11 ms·

>It's interesting to me that most people in this thread view colleges as jobs programs What else would it be for the vast majority of people? You're investing

>It's interesting to me that most people in this thread view colleges as jobs programs What else would it be for the vast majority of people? You're investing thousands of dollars (either directly, or through opportunity cost) and huge chunk of time. If you can't make back that investment, then it just isn't worth for most people. The number of people that could make a living from pure research is always going to be miniscule. The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule. > that's not the ideal that gave birth to the university in the form that we recognize it Right. Because originally universities were for the ruling and religious class that could justify the expense of education for its own sake. In modern world, many more people could make that calculation too, but lots of people could not justify the expense ... especially if you put this in these kinds of stark terms. >And so it's not clear to me whether universities as we recognize them will continue to exist if we continue to view them as a jobs programs. They could not. And that's a good thing. Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living).

WhompingWindows 6y ago
Many of these universities would state the point: university education enriches the mind, introducing students to a broad range of topics, perspectives, and readings that were pivotal to human history and human civilization. For example, at UChicago, the Core Curriculum has most of the students reading Das Kapital by Marx, a text with profound implications for the history of the 20th century. I'm agnostic about the value of this: on the one hand, we need informed citizenry who can dissect media and think critically. On the other hand, we need practical skills and we don't need a massively indebted younger generation. The DIRE push for undergraduate education in many K-12 schools has probably undervalued solid vocational training. What does it say that I'm now into woodworking and making things, but in my entire 22 year education, no one ever showed me how to use a single power tool.
- cm2187 6y ago
  Or teaching that math is racist... If you want to learn humanities, you can pretty much read any book anytime in your life (in fact most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read). I would say that there the value added of a college over an online reading list is marginal. For STEM, completely different story, it is very hard for someone who hasn’t been trained formally to pick it up later in one’s career.
  - jimbob21 6y ago
    >in fact most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read I don't know what college you went to, but at mine, reading was the homework, and the discussion on the books (even with the professor's inherent biases) in the class with my peers is what developed the profound thoughts and ideas that I still carry with me. Humanities might not contribute to jobs, (I'm STEM) but I don't for a second regret the philosophy classes I took.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      A lot of this is dependent on class size and class level. It's not until you get to class sizes of less than 20 and at the 300 level and up classes that you get actual discussion instead of lecturing and leading questions. And even smaller class size and higher level isn't a guarantee of good critical dialogue. I went to a large well ranked public university class in the United States, have both a STEM and non-STEM degree with over 200 credit hours over 4.5 years and I can think of exactly two humanities classes that had real discussions that weren't just being assigned books, largely uncritically accepting their contents and being lectured. Both classes with real dialogue were higher level classes with just over 10 people in them. One class was about the intersection of art and technology and the other was a philosophy of science class. There was way more critical thought and dialogue on average in my STEM classes.
  - rexpop 6y ago
    > most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read To you, apparently, one book is as good as another?
JeremyNT 6y ago
> What else would it be for the vast majority of people? You're investing thousands of dollars (either directly, or through opportunity cost) and huge chunk of time. If you can't make back that investment, then it just isn't worth for most people. The number of people that could make a living from pure research is always going to be miniscule. The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule. You describe the function of the current system, it's not an inevitability. There's massive wealth in the US, and it could absolutely subsidize a different kind of education which is intended to produce an educated and informed citizenry. It's telling that this is not a priority. (One could also imagine a hypothetical culture that does not prioritize earnings so highly, and could value other attributes of service or community more highly than earning high incomes, but let's not get too crazy here...) In reality, and sadly, higher ed is a series of moats. At the highest tier, the expensive schools protect the oligarchy by keeping their children in different social spheres than the rest of the population. At the level of state schools, it's a zero sum game that people feel forced to enter because their ability to make a living is otherwise severely impaired.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Looking at prior examples, state-subsidized education seems to become indoctrination at the worst possible time. The value of education being determined by employers may be suboptimal, but it's at least decentralised enough to resist mass dishonesty or tyranny. If you have an idea to replace the current system I'd want to know how it doesn't lose that feature before I listened further.
  - theptip 6y ago
    Many European countries pay for their citizens’ university education, and from experience I can confirm that there is none of the sort of indoctrination that you are concerned about. If anything I’d say more college-educated citizens is a shield against tyranny, as it trains you to be more intellectually critical, and therefore (one would hope)c , inoculated somewhat against anti-factual biases.
Valgrim 6y ago
> The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule I disagree with that. Most people who enter college in "soft sciences" or "humanities" these days understand very well that it's a risky investment that will probably not get them rich, or not even get a job. Still they enroll into it, because the knowledge and understanding they seek, the relationship they want to build with the world, is not tied to the brand of their car or the size of their house.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  a college freshman (or high school senior) may factually understand that their chosen major is very risky, but I don't think most of them are in a position to really understand the choice they are making. I knew a lot of people in highschool who bravely said they were willing to starve for their art (or other low expected income passion). it's an easy thing to say when you haven't yet had to grapple with the day-to-day experience of actually supporting yourself. several of these folks realized they were making a mistake halfway through college and pivoted. of the ones that finished the original degree, most of them had to find some unrelated work to make ends meet. I can't imagine the sense of regret that must come from paying off debt for a degree you don't even use.
kube-system 6y ago
The alternative to viewing college like a jobs program is not "pure research". There is still a stark difference between someone who has the expectation that: "college will get me a job" and "college will give me the education I need to be successful". And that difference is not whether or not someone is employable. There are many activities that universities facilitate, which are of upmost importance to society, but are not vocationally important. These activities should not be undermined. If you want a vocational education, you really should be attending an institution with that goal. The vast majority of people leverage their liberal arts education in furtherance of not only their career, but their quality of life in general. Narrowing that scope is a regression, not an improvement. If vocational schools aren’t offering the types of educations that job seekers are looking for, that’s a a failure of our vocational schools, not a failure of our universities.
lumost 6y ago
The cost of universities has also ballooned in both raw costs and risk adjusted terms in the last few decades, likely driving out most people who historically would have viewed their "opportunity cost" as worth it. In the 1970s one could earn ~$2.75/hr as an entry level employee at a union job in a factory (~$20/hr today). UVA instate tuition and fees were only $484/yr, meaning that over a summer a student could earn ~2 years worth of tuition and fees. At the time, spending the opportunity cost also opened doors just from having done it - substantially lowering the risk.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  The costs really exploded in the past 15 or so years. I'm in my mid-30s and managed to pay for the first two years of (community) college out of pocket while waiting tables. Quarterly tuition was ~$1500; I just cut a check at the registrar after scheduling my classes. By the time I went back for my BS a decade later, costs were closer to $10k per semester.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Sadly, you're no longer just buying an education. You're now forced to pay for an entire country club experience and all the administration required.
  - lumost 6y ago
    aye - The numbers I quoted were from my father's experience. I ended up carrying 1 years pay in non-dischargeable debt on graduation in 2010. Even on an accelerated payment schedule it took 10 years to fully pay down the debt. Paradoxically my initial inability to pay the debt nearly cost me my first job.
munchbunny 6y ago
Right. Because originally universities were for the ruling and religious class that could justify the expense of education for its own sake. That doesn't sound right to me. That may have been partly true, but education was also just necessary training because the jobs demanded literacy and other specialized training.
- blippage 6y ago
  Values have changed. Universities were one only for the rich. Students were only of slightly above average intelligence (Jordan Peterson mentions this). Some time in the 20th century (I'm guessing 50's or 60's) we recognised the importance of education, and universities changed from being a place of the financial elite to more of a place of the intellectual elite. In the 70's, and earlier parts of the 80's, a university degree was your passport to a job. You had a university degree. You KNEW something. In the UK students were given a grant. As the saying goes, what a wise man does in the beginning, a fool does in the end. Time passed, this mindset persisted, but things changed. The whole thing became increasingly commoditised, universities now seem less like seats of learning and more like commercial enterprises, with people talking all manner of crap about "return on investment". Graduation fees were tagged on and students nickeled-and-dimed at every opportunity. The US seems to be particularly egregious in that respect. The whole thing has become a fiasco. Universities and governments want to keep the game going as long as possible, with young people being suckered into enormous debt on the premise that they'll get a good job out of it. That premise is looking increasingly sketchy. What "should" happen, IMO, is a return to the 70's. School pupils should get a good educational grounding through O levels. You can then get a job, or pursue further education either with an academic bent (A levels) or a vocational bent. For the really bright, the possibility of university exists. For the less bright, but those who want to pursue skilled professions requiring a lot of knowledge, there is (or at least was) Polytechnics. We don't have that, though. What we have is a monstrosity of a system that still seems to be able to sustain itself despite common sense dictating that it is no longer fit for purpose. How long can this continue? I don't know. I do hope it collapses, though. We need a better system than the one we've got at the moment.
pelliphant 6y ago
Democracy requires an educated population. If you want to live in a democratic society, then subsidizing education is pretty much a requirement.
- CincinnatiMan 6y ago
  It's the amount/level of subsidized education that is up for debate, not education in general.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    That might be the case, but to me it's not much different than saying that it is the amount of democracy that is up for debate. People who want to end democracy rarely say so, it is always just "a little less than it is now". Same for education, where would you draw the line?
austincheney 6y ago
> What else would it be for the vast majority of people? Its supposed to be to attain an education, but judging from the communication capabilities of many college graduates education was clearly not the top priority. > Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). If you wanted job prospects you would instead focus upon a professional license, which is not education. In addition to better job prospects it's also cheaper and substantially less time consuming to attain.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  > If you wanted job prospects you would instead focus upon a professional license, which is not education. At least in the US, too many fields rely on the degree as the professional license, so there's no alternative.
sokoloff 6y ago
> The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule. When you make this argument for college, it seems reasonable to also ask “is grade 12 the ideal point at which this fitness function is optimized for most?” Maybe it should be after grade 14. Maybe it should be after grade 10.
ianmobbs 6y ago
> > And so it's not clear to me whether universities as we recognize them will continue to exist if we continue to view them as a jobs programs. > They could not. And that's a good thing. Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). Why is that a good thing? Just because the humanities don't funnel into jobs the way STEM does doesn't mean that they should cease to exist. Every book you've read, movie you've watched, song you've listened to, play you've seen, etc. has been a direct result of our journey through the humanities, and I'm positive nobody thinks those forms of entertainment should just "cease to exist". It's the same thing for countless other fields of study universities offer. The problem is not that these fields don't have the ROI of STEM, it's that the cost of education is way too fucking high.
- andreilys 6y ago
  Every book you've read, movie you've watched, song you've listened to, play you've seen, etc. has been a direct result of our journey through the humanities, and I'm positive nobody thinks those forms of entertainment should just "cease to exist". Ah yes, but how many of these would require obtaining a 4-year degree with 6-figure debt? In the words of Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.”
  - lc9er 6y ago
    And yet he attended Harvard, until acting picked up. You also kind of reinforced the actual point he was making - the preppy douchebag didn’t actually understand the material he was quoting. Rather, he had just memorized a bunch of stuff, which without comprehension, provides little value.
    - andreilys 6y ago
      Yes and unfortunately thats the humanities education that most students get. How to game the system through rote memorization in order to get a high GPA so they can get into grad school. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, just like how there are people who have contributed greatly to the humanities without stepping foot in a degree granting institution.
post- 6y ago
> Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). It seems like this is a rumor that refuses to die. Humanities majors do just fine. According to a 2018 ACS survey,[0] humanities majors are looking at 2.13% unemployment, which is comparable to other fields. The same survey shows that people who majored in the humanities earn comparable salaries to their peers in other disciplines.[1] A 2014 study in Forbes found that humanities majors go on to earn even more than their peers in other disciplines as they all advance on their chosen career paths.[2] I'm curious why the image of the deadbeat humanist persists, especially in an era where we need people who have been trained to look at potentially misleading information, identify why it is misleading, and point us towards better sources. Rampant misinformation in this social media age has shown us that "the facts" are much more slippery than anyone would like, and we need people who have been trained in the subjective arts of parsing contradictory information and -- even more importantly -- justifying their interpretation to others. [0]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyixYMdUfIS2wxxFUWDmlXt4jUU/edit#gid=363396639 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyix... [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyixYMdUfIS2wxxFUWDmlXt4jUU/edit#gid=1133937685 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyix... [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surprise-humanities-degrees-provide-great-return-on-investment/#74ce6fc92031 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surpr...

WhompingWindows 6y ago

Many of these universities would state the point: university education enriches the mind, introducing students to a broad range of topics, perspectives, and readings that were pivotal to human history and human civilization. For example, at UChicago, the Core Curriculum has most of the students reading Das Kapital by Marx, a text with profound implications for the history of the 20th century. I'm agnostic about the value of this: on the one hand, we need informed citizenry who can dissect media and think critically. On the other hand, we need practical skills and we don't need a massively indebted younger generation. The DIRE push for undergraduate education in many K-12 schools has probably undervalued solid vocational training. What does it say that I'm now into woodworking and making things, but in my entire 22 year education, no one ever showed me how to use a single power tool.

cm2187 6y ago
Or teaching that math is racist... If you want to learn humanities, you can pretty much read any book anytime in your life (in fact most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read). I would say that there the value added of a college over an online reading list is marginal. For STEM, completely different story, it is very hard for someone who hasn’t been trained formally to pick it up later in one’s career.
- jimbob21 6y ago
  >in fact most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read I don't know what college you went to, but at mine, reading was the homework, and the discussion on the books (even with the professor's inherent biases) in the class with my peers is what developed the profound thoughts and ideas that I still carry with me. Humanities might not contribute to jobs, (I'm STEM) but I don't for a second regret the philosophy classes I took.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    A lot of this is dependent on class size and class level. It's not until you get to class sizes of less than 20 and at the 300 level and up classes that you get actual discussion instead of lecturing and leading questions. And even smaller class size and higher level isn't a guarantee of good critical dialogue. I went to a large well ranked public university class in the United States, have both a STEM and non-STEM degree with over 200 credit hours over 4.5 years and I can think of exactly two humanities classes that had real discussions that weren't just being assigned books, largely uncritically accepting their contents and being lectured. Both classes with real dialogue were higher level classes with just over 10 people in them. One class was about the intersection of art and technology and the other was a philosophy of science class. There was way more critical thought and dialogue on average in my STEM classes.
- rexpop 6y ago
  > most of the teaching in humanities is just assigning books to read To you, apparently, one book is as good as another?

JeremyNT 6y ago

> What else would it be for the vast majority of people? You're investing thousands of dollars (either directly, or through opportunity cost) and huge chunk of time. If you can't make back that investment, then it just isn't worth for most people. The number of people that could make a living from pure research is always going to be miniscule. The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule. You describe the function of the current system, it's not an inevitability. There's massive wealth in the US, and it could absolutely subsidize a different kind of education which is intended to produce an educated and informed citizenry. It's telling that this is not a priority. (One could also imagine a hypothetical culture that does not prioritize earnings so highly, and could value other attributes of service or community more highly than earning high incomes, but let's not get too crazy here...) In reality, and sadly, higher ed is a series of moats. At the highest tier, the expensive schools protect the oligarchy by keeping their children in different social spheres than the rest of the population. At the level of state schools, it's a zero sum game that people feel forced to enter because their ability to make a living is otherwise severely impaired.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Looking at prior examples, state-subsidized education seems to become indoctrination at the worst possible time. The value of education being determined by employers may be suboptimal, but it's at least decentralised enough to resist mass dishonesty or tyranny. If you have an idea to replace the current system I'd want to know how it doesn't lose that feature before I listened further.
- theptip 6y ago
  Many European countries pay for their citizens’ university education, and from experience I can confirm that there is none of the sort of indoctrination that you are concerned about. If anything I’d say more college-educated citizens is a shield against tyranny, as it trains you to be more intellectually critical, and therefore (one would hope)c , inoculated somewhat against anti-factual biases.

Valgrim 6y ago

> The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule I disagree with that. Most people who enter college in "soft sciences" or "humanities" these days understand very well that it's a risky investment that will probably not get them rich, or not even get a job. Still they enroll into it, because the knowledge and understanding they seek, the relationship they want to build with the world, is not tied to the brand of their car or the size of their house.

leetcrew 6y ago
a college freshman (or high school senior) may factually understand that their chosen major is very risky, but I don't think most of them are in a position to really understand the choice they are making. I knew a lot of people in highschool who bravely said they were willing to starve for their art (or other low expected income passion). it's an easy thing to say when you haven't yet had to grapple with the day-to-day experience of actually supporting yourself. several of these folks realized they were making a mistake halfway through college and pivoted. of the ones that finished the original degree, most of them had to find some unrelated work to make ends meet. I can't imagine the sense of regret that must come from paying off debt for a degree you don't even use.

kube-system 6y ago

The alternative to viewing college like a jobs program is not "pure research". There is still a stark difference between someone who has the expectation that: "college will get me a job" and "college will give me the education I need to be successful". And that difference is not whether or not someone is employable. There are many activities that universities facilitate, which are of upmost importance to society, but are not vocationally important. These activities should not be undermined. If you want a vocational education, you really should be attending an institution with that goal. The vast majority of people leverage their liberal arts education in furtherance of not only their career, but their quality of life in general. Narrowing that scope is a regression, not an improvement. If vocational schools aren’t offering the types of educations that job seekers are looking for, that’s a a failure of our vocational schools, not a failure of our universities.

lumost 6y ago

The cost of universities has also ballooned in both raw costs and risk adjusted terms in the last few decades, likely driving out most people who historically would have viewed their "opportunity cost" as worth it. In the 1970s one could earn ~$2.75/hr as an entry level employee at a union job in a factory (~$20/hr today). UVA instate tuition and fees were only $484/yr, meaning that over a summer a student could earn ~2 years worth of tuition and fees. At the time, spending the opportunity cost also opened doors just from having done it - substantially lowering the risk.

mywittyname 6y ago
The costs really exploded in the past 15 or so years. I'm in my mid-30s and managed to pay for the first two years of (community) college out of pocket while waiting tables. Quarterly tuition was ~$1500; I just cut a check at the registrar after scheduling my classes. By the time I went back for my BS a decade later, costs were closer to $10k per semester.
- malandrew 6y ago
  Sadly, you're no longer just buying an education. You're now forced to pay for an entire country club experience and all the administration required.
- lumost 6y ago
  aye - The numbers I quoted were from my father's experience. I ended up carrying 1 years pay in non-dischargeable debt on graduation in 2010. Even on an accelerated payment schedule it took 10 years to fully pay down the debt. Paradoxically my initial inability to pay the debt nearly cost me my first job.

munchbunny 6y ago

Right. Because originally universities were for the ruling and religious class that could justify the expense of education for its own sake. That doesn't sound right to me. That may have been partly true, but education was also just necessary training because the jobs demanded literacy and other specialized training.

blippage 6y ago
Values have changed. Universities were one only for the rich. Students were only of slightly above average intelligence (Jordan Peterson mentions this). Some time in the 20th century (I'm guessing 50's or 60's) we recognised the importance of education, and universities changed from being a place of the financial elite to more of a place of the intellectual elite. In the 70's, and earlier parts of the 80's, a university degree was your passport to a job. You had a university degree. You KNEW something. In the UK students were given a grant. As the saying goes, what a wise man does in the beginning, a fool does in the end. Time passed, this mindset persisted, but things changed. The whole thing became increasingly commoditised, universities now seem less like seats of learning and more like commercial enterprises, with people talking all manner of crap about "return on investment". Graduation fees were tagged on and students nickeled-and-dimed at every opportunity. The US seems to be particularly egregious in that respect. The whole thing has become a fiasco. Universities and governments want to keep the game going as long as possible, with young people being suckered into enormous debt on the premise that they'll get a good job out of it. That premise is looking increasingly sketchy. What "should" happen, IMO, is a return to the 70's. School pupils should get a good educational grounding through O levels. You can then get a job, or pursue further education either with an academic bent (A levels) or a vocational bent. For the really bright, the possibility of university exists. For the less bright, but those who want to pursue skilled professions requiring a lot of knowledge, there is (or at least was) Polytechnics. We don't have that, though. What we have is a monstrosity of a system that still seems to be able to sustain itself despite common sense dictating that it is no longer fit for purpose. How long can this continue? I don't know. I do hope it collapses, though. We need a better system than the one we've got at the moment.

pelliphant 6y ago

Democracy requires an educated population. If you want to live in a democratic society, then subsidizing education is pretty much a requirement.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago
It's the amount/level of subsidized education that is up for debate, not education in general.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  That might be the case, but to me it's not much different than saying that it is the amount of democracy that is up for debate. People who want to end democracy rarely say so, it is always just "a little less than it is now". Same for education, where would you draw the line?

austincheney 6y ago

> What else would it be for the vast majority of people? Its supposed to be to attain an education, but judging from the communication capabilities of many college graduates education was clearly not the top priority. > Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). If you wanted job prospects you would instead focus upon a professional license, which is not education. In addition to better job prospects it's also cheaper and substantially less time consuming to attain.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
> If you wanted job prospects you would instead focus upon a professional license, which is not education. At least in the US, too many fields rely on the degree as the professional license, so there's no alternative.

sokoloff 6y ago

> The number of people that could justify the expense (or opportunity cost) to just learn something for pleasure, is miniscule. When you make this argument for college, it seems reasonable to also ask “is grade 12 the ideal point at which this fitness function is optimized for most?” Maybe it should be after grade 14. Maybe it should be after grade 10.

ianmobbs 6y ago

> > And so it's not clear to me whether universities as we recognize them will continue to exist if we continue to view them as a jobs programs. > They could not. And that's a good thing. Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). Why is that a good thing? Just because the humanities don't funnel into jobs the way STEM does doesn't mean that they should cease to exist. Every book you've read, movie you've watched, song you've listened to, play you've seen, etc. has been a direct result of our journey through the humanities, and I'm positive nobody thinks those forms of entertainment should just "cease to exist". It's the same thing for countless other fields of study universities offer. The problem is not that these fields don't have the ROI of STEM, it's that the cost of education is way too fucking high.

andreilys 6y ago
Every book you've read, movie you've watched, song you've listened to, play you've seen, etc. has been a direct result of our journey through the humanities, and I'm positive nobody thinks those forms of entertainment should just "cease to exist". Ah yes, but how many of these would require obtaining a 4-year degree with 6-figure debt? In the words of Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.”
- lc9er 6y ago
  And yet he attended Harvard, until acting picked up. You also kind of reinforced the actual point he was making - the preppy douchebag didn’t actually understand the material he was quoting. Rather, he had just memorized a bunch of stuff, which without comprehension, provides little value.
  - andreilys 6y ago
    Yes and unfortunately thats the humanities education that most students get. How to game the system through rote memorization in order to get a high GPA so they can get into grad school. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, just like how there are people who have contributed greatly to the humanities without stepping foot in a degree granting institution.

post- 6y ago

> Humanities are a mess just for the reason that they take tuition and time from students and leave them hanging out to dray, after they graduate with no direct job prospects (i.e. a way to make a living). It seems like this is a rumor that refuses to die. Humanities majors do just fine. According to a 2018 ACS survey,[0] humanities majors are looking at 2.13% unemployment, which is comparable to other fields. The same survey shows that people who majored in the humanities earn comparable salaries to their peers in other disciplines.[1] A 2014 study in Forbes found that humanities majors go on to earn even more than their peers in other disciplines as they all advance on their chosen career paths.[2] I'm curious why the image of the deadbeat humanist persists, especially in an era where we need people who have been trained to look at potentially misleading information, identify why it is misleading, and point us towards better sources. Rampant misinformation in this social media age has shown us that "the facts" are much more slippery than anyone would like, and we need people who have been trained in the subjective arts of parsing contradictory information and -- even more importantly -- justifying their interpretation to others. [0]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyixYMdUfIS2wxxFUWDmlXt4jUU/edit#gid=363396639 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyix... [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyixYMdUfIS2wxxFUWDmlXt4jUU/edit#gid=1133937685 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld4Ki99C_0WFUcyBXyix... [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surprise-humanities-degrees-provide-great-return-on-investment/#74ce6fc92031 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surpr...