100% of the people that I know who studied CS or Engineering (Chemical/Mechanical) _have jobs_ that are well paid, have nice benefits, and are able to live in nice areas of the country and if they want to raise a family. The liberal arts kids, not so much. There is no way of saying it nicely, but for the next 10 years of their lives, they're fucked.
It is IMO hugely unethical for the educational system to shove 'you can be whatever you want to be' down everyone's throats during HS, then expect the Liberal arts to actually be able to find a job, earn enough money to pay off student loans, save $ for a house down payment, pay for health/car/etc insurance, and be able to save for retirement. I am never reproducing (yay childfree), but I shudder to think how my peers with children are managing to pay for for childcare. Oh, and don't forget those who do did not finish college, yet still have $20k of loans collecting interest.
Would you write a check for $150k to a 18 year old kid and let them go party in NYC/LA/Paris for 4 years? Replace Paris with college and that's what college is like, unless you study engineering or maybe medicine.
Is a college educated person in a better position to have a successful career? Of course. Is an engineer in a better position to have a successful career? Of course.
The only difference between an engineer in the wrong discipline and a college graduate with the wrong degree is magnitude.
Actually when I graduated from high school the safest and easiest path to employment that was recommended to us was to study a humanity and become a teacher (teachers here - Central Europe - are much better paid than in the US) or get a business degree and work for a bank or insurance company. Both of these paths seem ridiculously risky now (or at least last time I checked).
As a conclusion I would argue that there is no such thing as a "free ticket to a successful career". Chances are high that at one point or another there will be a surplus of people in everyones profession and almost everyone will experience unemployment or need to shift careers.
10x harder than CS, less job security.
Why should we not allow people to devote their life to historical studies? Why should we look down at those whose studies may inspire the simstim visions of our great-grand-children?
Society is creating enough wealth to ensure the pursuit of knowledge for those who wish to undertake it. And pursuit of knowledge is a more driving force for economic growth than any subsidy, any tariff.
"The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."
In theory, yes. In reality, I sense is that this was destroyed in many places by the manic push to make everyone go to college. I went to an engineering college, and while I did meet brilliant people there, the "bio-reactor" was severely diluted by a large body of students who basically treated it like high school year 5-8.
Like Kamaal, I've met many students who chose "high school year 5-8" based on what is easy, commerce and humanities, so I wouldn't be surprised if many of these places were even more diluted.
I have no problem with people studying humanities and commerce, I even have little problem paying for it. I do have a problem with a candidate leaving with a humanities degree and them complaining that it's hard to get a job in her or her field. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there is a limited demand for pure literature degrees. In a way engineers don't have to as much, people with "soft" degrees need to articulate much more clearly how they're going to add value in a job - and that's hard, and it's not my impression it's taught in these programs.
I am not disregarding humanities or history. But it makes more sense to read them when you have no other better work to do. Sorry for putting it bluntly, but you should have better work to do than studying philosophy and arcane trivia about the past.
>>Why should we not allow people to devote their life to historical studies?
Because they don't pay well. And sometimes don't pay at all. Nobody is going to pay you for just knowing 1000 things that happened some hundreds of years back. Such knowledge is not useful to solving any pressing problems that exist currently.
>>Society is creating enough wealth to ensure the pursuit of knowledge for those who wish to undertake it. And pursuit of knowledge is a more driving force for economic growth than any subsidy, any tariff.
Which knowledge, not all forms of knowledge are same. Are they?
And if that happens, they follow their passion and when they come out of college and don't find jobs who should they blame? How is the system's mistake that your passion is not in demand and doesn't pay well?
Look I'm not saying you should study philosophy at college. But at the same time you shouldn't look too surprised if with that degree you don't get a job that pays well.
How is this not disregarding? Just to put things a little bit into perspective. I have an advanced degree in physics and a minor degree in maths. The most part of my professional career have I spend in various IT related positions, running my own businesses for the last 15 years. I am making enough money to lead a comfortable life. But if basically the only even remotely relevant thing (by other measures than monetary, i.e. improving the lives of anybody else) I have ever done was build a website for a global NGO and a mobile app for a local opera house. If anything I have worked for companies whose success might quite likely have made that world a worse place.
Last year I accidentally ran into a girl I knew back in college. She was majoring in sociology. She is my age(40-50), still living in a shared apartment and currently working for close to minimum wage for a local non profit that helps fugitives and illegal immigrants to get legal support and generally help them in their daily struggles.
My point is: Yes I make more money, but I have an immense respect for people like her who sacrifice this for ideals and actually improve peoples live on a regular basis. And in this regard your attitude (like "but you should have better work to do than studying philosophy and arcane trivia about the past") is not only disregarding but insulting and quite frankly shortsighted and ignorant.
You really should read your Marx. We're in an overproduction crisis: the world's most pressing problem is its lack of problems to solve.
Well, we should allow them, and in fact encourage them if a) it's their passion b) it's on THEIR dime, not mine - ie they are rich or very aware of the consequences.
No need to bankroll economically stupid negation that will result in their employment.
Looking back, I can tell you about my own experiences here in India. When I opted to study engineering and before that science for my pre-university college, there were a lot of friends of mine who wanted to study history or commerce because it was 'easy'. Really, you have whole life to live on that and you take a wrong decision just because you want it easy for the next 4 years?
Now after 4-5 years when we were all looking for jobs, the very same people who consciously studied history and commerce complained that either had no jobs or jobs that payed very poorly. Most of them either ended either being clerks(where their jobs are constantly threatened by automation) or working at call enters. And again you see the same government blaming. How can the government or people around you help if you make wrong decisions all over the years?
And not surprisingly it turns out most of such people are generally the kind of guys who don't very hard and are always looking for short cuts. One fine day you suddenly wake up and realize its not that easy after all.