> Because there are things worth learning beyond just what's valuable to the job market

That's just your opinion. Unfortunately, it's supported by the entrenched education establishment, but that doesn't make it true.

The cold hard reality is, if you aren't college material, don't attend some vocational school, and don't learn a trade, you're in for a life of hard labor or burger flipping. It's going to be a completely crap life for most people.

> those of us who do want to pursue a career that requires a higher education shouldn't have to spend the rest of our lives in debt just to do so.

Yeah, one way to reduce costs would be to remove all the extraneous coursework that's of zero value to society.

> Yeah, one way to reduce costs would be to remove all the extraneous coursework that's of zero value to society.

Some of that "extraneous coursework", I'm thinking of things like theather, drama, and dance, brings billions of dollars to the economy every year. For example, Broadway alone generates billions in spending annually [1], with some of that spending going towards the transportation, hospitality (hotel, food) [2], and merchandising industries [3].

[1] https://variety.com/2014/legit/news/broadway-economic-impact...

[2] https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-d...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/theater/hamilton-inc-the-...

(Edited for formatting)

Music major here, played in Carnegie Hall. Now I'm a code monkey. Yes, the arts have economic value to society. But even someone majoring in them in a grad program isn't usually going to be making money directly on that stage, much less someone who takes an elective.

I'd argue the real value of the arts in education is that they enrich the lives of those people taking them. This is particularly true in grade school, because it's usually free. Once you start to get into debt for these enriching passions, it becomes a calculus of worth. The best way to enjoy the arts is to have sufficient stress-free time to enjoy them, plus a small amount of discretionary funds depending on the art. If you don't have that, you can be an amazing artist with no time, energy, or money left to enjoy your own talents.

I think also a major problem in our society is the centralization that easy and prevalent media access causes in the arts. Instead of hundreds of local artists, you only need one Lady Gaga. She's great, but there's also a huge amount of value in taking in the arts of local people who you know or who are part of your community. It fosters diversity, local community, and a sense of pride and identity in a place. It also helps ensure that there will be more quality superstars in the future, as everyone has to start somewhere.

Anyway, all this to say I agree, and then some. People just often focus on the extrinsic value of the arts - economic or their side benefit to STEM performance - when the intrinsic value for each person who partakes in them is the most important. Sing in the shower :)

> Anyway, all this to say I agree, and then some. People just often focus on the extrinsic value of the arts - economic or their side benefit to STEM performance - when the intrinsic value for each person who partakes in them is the most important. Sing in the shower :)

The discussion isn't whether or not you personally find intrinsic value in art. The question is, of how much utility is it to include this kind of thing in an educational curriculum when there are many people struggling financially.

When everybody's off public assistance and the unemployment numbers are at 0, we should discuss enlightening some people with the fine arts. Until then, we should be spending that money in order to train and educate people in a way that will make a material difference in their lives.

I'm sure the less than 1% of people involved in that industry are super happy the rest of society subsidized their fun and creative lifestyle.

I guess flipping burgers and not having enough money to pay your bills is all okay because a select few (of most likely already privileged kids) got to sing and dance for money.

Studying history seems like it would have immense value to society, but negative value to short-term corporate interests, and, by extension, may not be in the best interests of the individual. The same could be said of the study of ethics.

I must say “seems like” because there’s really no scientific way to prove this (most of the time...although there are some interesting micro-studies in behavioral economics). But if you think about it even a little bit, I think you would agree that having a “collective memory” about causality in society is incredibly valuable to the interests of the citizens of that society, even if it has negative economic value to individuals.

Just ask the burger flippers how it's such a great value to society. Unless you mean middle/upper class society, then yeah, sure. For the poor, helps them in no way imaginable.

Well it's not like the business/tech majors are helping the poor either. If anything, they help keep people poor more than the history majors do.

Did you miss the part where I said it has a negative economic impact on individuals, even though it may net more good to the collective as a whole? It’s a sort of free-rider problem, and I don’t fault any individual for playing the game.

I think the biggest part of the problem isn't that there are liberal arts degrees, it's that they aren't clearly labelled "these are for the rich kids who never need to work".

Same for any "business major", of course, except double major in accounting on CPA track.

If you consider the amount of public funding that goes into higher education, degrees for 'rich kids that never need to work' is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. In effect, the liberal arts degrees themselves are the problem.

> Same for any "business major"

Dunno about that, many of my middle class friends with degrees in Finance, Marketing, MIS, etc, went on to secure well paying jobs right out of college, and now 5-6 years later are doing really well for themselves. Also I know people who went to big 4 consulting out of undergrad with liberal arts degrees.

I think it depends more on the school than the major. A shitty school with bad career coaching that doesn't teach you how to 'sell' yourself to prospective employers will have unemployed software engineers.

I'm all for the movement to teach math and science differently so students garner a greater appreciation for critical thinking, but when the author suggested learning literature, poetry, and history are wastes of time, I strongly disagreed.

The arts and history teach us empathy and give us context of the human condition. There is so much more to being a cog in the machine, as you said correctly. The more I see the way people behave in today's "current events" realm, the more I believe these things are more important than ever.

Referencing my earlier comment [0]. Caplan never says that the arts a waste of time. Refutes your view [1], main points are that this is an idealistic view; that enrichment requires willful participants which many if not most students are not, enthusiastic teachers, and good material. Says he loves the "useless" knowledge personally.

There's a reason that there's not much societal interest in many humanities topics covered in college outside of it. It's just apathy.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19440353 [1] https://youtu.be/kCLGURUubzc?t=1893

> The arts and history teach us empathy and give us context of the human condition.

I disagree. These courses should be merely electives, if offered at all. The average person doesn't really have time for this stuff, they have a long road ahead of them and they need to spend more of their formative years preparing for the hard conditions of adult life.

You know what makes adult life harder? Being surrounded by close-minded, uneducated people who lack perspective and critical thinking skills.

I'm not here to defend useless humanities classes taught in high schools and colleges. Many of them are quite bad, but we need to raise the bar, not eliminate it.

Yeah, I guess being in poverty isn't so bad as long as you have an open mind and critical thinking skills.

Always with the intangible 'benefits' to people.

If what you're worried about is 'critical thinking skills' perhaps there should be a course modeled for that exact outcome.

How does learning about ancient history make you open minded? How does fictional literature make you open minded?

Maybe you should open your mind and consider that the lower class of people in society are really bad off financially and that our education system is doing exactly 0 to rectify that fact.

You seem to be all over this thread, so maybe you're replying as much to all the people disagreeing with you as you are to my comment specifically. I believe there's a bigger place for vocational education than it currently occupies, but I take issue with your disparagement of the humanities.

The humanities are important, both for individuals and for the body politic. History gives us a critical lens for looking at the present, fiction develops imaginative sympathy for others, grammar lets your voice be understood. Why should being poor exclude you from the use of history -- recognizing when you're being used by a rabble-rouser, literature -- understanding and being understood by your neighbors who may be different from you, or grammar -- being able to participate at even the most basic level in public debate? That's disenfranchisement. How do you suppose poverty is maintained?

And that's just the argument for humanities education for those in dire poverty. For the striving lower-middle class, music, art, civics, philosophy, and economics give you ways to understand yourself as a citizen and how to use wisely those resources you have.

> Why should being poor exclude you from the use of history -- recognizing when you're being used by a rabble-rouser, literature -- understanding and being understood by your neighbors who may be different from you, or grammar -- being able to participate at even the most basic level in public debate? That's disenfranchisement. How do you suppose poverty is maintained?

These are all nice sentiments, but not based in reality whatsoever.

How many kids drop out of high school because they view it as completely pointless? If you're in the 10th grade, you know you're not going to college because you can't afford it or you have the self awareness that you're not a good fit for one reason or another, why finish? What good is that 12th grade civics lesson to you?

If you think humanities are important, teach them on your own time on your own dime. The majority of people live in the real world, and the real world doesn't care anything about you, only what economic value you provide. You have to have money to live in this society, until that changes, humanities are a large waste of time for a large portion of the population.

Edit: removed snarky comment. Congratulations, you got under my skin.

Yeah, and that's why you would be so gullible when you reach the working age. You'll be listening to everything you're told because you'll never know any better.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You know who sounds gullible to me? An 18 year old kid taking out 10's of thousands of dollars for a 'liberal arts degree.' Literal definition of gullibility IMO.

I guess at least you'll feel better about yourself knowing you know 'things' while you're working at Starbucks.

Idk, if I had 10’s of thousands of dollars I’d pay that to have at least more than 2 women doing the same degree as I am.

I, for one, would not have attended an undergraduate program that didn't have a strong humanities/core to round my intellectual endeavors. I knew I'd be reading ancient literature, philosophy, economics, psychology, and a number of subjects I'd not touch independently, and this encouraged/enhanced my general curiosity.

While I entered the school intent on majoring in Biological Sciences (genetic engineering), music is my second love and I was quite fortunate that UChicago had a fantastic music history/theory department. While picking up "marketable" skills in science/research, I picked up a double major in music, the musical skills of which have improved my playing every single time I have stepped to the piano since.

In my view, university should be about setting oneself up for a productive life. For most, this should include marketable skills, as well as enriching and non-obviously employable skills.

In an economy that increasingly demands college degrees to survive in, pushing for a mandatory "well-rounded" education is ridiculous. All you're effectively doing is pushing people out of the education system who seriously need it.

In my experience, enforcing a "well-rounded" education also fails in practice. Most of my peers in college sought out the easiest possible courses not directly related to their degrees in order to satisfy the university requirements.

Pursuing a "well-rounded" education should be a choice. You just can't teach someone who is unwilling to learn.

I think this is a good perspective if you're coming from a background that can easily afford to pay for it. I got a taste of this joy and intellectual freedom while attending University, and I definitely felt a strong call to remain in that environment, with the encouragement of my Professors. However, unless you're coming from a background with sufficient funding and stability, higher education is a means to an end in attaining a steady, well-paying career.

I think we'd benefit from two distinct tracks, which I'm starting to see more in practice: one track is to take the traditional college approach, the second is to take more practical training specific to your profession. I think in that way the students specifically trying to build careers for as little money and time as possible would benefit greatly, while the former group would still enjoy the traditional "college experience". Vocational training has been the case for a long time with "blue-collar" jobs, and I hope we will see more progress for "white-collar" jobs as well. I also get the arguments around building tools for complex reasoning and the time investment required, but a lot of us just don't have 4-5 years to invest.

In the second half of the article, the author talks about this:

> We can’t measure education’s social benefits solely with test scores or salary premiums. Instead we must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in—an educated one or an ignorant one?

> Normal human beings make a solid point: We can and should investigate education’s broad social implications. When humanists consider my calculations of education’s returns, they assume I’m being a typical cynical economist, oblivious to the ideals so many educators hold dear. I am an economist and I am a cynic, but I’m not a typical cynical economist. I’m a cynical idealist. I embrace the ideal of transformative education. I believe wholeheartedly in the life of the mind. What I’m cynical about is people.

He also cites a number of studies that show that the desired benefits of "training your brain to solve problems" either don't materialize or are non-existent after a few years.