If you major in STEM, it doesn't matter where you go

[SearchingforPeace]

If You Major in STEM, It Doesn’t Matter Where You Go to College - The American Interest


Very interesting for those of you looking at college majors and colleges. If you are going STEM, just find a decent state school and get the education and get a job without the massive debt..... Other fields, not so much. Nice to see some data on this.....

 

[Dyslexxie]

Oh hell yes, I 100% agree on this. I'm not American but it's a fairly similar here too, and STEM training is much more employable than many other majors/degrees, regardless of where that education is from. Our tech college grads are way more likely to find jobs than actual university grads lol.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Very interesting for those of you looking at college majors and colleges. If you are going STEM, just find a decent state school and get the education and get a job without the massive debt..... Other fields, not so much. Nice to see some data on this.....

How is it for other fields? I'd say regardless, if you can't get in to a top 5/10 for that domain, don't be a hero, go to a community/state school. Intern experience or self work experience/portfolios will be more advantageous than academics in that scenario anyways so might as well make sure you have the time for that instead of working at Starbucks or a shitty craft beer bar all your extra time.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Oh hell yes, I 100% agree on this. I'm not American but it's a fairly similar here too, and STEM training is much more employable than many other majors/degrees, regardless of where that education is from. Our tech college grads are way more likely to find jobs than actual university grads lol.

Glad for your perspective. I wish high school kids were given this information (along with real employment rates and wages for majors) while looking at schools. I suspect we would get a lot less of some majors, but that might not be a bad thing, as quantity is not the same thing as quality.

 

[Dyslexxie]

Glad for your perspective. I wish high school kids were given this information (along with real employment rates and wages for majors) while looking at schools. I suspect we would get a lot less of some majors, but that might not be a bad thing, as quantity is not the same thing as quality.

I think a lot of people are unrealistic with their education and expect to just ~find their passion by ~exploring different majors. The truth is that's not generally the case. I'm sorry, how many people can be passionate about psychology and sociology ffs? At the end of the day a job is a job, and people need to look at employability/wage and other more realistic aspects of the job world a lot more than what they think they're ~passionate about.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

How is it for other fields? I'd say regardless, if you can't get in to a top 5/10 for that domain, don't be a hero, go to a community/state school. Intern experience or self work experience/portfolios will be more advantageous than academics in that scenario anyways so might as well make sure you have the time for that instead of working at Starbucks or a shitty craft beer bar all your extra time.

The article said that it was especially true for business (don't be a business major unless you go to a very selective program).

I don't know if you need to be in a top 10 school (but that helps in many fields), but getting bang for you buck is real. Extremely expensive liberal arts colleges might get a very well rounded education, but might not prepare you for any college career. I find it really odd that so many teachers at my childrens' schools got their BA at expensive private colleges. Not really the best use of the money (which might have come from daddy, but I really hope it wasn't student loans).

 

[EcK]

I think a lot of people are unrealistic with their education and expect to just ~find their passion by ~exploring different majors. The truth is that's not generally the case. I'm sorry, how many people can be passionate about psychology and sociology ffs? At the end of the day a job is a job, and people need to look at employability/wage and other more realistic aspects of the job world a lot more than what they think they're ~passionate about.

I think liberal arts should disappear from univ. I mean, they are a HOBBY, not a damn professional training 90% of the time.
There's plenty of audiobooks and online lectures on the topic already.

And as there seem to be a varied 'usage' of the term liberal arts I'm referring to:
Philosophy
linguistics
languages
Arts (from painting to acting)
psychology
religious studies
geography (we have this thing called google maps now)
sociology
history (we have this thing called wikipedia)


Which pretty much all mean "paying tens of thousand in college at least / costing as much in tax to end up getting a job at starbucks". In most cases the best average outcome for these people is to end up TEACHING these topics. Which is kind of a circular argument.

I love coffee, but you don't need college for that. People studying these topics are unlikely to ever apply these skills to their careers / make money out of it. All they achieve it getting into debt or costing their parents 100 more than the value of the knowledge (about 1000 usd max)

ps: psychology and sociology are special cases, one day they will be real sciences, but at the moment is little more than modern witch doctoring. (see https://www.theguardian.com/science...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results)

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I think liberal arts should disappear from univ. I mean, they are a HOBBY, not a damn professional training 90% of the time.

I need to disagree. Maybe decrease the liberal arts majors, but I find one of the great faults in most American universities is that they have largely done away with basic liberal arts requirements. As such, someone can graduate without anything but a few pop culture classes masquerading as higher education. Most schools no longer require history or civilization surveys, language or literature surveys, or science survey courses.

A proper liberal arts education helps someone to learn to think. Not everyone needs it, but it really transform the youthful and ignorant and narrow-minded to a critical thinker.

STEM majors especially need this, because too many are lacking in the skill sets naturally. But all majors generally are greatly benefited by a good and solid basis in understanding the world around them. It can't really be done before college for most people due to cognitive development factors. As such, most need to have a broad base of education to help them gain perspective.

MY ENTJ friend, a business major, says his favorite case in college was a history course, that helped him to see things so much better. His story is not unique in the least.

So, I don't think we need as many grads in these fields (the demand just is not there), but we want everyone to gain from the experience of having a broader base of knowledge and understanding.

 

[EcK]

I need to disagree. Maybe decrease the liberal arts majors, but I find one of the great faults in most American universities is that they have largely done away with basic liberal arts requirements. As such, someone can graduate without anything but a few pop culture classes masquerading as higher education. Most schools no longer require history or civilization surveys, language or literature surveys, or science survey courses.

A proper liberal arts education helps someone to learn to think. Not everyone needs it, but it really transform the youthful and ignorant and narrow-minded to a critical thinker.

STEM majors especially need this, because too many are lacking in the skill sets naturally. But all majors generally are greatly benefited by a good and solid basis in understanding the world around them. It can't really be done before college for most people due to cognitive development factors. As such, most need to have a broad base of education to help them gain perspective.

MY ENTJ friend, a business major, says his favorite case in college was a history course, that helped him to see things so much better. His story is not unique in the least.

So, I don't think we need as many grads in these fields (the demand just is not there), but we want everyone to gain from the experience of having a broader base of knowledge and understanding.

*starts reading*
Ok let me rephrase it: some of these are BASICS of education. IE: you should start teaching people how to think from an early age.
I'm all for, and have always been, teachings children classical greek/roman style education. giving people the tools to think before cramming data in their heads.
The fact we don't do that early on is one of the reason why most people are such utter morons.

If you haven't figured out how to think for yourself by 18 you are pretty much doomed to a life of stupor. You can't undo a lifetime of blindly learning stuff for most of your life with 100h of college courses. There's no point in making it a univ. topic.

Doing it to 18-20 year olds who need a job rather than knowing more about how feminism serves no purpose today is more of an institution of deluded conmen than a university.

 

[Dyslexxie]

I think liberal arts should disappear from univ. I mean, they are a HOBBY, not a damn professional training 90% of the time.
There's plenty of audiobooks and online lectures on the topic already.

And as there seem to be a varied 'usage' of the term liberal arts I'm referring to:
Philosophy
linguistics
languages
Arts (from painting to acting)
psychology
religious studies
geography (we have this thing called google maps now)
sociology
history (we have this thing called wikipedia)


Which pretty much all mean "paying tens of thousand in college at least / costing as much in tax to end up getting a job at starbucks". In most cases the best average outcome for these people is to end up TEACHING these topics. Which is kind of a circular argument.

I love coffee, but you don't need college for that. People studying these topics are unlikely to ever apply these skills to their careers / make money out of it. All they achieve it getting into debt or costing their parents 100 more than the value of the knowledge (about 1000 usd max)

ps: psychology and sociology are special cases, one day they will be real sciences, but at the moment is little more than modern witch doctoring. (see https://www.theguardian.com/science...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results)

I don't know if I agree that they should disappear necessarily, but I think they should be treated as more on an interest based education than something that actually leads to a career (often times is doesn't, and a lot of people with those degrees don't even use those degrees). I would say for a lot of those subjects people could simply study them on their own on an interest basis (like you said, just a hobby) instead of throwing money at something they like but don't know how to use towards an actual career, but at the end of the day, it's not MY money so it's not my problem.

I know faaaaaaar too many people that have degrees in all the above so I gotta keep my mouth shut here lol.

 

[EcK]

I don't know if I agree that they should disappear necessarily, but I think they should be treated as more on an interest based education than something that actually leads to a career (often times is doesn't, and a lot of people with those degrees don't even use those degrees). I would say for a lot of those subjects people could simply study them on their own on an interest basis (like you said, just a hobby) instead of throwing money at something they like but don't know how to use towards an actual career, but at the end of the day, it's not MY money so it's not my problem.

I know faaaaaaar too many people that have degrees in all the above so I gotta keep my mouth shut here lol.

So in essence you're saying that it should be treated as more of a ... hobby.

ie: not something people should spend 100,000 dollars of higher education on.
ie: you actually agree with me, you just think that people should 'choose'. However if liberal arts is about teaching people how to think, then anyone who needs to study it at that point in their lives shouldn't be trusted to have made the right decision in selecting it as a field of higher education in the first place.

During my college time I've studied all these topics and many more in my free time. As a.. yes.. hobby.

 

[Dyslexxie]

So in essence you're saying that it should be treated as more of a ... hobby.

ie: not something people should spend 100,000 dollars of higher education on.
ie: you actually agree with me, you just think that people should 'choose'. However if liberal arts is about teaching people how to think, then anyone who needs to study it at that point in their lives shouldn't be trusted to have made the right decision in selecting it as a field of higher education in the first place.

During my college time I've studied all these topics and many more in my free time. As a.. yes.. hobby.

Haha yeah I guess, the only part I would disagree with it taking the studies out of college. People should study whatever topic they want, even if it's useless, but they should at least be better informed.

Yeah same here...I wish there was a higher emphasis places on technical studies but that's just my personal bias.

 

[EcK]

Haha yeah I guess, the only part I would disagree with it taking the studies out of college. People should study whatever topic they want, even if it's useless, but they should at least be better informed.

Yeah same here...I wish there was a higher emphasis places on technical studies but that's just my personal bias.

It's not a bias, it's about ROI.
Studying in univs or colleges is an investment. (whether tax or loan or ..) a technical field has practical applications, most of 'liberal arts' have nearly none.
As to philosophy, most of philosophy majors I've met were idiots. So... again. These are skills that should be acquired early in life.

Did socrates need to quote other people to be one of the greatest philosophers in history? Nop.
The man never even wrote a book, he just talked to people.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

*starts reading*
Ok let me rephrase it: some of these are BASICS of education. IE: you should start teaching people how to think from an early age.
Doing it to 18-20 year olds who need a job rather than knowing more about how feminism serves no purpose today is more of an institution of deluded conmen than a university.

I have had a few discussions with people who are experts in the field of learning. For most people, that lack the cognitive capacity until age 18 or so to really "think". So, much of freshman year in college is supposed to be helping the student who could only know some facts to get understanding. Efforts at increasing critical thinking at a younger age are largely futile, because most people lack the cognitive ability to do so at the age, even though they will have the capacity at a later age.

Of course, as colleges have been altered by PC advocates, most of this disappeared. Critical thinking is rejected and indoctrination is the norm.

I just read a disturbing piece today about a disabled vet being kicked out of a journalism class (and subsequently losing his benefits) because the teacher objected to his views on feminism and was going to fail him based upon his viewpoint. Other students had complained about this professor on student rating sites, so it was not just this one, he just had the fortitude to stand his ground and not be indoctrinated. And this happened at a private formerly religious school that is now mostly secular.

Ultimately, the university model of requiring some general liberal arts classes followed by rigorous training in a specialty field is good, but execution today has been ruined. I suspect much of the current disconnect politically can be traced to the lack of developing critical thinking skills, rather than just developing a narrow skill set.

Now, I do believe more rigorous high school requirements would be better, but efforts to install reasoning skills at a very young age seem destined to failure. My children have lots of these things, and it just causes confusion. They don't want them to even just memorize simple things like multiplication tables, because they want them to solve the problems each time rather than just spit out answers. So I work with my children at home to compensate for the failings of the schools. It is annoying that they want to run before they can walk and they end up being able to run or walk.

So, ultimately, make college more rigorous all around, especially by bringing back those un PC topics like history, literature, math, science, and art for all majors and not allowing them to substituted with "the sexuality of Lady Gaga".

And by disclosing to students that there are no careers in a given field and the pay sucks even if you get a job, students will not be leaving with $150k of student loans only to work at Starbucks.....

 

[EcK]

I have had a few discussions with people who are experts in the field of learning. For most people, that lack the cognitive capacity until age 18 or so to really "think". So, much of freshman year in college is supposed to be helping the student who could only know some facts to get understanding. Efforts at increasing critical thinking at a younger age are largely futile, because most people lack the cognitive ability to do so at the age, even though they will have the capacity at a later age.

Of course, as colleges have been altered by PC advocates, most of this disappeared. Critical thinking is rejected and indoctrination is the norm.

I just read a disturbing piece today about a disabled vet being kicked out of a journalism class (and subsequently losing his benefits) because the teacher objected to his views on feminism and was going to fail him based upon his viewpoint. Other students had complained about this professor on student rating sites, so it was not just this one, he just had the fortitude to stand his ground and not be indoctrinated. And this happened at a private formerly religious school that is now mostly secular.

Ultimately, the university model of requiring some general liberal arts classes followed by rigorous training in a specialty field is good, but execution today has been ruined. I suspect much of the current disconnect politically can be traced to the lack of developing critical thinking skills, rather than just developing a narrow skill set.

Now, I do believe more rigorous high school requirements would be better, but efforts to install reasoning skills at a very young age seem destined to failure. My children have lots of these things, and it just causes confusion. They don't want them to even just memorize simple things like multiplication tables, because they want them to solve the problems each time rather than just spit out answers. So I work with my children at home to compensate for the failings of the schools. It is annoying that they want to run before they can walk and they end up being able to run or walk.

So, ultimately, make college more rigorous all around, especially by bringing back those un PC topics like history, literature, math, science, and art for all majors and not allowing them to substituted with "the sexuality of Lady Gaga".

And by disclosing to students that there are no careers in a given field and the pay sucks even if you get a job, students will not be leaving with $150k of student loans only to work at Starbucks.....

I have to go out so i'll only be answering the first 3 lines of your posts (sorry : P)
anyway, IF THEY LACK THE COGNITIVE ABILITY then they should stick to learning useful skills, learning 'how tos' rather than 'whys'.
That's what modern higher ed does best. Our society needs alot high-level skills of which only a minority of people have any talents in. It's best at teaching people to regurgitate skills they couldn't get on their own given access to the same data.

Going to a school where they get taught by the same type of people who lacked the discernement to choose a better path is kind of an egg / chicken scenario.

There's no point wasting tens of thousands on doing the same thing with people who've already showed that they have no natural talent for thinking on their own.

More importantly, there's no return on investment. They could read books and get the same skills, there's no point going to uni. for that.
We are not in the days when 'gentlemen of leisure' could afford to spend the family fortune on what is now referred to as 'liberal arts', nowadays we have this thing called unemployment.

I think it's about time to get real.

They don't want them to even just memorize simple things like multiplication tables, because they want them to solve the problems each time rather than just spit out answers. So I work with my children at home to compensate for the failings of the schools. It is annoying that they want to run before they can walk and they end up being able to run or walk.

you seem to be describing what I was dreaming about when in school. Education is NOT supposed to be easy
No pain no gain and all that. Though it's true that this DOES require skilled teachers.

 

[Duffy]

I pretty much did just this. I went to a local state uni and majored in STEM and figured I can do all the liberal arts stuff on the side. It did work out well for me, but I find it odd they had to write an article on this. The people I knew who majored in things other than STEM did it because that's what they were passionate about....pretty sure they were aware the grim prospects. And no, they weren't dumb dumbs. /anecdotal

 

[1487610420]

 

[grey_beard]

*starts reading*
Ok let me rephrase it: some of these are BASICS of education. IE: you should start teaching people how to think from an early age.
I'm all for, and have always been, teachings children classical greek/roman style education. giving people the tools to think before cramming data in their heads.
The fact we don't do that early on is one of the reason why most people are such utter morons.

If you haven't figured out how to think for yourself by 18 you are pretty much doomed to a life of stupor. You can't undo a lifetime of blindly learning stuff for most of your life with 100h of college courses. There's no point in making it a univ. topic.

Doing it to 18-20 year olds who need a job rather than knowing more about how feminism serves no purpose today is more of an institution of deluded conmen than a university.

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION], [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] --

Throwing my 2 cents in.

1) In STEM, it doesn't matter where you go nearly as much, because the physical world being studied, and the mathematics used to describe it, is the same no matter where you go; if one is looking at "the frontiers of knowledge" that makes a difference, but at the undergrad level most people are learning stuff that is (roughly) 70 years old or older (chemistry/physics; and biochem and nursing excepted).
2) Outside of STEM, it used to be that one studied to become "well rounded"...the wealthy went to school to get a broad summary of human wisdom; or, many went to school to prepare for the clergy (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton started more or less as divinity schools, for example). Over time, the classical disciplines lost their primacy to "natural philosophy"; and, in turn, the sciences divided into applied and pure, with the applied becoming engineering and/or trade schools. Nowadays, the main advantage of exclusive schools are the snob appeal, the opportunity for networking, and the role as gatekeepers to certain professions (e.g. Wall Street or elite business).

That being said, it is quite obvious that with the infestation / saturation of the academy by postmodernist Gramscians, something has been lost. Here is a rather nifty essay written, err, yesteryear, about how to remedy the problem.

The Lost Tools of Learning

 

[Seymour]

I went to a small (regionally well regarded) SLA school in Texas. When and moved to Boston and continued worked as a computer programmer with a bunch of Harvard and MIT grads. I was intimidated... but turns out I did just fine and better than most. So going to a smaller name school worked out well for me (although I think my education was very solid, and better than many get at bigger name schools).

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I want to a small (regionally well regarded) SLA school in Texas. When and moved to Boston and container worked as a computer programmer with a bunch of Harvard and MIT grads, I was intimidated. But turns out I did just fine and better than most. So going to a smaller name school worked out well for me (although I think my education was very solid, and better than many get at bigger name schools).

I think you made a good choice.

Of course, at many if not most major research universities, many undergrad courses are taught by grad students, while at many regional schools, professors are more likely to teach undergrad courses.