Why do people do this?? (VENT)

[SKL]

And another thing ... sometimes we find out that that practical degree really did prepare us to use our talents ... though we didn't realize it at the time.

I never would have pictured myself as a tax professional ... until I was one.  😛  Have been doing specialty tax work since 1995.  Who'da thunk.

Edited March 22 by SKL

[Corraleno]

48 minutes ago, SKL said:

What I see is that the majority of people who pursue less practical degrees either drop out, change their major and end up spending more to graduate, or manage to market their talent, but not in a particularly fulfilling way. 

Given the fact that most colleges grant far more degrees in "less practical" fields like humanities and social sciences, than they do in business or engineering, I would disagree with your claim, just based on statistics. There are far more people with history degrees than working historians, far more literature majors than novelists or teachers of literature, etc., and I don't believe that all those non-historians and non-novelists wish they'd gotten business degrees instead.

The vast majority of people I know with bachelor degrees do not have careers that stem directly from their degrees and they're not full of regrets. I certainly don't regret the 10 years I spent in undergrad and grad school, even though I ended up doing something different as a career — the skills I gained in research, writing, and analysis were easily transferable to other areas, and I got to hone those skills while studying something I was passionate about, in an amazing environment full of really smart interesting people who were as passionate about it as I was. I would not have traded that experience for anything, including a more "practical" degree that might have earned me more money. 

The problem isn't that "impractical" degrees exist, it's that funding for higher education has been cut so drastically that students who want to study those subjects are forced to either go into debt that they will struggle to repay or choose a degree that leads to a higher paying job. But there are only so many jobs for engineers and programmers and accountants and BBAs. Do we really want a society where history, and art, and music, and philosophy, and literature are considered a waste of time? I think certain Powers That Be definitely would like to do away with higher education in those areas, and I think cutting funding for those areas has been absolutely intentional.

If people want to treat college as just a job training program and are looking for the best ROI, they should probably look at the AAS programs at the local CC, where they can get excellent training for a good paying job with little to no debt. IMO treating a four year degree as little more than job training ignores so much of its true value.

 

[teachermom2834]

Life has twists and turns. You prepare for it the best you can with the info you have at the time. 
 

Reasoned financial decisions, back up plans, all cards on the table. Then sometimes you just jump and go with your gut. You can’t predict all the things.  Especially at 18 years old. 
 

Parents are here to advise and support. The level of financial support varies and that is okay. As long as all the cards are on the table. 
 

Changing majors , going to grad school, making a career change later in life. None of those are the worst things. Of course those all are part of the reasoned financial decisions and back up plan discussions.

Please note I have said reasoned financial decisions. I feel like someone is going to quote me and say it is hard to change careers when you are drowning in debt from an arts degree. I am not suggesting it is a good idea to take on big debt with the idea you can always go to grad school later. 
 

 

[SKL]

I fully agree that a good post-high-school education is too expensive.

Given that it is, though, I would prefer that people study their impractical passions as a side hobby, which is pretty easy to do nowadays.  My dad was/is a huge history buff, and I'm not sure he ever took a history class past 7th grade.  He also plays the piano ridiculously well despite having never received a single music lesson.  He's also a science buff, writes poetry, and has a whole design shop in his basement.  So I guess that's where I'm coming from.  You don't have to spend four years and $100K+ to learn these things.

Edited March 22 by SKL

[teachermom2834]

My husband has a physics degree and has had an interesting career and done a variety of things. He is currently in business analytics which is a what my current college student is studying but was not even a major when dh was is college. 
 

If a current kid of mine wanted to study physics I’m sure I’d have lots of discussions with him or her about what the career plans and potential were and what possible paths he could go. I would probably suggest engineering or something more applied several times. But at the end of the day I’d probably just figure he could teach or go to grad school for engineering or something else. And I’d remind him to keep that in mind financially. And I wouldn’t be any worse off than if I pressured him to some engineering specialty that tanked when he was graduating. 
 

I guess life is long and unpredictable and people change. (And expensive so that has to be considered but also risky to expect some specific degree is going to be a magic ticket to prosperity. Because life has twists and turns…)

Edited March 23 by teachermom2834

[Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

The level of financial support varies and that is okay. As long as all the cards are on the table.

I agree. My parents and their siblings have small homes. Unmarried children are welcomed to coach surf if unemployed and homeless. There isn’t room for children’s spouses and definitely no room for grandchildren. Sleepovers were more of laying sleeping bags or thin foam mattresses all over any uncovered floors in the living room and bedrooms. So the adult children knew what level of support their parents are able to provide and make decisions accordingly. My cousins did not have a bedroom to themselves growing up, some slept in the living room. I have ex-classmates who had their own bedroom growing up so their spouse could stay over. When a ex-classmate was waiting for her marital home to be build decades ago, she stayed in her husband’s room and her baby stayed in her in-laws room. Her husband’s room was too small to put a cot in. 

[Doodlebug]

3 hours ago, TexasProud said:

I get that. But the OP said in both of these cases there was minimal debt. 

The OP said the student has good scholarships and grants, "so there's minimal debt." This may be a reasonable assumption, but debt comes from a lot of directions that none of us can accurately assess from outside of the situation. I prefer to assume parents are trying to give some good advice, but stink at it. 

 

Edited March 23 by Doodlebug

[naturalmom]

Sometimes a "follow your dream" plan works.  My oldest majored in music. Initially, my husband expected him to double major in something practical, but biology and the accompanying math and chemistry required for it were taking up all of his time.  He was miserable because neither math nor science were strong points for him, but really tried to stick it out.  My husband finally told him to  drop the math and chem, and do what he really went to college for.  He later added a second major in English.  He is very very fortunate to have a full piano studio, be in 3 bands, play for a church, play a couple times per month at a piano bar, and in the last year he and his fiance have been performing as a duet (she sings) and picking up lots of gigs.  He LOVES all those things, and loves being that busy.  It doesn't always work that way.  But he is fortunate to enjoy all kinds of music, which opens up more ways of earning money.  He lives in an area with a pretty extensive live music scene which makes all that possible.  And as a bonus, his fiance is a lawyer (they met in undergrad.)

My youngest, on the other hand, is a math and chemistry major doing pre-med, and he is about to get engaged to a Dance and French major with history minor.  So that kind of evens things out I guess;)

[teachermom2834]

5 minutes ago, naturalmom said:

Sometimes a "follow your dream" plan works.  My oldest majored in music. Initially, my husband expected him to double major in something practical, but biology and the accompanying math and chemistry required for it were taking up all of his time.  He was miserable because neither math nor science were strong points for him, but really tried to stick it out.  My husband finally told him to  drop the math and chem, and do what he really went to college for.  He later added a second major in English.  He is very very fortunate to have a full piano studio, be in 3 bands, play for a church, play a couple times per month at a piano bar, and in the last year he and his fiance have been performing as a duet (she sings) and picking up lots of gigs.  He LOVES all those things, and loves being that busy.  It doesn't always work that way.  But he is fortunate to enjoy all kinds of music, which opens up more ways of earning money.  He lives in an area with a pretty extensive live music scene which makes all that possible.  And as a bonus, his fiance is a lawyer (they met in undergrad.)

My youngest, on the other hand, is a math and chemistry major doing pre-med, and he is about to get engaged to a Dance and French major with history minor.  So that kind of evens things out I guess;)

Funny about the partners. I have mentioned, and only half kidding, when people have said it was pointless for their dancers to go to college that one reason is to meet partners that are pursuing something other than dance 🙂 

Not that I am suggesting women go to college for their MRS but I know women who have danced and taught dance all their adult lives and they are married to doctors and lawyers. 
 

Just real considerations. lol. I’m not really suggesting anyone go to college to find a partner to support them. 

 

[Arcadia]

I think both of Jenny in Florida’s children are dancers. If I don’t remember wrong, they know the extent that their parents are able to help them. 

[footballmom]

DH wanted to be a photographer as his career and BIL wanted to be an artist. They were strongly discouraged / swayed away from those careers by their parents. DH wishes he had still pursued it. BIL’s child is entering college as an art major, they have always had talent and passion for art and BIL is encouraging them to pursue their passion. I know my IL’s were well intentioned but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Not music related but my child is deciding between two colleges. One is considered “prestigious” and the other one has so many intangible advantages over the prestigious school. Goodness, the number of unsolicited comments my child has gotten that it’s “a clear choice where to go” you would think these commenters are funding it themselves. 

[Laura Corin]

When my daughter was applying to universities in the UK, we visited one that has a highly-regarded business school. The business school had completed a study on degree subject intentions of UG students, parental wishes and drop out rates. Doing a subject under parental pressure was highly correlated with a greater likelihood of dropping out.

Both my children have degrees in English, one in combination with Classics. The elder is a librarian, which she had always dreamed of being. Younger is applying for general graduate intake programmes. No regrets here.

[maize]

I'll add a few more thoughts to my earlier response.

I think many of us have seen things go both ways--a passion turning into a fulfilling career, and a passion not working out and the career needing to be found elsewhere. 

I've known several people who were able to support themselves independently working in the arts, but far fewer who were able to support a family. My dad chose a practical path rather than the writing path he dreamed of because he wanted to support his family--in his case, a much larger than average family! and needed a reliable source of income. He hasn't regretted that. One of my sisters has supported herself in the music world for decades, but even so there has been significant compromise and she has spent far more time on the administrative side of music than the performing side. And...she has had only herself to support. 

I'm not one to discourage a child from pursuing their passion. I'll do everything I can to support.

But I will worry. And I'll derive comfort from knowing that it is easier now than in the past to change tack at any point, with the availability of inexpensive online degree programs etc. I, after all, have a degree in anthropology and am now pursuing training in IT and cybersecurity. If I can pivot in my mid-forties for practical reasons, my kids could likely do something similar.

[TechWife]

23 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

…

Her father considers her college education a "waste" because she's "not making enough to be an independent adult". 

…

His dad is trying to talk him into "do something that pays", or just skipping college entirely and "don't waste time and money".

 

I think this is a direct result of changing attitudes about education. Education for the sake of learning doesn’t enter into the decision making process. Post-secondary education is viewed almost entirely as an economic endeavor. Return on investment, or ROI, has become the primary consideration when choosing a field of study.

The idea that our culture needs people who are educated that contribute to our society in a wide variety of ways is quickly diminishing, I think. The push for STEM education, which started with good intentions, has meant that other fields aren’t getting the funding they need to thrive in education, research, or in a career.

I’m married to a tech executive who was educated the “old fashioned way.” While majoring in computer science at a Tier 1 university in the ‘80s, he  took classes in  philosophy & Greek, among other subjects. This background equipped him to become one of the most respected people in his field, world-wide. He has contributed widely to his field through his work with his corporate clients of all sizes, co-authored five books with a sixth in the works, written countless papers, been a guest lecturer at a tier 1 university, and a frequent conference speaker, including giving several keynote addresses. As a result of this work, he has been promoted up through the ranks of his company to an executive position. I’m sure there’s more, and if it sounds like I’m bragging, it’s because I am.

My point is that not only did he learn all of the STEM material he needed to excel in his field, he learned how to think in different ways, how to consider a variety of viewpoints, analytic skills and how to communicate well. Now, broad educational experience is discounted & preference is given to job training. I realize that some of this is driven by high university costs, but it really reflects more than that. If people were enrolling in the arts & humanities, those programs wouldn’t be shutting down. Because education for the sake of education isn’t valued the way it once was, we will not have a well rounded culture. Interdisciplinary work and the relationships and wider culture that allow that work to take place is already wanting. I think it will very soon be a thing of the past as education becomes even more career focused and careers & disciplines become more and more siloed. Arts & humanities studies make us well rounded people who are less likely to be siloed, but instead will travel between the silos, communicating important knowledge, information, and sharing culture while encouraging everyone to leave their silo and visit another.

Corporations say they want these types of people to work for them, and I think they are being honest about that. However, our wider culture does not encourage that. How many times have you heard the phrase “stay in your lane?” While it is important to know your limits, it’s also just as important to know when to change lanes, even for a short while, so you can both contribute to and receive the benefits the other lane has to offer. If we always “stay in our lane,” we will forget how to merge and there will be more accidents and large traffic jams.

I think I am done with both my analogies and my soapbox. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. 

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Education for the sake of learning doesn’t enter into the decision making process.

Costly education for the sake of learning has always been a luxury.

[Arcadia]

27 minutes ago, TechWife said:

While majoring in computer science at a Tier 1 university in the ‘80s, he  took classes in  philosophy & Greek, among other subjects.

The state universities and community colleges here do have breath requirements. To get an associate degree for computer science, my kids have to take three humanities subjects and a foreign language (3 classes) so they had a minimum of 6 humanities subjects. They also have to take three English classes. To get their degree in computer science, my kids would have to take two upper division humanities and two English classes. So they aren’t just taking math, physics and computer science classes.

As for ROI, my parents paid for me and my brother for college and they can’t afford to pay for a second degree. My engineering degree cost under $7k per year in the 90s so my parents were able to loan me some money for my MBA. My brother is 9 years younger and his college education costs more. My husband and his siblings went on scholarships from his dad’s employer and they also gave tuition and work to help pay. For DS19, we are currently paying about $40k per year at a state university. We can pay fully for their first degree and that’s the financial commitment we can give. If they want a second degree or postgraduate, we can help but we won’t be able to pay.  My in-laws tell their children to join the military after graduating because it is seen as a stable profession. My sister-in-law did end up being pressured to retire earlier than she expected and ended up being a rideshare driver. My husband was in military for three years before quitting and working for MNCs. My brother-in-law worked for a local telco company after graduation and had gone through a few rounds of unemployment. 

Edited March 23 by Arcadia
typo

[Faith-manor]

As someone who has two degrees in music, and who would have literally wilted had I not pursued it in college, I can honestly say that it is so important for students to study their passions. Contrary to the popular notion that you can pursue music as a hobby and learn it without college, I can say that is erroneous information. If the student is really talented, there is only so far that they can go with the average neighborhood teacher. I get where parents are coming from on this. And yes, music ed jobs are difficult to find and don't pay well, are the first thing cut when school boards feel a pinch. That is 100% true. The key is to have the student double major in math or science because schools simply cannot find those teachers for secondary ed. Anyone with a math or science degree can make a heck of a lot more money in the private sector with far less stress than in teaching. This is always what I advise along with not going to a tippy top, expensive LAC or university to get this degree. Just pick a lower priced one that has a decent music department and go with that.

I get it. The current price and debt related to higher ed makes many parents see college as a means to an earning end without any other considerations which is just sad. But Americans are very "bang for the buck" oriented.

I am not sure though what kind of society these Americans want to live in because one without the arts, without humanities, is going to be dystopian. I guess they figure they will "import" it like they do everything else.

Our eldest son has a degree in English with an emphasis in Creative Writing and is getting his MFA. He is a published author in academia already, niche field, and will never make significant money at that, but he is immensely happy. His wife, also with the same degree, has a job working remote in editing, and she likes that. Between the two of them, they manage to pay the bills, and dil has poetry published. I would not want them to do anything else unless they wanted to make a change. But they are frugal and practical. There will not be any children in their future unless one of them publishes something that is a real money maker. The key with our kids who want to go into humanities is to help them see the challenges, and make a reasonable plan. Some may never work in the exact field related to their major, but that doesn't mean what they have learned will not greatly enrich their lives, and be applicable in other areas.

Our middle son is in grad school for Anthropology. He is never going to do more than keep his head above water in that field. He loves his museum job, very fulfilling. But museums are rarely heavily public funded, and rely too much on donations from corporations and the wealthy. Whenever the stock market has a bad day, those donations dry up, and that puts everyone at the museum except maybe the curator at risk. It takes decades to be the person who lands the curator job. So his plan is live simple, save money, and no family. He doesn't date because most of the women he has met indicate that eventually they will want children. He does not see that as practical from his perspective of adequately supporting them. He shares an apartment with his bachelor, electrical engineer who started out solidly middle class salary, and less than two years post college graduation has had two bonuses and two pay raises because that is what this country and companies value. He loves his brother, loves what P does for a living, and has more than once said he has no problem with them being roommates for life and paying a larger portion of their expenses than P. I think that is really awesome.

Dd does not currently use her chemistry degree. She loved the subject matter, but hated the industry. She doesn't regret getting it, and we do not regret helping to pay for it either. But she sure does enjoy being a prenatal and birth educator. So that is great. This career came about because she was so badly injured on the job as a paramedic (a career she really loved), she can no longer work in patient care. The route she took from EMT in high school to chemistry degree to paramedic to obstetrics educator has shaped her in many profound ways. No regrets.

As for college debt, this entirely the fault of the banking industry being allowed to lobby state and federal government to eliminate funding for public universities because so much money was to be made off enslaving American students and parents to college loans. Follow the money trail. 

[Arcadia]

24 minutes ago, SKL said:

Costly education for the sake of learning has always been a luxury.

Here community colleges are very affordable. For full paying students like my family, we pay $150 per subject per quarter. An associate degree can be gotten for $3k or less due to AP exam credits and/or free dual enrollment. DS18 did not exceed the free two classes per quarter for dual enrollment students and got his associate degree for free while in high school. My school district and other school districts also have students in dual enrollment program so they graduated with a high school diploma and associate degree. 

So here, there are options to lower the cost of getting a bachelors degree for full paying students willing to go the transfer route. Also it is easier and cheaper to double/triple major and to change major in community college. By the time the students are ready to apply for transfer, they have a better inkling of what they really like. Its also cheaper to be on academic probation in community college than in college freshman year and sometimes sophomore year too.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

The state universities and community colleges here do have breath requirements. To get an associate degree for computer science, my kids have to take three humanities subjects and a foreign language (3 classes) so they had a minimum of 6 humanities subjects. They also have to take three English classes. To get their degree in computer science, my kids would have to take two upper division humanities and two English classes. So they aren’t just taking math, physics and computer science classes.

…

I’m talking about courses beyond degree requirements. Sorry, I should have made that clear. 

Edited March 23 by TechWife

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Costly education for the sake of learning has always been a luxury.

It was not a luxury. My dh payed his own way, simultaneously working multiple jobs and keeping his grades up in order to retain his scholarships. Do I think that could be done at today’s prices? No, not while taking a full course load. One course at a time, probably. It’s my understanding that universities now require people to matriculate within a given time frame and that slow pace is not allowed or at least not encouraged. 

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

…

I am not sure though what kind of society these Americans want to live in because one without the arts, without humanities, is going to be dystopian. I guess they figure they will "import" it like they do everything else.

…

As for college debt, this entirely the fault of the banking industry being allowed to lobby state and federal government to eliminate funding for public universities because so much money was to be made off enslaving American students and parents to college loans. Follow the money trail. 

I’m not sure people will care enough to import it until it’s too late. By that I mean that they won’t be prioritized for visas and people will being to forget the benefits.

Also, about the banking - this, exactly. Follow the money. 

 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

Here community colleges are very affordable. For full paying students like my family, we pay $150 per subject per quarter. An associate degree can be gotten for $3k or less due to AP exam credits and/or free dual enrollment. DS18 did not exceed the free two classes per quarter for dual enrollment students and got his associate degree for free while in high school. My school district and other school districts also have students in dual enrollment program so they graduated with a high school diploma and associate degree. 

So here, there are options to lower the cost of getting a bachelors degree for full paying students willing to go the transfer route. Also it is easier and cheaper to double/triple major and to change major in community college. By the time the students are ready to apply for transfer, they have a better inkling of what they really like. Its also cheaper to be on academic probation in community college than in college freshman year and sometimes sophomore year too.

Even in state tuition at our local community college is $190/credit hour. Many states don’t subsidize higher ed like CA.

[Arcadia]

23 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I’m talking about courses beyond degree requirements. Sorry, I should have made that clear. 

It would be free if my DS19 wanted to tag on more humanities classes. However he transferred in so is still getting used to being far from home. 
There are people in his college that take 25 credits per quarter and triple major.

Edited March 23 by Arcadia

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Here community colleges are very affordable. For full paying students like my family, we pay $150 per subject per quarter. An associate degree can be gotten for $3k or less due to AP exam credits and/or free dual enrollment. DS18 did not exceed the free two classes per quarter for dual enrollment students and got his associate degree for free while in high school. My school district and other school districts also have students in dual enrollment program so they graduated with a high school diploma and associate degree. 

So here, there are options to lower the cost of getting a bachelors degree for full paying students willing to go the transfer route. Also it is easier and cheaper to double/triple major and to change major in community college. By the time the students are ready to apply for transfer, they have a better inkling of what they really like. Its also cheaper to be on academic probation in community college than in college freshman year and sometimes sophomore

Yes, I was referring to the idea that young adults should do a 4-year college degree in arts / humanities just because it's nice to be a person who knows those things.  I don't know that many NT young adults are in CC just for the sake of knowing arts/humanities, vs. to either prepare for a job or transfer to a more expensive university later.  If you know someone who goes to CC just to explore the arts / humanities, that person is experiencing luxury.

My elder kid will probably make the same amount of money in her chosen career as she could make without college.  So her going to college isn't about me wanting her to have big bucks.  It's because I do want her to have the full college experience, including the usual forays into arts and humanities that most 4-year degrees involve.  But yes, I also want her to be able to support a modest lifestyle after college graduation.  Her field does have high demand (along with low pay).  I wouldn't encourage her to pursue a degree in a field without much prospect of a paying full-time job.  She'd be better off working in a grocery store or restaurant for those 4 years after high school, and using the internet and the library for her broader education.

Edited March 23 by SKL

[SKL]

44 minutes ago, TechWife said:

It was not a luxury. My dh payed his own way, simultaneously working multiple jobs and keeping his grades up in order to retain his scholarships. Do I think that could be done at today’s prices? No, not while taking a full course load. One course at a time, probably. It’s my understanding that universities now require people to matriculate within a given time frame and that slow pace is not allowed or at least not encouraged. 

But he wasn't attending university just for the sake of exploring arts & humanities.  He was attending to get a degree he would use in his career, and part of that degree included some arts & humanities, which is still the case for most 4-year university degrees in the US.

[TechWife]

29 minutes ago, SKL said:

But he wasn't attending university just for the sake of exploring arts & humanities.  He was attending to get a degree he would use in his career, and part of that degree included some arts & humanities, which is still the case for most 4-year university degrees in the US.

My point is that studying humanities strengthened his ability to excel in his work in his primary field of study. That’s why I listed his accomplishments. The knowledge gained by studying the humanities has a lot more flexibility in its application than many people realize. Not everyone who gets a STEM or business degree is going to be equipped to work on cross disciplinary projects. Some people can naturally do it, but many can’t because they don’t realize the benefit of or know how to consider multiple points of view, or how to approach problems from multiple angles. In other words, they never learned the things you learn by studying arts & humanities. 

In addition, people with humanities degrees are, generally speaking, able to move into a variety of different career paths. That’s not as easy with a STEM degree. Does it happen? Of course, but not everyone who gets those degrees will be able to do it because of their narrow educational focus. 

ETA - My husband studied humanities beyond basic graduation requirements. Some humanities courses were required for his degree. He went beyond those requirements when he chose his electives. 

Edited March 23 by TechWife

[TechWife]

29 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes, I was referring to the idea that young adults should do a 4-year college degree in arts / humanities just because it's nice to be a person who knows those things.  I don't know that many NT young adults are in CC just for the sake of knowing arts/humanities, vs. to either prepare for a job or transfer to a more expensive university later.  …

Studying arts & humanities does prepare people for jobs. 

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

My point is that studying humanities strengthened his ability to excel in his work in his primary field of study. That’s why I listed his accomplishments. The knowledge gained by studying the humanities has a lot more flexibility in its application than many people realize. Not everyone who gets a STEM or business degree is going to be equipped to work on cross disciplinary projects. Some people can naturally do it, but many can’t because they don’t realize the benefit of or know how to consider multiple points of view, or how to approach problems from multiple angles. In other words, they never learned the things you learn by studying arts & humanities. 

I still think that most bachelors degrees require some arts & humanities, and allow students to choose additional arts & humanities courses for electives.

I understand that modern STEM programs give less space to the arts & humanities than they used to.  If that's what you mean, I agree that it would be best for STEM students to be able to add arts & humanities classes without too much hardship.  However, I won't go so far as to say it should be required of all STEM students.  Some people just don't want that and consider these requirements ridiculous.  They get nothing out of these courses.  Forcing them to take more of them isn't going to make society a better place IMO.

[TechWife]

51 minutes ago, SKL said:

I still think that most bachelors degrees require some arts & humanities, and allow students to choose additional arts & humanities courses for electives.

I understand that modern STEM programs give less space to the arts & humanities than they used to.  If that's what you mean, I agree that it would be best for STEM students to be able to add arts & humanities classes without too much hardship.  However, I won't go so far as to say it should be required of all STEM students.  Some people just don't want that and consider these requirements ridiculous.  They get nothing out of these courses.  Forcing them to take more of them isn't going to make society a better place IMO.

Dh went beyond basic degree requirements and used electives to do further study in humanities. Today, there is less flexibility in choosing electives. 

You’ve actually helped make my point. Both of your points are true. There is less flexibility in choosing electives now, and people consider arts & humanities requirements to be ridiculous. The root cause of this is that our culture no longer values education for the sake of being educated. If people, and by extension our culture, placed a higher value on education for the sake of being an educated person, neither of your points would be true. 
 

ETA: I’ve never said that additional arts & humanities studies should be required. I’ve just stated the benefit of such studies. However, I’m not sure I’d be opposed to such requirements, though. 

Edited March 23 by TechWife

[lewelma]

For my older boy, it is his music that people connect to. As a theoretical physicist, nobody and I mean nobody will engage with him about his work. In fact for his entire life, people will be pretty rude and just say I hate math, or I don't want to listen to this, or just glaze their eyes over.  He learned early on that people will come up and talk to him about his music, engage with him on a high level conversations about his performance, or music theory, or composition etc.  Music is approachable for anyone, theoretical physics not so much.  If my ds didn't have his music, he would be way more isolated and have exclusively physics friends which would have changed his personality. Here is the essay he wrote for university entrance  that really demonstrates how important the humanities were to his formation as a person:

Describe the world you come from; for example, your family, clubs, school, community, city, or town. How has that world shaped your
dreams and aspirations?

Throughout my life, math and music have been my constant companions. Math has
given me passion and purpose, while music has given me my community.

I am lucky to be a part of a family that appreciates mathematics and loves science
and technology. However, from the age of twelve, I have outpaced both my parents
and my peers in math, requiring me to study independently.

My peers came from music. For the past six years, I have been actively involved in
a series of chamber music groups and small string orchestras. These ensembles have
given me my community -- a collection of quirky, outgoing individuals who aspire
to become professional musicians. Through their friendship, I have become more
outgoing and less self-conscious. I have learned how to handle disasters on stage:
I have forgotten pieces of music played from memory, had to improvise when my trio
skipped a section, and had to reassemble twelve pages of sheet music off of the
floor. Music has also given me opportunities to practice public speaking, lead a
small string orchestra, and mentor younger students. The music community has
helped me to develop the people skills critical to all endeavors, and has
convinced me that I love working in groups. I love the people and the camaraderie.

Music has made me realize that I don’t want to do mathematics in isolation, that I
want to be a part of a collaborative project, working together towards a common
goal.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

Dh went beyond basic degree requirements and used electives to do further study in humanities. Today, there is less flexibility in choosing electives. 

You’ve actually helped make my point. Both of your points are true. There is less flexibility in choosing electives now, and people consider arts & humanities requirements to be ridiculous. The root cause of this is that our culture no longer values education for the sake of being educated. If people, and by extension our culture, placed a higher value on education for the sake of being an educated person, neither of your points would be true.

There is nothing new about some people thinking that the humanities courses (especially required ones) are ridiculous, or that society doesn't highly value this area of study in general.  These sentiments were very strong when I was in university back in the 1980s (and I was voluntarily taking lots of these classes).  It would be more accurate to say that the promoters of humanities never succeeded in convincing a large swath of society.

I think there was a brief window in history in the last half of the 20th century when more people got idealistic about this.  But before that, it was clearly a luxury for anyone to go to college, especially for reasons other than pursuing a lucrative career.  And since then, people have felt that STEM-oriented students should not be required to take MORE courses in total in order to complete a STEM degree (which would be required if STEM students had to do the same number of humanities courses as others, in addition to all of their STEM courses).

Edited March 23 by SKL

[TexasProud]

21 hours ago, SKL said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "allowed" to.  In my culture, young adults are allowed to go do whatever they want career-wise.  They just aren't allowed to require their parents to pay for it.  If that ends up being a deterrent, oh well ... real life is full of constraints.

 

Yeah, well I think it is a little unfair if a parent will pay x for a math degree, but not the same amount for a music degree.  But I know parents do it.  Some around here will only pay for college if their student goes to aTm....  🙄

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, well I think it is a little unfair if a parent will pay x for a math degree, but not the same amount for a music degree.  But I know parents do it.  Some around here will only pay for college if their student goes to aTm....  🙄

This. I’ve always thought it better to help them think through how to monetize and/or channel their passions into something that pays the bills. DS wants to be a working/paid artist so he’s looking at animation and graphic design. He still plans to play music on the side, for fun. These things don’t have to be in tension.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, well I think it is a little unfair if a parent will pay x for a math degree, but not the same amount for a music degree.  But I know parents do it.  Some around here will only pay for college if their student goes to aTm....  🙄

Sibling fairness is definitely a factor.

In my kids' case, for example, Kid1's goal would cost about 1/5 of Kid2's desire.  Kid2's desire x 2 would soak up all the family's retirement savings and both kids' inheritance.  Kid2 may not be mature enough to understand this, but we mature adults can see that it would be patently unfair.

So that's why I told my kids that the amount I'll pay is the cost of attending the nearby state university, which applies to both kids.

For many young adults, that is way more than their parents can do.  Especially if they have multiple kids.  But yeah, in general, I think it's fair to give the same amount to each kid.

That said, if I couldn't afford to send 2 kids to college, I would consider giving a loan to a kid who shows signs of being likely to pay it back.  Their plans for securing a marketable skill set might be one factor in that decision, as would their work ethic, maturity, objective talent, past uses of said talent, choice of university, other efforts to raise cash, etc.  I'd consider the same if my kid were wanting a math degree.

[Dmmetler]

What also bothers me is the devaluing of teaching and other helping professions. I mean, the older student here is a special Ed teacher. I am sure she's using her music therapy background with her students as well, but the job that her father is dismissing as a waste of her education is...teaching kids with disabilities. I'm guessing he'd be saying the same thing if she were teaching math or science. 

 

I heard that I was too smart to teach for years, even though I loved it and was good at it, and it wasn't until I burned out in grad school that I switched gears and got a teaching license. 

[Arcadia]

A friend of mine went back to school to get certified to be a special education teacher. She is thinking of quitting soon because the pay isn’t worth the stress to her. Her pay isn’t needed so her only consideration is enjoying her work. She started working as a special education teacher last fall. Before that she did her practicum. 

[lewelma]

I'm a tutor. That is even lower than a teacher.  I learned long ago not to tell anyone I was a tutor, or they would dismiss me out of hand.  Instead, I say that I work with at-risk youth (and some of my students have been). Then they will talk to me.

[Sneezyone]

I work with so many people who do not understand the purpose or history of government, particularly administrative entities/rules, the true source of authority (the consent of the governed as provided/represented in documents) and act in ways that hurt people and undermine trust because of it. I can only hope folks get away from thinking higher ed is nothing more than job training and show some respect for skills/expertise they don’t have and people who do work they can’t or won’t do.

[regentrude]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

There is nothing new about some people thinking that the humanities courses (especially required ones) are ridiculous, or that society doesn't highly value this area of study in general.  These sentiments were very strong when I was in university back in the 1980s (and I was voluntarily taking lots of these classes).  It would be more accurate to say that the promoters of humanities never succeeded in convincing a large swath of society.

I think there was a brief window in history in the last half of the 20th century when more people got idealistic about this.  But before that, it was clearly a luxury for anyone to go to college, especially for reasons other than pursuing a lucrative career.  

But historically,  at least in Europe, to be considered an educated person required a person to be well read,  speak several foreign languages, play instruments. 

Here, I feel education sadly is viewed only as a means to a (monetary) end and not as a value in itself.

[TechWife]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

There is nothing new about some people thinking that the humanities courses (especially required ones) are ridiculous, or that society doesn't highly value this area of study in general.  These sentiments were very strong when I was in university back in the 1980s (and I was voluntarily taking lots of these classes).  It would be more accurate to say that the promoters of humanities never succeeded in convincing a large swath of society.

I think there was a brief window in history in the last half of the 20th century when more people got idealistic about this.  But before that, it was clearly a luxury for anyone to go to college, especially for reasons other than pursuing a lucrative career.  And since then, people have felt that STEM-oriented students should not be required to take MORE courses in total in order to complete a STEM degree (which would be required if STEM students had to do the same number of humanities courses as others, in addition to all of their STEM courses).

When we back up and look at the big picture, humanities are in the center of education history.  People didn’t get “idealistic” about the humanities because education in humanities was the ideal until relatively recently. Instead, people became idealistic about STEM. 

Going to college/university is still a luxury for many people. We are in an educational bubble on the forum. Personally, I also physically live in an educational bubble. Again historically, people did not need to go today’s equivalent of college to get great jobs and support their families. There was a distinct difference between job training and a university education. In the US at least, that distinction has disappeared for the most part.

 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

When we back up and look at the big picture, humanities are in the center of education history.  People didn’t get “idealistic” about the humanities because education in humanities was the ideal until relatively recently. Instead, people became idealistic about STEM. 

Going to college/university is still a luxury for many people. We are in an educational bubble on the forum. Personally, I also physically live in an educational bubble. Again historically, people did not need to go today’s equivalent of college to get great jobs and support their families. There was a distinct difference between job training and a university education. In the US at least, that distinction has disappeared for the most part.

I don't really think the humanities have declined that much in higher education, except maybe in some STEM fields.  My kids' bachelor's requirements aren't much different from what was done in my generation 40 years ago.

Back in the 1960s, my uncle was a very intelligent young man who was raised in abuse and poverty.  He graduated high school in juvie.  He was always told that he should be a doctor, and that was his dream.  Of course, back then, society wasn't big on making sure poor kids could go to college.  But somehow he got scholarships and went.  I don't know details of his undergrad course work, though I know that he was homeless and didn't technically finish his bachelors.  But somehow he managed to get into podiatry school, and I remember attending his graduation from there.  Based on hearing my mom talk about college and life, I can guarantee that my uncle wasn't thrilled about having to take humanities courses in order to get his degree.  While living under a bridge.

When I was attending university, the required humanities courses (especially soc & psych) struck me as an introduction for privileged kids to the "humanity" that the "other side of town" knew only too well without needing a textbook.  I remember listening to some of the naive musings of privileged young adults in my graduate dorm.  Apparently they needed to be taught these things that regular people simply lived.

What's new about the last 50-60 years is that people from the poor side of town have a chance to go to college at all.  Obviously these folks don't have the same priorities as the higher-class people who used to make up 99% of the college population.  Not having to focus on staying alive / making a living is a luxury.  If you think people from that background suck because they don't want to pay money & forgo wages to study soc and psych, well, I guess that says something.

I have nothing against humanities courses; as mentioned, I took a bunch of them by choice.  Many of them were interesting.  (It was also easy to get an A by writing essays about whatever BS came into my head.)  But no, I don't think they made me a superior human.  A society that looks down on the so-called "uneducated" also isn't a superior society IMO.

[Carol in Cal.]

You guys have not mentioned the really big factor in democratizing college admission, which is the GI Bill.  I know a LOT of guys who came out of WWII and went to college that never would have done so any other way because it was suddenly free.  And because they had already served in the military they were older/more mature than typical recent high school grads, which helped to compensate for deficiencies in their preparation.  Of course, this disadvantaged women, which is not good, but it did get a lot of ‘poor’ guys college educations and a ticket into the middle class.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I don't really think the humanities have declined that much in higher education, except maybe in some STEM fields.  My kids' bachelor's requirements aren't much different from what was done in my generation 40 years ago.

Back in the 1960s, my uncle was a very intelligent young man who was raised in abuse and poverty.  He graduated high school in juvie.  He was always told that he should be a doctor, and that was his dream.  Of course, back then, society wasn't big on making sure poor kids could go to college.  But somehow he got scholarships and went.  I don't know details of his undergrad course work, though I know that he was homeless and didn't technically finish his bachelors.  But somehow he managed to get into podiatry school, and I remember attending his graduation from there.  Based on hearing my mom talk about college and life, I can guarantee that my uncle wasn't thrilled about having to take humanities courses in order to get his degree.  While living under a bridge.

When I was attending university, the required humanities courses (especially soc & psych) struck me as an introduction for privileged kids to the "humanity" that the "other side of town" knew only too well without needing a textbook.  I remember listening to some of the naive musings of privileged young adults in my graduate dorm.  Apparently they needed to be taught these things that regular people simply lived.

What's new about the last 50-60 years is that people from the poor side of town have a chance to go to college at all.  Obviously these folks don't have the same priorities as the higher-class people who used to make up 99% of the college population.  Not having to focus on staying alive / making a living is a luxury.  If you think people from that background suck because they don't want to pay money & forgo wages to study soc and psych, well, I guess that says something.

I have nothing against humanities courses; as mentioned, I took a bunch of them by choice.  Many of them were interesting.  (It was also easy to get an A by writing essays about whatever BS came into my head.)  But no, I don't think they made me a superior human.  A society that looks down on the so-called "uneducated" also isn't a superior society IMO.

I think this is an extremely narrow view of what humanities courses are and do and I’m sorry you didn’t have a meaningful experience with them. I know course depth and breadth varies wildly nationwide. All of my friends, myself included, were low-income students who lacked family financial support and our experiences were quite the opposite. Each of us continues to work in helping professions that draw heavily from the humanities, whether as military officers, judges, educators, translators, forensic scientists, or SAHMs.

[Sneezyone]

45 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You guys have not mentioned the really big factor in democratizing college admission, which is the GI Bill.  I know a LOT of guys who came out of WWII and went to college that never would have done so any other way because it was suddenly free.  And because they had already served in the military they were older/more mature than typical recent high school grads, which helped to compensate for deficiencies in their preparation.  Of course, this disadvantaged women, which is not good, but it did get a lot of ‘poor’ guys college educations and a ticket into the middle class.

The GI Bill is how my spouse and grandfather  funded their educations. DH wasn’t a fan of his humanities coursework at the time either. The more senior he became, the more he needed to not only dust off those lessons but add to them with additional reading and study to fill in gaps related to philosophy, world history, and global perspectives. DH grew up rural poor in the south and there were many gaps. The people he interacts with now from other countries’ militaries have a head start in that respect.

[Corraleno]

54 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think this is an extremely narrow view of what humanities courses are and do and I’m sorry you didn’t have a meaningful experience with them. I know course depth and breadth varies wildly nationwide. All of my friends, myself included, were low-income students who lacked family financial support and our experiences were quite the opposite. Each of us continues to work in helping professions that draw heavily from the humanities, whether as military officers, judges, educators, translators, forensic scientists, or SAHMs.

Same here. I grew up dirt poor (like 4-kids-in-one-bedroom-and-not-enough-to-eat poor), had no parental support of any kind, and put myself through college with scholarships and summer jobs. The idea that humanities classes were just a way for rich elite kids to learn things poor kids already knew as common sense is totally bizarre to me. The classes I took at my small LAC were nothing like that, and they had a profound and life-long impact on me. 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I don't really think the humanities have declined that much in higher education, except maybe in some STEM fields.  My kids' bachelor's requirements aren't much different from what was done in my generation 40 years ago.

Back in the 1960s, my uncle was a very intelligent young man who was raised in abuse and poverty.  He graduated high school in juvie.  He was always told that he should be a doctor, and that was his dream.  Of course, back then, society wasn't big on making sure poor kids could go to college.  But somehow he got scholarships and went.  I don't know details of his undergrad course work, though I know that he was homeless and didn't technically finish his bachelors.  But somehow he managed to get into podiatry school, and I remember attending his graduation from there.  Based on hearing my mom talk about college and life, I can guarantee that my uncle wasn't thrilled about having to take humanities courses in order to get his degree.  While living under a bridge.

When I was attending university, the required humanities courses (especially soc & psych) struck me as an introduction for privileged kids to the "humanity" that the "other side of town" knew only too well without needing a textbook.  I remember listening to some of the naive musings of privileged young adults in my graduate dorm.  Apparently they needed to be taught these things that regular people simply lived.

What's new about the last 50-60 years is that people from the poor side of town have a chance to go to college at all.  Obviously these folks don't have the same priorities as the higher-class people who used to make up 99% of the college population.  Not having to focus on staying alive / making a living is a luxury.  If you think people from that background suck because they don't want to pay money & forgo wages to study soc and psych, well, I guess that says something.

I have nothing against humanities courses; as mentioned, I took a bunch of them by choice.  Many of them were interesting.  (It was also easy to get an A by writing essays about whatever BS came into my head.)  But no, I don't think they made me a superior human.  A society that looks down on the so-called "uneducated" also isn't a superior society IMO.

As someone from “the poor side of town,” you aren’t speaking for me or for my family and friends. Your assumptions about life goals, motivations, and concerns that are held by “these folks,” shouldn’t be universally applied. I’m sorry that you didn’t apply yourself beyond the “BS” that came into your head when you had the opportunity to study in the humanities, but that was your choice. Humanities don’t make people “superior.” They help us understand more about what it means to be human. 

Edited March 24 by TechWife

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Same here. I grew up dirt poor (like 4-kids-in-one-bedroom-and-not-enough-to-eat poor), had no parental support of any kind, and put myself through college with scholarships and summer jobs. The idea that humanities classes were just a way for rich elite kids to learn things poor kids already knew as common sense is totally bizarre to me. The classes I took at my small LAC were nothing like that, and they had a profound and life-long impact on me. 

The people who are most successful in my line of work do what TechWife said and have a deep understanding of human behavior and motivation and the modern and historical influences that drive it.

[SKL]

It's nice that the humanities had such a "profound impact" on some people.  We are all wired differently.  Different things impact us differently.  The idea that everyone needs to study lots of humanities courses because they had a "profound impact" on some people is flawed IMO.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's nice that the humanities had such a "profound impact" on some people.  We are all wired differently.  Different things impact us differently.  The idea that everyone needs to study lots of humanities courses because they had a "profound impact" on some people is flawed IMO.

It’s not because they have a profound impact on everyone but because they make it possible for people to do what they do or want to do in better ways, from bedside manner to sales and product development. It also isn’t required or necessary for everyone but it’s a big mistake to eliminate it from being an expected and necessary part of a basic four year degree.
 

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's nice that the humanities had such a "profound impact" on some people.  We are all wired differently.  Different things impact us differently.  The idea that everyone needs to study lots of humanities courses because they had a "profound impact" on some people is flawed IMO.

Goodness, no one said that. We’re discussing the value of education for the sake of being an educated person. At least that’s what I’m discussing, anyway.