. There are very few jobs "in the field" for people with a B.Sc in physics, biology, chemistry or mathematics where you'd be expected to do anything related to your education and don't require additional training to get in. And, for example, many physicists end up working in engineering--a related field, but not strictly their field of study. Much like a literature major who goes on to do journalism, say.

I think you're missing the broader point here, too. A degree that allows you to work in many different, seemingly unrelated fields, is a really good thing. If a literature major can look at the classifieds (or whatever) and see a hundred openings for someone who knows how to communicate well, create nuanced arguments, has an understanding of human relations or politics or whatever and a STEM major looks at those same pages and finds only five jobs "in their field", is the STEM degree really more valuable? If a literature major has better transferable skills to a whole host of other professions, how is that less useful than a degree that pigeonholes you into a very limited number of options? The fields with the largest job growth are not in STEM; they are in the service sector, and in health care. If you care about your employment prospects, those types of fields are probably better than STEM.

[KestrelLowing]

The reason that one type of knowledge is valued over another is simple economics. What profits can you get from a chemist? What profits can you get from someone that studies gender studies? Obviously the chemist would just win economically.

Ah, I think I see your problem. You are assuming that most people who graduate with STEM degrees actually go and work in their fields of study, whereas most people who work in humanities don't. Allow me to disillusion you a bit. I graduated with a physics degree; my wife has a biology degree. Most of our friends tended to be in sciences--physics, chemistry, biology. A few engineers and mathematicians. My sample size isn't that big, but maybe 100 or so people. Of those who finished with a B.Sc in math or science, I'd estimate that probably <5% were able to find employment in their fields. The vast majority either went to work in other fields or had to do post-graduate studies--not necessarily grad school, but extra certifications for education, technician work, nursing, whatever, much of which, again, took them out of their fields. There are very few jobs "in the field" for people with a B.Sc in physics, biology, chemistry or mathematics where you'd be expected to do anything related to your education and don't require additional training to get in. And, for example, many physicists end up working in engineering--a related field, but not strictly their field of study. Much like a literature major who goes on to do journalism, say.

I think you're missing the broader point here, too. A degree that allows you to work in many different, seemingly unrelated fields, is a really good thing. If a literature major can look at the classifieds (or whatever) and see a hundred openings for someone who knows how to communicate well, create nuanced arguments, has an understanding of human relations or politics or whatever and a STEM major looks at those same pages and finds only five jobs "in their field", is the STEM degree really more valuable? If a literature major has better transferable skills to a whole host of other professions, how is that less useful than a degree that pigeonholes you into a very limited number of options? The fields with the largest job growth are not in STEM; they are in the service sector, and in health care. If you care about your employment prospects, those types of fields are probably better than STEM.

I'll admit I've totally been going at this mostly with an engineering viewpoint as that's what I know. My belief that most humanities majors don't get jobs in their field may also be due to where I live - I grew up in Detroit, motor city. Pretty much everything is cars. If you get a humanities degree, chances are that you're going to be working as a secretary or something at a car company. I would say that a literature major working as a secretary is out of their field. Even though I freaking love secretaries, it's got nothing to do with literature, the central focus of their major. Things like journalism is debatable. It doesn't have to do with literature, which is the foundation of their career, but a huge portion of it is writing. I could go either way.

However, most pure science majors that end up working in engineering are still typically doing physics or chemistry or whatever, so I wouldn't really consider that out of field as they're still doing the central point of their major, just applying it. If a mechanical engineer ended up doing more of a physics job, they'd still be in their field as physics is pretty much the core of mechanical engineering.

I've been googling a bit but haven't been able to find any good numbers for how many humanities vs. how many STEM majors find jobs in their field. I've been trying to look for how many people have job offers when they graduate, but that's really hard to find for humanities departments, and sometimes really hard for STEM too.

You do make an interesting point with the more transferable skills vs. more focused skills. The problem is, I don't know what the ratio of those jobs are. There has been a problem with not having enough STEM people to fill jobs. I've never heard of people not being able to fill jobs that don't need a particular major. I think with a humanities degree, you're probably at the exact same disadvantage as the recent STEM degree - everything requires 3-5 years of experience in a related field/job. So even if a literature major possessed all the particular skills for that job, it would be more difficult to persuade the interviewer that they had those skills than it would be for a electrical engineer to show that he had all the skills needed for an electrical engineering job. They could have fewer jobs to apply to, but there would be fewer applicants as you need an electrical engineering degree to get the job.

I really don't know what's more difficult - a few more jobs to choose from that will likely have loads of applicants, or fewer jobs, but ones that have fewer applicants and are more tailored to your abilities.

[gorcee]

Hey you know what this thread needs? More anecdotes based on personal experience.

Like seriously, Google this shit. It took me 4 minutes to find and read this study, which I did while I was waiting for a file transfer:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/fu ... m-jobs.pdf

Yeah, there are a lot of STEM graduates working in non-STEM fields. But not all of it is a case of "well sometimes STEM students think that STEM is poopy, too!"

The graduates we interviewed, admittedly mostly ‘strong’ graduates
in ‘good’ jobs, were almost all satisfied with their jobs and career progress, and used
their degree-related broader skills widely, some of which were highly valued by nonSTEM employers. Employers are recruiting STEM graduates into a range of job roles,
many of which are also open to non-STEM graduates but where those with STEM
degrees may have an advantage.

There was some evidence from employers, but little or none from the students or
graduates, to support the suggestion of a mismatch between employer
requirements for skills and those offered by graduates as a cause of ‘losses’ from
STEM Specialist/Core jobs. Very few graduates said that they had been rejected by
STEM employers, and none that such a rejection had changed their intended career
direction. Instead, they might then have applied to less prestigious employers in the
same sector. This could partly be a reflection of the nature of the graduate sample, i.e.
those who were relatively successful in obtaining employment. On the other hand, the
employers interviewed did report insufficient skills in many applicants, although they
tended to highlight weaknesses in STEM graduates’ core discipline knowledge and
understanding, or their mathematical capability, as much as or more than weaknesses in
more generic (‘employability’) skills like communication (although some highlighted
both).