Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion more on "Tiger Mom"...

I had no idea what I was doing there.

I still don't know what I was supposed to be doing while I was there.

I do kind of want those five years of my life back.

Actually, I take that back, sort of.

I was in college to Win. I viewed it as 13th-16th grade.

Once I got my first non-A, I was no longer in a position to Win because no matter what you do, I was never going to achieve a 4.0. It was simply mathematically impossible.

I wasn't sure what to do at that point.

However, I knew that I never wanted to leave school because then I would have to work.

And I most certainly didn't want to have to work.

That required effort and wasn't fun.

Wal-Mart doesn't have greeters.

To my knowledge, beating up on liberal-arts degrees isn't really based in reality. STEM degrees are pretty worthwhile for those who can cut it, but that's in decline right now, IIRC, and business, the most common major in America, has lost some of its shine. I think there's quite a lot to be said for not specializing too early--and for learning how to write, for heaven's sake.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323754019227394.html

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/01/27/what-is-liberal-arts-degree-worth-these-days/

No such thing as a poetry major, btw.

Plus, can't liberal arts majors become consultants?

That's where the big money can be found and where the relevant networks are created. The same networks that allow young professionals a shot at pocketing the key to the executive washroom.

So, yeah, a degree like that is worth whatever you are paying.

Oops. Sorry. I didn't express myself as well as I might have. I have a degree in history and would never beat up on the humanities. What you wrote even applies to me precisely: Those history and English classes taught me how to write and I didn't specialize early. The degree in history was a deliberate decision to become well-educated based on the knowledge I'd be doing science or medicine later.

I was trying to criticize the degrees that provide little in the way of mind-broadening education for the vast majority of students and little in the way of job training. So, lots of cash (and loans) in, little of value out.

More specifically, I'm thinking of the types of programs that require only 40 pages a week on average of reading and little writing (this number was mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere here recently). Most of us here have probably heard about the studies showing that many college students learn very little in their four years of doing a degree. I was talking about the kinds of programs that lead to that kind of outcome.

ETA: I found the message with the reference to 40 pages: read it here.

Exactly. "Education" which is not job skill training is fine. Good, even. This is what collegiate education is supposed to be about.

That's the kind of foundation that ideally prepares an individual to think critically across a wide variety of subjects, and gives the participant a rudimentary understanding of the ways in which practitioners in engineering differ in their interpretations and analysis of observation/reality from, say, those in anthropology. (For example)

That exposure and immersion in a plurality of schools of thinking is what constitutes "well educated" to start with (oh my, what a grammatical mess this sentence has become... my profound apologies).

THAT kind of humanities training-- that is, the old-school variety of "liberal arts" education-- never goes out of style because it produces versatile life-long learners when it is done well.

I'm not a fan of certificate programs and job training being offered on university campuses. That is training, and it's not the same thing as education. In fact, engineering programs have long had uneasy relationships with their home institutions for that very reason-- engineering programs tend to be more skill/certification oriented, and less about broad applicability/education.

I thought we were a post-literate society now.

You should be able to just use YouTube for getting messages across.

Everyone has phones and can film presentations on the fly.

Aughhhhhhhhh....

{Run awayyyyy}

It is rhetoric like that which drives me to the cooking sherry. Seriously.

True. I was thinking more of the community college job training programs (reasonably affordable and often offered in the evening). Some of the programs I've encountered have been outstanding, both for job training value and pure educational value.

From a certain perspective, it's far better for the workplace to be "trained" than "educated," because an educated populace is a threat to the social order. Social mobility is not to be promoted, because the nouveau-riche are so... eww.

The old adage of bread and circuses still holds true, and modern universities provide both... at a hefty fee.