I do believe our doggus and Acco are deeply invested in being unhappy about their educations, rather than perhaps taking responsibility for not having profited from them.
I hire people, not directly anymore, but back in the states (actually I’m back on vac now kids, strange to be back in the States after so long.) I looked for folks with decent liberal arts educations for a number of reasons, for those who profited from that education had reasoning skills that I needed. Of course those that did not, who mostly seemed to be the straight-line thinkers like our doggus seems to be, well they did not seem to.
From just one responsible’s POV, my experience is we can train basic job skills easily. The ability to think and not waste my time with semi-literate, unorganized and poorly thought out proposals, memos etc., however is rather harder to train.
Perhaps the OP et al need to get better at (a) selling what skills they did acquire (b) looking into more healthy attitudes about what their educations may have imparted desptie other circumstances.
To put your mind at ease, I am a great thinker, as those you stridently search for. And I used my great thinking abilities to get a thinking-type job where I’m free to think all day. College just wasn’t the challenge that I and many other thinkers look for. We already know how to think. We want to learn how to DO.
Doggus my young lad, I’m known I think as being an aggressive empericist. I look for proof, not assertions. Let me tell you frnkaly, you need to demonstrate the above statement. You’ve not done so thus far, rather the contrary.
Doing requires more than simply quick learning skills and facile assertions. Doing requires a body of knowledge, often quite catholic in order to know what to do among a wide range of choices, in order to know how to balance risks versus benefits, attach proper weighting to perceived risks and benefits etc.
As just one relatively facile opinion based on your posts so far, you seem to have a fairly immature analytical process and haven’t shown much ability to step back from reactive thinking. That ain’t what I’m looking for.
doggus is hinting at my point as well. Clearly I’ve gained rare knowledge about the arts. This knowledge has helped broaden my horizons of appreciation for culture, humanity, and the like. Yes, I’m a better person for having done it…
HOWEVER
I (and millions more like me) believed that college would prepare me for the working world. It turns out that the position I have now I wouldn’t have been “qualified” for without a college degree. This position asks nothing of me which I wasn’t capable of doing 5 years/$20,000+ ago. I’m bitter over that. I’ll admit it. I feel I was duped into believing that college would prepare me for the more-intricate aspects of working… which it didn’t. I’m not overworked, and I was able to learn my position quickly. I’m not above admitting that it’s nothing a high-school grad couldn’t do without trying.
But why then, if it is such common knowledge that people go to college to gain basic knowledge, that it is the golden gate into the job world? I can’t for the life of me understand why employers do this.
A modest proposal:
What if… There was some sort of middle ground between an overly-broad liberal arts degree and a purely technical courseload? Could such a thing be done… or does it exist?
Sure. Lots of people do it. It’s called a minor, or a double major. Take three English classes one semester, and two engineering, computer science, or business classes. Reverse for the next semester. Rinse and repeat.
Ultimately individuals are responsible for their educational decisions. It seems highly unlikely that so great a thinker as doggus would have been duped into earning a degree in Nosepicking Stupidity while believing it would actually be useful.
I would repeat again that finishing college does not cause one to be welcomed into the work force with the red carpet and the trumpet voluntary. Graduates have to get used to being back on the bottom again. It was one hell of a shock for me. But with bills and rent to pay, I think I learned pretty fast.
1)College education is supposed to broaden your mind and teach you how to think about the larger questions of life. If you wanted job training, you should have gone to Devry.
2)If you feel your education was insufficient to help you find a good job, whose fault is that? A proper liberal arts education isn’t a bunch of fluff courses, like “The Semiotics of Madonna.” It includes the arts, literature, mathematics and the sciences. If you skipped taking hard classes because they met at 8 and you wanted to sleep in, shoulder the blame and do what you can to fix it.
3)Education does not end when you graduate; it’s a life-long process. Look at network administrators and Web designers. Very few of them learned their skills in college. The Web itself is only 10 years old, after all. Web folks had to learn Java, Cold Fusion, PHP, ASP, and so on as the industry evolved. They didn’t say, “Wah, I never learned this in school.” There will always be new skills to learn as technology and business demands continue to evolve.
My experience with the Scottish educational system:
I signed up (all those years ago) for a degree in Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. However, when I got there, I found that linguistics would take only one-third of my time for the first year; for the rest of it, I had to take an “inside” subject (a course related to linguistics) and an “outside” (unrelated) subject. In the second year, I could drop one and choose a replacement (same criteria), or (as I did) continue to the second year in “inside” and “outside” subject. So, while I was officially registered for a linguistics degree, I spent my first two years studying linguistics, classical Greek, and Artificial Intelligence courtesy of the computing department.
Which a) tells you something about how I got like this, and b) might offer the sensible balance between overly broad and overly specialised that Acco40 wants?
Despite not actually being Scottish, I’ve got a lot of respect for the Scottish educational system.
Throughout reading this thread, I was sure I disagreed with you, Acco, but the last post made your intent a little clearer.
I do not agree that colleges should change their teaching styles at all, unless it is to become less job oriented. Colleges have been around forever and serve excellent purposes - enlightening young people, showing them there is more out in the world than what’s in their neighborhood, preserving the knowledge of antiquity, providing for deeper study into the sciences without chasing the dollar as private industry must do, teaching critical thinking, etc…
I do, however, agree that employers need to stop requiring college degrees for every job, whether it is truly necessary or not. I have no problem with the employer appreciating and leaning towards a candidate with a degree, but to set it forth as a requirement is just wrong, 90% of the time. Almost every job can be done by a high school grad, especially if the person is highly motivated or intelligent.
Getting a degree does not magically make an employee a better, quicker, smarter person. I’m sure you’ve all run into the college graduates that don’t have 2 brain cells to rub together, and I’m equally sure you’ve run into non-college graduates that are as intelligent as the best of us.
Employers need to realize this, and not require degrees for every job. This way, those people who are just looking for job training can go to vocational schools or directly enter the job market to get experience, and those that are truly interested in a college education can go to college. This will have the added benefit of making the colleges a better place to learn.
I read the thread. You didn’t seem to be listening, so I thought I’d reiterate.
Very commendable
And, one more time, whose fault is that? Didn’t you do an internship? Didn’t you work summer jobs to get first-hand experience you could put on your resume?
Heck, I majored in medieval history. I worked in the hospitality industry with an eye on getting an MA from Cornell in Tourism Management. I changed careers and taught English in South Korea for 6 years. Now, I’m an editor transitioning to becoming a technical writer. Your college major does not determine the arc of your career.
Besides, you’re a recent graduate, right? You’re supposed to be a flunky. It’s called “starting at the bottom.” Use the opportunities you have at work to acquire skills to put on the resume so you can get a better job or a promotion.
Does your current workplace have a tuition reimbursement program? Take some classes. Does your job offer any kind of in-house training? Take it.
You, too? We’re everywhere. I majored in medieval history, worked as an administrative assistant/network admin for a political nonprofit, and now I am paralegaling for a huge law firm. Hopefully I’ll be back in school in a year for comparative literature.
Well put, by the way. As a relatively recent grad, I am a professional flunky.
One cynical reason employers require college degrees - plausible deniability. “Well, yeah, the new hire turned out to be a complete incompetent antisocial smelly dumbass, but he went to frigging Harvard! Dean’s List, no less.” Hiring is, at best, an imprecise process. In part, education requirements are a way of culling the number of potential applicants.
So in one respect, obtaining the degree with minimal effort is simply getting an admission ticket for the employment game.
But your success in the game may be affected by whether you actually learned anything during those 4 years. Everyone might have to start off filing and copying, but not everyone stays there. You might be able to impress those above you if you are able to express yourself well on various topics, draw comparisons and conclusions, identify projects and opportunities, etc.
Also, I believe a significant portion of the educational process comes simply from being on your own for 4 years. I think college life is sort of a semi-controlled maturing environment. Not to say you can’t get the same (or better) experiences simply moving out of the parents’ home. But in college, you are able to pick and choose from a greater array of educational, social, and recreational oprions. And the choices you make say something about you, and may be apparent in your resume or an interview.
Also, need it be an absolute dichotomy between education or experience? Others have mentioned internships or part-time work. How about the possibility of working for a couple of years before college? Perhaps a hitch in the service (which will also give you connections with future employers, and abilities/experiences to apply). Or work while attending school part-time, before finishing up full-time the last couple of years? That way, couldn’t you present yourself with the degree AND some experience? (It might take until you are somewhat older than 22, tho.)
If you’d have read what I wrote earlier, you would have discovered that I played college football. I realize that was a choice in itself, but it prevented me from doing other things.
When I quit football and transferred, I did get internships and applicable jobs, and I felt that more of that type of education would have had more bearing on the work I currently do. Keep in mind however, I did have 24? hours of other classes per week to handle, many of which included basic humanities.
(I graduated with a PR degree having only taken 4 classes dealing specifically with PR… yet I had to take 4 classes of Spanish to attain my degree. There is something fishy there, if you ask me.)
The “idealistic definition” hasn’t changed at all. That’s what it has been all along.
The weird thing is that all of a sudden people expect it to be something it has never been, and never purported to be: a job training course.
I do realize that it’s a vicious circle, once that idea gets into the populace’s mind. Employer’s offer jobs only to college graduates, people think they must go to college for a job, people expect college to train them for the job, etc.
However, notice that there is a flaw in the logic of the third conclusion. Employers may also require people to wear certain clothes, but people never expect those clothes to make them better employees.
I can concede that some change would be beneficial; I just think it should be more on the part of the employer.
Yes, learning history, literature, music, art, philosophy, science and business are only good if they directly benefit your weekly monetary income. Never mind it makes you a more intelligent, well-rounded, interesting person - what matters is how much money is in your wallet.
A. I read it, and so what? I know darned well that college ball does not require the whole summer to train. Frat brothers of mine who played football only had to show up 2 weeks before the start of school.
B. You said it yourself, it was a choice, so live with the consequences.
You keep acting as if you were swindled, when by your own admission you squandered your education. Take responsiblity for your life. If you’re not happy, identify what you want to do and the steps you need to take to achieve that goal, then DO it.
I’m not slamming you; I’m giving you good advice.
I wish your thread title had been more precise. I had no idea you were talking about liberal arts at the postsecondary level. I thought you were going off on the PBS special or something.
A liberal arts education is not interested in providing you with vocational training. Rather, it is supposed to teach you how to learn. If you emerge from college a critical thinker, a good writer, with a basis in a number of discplinary approaches, you are prepared for a lifetime of learning new things.
If a liberal arts education was vocational, then I’d have graduated from college knowing how to use a TRS-80. My word processing expertise might have been in Wordstar. I’d probably be a great BASIC programmer. Real, real useful today. Instead, I learned how to delve into new subjects and apply different tools according to the requirements of the task at hand. I learned to think analytically. I learned to write and communicate well, in various formats.
AT&T did a study in the 1980s (I wish I knew of a more recent study, but I haven’t been looking into this lately). They examined the education and the career paths of its managers and executives. While those with business and “applied” degrees started out making a higher income, it was the employees with liberal arts degrees that rose higher in management over the long term. They had the skills that applied well to management and were able to change and grow with the times. Maybe they felt they could only collate when they graduated, but they learned what they needed to learn quickly. Hell, employers want to teach you their way of doing things. Not the way that your school thought the business might want it done.
I’m not saying that applied or vocational education is bad. I’m just saying a general or liberal education does not deserve the trashing it’s getting here.
To add to Maeglin’s response, there’s also junior or community college. Depending on what you’re intersts are, you can get a well-rounded education (not as extensive as a liveral arts college) while taking coursework, interships, workshops and the like to gain valuable knowledge/experience that employers look for.
To give you an example - my girlfriend is getting 2 associate’s degrees: one in English and one in multi-media productions. She’s getting the English degree because she loves it, while also getting the other because it will help her find later work as a Internet web-designer/web master. The English degree requirements allow her to pursue a liberal arts-like courseload in getting a well-rounded education, while the multi-media requirments give her the knowledge and experience needed in the workforce.
Mind you, she’a also working two part-time jobs as well, so she’s gaining real-world work experience as well.
I can understand your frustration, but as others have stated, a liberal arts degree doesn’t prepare you for a career (an ugly word, in my opinion) nor should it. What it does do is to help prepare you for an enriched life.