Less STEM majors, more liberal arts?

• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  This is for you sleeper...
  
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/18/we-dont-need-more-stem-majors-we-need-more-stem-majors-with-liberal-arts-training/
  
  
  
  To be fair, they're saying we need the STEM majors, just from liberal arts colleges. I've had this discussion with a friend from Denison. He thinks a degree from Denison in Physics or Chemistry is more valuable than an Engineering degree from a state school like OSU, Akron..etc... While I don't necessarily disagree, I also don't work with many Engineers not from technical universities. His thought process is that technical schools are fine for teaching you how to do a job, whereas a liberal arts degree would be better to teach you how to research/innovate in a field of study.
• TBone14

  

  Webpage wasn't available when I clicked on it but I think your friend is wrong.
  
  ABET accreditation Engineering majors will out-earn Physics and Chemistry grads working the field. If asked my opinion, I would recommend Electrical Engineering to anybody with the desire to enter a STEM major. A good BSEE is probably the safest bet to a stable and well paying career right now.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Well I don't disagree at all about technical degrees earning more as a standard. I also think people with technical degrees will have an easier time finding employment. I do see the points made about a liberal arts degree being valuable also. Any time you broaden your knowledge base, it serves to help innovation.
• sleeper

  

  Liberal arts are for trash.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  sleeper;1782749 wrote:Liberal arts are for trash.

  lol ok. Some of the countries finest universities are liberal arts colleges.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  I think there's a time and place for each. if you want to be an engineer and pretty much that's it, obviously a technical degree is the route to go. If you want to be a lawyer or researcher or executive someday, a liberal arts degree isn't a bad idea. you're pretty much guaranteed to go to graduate school anyways to get the specific skills, training you need. And a liberal arts undergrad will give you a nice foundation.
• jmog

  The premise is questionable. If I want a BS in Chem Eng whether it is from Ohio St or some liberal arts school, in order to be ABET accredited they will both have the same core class work.
  
  At Ohio St there are still liberal arts required electives (humanities, philosophy, etc). So at the end of the day the liberal arts college may have 1 or 2 electives switched from STEM classes to LA classes. Sorry, but I don't think 1 or 2 sociology classes vs studying under world renowned engineering research professors at a technical school is a better trade off.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  jmog;1782773 wrote:The premise is questionable. If I want a BS in Chem Eng whether it is from Ohio St or some liberal arts school, in order to be ABET accredited they will both have the same core class work.
  
  At Ohio St there are still liberal arts required electives (humanities, philosophy, etc). So at the end of the day the liberal arts college may have 1 or 2 electives switched from STEM classes to LA classes. Sorry, but I don't think 1 or 2 sociology classes vs studying under world renowned engineering research professors at a technical school is a better trade off.

  I think the main difference is there aren't a ton of Chemical Engineering programs at liberal art schools. You'd have to major in chemistry which wouldn't get you a job as a chemical engineer. Some have a 3/2 option where you attend a liberal arts school for 3 years then an engineering school for 2, but generally speaking, you aren't going to a LA school if you want to be an engineer.
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1782754 wrote:lol ok. Some of the countries finest universities are liberal arts colleges.

  Some of them are not. Your point?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  sleeper;1782791 wrote:Some of them are not. Your point?

  That you don't blindly generalize a type of university, unless you're sleeper.
• HitsRus

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1782772 wrote:I think there's a time and place for each. if you want to be an engineer and pretty much that's it, obviously a technical degree is the route to go. If you want to be a lawyer or researcher or executive someday, a liberal arts degree isn't a bad idea. you're pretty much guaranteed to go to graduate school anyways to get the specific skills, training you need. And a liberal arts undergrad will give you a nice foundation.

  No question in my mind that is correct. If you want to be a lab rat, or just work for somebody in the field, then a technical degree is sufficient. But if you want to run the lab, or manage the firm, then a liberal arts background is a big plus and advantage in moving up to make the big bucks. A STEM major at a liberal arts college, leading to advanced training in graduate school is a recipe for success.
  
  Of course, Zwick.... none of that matters if Bernie Sanders has his way....it won't be worth the effort.
• gut

  There are very few liberal arts programs in undergrad that will teach you jack shit about research. You don't need to drop a hundred grand to learn to use Google, although the people who do probably didn't know how to use Google.
• gut

  HitsRus;1783000 wrote:No question in my mind that is correct. If you want to be a lab rat, or just work for somebody in the field, then a technical degree is sufficient. But if you want to run the lab, or manage the firm, then a liberal arts background is a big plus and advantage in moving up to make the big bucks. A STEM major at a liberal arts college, leading to advanced training in graduate school is a recipe for success.

  I think the complete opposite. Companies don't do nearly as much training and development any more, partly because people change jobs so much. They are looking to colleges to provide people who can hit the ground running, which is real technical and functional skills.
  
  Then if you want to be a manager, you go get an MBA.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^well yeah, if that's your ultimate goal. A well rounded education with a working knowledge of things beyond your field of expertise and people skills are necessary ingredients to advancement, and will serve you well even if you move from job to job.... Maybe even more critical if you are in business for yourself .
• gut

  HitsRus;1783014 wrote:^^^well yeah, if that's your ultimate goal. A well rounded education with a working knowledge of things beyond your field of expertise and people skills are necessary ingredients to advancement.

  Sure, but I'd contend you'll get just as much out of reading a book as you will taking a class with respect to that. My ug is fairly well regarded, and I would tell you my "liberal arts" classes were typically the most useless ones I took.
  
  You go, or should go, to college for technical and functional skills. You are not becoming some great thinker or well-rounded with a few classes on the geography of rocks and African American Cinema. Complete crap. A myth colleges sell to justify $100k+ in tuition. Your college degree is primarily a screening tool to hiring companies (which is why free college at at the local Podunk U isn't getting anyone anywhere).
  
  Hell, even an MBA is overrated in terms of the actual value you get and in many cases you could just buy the books yourself. But it's a screening tool, a significant one in some cases where people leave good paying jobs and take on $100k+ to pay for a full-time program.
• iclfan2

  

  Agreed. Imagine how much smarter business majors would be if they took four years of business instead of having to take a language (not going to be fluent), or history of music, film, geology, weather, etc. the reality is those classes are jokes and kids will specifically take the easiest ones per ratemyprofessor. Being "well-rounded" is a lame excuse. I do think there are some classes everyone should take: basic English, speech, and some others. I could have graduated in 3 years if I just took my required plus some general classes. Or could be even more proficient in my field if I could focus on business related electives.
  
  The problem is, this 4 year thing keeps colleges making money.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• gut

  iclfan2;1783057 wrote: I do think there are some classes everyone should take: basic English, speech, and some others. I could have graduated in 3 years if I just took my required plus some general classes. Or could be even more proficient in my field if I could focus on business related electives.
  
  The problem is, this 4 year thing keeps colleges making money.

  I can barely remember what liberal arts courses I took, much less anything of value out of those. Honestly I got more "global" or "worldly" education out of some of my business classes like international econ and organizational behavior. And certainly a better framework for logic and problem solving.
  
  You are absolutely correct that many technical and functional degrees could be accomplished in 2 years, 3 max, if you cut out the unnecessary bullshit. Or you can get a 4-yr liberal arts degree, but I think we've seen that well-read does not equate to well-educated.
• OSH

  

  Blame the accrediting bodies, not the institutions. The accrediting bodies are what forces these decisions by institutions.
  
  Then, blame the companies/organizations who only hired students from accredited universities. If universities didn't seek to attain "accreditation," then they could possibly focus on more real-world, real-life applicable courses for specific fields. It has nothing to do with "technical" or "functional" degrees. It has everything to do with accreditation and what is being forced to the educational institutions.
  
  Look at nursing. It used to be a 2-year possibility for an RN. Now, not so much. Most nurses are being forced to go 4-years. It's not necessary. My mom has been a nurse for over 35 years with a 2-year RN nursing degree (when it was allowed, and recognized). Teachers are now being hired in different parts of the country without teaching licenses (if states allow it). One doesn't need to go to school for 4 years to be a teacher. It's required. So, institutions must make it 4 years.
  
  Blame accrediting agencies and blame policy makers. Without them, higher education would have a completely different structure. One could also make the argument that high school doesn't need to be 4 years, but that's not the topic of this thread.