3 ms·

In my experience, professors will generally exaggerate the usefulness of the classes they teach. I'm curious as to what things from IR you found useful and what

In my experience, professors will generally exaggerate the usefulness of the classes they teach. I'm curious as to what things from IR you found useful and what actions it lead you to? I've seen many IR grads who went into it hoping to do some sort of international work or business, only to find that businesses didn't find what they were taught particularly valuable (and the people I met who were sent overseas for business usually didn't have an IR background). Many who that I saw who went into the State Department ended up doing low-level grunt work that was completely detached from the kind of things IR focuses on (and the ambassadors are often wealthy donors with no IR experience who receive the position as a political favor). Also, many of the things that were covered in IR classes weren't just useless, but more often than not turned out to be entirely detached from reality. For instance, focusing on things like Thomas Huntington vs. Thomas Friedman (neither of who seem to have had a great track record or understanding of the world).

alchemism 6y ago
I cannot say it was any specific fact or technique I learned. I would say it gave me access to an additional mindset which my colleagues did not possess. It ended up being a powerful ‘soft’ asset in a transition to engineering management, by virtue of being the staffmember able to identify and resolve problems which originated in cultural and linguistic domains. One does not need IR training to (say) socially engineer a budget prioritization for sending engineers on overseas exchanges, but I feel it influenced my thinking in this regard.
- __sisyphus__ 6y ago
  So, anecdotally, my degree was in philosophy and math, but I now work as a programmer. Yes, semi-related, but coincidentally, really. And I think this is probably the case for you as well (at least, I would guess). This forms what I think is the underlying thread here. For those that aren't as flexible and creative in applying their talents and education, most of these classes really do end up being useless, and for them, a waste of money in the long run. If you're already capable, chances are that no matter your field of study, you're going to land somewhere that you can find a way to use your knowledge; but this really seems to me more a case of interest and driven/natural critical thinking skills than it is a reflection of the content of the classes. Those that apply themselves can find niches to sharpen their skills, whereas those opportunities aren't necessarily sought out by everyone. So, in effect, while some individuals taking classes of any sort, even poorly taught, might have the fervor to find a path towards enrichment, not all students will have this experience. And this leads to the "basket weaving" degrees for others: subjects that, while not generally irrelevant a priori, are generally irrelevant for many experientially.
  - alchemism 6y ago
    I agree that a certain aptitude or predisposition could be responsible for it. There is another aspect which I will add: the ‘softest’ parts of the liberal arts curriculum — International Relations would fit here — was until recently reserved for aristocrats. The children of farmers and factory workers would ostensibly have no use in learning The Great Game. The best players of the game are those who need no employment. Those of us from anything but the uppermost classes back then would be stumbling into the edges of a world they can dimly perceive, to serve as clerks at best.

alchemism 6y ago

I cannot say it was any specific fact or technique I learned. I would say it gave me access to an additional mindset which my colleagues did not possess. It ended up being a powerful ‘soft’ asset in a transition to engineering management, by virtue of being the staffmember able to identify and resolve problems which originated in cultural and linguistic domains. One does not need IR training to (say) socially engineer a budget prioritization for sending engineers on overseas exchanges, but I feel it influenced my thinking in this regard.

__sisyphus__ 6y ago
So, anecdotally, my degree was in philosophy and math, but I now work as a programmer. Yes, semi-related, but coincidentally, really. And I think this is probably the case for you as well (at least, I would guess). This forms what I think is the underlying thread here. For those that aren't as flexible and creative in applying their talents and education, most of these classes really do end up being useless, and for them, a waste of money in the long run. If you're already capable, chances are that no matter your field of study, you're going to land somewhere that you can find a way to use your knowledge; but this really seems to me more a case of interest and driven/natural critical thinking skills than it is a reflection of the content of the classes. Those that apply themselves can find niches to sharpen their skills, whereas those opportunities aren't necessarily sought out by everyone. So, in effect, while some individuals taking classes of any sort, even poorly taught, might have the fervor to find a path towards enrichment, not all students will have this experience. And this leads to the "basket weaving" degrees for others: subjects that, while not generally irrelevant a priori, are generally irrelevant for many experientially.
- alchemism 6y ago
  I agree that a certain aptitude or predisposition could be responsible for it. There is another aspect which I will add: the ‘softest’ parts of the liberal arts curriculum — International Relations would fit here — was until recently reserved for aristocrats. The children of farmers and factory workers would ostensibly have no use in learning The Great Game. The best players of the game are those who need no employment. Those of us from anything but the uppermost classes back then would be stumbling into the edges of a world they can dimly perceive, to serve as clerks at best.