That 'Useless' Liberal Arts Degree Has Become Tech's Hottest Ticket

Don't Panic, Liberal Arts Majors. The Tech World Wants You.

Dumb b--t--ds.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

First, let me say this has been a really nice debate.

blungld - I don't think raising the marginal income tax rate to 50% for people above $5M or even $1M is unreasonable, but as noted above, I also don't think it will move the needle. It certainly won't pay for all the things TB is asking for. I take your point however about removing power and influence. Maybe we should tie tax rates to political influence. Koch Brothers should pay 99% tax, by way of example.

For me, the thought experiment gets really interesting where I ask myself how I feel about personal liberty in a world where the state is providing more an more benefits. Similar to how parents say "not when you are living under my roof" I start to think that if society is paying for someone's healthcare we should be able to stop them from smoking, eating twinkies, etc. Ditto when it comes to paying for college. If someone wants to sow their wild oats and study 14th century folklore, more power to them. If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society. Maybe we need to expand the GE requirements to ensure our money is training and adequate modern workforce while still allowing people to pursue their passions.

I don't pretend to have the answers but I think there are a lot of questions that the "everything free for everyone" crowd doesn't seem to be asking.

---

Great questions. I don't have the answers either, and it is good that a lot of these things are FINALLY being discussed.

I wouldn't feel as you described about a person's choices. I don't think we should make laws about cooking on an open flame because I pay for the fire department. I do think a natural consequence of available and affordable healthcare and higher income would be a better eating and more health conscious society.

I think society is moved at the margins, not from the middle. I would want eccentricity and non-core study valued just as much as core. There will always be the vast majority ofd people who want to be bureaucrats and lawyers and doctors (which are all essential to society) as are artists/dreamers/eccentrics. I think it is a failing of society that we think of arts as non-core. We have this experience called life and the greatest minds of our species have contemplated it and what it means, and yet we relegate to fringe knowledge. Being and living in the world and understanding existence should be a core subject. I would not allow a kid to graduate from high school without taking a survey philosophy and logic class. Thinking is a lost art and a real vale for the person, the society, AND the economy.

Happy people who feel their life is valued and meaningful and who get this message from their society and its government policy, will be way more productive.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society.

---

I might prefer that we not be so ruthlessly transactional about education. Skills gained from education in the arts and humanities DO ALSO translate to productivity, just more indirectly. It's not a waste to invest in them along with STEM fields.

(I'll also reference Another Bear's posted articles about tech companies coming to see the value in humanities majors. I can also say that this matches my personal experience, working at a tech company -- I've been able to advance and gain promotion by leaning on the "people skills" I got from studying Theater Arts in college. Trust me, directing a stage production requires a lot more personality-juggling than anything I've had to do in my day job.)

I'm not against GenEd requirements, as a rule, to require a rounded education. My understanding is that most major universities already have those.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society.

---

I might prefer that we not be so ruthlessly transactional about education. Skills gained from education in the arts and humanities DO ALSO translate to productivity, just more indirectly. It's not a waste to invest in them along with STEM fields.

(I'll also reference Another Bear's posted articles about tech companies coming to see the value in humanities majors. I can also say that this matches my personal experience, working at a tech company -- I've been able to advance and gain promotion by leaning on the "people skills" I got from studying Theater Arts in college. Trust me, directing a stage production requires a lot more personality-juggling than anything I've had to do in my day job.)

I'm not against GenEd requirements, as a rule, to require a rounded education. My understanding is that most major universities already have those.

---

This reminds me of what my first year speech teacher said on the first day of class. He listed that top 5 things employers look for in an employee:

#1 was verbal communication skills.
#2 was written communication skills.
#3 was organizational skills.
#4 was reliability.
#5 was technical skills.

Basically, there is far more to an employee than technical knowledge. The ability to communicate and interact with people is still paramount.

The problem is we are ruled by trades people- lawyers and business men. For them everything is about winning and exploitation not justice or empathy.

I think some of you guys are missing my point on education. The push for free college isn't coming from happy, high functioning liberal arts majors with thriving careers. It's coming from unemployed graduates buried in debt with a degree from no name private college (or what have you) that apparently hasn't helped them become the founder of Slack. I never said that liberal arts degrees should be eradicated, or anything of the sort.

The founder of my company has a classic liberal arts background and she has done just fine in life. But she's also not complaining about the cost of her education. Making worthless degrees "free" may eliminate one problem faced by people with worthless degress (the mountain of debt they assumed) but it will not fix their larger problem - lack of professional opportunities.

golden sloth said:

---

I think this goes to a different issue, which is that the burden of becoming a skilled worker has shifted from the employer (via on the job training) and society (via public education) to the individual. This exposes the individual to a lot more risk and exploitation from companies who are requiring more and more job readiness from day one. I know several people in high positions that complain about needing the perfect candidate ready to take over from Day 1 two months ago, yet are unwilling to hire someone that matches 70% of what they need, and then complain about not enough talent in workforce. Companies can't treat employees like an off the shelf item, sometimes they need to take on the burden of shaping the employee they need,

---

Great point GS. I frequently see "requirements" that no one individual is likely to meet. I don't want to discount how much more analytical modern business has become and how critical it is to be conversant in the tools of the trade, but it does make you wonder how in the world someone is supposed to develop those skills. I will say this, the days of saying "I don't do math" appear to be numbered. With very few exceptions (like our brand team), everyone where I work is expected to have a "data orientation" and to understand analytics and metrics and live and breathe spreadsheets.

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. Nice to have allies!

Also, it's nice this thread has remained cordial. Seriously inflammable subject. Nice job!

golden sloth said:

---

I think this goes to a different issue, which is that the burden of becoming a skilled worker has shifted from the employer (via on the job training) and society (via public education) to the individual. This exposes the individual to a lot more risk and exploitation from companies who are requiring more and more job readiness from day one. I know several people in high positions that complain about needing the perfect candidate ready to take over from Day 1 two months ago, yet are unwilling to hire someone that matches 70% of what they need, and then complain about not enough talent in workforce. Companies can't treat employees like an off the shelf item, sometimes they need to take on the burden of shaping the employee they need,

---

Agree 100%. A lot of it is that despite what the unemployment rate purports to tell you, the employers still have their ability to be choosy in the field of people seeking employment. When the available labor force starts getting actually small (as opposed to fudged figures by the federal government "small"), then they'll be forced to hire people who are not quite perfect for the position.

I think the discussions of taxes frequently misses the big whale - Capital gains taxes. That's what wealthy people pay.

I don't think Federal and State combined income taxes should go above 50% but I think capital gains and dividend taxes should be set equal to income taxes. That would generate a lot of money and go a long ways towards reducing wealth inequality. A wealth tax may also be appropriate.

To me, free education sounds like a boondoggle. But I support cheap education and free community college.

My two cents.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Watching that interview turn from a normal one to Tucker Carlson sputtering for words and finally just swearing at the guest was quite amusing.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Watching that interview turn from a normal one to Tucker Carlson sputtering for words and finally just swearing at the guest was quite amusing.

---

Let's all remember the great day that Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a "d***" right to his face, live on air.

sycasey said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Watching that interview turn from a normal one to Tucker Carlson sputtering for words and finally just swearing at the guest was quite amusing.

---

Let's all remember the great day that Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a "d***" right to his face, live on air.

---

The ironic thing about that Crossfire episode with Jon Stewart is that it ended the show. Crossfire basically stopped airing shortly after Stewart laid waste to the entire affair.

But a decade later CNN is almost nothing but the Crossfire show on all its segments. CNN is basically an unending episode of Crossfire now. Unwatchable.