Rather, people need to have a fundamental understanding of the economics of their situation and clearly understand the tradeoffs and then make wise choices based upon clear priorities. You need a plan and need to monitor the plan.
A lot of people have no priorities. They think that any want they have is just as valid as any other and that somehow everyone of them will get fulfilled. Reality is not a concept to them.
I do agree with this, but guess I don't see this as limited to humanities students. This is, as Islandofapples mentioned, a broader issue. I used to manage an area that had a lot of gen Y staff (and I don�t mean this to be generation bashing, just an observation). Quite a large number of them had either just finished studying or were studying part time (in a range of fields). None of them had any real sense of what they were going to do with the qualifications they had obtained and I think (which I guess ties back in to the original intention of this thread), many felt that it didn't really matter what they studied. Studying anything simply helped them get 'a job', but to actually work in the area they had completed their undergraduate qualifications in was going to require postgraduate studies.
I read a study somewhere (sorry I can't cite it properly) talking about how Gen Y (in Australia at least) were the first generation where the majority aspired to individualistic, high earning careers rather than careers in service to others. Of course the reality is that there are only so many well paying jobs, there are only so many people who are actually temperamentally suited to succeeding in those kinds of jobs etc. When I think of my parents' and their siblings, all of them studied humanities disciplines and have jobs they are valuable and successful related to their initial qualifications. But they set priorities early on in fields that were - at the time - as good as any other. Thinking about your comments, I wonder if perhaps we have swung too far in one direction and what's happening is that kids are feeling like they have to follow a particular path to success and either don�t feel capable of reaching that point and so flail about looking for an alternative or, because it actually doesn't suit them, they�re unable to prioritise because their goal is actually not something that is intrinsically motivating to them. I have no idea if this is the case of course, just thinking out loud really.
A historian is not going to be able to focus on taking oral histories if they have to service 40K in debt. But if they have no debt, then they can work odd jobs part of the year and then work on their real job otherwise. Do you even need a degree to do history?
I know a few of historians, all of whom do require degrees for precisely the reasons Val gave. My dad's work (which is not just oral histories) is used as evidence in legal proceedings and is required to meet very stringent requirements in order to be considered proof of a group�s historical connection with a particular area. His work can have huge implications for governments, landowners and the resource sector. Another is a history teacher and chief examiner of history for a state education board. A third is a senior advisor to Australia's Prime Minister, providing advice based in part on his extensive knowledge of the history of Australian politics. All jobs which I suspect many would consider useful and possibly even successful. However, they all had very specific aims when they undertook their studies.
Perhaps another way to look at it is from a freedom standpoint. Studying one thing gives you a lot more options down the road than studying something else.
This, I definitely agree with.
