3 ms·

When I was in school I would frequently run into people who would say things like "I'm studying English... So that means I'll be working in a coffee shop after

When I was in school I would frequently run into people who would say things like "I'm studying English... So that means I'll be working in a coffee shop after I graduate, Ha ha". I always wanted to tell people to stop joking about that, because it was true. I wanted to say something like "Don't you get it? That is really going to happen, but you could change that now by studying something more employable." Though I never did because it seemed rude. I tend to think that most people will do what they feel they are supposed to do without really thinking things through for themselves. They feel they are supposed to go to college, so they do. People tell them to pick a major they are interested in, so they do. Lots of people don't seem to actually stop, think, and plan out major life courses.

JackFr 6y ago
Barista jokes aside, in my experience people studying English, etc. are doing something they enjoy. Their expectation is that their BA is merely a credential to get by the gatekeepers for the millions of jobs that require a college degree but really have no specific use for one.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  How many jobs actually exist that screen for “any college degree”?
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    The key with a generic degree is that it admits you to specialized training afterwards, or careers with on-the-job training like civil servants. In the US there are this many people in these jobs that have any 4-year-degree as their entrance qualification to vocational training: 3.2 million teachers. 2.8 million civil servants 1.35 million lawyers. 0.25 million military officers. Those four alone are around 5% of all the jobs in the US (7.6/155 million).
  - thu2111 6y ago
    I think there's quite a lot, when you count the jobs where there's no specific degree requirement but HR/recruiting/middle managers will express a strong preference for candidates with degrees. Maybe not explicitly but their choices aren't usually rigorous to begin with, so such biases can easily creep in.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
STEM people really struggle with the idea that the humanities are not vocational training - because they are vocational training for the political class, who don't need to understand STEM because they use rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation to get what they want. For these people, scientists and technologists are the hired help. While you're telling yourself that knowing how to compile Linux from source gives you god-like superpowers, they're running astroturfing and media campaigns that win elections and define national policy. Some of those people have English degrees. Because - why not? (In the UK they're more likely to have a PPE from Oxford, but if they have the connections English or some other non-technical subject is fine too.) In the same way that you won't understand what high school math is really for unless you put it in context with a STEM degree, you can't understand what the humanities are really for unless you put them in a political context.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  You've just described why the most common qualifications held in the Senate and in the House are law degrees first, and MBAs second. The humanities is not the educational background of our political class, it's mostly Law, Business and Medicine.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > the political class, who don't need to understand STEM because they use rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation to get what they want. And right now, we are witnessing this line of thinking crashing and burning up, as you can't persuade a virus. You _have to_ understand the underlying science, and not make this category error. There's no away around it. Unfortunately, persuasive but ignorant leaders have convinced many people otherwise, so it's not until there's a real issue that this lack becomes apparent by example. I'm sure that "rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation" have their usages, but to think that they're "all that you need" is what's causing issues in the countries that are handing COVID badly. There will be more examples of this kind of problem before the 21st century is over.

JackFr 6y ago

Barista jokes aside, in my experience people studying English, etc. are doing something they enjoy. Their expectation is that their BA is merely a credential to get by the gatekeepers for the millions of jobs that require a college degree but really have no specific use for one.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
How many jobs actually exist that screen for “any college degree”?
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  The key with a generic degree is that it admits you to specialized training afterwards, or careers with on-the-job training like civil servants. In the US there are this many people in these jobs that have any 4-year-degree as their entrance qualification to vocational training: 3.2 million teachers. 2.8 million civil servants 1.35 million lawyers. 0.25 million military officers. Those four alone are around 5% of all the jobs in the US (7.6/155 million).
- thu2111 6y ago
  I think there's quite a lot, when you count the jobs where there's no specific degree requirement but HR/recruiting/middle managers will express a strong preference for candidates with degrees. Maybe not explicitly but their choices aren't usually rigorous to begin with, so such biases can easily creep in.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

STEM people really struggle with the idea that the humanities are not vocational training - because they are vocational training for the political class, who don't need to understand STEM because they use rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation to get what they want. For these people, scientists and technologists are the hired help. While you're telling yourself that knowing how to compile Linux from source gives you god-like superpowers, they're running astroturfing and media campaigns that win elections and define national policy. Some of those people have English degrees. Because - why not? (In the UK they're more likely to have a PPE from Oxford, but if they have the connections English or some other non-technical subject is fine too.) In the same way that you won't understand what high school math is really for unless you put it in context with a STEM degree, you can't understand what the humanities are really for unless you put them in a political context.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
You've just described why the most common qualifications held in the Senate and in the House are law degrees first, and MBAs second. The humanities is not the educational background of our political class, it's mostly Law, Business and Medicine.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> the political class, who don't need to understand STEM because they use rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation to get what they want. And right now, we are witnessing this line of thinking crashing and burning up, as you can't persuade a virus. You _have to_ understand the underlying science, and not make this category error. There's no away around it. Unfortunately, persuasive but ignorant leaders have convinced many people otherwise, so it's not until there's a real issue that this lack becomes apparent by example. I'm sure that "rhetoric, persuasion, and political manipulation" have their usages, but to think that they're "all that you need" is what's causing issues in the countries that are handing COVID badly. There will be more examples of this kind of problem before the 21st century is over.