Live data from Hacker News

Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

bbc.com

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#51
Go into Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) – that way, you can become an engineer or IT specialist. And no matter what you do, forget the liberal arts – non-vocational degrees that include natural and social sciences, mathematics and the humanities, such as history, philosophy and languages.

What? Mathematics is both a STEM major and a liberal arts major now? I digress.

But few courses of study are quite as heavy on reading, writing, speaking and critical thinking as the liberal arts

There is no evidence that any particular university major produces more gains in critical thinking skills over any other. Additionally, there is no evidence that critical thinking skills gained in university persist after graduation [1].

And while there’s often an assumption that the careers humanities graduates pursue just aren’t as good as the jobs snapped up by, say, engineers or medics, that isn’t the case. In Australia, for example, three of the 10 fastest-growing occupations are sales assistants, clerks, and advertising, public relations and sales managers – all of which might look familiar as fields that humanities graduates tend to pursue.

What? A sales assistant is someone who works the floor at a retail store. Is the author really trying to say that a retail job is as good as an engineering job? Wow.

We also know that as more women move into a field, the field’s overall earnings go down. Given that, is it any wonder that English majors, seven in 10 of whom are women, tend to make less than engineers, eight in 10 of whom are men?

It took a while to get here, but we've finally arrived. There's a correlation between men leaving a field and average earnings in that field declining. Has she not considered reverse causation? Research indicates that men prioritize earnings growth more than women [2]. It seems entirely more convincing to me that men depart a field due to the decline in earnings, not that greedy employers see women and think "cheap labour."

This speaks to a broader point: the whole question of whether a student should choose Stem versus the humanities, or a vocational course versus a liberal arts degree, might be misguided to begin with. It’s not as if most of us have an equal amount of passion and aptitude for, say, accounting and art history. Plenty of people know what they love most. They just don’t know if they should pursue it. And the headlines most of us see don’t help.

A somewhat ambivalent conclusion to a troubled piece. The reality is that people really do agonize over the decision between pursuing their passion and looking for the best economic opportunity. Not everyone who completes a liberal arts degree can get a nice job blogging for the BBC. Tons and tons of them end up severely underemployed, usually in retail or low-level office positions. It's irresponsible to tell people anything other than the reality of this situation. Trying to convince them to just go for the "worthless" degree, despite these economic realities, is unfair and unhelpful.

[1] http://www.johnnietfeld.com/uploads/2/2/6/0/22606800/huber_k...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w22173.pdf

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the US PhD takes five to seven years is because most students enter it without a Master's degree. In the UK it only takes two or three years because they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first.

> they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first No that's not the case at all - most people do a three-years bachelors and then a three-year PhD. That's the expected route for a PhD in the UK. Doing a masters in between would look like you were starting to drag it out a bit. And the first year of your PhD is worth a masters if you chose to drop out at that point.

Not many candidates finish a CS PhD in three years. Four is probably the mean, with three and five being the typical upper and lower ranges.

Often the funding dries up after three years, but the student soldiers on anyway because they're well past the point of no return, or because their advisor can employ them in some other capacity like a teaching or research assistant.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the US PhD takes five to seven years is because most students enter it without a Master's degree. In the UK it only takes two or three years because they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first.

> they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first No that's not the case at all - most people do a three-years bachelors and then a three-year PhD. That's the expected route for a PhD in the UK. Doing a masters in between would look like you were starting to drag it out a bit. And the first year of your PhD is worth a masters if you chose to drop out at that point.

[deleted]

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#54

The main problem with the humanities is that they have been consumed by the political far left. That's sad, because English, history, and philosphy could be great programs. I remember I was struggling to get decent grades on my history papers. I was running out of patience and decided I just wanted to pass. So I just wrote what I thought the professor wanted to hear (far left BS) and started getting B's and even an A…

If you just want to write papers about whatever you want to write papers about, why take a class? The professor is supposed to give you push-back.

Anyway, I studied those subjects in college and had zero issues with professors pushing political agendas. I did, though, have professors push back and give me poor grades on papers where I either didn't understand the material, did a poor job thinking about the material, or had some issues with my writing style that hurt my ability to communicate my ideas. But those are fair reasons for low grades: Students should be compelled to improve those weaknesses. 'Tis the whole point.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the US PhD takes five to seven years is because most students enter it without a Master's degree. In the UK it only takes two or three years because they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first.

> they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first No that's not the case at all - most people do a three-years bachelors and then a three-year PhD. That's the expected route for a PhD in the UK. Doing a masters in between would look like you were starting to drag it out a bit. And the first year of your PhD is worth a masters if you chose to drop out at that point.

Really? Is this a relatively recent change? I have a degree from the UK and what you're saying runs counter to my experience...

Does this depend on the field? In my experience most students do a three year bachelors, a one or two year Master's, and then a three year PhD.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or not needing a 4 year college if it aims to be vocational? US colleges could absolutely drop the fourth year tomorrow if they wanted to. Many excellent European universities get it done in three and get results just as good. The real waste of time is the US PhD - doing in seven years what could be done in two or three.

The reason the US PhD takes five to seven years is because most students enter it without a Master's degree. In the UK it only takes two or three years because they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first.

>The reason the US PhD takes five to seven years is because most students enter it without a Master's degree. In the UK it only takes two or three years because they generally need to complete a relevant Master's degree first.

In a number of countries, the MS is 2 years, and the PhD is capped at 3 years. That's still a total of 5 years. If you don't get the PhD done in 3 years, that's fine, but the funding is capped at 3 years, so pretty much everyone gets it done in that time frame.

The reason it takes 5-7 in the US is because the advisors want it to be that way, and because of the glut in funding in some programs.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#57

The main problem with the humanities is that they have been consumed by the political far left. That's sad, because English, history, and philosphy could be great programs. I remember I was struggling to get decent grades on my history papers. I was running out of patience and decided I just wanted to pass. So I just wrote what I thought the professor wanted to hear (far left BS) and started getting B's and even an A…

That's very strange to hear. I'm not sure where you studied but when I studied history at university papers were assessed in terms of argument construction, and how you assessed other historians work, and all you said had to be referenced in some way. Whether the lecturer agreed with your conclusion or not was not the basis of your mark.

I think parent post might be alluding to the saying, history is written by the victor. Here in Africa we have freedom fighters who started out as brave and selfless people fighting against colonialism. Once they became elected officials unfortunately a significant number fell into the money trap or were naive when it came to structuring deals with foreign bodies, resulting in messed up corrupt economies. How you view these leaders largely depends on your outlook in life (and probably age). Some see them as villains who have take us even further back than we were and others see them as the heroes they were 40 years ago. If I wanted to pass in my home country I would stick to the hero theme.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#58
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple interesting anecdotes. My first boss had multiple degrees in music, and was a professional touring classical musician. He self taught himself programming because he needed to actually make some money. Now he's a CTO at a large company. My next boss had a degree in English. His thought was that no matter what he did with his life, communication was always at the center. He had founded 2 different tech compani…

> often even then only if they want to work at a FAANG for that first job. Where people end up 5-10-15-20 years later in their career has little to do with their degree. As someone who doesn't have a CS degree, I found that FAANG companies were much more willing to take a risk on someone without a degree getting their first job than many smaller companies.

Great point. The only caveat I would point out is that a candidate has to pass what is effectively a test of what a typical undergrad in CS learns. A 20 year old could certainly study and do that on their own, but the typical self-taught person is not necessarily learning those quiz type questions.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#59

I have friends from university with degrees in history, classics, theology, that make 3x what I do as a software engineer with a PhD. They work in things like corporate intelligence, risk analysis, planning and operations. Really high-powered serious stuff that makes what I do look rather trivial. They get hired as their companies want diversity of thought and the main job requirement is just being smart, switched-on…

I’m guessing they went to top schools. That’s the issue. Humanity degrees at lower tier schools don’t open doors, and a lot of people are borrowing a lot of money to get degrees with a poor ROI.

I don't think that is limited to the humanities.

Re: Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

#60

The main problem with the humanities is that they have been consumed by the political far left. That's sad, because English, history, and philosphy could be great programs. I remember I was struggling to get decent grades on my history papers. I was running out of patience and decided I just wanted to pass. So I just wrote what I thought the professor wanted to hear (far left BS) and started getting B's and even an A…

I will just say this was not my experience. In my Arab Israeli crisis class, for example, we were encouraged to see and role play Palestinian and Israeli points of view, as well of those of the various nation states involved. You can’t get much more politically charged then that, and we needed to genuinely understand very “conservative” and “liberal” policy points of view.

I met a Palestinian on a plane once, and we had a long conversation. He was born in an area that is now Jordan, but was not Jordan when he lived there. Later, he was flying through, and they claimed he was a Jordanian that hadn't performed his mandatory military service, and wouldn't let him leave. He eventually got away by the skin of his teeth when he found a higher up who took pity on him, and allowed him to leave as long as he "promised to return".

Very interesting person and I learned a lot about what's going on in that region and why it's so hard to resolve in a way consistent with our modern values.

Post reply on HN