why do people study such useless degrees?

[fluffy]

depends where you squeeze yourself. if you squeeze your bladder area - easy peasy.

[hr]

dev ksereis, alla eimai trella erotebmevei mazi sou..

[Adz]

Having done my degree (solid joint honours arts subjects) and been pursuing my career successfully, i'd have to say that the current trends towards education are so wrongly obsessed with ideas of practicality. This is short sighted thinking.

While the labour government are keen to push vocational practical subjects to educate the disadvantaged (cooking degree anyone?)all that really matters is that you take an academic subject you like and are good at (you need these two criteria to last 4 years at StAn.)
Unless you specialize in your subject and a career that follows it, it doesn't matter about the particulars of what you take because:

Employers want proof you are hardworking and intelligent.

Employers always demand that you obtain more qualifications to join their enterprises and place of work - Uni is just the start of your professional development.

You sell yourself most at interview, and that often comes down to personal chemistry.

The next government will change educational trends once again.

ERGO you are best off with a solid academic subject. And whilst everyone is keen to poor scorn on the arts student, because they CAN blag a low end degree, and work less academic hours than science students, it takes a huge amount of effort and skill to achieve a high level of attainment in something as subjective as Philosophy, English etc

So don't worry about it. Do what you enjoy, what are good at, and follow your own path. Successful businessmen don't all take Business studies. Your favourite bands didn't go to performing arts college. Most lawyers don't take a law degree; they just convert later.

And most Classicists end up as high paid Accountants. Go figure.

[WashingtonIrving]

Philosophy subjective? Don't let the philosophy department hear you say that..

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[xsilence]

Don't know if anyone else read this article in the Guardian on Tuesday, but here it is online:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 81,00.html

To me, Monck's idea of relegating all Arts subjects to mere 'leisure activities' demeans those who have passion in those areas. In general, his approach seemed quite patronising to students en masse, in my opinion - unless they're science, technology or business students.

[TheUnixKid]

I can't be arsed to read this entire thing. I've summarised my thoughts (learned Arts subject taker) and have decided the most appropriate form of attack is as follows.

The person who posted the original thread is a complete cunt.

That's good solid pratical implementation of my degree.

[Gealle]

As an anecdote, I can remember being in a seminar back in 2003 and being quite blunt in describing a book and its author as a steaming pile of crap, without direction - probably because she was drunk.


Arts Degrees FTW!

[hr]

So someone asked me "What is it you do?". I thought about it for a minute. Then I thought about it a little more. All the while I probably looked like I was staring in to space, struggling for an answer. And I was. There was only one response I could really give.

"I make sure the shit stays off the fan."

[Gooner]

some examples - philosophy, english, art history. how will studying these help you get a job? moreover why do people waste their parents money studying for such a degree that won't be any use to them?
I'm studying economics and finance, and i think people who only take this degree are the smart ones. Others wasting their time doing philosophy etc are stupid because employers will ask them how will that help them.
Sabjeet

I agree with the original poster.

Seriously, why would anyone waste their time and money studying a stupid, useless degree such as Philosophy, English, Art History and the like? Tell me, how do these help you get a job? It won't..well, strictly speaking, that ain't true, unless your career plan involves working in McDonalds and saying 'would you like fries with that'.

And considering that there are more and more stupid and useless degree out there, such as 'golf studies', and more universities, I'd say a degree isn't even required for a good job anymore. Why would it? The streetsmart person is alot more intelligent than the booksmart person, they're more in touch with reality and have experience and virtue in their belt by living in the real world and not in some fake bubble. I should know, there's someone I know who went to uni, returned home and was acting like a complete child, while their younger brother, who had only a few GCSEs, is earning £15k salary that year and has maturity and assertiveness by experiencing the real world and its brutal harsh truths. In a debate, the one with the degree lost.

I really don't get students who'd want to study useless subjects just because they enjoy them; they need to think ahead a little bit and be more realistic about their goals. A career in sales does not require you a degree so why not work in that and earn money instead of being a tax dodger for three years, studying useless junk that you'd forget in a few years, end up with thousands in debt, have no job experience, and a useless piece of paper that's no more different than used toilet paper after wiping your behind with?

Honestly people, grow up. Wake up to reality.

[Andy Monkey B]

On the other hand, soon the economy is going up the pooper, which means we'll all be equally unemployed. At least Arts students will be interesting in conversation. Everyone switches off when I say 'Biochemistry'...

[Frank]

Academic study endows the student with an academic knowledge. To say it's a simply matter is to say "I am simple!"

Anyway

Recently I've had a fair few inadvertant discussions about this sort of thing. Over the summer I've become slightly proud of studying theorerical physics on figuring a decent response for when someone might (accusingly) ask "Well what good is that?"

Now, I've noticed others doing this too in many other fields (including 'pointless' ones such as English). For myself, I find it intensely stimulating to chat to folks about this sort of thing. I mean, I only now know what sort of thing I begin to value, let alone anything I will value one day which I don't now. I know my current opinions, but they're hardly well thought out.

The most important thing in convincing someone you're choices are worthwhile is the steely glint in your eye as you say authoratatively "I intend to finish the degree then go on to do this, this, that then that."

If you haven't though of two this' and two thats, then you might well consider something involving immigration or a highly disciplined/respectable career. Blag it until you get a genuine answer, but blag it well!

[RedCelt69]

I agree with the original poster.

I'd been ignoring this thread. Mainly because it was entertaining at first. Either the original poster was a troll (and a successful one!) or he was a moron. Laughing with him / laughing at him... either way, it was fun.

Until this poster. Who actually agrees with the sentiment. <boggle>

Seriously, why would anyone waste their time and money studying a stupid, useless degree such as Philosophy, English, Art History and the like? Tell me, how do these help you get a job? It won't..well, strictly speaking, that ain't true, unless your career plan involves working in McDonalds and saying 'would you like fries with that'.

My first encounter with a graduate in the workplace was at my first job. It was a software company. I asked what his degree was in. The mists of time prevent me from recalling exactly what it was in... but I know what it wasn't in; computing or any remotely comparable field.

The point is... apart from the obvious (careers in medical/science/law etc) it doesn't matter what your degree is in. Unless you wish to specialise specifically in a career related to your degree, all an employer is interested in is that you actually have a degree. What that degree is in is, by and large, irrelevant. Best advice I got before starting the UCAS process was; pick a degree in something that will hold your interest (and your hard work) for 4 years. Picking something because an employer might place you nearer the top of the pile of CVs is *not* a good reason to do a degree in it. Not if it isn't something that seriously floats your boat.

The streetsmart person is alot more intelligent than the booksmart person, they're more in touch with reality and have experience and virtue in their belt by living in the real world and not in some fake bubble.

This is so plainly false, it barely needs a response... so a bare response is what I'll give... as someone returning to fulltime education having gathered all of that "real world" experience I can assure you first hand (not a FOAF story) that "booksmart" beats "streetsmart" any day. It isn't to do with intelligence. Morons exist in all walks of life. Some of them even manage to drag their knuckles high enough from the ground to tap out a message on messageboards. <cough> As for living in bubbles, we all construct our own bubbles. Some are more securely tethered to reality than others.

I really don't get students who'd want to study useless subjects just because they enjoy them;

Such hedonism!

they need to think ahead a little bit and be more realistic about their goals. A career in sales does not require you a degree so why not work in that and earn money

There's very few careers that are recession-proof. Undertakers and tax men being the usual exception. Guess which careers get hit first in depressed economic times. People tighten their belts, become more reluctant to part with their money... not good news for anyone making a career out of sales. Not when they rely on that valuable commission to pay their mortgage/rent each month.

You know what? You've sold me on the idea. I'll pack in this whole academic nonsense. Dunno what I must have been thinking. I'll take your advice and set my goals high at £15k/year in sales <rubbing hands together at prospect of earning well under half the salary I was on before I decided to make more use of my life by going to uni and doing a degree in something that would give me pleasure and (despite your uninformed piffle) a much greater chance in the job market at the other end>

[Duncan]

Moreover why do people waste their parents money studying for such a degree that won't be any use to them?

Stab in the dark; so they don't end up writing sentences which express thoughts such as

I'm studying economics and finance, and i think people who only take this degree are the smart ones.

I'm studying philosophy, a subject in which it's generally understood that if you wish to argue for a position you have to offer an argument for it. A crazy idea, I know, but bear with me.

What sense can we make of

i think people who only take this degree are the smart ones

We'll ignore that the use of the singular term implies the author believes that Economics and Finance is the only useful degree and assume he meant things like medicine, law and engineering to be included as well. So what work is 'smart ones' doing in this sentence. Apparently if you are 'smart' you will do economics and finance. We should ask if this is descriptive or prescriptive - that is, whether we are suppose to understand that the author is stating a theory about how the world is: 'as a matter of fact all the smart folk study 'useful' subjects' or whether it is supposed to say something like 'it should be the case that all smart people study 'useful' subjects'. If the former is the case, then it is rather obviously false. Unless the author intends us to believe that, say, the current members of the philosophy, english and art history faculties (what an eclectic list, by the way) are secretly all dopes who have only been able to maintain their position by the low intellectual quality of their students, or else that they did not themselves once upon a time take as undergraduates the subject they now conduct research in, neither of which appears to be the case, so I think we can rule out a descriptive reading. Interestingly enough, Berys Gaut was originally trained as an accountant and now teaches 'film theory', so he might be a person to ask if you want a first hand assessment of the merits of the 'useful' vs 'useless' subjects.

Assuming a prescriptive reading, the author then demands that smart people not study 'useless' degrees. Why? I can see only two obvious possible prescriptive readings; 1) you ought not to study 'useless' degrees for reasons concerning the public good or 2) you ought not to study 'useless' degrees for prudential, self-motivated reasons. (1) Appears to be the most plausible candidate for what the author is ineptly fumbling towards. He doesn't like these subjects, therefore people shouldn't be studying therefore - we might imagine he would want to say - they shouldn't receive any public funding, government subsidies, university budgets and so on. I had a friend who once claimed that if everybody was forced to study university level physics, 'we would have lightsabers by now' - maybe the author imagines the same is true of finance: 'if everyone studies economics and finance, we would have a higher GDP and a better quality of life'. What, we might ask, would people do with their higher quality of life if not anything 'useless'? Would people in this hypothetical world suddenly declaim an interest in aesthetics, in literature or in the dispassionate inquiry into human nature and practices. It seems a rather horrible vision to me - a life much like that to be found in the pages of Aldous Huxley (though of course, we can assume the author has not read Brave New World) but perhaps my vision of the good life is distinct from that of the author. Perhaps he imagines that these 'useless' areas of inquiry, while they might have a place in his future state, are nevertheless best pursued as avocational activities. I can see some plausibility to this - certainly, I'll confess to having similar thoughts about art and sport - but I can only hope to persuade him from my own bitter past experience that with very few exceptions (Antonio Damasio springs to mind) when those who study 'useful' subjects dabble in the 'useless' they tend to do so very, very, very badly. If you want good philosophy, you need professional philosophers. If you don't want good philosophy... well maybe someone else does.

Which draws me on to the second prescriptive reading, the prudential reading. If the author wishes to persuade me not to study philosophy, he might wish to offer me a more convincing argument than that he thinks it isn't worthwhile. I believe it is. Are we to arm wrestle to settle the matter? Even if I were to grant that it wasn't useful - that the fruits of philosophy have been naught, or that the benefit gained by those studying literature throughout history has been nil - can I not simply rest upon my own inclinations. I want to study philosophy. I've paid for the privilege. Perhaps the author sees me as something akin to an alcoholic - he has my best interests at heart, and knows what is best for me better than I do. I hate to be the one to break it to him, but the level of knowledge I require of 'economics and finance' in my life, which I do not intend to spend in a finance based industry, is actually rather minimal. If I have read my Adam Smith and my Joseph Stiglitz, if I've passed my eyes over the pages of Paul Krugman and Robert Heilbroner, if every once in a while I dip into the Economist and the Financial Times Guide to Investing, none of which took me much time to do, does the author really believe that I - intending on a life as a philosophy academic - will really be letting the best in life pass me by, by my failure to beat myself about the head with Greg Mankiw and Hal Varian? If I ask myself 'who did you learn more from, JK Galbraith or David Hume?' I have to say the great infidel. If I ask 'whom are you more glad to have spent time reading, Milton Friedman or Ernest Hemingway?' The latter wins by a wide margin.

What mythical benefit is supposed to accrue from having a degree which includes the words 'finance' which could not be gained on the job working in whichever industries supposedly require the rarefied skills the author seems to imagine are so essential for a well lived life. Given people gladly and routinely pay to be happier, am I truly irrational for taking a degree which might admittedly decrease my earning potential on average compared to someone studying a 'useful' degree in the expectation that it will improve my own ability to pursue the good. My studying it is itself the good. I enjoy it immensely - unless the author doubts my ability to assess my own happiness. Though if he does, and wishes to mount a spirited defense of the claim, he shall be making a philosophical argument, and may need some help. I'd recommend Sarah Broadie's book on Aristotle's Ethics. If the claim is that the 'finking skillz' gained from studying economics and finance are superior to those gained from studying philosophy, well... I guess that might be true, but I fear the author doesn't offer the best evidence to support this claim as opposed to the opposite contention.

Others wasting their time doing philosophy etc are stupid because employers will ask them how will that help them.

That's not what they say. Still, maybe you know better: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/20/choosingadegree.highereducation Or maybe you can argue for your position. The philosophy department offers basic logic classes which might help you. Of course, if you think rhetorical style is important for making your case - and frankly, if we have learned anything from the American political system, we have learned that - the best place to turn might be a department which focuses on the close analysis of the use of the literary form by its greatest practitioners throughout history: the English Department beckons, sir.

[RedCelt69]

We'll ignore that the use of the singular term implies the author believes that Economics and Finance is the only useful degree and assume he meant things like medicine, law and engineering to be included as well.

Useful pratice as it might be for essay writing, that post was a tad wasted on the person you're responding to.

Unlikely that they'll read the whole text. Too many long words and not enough pretty pictures.

[Gurchan Singh]

You get a degree to get a good job afterwards. That's what it's there for. What's the point of going to university otherwise? Tell me.

Anyone who tells me they're dodging taxes for three or four years to study something that will be totally useless in the real world after (like philosophy) is a total idiot.

Let me spell it out to you:
You go to university. You get a degree. You get a good job after that pays alot of money. THAT's what the degree is for. All this other fuzzy nonsense you talk about is complete crap. You're welcome to debate this with me but trust me, you will lose.

Also, have you looked recently at which subjects add nothing to your pay versus the subjects that do? Accountancy and Finance totally walks over English and Philosophy anyday. Students studying the former are the smarter ones, because they know what they're doing it for; to get a good JOB with decent MONEY.

[RedCelt69]

You get a degree to get a good job afterwards. That's what it's there for. What's the point of going to university otherwise? Tell me.

Anyone who tells me they're dodging taxes for three or four years to study something that will be totally useless in the real world after (like philosophy) is a total idiot.

Hmmm. Could you re-read my post? If it hasn't sunk in still, read it a few more times until it does.

Let me spell it out to you:
You go to university. You get a degree. You get a good job after that pays alot of money. THAT's what the degree is for. All this other fuzzy nonsense you talk about is complete crap. You're welcome to debate this with me but trust me, you will lose.

Well. How could anyone possibly dare to refute your post after being told in advance that they will lose the debate? If you're confident you can counter any argument that is put to you, you'd do so... not make the claim. Making the claim makes you look desperate at best; close-minded at worst. As for trusting you... nah. I don't know you - I only know you're wrong.

Also, have you looked recently at which subjects add nothing to your pay versus the subjects that do? Accountancy and Finance totally walks over English and Philosophy anyday. Students studying the former are the smarter ones, because they know what they're doing it for; to get a good JOB with decent MONEY.

Time to creak open that mind of yours a little to grasp a simple concept: not everyone wants to work in accountancy, finance, banking, trading in futures or any other of a hundred different occupations which concern themselves with the study of, the manipulation of, or... just... damned...counting...of... numbers!

Without wishing to offend anyone who is in (or intends entering) one of the above professions, could I just say for me, personally, I'd sooner spend eternity in hell with my face clamped between Bernard Manning's man-boob and his sweat-drenched armpit, while he does a run-through of every appearance he ever did on stage... on permanent loop... than spend the rest of my life in a career that sucked the very essence of humanity from my veins and spat me out as a grey globule of phlegm that existed in a world of grey. Until I retired/died. Uhm. No thanks. <pointing> I'd sooner be in the corner with that lot... the lot who insist on doing "useless" degrees... the lot who, statistically and historically are more likely to put a bit of colour into the world than... an accountant.

To reiterate the point; I'm not knocking those who choose to take that career path. If that works for them, then that's great. Really. Finding happiness is the important thing... howsoever you find such happiness is neither here nor there. Telling other people that they're wrong to pursue what makes them happy would be really really (I mean really) dumb. I wouldn't do such a thing. Howzaboutjoo, Gurchan Singh?

[LonelyPilgrim]

I would like those who feel that only practical degrees are worth pursuing to repeat this phrase to themselves in the mirror: I am not a robot. Again, I am not a robot.

Higher education is not the wetware equivalent of software programming. If you wish to study a 'practical' degree, then do so at a technical school or a trade college. The narrow-minded and bull-headed pursuit of greed by 'practical' people has resulted in our current financial crisis. Perhaps the 'practical degree' ---> 'good job' ---> 'lots of money' life plan requires some reconsideration, no? What do you intend to do with that 'lots of money'? When it comes time to retire, what interests will you have to pursue to keep yourself busy? Or, a deeper question, if everyone gets a practical degree what will differentiate one job candidate from another. Cookie-cutter people don't make for inspiring hiring options.

Or, consider that the fundamental basis of a capitalist system is.... the capitalist him or herself. I'm talking about the individual who takes an interest and turns that into a means of generating profit. If everyone were studying 'practical degrees' and settling for 'jobs' who, exactly, would be the bosses? Consider that had I pursued a degree in accountancy - which I easily could have done - I would probably be working 9-to-5 for someone else, crunching numbers all day, and be absolutely bored out of my skull. Instead, I am self-employed as a freelance historical researcher to international antiquities dealers. I get to travel, expenses paid. I get to learn fascinating history. Furthermore, I regularly get to handle artifacts that are often a thousand years old or more, and which are worth more than your average accounting job pays in a year or even two.

Do I need to use accounting skills to keep track of my business? Yes. Do I need a degree in accounting to understand the basics of GAAP? No. I do, however, need the research and critical thinking skills that I honed studying International Relations and Philosophy.

Which, incidentally, brings me to another point: many successful people do not work directly in fields relating to their degrees. Is this because the degrees are useless? Hardly. The point of a liberal arts degree is not, in many cases, the subject itself, but the skills one learns through the study of the subject: research, critical thinking, logical argumentation, information presentation. Of course, any of these skills could be taught directly, but it really is so much easier to learn them in the service of an interesting subject. In the end, employers are far more concerned with your abilities and skills then they are with your knowledge per se in most fields.

I have managed employees before, and I can speak from personal experience that I would rather have people who have learned how to think for themselves and present their ideas well and who I have to train to perform their specific duties instead of individuals who have a lot of technical knowledge in the field, but who can neither communicate well nor solve problems on their own with critical reasoning. Fundamentally, I prefer people to be thinking human beings with varied backgrounds and therefore varied 'takes' on a situation. I don't like doing business with well-trained chimpanzees in human suits.

Finally, the other great objective of higher education, is to create a well-rounded human being. To de-chimpanzify us, if you will. Work, and money, are not the end-all or be-all of life. University is where individuals are expected to ask and consider the great questions: meaning of life sort of stuff. The questioners, the intellectual rebels, people with broad interests and unusual backgrounds tend to be the ones who push mankind forward on the road of progress. If we never question ourselves - which is really the entire point of subjects such as philosophy, literature, art history, history, even IR or psychology - we are unlikely to progress as a species. 'Practical-mindedness' is the attitude that is content with stagnation. Were that attitude the only one mankind was capable of, we'd still be living in the trees. Perhaps a very old philosopher put it best, and I'll leave the last word to him (you may even have heard of him, chappie called Socrates): "The unconsidered life is not worth living."

[777]

I'm studying Economics & Finance™, and i think people who only take this degree are the smart ones. Others wasting their time doing philosophy etc are stupid because employers will ask me exactly how I came to be such an arsewipe with the social skills of the terminally unemployable. Unlike the waste-of-space Arts graduates who are only fit to work for McDonalds, my SooperDooper degree in Economics & Finance™ will show serious employers such as Pizza Hut that I'm the graduate of choice.
Sabjeet

Wanker

[bdw]

Come on now, don't be so hard on poor Sabjeet. After all, he's studying finance while the financial system melts down around us and people in the sector that he is gagging to join are being made redundant in their tens of thousands!
While you guys studying history of art may have to push your transferable skills to impress potential employers, you do at least still have potential employers to impress.
Yes I'll have fries with that,Sabjeet, thanks.

[Gooner]

Work, and money, are not the end-all or be-all of life.

Oh but it is. Look all around you; that four walls and a roof..what do you pay it with? Money. Those clothes you're wearing? Costs money. See everything around you costs money. To enjoy life you need money because it buys you items. It also pays the bills and puts food on the table which keeps you like, which like it or not is more important that this 'push mankind forward on the road of progress' dipshit you waffle on about.

[Gooner]

It also pays the bills and puts food on the table which keeps you like

Sorry, this should say 'keeps you alive'.

[Cain]

Is it the table or the food that keeps me alive?