Parental pressure against the liberal arts

When I assigned an 800-page biography of Andrew Carnegie for a new undergraduate course on wealth and poverty at George Mason University a few years ago, I wasn’t sure the students would actually read it. Not only did most of them make it to the end, however, but many thanked me for giving them the chance to read a popular work of history. Curious, I inquired how many were history majors. Of the 24 honors students in the seminar, there were none. English? Philosophy? Fine arts? Only one. How was this possible? I asked. Almost in unison, half a dozen replied: “Our parents wouldn’t let us.”

The results were similar when I surveyed freshmen in another honors seminar this spring. This time, I asked how many would have been humanities majors if the only criteria were what they were interested in and what they were good at. Ten of the 24 raised their hands.

I was aware, of course, of the drift toward pre-professionalism on college campuses, of widespread concern over student debt, of stories about college-educated baristas living in basements, of governors threatening to cut off state funding for French literature and anthropology. Even so, I found it shocking that some of the brightest students in Virginia had been misled — by parents, the media, politicians and, alas, each other — into thinking that choosing English or history as a major would doom them to lives as impecunious schoolteachers.

And it’s not just at state schools like Mason. Harvard University professor Jill Lepore recalled hosting an information session at her home for undergraduates interested in a program she directs on history and literature. One student who attended, Lepore told the New York Times, kept getting text messages from her parents ordering her to leave the meeting immediately.

confuzzled dude wrote:

When I assigned an 800-page biography of Andrew Carnegie for a new undergraduate course on wealth and poverty at George Mason University a few years ago, I wasn’t sure the students would actually read it. Not only did most of them make it to the end, however, but many thanked me for giving them the chance to read a popular work of history. Curious, I inquired how many were history majors. Of the 24 honors students in the seminar, there were none. English? Philosophy? Fine arts? Only one. How was this possible? I asked. Almost in unison, half a dozen replied: “Our parents wouldn’t let us.”

The results were similar when I surveyed freshmen in another honors seminar this spring. This time, I asked how many would have been humanities majors if the only criteria were what they were interested in and what they were good at. Ten of the 24 raised their hands.

I was aware, of course, of the drift toward pre-professionalism on college campuses, of widespread concern over student debt, of stories about college-educated baristas living in basements, of governors threatening to cut off state funding for French literature and anthropology. Even so, I found it shocking that some of the brightest students in Virginia had been misled — by parents, the media, politicians and, alas, each other — into thinking that choosing English or history as a major would doom them to lives as impecunious schoolteachers.

And it’s not just at state schools like Mason. Harvard University professor Jill Lepore recalled hosting an information session at her home for undergraduates interested in a program she directs on history and literature. One student who attended, Lepore told the New York Times, kept getting text messages from her parents ordering her to leave the meeting immediately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/meet-the-parents-who-wont-let-their-children-study-literature/?tid=pm_pop_b&utm_term=.c13e3350c972

So, it's just not Asians..

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I read this article this morning. I don't think this guy really knows anything about modern STEM curricula in the U.S.

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I read this article this morning. I don't think this guy really knows anything about modern STEM curricula in the U.S.

what should he know about modern stem curricula in the u.s.?

swapna wrote:
how do you know?

I certainly got that sense when I buttonholed students and parents at an information session this spring for high school seniors who had been accepted to Mason. “To spend $80,000 on a history degree, I’d need to see a way forward” to a career, said Kyle Tucker of Fredericksburg, Va., as he stood with his son in the long line in front of the engineering school’s booth. (The boy was torn between cybersecurity and accounting.) Bradley Gray of Richmond told me that he enjoys history, but “it’s hard to get a job with a history degree — that’s what I hear, anyway

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I read this article this morning. I don't think this guy really knows anything about modern STEM curricula in the U.S.

what should he know about modern stem curricula in the u.s.?

He had a lot of things to say about STEM curricula by implication, none of which I agree with.

confuzzled dude wrote:

swapna wrote:
how do you know?

First of all, Asian student population in GMU is < 20%. secondly, names mentioned in the article (see below) don't sound Asian.

I certainly got that sense when I buttonholed students and parents at an information session this spring for high school seniors who had been accepted to Mason. “To spend $80,000 on a history degree, I’d need to see a way forward” to a career, said Kyle Tucker of Fredericksburg, Va., as he stood with his son in the long line in front of the engineering school’s booth. (The boy was torn between cybersecurity and accounting.) Bradley Gray of Richmond told me that he enjoys history, but “it’s hard to get a job with a history degree — that’s what I hear, anyway

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I read this article this morning. I don't think this guy really knows anything about modern STEM curricula in the U.S.

what should he know about modern stem curricula in the u.s.?

He had a lot of things to say about STEM curricula by implication, none of which I agree with.

the author has very little to say about stem curricula, directly, or by implication. 

the article criticizes parents who force college students into majors such as accounting and engineering that lead directly to jobs soon after graduation, and yield what they consider a high return on investment. the key word here is "force."

people have talents, propensities, tendencies, likes, and dislikes. one's children are people too, especially after they are about eighteen; they are not tools to be manipulated and forced into careers and lifestyles that clash with their internal make-up, in order to fatten the parent's ego.

Rather, the idea was that after a period of broad intellectual exploration, a major was supposed to give students the experience of mastering one subject, in the process developing skills such as discipline, persistence, and how to research, analyze, communicate clearly and think logically.

As it happens, those are precisely the skills business executives still say they want from college graduates — although, to be fair, that has not always been communicated to their human-resource departments or the computers they use to sort through résumés. A study for the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers agreed that a “demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than [a job candidate’s] undergraduate major.”

In today’s fast-changing global economy, the most successful enterprises aren’t looking for workers who know a lot about only one thing. They are seeking employees who are nimble, curious and innovative. The work done by lower-level accountants, computer programmers, engineers, lawyers and financial analysts is already being outsourced to India and the Philippines; soon it will be done by computers. The good jobs of the future will go to those who can collaborate widely, think broadly and challenge conventional wisdom — precisely the capacities that a liberal arts education is meant to develop.

swapna wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

swapna wrote:
how do you know?

First of all, Asian student population in GMU is < 20%. secondly, names mentioned in the article (see below) don't sound Asian.

I certainly got that sense when I buttonholed students and parents at an information session this spring for high school seniors who had been accepted to Mason. “To spend $80,000 on a history degree, I’d need to see a way forward” to a career, said Kyle Tucker of Fredericksburg, Va., as he stood with his son in the long line in front of the engineering school’s booth. (The boy was torn between cybersecurity and accounting.) Bradley Gray of Richmond told me that he enjoys history, but “it’s hard to get a job with a history degree — that’s what I hear, anyway

kyle tucker and bradley gray are only two of the approximately 5,500 students entering gmu as freshmen. present at the information session would also have been many of the 800 or so asian students and their parents. 

that the author of the article remembers bradley gray rather than karunakaran venkatasubramanian or xianzing deng does not mean that the asians are not as concerned about immediate return on investment as the wasps are. indeed, asians are notorious for forcing children into majors that bear (financial) fruit soon after graduation, regardless of talents or long-term well-being.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i agree with one thing wholeheartedly though -- accounting does have the ring of the most soul-destroying undergraduate major. how does one choose to do that when one is 18?

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i agree with one thing wholeheartedly though -- accounting does have the ring of the most soul-destroying undergraduate major. how does one choose to do that when one is 18?

You like carnatic music. Some kid likes accounting. So why ask how?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i agree with one thing wholeheartedly though -- accounting does have the ring of the most soul-destroying undergraduate major. how does one choose to do that when one is 18?

You like carnatic music. Some kid likes accounting. So why ask how?

true there is no accounting (heheh...) for tastes.  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i agree with one thing wholeheartedly though -- accounting does have the ring of the most soul-destroying undergraduate major. how does one choose to do that when one is 18?

You like carnatic music. Some kid likes accounting. So why ask how?

true there is no accounting (heheh...) for tastes.  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i agree with one thing wholeheartedly though -- accounting does have the ring of the most soul-destroying undergraduate major. how does one choose to do that when one is 18?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I read this article this morning. I don't think this guy really knows anything about modern STEM curricula in the U.S.

what should he know about modern stem curricula in the u.s.?

He had a lot of things to say about STEM curricula by implication, none of which I agree with.

the author has very little to say about stem curricula, directly, or by implication. 

the article criticizes parents who force college students into majors such as accounting and engineering that lead directly to jobs soon after graduation, and yield what they consider a high return on investment. the key word here is "force."

people have talents, propensities, tendencies, likes, and dislikes. one's children are people too, especially after they are about eighteen; they are not tools to be manipulated and forced into careers and lifestyles that clash with their internal make-up, in order to fatten the parent's ego.

i have no disagreement with you or the author on not forcing youngsters into majors that are wholly unsuited to their inclinations.  but the parents' angst is understandable given the enormous increases in tuition over the last several decades. most have unfortunately started viewing education as a commodity. i don't agree with this view, but it is the economic reality.

however, this in particular is what i have a problem with:

Rather, the idea was that after a period of broad intellectual exploration, a major was supposed to give students the experience of mastering one subject, in the process developing skills such as discipline, persistence, and how to research, analyze, communicate clearly and think logically.

As it happens, those are precisely the skills business executives still say they want from college graduates — although, to be fair, that has not always been communicated to their human-resource departments or the computers they use to sort through résumés. A study for the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers agreed that a “demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than [a job candidate’s] undergraduate major.”

In today’s fast-changing global economy, the most successful enterprises aren’t looking for workers who know a lot about only one thing. They are seeking employees who are nimble, curious and innovative. The work done by lower-level accountants, computer programmers, engineers, lawyers and financial analysts is already being outsourced to India and the Philippines; soon it will be done by computers. The good jobs of the future will go to those who can collaborate widely, think broadly and challenge conventional wisdom — precisely the capacities that a liberal arts education is meant to develop.

since he has been talking a lot about liberal arts majors and the humanities in the preceding paragraphs, the implication here is that STEM disciplines don't do this as well. according to him, the ability to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is better acquired through a non-STEM education! i disagree.

** you probably disgree because you see only those components of "complex problems" that your narrow, specialized education has trained your mind to see.

** you generated power by nuclear fission, but were blind to the problem of nuclear waste disposal; you built a vast network of national highways and filled it with polluting automobiles, causing environmental degradation and climate change.

** you overlooked obvious, efficient solutions - for example, fast trains - to the problem of medium- and long-distance travel in a vast country because that problem is too complex for engineers to solve; you can see only parts of it; by training, you can't see the whole.

aside from political and social problems,...

** "aside from?" nearly every problem has political and social components, including those that you deem to be technological.

the world's most complex problems are all looking for scientific and technological solutions.

** I disagree, those problems are best solved by multi-talented people and teams.

with the lone exception of steve jobs,...

** yes, steve jobs was creative and driven, and he was not a stem person, but he was not a lone exception.

nearly all of the major innovators in the last 40 or so years have had some undergraduate STEM training.

** one of the great ideas of the twentieth century was that of lifting poor people out of poverty by giving them micro-loans, and transforming them into entrepreneurs. mohammed yunus of bangladesh, who put micro-lending into large-scale practice, and may have been the originator of the idea, was primarily an economist and sociologist; perhaps he had also had some early stem training.

** you can also thank frank lloyd wright, mies van der rohe (a minimalist) and other architects, for the pleasant environments in which we live, and the interesting buildings they designed, which enrich our lives every day. they are primarily artists and designers.

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:
what should he know about modern stem curricula in the u.s.?

He had a lot of things to say about STEM curricula by implication, none of which I agree with.

the author has very little to say about stem curricula, directly, or by implication. 

the article criticizes parents who force college students into majors such as accounting and engineering that lead directly to jobs soon after graduation, and yield what they consider a high return on investment. the key word here is "force."

people have talents, propensities, tendencies, likes, and dislikes. one's children are people too, especially after they are about eighteen; they are not tools to be manipulated and forced into careers and lifestyles that clash with their internal make-up, in order to fatten the parent's ego.

i have no disagreement with you or the author on not forcing youngsters into majors that are wholly unsuited to their inclinations.  but the parents' angst is understandable given the enormous increases in tuition over the last several decades. most have unfortunately started viewing education as a commodity. i don't agree with this view, but it is the economic reality.

however, this in particular is what i have a problem with:

Rather, the idea was that after a period of broad intellectual exploration, a major was supposed to give students the experience of mastering one subject, in the process developing skills such as discipline, persistence, and how to research, analyze, communicate clearly and think logically.

As it happens, those are precisely the skills business executives still say they want from college graduates — although, to be fair, that has not always been communicated to their human-resource departments or the computers they use to sort through résumés. A study for the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers agreed that a “demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than [a job candidate’s] undergraduate major.”

In today’s fast-changing global economy, the most successful enterprises aren’t looking for workers who know a lot about only one thing. They are seeking employees who are nimble, curious and innovative. The work done by lower-level accountants, computer programmers, engineers, lawyers and financial analysts is already being outsourced to India and the Philippines; soon it will be done by computers. The good jobs of the future will go to those who can collaborate widely, think broadly and challenge conventional wisdom — precisely the capacities that a liberal arts education is meant to develop.

since he has been talking a lot about liberal arts majors and the humanities in the preceding paragraphs, the implication here is that STEM disciplines don't do this as well. according to him, the ability to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is better acquired through a non-STEM education! i disagree.

** you probably disgree because you see only those components of "complex problems" that your narrow, specialized education has trained your mind to see.

** you generated power by nuclear fission, but were blind to the problem of nuclear waste disposal; you built a vast network of national highways and filled it with polluting automobiles, causing environmental degradation and climate change.

** you overlooked obvious, efficient solutions - for example, fast trains - to the problem of medium- and long-distance travel in a vast country because that problem is too complex for engineers to solve; you can see only parts of it; by training, you can't see the whole.

aside from political and social problems,...

** "aside from?" nearly every problem has political and social components, including those that you deem to be technological.

the world's most complex problems are all looking for scientific and technological solutions.

** I disagree, those problems are best solved by multi-talented people and teams.

with the lone exception of steve jobs,...

** yes, steve jobs was creative and driven, and he was not a stem person, but he was not a lone exception.

nearly all of the major innovators in the last 40 or so years have had some undergraduate STEM training.

** one of the great ideas of the twentieth century was that of lifting poor people out of poverty by giving them micro-loans, and transforming them into entrepreneurs. mohammed yunus of bangladesh, who put micro-lending into large-scale practice, and may have been the originator of the idea, was primarily an economist and sociologist; perhaps he had also had some early stem training.

** you can also thank frank lloyd wright, mies van der rohe (a minimalist) and other architects, for the pleasant environments in which we live, and the interesting buildings they designed, which enrich our lives every day. they are primarily artists and designers.

see **  above for my responses.