Why pick undesirable majors?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, definitely. If education is only about job training, then the arts & humanities do very poorly. Many people seem to see education primarily in terms of employment prospects, so they're either confused about why anyone would want to choose such courses, or jump to conclusions about people who do so such as that they're just not smart enough. The error with this is in judging different courses on the same criteria. Arts & humanities are not primarily job-oriented courses. In my opinion, they shouldn't be, and students should be aware of this at the outset. The value of these courses is in the deep understanding of humanity, history, the history of ideas, our place in the world, ethics, and so on. There's enormous personal benefit in this, and great benefit to society to have educated, well-rounded citizens. If courses were judged by these sorts of criteria, then the job-oriented, money-making areas would be rated as "undesirable" and end up on bottom, last place.

In countries where higher education is freely available to all citizens, there's no need to limit people; we shouldn't have to choose either one or the other (inner or outer riches). In my opinion, everyone should have a well-rounded education beyond just their own occupation - life is incomplete without it, and inner poverty is the worst kind. We also need to deal with mundane practicalities such as paying the bills. Both types of courses therefore should be undertaken - for inner riches as well as for money.

why do university bigwigs need to make such inflated salaries? surely there must be a more economical way to get people higher education that actually gives one a diploma that means something, that doesn't have a bankrupting cost attached to it.

Are their salaries really inflated compared to other professions with comparable training, hours and experience? I don't know the numbers, but I'd be surprised if they're paid disproportionately more. Teachers are certainly paid too little and undervalued. I don't think they're the problem, and I don't think cuts to the salaries of employees of educational institutions is the answer. The cost of education should be publicly supported in a civilized society. What better use of tax revenue? Education should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. Money should not be an obstacle to an educated citizenry.

tell that to the tea partiers who run things in America now.

That's exactly part of the problem I think...I don't think most students are aware of that going in. Many just think "a college degree is a college degree", and if you have one you get an automatic job...and how could they know any better fresh out of high school with no real-world experience whatsoever? In any event, the students in those majors are saddled with the exact same student loan debts as students in other majors. And call me cynical, but paying $20,000 a year to simply learn out of interest doesn't seem logical, especially given that most of that stuff is available for free on the internet anyways.

I don't dispute anything you said about the courses themselves though, and while I have my reservations about requiring them for everyone, I do see their benefits.

From those two choices, I´d simply do what you like more. Both engineers and medics are called in my country "crisis-safe". So maybe you are not that valued as engineer as a doctor, but normally you earn sufficient for lucky living. That doesnt mean that tehre can be more or less job offers and so on, and more or less value, but even if the war breaks out and your major cities gets bombed, people will need doctors and engineers, even if you are forced to work for potatoes as payment. While I dare to believe that there will be much need for "business administrators".

I don't know what education choices I'd make if I were in the US. I'm grateful to be in a country where I don't have to choose between inner & outer poverty. I suppose I might go for a job-oriented course, and try learning those important subjects which I think everyone should be well educated in (such as ethics, history of human thought, psychology, critical thinking, epistemology, etc.) - off the internet.... Not quite the same as several years of intense full-time focus on these areas with lectures & in-person tuition by world-class experts in the fields. I would respect those who were willing to make the financial sacrifice, who knowingly choose outer poverty over compromising their human integrity by an unfulfilled education. We are not in a position to say that "most students are not aware of that going in" without solid data, but I accept that some probably aren't.

A distinction needs to be made between what I'm talking about as essential for a well-rounded educated person, and pursuit of an "interest". The former may or may not be a particular interest, but should nevertheless be learned. I'm not (yet) arguing one way or the other regarding people following their "passions" at university, although as Aspies we should be able to understand that some people may believe that life isn't worth living if they don't. Lucky for those of us whose passions lead to good jobs.

I think ethics in particular should be taught more widely. It is a token area in many courses, with particular biases. In the Leveson Inquiry for example, big-shot media business man Richard Desmond didn't even know what the word "ethics" meant. - see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leveson-inquiry-richard-desmond-says-158353

This, totally and completely (especially the bits in bold).

@ auntblabby,
The Tea party is the result of inner poverty.