4 ms·

If I had an english degree, rather than the usual tired excuses, I'd go around telling people: "The study of humanities imbues us with a rich internal, emotion

If I had an english degree, rather than the usual tired excuses, I'd go around telling people: "The study of humanities imbues us with a rich internal, emotional wealth such that graduates do not feel the compulsive need for ultimately harmful acquisitive obsessions throughout their lives, whereas holders of science degrees are condemned by their mechanistic brainwashing to toil furiously for worthless material rewards." Fortunately I did CS though. Humanities students are free to license it from me.

martythemaniak 15y ago
Maybe I didn't spend enough time in humanities courses (my engineering degree allowed for only 1 humanities course in 4 years), but let's be honest - there's a remarkably large number of really stupid engineers. I don't mean stupid in the classic sense, since they can understand their discipline and perform their work, but they have zero intellectual interests or pursuits outside of their field. Try starting a discussion on politics or history or any of the other humanities topic, and you're not likely to get very far.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Or rather, they have a lot of opinions on politics or history, but also very uneducated ones.
- chadgeidel 15y ago
  Wow, my CS degree (at an engineering school) required 23 or 25 credits in the humanities.
- pjscott 15y ago
  Incidentally, it also works the other way around. There are a lot of people in every branch of the humanities who have no intellectual interests outside their field. Try starting a discussion about anything that isn't a humanities topic and see how far you get. Well-roundedness is not something one gets just from studying the humanities. Knowledge of science, mathematics, and basic engineering are also essential. This gets overlooked a lot in discussions where the issue is framed as "high salary versus a well-rounded education".
  - m3koval 15y ago
    I agree. The term "well-rounded" is often bastardized to mean "well-versed in humanities." It is particularly noticeable in college: engineers are required to take a large number of humanities courses, but people studying liberal arts only have to take one or two technical courses. Because of this, the average engineer is exposed to both technical disciplines and the humanities, whereas the average liberal arts student only sees the humanities. Unless we redefine well-rounded in a way that is contrary to its original meaning, engineers may very well be more well-rounded than people studying humanities.
joebadmo 15y ago
I majored in Comparative Literature. I made that choice under two working assumptions: 1. Higher education isn't about learning how to perform in a vocation; it's about learning how to learn. It's not about taking the next step in a career path; it's about being exposed to the wisdom of history, about making one's inner world more expansive, about learning to think in radically different ways. 2. An undergraduate degree is an indication to a prospective employer that you have the intelligence and discipline to stay with a four-year program. You can learn most truly valuable working skills in training or on the job. The problem with both of these assumptions is that even if I believe them, not many others (esp. prospective employers) seem to. Which is ok because I'm constitutionally not a particularly materialistic person and I did find my education to be very enriching, valuable, and, well, educational. Also, I'm still sort of trying to prove the second one by learning to program in my free time (from my boring, low-level bureacratic government job).
- VMG 15y ago
  > Higher education isn't about learning how to perform in a vocation There's your problem. Do you really believe that someone with an English degree can pick up up a programming language as fast as someone with a degree in CS? It's no surprise that employers don't share your assumptions, they are wrong.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Even if "how fast can you pick up a programming language" is your only metric, I would imagine that individual talent/intelligence/determination are better indicators than college major. I.e. I'd bet that between two identical people, one a Humanities major and the other a CS major, the CS major would obviously pick up a PL faster, but between an average CS major and an excellent Humanities major, I'd put my money on the Humanities. It's wholly possible that I'd lose that bet. The bigger point, though, to me, is that "how fast can you pick up a programming language" isn't what I thought about when choosing a major. That's not what I thought college was about. I honestly believe that employers would do better to consider Humanities majors who did very well in school, and otherwise demonstrate that they're intelligent, disciplined, and capable if not yet specifically qualified for the job. That's probably harder to figure out, but filtering by degree, then, is just laziness. It does appear that college is becoming a more vocational education, which I think is unfortunate. And that's probably because employers think like you do. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
pnathan 15y ago
Ha, and I would reply... From your life as a coffeeshop barista rooming with 6 other people to pay the college debt, how do you feel about that now? /snark

martythemaniak 15y ago

Maybe I didn't spend enough time in humanities courses (my engineering degree allowed for only 1 humanities course in 4 years), but let's be honest - there's a remarkably large number of really stupid engineers. I don't mean stupid in the classic sense, since they can understand their discipline and perform their work, but they have zero intellectual interests or pursuits outside of their field. Try starting a discussion on politics or history or any of the other humanities topic, and you're not likely to get very far.

Apocryphon 15y ago
Or rather, they have a lot of opinions on politics or history, but also very uneducated ones.
chadgeidel 15y ago
Wow, my CS degree (at an engineering school) required 23 or 25 credits in the humanities.
pjscott 15y ago
Incidentally, it also works the other way around. There are a lot of people in every branch of the humanities who have no intellectual interests outside their field. Try starting a discussion about anything that isn't a humanities topic and see how far you get. Well-roundedness is not something one gets just from studying the humanities. Knowledge of science, mathematics, and basic engineering are also essential. This gets overlooked a lot in discussions where the issue is framed as "high salary versus a well-rounded education".
- m3koval 15y ago
  I agree. The term "well-rounded" is often bastardized to mean "well-versed in humanities." It is particularly noticeable in college: engineers are required to take a large number of humanities courses, but people studying liberal arts only have to take one or two technical courses. Because of this, the average engineer is exposed to both technical disciplines and the humanities, whereas the average liberal arts student only sees the humanities. Unless we redefine well-rounded in a way that is contrary to its original meaning, engineers may very well be more well-rounded than people studying humanities.

joebadmo 15y ago

I majored in Comparative Literature. I made that choice under two working assumptions: 1. Higher education isn't about learning how to perform in a vocation; it's about learning how to learn. It's not about taking the next step in a career path; it's about being exposed to the wisdom of history, about making one's inner world more expansive, about learning to think in radically different ways. 2. An undergraduate degree is an indication to a prospective employer that you have the intelligence and discipline to stay with a four-year program. You can learn most truly valuable working skills in training or on the job. The problem with both of these assumptions is that even if I believe them, not many others (esp. prospective employers) seem to. Which is ok because I'm constitutionally not a particularly materialistic person and I did find my education to be very enriching, valuable, and, well, educational. Also, I'm still sort of trying to prove the second one by learning to program in my free time (from my boring, low-level bureacratic government job).

VMG 15y ago
> Higher education isn't about learning how to perform in a vocation There's your problem. Do you really believe that someone with an English degree can pick up up a programming language as fast as someone with a degree in CS? It's no surprise that employers don't share your assumptions, they are wrong.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Even if "how fast can you pick up a programming language" is your only metric, I would imagine that individual talent/intelligence/determination are better indicators than college major. I.e. I'd bet that between two identical people, one a Humanities major and the other a CS major, the CS major would obviously pick up a PL faster, but between an average CS major and an excellent Humanities major, I'd put my money on the Humanities. It's wholly possible that I'd lose that bet. The bigger point, though, to me, is that "how fast can you pick up a programming language" isn't what I thought about when choosing a major. That's not what I thought college was about. I honestly believe that employers would do better to consider Humanities majors who did very well in school, and otherwise demonstrate that they're intelligent, disciplined, and capable if not yet specifically qualified for the job. That's probably harder to figure out, but filtering by degree, then, is just laziness. It does appear that college is becoming a more vocational education, which I think is unfortunate. And that's probably because employers think like you do. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

pnathan 15y ago

Ha, and I would reply... From your life as a coffeeshop barista rooming with 6 other people to pay the college debt, how do you feel about that now? /snark