25 years old and deep in debt

[Camerus]

I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude.  I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem. 

Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.

Probably, for the most part.  Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).

Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major.

Yeah.  I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.

Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics.  The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite.   

The classics are a hobby, not a career path.  At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry.  It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring?  In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person?  In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway?  These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.

Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means.  But..

(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities. 
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.

However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. 

The thread is 260 pages long, of course a lot of stuff gets repeated.

[Ideologue]

Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?

Their "requirements" are inflating the demand for them. It's one of the main contributors to the problem, IMO.

True, it is a feedback loop.

[Ideologue]

I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. 

Yeah, on Languish time really is a flat circle.

[Ideologue]

I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude.  I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem. 

Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.

Probably, for the most part.  Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).

Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major.

Yeah.  I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.

Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics.  The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite.   

The classics are a hobby, not a career path.  At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry.  It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring?  In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person?  In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway?  These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.

Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means.  But..

(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities. 
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.

However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.

Opportunity cost of learning something good.

Education does have a public purpose--making better citizens, who are learned in Western civilization--but if the primary benefit of a snobbed-up populace is to society, why is the individual shouldering the financial burden of it?  Not, ordinarily, for personal betterment, but out of the mistaken belief that they are improving their marketability.  And indeed, if you want to extend high school another two years and give people a liberal arts grounding, that's not necessarily a terrible thing--though again the issue of opportunity cost arises.  The problem is as it ever was: immature people believing their crappy history degree has any ROI in a purely pecuniary sense.

[Camerus]

I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude.  I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem. 

Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.

Probably, for the most part.  Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).

Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major.

Yeah.  I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.

Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics.  The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite.   

The classics are a hobby, not a career path.  At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry.  It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring?  In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person?  In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway?  These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.

Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means.  But..

(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities. 
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.

However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.

Opportunity cost of learning something good.

Education does have a public purpose--making better citizens, who are learned in Western civilization--but if the primary benefit of a snobbed-up populace is to society, why is the individual shouldering the financial burden of it?  Not, ordinarily, for personal betterment, but out of the mistaken belief that they are improving their marketability.  And indeed, if you want to extend high school another two years and give people a liberal arts grounding, that's not necessarily a terrible thing--though again the issue of opportunity cost arises.  The problem is as it ever was: immature people believing their crappy history degree has any ROI in a purely pecuniary sense.

So what is your RX?  Removing humanities studies from university?  Limiting only 1 course per student?  Or something else?

[Ideologue]

Quotas for degrees as determined by a competent and responsible central planning apparatus, staffed principally by economists, rather than career educators, in order to prevent regulatory capture.  But "death to the liberal arts" is only a slogan, not a program.  We still need high school history teaches and a scant few actual history profs, for example.

Edit: quotas for degrees paid for by student loan dollars, I mean.  I guess it's a free country.  For now.

[mongers]

I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. 

The thread is 260 pages long, of course a lot of stuff gets repeated.

Psst, gently tap the side of the case a couple of times, that should unstick the needle in your irony gauge. 

[Eddie Teach]

It's working fine, thanks.

[Ed Anger]

Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?

They didn't overproduce degrees, they overproduced graduates.  You want to blame somebody, blame breeders like Ed, who's going to send two lines' worth of Toronto Maple Leafs to fucking college.  The degrees aren't the problem, parents are.

Boo fucking hoo. Now calm down before I punch your cat in the fart box.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Then why require a college diploma as an employer? 

All you football-fucking monkeys are blaming higher education for the irrelevancy of their degrees, when you should be turning your lonely eyes at the employers that demand them as a mandatory minimum requirement.

I do blame employers.  I also blame employers for expecting bachelors degrees to be fucking vocational training for their employees.

[CountDeMoney]

I also blame employers for expecting bachelors degrees to be fucking vocational training for their employees.

It depends on the vocation, now doesn't it?  A Journalism degree prepares one for the basic of journalism, a computer science degree prepares one for the basics in the computer sciences;  however, you don't see journalism degree holders applying to IT positions, nor do you see IT professionals applying for journalism positions (unless it's web heavy).  So wouldn't the real problem be the lack of journalism opportunities in this day and age, as opposed to computer science jobs, which pretty much runs the world?

[garbon]

Every morning when I wake up, I think to myself, you know what we need more of, more than anything in this world? Journalists.

[CountDeMoney]

It was just an example, for fuck's sake.  Cunt.

[Caliga]

It was just an example, for fuck's sake.  Cunt.

You're hired.