My daughter wants to major in history.

[scrapbookbuzz]

I would say history could be used for lost of things: archeology, anthropology, being an archivist (yes, that's a real thing), helping track down stolen art (black market art is a real and HUGE industry), amongst other things. She would most likely have to minor in something complementary to those fields but it would allow her to enjoy her studies while also pursuing marketable skills. Encourage her to look into those fields to see which most speak to her. Maybe she can shadow someone in one of those fields for a day. There's a lot more use for history knowledge than most people are aware.

 

ETA: I see a lot of people mentioning "double major." While entirely doable, that's best to start earlier in college than later and it's not really necessary. At this point, OP, I would recommend a major with one or two minors. It will give her the same insight without having to pay for as many extra credit hours as a double major would require.

Edited October 31, 2017 by scrapbookbuzz

[Guest]

I'd love to hear more about this. My graphic design daughter is very interested in video games. Who is DigiPen?

 

Off to bed. I'll check in asap tomorrow.

It is a 4-5 year school that prepares students for jobs in gaming and video design in particular.  

So is Neumont University; that is where my son would have gone had he gone.  Both have degrees in gaming.  

 

The DigiPen college counselor told my son to not do a darn thing about programming while in his classical high school; take all the liberal arts classes and math through PreCalc.  DigiPen will teach the coding.  The lack in gaming people is story-telling.

 

We have several people in our parish who work in gaming.  Three of them are artists, not "coders".  They have double majors or major/minor in computer science and art.  

[Kareni]

My daughter majored in Latin in college, so I hear your concerns.  (She also minored in Geology.)  She is currently teaching English in South Korea where she has been living for four years.

 

My daughter took out about $25,000 in loans during her undergraduate years.

 

The salary for teaching English in South Korea is generally about $2200/month; also typically included are air fare and  accommodations in a small studio apartment. 

 

My daughter is rather frugal and was easily able to save more than a thousand dollars a month during her first year of teaching. 

 

So, your daughter (without financial help from you) could pay off $22,000 in student loan debt within two years.

 

My daughter's long term goal (since high school) is to become a librarian.  She is now saving money to fund those studies.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Bluegoat]

If she thinks she could get a really good history degree, I'd go for it but think about job training as really a different thing.  You can get all kinds of qualifications that are really useful and can get jobs. It sounds like some kind of project management might be up her alley.

 

 

[mom2scouts]

Some of these posts are really encouraging. My son is probably going to be a history major. He lives and breathes history, especially military history. I can't even imagine what other major he would be interested in studying. He has started making some very interesting contacts in what seems to be a fairly small circle of people who restore and collect military vehicles, do armor modeling, re-enact battles, and run museums as well as people who work in DC for the government. I'm just going to have to believe that he'll find a way to support himself using his skills and interests and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up in a government intelligence or defense job.

Edited October 31, 2017 by mom2scouts

[popmom]

Wow! Thanks to everyone who replied. When I saw all the replies, I was a little scared of what I would find people saying, but I feel very encouraged by all of this. I'm going to talk to her today. She had already planned to talk to her current history prof, but that prof didn't show up for her office hours. She'll try again this week. Y'all have really helped me in giving her some options to think about. I'll let you know what she decides.

 

This really is a family cultural thing. My side of the family all got together on Sunday for dinner after church. When dd mentioned she might major in history, my siblings really gave her a hard time about it. My dad and siblings all have degrees related to industrial management/ supply chain management. They even gave my other daughter a hard time about graphic design. :/ It's ALL about paying the bills for them. I don't think it has to be either/or.

[popmom]

Has she done career testing through the college? My dd was like that, with an interest that doesn't typically lead to a living wage, family-friendly income, and I told her she had to do career testing first. It was very insightful and the results came back saying what her father had told her, haha.

 

The thing they told dd is that she doesn't necessarily need to *major* in those areas, that a number of them required grad degrees or were things that multiple paths could lead to. But once she saw HERSELF more accurately and where her strengths were and where this was going, she realized ok then these are my gifts and the facets I need to develop, no matter what I'm majoring in.

 

Also, it's very important what job she works while there or what opportunities she has in the summer. That will give her experiences and open doors to being hired. As the others say, the major doesn't really matter. Sometimes the major just means I can write, I can show up on time, I can juggle lots of things. So she wants to use her summers and breaks really well.

 

Yeah, definitely do career testing. With those interests, I can think of several majors or minors or certificates she could be pursuing that would come together and help her engage with her passions. Sounds like she has some drive. Has she thought about law school?

 

I mentioned law school to her when we last talked. I don't think she had ever really considered it, but she's looking in to it. I think she'd make a great lawyer. My only concern is racking up more debt to get that law degree. But so many fields now require a master's at a minimum, grad school seems almost inevitable at this point. 

[Sandwalker]

All the pharmacists I know hate their jobs. She should major in what she loves. Life is short, and money isn't everything.

[Tanaqui]

Carol in Cal. brought up a good point upthread - already, a lot of work that used to be done by pharmacists is being done by computers. The bottom is going to eventually drop out of that career.

[luuknam]

I remember nuclear engineering.  People went into it to make money, and then the job market for it tanked.  It was absolutely galling.

 

That could easily happen with pharmacy jobs.  They are already far less professional then they used to be--no significant amounts of personal formulation, for instance.  My guess is that eventually pharmacists will only be interaction consultants and machines will count the pills.  And then she will be in a job market that is more competitive and even less fun. 

 

 

Can't people with PharmDs get jobs in the pharmaceutical industry as well, not just in pharmacies?

Edited October 31, 2017 by luuknam

[marbel]

My DD wants to major in history and theology. I told her to go for it. We're not a money oriented or driven family. For us, money is secondary to happiness. If she's happy in what she's doing for work, she'll be successful.

 

I love this.

 

My son has always loved history.  He has always wanted to "do" something with history, though the specifics change - work in a museum, be the blacksmith at Colonial Williamsburg (or similar), participate in working on games that have historical content, work in historical preservation.... etc. etc.  

 

But he put himself in a STEM track when he started community college because that's what everyone (except his dad and me) said was what he had to do if he ever wanted to earn a living.  After a lot of struggling with math, etc., while shining in history and political science, and coming to the realization that making a lot of money was not as important as loving his work, he changed his major to history.   

Edited October 31, 2017 by marbel

[foxbridgeacademy]

Wow! Thanks to everyone who replied. When I saw all the replies, I was a little scared of what I would find people saying, but I feel very encouraged by all of this. I'm going to talk to her today. She had already planned to talk to her current history prof, but that prof didn't show up for her office hours. She'll try again this week. Y'all have really helped me in giving her some options to think about. I'll let you know what she decides.

 

This really is a family cultural thing. My side of the family all got together on Sunday for dinner after church. When dd mentioned she might major in history, my siblings really gave her a hard time about it. My dad and siblings all have degrees related to industrial management/ supply chain management. They even gave my other daughter a hard time about graphic design. :/ It's ALL about paying the bills for them. I don't think it has to be either/or.

IMO, she's still of an age where mom can tell aunts and uncles To MYOB and back off. 

 

 

I have one kid who's likely to go Engineering for the $$ and another who want's to do Global Studies and be a professional volunteer.  I can almost guarantee you that the the latter will be much happier in their job then the former.

[solascriptura]

All the pharmacists I know hate their jobs. She should major in what she loves. Life is short, and money isn't everything.

I know A LOT of pharmacists and I have to disagree. Yes, those in retail don’t seem to like it much but my friends in industry do. Many of them do research and development. Others have branched out into the marketing and business side of their companies too. And yes, I know that money isn’t everythin, but they all do extremely well.

[eternalsummer]

Well someone does have to pay the bills.  If she can say, look, here are the stats for history majors (ideally ones who graduate from my university, or something); they get these jobs and make this kind of money and have this kind of job security, then they'll probably back off.

 

If she's just hoping a history major will morph into a job that pays the bills, that's misguided - spending $20K plus on an education that you can really get for free if you can read and that won't lead to being able to support oneself is not a great idea.

 

On the other hand, if she wants to say to them, look, I'm spending this $20K on getting a history education at this university; I don't care if it ends up not being enough for gainful employment because I plan to get another degree/get married/work an entry level job that doesn't require anything but a degree in something/etc.

 

She should, however, count not only the $20K in debt but also the amount of scholarships (and whatever you're paying in cash, if anything), because if she spends your cash and/or her scholarships on a history degree, she probably won't get the same amount of support for a second degree (if she decides she needs another one to get a good job).

 

 

All of that said, if she is exceptional - say one kid in 500, or so, NM-level - she's probably going to be fine no matter what she does.

[Sandwalker]

I know A LOT of pharmacists and I have to disagree. Yes, those in retail don’t seem to like it much but my friends in industry do. Many of them do research and development. Others have branched out into the marketing and business side of their companies too. And yes, I know that money isn’t everythin, but they all do extremely well.

I know mostly hospital-based pharmacists, as that's where I work. I'm sure you probably know far more pharmacists than I. The ones working for the pharmaceutical companies must make excellent money, certainly.

[MedicMom]

I have degrees in creative writing and philosophy. I worked in human services immediately out of college, so I’ve never worked in my areas of study. But I’ve also never wanted for a job either.

[elegantlion]

Well someone does have to pay the bills.  If she can say, look, here are the stats for history majors (ideally ones who graduate from my university, or something); they get these jobs and make this kind of money and have this kind of job security, then they'll probably back off.

 

If she's just hoping a history major will morph into a job that pays the bills, that's misguided - spending $20K plus on an education that you can really get for free if you can read and that won't lead to being able to support oneself is not a great idea.

 

On the other hand, if she wants to say to them, look, I'm spending this $20K on getting a history education at this university; I don't care if it ends up not being enough for gainful employment because I plan to get another degree/get married/work an entry level job that doesn't require anything but a degree in something/etc.

 

She should, however, count not only the $20K in debt but also the amount of scholarships (and whatever you're paying in cash, if anything), because if she spends your cash and/or her scholarships on a history degree, she probably won't get the same amount of support for a second degree (if she decides she needs another one to get a good job).

 

 

All of that said, if she is exceptional - say one kid in 500, or so, NM-level - she's probably going to be fine no matter what she does.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded? Do you mean to say that you can obtain all the skill history majors get by just reading books on your own? If you want to be a history buff, sure, read a lot, but if you want to learn how to study history and gain the skills necessary to really work in the field, you need to do way more than just read about history.  :confused1:

 

Also, there are many jobs that history majors can do and are doing that provide adequate income to support oneself. Granted, you're not going to make 60k with history job right out of undergraduate, and these are statistics that history majors should be aware of, but it's not a field to just write off because you're not going to make huge amounts of money. 

[ktgrok]

Instead of a double major, I would look at professional certifications. They are more career oriented than a most majors. A history major with a high GPA and a certificate in Business Adminstration, Project Management, Human Resource Management, or Paralegal Studies is going to be employed.

 

 

 

Exactly. With her drive and ambition it sounds like she'd excel in some kin dog administrative or project management role. 

[Bootsie]

I was recently at an investments conference where the keynote speaker, a historian, was paid almost $100,000 to make one speech.  I know another historian who has a fairly narrow area of specialization dealing with the histories of native Americans and makes a significant income as an expert witness in some property rights issues.  I know bankers and financial planners, as well as teachers and lawyers, with history degrees.  

 

I would consider a double major if she can do so without adding extra time to her degree; this is easier at some universities than others.  If it would increase the number of hours that she needs to take, I would suggest applying those hours to a graduate degree rather than a second undergraduate degree.  

[Catwoman]

Has your dd considered becoming a veterinarian?

[Laura Corin]

I was at a university talk where they were discussing the analysis they had carried out of degree success against degree choice. Those who were studying subjects that they themselves had chosen were much more likely to complete and get good degrees. Passion for your studies would get you out of bed and writing that essay.

 

Fwiw I have one son studying English and Classics; the other is planning on English and French. Certainly in the UK, studying solid academic subjects at good universities is the route to all kinds of jobs.

 

One of my nieces studied biochemistry and now works in media sales; my other niece studied English and manages the social media for a major environmental charity.

[DawnM]

I know A LOT of pharmacists and I have to disagree. Yes, those in retail don’t seem to like it much but my friends in industry do. Many of them do research and development. Others have branched out into the marketing and business side of their companies too. And yes, I know that money isn’t everythin, but they all do extremely well.

 

Yeah, that comment struck me as odd.  Two of my cousins are pharmacists and love their jobs.  Three closer friends are pharmacists and they seem to enjoy their jobs, don't complain much, etc.....

[DawnM]

I love this.

 

My son has always loved history.  He has always wanted to "do" something with history, though the specifics change - work in a museum, be the blacksmith at Colonial Williamsburg (or similar), participate in working on games that have historical content, work in historical preservation.... etc. etc.  

 

But he put himself in a STEM track when he started community college because that's what everyone (except his dad and me) said was what he had to do if he ever wanted to earn a living.  After a lot of struggling with math, etc., while shining in history and political science, and coming to the realization that making a lot of money was not as important as loving his work, he changed his major to history.   

 

I don't get the "it has to be STEM or it is worthless" idea.  My second son would make a great engineer, but he doesn't seem interested, and we are backing off of pushing him.  He wants something in the arts.  Yup, you heard me....ARTS. 

[marbel]

I don't get the "it has to be STEM or it is worthless" idea.  My second son would make a great engineer, but he doesn't seem interested, and we are backing off of pushing him.  He wants something in the arts.  Yup, you heard me....ARTS. 

 

I don't get it either, but that's what we hear.  

 

My daughter wants to major in art.  We went on a few college visits and the main focus was on STEM.  At one school, the representative from the art department actively discouraged the prospective students from majoring in art. She said if people absolutely wanted to, they should double major with something like IT or other technology area. To get a job.  Oh, this was after we searched and finally found the art building - the tour guides didn't know where it was.  

 

(Actually that girl is now thinking of going to esthetician school instead of college but that's another story.)

 

At least around here (I mean where I live), I hear it all the time. The schools definitely focus on it.

[DawnM]

I don't get it either, but that's what we hear.  

 

My daughter wants to major in art.  We went on a few college visits and the main focus was on STEM.  At one school, the representative from the art department actively discouraged the prospective students from majoring in art. She said if people absolutely wanted to, they should double major with something like IT or other technology area. To get a job.  Oh, this was after we searched and finally found the art building - the tour guides didn't know where it was.  

 

(Actually that girl is now thinking of going to esthetician school instead of college but that's another story.)

 

At least around here (I mean where I live), I hear it all the time. The schools definitely focus on it.

 

Well, we have only toured one college so far, and it was an art college!   So, they were able to find the art building!  :lol:

[livetoread]

Having either another major or minor would be helpful, but I’m not sure it is necessary for a motivated, organized kid. Others above mentioned certifications and internships, and I would second that.

 

It seems to me that jobs are about previous experience and connections, especially connections. Connections are easier when you are majoring in the field you want your job in, because faculty know you and help you land positions if you pursue them. But a motivated student can purposefully cultivate connections in a variety of places. She can look for and land internships related to her goals, and these can be across disciplines. Once she is in her internship, she’ll shine, which will open more doors. Pursuing the right internships might be more valuable (and likely cheaper) than extending her schooling for a second major or even a minor. Just taking a few classes in another area that would count towards electives and open doors might be enough.

 

Like others have said, history majors know how to absorb and reflect important info from large amounts of data and then communicate it effectively. This is a valuable skill in many areas. Knowing what she likes about history can help guide her in career paths. Does she enjoy synthesizing info and writing? If she tolerates that, but loves the subject, maybe history is best as a hobby. But if she likes the marketable skills that a history major can give her and is flexible about the field she uses them in, I think she would be just fine.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Well someone does have to pay the bills.  If she can say, look, here are the stats for history majors (ideally ones who graduate from my university, or something); they get these jobs and make this kind of money and have this kind of job security, then they'll probably back off.

 

If she's just hoping a history major will morph into a job that pays the bills, that's misguided - spending $20K plus on an education that you can really get for free if you can read and that won't lead to being able to support oneself is not a great idea.

 

On the other hand, if she wants to say to them, look, I'm spending this $20K on getting a history education at this university; I don't care if it ends up not being enough for gainful employment because I plan to get another degree/get married/work an entry level job that doesn't require anything but a degree in something/etc.

 

She should, however, count not only the $20K in debt but also the amount of scholarships (and whatever you're paying in cash, if anything), because if she spends your cash and/or her scholarships on a history degree, she probably won't get the same amount of support for a second degree (if she decides she needs another one to get a good job).

 

 

All of that said, if she is exceptional - say one kid in 500, or so, NM-level - she's probably going to be fine no matter what she does.

 

I take it you haven't spent time getting a history degree, or similar really? There is significantly more too it.  :mellow:

[KarenC]

If she has any interest in intelligence, defense, or politics I would keep the history major and encourage double majoring in a foreign language, especially Chinese, Arabic, or Russian.  

[Penguin]

I have only skimmed the replies, but I am going to go back and read all of them. My son will probably major in either history or political science. Recently, I met a man who works (yes, paid full-time work) as a local historian. One of the things he does is a lot of documentary work. If my son goes the history route, I am going to remind him of this guy and suggest that my son take some media studies.

[bolt.]

I take it you haven't spent time getting a history degree, or similar really? There is significantly more too it. :mellow:

I'm interested in this understanding of education dynamics -- not necessarily just with history. Are there really classes or lectures that happen during a history undergrad education that *no one* has written a textbook or article to adequately convey that information?

 

I get that it would be in a less interactive format, so, probably less of a meaningful learning experience... but am I missing some other aspect things?

 

By way of comparison, I think that in religious studies (the undergrad area I teach in) a person could certainly self-educate the vast majority of the class content and gain an level of capacity similar to a distance education degree. Experiences would be missing, and so would the sense of structure that "requires" the student to think things through (ie writing a paper and being graded)... but I think a driven person could achieve a very similar level of education under their own steam using books that are readily available.

 

It sounds like there is another way of looking at that. I'd like to hear it.

Edited November 1, 2017 by bolt.

[Crimson Wife]

Some of these posts are really encouraging. My son is probably going to be a history major. He lives and breathes history, especially military history. I can't even imagine what other major he would be interested in studying. He has started making some very interesting contacts in what seems to be a fairly small circle of people who restore and collect military vehicles, do armor modeling, re-enact battles, and run museums as well as people who work in DC for the government. I'm just going to have to believe that he'll find a way to support himself using his skills and interests and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up in a government intelligence or defense job.

 

Public policy would be a good graduate school option for him. A *LOT* of my DH's classmates in his master's of public policy are military buffs.

[Crimson Wife]

I'm interested in this understanding of education dynamics -- not necessarily just with history. Are there really classes or lectures that happen during a history undergrad education that *no one* has written a textbook or article to adequately convey that information?

 

The student gets a TON of practice researching and writing. Any humanities degree will have this but history papers require a different sort of analysis than, say, an English major does.

[regentrude]

I'm interested in this understanding of education dynamics -- not necessarily just with history. Are there really classes or lectures that happen during a history undergrad education that *no one* has written a textbook or article to adequately convey that information?

 

But becoming a historian is about so much more than information intake. It is not about storing large quantities of historical facts. It is developing a skill set and learning to think, debate, research, and write using the vocabulary and tool set of historical analysis. You don't learn this by reading books - you learn it by doing. By debating in class, by doing research with original and secondary sources, by writing the research paper and receiving constructive feedback from an expert, i.e. your professor.

 

Nobody thinks one can learn physics or math by reading a book, but the humanities disciplines, too, involve not just memorizing content, but acquiring a specialized skill.

I am pretty sure your religious studies also require a specific way of thinking and writing. If I think about DD's class on Aquinas, I find it difficult to imagine that merely reading would achieve the same in depth understanding and engagement with the text

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by regentrude

[Crimson Wife]

I mentioned law school to her when we last talked. I don't think she had ever really considered it, but she's looking in to it. I think she'd make a great lawyer. My only concern is racking up more debt to get that law degree. But so many fields now require a master's at a minimum, grad school seems almost inevitable at this point. 

 

My brother went to a top 20 law school and only 40% of his class actually got a FT legal job after graduation. He was one of them, but it was because of his STEM skills (he worked in IT prior to attending law school and got a job with the Federal Communications Commission in their wireless department).

 

My brother is hoping to get his loans paid off through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program but I would not count on that being around much longer since the current Administration has already targeted it for elimination. I think the people like my brother who have already been in the PSLF will still get their loans forgiven (there would be too much political fallout if they didn't) but people who haven't yet graduated and taken a public service job probably won't get it.

[Bootsie]

I'm interested in this understanding of education dynamics -- not necessarily just with history. Are there really classes or lectures that happen during a history undergrad education that *no one* has written a textbook or article to adequately convey that information?

 

I get that it would be in a less interactive format, so, probably less of a meaningful learning experience... but am I missing some other aspect things?

 

By way of comparison, I think that in religious studies (the undergrad area I teach in) a person could certainly self-educate the vast majority of the class content and gain an level of capacity similar to a distance education degree. Experiences would be missing, and so would the sense of structure that "requires" the student to think things through (ie writing a paper and being graded)... but I think a driven person could achieve a very similar level of education under their own steam using books that are readily available.

 

It sounds like there is another way of looking at that. I'd like to hear it.

 

An education is much more than accumulating information.  It is about becoming a part of a community of scholars.  It is about learning to communicate, argue, and debate the ideas within a particular discipline.  It is about a way of thinking.   It is difficult for these things to occur outside of a community and without mentors.  

 

I do think a motivated, intelligent, well-educated person can learn a lot using books that are readily available.  You do have some individuals, like David Friedman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman) who is an economist and law professor, although he has never taken a for-credit economics or law class (he has a PhD in theoretical physic from Univ of Chicago).  But, even in his case, one must remember that his parents were Rose and Milton Friedman; he didn't have a for-credit economics class, but he lived with economists; he heard the conversations of economists; he discussed economics at the dinner table.  

 

I have a PhD in economics and have been a highly motivated student.  I was interested in learning more Theology--I read some books but I also enrolled in university classes.  It forced me to read books and consider ideas I would not have done on my own.  It challenged me in ways i would not have been challenged on my own.  it gave me feedback that I would not have received if I had just read books on the subject.  It gave me someone to help when I was struggling with understanding an author.  It gave me background about the context in which an author was writing. It energized me by giving me the opportunity to be surrounded by people who were interested in the same things I was interested in.    

[popmom]

Has your dd considered becoming a veterinarian?

She's at the right school for it! But no, she really doesn't want to do anything medical.

[Bluegoat]

I'm interested in this understanding of education dynamics -- not necessarily just with history. Are there really classes or lectures that happen during a history undergrad education that *no one* has written a textbook or article to adequately convey that information?

 

I get that it would be in a less interactive format, so, probably less of a meaningful learning experience... but am I missing some other aspect things?

 

By way of comparison, I think that in religious studies (the undergrad area I teach in) a person could certainly self-educate the vast majority of the class content and gain an level of capacity similar to a distance education degree. Experiences would be missing, and so would the sense of structure that "requires" the student to think things through (ie writing a paper and being graded)... but I think a driven person could achieve a very similar level of education under their own steam using books that are readily available.

 

It sounds like there is another way of looking at that. I'd like to hear it.

 

Yes.  It's really not at all the same to read a book as it is to learn from a teacher.  Students may read all kinds of books themselves for the classes, but the important part of their education is talking about the books with each other and the scholars, learning the questions the are asked, seeing how the experts go about looking for answers.  Having people ask you questions that would never have occurred to you.  Watching the scholars go about their work is also important - things like watching the conversations that go on when visiting lectures speak, for example.

 

I'm in a book study at the moment being given by a retired university professor.  About half the people attending have some kind of background in the subject, and the other half don't though they are generally well read in the area being spoken about  It's interesting to see the differences in the way they approach the subject and their ability to understand what the author was getting at - there really is a significant difference.

 

My background was classics, particularly ancient and medieval philosophy and theology - I actually can't imagine that someone could self-study in religious studies easily and end up with the same kind of education as someone in a solid university program.  

 

This is why I am very skeptical in general of online programs in the humanities.

[Bluegoat]

An education is much more than accumulating information.  It is about becoming a part of a community of scholars.  It is about learning to communicate, argue, and debate the ideas within a particular discipline.  It is about a way of thinking.   It is difficult for these things to occur outside of a community and without mentors.  

 

I do think a motivated, intelligent, well-educated person can learn a lot using books that are readily available.  You do have some individuals, like David Friedman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman) who is an economist and law professor, although he has never taken a for-credit economics or law class (he has a PhD in theoretical physic from Univ of Chicago).  But, even in his case, one must remember that his parents were Rose and Milton Friedman; he didn't have a for-credit economics class, but he lived with economists; he heard the conversations of economists; he discussed economics at the dinner table.  

 

I have a PhD in economics and have been a highly motivated student.  I was interested in learning more Theology--I read some books but I also enrolled in university classes.  It forced me to read books and consider ideas I would not have done on my own.  It challenged me in ways i would not have been challenged on my own.  it gave me feedback that I would not have received if I had just read books on the subject.  It gave me someone to help when I was struggling with understanding an author.  It gave me background about the context in which an author was writing. It energized me by giving me the opportunity to be surrounded by people who were interested in the same things I was interested in.    

 

I think this is a big issue - quite often people read a text but they don't have the context, and it leads them in quite the wrong direction.

[regentrude]

I'm in a book study at the moment being given by a retired university professor.  About half the people attending have some kind of background in the subject, and the other half don't though they are generally well read in the area being spoken about  It's interesting to see the differences in the way they approach the subject and their ability to understand what the author was getting at - there really is a significant difference.

 

Yes, this.

In my book club, I am the only person who is not a history or literature professor. I am an educated, well read person, but the insights the others bring to the discussion, the connections they make with other works and authors, the questions they discuss and the subtleties they pick up on are at a much different level than that of educated laypeople. They possess background knowledge and the analytical skills of their disciplines you don't simply get from reading.

Edited November 1, 2017 by regentrude

[GailV]

I just started reading this short article from Harvard Business Review and thought of this thread:

 

https://hbr.org/2017/07/liberal-arts-in-the-data-age

 

A few paragraphs in we learn that the CEO of YouTube has degrees in history and literature. 

 

"What matters now is not the skills you have but how you think.  Can you ask the right questions? Do you know what problem you're trying to solve in the first place?"