>Unless you are a for-reals engineer--and that excludes somewhere north of 95% of software folks, maybe north of 99%--very little of the "STEM [you're] actually

>Unless you are a for-reals engineer--and that excludes somewhere north of 95% of software folks, maybe north of 99%--very little of the "STEM [you're] actually there to study" will apply when you leave college. I do in fact plan to use the math, it's pretty essential if you want to read and understand things like machine learning papers. A task I've already beat my head against more than once. >Universities are finishing schools for educated humans, not for tradeworkers. Universities are the institution with a monopoly on accreditation and access to the highest earning fields of endeavor, like it or not they are in fact the major gatekeeper to money for most people. A necessary consequence of this is that regardless of the institutions actual purpose, it will be subverted by external economic incentives. >So I just passed ten years since my freshman year of college, and I probably would have said the same thing you're saying now, then, and been as misguided about it as you are now. What would change your mind exactly, besides advancing in age nine years and being so distant from the subject that it no longer affects me? There's just no way easy way to discuss this without it becoming a discussion of my personal merits as a student of one subject or another. If I'm being completely honest with myself, most of my negative reaction to your comment comes from seeing self professed 'liberal arts' graduates rant about how they should be king because they've read The Prince and not the frankly much smarter people that build the technological civilization they want to rule.[0] The discourse is further confused by the inability to define precisely what it is we're talking about, so perhaps it would be useful if I broke down my position in more discrete terms: --- Q. Are the humanities or the sciences more important, in the grand scheme of things? A. Well that depends on what you mean by 'humanities' and what you mean by 'sciences'. Taking a loose definition of humanities as: The vaguely defined Western Canon (perhaps concretely defined as 'what appears on St. John's Great Books Reading List'[1]) along with economics/business, psychology, ethics/philosophy/political science/law, feminist studies, and literature. Versus the sciences as: Mathematics, physics, biology, 'computer science' (as has been pointed out many times, this is itself a loosely defined field), electrics/electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture . . . etc. I know that if you were to delete all knowledge from human civilization in the humanities category, we would quite plausibly revert to barbarism. Whereas if you deleted all knowledge from human civilization in the sciences category you would definitely see a reversion to barbarism. Our society is so reliant on the latter subjects that even the most ethical, politically savvy well studied kings would rule a wasteland without them. --- Q. For an individual, is it more important to focus on the humanities or the sciences? A. Realistically most people had best understand the humanities if they want to be a full participant in our society. This is however different from the value of classes in the humanities. The most useful humanities class I've taken so far is introductory business, and that was mostly for the vocabulary and practical education in basic finance. (Though it amazes me how solid basic management theory is and how poorly applied it seems to be from the outside on average.) Beyond a basic understanding of the humanities, it really depends on what you want to do in life. Like most things, the extremes are bad for you. In terms of which extreme is worse, I respect someone who has completely neglected the sciences much less than someone who completely neglects the humanities. To put things on a different dimension momentarily, among my least favorite people are the ones who expect their native intellect or inherited wealth to let them get away with never having to learn a practical skill. A friends joke about the horror of taking Donald Trump on a nature walk and having to explain that the brown stuff they're walking on is dirt and the desk in his office is made from the tall leafy things comes to mind here. I like to think I already have a basic understanding of 'the humanities' (the excited and enthusiastic assurances from instructors to this effect help, perhaps the real cure is to never let a student know they should be challenging for credits so that they'll have a harder time proving to themselves something is wrong), so my purpose in going to school if it's not economic would be to learn the sciences and gain some kind of skill set in addition to my personal education. In Germany this would be permissible, but in America it's verboten. If I want merely to gain the contemptible practical education in mathematics, empiricism and concrete applications thereof I had best be prepared to accept a lower wage to do it. I don't think I'm unreasonable in thinking this is ridiculous. [0]: Now of course rule by technocracy is not a panacea, just ask the Soviet Union. [1]:https://www.sjc.edu/application/files/4514/9850/8733/Annapolis_Undergradute_Reading_List_Fall.pdf https://www.sjc.edu/application/files/4514/9850/8733/Annapol...