Actually, no. Humanities departments subsidize the rest of the university. Literature is cheap to teach. You need a professor, some students, and some books (which the students pay for). The portion of tuition that the students are paying out of pocket more than covers the instructional costs. Lab sciences, engineering, and medicine may well lead to better financial prospects for individual students, but they’re also incredibly expensive to teach.
I don’t see why we shouldn’t instead use university enrollment as an indicator for future prospects in the job market. What if people anticipate a rise in the demand for basketweaving with a minor in communications? Should we turn them away because, today, the demand for basketweavers ain’t so hot? Maybe after they finish their PhD the employment opportunities will have exploded.
It’s annoying to keep seeing this doom and gloom scenario for law graduates. This is simply not the case. If you go to a crappy law school, you will of course have a more difficult time. My cohort in law school faced more challenges than most in finding jobs, but every single person I know has a job. True, some are not litigation jobs (but not everyone wants those anyways), but the vast, vast majority are in the field of law, or a related government and policy job. In my experience, people with law degrees have it much easier than those with PhDs (which I generally would discourage someone from getting) or most non-professional Masters degrees.
On to the OP’s main point… I do think that for the majority of students, going to undergrad for journalism is a waste of time. However, equally so are many majors (including political science, literature and biology). If you able to leverage your studies into internships that can connect you to a successful career, then like any other area of study, it might be worthwhile. I suspect that we’ll see a transition from schools of media into schools of mass communications and that journalism as a study will eventually disappear, except for maybe a few very specialized programs.
Can you define what is good for the economy? As I posted earlier, college isn’t a trade school. Most people who major in something like English, history or anthropology do not go on to become writers, historians or anthropologist. They’re entering the workforce doing something that isn’t directly related to their major.
My son-law graduated from a quite good law school (top 25% or better) last year, and there was plenty of doom and gloom at his graduation, and not just from the students. However that was certainly not the case when he entered, and someone entering now might graduate to a good market.
As for PhDs, it depends on which ones. Engineering and CS degrees are still in hot demand, and new graduates get a ton of money. English, maybe not.
Yes. It is hard to tell what is going to happen in four year. During the last part of the bubble people were streaming into CS departments, only to find things not so great when they graduated.
Yes, that’s when my cohort graduated as well. It was much more challenging to find a job than in previous years and certain legal blogs make it sound like everyone is making $15k annually working 95 hours per week but the reality is not that bad. The traditional summer associate to prestigious law firm route is much less usual, but people end up in more interesting and lifestyle-friendly jobs, from what I have seen. YMMV, but I also don’t see or know of unemployed law grads from the top 25%.
PhDs- I agree that you can definitely find jobs but the system for getting a PhD is so incredibly abusive (from what I have seen) that I would steer anyone away from even the science/engineering degrees for that reason.
I am a member of the Board of Trustees at a University. I can’t imagine the uproar if “society” tried to tell us to eliminate an academic program or restrict access to students who wanted to study a particular field. I can spas sure you,nhowever, we do look closely at what we think will match the future professional needs of our students.
Of interest, perhaps, is the general view that the American Psychological Association jphas put the breaks on accrediting graduate programs because of what they perceive as a glut of psychologists.
The problems here, to me, is that such tools can be used to increase wages by controlling supply. Let them join a union like everyone else.
Oh, wait…
It wasn’t too bad for people with CS degrees but it was much harder for people with MIS degrees.
In 2000, the U.S. only graduated 16,000 CS majors. The time was brutal for people who only knew particular products or who earned a degree without learning the material. The 100K out of the college door jobs did go away but you could get back up to that level pretty quickly after you have a few years of real experience under your belt.
Oddly enrollment in Architecture went up post .com period yet that field has always been overpopulated.
The University of Colorado closed its School of Journalism and Mass Communications last year, the first college to be shut down in the University’s history.
One of the problems with law schools is that there is no rule other than their own ethical restraint to prevent them from advertising all graduates who have jobs as opposed to the number of graduates who have become practicing members of the bar when it comes to their success rate.
I would further assert that the crappy law school might be deemed to be one which lacks cachet rather than successful bar passers. I have seen Harvard graduates fail to pass the California bar. JFK Jr failed the NY bar exam at least once. My guess is he still had numerous job offers.
My own alma mater is currently being sued for just this reason, misrepresenting the likelihood of achieving career success in the applicant’s chosen field upon successful graduation and the passing of the bar.
It would obviously be counterproductive to demand that law student admissions be restricted, but allowing schools to misrepresent their success rates ought to be illegal IMHO.
As a guy with a BA in Music Performance, I can say that my college degree has not gotten me a damn thing, materially speaking. No jobs, no pay, no medical benefits. Ever. Nor shall it.
However, having been a musician all my life and the experiences that I have had as a result, are the main things that have made my life worth living.
I knew going into college that I was never going to make a living as a musician, but I got the degree anyway. My university didn’t have to tell me.
As the son of a college professor, I find it kind of odd that people would think it’s the university’s responsibility to tell people this–if you can’t make it through college in your chosen profession, you’re almost certainly not going to make it professionally.
Absolutely, although I would think that if it comes out that they knowingly have been lying about employment rates, some schools might have to pay up. I’m aware of the suits that have failed, but the vast majority of schools facing this allegation are on the lower end of the law school rankings. I’m not sure if this is because the job prospects are so bad for those grads that it becomes worthwhile to pursuit a suit or if upper tier law schools are just that much better at job placements (which I suspect to be true).
It’s not really fair to use the son of a president as any sort of example- clearly the prestige of having JFK Jr at your law firm would happen regardless of his personal performance. I do not come from a family of attorneys- the last attorney in my family was my Great-Grandfather who died 25 years before I was born. The advantage of family connections in knowing and understanding how to navigate law school is immeasurable. That is probably the only real disadvantage I ever felt in law school compared with all the kids who had attorney parents. Anyways, JFK Jr clearly had a million times more connections and people eager to please him than almost anyone else I can imagine.
I disagree about bar passage though. Prestige/catchet is absolutely the name of the school on the degree. Look at UVA vs. Liberty University. No one in their right mind would say that Liberty University is more prestigious than UVA, yet Liberty regularly brags of its 100% bar passage rate, which UVA does not have.
Totally agree- and I do think it is illegal to misrepresent like that (at least knowingly). However, what the remedy for doing so isn’t clearly established.
My sister has been going through the medical school admissions process, which makes law school admissions look like a walk in the park. It’s interesting seeing how even students with excellent credentials and test scores face a real possibility of not being admitted. I think that in some ways, law schools could benefit from limiting their admissions like this.
I had a friend who is a 31 year old single mother decide to go to a very low ranking law school in the south (based on geographic limitations). She just finished her 1L year. I cringed when I saw average LSATs ect. but you know what? She has done fantastically and will hopefully be able to have a job where she can support her kids as a professional. However, if she had done poorly, or even mediocre, I think she would be realistically facing the chance of not getting any job offers. Schools and students need to be realistic about this. One thing I would support is decreasing the cost of 1L year and increasing the cost of 2L and 3L year so that poor performing students in the lower tier law schools have a chance to minimize their losses and get out without being overwhelmed in debt.
I agree with this. I don’t think the university is the proper place to gate entry into a subject. Follow the money.
There’s a substantial amount of government money at several levels in higher education in the US, and it seems odd to me that we’re giving loans to journalism majors on the same terms as STEM majors, when the latter will have a much easier time paying them back.
Exchange the word “bright” with “experienced”, and yes, I agree with that statement. Especially when dealing with 18-21yo’s.
If only they had some older people to whom they could go for advice-- someone nearby who knew them and knew something of the world. Someone who might even be helping them through college, financially.
Nah. That’s nonsense!
If only they (and this included me at that age) would listen to the advice…
Nah. That’s nonsense! 
I would certainly agree that US High Schools do a piss poor job of preparing kids for selecting a major or a career. We have this crazy system in this country of:
School-School-School-School-School-Work-Work-Wok-Work—Retire.
Should be something more like:
School-School-School/Work-School/Work-Work/School-Work/School-Work-Work-Work/School—Work/Retire-Retire/Work-Retire
Colleges just need to be honest with prospective students: If you go into this field, you have an x% chance of getting this job, a y% chance of getting this job, and a z% chance of working in an unrelated field where your degree didn’t do dick for you. Compare the possible salaries and do an expected value calculation. Federal loan programs should do the same and only subsidize degree that will generate a positive return on the investment.
As a prior poster said, if you are paying out of pocket and want to get that degree in medieval literature, knock yourself out, but the taxpayers shouldn’t be put in a losing proposition because that’s what you decided to do.