In my experience "International Relations" classes teach very little that's actually valuable. I think there's a common in mistake in thinking at because X is important, then university classes about X are useful. There are a lot of subjects that are important but where the study of it in academia (at least at the undergraduate level, but I suspect higher up as well) isn't handled well at all.
I think the mistake that a lot of people make, however, is thinking that this is merely a humanities vs. STEM issue. There also seems to be a lot (though perhaps not quite as much) useless classes in the STEM fields as well.
Worst of all, I've seen very little interest in academia (both STEM and the humanities) in whether or not their way of teaching is effective - its simply assumed to be, and that's the end of the discussion much of the time. It's claimed that academia fosters critical thinking, but there often seems to be a dearth of critical thinking from those who are within it.
I didn’t find any of it relevant at the time. Fast forward 25 years and now that my IT work is distributed full-remote global operations, it turns out my IR foundation gives me a unique [perspective] and VERY influential position in an Engineering org.
So there is a certain long-term value in cross-training in this way.
Also, many of the things that were covered in IR classes weren't just useless, but more often than not turned out to be entirely detached from reality. For instance, focusing on things like Thomas Huntington vs. Thomas Friedman (neither of who seem to have had a great track record or understanding of the world).
It ended up being a powerful ‘soft’ asset in a transition to engineering management, by virtue of being the staffmember able to identify and resolve problems which originated in cultural and linguistic domains.
One does not need IR training to (say) socially engineer a budget prioritization for sending engineers on overseas exchanges, but I feel it influenced my thinking in this regard.
This forms what I think is the underlying thread here. For those that aren't as flexible and creative in applying their talents and education, most of these classes really do end up being useless, and for them, a waste of money in the long run.
If you're already capable, chances are that no matter your field of study, you're going to land somewhere that you can find a way to use your knowledge; but this really seems to me more a case of interest and driven/natural critical thinking skills than it is a reflection of the content of the classes. Those that apply themselves can find niches to sharpen their skills, whereas those opportunities aren't necessarily sought out by everyone.
So, in effect, while some individuals taking classes of any sort, even poorly taught, might have the fervor to find a path towards enrichment, not all students will have this experience. And this leads to the "basket weaving" degrees for others: subjects that, while not generally irrelevant a priori, are generally irrelevant for many experientially.
There is another aspect which I will add: the ‘softest’ parts of the liberal arts curriculum — International Relations would fit here — was until recently reserved for aristocrats. The children of farmers and factory workers would ostensibly have no use in learning The Great Game. The best players of the game are those who need no employment.
Those of us from anything but the uppermost classes back then would be stumbling into the edges of a world they can dimly perceive, to serve as clerks at best.
Even with decades of professional experience as a diplomat or analyst, your sample size of countries and international situations will be very small. Having both a theoretical understanding of the underlying dynamics, and a broad view of the whole problem space as it has been explored historically, is qualitatively different from the lessons you get on the job.
He was supposedly in his 80s but appeared 60. His ancestors were some kind of lords of the forests; his father was responsible for training Gurkhas, though he himself preferred the company of the muhajadeen as a boy (photos provided).
He displayed gold disks which could buy humans at certain markets, and spoke of tribes which taught him how to travel in Dreamtime. It was literally thrilling stuff, all too fantastic to believe if not for the artifacts....
From the POV of a student entering a job market, anthropology or international studies may be completely useless. But the student gained real knowledge that is useful for some jobs (even if they're not pursuing them). And it can be useful in their life. To use a CS analogy, I never needed calculus or control theory during my $dayjobs, but I use them for myself, to better understand the world and occasionally on hardware hobby projects.
Meanwhile, those fake degrees are literally scams. I.e. students (and their families) are being scammed for their money. The topics are self-referential (invented to be taught), and exist in order to justify spending few years on them, so that the degree rewards putting in work - which makes that degree valuable for employers in the first place. And during the course of that degree, various entities - universities, textbook publishers, etc. - are bleeding students dry. It's not just a degree mill, it's a money printer. The degree becomes purely proof of work, and on top of wasted years of your life, you also have to pay for it.
Please provide examples. I thought Communications was bullshit until I read a textbook. Cyber security is not a bullshit field even though actual practitioners hold degree programmes in it in extremely low esteem. What are some examples of business or other degrees that are in some objective sense valueless? Criminal justice degrees or fire science ones are hazing credentialism but they’re not literally worthless and the research they’re based on is real.
At least humanities courses teach students to write. They're basically essay writing classes.
The one who'd dropped out was clearer and more consistent in their writing than the BA in English. Perhaps math enforces a level of pragmatism that the humanities don't?
Anecdotal, of course, but I've seen this pattern often.
Most business courses are literally fake. The stuff being taught was invented in order to be taught. Quite a lot of it is learning the meaning of terms that were invented in order to be taught. It's not that there aren't real business subjects. Finance and accounting are real subjects. Economics is a real subject, in the sense that philosophy is a real subject. Statistics, etc.
The trend is (and has been for decades) to teach mostly (or only) fluff courses.
The bottom third of these things are functional equivalents of diploma mills. Ask business graduates over a pint. Most will admit it.