Janitors and PhDs.

[S O F I]

Well diverse majors are not doing so hot right now, at least not in the States. A Psychology degree? Better have a PhD. English? I'm pretty sure most of the unemployed are English majors.

Dude, we have the highest unemployment rate in nearly two decades and we're in the shittiest economic climate since the Great Depression. So yes, some majors are not doing as well as others. It's a hirer's market out there.

 

[ARon]

Some great Ted Talks
[video=google;-4964296663335083307]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4964296663335083307#[/video]

"The progression of today's college student is to jettison every interest except one, and within that one to continually narrow the focus learning more and more about less and less. This, despite the evidence all around us of the interconnectedness of things."

 

[masta247]

I despise this uncreative, closed-minded thinking. Let me give you an example of a career.

So, let's say it's true that no one outside of a select few circles cares if you can analyze how historical events in pre-industrialized Russia led to the rise of communism. But let's say there's a Hollywood studio out there, or an independent studio, wanting to create a TV show about Communist Russia and they need experts on the matter. Whether that be to provide broad overall context or really specific details about specific periods of time. Now, expert knowledge on communist Russia is pretty fucking useful and in demand. That's just one example off the top of my head.

Yes, because there are millions of hollywood studios that do history movies about "how events in pre-industrialized Russia led to the rise of communism" and they need those millions of history students that graduate from universities every year.
You're missing the point. We're not saying that there's absolutely no job for some major graduates but it's very limited and chances to have it are very small. In short there's very little demand on their knowledge. In fact, there's very little demand on knowledge consisting of theory and facts in the information age.
Be good at IT/medicine/law and you're almost 100% sure that you'll be able to do most things you would want to do in these fields. Because you have skills that are really needed.
Shit, with IT you don't even have to be great at what you're doing because everyone is desperate to find specialists - you can pick whichever job you'd like if you have any skill.

Also chances are that in a totally unrelated field you are more likely to find a job with a law diploma than a history diploma and it's mostly about which major teaches more all-around skills that could be useful. In reality most liberal arts majors barely teach anything useful. Cold facts and knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, it's great to learn and have knowledge but in any serious job you would Google such things (if anyone even needed to know in the first place).
Also there's that thing about liberal arts majors that you can graduate without any knowledge at all - just studying for your exams, passing them and forgetting which wouldn't happen with any technical major I could think of. That's why people who want to go the easiest way - who study just to have a diploma pick them. Because they are more idiot-proof.

 

[S O F I]

Yes, because there are millions of hollywood studios that do history movies about "how events in pre-industrialized Russia led to the rise of communism" and they need those millions of history students that graduate from universities every year.
You're missing the point. We're not saying that there's absolutely no job for some major graduates but it's very limited and chances to have it are very small. In short there's very little demand on their knowledge. In fact, there's very little demand on knowledge consisting of theory and facts in the information age.
Be good at IT/medicine/law and you're almost 100% sure that you'll be able to do most things you would want to do in these fields. Because you have skills that are really needed.
Shit, with IT you don't even have to be great at what you're doing because everyone is desperate to find specialists - you can pick whichever job you'd like if you have any skill.

Also chances are that in a totally unrelated field you are more likely to find a job with a law diploma than a history diploma and it's mostly about which major teaches more all-around skills that could be useful. In reality most liberal arts majors barely teach anything useful. Cold facts and knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, it's great to learn and have knowledge but in any serious job you would Google such things (if anyone even needed to know in the first place).
Also there's that thing about liberal arts majors that you can graduate without any knowledge at all - just studying for your exams, passing them and forgetting which wouldn't happen with any technical major I could think of. That's why people who want to go the easiest way - who study just to have a diploma pick them. Because they are more idiot-proof.

I will list my points. This all applies to the US because the article was written regarding US education. I completely do not care about work opportunities and labor migration in Poland. Don't waste your time applying this to Poland.

1. A liberal arts education is not stupid. Studying Arts and Music is not stupid.
2. People who choose humanities studies are not necessarily incapable to study sciences. That means it's not that they're not smart enough to study physics. There are, believe it or not, students who choose them because they have a passion for learning those subjects. If you have a passion for learning it, opportunities will arise.
3. A university education is important for more than just career prospects. A better educated populace is usually more informed and usually better prepared to make better decisions. But then we have Casey. No formal education but he's informed. Again, my point is not mutually exclusive. It's just a "usually" thing.
4. Not having a university education makes career aspirations and success harder but not impossible.
5. I acknowledge that in this particular time, there's more demand for certain degrees/majors/skill and less demand for others. But that doesn't mean we should all study IT.

 

[Jokerman]

But that doesn't mean we should all study IT.

Stephen King's novel? I think we could get more from studying Zamyatin's We.

 

[masta247]

Sofi!
1. While it's not stupid it makes less sense going by your American labor market too. It makes sense if it comes to your personal interests but again, it's not what we're talking about.

2. Not necessarily, but often. On the other hand definitely more people can comprehend humanities than sciences. I made a generalization while you are a devil's advocate to those who don't fit there. Sure if one history graduate works at Hollywood studios making a history-related movie that's great, but there are 10 (or more) others who won't be lucky enough to find a job in their field. And I'm more interested in the latter group because they are the problem.
I agree that there are people who study humanities out of passion. It's not like humanities were invented just for "people who can't comprehend science". It's just that humanities are the easiest way to earn a degree and attract many random people who are only after that. Many people graduate without basic knowledge, they study just for the diploma. That's a problem - university studies are so popular and accessible these days that not having a diploma is almost a shame. So I think that in short - people who aren't really predisposed to graduate from any serious university usually pick humanities contributing to their bad reputation.
Which would be rather impossible if they studied sciences.
I assume that it also works that way in America.
And yes, my opinion is that sciences demand much more than humanities. They demand everything that humanities do plus much more. Almost anyone is predisposed to learn humanities and they don't require anywhere as much work. Really, to fail at most humanities you would have to be absolutely mentally incapable and very lazy at the same time.
However you can surely spend a lot of time studying, learn many interesting things if you really want to. It's just that you could also "slip through" way easier and that's what a lot of people do.

3,4 I'm not going to discuss "having a degree vs. not having one" because this one is rather obvious to me too. Even those who are going to study just to get a degree are good enough because they had a will to do it. And they'll at least learn something anyway.

5. Yes. You can study whatever you like and you should study whatever you like. If you like something that isn't really demanded on the labor market then there's higher risk that you'll fit into a "janitors and phds" category.

But then the fact that you really love something, it absolutely interests you etc. doesn't mean that you can/should do it for a living. After all it's safer because you can begin to hate your passion if you also hate your job or studies. Like I said, why not build a different career (one that makes more sense but is somehow similar) while studying whatever you love out of interest as a secondary goal?
If not then maybe mix them together? Just to have a way out in case your dream job doesn't work out which is like, very likely? If I loved philosophy I would study that, read books, hope for a job where I could fulfill my interests but I'd also think realistically to secure my future and study something somehow related that would give me a proper skill. That would also raise my chances to do something I wanted to do.
So I could create a website about philosophers, become a lawyer doing something affiliated with libraries/museums etc. Because honestly - what can you really do for a living after a philosophy degree other than things you are very unlikely to do? No skills, you can only share your knowledge.
Achieving your dreams is not always easy and it's better to do more than be disappointed in the end. There's not only pleasure everywhere, especially as far as career is concerned but it's always better to invest in skills because theoretical knowledge is mostly just for you.

Oh man, Flipmo will hate me for rolling with History as an example lol.

 

[Da_Funk]

I despise this uncreative, closed-minded thinking. Let me give you an example of a career.

So, let's say it's true that no one outside of a select few circles cares if you can analyze how historical events in pre-industrialized Russia led to the rise of communism. But let's say there's a Hollywood studio out there, or an independent studio, wanting to create a TV show about Communist Russia and they need experts on the matter. Whether that be to provide broad overall context or really specific details about specific periods of time. Now, expert knowledge on communist Russia is pretty fucking useful and in demand. That's just one example off the top of my head.

Now, on to a more broad point. Mechanization and automation of labor has largely rendered traditional skills obsolete. But not only traditional skills, the new-age skills in IT, while very useful, are still not the be all end all of successful careers. An Arts degree or Pol Sci degree or History degree might not give you the skills necessary to write code, but they help you to develop analytical skills and how to THINK critically and creatively. Having the ability to DO something with the product created by skillful people is just as important, if not more, than being able to create the product. There's the execution part of it. Anyway, in the US, only something like 30% of people get a job in the major that they studied in college. I know a guy who has a bachelor's in history and works in marketing at Starbucks HQ.

The problem is many students put themselves in a box and limit themselves by the degree they attained. Not only that, they have their asshole peers, like those in the sciences, who put them in a box as well.

You can talk all you want about how an arts degree refines and develops creative and analytical thinking but that, in my opinion, is a moot point. Any brain activity will refine and develop analytical/creative thinking. As for your example, so what? You get contracted for a year, maybe two, and then you are sol again.

Maybe I am going out on a limb with this view point, or maybe I'm naive, but it is my experience that in the majority of cases, an arts degree is not getting you very far. That opinion is backed by personal experience and statistics, like the ones Smacky posted. You know a guy with a history major who is marketing at starbucks, well how many do you know that are unemployed/have shit jobs? My bet is a lot more. Haven't you just graduated with BA, do you have a job? Shit, I am in a GIS class right now, which is supposedly one of the harder disciplines of geography, and it is the easiest class I have taken in two years. I actually think its laughable people can get a degree in something like that. My ta for that class is doing his masters because not even a place like HMV would hire him.

Now, I know some people do get those types of degrees and go on to do amazing/cool things but that is the exception, not the rule.

Traditional skills aren't in demand anymore in the US? Here, if you are skilled plumber/carpenter/electrician/blue collar worker you can make as much if not more than the average white collar worker.

 

[Flipmo]

Sofi!
1. While it's not stupid it makes less sense going by your American labor market too. It makes sense if it comes to your personal interests but again, it's not what we're talking about.

2. Not necessarily, but often. On the other hand definitely more people can comprehend humanities than sciences. I made a generalization while you are a devil's advocate to those who don't fit there. Sure if one history graduate works at Hollywood studios making a history-related movie that's great, but there are 10 (or more) others who won't be lucky enough to find a job in their field. And I'm more interested in the latter group because they are the problem.
I agree that there are people who study humanities out of passion. It's not like humanities were invented just for "people who can't comprehend science". It's just that humanities are the easiest way to earn a degree and attract many random people who are only after that. Many people graduate without basic knowledge, they study just for the diploma. That's a problem - university studies are so popular and accessible these days that not having a diploma is almost a shame. So I think that in short - people who aren't really predisposed to graduate from any serious university usually pick humanities contributing to their bad reputation.
Which would be rather impossible if they studied sciences.
I assume that it also works that way in America.
And yes, my opinion is that sciences demand much more than humanities. They demand everything that humanities do plus much more. Almost anyone is predisposed to learn humanities and they don't require anywhere as much work. Really, to fail at most humanities you would have to be absolutely mentally incapable and very lazy at the same time.
However you can surely spend a lot of time studying, learn many interesting things if you really want to. It's just that you could also "slip through" way easier and that's what a lot of people do.

3,4 I'm not going to discuss "having a degree vs. not having one" because this one is rather obvious to me too. Even those who are going to study just to get a degree are good enough because they had a will to do it. And they'll at least learn something anyway.

5. Yes. You can study whatever you like and you should study whatever you like. If you like something that isn't really demanded on the labor market then there's higher risk that you'll fit into a "janitors and phds" category.

But then the fact that you really love something, it absolutely interests you etc. doesn't mean that you can/should do it for a living. After all it's safer because you can begin to hate your passion if you also hate your job or studies. Like I said, why not build a different career (one that makes more sense but is somehow similar) while studying whatever you love out of interest as a secondary goal?
If not then maybe mix them together? Just to have a way out in case your dream job doesn't work out which is like, very likely? If I loved philosophy I would study that, read books, hope for a job where I could fulfill my interests but I'd also think realistically to secure my future and study something somehow related that would give me a proper skill. That would also raise my chances to do something I wanted to do.
So I could create a website about philosophers, become a lawyer doing something affiliated with libraries/museums etc. Because honestly - what can you really do for a living after a philosophy degree other than things you are very unlikely to do? No skills, you can only share your knowledge.
Achieving your dreams is not always easy and it's better to do more than be disappointed in the end. There's not only pleasure everywhere, especially as far as career is concerned but it's always better to invest in skills because theoretical knowledge is mostly just for you.

Oh man, Flipmo will hate me for rolling with History as an example lol.

Nah. lol

I love my program, and I know my plans for the future. I was accepted to a multitude of programs like radiology and psychology, and I realized I hated waking up in the morning just going to the classes because it didn't interest me. Which made me question what I really wanted to do... Think about it, if you don't want to wake up to go to class, what makes you think you're gonna feel great waking up going to a job related to that field. I chose history because of my interest in it, also, despite what most of you think - it's related to many fields as I've stated ranging from law to politics, and I know in what direction I'm going.

We can all sit around and spit out examples of people doing nothing with their degrees, shit, I know computer engineers that are stuck working telemarketing jobs cause they can't get a job anywhere. Certain fields will always be in demand, such as the medical field and that's an obvious because it's a human necessity at this point. I don't agree either that you're smarter cause you're in chemestry or wtv, I just think it takes a different sort of intellect for it.

Personally, I've never cared if I made millions (not that I'd reject a winning lottery ticket lol), I've always just wanted to do something where I feel I can make a sort of difference while loving what I do, by going into history I'm branching myself with law, governement and NGOs like the Human Rights Watch. I've also always been big on museums, exhibits and such... (not that you can make huge world differences as a curator, but you get my drift as to where my interests are)

I have a buddy that's in statistics, and he has a very mathematical brain and it comes to him easily, but he hardly gets up for class cause despite having the mind for it - he hates it. His whole mentality is what's the best program to make money and he puts aside his passions wtv they may be, yet he complains all the time. I'd kill myself if I were in that position.
I've always believed that if you really love what you do, you can find a job easily, and from my experience and what I've seen with people - they tend to fight the job because the desire is there.

Also, blue collar work ftw - people always forget about that sort of work, yet they're best off, well here in Canada they are at least. lol. The only work I could see myself doing in that domain is electrician though. Good mix of physics and manual work. lol

So, alls good in the hood for me.

 

[dilla]

Dude, we have the highest unemployment rate in nearly two decades and we're in the shittiest economic climate since the Great Depression. So yes, some majors are not doing as well as others. It's a hirer's market out there.

While technically "everyone is affected by the economy," there are some professions that are not taking a hit. Most of these people still have jobs and are still making the same amount of money. They have the job security.

When I say art and music majors, I'm not really mocking the degree itself so much as I am trying to say there is very little job security in them. A lot of professions have a low security. I would think in this time art and english majors are really suffering.

 

[S O F I]

Sofi!
1. While it's not stupid it makes less sense going by your American labor market too. It makes sense if it comes to your personal interests but again, it's not what we're talking about.

2. Not necessarily, but often. On the other hand definitely more people can comprehend humanities than sciences. I made a generalization while you are a devil's advocate to those who don't fit there. Sure if one history graduate works at Hollywood studios making a history-related movie that's great, but there are 10 (or more) others who won't be lucky enough to find a job in their field. And I'm more interested in the latter group because they are the problem.
I agree that there are people who study humanities out of passion. It's not like humanities were invented just for "people who can't comprehend science". It's just that humanities are the easiest way to earn a degree and attract many random people who are only after that. Many people graduate without basic knowledge, they study just for the diploma. That's a problem - university studies are so popular and accessible these days that not having a diploma is almost a shame. So I think that in short - people who aren't really predisposed to graduate from any serious university usually pick humanities contributing to their bad reputation.
Which would be rather impossible if they studied sciences.
I assume that it also works that way in America.
And yes, my opinion is that sciences demand much more than humanities. They demand everything that humanities do plus much more. Almost anyone is predisposed to learn humanities and they don't require anywhere as much work. Really, to fail at most humanities you would have to be absolutely mentally incapable and very lazy at the same time.
However you can surely spend a lot of time studying, learn many interesting things if you really want to. It's just that you could also "slip through" way easier and that's what a lot of people do.

3,4 I'm not going to discuss "having a degree vs. not having one" because this one is rather obvious to me too. Even those who are going to study just to get a degree are good enough because they had a will to do it. And they'll at least learn something anyway.

5. Yes. You can study whatever you like and you should study whatever you like. If you like something that isn't really demanded on the labor market then there's higher risk that you'll fit into a "janitors and phds" category.

But then the fact that you really love something, it absolutely interests you etc. doesn't mean that you can/should do it for a living. After all it's safer because you can begin to hate your passion if you also hate your job or studies. Like I said, why not build a different career (one that makes more sense but is somehow similar) while studying whatever you love out of interest as a secondary goal?
If not then maybe mix them together? Just to have a way out in case your dream job doesn't work out which is like, very likely? If I loved philosophy I would study that, read books, hope for a job where I could fulfill my interests but I'd also think realistically to secure my future and study something somehow related that would give me a proper skill. That would also raise my chances to do something I wanted to do.
So I could create a website about philosophers, become a lawyer doing something affiliated with libraries/museums etc. Because honestly - what can you really do for a living after a philosophy degree other than things you are very unlikely to do? No skills, you can only share your knowledge.
Achieving your dreams is not always easy and it's better to do more than be disappointed in the end. There's not only pleasure everywhere, especially as far as career is concerned but it's always better to invest in skills because theoretical knowledge is mostly just for you.

Oh man, Flipmo will hate me for rolling with History as an example lol.

I'll preface this by saying that I have completely lost interest in your opinion on this subject. In fact, when I saw your response, I didn't bother to read it and went to another thread. But then all I was left with was the Gays one about transitional fossils so I came back. Let's see.

1. Again, fucking again, fucking again, you're making the assumption that what makes sense in attaining an education is work opportunities and that's simply not true to me and others.
2. The latter group is the problem? Problem for what, to whom? A janitor with a PhD is not a problem to anyone, unless he's not performing the task and wants a pay related to a PhD degree, which he won't get, so it's not a problem. As for the rest of your point, sure, okay.
5. FlipMo answered this.

 

[S O F I]

You can talk all you want about how an arts degree refines and develops creative and analytical thinking but that, in my opinion, is a moot point. Any brain activity will refine and develop analytical/creative thinking. As for your example, so what? You get contracted for a year, maybe two, and then you are sol again.

Maybe I am going out on a limb with this view point, or maybe I'm naive, but it is my experience that in the majority of cases, an arts degree is not getting you very far. That opinion is backed by personal experience and statistics, like the ones Smacky posted. You know a guy with a history major who is marketing at starbucks, well how many do you know that are unemployed/have shit jobs? My bet is a lot more. Haven't you just graduated with BA, do you have a job? Shit, I am in a GIS class right now, which is supposedly one of the harder disciplines of geography, and it is the easiest class I have taken in two years. I actually think its laughable people can get a degree in something like that. My ta for that class is doing his masters because not even a place like HMV would hire him.

Now, I know some people do get those types of degrees and go on to do amazing/cool things but that is the exception, not the rule.

Traditional skills aren't in demand anymore in the US? Here, if you are skilled plumber/carpenter/electrician/blue collar worker you can make as much if not more than the average white collar worker.

My point was and is that you as a sciences major don't know the extent of work opportunities for liberal arts majors because you're boxing them into specifically what their field is. That's all I'm saying. If there's a will, there's a way and people who are more creative about work opportunities can prosper. It's not about what's the exception and what's the rule. I'm saying, you're selling liberal arts degrees short. If you disagree, fine, I have no energy to argue further because it becomes a matter of agree to disagree.

 

[S O F I]

While technically "everyone is affected by the economy," there are some professions that are not taking a hit. Most of these people still have jobs and are still making the same amount of money. They have the job security.

When I say art and music majors, I'm not really mocking the degree itself so much as I am trying to say there is very little job security in them. A lot of professions have a low security. I would think in this time art and english majors are really suffering.

I agree.

 

[masta247]

1. Again, fucking again, fucking again, you're making the assumption that what makes sense in attaining an education is work opportunities and that's simply not true to me and others.

And again, it's because the reason of this thread is to discuss the point of education in this very context.
Not that it gives you knowledge, develops interest blabla and all other obvious things. Raising your chances in the labor market is one of the main features of having university education and it's what we're talking about.

2. The latter group is the problem? Problem for what, to whom? A janitor with a PhD is not a problem to anyone, unless he's not performing the task and wants a pay related to a PhD degree, which he won't get, so it's not a problem.

It is the problem raised by the original article that we're discussing here, in case you didn't notice. People who graduate and are lucky enough to find a decent job are not a problem. I'm talking about a tendency and you're giving single examples when it doesn't necessarily work that way.
People who would like to do something that they studied, that interests them but they can't and instead can only pick worst jobs are what we're talking about. And some majors create many more of them than others. I think it's pretty obvious and you agreed with Smacky who said basically the same thing, just more diplomatically.

 

[masta247]

@Sofi: I feel like we might be talking about totally different things. I'm talking about higher education in context of that article which is solely aimed at preparing students for their future jobs and analyzing what kind of jobs are open for them after they graduate, about people working at places way below their dream jobs and reasons behind it.

I feel like you're picking on me for sounding like I despise humanities and thinking that humanity studies are worthless which is what many science students think, and that you in turn despise that approach.
It's not how I think though. But I do think that humanities are inferior at preparing people for the labor market. And that goes to most majors/universities focusing on teaching theory and memorization, let alone things that aren't even needed in the first place.
I'm not saying that there's no point to study them as far as developing interests goes. Sometimes they can also lead to a successful career. But more often than with other things, they don't because they're not enough by themselves. You can have a PhD in philosophy and the only major skill that comes with it is being able to spread that knowledge further.

 

[S O F I]

You're right, we were arguing different things. I took issue with your first post in this thread when you wrote, "Also most people study stupid things that won't give you a great job unless you're really great at it." That's all. But, you've back-pedaled from that statement so I think we're good.

 

[Jokerman]

most people study stupid things that won't give you a great job.

You mean the "Poetry and History of Tupac Shakur" course Berkeley once offered didn't help ppl secure a good job? Quit playin. Many a doctor and scientist have that course to thank for their careers. Obama himself mentions...

 

[masta247]

You're right, we were arguing different things. I took issue with your first post in this thread when you wrote, "Also most people study stupid things that won't give you a great job unless you're really great at it." That's all. But, you've back-pedaled from that statement so I think we're good.

I've "explained what I meant", not back-pedaled
It would be silly to say that any university major I know would be really genuinely stupid, because everyone expects different things from their university education.
Some majors just make less sense as far as some things are concerned, potential career and job safety included.

 

[S O F I]

I've "explained what I meant", not back-pedaled

You say tomato, I say tomato. Actually, no, you say pomidor.

But naw, I agree.

 

[dilla]

Rectal insertion of baby tomatoes.