5 majors? What do you think of this story?

[DOquestions]

I'm interested to see what you all think of this story/topic.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71826

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrWookie]

One of the people they interviewed in the article said it best:

“What do four majors mean? How major can they be if you can do four of them?”

i think the major requirements are screwed up if it is possible to major in 5 subjects in 4 years. That means you are devoting 20% of your time to each...which is hardly what I would call a "major"

 

[135892]

Three of his majors, physics, astronomy, and math, probably had a lot of overlap. But nevertheless, 5 majors in 4 years... quite impressive!

 

[Brown8472]

I think that student doesn't know what he wants. He needs to have a serious talk with an advisor because with the vast amount of research and discoveries/information in any of those subjects, I can hardly imagine someone having a good/objective grasp of any one of them in 4 years. He may know a lot of things but can he apply them succinctly. It's time for him to see a shrink!

 

[DOquestions]

Sorry.

 

[ReptarBar]

i dont see how one can present a logical argument against him. perhaps his school's system of majors is in disarray, but the dude himself did nothing wrong. would the courses he would have to take in order to complete a physics major be different if he had done ONLY physics instead of 5 majors?

no, they wouldnt. so what is the problem here? his competency in the courses is irrelevant lol (even though im sure he's fine considering his 3.9). and knowing what he wants? again, irrelevant. he pay the money, so he can take whatever he wants.

i agree that something is wrong if he can do 5 majors in four years, but thats the school's fault, not his.

 

[DrWookie]

i dont see how one can present a logical argument against him. perhaps his school's system of majors is in disarray, but the dude himself did nothing wrong. would the courses he would have to take in order to complete a physics major be different if he had done ONLY physics instead of 5 majors?

no, they wouldnt. so what is the problem here? his competency in the courses is irrelevant lol (even though im sure he's fine considering his 3.9). and knowing what he wants? again, irrelevant. he pay the money, so he can take whatever he wants.

i agree that something is wrong if he can do 5 majors in four years, but thats the school's fault, not his.

Ya I agree. This suggests the school has an issue if a student can do 5 majors in four years. It didn't even sound like he worked that hard.

At my school you can't get multiple majors with the same class. 1 class can apply to a major and a MINOR but not to two majors. So if you are double majoring in related subjects you have to take DIFFERENT courses to apply to each major (Aside from the general requirements like gen chem and o.chem which are the same for multiple majors)

I guess some schools let you take a course and have it apply to every major it applies to equally.

 

[Rebs28]

I was wondering if this was about UW Madison before I even looked at the link...

I have many friends who graduated from/are attending Madison, and this is pretty common. Five majors may be unique, but someone graduating with three is definitely not. I find it pretty ridiculous, but maybe just because I'm jealous that I can't say that I simultaneously majored in computer science, women's studies, Gaelic, and Theremin performance.

 

[DOquestions]

I honestly think majoring in five majors is dumb. Beyond remembering a few things from various classes, all of those majors will be useless when it comes to the job market. He has to have an employable skills. From what I can tell, he must not work.

I can see physics and math being fine though. The rest are a waste of his time. He would have been better of working in a physics lab, since that is what he wants to go to graduate school for.

Some smart people are just dumb.

 

[ApoK]

I honestly think majoring in five majors is dumb. Beyond remembering a few things from various classes, all of those majors will be useless when it comes to the job market. He has to have an employable skills. From what I can tell, he must not work.

I can see physics and math being fine though. The rest are a waste of his time. He would have been better of working in a physics lab, since that is what he wants to go to graduate school for.

Some smart people are just dumb.

I don't see how you could fault the student for taking additional courses if he wants to. If he wants to get a broad education, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. There is absolutely something wrong with the curriculum at UW though ... it shouldn't be possible to get so many majors in so few years with only 18 credits per term.

I'm triple majoring myself (finance, physiology, and microbiology) and I have had very little overlap between the business and science degrees. I've also had to take virtually 18-20 credits every semester to graduate in four years. I mean, I chose to add the finance major even though I'm going into medicine because I think it is universally applicable. How many doctors have no idea how the economy works ... or how to manage their money responsibly?

Anyway, the long and short of it is that students should be able to take any courses they want and receive compensation for them with majors. It's the school that is dropping the ball in this instance.

 

[engineeredout]

YEah it depends on the schools/programs. Some of the depts at my school will not accept classes put towards one major/minor for theirs.

Example: The chem department won't accept Ochem as elective credits towards a minor, because they were already requirements for my chemical engineering major.

The applied math department not only accepted all the required classes that I happened to take for my engineering major, but let me substitute six addtional upper division credits from "math related engineering courses" (Which is basically all of them) towards the math major.

Ended up being double majoring in math was easier than minoring in a lot of subjects I looked at like chem/physics/another engineering field.


Drives me crazy when the mechanical engineering department won't accept two semesters of chemical engineering thermodynamics to act as the prereq for some of their other classes, when the MechEs only have to take a single semester of it.

 

[Isisfusion]

Some smart people are just dumb.

👍

Worst part is that his GPA is a 3.9. A lot of people can't even pull that off with just one major.

But I do find this part of the article to be very true, especially at my school: "a student feels like a slouch if he or she only focuses on one subject."

 

[takhara]

My physics professor went to UW Madison and quadruple majored in physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy. I used to be really impressed by that, but not so much anymore after reading this thread.

 

[Kaustikos]

I have a friend who did 4 majors and still had time to play world of warcraft at UofIllinois - Physics, Math, Aviation and Chemistry. The first three were, as he put it, the trifecta of majors to landing the job he has now. He did chemistry because he said it was easy🙂mad🙂. It CAN be done, and it's not really lame or stupid.

 

[pianola]

I was wondering if this was about UW Madison before I even looked at the link...

I have many friends who graduated from/are attending Madison, and this is pretty common. Five majors may be unique, but someone graduating with three is definitely not. I find it pretty ridiculous, but maybe just because I'm jealous that I can't say that I simultaneously majored in computer science, women's studies, Gaelic, and Theremin performance.

Bonus points for mentioning the theremin.

Otherwise, I have nothing useful to add to this thead.

 

[dw2158]

I don't see how you could fault the student for taking additional courses if he wants to. If he wants to get a broad education, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. There is absolutely something wrong with the curriculum at UW though ... it shouldn't be possible to get so many majors in so few years with only 18 credits per term.

exactly. my major had like 60-70 credits in it (lots of overlap with pre-med reqs, though 🙂). i could not have done four of those in four years. i think the average majors have 35-40 credits at my school, which would still be impossible to do four times over while satisfying the general ed requirements. this article makes me think that UW's system is messed up.

Ya I agree. This suggests the school has an issue if a student can do 5 majors in four years. It didn't even sound like he worked that hard.

At my school you can't get multiple majors with the same class. 1 class can apply to a major and a MINOR but not to two majors. So if you are double majoring in related subjects you have to take DIFFERENT courses to apply to each major (Aside from the general requirements like gen chem and o.chem which are the same for multiple majors)

I guess some schools let you take a course and have it apply to every major it applies to equally.

yeah, at my school we couldn't even use something for a major AND a minor. the only overlap allowed was for majors and general education requirements, e.g. my calculus classes counted for my biochem major as well as my quantitative reasoning requirement.

Worst part is that his GPA is a 3.9. A lot of people can't even pull that off with just one major.

ITA. grade inflation much? 🙄

I have a friend who did 4 majors and still had time to play world of warcraft at UofIllinois - Physics, Math, Aviation and Chemistry. The first three were, as he put it, the trifecta of majors to landing the job he has now. He did chemistry because he said it was easy🙂mad🙂. It CAN be done, and it's not really lame or stupid.

we're not saying that it can't be done. we're saying that the fact that a person can physically fit four majors into four years suggests that something is wrong with the system. this is not a comment on the student's ability or work ethic; this is us wondering why schools like UW (and i guess UofI) have their curricula structured this way.

 

[NotAndrew]

My physics professor went to UW Madison and quadruple majored in physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy. I used to be really impressed by that, but not so much anymore after reading this thread.

Why would anyone do that to themselves? I think nothing more than a double major should be allowed, otherwise how can it really be a major?

 

[kansaskid]

Here we can either:

a) single major.
b) double major.
c) major and minor

That's it...and there is really no way to do any more than that even if you are incredibly smart and ambitious, you'd have to petition to do three and you'd get turned down. There's no way that this kid's classes were tough. With a 3.9? Pssh, there's no way.

 

[NotAndrew]

Here we can either:

a) single major.
b) double major.
c) major and minor

That's it...and there is really no way to do any more than that even if you are incredibly smart and ambitious, you'd have to petition to do three and you'd get turned down. There's no way that this kid's classes were tough. With a 3.9? Pssh, there's no way.

I agree. Its like instead of having 5 majors he quintuple minored.

 

[dw2158]

I agree. Its like instead of having 5 majors he quintuple minored.

yeah. but quintuple minoring still seems weird to me; at my school minors are usually 6 classes or so... that's a lot to do five times over when you've got major reqs and gen ed reqs to finish as well.

 

[NotAndrew]

yeah. but quintuple minoring still seems weird to me; at my school minors are usually 6 classes or so... that's a lot to do five times over when you've got major reqs and gen ed reqs to finish as well.

I know the dude in the story is completely off his rocker. I did not actually read the story, but did the dude finish his degree in 4 years?

Edit: Ok I read most of it. Dude quint majored in four years?!?!?!?!?!?!?! He is making people who just Major in history while completing pre-med requirements and then get a masters in education before attending Mschool look bad.

 

[dw2158]

I know the dude in the story is completely off his rocker. I did not actually read the story, but did the dude finish his degree in 4 years?

yeah he did somehow. but idk, i don't really blame the dude (although i do think it's pretty dumb to do what he did). i blame the school for making this kind of stuff possible. now he sounds all impressive with his 5 majors, but (as was said earlier in the thread/article) how major could they be if he was able to complete 5? lame, all the way around.

 

[DOquestions]

Reminds me of a story a college buddy told me. He was a sociology major and he found that he was really enjoying the history electives he had taken and realized that he was only about three courses shy of meeting a history major as well. He met with his advisor in Soc. and asked about double-majoring with soc. and history, and the soc. advisor said, "Why? So your degree can be twice as useless in the job market?"

I could hear that coming from a pragmatic business or engineering school person, but it kind of shocked me that a soc. advisor would be that blunt about it.

***

French: Why? You want to live in France for a few years? You want to translate documents from English to French and vise versa?

Math: This is a fine degree, if you have a teaching certificate or go on to graduate school.

Physics: This is a fine degree if you are willing to be a research tech/assistant or getting a teach certificate until you go to graduate school.

Philosphy: See my example in the paragraph above.

Astronomy: Not sure why besides going to graduate school. Never once have I come across a job asking for a degree in astronomy.

French is fine if you target specific jobs or the degree is useless.

 

[dw2158]

Reminds me of a story a college buddy told me. He was a sociology major and he found that he was really enjoying the history electives he had taken and realized that he was only about three courses shy of meeting a history major as well. He met with his advisor in Soc. and asked about double-majoring with soc. and history, and the soc. advisor said, "Why? So your degree can be twice as useless in the job market?"

I could hear that coming from a pragmatic business or engineering school person, but it kind of shocked me that a soc. advisor would be that blunt about it.

***

French: Why? You want to live in France for a few years? You want to translate documents from English to French and vise versa?

Math: This is a fine degree, if you have a teaching certificate or go on to graduate school.

Physics: This is a fine degree if you are willing to be a research tech/assistant or getting a teach certificate until you go to graduate school.

Philosphy: See my example in the paragraph above.

Astronomy: Not sure why besides going to graduate school. Never once have I come across a job asking for a degree in astronomy.

French is fine if you target specific jobs or the degree is useless.

not sure how this "reminded" you of a story about useless degrees. i'm not saying that any of this kid's 5 degrees are useless. i'm saying it's stupid that he was able to get 5 degrees. (i guess it's more correct to say a 5-faceted degree, since he only got one BA... right? who cares.)

anyway, the question of which majors are "worth" pursuing is a whole other debate. one could argue that sociology+history is a doubly valuable pursuit just because of the learning that goes on. college in the US functions differently (for many people) than it does in other parts of the world; we are encouraged to learn for the sake of learning, not to learn for the sake of mastering vocational skills. anyway, this is a whole other issue.

 

[135892]

Only on SDN would a guy like this get bashed

 

[DOquestions]

Only on SDN would a guy like this get bashed

Three of his degrees are fine. It's the philosophy and French degrees that I think was not the smartest thing to do. Work in a lab instead.

I have family that attended UW-Madison (an aunt and cousin). So I know how easy it is to get three majors with basically no additional effort.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Wait, is the guy pre-med?

Anyways, I think people are also forgetting the fact that he might have had enormous AP credit or college credit from high school. Still very impressive, and I agree that its dumb to bash someone with this many majors. If I could have done it, I would have gotten a Biochem and Microbiology double major, but at my school you can't double count courses for different majors beyond the 100 level. I would have had to have taken an additional 60 science credits, which would have stopped me from taking classes for fun.

 

[el aye]

i agree that something is wrong if he can do 5 majors in four years, but thats the school's fault, not his.

Agreed. My school probably wouldn't allow this to happen (hell, they don't allow two BS degrees). As an example, if you took biochem or biophysics then you most definitely could not major in both of those at the same time, with physics, chemistry, or biology.

 

[DOquestions]

If a person could get an accounting, business, some science major, nursing, and other direct job entry majors done in four years would have my respect. This type of person would have many career paths that they could persue.

If I ever have a child, I will help my child be prepared for the real world by getting the right degrees and start at any early age (aka high school).

 

[chief illiniwek]

exactly. my major had like 60-70 credits in it (lots of overlap with pre-med reqs, though 🙂). i could not have done four of those in four years. i think the average majors have 35-40 credits at my school, which would still be impossible to do four times over while satisfying the general ed requirements. this article makes me think that UW's system is messed up.

agreed. my major is something like 85 hours (the majority of them being major-specific). i came in with like 15 hours of AP credit and have taken some summer classes, and i have just barely had time to finish my major, minor, and med school pre-reqs in four years.

edit: if i had really tried, i probably could have eeked out another minor, but that would have meant missing out on the (philosophy, music theory, etc.) classes that i actually enjoyed.

 

[Lokhtar]

Reminds me of a story a college buddy told me. He was a sociology major and he found that he was really enjoying the history electives he had taken and realized that he was only about three courses shy of meeting a history major as well. He met with his advisor in Soc. and asked about double-majoring with soc. and history, and the soc. advisor said, "Why? So your degree can be twice as useless in the job market?"

I could hear that coming from a pragmatic business or engineering school person, but it kind of shocked me that a soc. advisor would be that blunt about it.

***

French: Why? You want to live in France for a few years? You want to translate documents from English to French and vise versa?

Math: This is a fine degree, if you have a teaching certificate or go on to graduate school.

Physics: This is a fine degree if you are willing to be a research tech/assistant or getting a teach certificate until you go to graduate school.

Philosphy: See my example in the paragraph above.

Astronomy: Not sure why besides going to graduate school. Never once have I come across a job asking for a degree in astronomy.

French is fine if you target specific jobs or the degree is useless.

God forbid people do something they enjoy. The purpose of education is - or ought to be - more than providing vocational training.

It's a ridiculous attitude to have. Maybe the kid was interested in Math, Physics and Astronomy. Those subjects are very related. Not everything has to be done with a job in mind. It's possible to do something out of simply enjoyment of the subject.

This is one of the things I hate about modern education. You can go to vocational school if you want career training (e.g, ITT tech, law school, med school, etc). The purpose of higher education is something else, or at least, should be.

I think too many majors shows and inability to make up your mind about what interests you. You can study all those things on your own without getting credits for it by being an avid reader and self teacher to yourself to learn those topics.

Or if its possible, you can just major in it. What's the difference?

I hire people, at while this may not be a widely held view, I respect and admire people with wide interests and people who are curious about the world they live in. Yes, that includes sociology majors and history majors. Most of the training for a job can be done on the job - and usually is. I want people who are intellectually curious. Getting a job is a secondary benefit to a classic liberal arts education - go to a vocational school if you want to learn a skill.

 

[DOquestions]

God forbid people do something they enjoy. The purpose of education is - or ought to be - more than providing vocational training.

It's a ridiculous attitude to have. Maybe the kid was interested in Math, Physics and Astronomy. Those subjects are very related. Not everything has to be done with a job in mind. It's possible to do something out of simply enjoyment of the subject.

This is one of the things I hate about modern education. You can go to vocational school if you want career training (e.g, ITT tech, law school, med school, etc). The purpose of higher education is something else, or at least, should be.



Or if its possible, you can just major in it. What's the difference?

I hire people, at while this may not be a widely held view, I respect and admire people with wide interests and people who are curious about the world they live in. Yes, that includes sociology majors and history majors. Most of the training for a job can be done on the job - and usually is. I want people who are intellectually curious. Getting a job is a secondary benefit to a classic liberal arts education - go to a vocational school if you want to learn a skill.

Doing something one enjoys and using up resources that could be used by others, in this type of setting, is not being smart. It is being selfish. We go to school to learn about a topic that we can translate into an employment situation for an employer or to run your own business. We don't go to college to learn history for the heck of it. We don't go to school to get an accounting degree for the heck of it. You go to school to get the required basic skills need to do a job. That is the end point of college.

Why not just major in it? The guy, from what I've been told by current students at Madison, has no job. So he has no skills to offer an employer. So he goes to graduate school in physics never having worked a job before. If I ever get into a position where I help make choices for who gets into a professional schooling, I will never accept a student with no work experience.

So I don't get a degree in World Literature or Story Telling and that means I don't give a crap about those topics? You are out of your flipping mind.

News flash: College is the new "on the job training." How the heck could you not notice that? I almost never see a job advertisement that says they will provide training. The very basics of the job will require training (how this works, this is how we do this, etc), but the skills required to do the job are now developed before the applicant applies to the position. This is why we now see degrees in clinical research coordinator, clinical database manager, nurse oncologist, PA, NP, administrative assistant, etc, etc.

The last sentence shows how out of touch of reality you are.

You seriously make hiring decisions? I would hate to see how productive your staff is.

I interviewed for many jobs after college (about 25) and only a couple would offer training beyond the very basics of how things are done in the position. Only one of the jobs had a year long training phase. Even a good percentage of lab tech jobs don't provide training (in my area of the country) as many students work in labs while in college and get lab tech jobs until they go onto more schooling.

 

[Lokhtar]

Doing something one enjoys and using up resources that could be used by others, in this type of setting, is not being smart. It is being selfish. We go to school to learn about a topic that we can translate into an employment situation for an employer or to run your own business.

That's just disturbing. I want to find where it says, in UW's charter, that its mission is to train students for a job.

We don't go to college to learn history for the heck of it. We don't go to school to get an accounting degree for the heck of it. You go to school to get the required basic skills need to do a job. That is the end point of college.

No, that's the end point of a vocational school. You may go to college to get a job, but that's not the purpose of college. If that were the purpose, colleges would simply be vocational schools and have no need for half the departments. College is about intellectual development of individuals, for the sake of intellectual development. That is the purpose of higher education. For the vast majority of jobs, I could teach them all the skills they need in a couple months. That's not what colleges do.

The guy, from what I've been told by current students at Madison, has no job. So he has no skills to offer an employer. So he goes to graduate school in physics never having worked a job before. If I ever get into a position where I help make choices for who gets into a professional schooling, I will never accept a student with no work experience.

And that's your perogative. And professional school is a vocational school, and I'd look for work experience too. A university, as whole, is not designed to be a vocational school.

So I don't get a degree in World Literature or Story Telling and that means I don't give a crap about those topics? You are out of your flipping mind.

Huh? You can be interested in it and get a major in it, and you can be interested in it and not major in it. He chose the former. UW should be happy that they have a student who is intellectually curious and they are doing their job by fostering his development and interests.

News flash: College is the new "on the job training." How the heck could you not notice that?

It is, and I do see it. But that's not what the mission of university is. Employers look for kids with college degrees. And colleges do best to give them enough skills. That's not, nor should it be, their primary purpose. If it was pure vocational training, most schools wouldn't require courses in the liberal arts - just like ITT tech doesn't require shakespeare when you get a programming certificate.

You seriously make hiring decisions? I would hate to see how productive your staff is.

I have a company, and I do fine because I hire smart, driven people who are curious about the world. I am not the font of all wisdom but it has worked very well for me so far. Maybe it hasn't for you. I prefer to interact with those people, and so do my customers. They have a broad and mature outlook, they seek out challenges no matter what the field and what their personal expertise, and offer creative solutions, and they make the best employees. If my business involved doing task A, B, C in a prescribed manner, then perhaps they wouldn't be.

And while it is possible to be all of those things by picking a single major, one of the things I look for are wide interests, and if someone has a degree in physics and sociology, I am immediately interested in that person and want to talk to them.

 

[DOquestions]

That's just disturbing. I want to find where it says, in UW's charter, that its mission is to train students for a job.

So UW should not train students for a job?


No, that's the end point of a vocational school. You may go to college to get a job, but that's not the purpose of college. If that were the purpose, colleges would simply be vocational schools and have no need for half the departments. College is about intellectual development of individuals, for the sake of intellectual development. That is the purpose of higher education. For the vast majority of jobs, I could teach them all the skills they need in a couple months. That's not what colleges do.

You are wrong once again. Finance, accounting, business, nursing, child life, biology, education, etc, are all degrees to place you in a job. Liberal Art degrees (the schools who offer them) are under major pressure right now to show that the degrees are even worth anything. Don't believe, look it up in a Google search for yourself.

Just so you know, college is the new high school. It has been like this for almost a decade already.

Let's all get degrees in the liberal arts and see how far we get in the job search.

Interviewer: So why are you interested in this position when you got a degree in French, physics, math, astronomy, and philosophy. This position requires you to follow specific protocols and you will be doing a lot of routine work.

Applicant: Well,...................


And that's your perogative. And professional school is a vocational school, and I'd look for work experience too. A university, as whole, is not designed to be a vocational school.




Huh? You can be interested in it and get a major in it, and you can be interested in it and not major in it. He chose the former. UW should be happy that they have a student who is intellectually curious and they are doing their job by fostering his development and interests.

Actually, the UW found out that they have major problems with their curriculum.

It is, and I do see it. But that's not what the mission of university is. Employers look for kids with college degrees. And colleges do best to give them enough skills. That's not, nor should it be, their primary purpose. If it was pure vocational training, most schools wouldn't require courses in the liberal arts - just like ITT tech doesn't require shakespeare when you get a programming certificate.

Yes employers do look for applicants with college degrees...specific college degrees. Good luck getting an editor job as a college graduate with a degree in physics.

I have a company, and I do fine because I hire smart, driven people who are curious about the world. I am not the font of all wisdom but it has worked very well for me so far. Maybe it hasn't for you. I prefer to interact with those people, and so do my customers. They have a broad and mature outlook, they seek out challenges no matter what the field and what their personal expertise, and offer creative solutions, and they make the best employees. If my business involved doing task A, B, C in a prescribed manner, then perhaps they wouldn't be.

What is the name of your company?

And while it is possible to be all of those things by picking a single major, one of the things I look for are wide interests, and if someone has a degree in physics and sociology, I am immediately interested in that person and want to talk to them.

Look above.

 

[Lokhtar]

So UW should not train students for a job?

That should not be their primary purpose.

You are wrong once again. Finance, accounting, business, nursing, child life, biology, education, etc, are all degrees to place you in a job. Liberal Art degrees (the schools who offer them) are under major pressure right now to show that the degrees are even worth anything. Don't believe, look it up in a Google search for yourself.

I believe you, and I completely agree. And it's a sad state of affairs that vocational training has gotten mixed up with higher education.

Just so you know, college is the new high school. It has been like this for almost a decade already.

Again, I agree. I am arguing how it should be, and what colleges should do, and what they exist for, not their current state.

Let's all get degrees in the liberal arts and see how far we get in the job search.

As I've said before, if you are looking for vocational training, that is not the right path for you. Not everyone is looking for vocational training. People do things because it interests them, as hard as it may be for you to believe. I think that students know that majoring in sociology will not be as financially rewarding as a major in IT. I don't want a college degree so I can get a job. You do, and that's GREAT. Go for it. Major in whatever you want which allows you to get that job that you covet. That doesn't mean colleges should only cater to you. Some people just want to learn, and do something that is intellectually stimulating for them. No one is forcing you to do that if that isn't what you want.

The rest of your answers is a variation on the same theme, showing why a liberal arts degree is not ideal vocational training. And I agree.

Nor should it be.

 

[DOquestions]

That should not be their primary purpose.


I believe you, and I completely agree. And it's a sad state of affairs that vocational training has gotten mixed up with higher education.

Again, I agree. I am arguing how it should be, and what colleges should do, and what they exist for, not their current state.

As I've said before, if you are looking for vocational training, that is not the right path for you. Not everyone is looking for vocational training. People do things because it interests them, as hard as it may be for you to believe. I think that students know that majoring in sociology will not be as financially rewarding as a major in IT. I don't want a college degree so I can get a job. You do, and that's GREAT. Go for it. Major in whatever you want which allows you to get that job that you covet. That doesn't mean colleges should only cater to you. Some people just want to learn, and do something that is intellectually stimulating for them. No one is forcing you to do that if that isn't what you want.

The rest of your answers is a variation on the same theme, showing why a liberal arts degree is not ideal vocational training. And I agree.

Nor should it be.

You said it yourself...colleges should not prepare their students for a job.

 

[Lokhtar]

You said it yourself...colleges should not prepare their students for a job.

No, colleges shouldn't exist to prepare students for their job. That doesn't mean as a student, you can't choose skills and courses and majors that prepare you as a job individually.

Colleges, as a whole, should be there to foster intellectual development in a wide variety of fields, regardless of the employment prospects for that field at the conclusion of study. If it improves vocational prospects, that's fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too. That should have no bearing on what the college does. Of course, I know the reality is that most people will gravitate towards majors and training that gives them the best employment. And I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with a student choosing to be a computer science major, a biology major, a sociology major, or a philosophy major. They have varying amounts of employability straight out of college.

The college should foster a learning environment for all of them - the student can decide what he or she wants out of the experience. To me, the ideal function of a university is to be a blank slate and to encourage critical thinking in any field the student chooses, while requiring exposure to a wide variety of fields as a requirement (e.g, the general course requirements that schools have). After that, a student can choose further study in a subject he or she wants for whatever reason they want. You want to go for job prospects - go for it. I want to go for simple intellectual curiosity - I should go for it.

 

[DOquestions]

Four jobs that pay $50 an hour that are still in demand:

Pharmacist

Actuary

Marketing manager

Petroleum engineer

What do these four jobs have in common? Specific college degrees.

 

[Lokhtar]

And? How did what I say preclude anyone from pursuing any of that? Stop arguing against things I never said.

 

[chief illiniwek]

Four jobs that pay $50 an hour that are still in demand:

Pharmacist

Actuary

Marketing manager

Petroleum engineer

What do these four jobs have in common? Specific college degrees.

someone could end up with any of these careers despite his undergraduate major. in fact, a master's/doctorate is now basically required to get any high-paying job. as lokhtar said, i believe college is intended to allow students to explore interests and to teach them about hard-work.