4 ms·
> One point of view arguing for a non-stem degree is that it teaches you to read, write and think. And there is some logic to that thought. Even if you spend 4
by kcplate 5y ago
> One point of view arguing for a non-stem degree is that it teaches you to read, write and think. And there is some logic to that thought. Even if you spend 4 years just learning about, say, Sociology, you have to read up on a debate, summarize the background, have an opinion, be challenged and so forth. And you are on your way to 10k hours.
True, but you can also teach yourself to do those things too. For me, the ROI of time/effort/money seems off for almost all degrees other than STEM if you have to borrow money to achieve them.
- omarhaneef 5y agoThere are some people who can do this: spend hours and hours, all nighters, push themselves with deadlines that have come up with and make themselves put in the work. (I believe it is a lot more "natural" to push oneself with programming where the code can fail to compile and you can just keep at it.) Though even those people would be hard pressed to obtain thoughtful feedback on multiple (sometimes very bad) papers, repeatedly, over years. However, most people would not naturally put in the same effort and for those people, there is a lot of value in the structure. How much has a lot to do with the particular school, career path, scholarship money and so forth.
- kcplate 5y ago> there is a lot of value in the structure There may be educational value for the individual, but I don’t think there is much financial value. I’d even argue that the societal value probably isn’t worth the investment in most cases.