Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

white_wolf wrote:
I fail to see what you are pointing out as "irony". And if you are trying to invalidate what I am saying then you will need something more than "Sweet, sweet irony."

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things. Most of the degrees you listed are what is needed to advance a economy and civilisation as a whole. Yah art is nice but a artist did not make The PC or mobile device you are on nor did they Run the lines to both power and connect your Device to this site and the internet in general and Liberal arts never got a spacecraft into the air. It did however make pretty pictures and stories.

If you have a Liberal arts degree then I would like to know what you are employed doing. While those will liberal arts are "employable" they hardly ever do anything with that degree. There's a reason that notion is around.

First off, congratulations on ticking all of the boxes, I'm legitimately unsure as to whether your post could be more condescending. (Yes, I am well aware of the irony, given the contents of this post)

Secondly, the irony is that you're sat in your safe space thread bitching and whining and moaning about people whining and moaning. That I have to explain that says to me that you should probably have spent more time listening to someone with a liberal arts degree. (In this case your English teacher when they explained the concept of irony).

No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Liberal arts isn't just music and art, it's also language, philosophy and anthropology. If you don't understand why the study of languages or social sciences are important or how one could make money off of it (which isn't the point of an education!) then there really is nothing we can do for you.

EDIT: And the irony was that you're whining about how people whine about inconsequential things.

While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato. Science and Mathematics do much more for advancement than pondering the questions of why we are here. Money should be alest a factor when your Education can put you in the Tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Unless of course being a starving artist of some form is your goal. Money may be evil but if that's the case evil makes the world go round.

Also I am not whining about whiners. OP asked a question I answered with something other than justifying these whiners.

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Personally I am glad that engineers designed phones and computers to let us communicate with each other.

It's just a pity that Liberal Arts wastes time we could spend using our phones and computers to discuss phone and computer design.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Commercials rely more on Scientific and engineering advances than art. Sure That 1 billion dollar ad looks nice but they needed Computer networks, power stations, and editors who understand how to use computer software, I'm sure liberal arts did not make the software and the editor could varywell have went to trade school. A big office building is also needed, while an architect might make it look good shiny a Civil engineer was the one that had to make sure it would not fall apart. Whatever the Commercial is made for will probably need to be manufactured so again you need Engineers and technicians. Don't forget you need a TV to watch it on so more Science.

Have you studied liberal arts? If not than are you also if not more ignorant to its effects than me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I am glad that engineers designed phones and computers to let us communicate with each other.

It's just a pity that Liberal Arts wastes time we could spend using our phones and computers to discuss phone and computer design.

Indeed it is a Pity, Liberal Arts is nice to have. Art, Music, stories and pondering of our existence has it place but such things are experiences and do not require a degree. I am currently studying Mechanical Engineering at the moment and it gives me a greater appreciation for what is sometimes the thankless job that is designing such systems as phones, computers, cars,planes and even the letters on my keyboard and the software used to make each keystroke in to a letter that allows me to communicate with you from hundreds of miles away. When one looks around you can truly see how S.T.E.M. has touched almost everything we take for granted.

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I have one of the more punchline ready Bachelors degrees: philosophy.

I don't believe that it was a waste of time, or that it limited my employment opportunities. It did do a terrific job of preparing me for law school. I don't exactly use my knowledge of Aristotle or Kant in my day to day life, but in my current job being able to see things from multiple perspectives, to think analytically, and to get a sense of perspective is enormously valuable.

The question isn't if a liberal arts degree is worth it generally, but if it is a sound investment for specific people. I knew I was going to law school, so it made sense for me. For a borderline college student, it might not have as much value. But that's true of any major. The problem isn't what people study, it's having college students that probably shouldn't be there learning very little.

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

True to an extent. But when you look at Liberal Art job opportunities, they for the most part truly are jobs that having this degree really won't give you a leg up on someone who doesn't.

http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/high-paying-jobs-for-generalists/article.aspx

Edit: That's what Monster.com brings up for Liberal Arts.

Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

white_wolf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Commercials rely more on Scientific and engineering advances than art. Sure That 1 billion dollar ad looks nice but they needed Computer networks, power stations, and editors who understand how to use computer software, I'm sure liberal arts did not make the software and the editor could varywell have went to trade school. A big office building is also needed, while an architect might make it look good shiny a Civil engineer was the one that had to make sure it would not fall apart. Whatever the Commercial is made for will probably need to be manufactured so again you need Engineers and technicians. Don't forget you need a TV to watch it on so more Science.

Have you studied liberal arts? If not than are you also if not more ignorant to its effects than me?

None of those engineers would have jobs without the marketing campaigns, HR departments, understanding of how people interact and so on.

I'm studying political science ATM, dunno if you'd count that as liberal arts or not.

white_wolf wrote:
When one looks around you can truly see how S.T.E.M. has touched almost everything we take for granted.

Oh look, another STEM graduate who thinks that non-STEM subjects don't count. What a shocker.

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

white_wolf wrote:

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

While you do not need a piece of paper, having one shows that you are educated in the subject. If I am going to hire an artist, hiring one with a degree ensures they have taken classes in design, history, and theory in order to learn more about something they wish to do with their lives. This shows that they have passion for the field as well as enough discipline to make it through getting a bachelors degree.

It is kinda silly to think that Art should not be studied just because you do not find it to be useful.....

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

white_wolf wrote:

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art.

Tell that to a graphic designer.

white_wolf wrote:

However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

So you're saying that the philosopher does not practice his craft when seeking a degree in philosophy? The political scientist? The economist? The linguist?

white_wolf wrote:
I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

It's less about standards, implying a correct and incorrect, and more about a skill set.

And people die because of art all the time. Propaganda and rhetoric have done more to cause violence than any invention.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

white_wolf wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

Tolkien is spinning in his grave.....

 djones520 wrote:

True to an extent. But when you look at Liberal Art job opportunities, they for the most part truly are jobs that having this degree really won't give you a leg up on someone who doesn't.

http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/high-paying-jobs-for-generalists/article.aspx

Edit: That's what Monster.com brings up for Liberal Arts.

Apparently economics is not a liberal art anymore.

white_wolf wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

Why do you need college to become an engineer? Can't you just teach yourself everything you need to know from books, and then spend the money trying to come up with new and exotic materials to build stuff out of?

The problem with STEM degrees (and careers, for that matter) is that only a small percentage of people are suited for them. For people that don't enjoy, or are cannot handle, or are otherwise unsuited for STEM, there are probably jobs for them.

I have a ton of friends that work in STEM at all levels, and I could not do their jobs. Maybe if I went back to school, I could force myself to finish an engineering degree, but I'd hate it. I'm a pretty decent lawyer, and I enjoy management, so STEM probably isn't for me. What I do know is that the STEM guys couldn't do what I do, at least not as well. As a rule STEM people have poorer communication, idiosyncratic teamwork styles, and a limited set of soft skills. In many ways, the things that lead to great engineers (ability to hyperfocus, drive to solve a problem through their own ingenuity, rigid world view) also limit them.

white_wolf wrote:
...and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics?

A general math degree is not especially useful.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

You can but unlike liberal arts Stem has standards. I can lay equations in front of anyone with a STEM degree and they will be able to tell me if they are right or wrong. I could lay a book in front of anyone with a liberal arts degree and they will each have different interpretations of what its meaning is. This also means that STEM fits into the college degree system. While you could learn it on your own most of those first jobs want to see your papers. After your first job like most things in life what you did in college becomes less relevant. I think college degree programs in general are silly only because they have a need to make student study a bit of everything. While I did enjoy those classes I also see that unless it deals with science and mathematics it's all subjective.

Also math can tell you if you should go to war, Do you have a high statistical chance of victory? Yes? Then you can go to war. As for the morality of it well that falls into your conundrum of Philosophy. Now if you do go those engineers and scientist will make sure you win the war.

You seem to definitely have some strong disagreements with what you imagine a liberal arts degree to consist of.

I see we went from calling college kids 'soft' to calling liberal arts worthless. Classic dakka

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
...and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics?

A general math degree is not especially useful.

Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

white_wolf wrote:


Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

Challenger exploded due to a mechanical failure caused by a faulty part used in weather conditions it was not tested for, and was not remotely related to 'math' in the sense of any machine having to calculate something.

You're thinking of the Mars Rover where some genius at Lockheed Martin programmed software to calculate in imperial units while the rest of the rover was using metric. Google can do that, and why attribute to a lack of math majors what is easily attributable to bad project management (the kind of job lots of liberal arts majors in up end, might want to work on that ).

 Polonius wrote:
The problem with STEM degrees (and careers, for that matter) is that only a small percentage of people are suited for them. For people that don't enjoy, or are cannot handle, or are otherwise unsuited for STEM, there are probably jobs for them.

I have a ton of friends that work in STEM at all levels, and I could not do their jobs. Maybe if I went back to school, I could force myself to finish an engineering degree, but I'd hate it. I'm a pretty decent lawyer, and I enjoy management, so STEM probably isn't for me. What I do know is that the STEM guys couldn't do what I do, at least not as well. As a rule STEM people have poorer communication, idiosyncratic teamwork styles, and a limited set of soft skills. In many ways, the things that lead to great engineers (ability to hyperfocus, drive to solve a problem through their own ingenuity, rigid world view) also limit them.

I would agree and Say that in general introverted people are drawn to engineering, working with a small team or own your own giving a clear task or at least a task that would have a clear outcome. I.E "This thing keeps exploding. Find out why and make it stop that. " or "we need to put this guy in this space suit into space. it would also be good if he came back not dead. make those things happen." Most of the time followed by "we also want to be as cheap as possible"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

white_wolf wrote:


Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

Challenger exploded due to a mechanical failure caused by a faulty part used in weather conditions it was not tested for, and was not remotely related to 'math' in the sense of any machine having to calculate something.

You're thinking of the Mars Rover where some genius at Lockheed Martin programmed software to calculate in imperial units while the rest of the rover was using metric. Google can do that, and why attribute to a lack of math majors what is easily attributable to bad project management (the kind of job lots of liberal arts majors in up end, might want to work on that ).

If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded. Whenever the words Untested and Nasa Launch are in the same sentence it should all stop there Giving the numbers one could have calculated the launch. I feel for the guy who gave the go ahead on that launch. Also if they would have checked the Math that rover would be roving. Failing to do the math does not invalidate the math.

Math is one of the liberal arts, are we pro liberal arts now?

 d-usa wrote:
Math is one of the liberal arts, are we pro liberal arts now?

Only once NASA got some people with math degrees, which didn't happen until 1989 or so.

This thread started off in a bad place but man oh man, it's slid.

white_wolf wrote:

If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded. Also if they would have checked the Math that rover would be roving. Failing to do the math does not invalidate the math.

So your core argument is that NASA lacked mathematically talented employees prior to the Challenger explosion?