Liberal Arts Majors unite!

[Abe]

I'm curious (since I never took higher-level STEM classes)...in STEM subjects, does the instruction also change to more interaction and problem-solving etc at the higher-level classes, or is it taught pretty much the same throughout?

In my experience (Biochemistry), it did once the class sizes became much smaller. More hands-on work with experiments, less blah blah blah protein XYZ does blah blah protein ABC.

[libertarian4321]

Would you recommend an Art History major as a relatively sure way to find a good paying career?

Yes, liberal arts degrees can lead to success in the corporate world, as long as you have a few other complimentary skills, such as the ability to say say "want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that degree in Art History or Womyn's Studies is useless.  It is not.  You just need to have complimentary skills and the willingness to live on minimum wage.

[SporeSpawn]

Would you recommend an Art History major as a relatively sure way to find a good paying career?

Yes, liberal arts degrees can lead to success in the corporate world, as long as you have a few other complimentary skills, such as the ability to say say "want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that degree in Art History or Womyn's Studies is useless.  It is not.  You just need to have complimentary skills and the willingness to live on minimum wage.

A less passive-aggressive answer would be "only if you can make a plan to get to a worthwhile position from where you are now."

I don't know much about Art History as a field, so I don't know what sort of positions it can lead to. If you really want a degree in Art History, before you take the first ACT, you ought to know: what position you want to be in, have some idea of the organizations you want to work for, have some idea of how to get into them, start working on experiences that will help you in.

Don't go to college "for Art History." Go to college to be curator of the Southside Lincoln Art Museum. Or archivist of the Botanical Fields Gallery. Or manager of the Western Plaza College's Special Collection. Go to college for a specific job or at least a specific area of a field. Because all the other Art History and Drama and Literary Criticism students are going to school to learn. You need to be going there to work, no matter the field. The learning you'll do on your own. The working is what you rely on others to let you do.

[senecando]

Would you recommend an Art History major as a relatively sure way to find a good paying career?

Yes, liberal arts degrees can lead to success in the corporate world, as long as you have a few other complimentary skills, such as the ability to say say "want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that degree in Art History or Womyn's Studies is useless.  It is not.  You just need to have complimentary skills and the willingness to live on minimum wage.

You can do much better than that. The "fries" line is essentially part of the western cannon--we're all ready for it. And the joke's on you, because we all work at coffeeshops now. Get to it.

Anyways, the median art history student will start his career with a median salary 30 percent higher than the median salary in the US. At mid-career, that same median art history student will be making about 90% more than the median wage in the US. About 3 and a half times the federal minimum wage.

[SisterX]

Would you recommend an Art History major as a relatively sure way to find a good paying career?

Yes, liberal arts degrees can lead to success in the corporate world, as long as you have a few other complimentary skills, such as the ability to say say "want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that degree in Art History or Womyn's Studies is useless.  It is not.  You just need to have complimentary skills and the willingness to live on minimum wage.

This is a very tired trope and we've got plenty of posters in this thread who have disputed the idea that Art History or Women's Studies are "useless" degrees.  If you're just posting in this thread to be insulting, that's rather asinine and beneath the MMM community's standards.
The rest of us will just be over here, proving you wrong every day by bringing home more than minimum wage.

[GuitarStv]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

[No Name Guy]

For the STEM folks, the push back that you get from soft science or liberal arts majors has some merit.  Over a longer term, many people with arts degrees will find more lucrative employment than many lifetime desk engineers and often times they will honestly enjoy their work more than crunching numbers all day for a paycheck. 

Lithy, not saying you believe this, but I hear it enough that it must be disputed.

I really don't know where this idea comes from that STEM folks don't enjoy what they do.  Nothing is so beautiful to me than to see my baby, my project, come to fruition.  The sculpted lines of a fine aircraft are pure beauty that is driven by carefully considered function.  We line the runway on first flight day to watch our plane be born to the sky. 

I'm sure the folks at the "other" airplane company in Europe were effing proud that their number crunching and careful thought allowed Captian Sully to save the day....and that the structure held up under the ditching....and the airplane ran straight and true in the water.....and that it floated in the correct nose high attitude allowing plenty of time for the evacuation.  (And yes to my non-aero types, this is in fact a situation that is designed for).

I have to imagine the Civil's of the world are damn proud and satisfied knowing that they're one of the leading causes of human health and longevity (via drinking water and sewage systems)....or of the grand structures they build - the skyscrapers, bridges, ports, etc (oh yeah, architects like to THINK they build these things, but it's the Civil / Structural's that make 'em stand, the EE's who power them, the ME's that heat, plumb and cool them...with the Skilled Trades - welders, pipe fitters / plumbers, electricians, iron, etc that turn the STEM's blueprints into physical reality). 

Or the Mech's and EE's of the world - delivering inexpensive, reliable base load power to the billions who would otherwise squat in cold darkness, huddled around and cooking over a dung fire as is all too common in poorer parts of the world.

I have to say engineering is pretty damn satisfying - and quite frankly, it's FUN to crunch numbers and solve problems.  Near as I can tell, all the other engineers I work with more or less feel the same.  The only downside:  the Dilbert-esque PHB shit....usually from management types who weren't engineers or factory / rivet buckers before shifting to management. 

[arebelspy]

I enjoy crunching numbers, making spreadsheets, and looking at data.  I also enjoy more interactive things. 

/libartsmajor

[babysnowbyrd]

When I started at a local (though not to me) CC I was drawn to their TESOL (Teaching ESL basically). It was initially attractive to me because it offered TONS of flexibility (could go wherever I want when single, could also follow a spouse anywhere in the world, part-time/full-time, working for a company or independently). During my third year I started to get a generally unsettled feeling. It was smallish amounts of stress creeping up about my classes. I had participated in several teaching opportunities: ESL study groups, one on one mentoring, team teaching conversation classes, and teaching a basic beginner on my own. I had studied abroad in Japan after my first year of college and did some random English teaching gigs on the side. I did a full-time internship after my third year, and I finally recognized the troubling feeling was a genuine hate for it. Almost had a breakdown two weeks before it was over. I dropped out of school after that.

I ended up back again after about 3 years. This time I realized I was much more into learning about other cultures and customs, rather than teaching about my own. Plus I HATE English grammar. I'm pretty good on my own as a native speaker but understanding grammar on a deep enough level to be able to teach it to others is a whole different ball park. I feel very sorry for people learning English as a second language.

Anyway, this time, I majored in Cultural Studies with an emphasis in Anthropology. It added an extra year of schooling where if I had stuck with my original major I could have been done in just one more year. I couldn't bear the though of it though, no matter how enticing the travel/potential pay would be since I already had a lot of teaching experience. I knew my new major would make future job prospects a little tough. Everyone knew. It was a constant running joke among my colleagues in class and conversation.

I still find my degree invaluable. I feel like everyone should have to take an anthropology class as general requirement. It's completely changed how I think and see the world. I'll never "not use" my degree because the knowledge I got with it is so pervasive in everything I do. It's useful in any career. Many successful alumni from my school had vastly different and varied jobs. Most didn't have the word "anthropologist" in the title, but you can bet their education and training had a huge impact on their career. One was a lawyer. It was his degree as a lawyer that attracted his clients the most, but he said it was the knowledge and skills he got from anthropology that made him so successful. He was able to work part-time but still made insane amounts of money.

My Dean told me before I left, that we often didn't look good "on paper" (resumes) but if we could get our foot in the door and have face-to-face interviews we generally did exceptionally well. He was right. I applied for an open position with an Oilfield services company within a few months of graduating. I was the youngest and least experienced out of the three applicants they were interviewing. One didn't have a degree at all, the other one did.  I was offered the job within two hours after completing my interview.

I would never, ever change what I studied in school. I wouldn't go back to get a degree I didn't want solely because of the money it'd make me. I WOULD have done it a little wiser in order not to have the loans I do, but that's water under the bridge now.

[SisterX]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

Yes, but that's very different from coming into this thread and basically telling liberal arts majors that they will only be able to work in fast food (as above) or that liberal arts degrees are just expensive paper airplanes (have heard that).  You can debate the merits all day long, but don't be insulting.  I believe that's part of why this thread was started in the first place, because some people on this forum can be incredibly derogatory towards those of us who didn't go into engineering because PAYCHECK, and instead chose a different path.

I've found several articles in the past few years ranking English degree-holders as being highly in demand because, as it turns out, communication is and always will be important.  English majors know how to write well and persuasively.  So while many consider it a "soft" degree, or even outright useless, it's actually very useful in the business world and many English majors command a high salary.  I don't, but that's purely by choice.  I work at a library because I enjoy it.  (Mostly.  :)

[sheepstache]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

Yes, but that's very different from coming into this thread and basically telling liberal arts majors that they will only be able to work in fast food (as above) or that liberal arts degrees are just expensive paper airplanes (have heard that).  You can debate the merits all day long, but don't be insulting.  I believe that's part of why this thread was started in the first place, because some people on this forum can be incredibly derogatory towards those of us who didn't go into engineering because PAYCHECK, and instead chose a different path.

If only there were some sort of education people could be exposed to that would allow them to understand more nuanced arguments, compare multiple rational arguments, reason about non-quantitative data, and see things from the perspectives of others.

[rocklebock]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

Yes, but that's very different from coming into this thread and basically telling liberal arts majors that they will only be able to work in fast food (as above) or that liberal arts degrees are just expensive paper airplanes (have heard that).  You can debate the merits all day long, but don't be insulting.  I believe that's part of why this thread was started in the first place, because some people on this forum can be incredibly derogatory towards those of us who didn't go into engineering because PAYCHECK, and instead chose a different path.

If only there were some sort of education people could be exposed to that would allow them to understand more nuanced arguments, compare multiple rational arguments, reason about non-quantitative data, and see things from the perspectives of others.

Sheepstache always knocks it out of the park.

Seriously, it's quite tiresome that whenever there's a harmless "yay for liberal arts majors" thread on this forum, others show up just to post reactionary comments about how our direct experience doesn't count, for some specious reason, and make downright hostile comments about serving french fries. At this point, my reaction is - U mad, bro? That I studied something fun and easy (art history, actually), work in my field of study, made $80k this year, like my job, and definitely never ever work more than 45 hours a week?

[iris lily]

If you can sell, you are golden. Everything else is leaden.

[boy_bye]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

Yes, but that's very different from coming into this thread and basically telling liberal arts majors that they will only be able to work in fast food (as above) or that liberal arts degrees are just expensive paper airplanes (have heard that).  You can debate the merits all day long, but don't be insulting.  I believe that's part of why this thread was started in the first place, because some people on this forum can be incredibly derogatory towards those of us who didn't go into engineering because PAYCHECK, and instead chose a different path.

If only there were some sort of education people could be exposed to that would allow them to understand more nuanced arguments, compare multiple rational arguments, reason about non-quantitative data, and see things from the perspectives of others.

tee hee :D

sheepstache you are a treasure!

[SisterX]

We have a lot of hard working and motivated people in this thread who became employed after getting an arts degree.  I'm not sure that you can easily argue that the studies themselves were the key to finding that employment though . . . as evidenced by how few people found work related to their education and how many ended up training in a completely different field after school.

Generally speaking, having a degree is useful.  That piece of paper is important to many employers.  The actual value of the education behind the degree though . . . that's quite a bit less clear cut.

Yes, but that's very different from coming into this thread and basically telling liberal arts majors that they will only be able to work in fast food (as above) or that liberal arts degrees are just expensive paper airplanes (have heard that).  You can debate the merits all day long, but don't be insulting.  I believe that's part of why this thread was started in the first place, because some people on this forum can be incredibly derogatory towards those of us who didn't go into engineering because PAYCHECK, and instead chose a different path.

If only there were some sort of education people could be exposed to that would allow them to understand more nuanced arguments, compare multiple rational arguments, reason about non-quantitative data, and see things from the perspectives of others.

Glorious.

[snafuing1]

I got a B.S. in physics in 2010. Waited tables for a year or so because I couldn't find a decent job, despite my best efforts.

I went back to school to get a master's in English. The month I graduated I started work as a technical writer in software development, where I get paid as much as the software engineers.

YMMV, but my liberal arts degree got me high-paying salaried job, yet my STEM degree wasn't worth the paper it was written on, except that it got me into the liberal arts program!

[babysnowbyrd]

Having a dynamic discussion between a group of very smart people...there's no substitute.  You might say, "Start a book club!" but my professors led the discussions in very interesting ways, which someone with less school-type learning might not be able to do, or wouldn't think of.  So you might think my degree is just a fancy piece of paper and I wasted my time paying money to read books and talk about them, but I will always feel that I got good value for my money.  I learned so much.

My experience exactly. The classroom discussions are what I miss the most. I went to a culturally diverse school. It was awesome to discuss touchy and controversial subjects with people who grew up in vastly different backgrounds. We had rich and poor among us from the US, Africa, Asia, Polynesia, and a few Europeans. We had a mix of conservatives and liberals. We rarely "argued" per se though there were almost always different opinions. It was great because most of us were genuinely interested in understanding another POV. I learned so much.

Now I live in Wyoming where most people are white, very conservative, Republican, religious etc. (I'm quite conservative and religious myself, but that's usually ONLY in regards to myself. When it comes to politics I'm much more liberal. I'm conservative/religious because I choose it and I like it. I don't judge others based on my own personal beliefs.) Lots of oilfield workers (inc myself) and farmer/rancher/cowboy types. It's not a bad thing in and of itself but it's pretty homogeneous here. Makes dating a bit tough for me personally.

[GreenPen]

Many mid career salaries are fairly close between stem and lib arts degrees.   http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html

Thanks for sharing this link. I think people often put too much emphasis on starting salary. But some humanities majors show a lot of movement from early to mid-career salaries. Philosophy does particularly well here (although this could be in part because philosophy majors tend to be male). Here's another link to a recent study that supports this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surprise-humanities-degrees-provide-great-return-on-investment/

[greaper007]

For the STEM folks, the push back that you get from soft science or liberal arts majors has some merit.  Over a longer term, many people with arts degrees will find more lucrative employment than many lifetime desk engineers and often times they will honestly enjoy their work more than crunching numbers all day for a paycheck. 

...I really don't know where this idea comes from that STEM folks don't enjoy what they do.  Nothing is so beautiful to me than to see my baby, my project, come to fruition.  The sculpted lines of a fine aircraft are pure beauty that is driven by carefully considered function.  We line the runway on first flight day to watch our plane be born to the sky. 

I'm sure the folks at the "other" airplane company in Europe were effing proud that their number crunching and careful thought allowed Captian Sully to save the day....and that the structure held up under the ditching....and the airplane ran straight and true in the water.....and that it floated in the correct nose high attitude allowing plenty of time for the evacuation.  (And yes to my non-aero types, this is in fact a situation that is designed for)...

Now, I know the initial paycheck is better for an aero-engineer.   But, do you know what's even more fun than designing a plane?   Flying the plane.  :)

ATP MEI CFII Saab 340 Type Rating....  And a BA in History here.    But know what's even crazier?   A-4, F-4, F-14 and 737 Type with about 32,000 hours in type.... BA in English (that's my dad).

Seriously though, I think the point of this thread is that we should all pursue our interests and talents.   I took classes with engineering types, and they didn't really seem to appreciate nuanced conversations about subjects that are often considered black and white.    I took physics at the 200 level and got an A, but I found the black and white aspects of physics and mathematics to be constricting.   It didn't get me off like a three week discussion on the decision to drop the A bomb did.

I'm also seriously glad that there are people designing fantastic things that make our lives better.    Just like I'm enthused that there are people designing art that makes us appreciate and question the incredible complexities of the human condition.    It's all equally important, and it should all be celebrated.

[GuitarStv]

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

[greaper007]

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

Is anyone asserting that?

[GuitarStv]

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

Is anyone asserting that?

It has been implied in several posts.  It might also be my lack of appreciation of nuance but . . . ?

I took classes with engineering types, and they didn't really seem to appreciate nuanced conversations about subjects

[No Name Guy]

Now, I know the initial paycheck is better for an aero-engineer.   But, do you know what's even more fun than designing a plane?   Flying the plane.  :)

ATP MEI CFII Saab 340 Type Rating....  And a BA in History here.    But know what's even crazier?   A-4, F-4, F-14 and 737 Type with about 32,000 hours in type.... BA in English (that's my dad).

Flying was my first choice....at least until my eyes went south on me.  I joke that my glasses are about the same as Professor Farnsworth's.  And back when I was considering career choices, one needed to be born 20/20 or better to get in the drivers seat of an F-15.

[GuitarStv]

You probably aren't missing much.  F-18s at least suck to fly in.  I helped design and test a lot of the flight sims and trainers that the Canadian and Australian military use.  Miserable cramped cockpits if you're tall and long legged.  I banged my knees on everything in those things.

[greaper007]

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

Is anyone asserting that?

It has been implied in several posts.  It might also be my lack of appreciation of nuance but . . . ?

I took classes with engineering types, and they didn't really seem to appreciate nuanced conversations about subjects

By lack of appreciation, I meant that they didn't seem to really enjoy digging into what some people consider minutiae.    That's not a judgement.    I've never really enjoyed things where I had to learn hard facts.    I was able to memorize systems on planes, speeds, emergency procedures etc. But I hated it.    A lot of my classmates breezed through it and really seemed to enjoy seeing how the systems differed from other aircraft's systems.    Those same types of people, in my experience, didn't seem to enjoy subjects where there wasn't a clear answer.

It's just a different epistemology, each lends itself better to different subjects.    I'm positive that lots of engineers are able to appreciate art, literature and muddy academic arguments.   I just don't think they like it as much as non-engineers do, otherwise they would pursue a different major.

It's interesting that I wrote a long soliloquy on how everyone should pursue their own interests and repeatedly said that everything was just and important.  Yet you're trying to twist one statement into some sort of gotcha where I dismiss STEM types as unable to process human emotion.    Like I said before, every subject is important and we shouldn't categorize people's interests as worthy or unworthy.

[greaper007]

Now, I know the initial paycheck is better for an aero-engineer.   But, do you know what's even more fun than designing a plane?   Flying the plane.  :)

ATP MEI CFII Saab 340 Type Rating....  And a BA in History here.    But know what's even crazier?   A-4, F-4, F-14 and 737 Type with about 32,000 hours in type.... BA in English (that's my dad).

Flying was my first choice....at least until my eyes went south on me.  I joke that my glasses are about the same as Professor Farnsworth's.  And back when I was considering career choices, one needed to be born 20/20 or better to get in the drivers seat of an F-15.

Yeah, the Bush Doctrine kept me out of the military.    Even with a flight contract.    As long as you're correctable to 20/20 (I think that's even relaxed now) you can still get an ATP and be an airline, corporate, or other commercial pilot if you so chose.   

I have to say going civilian was the best choice I made in my early 20s.    I made it halfway through OCS in the Marines and went, "what the hell am I doing here???"    Thank god it wasn't too late to drop out.   Then I went from a private pilot's license to an airline pilot in about 2 years.    Upgraded to captain a year and a half later.    If you're still interested in flying it could be a fun retirement job for a couple of years.    I had a guy in my class that retired from Wall Street in his early 40s and started flying.   He already built up enough hours flying on his own over the years to get a job so it was a seamless transition.

I'm sure flying fighters is fun but just flying anything is fun.    Most of what my dad talks about is how horrible it is to land on a carrier at night anyways.   Occasionally he'll talk about how he liked to fly Mach 1.5 50 feet off the ground.     Mostly he'll just talk about how his legs wouldn't stop shaking for hours after he had to land at night, or how he was water boarded twice in SERE school.    Thanks, but no thanks.

[libertarian4321]

Would you recommend an Art History major as a relatively sure way to find a good paying career?

Yes, liberal arts degrees can lead to success in the corporate world, as long as you have a few other complimentary skills, such as the ability to say say "want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart."

Don't ever let anyone tell you that degree in Art History or Womyn's Studies is useless.  It is not.  You just need to have complimentary skills and the willingness to live on minimum wage.

This is a very tired trope and we've got plenty of posters in this thread who have disputed the idea that Art History or Women's Studies are "useless" degrees.  If you're just posting in this thread to be insulting, that's rather asinine and beneath the MMM community's standards.
The rest of us will just be over here, proving you wrong every day by bringing home more than minimum wage.

Congratulations on making $9 with your 'womyn's studies" degree.  You are making slightly above min wage and living the American dream!

Still, some might wonder whether you  might have done better with an engineering degree.

[Mod Edit: Please read forum rule #1.]

[senecando]

Libertarian:

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT WE COULD HAVE MADE MORE MONEY BEING ENGINEERS.

Here's the problem:

1. Make a broad, juicy, satisfying claim: Liberal Arts degreed students generally earn minimum wage and are completely unemployable.
2. Someone protests or responds with data.
3. Defend a completely different, much more defensible claim: LA students don't make engineer salaries.

Best of both worlds! You can call this "Motte and Bailey" if you'd like.

[greaper007]

I think the major problem that people like Libertarian can't understand is that some people don't go to work or school solely to make money.    Some of us have hard core passions like art, people like that have to express themselves or they have very negative consequences.    I've met people that should have been writers, painters, or musicians.   Instead they followed their parents advice and got a sensible career and settled down.    A decade or two later many of these people were divorced, depressed and potentially substance abusers.    Often they're moving into a different career that's more in line with their interests and talents.

We only get 80 years or so on this planet.    Should we spend 20 years of it doing something we hate just to make enough money to do something we love?    Or should we learn to live well on however much we make and just go for what makes us happy?    I'd chose the latter.

By the way.   Two friends from high school.   One went to Miami Of Ohio (really good state school) got a math degree, he spent over a year working at a supermarket before he became an actuary.    My other friend has an MIS degree, he smokes an ounce of weed a week and delivers pizzas.    The degree isn't the most important thing.    Learning how to hustle is.

[GuitarStv]

Here's the thing . . . you can be a writer, painter, or musician with a STEM degree.  There's no reason you can't pursue your dreams while holding down a day job.  Off the top of my head . . . Tom Scholtz from Boston was an engineer who designed guitar amps, Brian May from Queen has an astrophysics degree and has published books in the field, James Lilja the drummer from the Offspring quit to become a gynecologist, the bassist from Iron Butterfly quit music to pursue his dreams of being an aerospace engineer.

You can't go into a STEM job with a degree in writing, painting, or music.

Just because you have a STEM degree doesn't mean it defines who you are.  As has been said many times in this thread, you can be successful with just about any degree.  I'd be shocked if someone with a STEM degree had any harder a time finding employment in an unrelated field than someone with a liberal arts degree . . . but it also leaves the options of working in technical fields.  That would seem to make the STEM degree more useful no matter how you slice it.

[Noodle]

I think the underlying issue in all these Liberal Arts vs STEM questions (and a lot of the long-running debates around the forum) is different ideas of what Mustachianism is for. If you think that the point is getting your money-earning done as quickly and efficiently as possible, to then earn freedom for your second phase of life, then absolutely STEM, a professional degree like nursing or accounting, or trade skills training are the way to go.

If you think the point of Mustachianism is to lead your personal happiest and most optimized life, which may or may not involve early retirement, then for a lot of people Liberal Arts degrees are the right call. I am in group number 2. Won't retire early, but I can use MMM perspectives to put myself in the best possible financial position and give myself more options (which then leads to a happier life). MMM skills and choices are nothing new to a lot of people in, say, the non-profit/arts world. (I've never had extended cable, for instance). But I like hanging out here because I get new ideas and perspectives.

[greaper007]

Here's the thing . . . you can be a writer, painter, or musician with a STEM degree.  There's no reason you can't pursue your dreams while holding down a day job.  Off the top of my head . . . Tom Scholtz from Boston was an engineer who designed guitar amps, Brian May from Queen has an astrophysics degree and has published books in the field, James Lilja the drummer from the Offspring quit to become a gynecologist, the bassist from Iron Butterfly quit music to pursue his dreams of being an aerospace engineer.

You can't go into a STEM job with a degree in writing, painting, or music.

Just because you have a STEM degree doesn't mean it defines who you are.  As has been said many times in this thread, you can be successful with just about any degree.  I'd be shocked if someone with a STEM degree had any harder a time finding employment in an unrelated field than someone with a liberal arts degree . . . but it also leaves the options of working in technical fields.  That would seem to make the STEM degree more useful no matter how you slice it.

Art school, from what I understand, gives you training that you really can't get on your own.   It's a very rigorous education where you just spend day after day perfecting things like hands.    I don't think there are many musicians that work in say a symphony that just practiced the violin at night.   

Again, different options for different people.   Suggesting that Liberal Arts degrees are merit less is disingenuous.  And frankly, there are some jobs that would be hard to get without some of the training you get in the liberal arts.   There's very few people with a STEM background in politics for a reason.   A hardcore liberal arts and law education sets you up to understand and debate the law in a way that people with more black and white thinking can't really compete with.

Again, it worked for you, fantastic.    However, it's not going to work for everyone.   That's not because people are stupid or lazy, we're all built differently and we need to respect that.

[senecando]

Here's the thing . . . you can be a writer, painter, or musician with a STEM degree.  There's no reason you can't pursue your dreams while holding down a day job.  Off the top of my head . . . Tom Scholtz from Boston was an engineer who designed guitar amps, Brian May from Queen has an astrophysics degree and has published books in the field, James Lilja the drummer from the Offspring quit to become a gynecologist, the bassist from Iron Butterfly quit music to pursue his dreams of being an aerospace engineer.

You can't go into a STEM job with a degree in writing, painting, or music.

Just because you have a STEM degree doesn't mean it defines who you are.  As has been said many times in this thread, you can be successful with just about any degree.  I'd be shocked if someone with a STEM degree had any harder a time finding employment in an unrelated field than someone with a liberal arts degree . . . but it also leaves the options of working in technical fields.  That would seem to make the STEM degree more useful no matter how you slice it.

Well, I'm working in T w/ a degree in Liberal Arts, but I understand what you mean. That is definitely true of part of T and all of SEM. Blah blah blah. Anyways.

I definitely agree that STEM degrees leave you with more opportunities for jobs. They don't force you to have STEM jobs forever and that many of the people who study STEM do so because they love the material. If I went back to school, I'd go for something in technology, probably.

But I think we're disagreeing on something pretty simple about college. Your argument has the shape (correct me if I'm wrong):

* STEM gives you the opportunity to work in STEM fields
* Also, STEM gives you the opportunity to work in Non-Stem feilds, as good as a L.A. degree.
* Therefore, the opportunity that STEM degrees provides includes the opportunity from L.A. degrees and therefore is bigger.

But what step gets you from "more job opportunity" to "more useful"? The premise that the utility of a undergrad degree is in making jobs available to you. That's not a bad premise at all, but everyone doesn't share it. People who liked their liberal arts degrees will probably say they got use out of it that employers can't detect. If that makes it a luxury good, then LET US ALL BE DAMNED TO MUSTACHIAN HELL! :P

[greaper007]

Here's the thing . . . you can be a writer, painter, or musician with a STEM degree.  There's no reason you can't pursue your dreams while holding down a day job.  Off the top of my head . . . Tom Scholtz from Boston was an engineer who designed guitar amps, Brian May from Queen has an astrophysics degree and has published books in the field, James Lilja the drummer from the Offspring quit to become a gynecologist, the bassist from Iron Butterfly quit music to pursue his dreams of being an aerospace engineer.

You can't go into a STEM job with a degree in writing, painting, or music.

Just because you have a STEM degree doesn't mean it defines who you are.  As has been said many times in this thread, you can be successful with just about any degree.  I'd be shocked if someone with a STEM degree had any harder a time finding employment in an unrelated field than someone with a liberal arts degree . . . but it also leaves the options of working in technical fields.  That would seem to make the STEM degree more useful no matter how you slice it.

Well, I'm working in T w/ a degree in Liberal Arts, but I understand what you mean. That is definitely true of part of T and all of SEM. Blah blah blah. Anyways.

I definitely agree that STEM degrees leave you with more opportunities for jobs. They don't force you to have STEM jobs forever and that many of the people who study STEM do so because they love the material. If I went back to school, I'd go for something in technology, probably.

But I think we're disagreeing on something pretty simple about college. Your argument has the shape (correct me if I'm wrong):

* STEM gives you the opportunity to work in STEM fields
* Also, STEM gives you the opportunity to work in Non-Stem feilds, as good as a L.A. degree.
* Therefore, the opportunity that STEM degrees provides includes the opportunity from L.A. degrees and therefore is bigger.

But what step gets you from "more job opportunity" to "more useful"? The premise that the utility of a undergrad degree is in making jobs available to you. That's not a bad premise at all, but everyone doesn't share it. People who liked their liberal arts degrees will probably say they got use out of it that employers can't detect. If that makes it a luxury good, then LET US ALL BE DAMNED TO MUSTACHIAN HELL! :P

There's a lot of soft skills you get from a LA degree.   I also think it helps create a more empathetic electorate with better critical thinking skills, which is really the point of higher education, not getting a job.   Still, I don't think that the idea that a STEM degree will get you any job is truthful.    A lot of people with LA degrees plan to go to grad school.    I don't see how a degree in Civil Engineering is going to help you get into a Psychology or English PhD program.    If you have a specific interest in something, that's what you should study.

I had some brilliant history professors in my program, I know that several went to Ivy League schools.    None of them had STEM undergrads.   Several were quite wealthy from publishing books on popular subjects.   I remember I was in a Vietnam history course when 9-11 hit.    The professor was pretty much the premier historian on the conflict.   He was called away to Washington to brief upper level people immediately after the event. (Obviously they didn't listen to him).   Again, didn't have a STEM degree.

[GuitarStv]

  And frankly, there are some jobs that would be hard to get without some of the training you get in the liberal arts.   There's very few people with a STEM background in politics for a reason.   A hardcore liberal arts and law education sets you up to understand and debate the law in a way that people with more black and white thinking can't really compete with.

Which jobs exactly?

Sure there are a few that lend themselves to the training (say an English degree and career in Journalism, or being a Psychologist and having a related degree), but by and large there aren't employable skills unique to liberal arts degrees that would be missing in someone with a STEM degree.  We lern to speek good 2, to write passably, and have to present/defend our ideas to groups of people.

Your argument that an art, music, or women's studies degree plus law is better than a STEM degree plus law for understanding and debating issues is pretty baseless.  Your continued claims that pursuing a STEM degree makes you a black and white thinker  . . . well:

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

(As an aside - I wouldn't necessarily jump to hold up career politicians and lawyers as shining examples of the triumph of my field of study.  :P  That's just me though. )

But what step gets you from "more job opportunity" to "more useful"? The premise that the utility of a undergrad degree is in making jobs available to you. That's not a bad premise at all, but everyone doesn't share it. People who liked their liberal arts degrees will probably say they got use out of it that employers can't detect. If that makes it a luxury good, then LET US ALL BE DAMNED TO MUSTACHIAN HELL! :P

If getting a job isn't the point of your degree, what is the use of the degree?  To learn about something you're interested in of course!  But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere?  Between the internet, the library, museums, various study/speaking groups, freelance work in a related field, etc.  it just seems like you could get the same benefit for less money by taking four years and discovering things you're interested in . . . provided you're willing to work hard and motivate yourself.

[senecando]

If getting a job isn't the point of your degree, what is the use of the degree?  To learn about something you're interested in of course!  But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere?  Between the internet, the library, museums, various study/speaking groups, freelance work in a related field, etc.  it just seems like you could get the same benefit for less money by taking four years and discovering things you're interested in . . . provided you're willing to work hard and motivate yourself.

Well, it's a mixture. I still satisfy the credential-obsessed people who require a college degree for stuff. And yeah, I can learn the facts for free, read the books for free. But I really can't study that stuff surrounded by a hundred other people who are doing it too, and talking to people who've been doing it for decades, and do that with others for ten or twelve hours a day. I think there is a qualitative difference. I also think my time studying at school made me more inclined and better prepared to study lots of different things on my own. And it made me happy and curious where I wasn't before. YMMV, lots. (Feel free to dismiss as post-hoc justification. We'll never know.)

I like to think it prepared me for my decades of retirement rather than my decades of work. ;)

[SisterX]

GuitarStv, I think the accusations of black and white thinking are perfectly reasonable since you seem completely unable to grasp the nuance of the differences in position people have been describing to you.  More job opportunity does not equal more useful, depending on what you're getting a degree for.  Higher starting pay does not equal more useful, since some of us count overall happiness in employment as far greater than money.  You keep saying that you kind of understand the point, but then show in your comments that you really don't get it.
Yes, I could be happy enough working in a STEM field and doing my artsy stuff on the side.  But, I'm kind of already doing my artsy stuff (music and writing) on the side and, frankly, I'd rather devote more of my life/time/energy to those pursuits.  Even if I don't make enough that I would ever be FI on my own (without my spouse to help support) I'm going to be a much happier person, and I think I'll be a much better person overall.  And, I feel bad for taking time away from work to write when the fever takes over my brain and I just have to get that scene written now.  That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to me that I should feel bad for it.
I know this is yet another n=1 plot point, but my husband got a STEM degree years ago.  Almost six years on, with my "useless" degree I'm still the one supporting the family because he's been unable to find steady employment.  He made a better salary for the work he did...three and six months at a time, before layoffs and shutdowns occurred.  It turns out that when you're just another cog in the wheel, you're utterly replaceable.  He's getting another STEM degree to go into a different, very lucrative, field.  But...I've seen the massive layoffs that have occurred in that field over the years so I'm not going to solely depend upon him earning and retaining a "good" salary for our needs.  That would be as idiotic as making myself miserable at a job I don't like for greedy reasons.
Also, all of the "overheard at work" conversations?  I rarely hear shit like that.  It turns out that people who've decided to do things for love rather than money find ways to make it work.  When you're not surrounded by high salaries, people don't have conversations about wasting tons of money because most of us do, in fact, realize the value of a dollar far more than those who pull down the massive salaries. 
Finally, if you think someone is perfectly able to just do their arts on the side, and that it doesn't take a toll, listen (or re-listen) to Macklemore's "10,000 Hours".  "A life lived for art is never a life wasted."  It takes an amazing amount of effort to "make it" in an arts field, and that's provided that you actually have the talent to back up your hard work.
From your username, I think we can all guess that you play guitar.  Are you happy having that be a side gig?  Or are you trashing liberal arts majors because you wish you'd had the balls to go for music instead and regret your choice?  If it's the first one, why are you so down on others pursuing a passion when for you it might only be a fancy?

[greaper007]

  And frankly, there are some jobs that would be hard to get without some of the training you get in the liberal arts.   There's very few people with a STEM background in politics for a reason.   A hardcore liberal arts and law education sets you up to understand and debate the law in a way that people with more black and white thinking can't really compete with.

Which jobs exactly?

Sure there are a few that lend themselves to the training (say an English degree and career in Journalism, or being a Psychologist and having a related degree), but by and large there aren't employable skills unique to liberal arts degrees that would be missing in someone with a STEM degree.  We lern to speek good 2, to write passably, and have to present/defend our ideas to groups of people.

Your argument that an art, music, or women's studies degree plus law is better than a STEM degree plus law for understanding and debating issues is pretty baseless.  Your continued claims that pursuing a STEM degree makes you a black and white thinker  . . . well:

Asserting that people who get degrees in STEM fields aren't good at writing, speaking, or having nuanced discussion is not really any different than asserting that people who get degrees in liberal arts can only serve up fries at minimum wage jobs.

(As an aside - I wouldn't necessarily jump to hold up career politicians and lawyers as shining examples of the triumph of my field of study.  :P  That's just me though. )

But what step gets you from "more job opportunity" to "more useful"? The premise that the utility of a undergrad degree is in making jobs available to you. That's not a bad premise at all, but everyone doesn't share it. People who liked their liberal arts degrees will probably say they got use out of it that employers can't detect. If that makes it a luxury good, then LET US ALL BE DAMNED TO MUSTACHIAN HELL! :P

If getting a job isn't the point of your degree, what is the use of the degree?  To learn about something you're interested in of course!  But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere?  Between the internet, the library, museums, various study/speaking groups, freelance work in a related field, etc.  it just seems like you could get the same benefit for less money by taking four years and discovering things you're interested in . . . provided you're willing to work hard and motivate yourself.

When it comes to getting into law school, statistically, you're better off with a Philosophy, History or Poli Sci degree.   Last time I checked, those undergrads did best on the LSAT.    If one wanted to become say, a patent attorney then a double major in a pre-law field and an engineering field would be a great way to be successful.    Not everyone wants to be a patent attorney though.

Again, if you're passionate about your field and want to pursue academia then it's best to get an undergrad in the the field and continue on to your PhD.    I have a cousin that went to an Ivy League school and majored in Japanese or Asian Studies, now he's at the University of Chicago getting a PhD, but he seems to spend most of his time in Japan.   My wife is a psychologist, she has a psych undergrad.

Me, I have ADD, so I can effectively only do things that interest me.   I wanted to be a pilot and needed a degree for the military or to fly for a major or legacy carrier.   Any degree would do.   If I had to study a STEM field exclusively I would either drop out or blow my brains out by the end of the program.   It just didn't do it for me, so I majored in History which I enjoyed and thought might be easy, but turned out to be a complete bitch.   It made me realize that I couldn't just make assumptions about things, I had to do a ton of research to make an argument.   Nothing increased my critical thinking ability like a Liberal Arts major. 

The point of a degree is to challenge yourself most importantly though it's to create a more informed electorate.   Higher education along with a vigorous press corps are probably the two most important aspects of a democracy.   You simply can't get the same knowledge and skills from reading a book that you can from taking a rigorous, liberal degree program.   Put me in a library and I'll generally just read things I'm interested in.    I won't learn about the history of Russia from the Czars forward.   I probably won't read about social psych, spanish or the history of jurisprudence.    I definitely wouldn't have a guru there to tell me that I was wrong about my assumptions even after I read the book.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that STEM is backwards compatible with liberal arts?   I wouldn't argue the opposite.   Of course learning how to write a a 50+ page argument about some obscure topic wouldn't allow me to perform upper level calculus.   I have no doubt that those of you from STEM fields are better at STEM related things than I am.   That doesn't mean that you're just as good at writing a perfect argument,formatted in Chicago style, without missing a footnote.   Computer Science isn't a substitute for History, Philosophy, Poli Sci...

I know that the LA training allowed me to perform better than my STEM peers in some classes.    For instance, I was in one non-major class that everyone had to take.    We had the fairly simple assignment of writing a book review as the end of class project.   A couple of engineering types asked me how many pages I'd written so far?   I said none, they looked at me like I was an idiot and said they'd written 35 so far.     Two days before the assignment was due I wrote a 3 page review where I said it was an interesting book but the author made several mistakes like not using a ghost writer etc.   I promptly got drunk and went to sleep.    A few days later I had an A+, the other guy had a D and was actually angry at me.    Why?  He didn't know how to write an argument and thought his verbose summary was better than a short review.    That's just one example but I found that STEM types didn't perform as well in the more classic liberal arts areas.    The courses take two different kinds of mindsets.   

Feel free to respond to this, but I'm out.   I have to get ready for a trip...have a good one!

[GuitarStv]

I'm not trying to trash anybody, more just working out the value of a degree.  My son will likely go to university, and I want to steer him in a good direction.

Thinking to my time at school I may just have a badly skewed grasp of things due to being weird.  Being somewhat of a generalist, I do most things passably well, and nothing really perfectly.  I found report writing for our electives was very easy, but was seriously considering majoring in English rather than Computer Engineering.  I also tend to learn best on my own, and skipped most of my classes (exceptions being the ones with good profs . . . some programming, heat and mass transfer, a creative writing elective, and the history of jazz).

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence . . . but at the end of the day work is work, and it sucks (at least for me) to have to do anything for a huge chunk of your day, day after day.  If I had to commute somewhere every morning to play songs I didn't love on guitar every day for eight hours it would be OK . . . but I'd probably go home and do some programming in my spare time, and feel burned out on guitar.  That's why FI is such a big deal, I'm hoping it will be easier to balance my interests.

[arebelspy]

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence.

And if you didn't?  (Or thinking of someone else for whom this might not be true?)

[GreenPen]

I came across a study recently that suggests internship experience is more important than college major when applying for certain jobs in non-technical fields (e.g., finance, management, marketing). The study is discussed here: http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560000701747102

I suspect that liberal arts majors -- more than other majors -- lack internship experience by the time graduate college. That's at least how things were for me: nobody at my BA institution (or my MA institution, or PhD institution for that matter) ever brought up the possibility of doing an internship as I worked toward my Humanities degrees.

[GuitarStv]

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence.

And if you didn't?

Then I guess I'd find a job I love so much that I'd never be inclined to even consider retirement for a fleeting moment.  Unless of course, doing what you love slowly saps your love of what you do.  In that case I'd find a job I initially love and slog away at it.  Slog until all vestiges of enjoyment are gone and death becomes the only respite from the banal day to day tedium that morphs to the eldritch existentialist horror of discovering a life with nothing to live for.  Then I'd probably find this website again, and recommend not doing what you love.  :P

[lithy]

For the STEM folks, the push back that you get from soft science or liberal arts majors has some merit.  Over a longer term, many people with arts degrees will find more lucrative employment than many lifetime desk engineers and often times they will honestly enjoy their work more than crunching numbers all day for a paycheck. 

Lithy, not saying you believe this, but I hear it enough that it must be disputed.

I really don't know where this idea comes from that STEM folks don't enjoy what they do.  Nothing is so beautiful to me than to see my baby, my project, come to fruition.  The sculpted lines of a fine aircraft are pure beauty that is driven by carefully considered function.  We line the runway on first flight day to watch our plane be born to the sky. 

Sorry, I see now how this was poorly worded.  I was attempting to say that the liberal arts degrees would not be enjoying life as much if they just sucked it up and went into a STEM field for the paycheck.  I tend to see those people as the drones in a daily grind just to get through life. 

I agree that a great many parts of STEM can be enjoyable for the right person.  I would tend to think that those that chose liberal arts majors did so for a reason and part of it might have been that they chose a field that was more enjoyable to them.  This is essentially my counter statement to the suggestion that liberal arts majors were only in those majors because they couldn't cut it in a STEM major.

[Noodle]

But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere?  Between the internet, the library, museums, various study/speaking groups, freelance work in a related field, etc.  it just seems like you could get the same benefit for less money by taking four years and discovering things you're interested in . . . provided you're willing to work hard and motivate yourself.

Ah ha, I begin to understand the disconnect! I believe some are thinking that in history classes, for instance, one sits there and learns historical facts. Why would you pay tuition to do that when you can read books (in fact the same ones assigned on syllabi) at home for free? In fact, that is not what you are supposed to be doing in history classes once you get out of the 101/201 level. Let's say that your senior seminar in Colonial American History is studying the Salem Witch Trials. Your professor will spend maybe one class period lecturing about the background to these events, to get everyone on the same page. After that you might: read original documents from the trial, reconstructing the events that happened while your prof explains vocabulary you don't know, supplies context like Puritan beliefs about magic, and points out things you might not notice (for instance, if testimony from a major player is missing). You might read different historians' explanations of why on this one occasion the witch trials got so out of control, when belief in witches (and witchcraft trials) was not unusual in early America. You would then make arguments about which historian's explanation you find most convincing and why. You might be asked to look at another witchcraft trial from elsewhere in early America and show similarities and differences to Salem and explain why these occurred. Your prof shares context he knows from working in this area for years, vets the scholarship you read to make sure that it's by historians who know what they're doing, and catches you when you misread or misinterpret. You do some of this verbally in class, getting feedback from the prof and classmates, and some in writing, again getting feedback from prof.

What the student gets from the class: practice in sorting through lots of information on a subject you don't know well and putting it some kind of sequence. Practice in evaluating the arguments different people make based on evidence, and concluding which is strongest. Practice in thinking up your own argument and supporting it. Practice in stating that argument clearly, orally and in writing, and defending it against someone else's different argument. Practice in doing all this in a way that actually advances understanding, instead of being a jerk (excellent workplace skill!) Understanding that people from another society had different fundamental beliefs about how the universe worked, but that they drew conclusions and took action in ways we can recognize even if they ended up somewhere we wouldn't. Etc.

Of course, how well all this is done depends on the professors, the classmates, and the department. Some classes are better than others; some upper-level classes have a higher percentage of lecture, etc.

So, to answer the original question...the content knowledge could be acquired elsewhere, sure. But the skills (the part that will actually be most valuable later to the 99.9% who don't go on to be Colonial historians) would be tough to replicate because you need to get outside your own head to learn them.

[arebelspy]

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence.

And if you didn't?

Then I guess I'd find a job I love so much that I'd never be inclined to even consider retirement for a fleeting moment.  Unless of course, doing what you love slowly saps your love of what you do.  In that case I'd find a job I initially love and slog away at it.  Slog until all vestiges of enjoyment are gone and death becomes the only respite from the banal day to day tedium that morphs to the eldritch existentialist horror of discovering a life with nothing to live for.  Then I'd probably find this website again, and recommend not doing what you love.  :P

[senecando]

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence . . .

I agree that "do what you love and someone will pay you for it" is super stupid. An argument for going to school for your personal benefit doesn't imply that you should hope to work for your personal benefit. Ya know?

[GreenPen]

But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere? 

Doesn't this cut both ways? For example, isn't it much cheaper to learn how to program on your own, rather than doing getting a degree in Computer Science?

I am a Humanities PhD student -- and we had two people (out of about 30 total) drop out of the program to take tech jobs last year. Both people learned how to program on their own.

[SisterX]

My son will likely go to university, and I want to steer him in a good direction.

Ah, another difference in opinion.  My daughter will also most likely go to college one day and, while I will help her out and offer suggestions, I do not think that it's my job as a parent to "steer" her in a certain direction.  By the time she's old enough for college, I'd like to think that I will know her well enough that I can offer advice about what to pursue which is in line with her interests and abilities, rather than in a direction which I deem to be good because she will earn a good paycheck.  Even if she came to me asking about two different majors I would either ask questions in such a way that would, hopefully, lead her to come up with her own answers (a skill I learned while getting my degree!) or suggest a double major. 

But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere? 

Doesn't this cut both ways? For example, isn't it much cheaper to learn how to program on your own, rather than doing getting a degree in Computer Science?

+1.

[GreenPen]

The 'do what you love' argument has never really held much meaning to me, because I love lots of stuff on both sides of the fence . . . .

This is a really good point: lots of people could love doing work in a wide variety of fields.

While I think that Liberal Arts (LA) degrees are incredibly valuable, I'm not so much in the "do what you love" camp when it comes to choosing a major. One thing that makes a LA degree valuable is that it forces you to take courses in a wide range of topics: including courses in which you do not have an antecedent interest, and courses that you might not end up enjoying. As an undergraduate, I was required to "do what I don't love" alongside those courses that I truly enjoyed. And I'm grateful for this, as I'm more well-rounded because of it. I hated learning a foreign language, taking 'Post-Colonial Polynesian Literature', and taking 'Asian Philosophy'; but I can empathize with and relate to a wider range of people because I took these courses. And the content of these courses is not something I would have studied on my own (since I tend to only read things that interest me in my own free time).

Just to be clear, this is NOT an argument that a person shouldn't major in STEM. At the most, this is an argument that a person should take a broad array of courses in college, no matter which major they choose. Personally, I regret that I took only one upper-division STEM course in college. But this has nothing to do with landing a job or finding a career (I'll be just fine). I just think some STEM topics are important for understanding some complex, global issues.

And just one final thought: "do what you love" is only good advice if we assume that your 18-year-old self will love the same things as your 30-year-old self. I think my 18-year-old self would have done a piss-poor job choosing my career later on in life.

[GuitarStv]

But is there anything that you learn in a liberal arts degree that can't be learned cheaper elsewhere? 

Doesn't this cut both ways? For example, isn't it much cheaper to learn how to program on your own, rather than doing getting a degree in Computer Science?

Well, it's not intended to cut at all . . . but sure!  It's why I skipped most of my classes in university to focus on learning.  Unfortunately, if you don't have the fancy piece of paper many companies won't even look at your skills as a programmer until you've had several years working in the industry.

FWIW, Noodle seemed to give a pretty good explanation of the benefits of attending classes for an arts degree.

Ah, another difference in opinion.  My daughter will also most likely go to college one day and, while I will help her out and offer suggestions, I do not think that it's my job as a parent to "steer" her in a certain direction.  By the time she's old enough for college, I'd like to think that I will know her well enough that I can offer advice about what to pursue which is in line with her interests and abilities, rather than in a direction which I deem to be good because she will earn a good paycheck.  Even if she came to me asking about two different majors I would either ask questions in such a way that would, hopefully, lead her to come up with her own answers (a skill I learned while getting my degree!) or suggest a double major. 

Yeah, by steer I meant we totally plan on browbeating my son into doing exactly what we want all the time.  Everyone knows that you can't be in STEM and capable of thinking for yourself.  To this end we've arranged his marriage already (got an exceptional dowry to aid in FI!), decided he'll have two kids, and will make at least 200k a year as a cowboy astronaut.  To ensure his virginity until marriage his spare time will be strictly spent deriving equations and playing AD&D.  As engineers we learned no soft skills while getting our degrees, so this plan seemed fantastic to us.

:P