What Price a Degree?

[tonywalt]

From a business perspective: A higher degree is in large part used as a "screener" by employers as we have to look at so many young candidates. It does not mean they(those with higher degrees) are intelligent, but it may very well reflect that have 'learned how to learn'

[Emil Miller]

This thread has raised some interesting points about the viability of university degrees. Now while they reveal the disparity between science and arts degrees in terms of practical application, there are other considerations at play.
Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.
In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

[Ecurb]

Freedom on their own dollar, sure, why not. But in some places the government pays, which mean the people pay.

As far as I am concerned I think only those who make the cut should make the cut. The no child left behind idea does not work for university. If someone parties and drinks all night, the university should have no reservations about failing them. Literature studies should not be about enjoyment and interest, but should put people to work.

For every serious student there are 10 mediocre ones. This is a reality. In my opinion, the 10 mediocre ones should be failed out in the first year or two.

I'm willing to pay my share. If something is worth doing, it is (often) worth doing badly. If literature majors are mediocre, they are at least learning something about the human condition. Fail the Med Students and Civil Engineers who can't make the grade. We don't want bridges collapsing or surgeries being botched. But let's allow the Literary Scholars to muddle through their Universities, pick up a little culture, and delay their entrance into the work force for a few years. Do we really need to rush our 18-20 year-olds into the Capitalist Grind? Mightn't our societies be improved by civilizing our youth, even if they never produce valuable scholarship? Of course 9/10ths of literature majors are "mediocre"! Not all of them are going to go on to become PhD.s (and even some of those who do will be mediocre). What's so horrible about that? Why should 18 be the arbitrary cut-off line for state-funded education? Or do you want to start failing mediocre 10-year-old students, too, and sending them off to the sweat shops?

What great value do the upper 10% of Literature Majors offer society that the lower 90% do not?

[Jack of Hearts]

Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.

But what you're really arguing about, by implication, is not humanities, but humanities degrees in universities. It's not bi-conditional. You can have humanities without humanities degrees and everything they imply (debt, social conditioning, psychological problems).

In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

Well, at least most people know the brand Shakespeare. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, on the other hand, is less the center piece of reference.

So they're different in that way. Most English speakers have probably heard the name 'Shakespeare,' and probably haven't heard of 'Isambard Kingdom Brunel.'

Wanna know something they have in common? Most English speakers have probably never read either of them, and that's assuming either of them actually ever wrote anything (did Brunel have Twitter? 'Laying tracks, lulz').

But you can say 'Shakespeare is genius!' whether or not you read him, because usually when it's being uttered it's got little to do with Shakespeare at all. There's a price to be paid for that. Somewhere in your soul probably. Fine, you weren't using it anyways.

You can also say '(Ranked university here) is great!' for the same reasons. Fine. The difference between your university and Shakespeare is the difference between opting in actively and opting in conceptually. So your soul dies either way-- that's ok, doesn't exist anyway, why do we scrub ourselves so hard in the shower... You can say 'I went to university!' like it means something. There's a price to be paid for that. Somewhere in your wallet, probably.

No, deeper than that, other people's wallets. You were subsidized. But at least it's socializing. It's cheaper than putting you through the legal system.

What does society do with useless people? Non-STEM, non-vocational degrees or prison.






J


EDIT: The gold will be in this edit. Things really aren't so bad. The secret of life is that it doesn't fit into language or analysis. The trouble arises when we cling to a model we're given that says this and only this and nothing else. You see, phil major and engineering major are playing the same game. In the rules of the game, engineering major is winning. That's the above post. The secret is to quit playing, quit loving what they gave you. It's too hard to stop playing if you love it. Opt out. Because the second secret is, as long as both phil major and engineering major are playing, yes the latter is 'winning' by the rules of the game, but both are still losing by default.

[qimissung]

I think I can agree with the above. Actually, I loved going to college. I loved getting away from home and pretending to be independent. But I really only enjoyed my classes my last year of collegel which is when I started taking English classes for my minor. Somewhere in the intervening years between high school and that moment in time I grew up enough to do them well. I felt like I was on fire.

The thing is college is fine for some and maybe not the right fit for others. My oldest son is bright but he has not liked school since high school. And I deplore the current trend that everyone should go to college. I worked for many years in an inner-city school and while I really wished for that opportunity for them, I was also saddened that during that time all those vocational educational classes disappeared. My students could have used those, too. And I think it's ridiculous that someone must go to school to get entry-level positions in corporations. I think both paths should be equally respected.

[Clopin]

This thread has raised some interesting points about the viability of university degrees. Now while they reveal the disparity between science and arts degrees in terms of practical application, there are other considerations at play.
Without the humanities, we would be reduced to worker ants seeking to build an ever more complex ant hill to an end that even the most exalted science graduate cannot understand. If the quality of life is reduced to utilitarianism, then the soul dies and with it civilisation.
In a poll to find the most historically famous Briton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel figured highly; as did Shakespeare. While it is obvious that Brunel's remarkable engineering feats spawned great industries and enabled us to travel by rail around the country, beyond the realm of scientific endeavour Shakespeare is incomparable for those who seek to learn about the greater realm of life itself.

So how many more people need to tell you that humanties fields exist independantly of humanities degrees before you stop making this argument. Nobody anywhere in this thread has suggested that society should just do away with the arts so stop arguing against that please.

[Emil Miller]

Of course the humanities exist independent of a degree but it's clear that they can best be understood and advanced by academic means. If this were not the case, colleges engaged in them would be dispensed with: unless one takes the view that these institutions are there simply to make money.
A degree may not be a requirement for the person who makes a discovery that alters the course of human development, but for every genius there are large numbers of people who will contribute collectively to whatever discipline they are engaged in. This is the significance of degrees that allow for a structured approach rather than haphazardly exploiting a possible knack for something.
I started this thread with a quote from a business paper about the number of graduates who are working in menial jobs in the US and UK, so it was only to be expected that some replies would echo a similar negative experience.

[lawpark]

Interesting discussions. Reminded me of an article from about a year ago:

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/...ticle_id=57728

My personal feeling is that the push to get students into Humanities are professors - if there are no students, their livelihood is endangered. But the same actually is true for pure science - my personal experience was that Math professors already felt the same way already 20 years ago - with departments with more faculty members than students.

[Clopin]

Of course the humanities exist independent of a degree but it's clear that they can best be understood and advanced by academic means. If this were not the case, colleges engaged in them would be dispensed with: unless one takes the view that these institutions are there simply to make money.
A degree may not be a requirement for the person who makes a discovery that alters the course of human development, but for every genius there are large numbers of people who will contribute collectively to whatever discipline they are engaged in. This is the significance of degrees that allow for a structured approach rather than haphazardly exploiting a possible knack for something.
I started this thread with a quote from a business paper about the number of graduates who are working in menial jobs in the US and UK, so it was only to be expected that some replies would echo a similar negative experience.

It's not the least bit clear that universities provide the "best" way to understand and advance the arts. What is crystal clear however is that a humanities field degree is a very bad investment of your time and money if employment opportunties are your goal.

[Darcy88]

I did really well in my two years of college in the sciences and in the humanities, am quite an expert historian in some areas, but I quite like working in industries which do not require a degree. I prefer to be an entrepreneur or an artist or an athlete. Also, I love working in the restaurant industry, even the lowly jobs where I'm no more than a scullion. There is something nice about just cleaning, chopping, cooking..... not having to worry about a million things, not having much responsibility, being able to let the imagination drift while muscle memory sort of mechanically takes over the simple tasks set before one. It is humbling but it is also enjoyable to work those kind of jobs. I might never finish my degree. I am going to take the law school admission test and the medical college admission test, but I doubt I'll pursue either degree.