nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What are the most useless/useful college degrees?

Pmacv1

Here's my list:

1. Gender Studies
2. English
3. Classics
4. Theology/Philosophy
5. Sociology

Honourable mention to Politics

Most useful:

1. Medicine
2. Computer Science
3. Physics/Chemistry
4. Engineering
5. Nursing

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

What alway spring to mind.

People in a wealthy developed country with access to third level for all, who have the luxury of staying in college till their early twenties at the least, complaining about the relevance of other people's degrees.

topper75

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You do realize philosophy gave you logic.

Only in the sense that meteorology gave us weather.

I don't know why people opt to spend three or four years studying something full time (often at taxpayers' expense) when they could just read it in the evening as a hobby. It has the same 'value' doing it that way, if that is what is important.

Ficheall

Lorenzo Some Macaroon wrote: »

But in both instances it helps to have guidance from an expert, who can show a young student numerous aspects of a novel or a painting that she probably would not figure out on her own.

"But what does the cat in the picture represent?"
"It's her pet, I guess..?"
"Perhaps. Might it not also be a metaphor for the girl's father; at times warm and affectionate, but often cold and aloof, with a tendency to disappear unannounced for days at a time without warning, eventually returning with a dead mouse by way of token apology? Or representative of her fear of dogs, and predilection for catfood?"

Pmacv1

Ficheall wrote: »

"But what does the cat in the picture represent?"
"It's her pet, I guess..?"
"Perhaps. Might it not also be a metaphor for the girl's father; at times warm and affectionate, but often cold and aloof, with a tendency to disappear unannounced for days at a time without warning, eventually returning with a dead mouse by way of token apology? Or representative of her fear of dogs, and predilection for catfood?"

Wow. So useful.

Pmacv1

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Nope, you're saying that the college degrees themselves are useless/useful. By the standards you've outlined, almost all degrees are 'useless' on the grounds that the vast majority of people who successfully complete them will not make any groundbreaking contributions. Which, incidentally, does not make their career 'mediocre'.

Of course college degrees are useful and useless. And no, I didn't say that you have to make a groundbreaking contribution to be considered useful, but in today's world a programmer, scientist, engineer or doctor will provide more value to society than a philosopher.

[Deleted User]

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Of course college degrees are useful and useless. And no, I didn't say that you have to make a groundbreaking contribution to be considered useful, but in today's world a programmer, scientist, engineer or doctor will provide more value to society than a philosopher.

So your argument is that it changes over time, for example, was their any computer science or information technology degrees before the 1960s.

I saw a really interesting documentary arguing that the post office engineer who built the enigma machine which helped Alan Turing should be as equally well know.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Of course college degrees are useful and useless. And no, I didn't say that you have to make a groundbreaking contribution to be considered useful, but in today's world a programmer, scientist, engineer or doctor will provide more value to society than a philosopher.

James Joyce was once a medical student, but abandoned medicine to pursue a literary career instead. Would he have provided more value to society had he become a GP rather than writing Ulysses?

[Deleted User]

Some of the things on the OPs list like English, Sociology or Philosophy are routinely undervalued, even by people with degrees in them.

I spent a lot of my life working with poorly educated people, many of them quite wealthy through sheer hard work and also very intelligent, but there was a lot missed out on by not having an education in such areas.

It's possibly hard understand this if you have the ability to do it, but not everyone is able to read the Irish Times of a Saturday for example, and take real value from it. They may not be able to read a book like Grapes of Wrath and take the value from it. Despite being intelligent they would find it hard to express themselves as clearly as they need to.

I was lucky to have a lot of success in business long before I had any education, but the idea that the humanities are not valuable is ridiculous.

I'd suggest that anyone who gets an honours degree in English is very likely to be successful in the future. It takes a high degree of intelligence and a capacity for diligence. People might like to think otherwise, but all the young people I know with such degrees have done quite well for themselves and are very capable.

Pmacv1

mariaalice wrote: »

So your argument is that it changes over time, for example, was their any computer science or information technology degrees before the 1960s.

I saw a really interesting documentary arguing that the post office engineer who built the enigma machine which helped Alan Turing should be as equally well know.

Of course it changes overtime, however tech/sciences will be in the lead for the next few lifetimes.

The only way English/Philosophy will become useful is if all technology is destroyed and we end up in a post apocalyptic world with no electricity.

Pmacv1

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Some of the things on the OPs list like English, Sociology or Philosophy are routinely undervalued, even by people with degrees in them.

I spent a lot of my life working with poorly educated people, many of them quite wealthy through sheer hard work and also very intelligent, but there was a lot missed out on by not having an education in such areas.

It's possibly hard understand this if you have the ability to do it, but not everyone is able to read the Irish Times of a Saturday for example, and take real value from it. They may not be able to read a book like Grapes of Wrath and take the value from it. Despite being intelligent they would find it hard to express themselves as clearly as they need to.

I was lucky to have a lot of success in business long before I had any education, but the idea that the humanities are not valuable is ridiculous.

I'd suggest that anyone who gets an honours degree in English is very likely to be successful in the future. It takes a high degree of intelligence and a capacity for diligence. People might like to think otherwise, but all the young people I know with such degrees have done quite well for themselves and are very capable.

I studied English to a master's level and got first in it (Post-Colonial and World Lit.). Outside of the confines of a comfy couch, it produces absolutely nothing of value.

I ended up working crappy jobs, saved up and went back to study STEM

[Deleted User]

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Of course it changes overtime, however tech/sciences will be in the lead for the next few lifetimes.

The only way English/Philosophy will become useful is if all technology is destroyed and we end up in a post apocalyptic world with no electricity.

So there is not a connection between philosophy, logic and set theory one of the foundations of computer programing languages.

valoren

Even with the benefits of his classical education, Hans Gruber still resolved to steal millions in bearer bonds just so he could sit on a beach earning 20%. Even he had a lifestyle he needed money to fund and working as an honest tailor in a John Phillip's store to pay for it was never his style.

Pmacv1

mariaalice wrote: »

So there is not a connection between philosophy, logic and set theory one of the foundations of computer programing languages.

Boolean logic yes, which is mathematical.

Set theory is used for structuring data, it's not used in the actual languages themselves. And set theory is again more mathematical than anything.

Just because something may or may not have been the precursor, doesn't make it equally as valuable in this day and age.

LirW

Lorenzo Some Macaroon wrote: »

To a point, yes. Someone can read Pride and Prejudice by herself, just as she can go to an art museum by herself and look at paintings. But in both instances it helps to have guidance from an expert, who can show a young student numerous aspects of a novel or a painting that she probably would not figure out on her own.

This is so so so important. Without people having in-depth knowledge (not Wikipedia research anyway) we would lose the sight of value in any humanities discipline. Why certain things were created, what did they say about the time, society and social movements, why did they became so big and how are they relevant today.
I feel a lot if people think humanities are just stories about funny anecdotes and pen strokes.

A lot of people can't relate and only try to see the beauty in it when it often has a lot more to say. But it's exactly these people that spend a lifetime working with it that are able to determine what's important to preserve and in what context. Without these people an awful lot of important literature, art and architecture would be lost that tells a lot about who we are and what we went through.
It's fine to not see this as economically viable but it serves another purpose. Just like IT is a commitment to life long learning, a serious pursue in an art/humanities discipline with a suitable gig is a lifelong commitment to protect and embrace things from being devalued and destroyed.
Just think about the Uyghurs in China, they're being wiped out in a grand scale and their culture and heritage is about to be lost. Without humanities and art studies there wouldn't even be an attempt to try and preserve any of it for later generations to understand them as a society and what they went through.

[Deleted User]

Pmacv1 wrote: »

I studied English to a master's level and got first in it (Post-Colonial and World Lit.). Outside of the confines of a comfy couch, it produces absolutely nothing of value.

I ended up working crappy jobs, saved up and went back to study STEM

I'll bet you're doing well in it? But you could have worked as an academic or a teacher with what you had done before going back?

LirW

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think you might be confusing geography with taxi driving:D That's were google maps has taken over.

No more 3 or 4 years spent driving around in circles to the knowledge guv, innit.:D

Okay where can I do my Bachelor on "Transportation management"

Pmacv1

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I'll bet you're doing well in it? But you could have worked as an academic or a teacher with what you had done before going back?

Yeah, but the point is that everything I learned, I could have learned as a hobby, as opposed to causing expense to the tax payer. I mean I stopped going to lectures after 2nd year because they were pointless.

Pmacv1

LirW wrote: »

Okay where can I do my Bachelor on "Transportation management"

https://www.cit.ie/course/CRTTMGT8

You're welcome!

Mezzotint

It depends on what you do with it. I know a very well employed person who did a masters in gender studies and someone who has a degree in physics and is working in retail most of the time stacking shelves.

Degrees don't necessarily make careers. They are just a good starting off point.

We're still very bad with career as advice and life coaching. A lot of very skilled and talented people do find the right niches. If you'd a well organised system you'd have excellent career advice services at all stages in life

Pmacv1

Mezzotint wrote: »

It depends on what you do with it. I know a very well employed person who did a masters in gender studies and someone who has a degree in physics and is working in retail most of the time stacking shelves.

Degrees don't necessarily make careers. They are just a good starting off point.

There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Mezzotint

Pmacv1 wrote: »

There will always be exceptions to the rule.

What rule? Nobody's supplied stats to back up any of the allegations about certain degrees.

Mad_maxx

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Some of the things on the OPs list like English, Sociology or Philosophy are routinely undervalued, even by people with degrees in them.

I spent a lot of my life working with poorly educated people, many of them quite wealthy through sheer hard work and also very intelligent, but there was a lot missed out on by not having an education in such areas.

It's possibly hard understand this if you have the ability to do it, but not everyone is able to read the Irish Times of a Saturday for example, and take real value from it. They may not be able to read a book like Grapes of Wrath and take the value from it. Despite being intelligent they would find it hard to express themselves as clearly as they need to.

I was lucky to have a lot of success in business long before I had any education, but the idea that the humanities are not valuable is ridiculous.

I'd suggest that anyone who gets an honours degree in English is very likely to be successful in the future. It takes a high degree of intelligence and a capacity for diligence. People might like to think otherwise, but all the young people I know with such degrees have done quite well for themselves and are very capable.

Those ( common sense practically minded) people were probably better off, they hadn't time to pause, stroke their chin and ponder existential matters

Happier for it, thinking too much is very bad for your mental health

Mad_maxx

Mezzotint wrote: »

It depends on what you do with it. I know a very well employed person who did a masters in gender studies and someone who has a degree in physics and is working in retail most of the time stacking shelves.

Degrees don't necessarily make careers. They are just a good starting off point.

We're still very bad with career as advice and life coaching. A lot of very skilled and talented people do find the right niches. If you'd a well organised system you'd have excellent career advice services at all stages in life

"gender studies" should not be taught in state subsidised institutions, nor should any other political ideologies

Pmacv1

Mezzotint wrote: »

What rule? Nobody's supplied stats to back up any of the allegations about certain degrees.

Try using Google.

EDit

When I was at university (over 25 years ago now) anyone who didn’t have a clue what to do as a career and was looking for an easy 3 years did a degree called American Studies. Never quite understood that one, always seemed a bit useless to me.

nkl12xtw5goz70

LirW wrote: »

This is so so so important. Without people having in-depth knowledge (not Wikipedia research anyway) we would lose the sight of value in any humanities discipline. Why certain things were created, what did they say about the time, society and social movements, why did they became so big and how are they relevant today.
I feel a lot if people think humanities are just stories about funny anecdotes and pen strokes.

A lot of people can't relate and only try to see the beauty in it when it often has a lot more to say. But it's exactly these people that spend a lifetime working with it that are able to determine what's important to preserve and in what context. Without these people an awful lot of important literature, art and architecture would be lost that tells a lot about who we are and what we went through.
It's fine to not see this as economically viable but it serves another purpose. Just like IT is a commitment to life long learning, a serious pursue in an art/humanities discipline with a suitable gig is a lifelong commitment to protect and embrace things from being devalued and destroyed.
Just think about the Uyghurs in China, they're being wiped out in a grand scale and their culture and heritage is about to be lost. Without humanities and art studies there wouldn't even be an attempt to try and preserve any of it for later generations to understand them as a society and what they went through.

I completely agree with all of the above.

While Notre Dame was on fire earlier this year, it was remarkable to see allegedly educated people saying "Who cares? It's just an old building." Zero appreciation of its historical, cultural, artistic, or architectural value.

Engineering, science, and so on, are valuable pursuits. But if we value only those disciplines, and regard literature, philosophy, and art as frivolous or pointless, we are headed down an anti-intellectual and nihilistic path.

Mezzotint

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Try using Google.

Try supporting your arguments with references.

(I just thought I'd try joining in with a bit of condescending sarcasm, since that seems to be the tone we're going for.)

LirW

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"gender studies" should not be taught in state subsidised institutions, nor should any other political ideologies

Controversial question: why not?
Because people have the picture it is full of 4th wave feminists that are building some resistance to wipe out men once and for all?
I had a compulsory gender studies module in course when I had my first attempt in college and it's a lot less "exciting" than you think.
It's a lot of history and sociology, analyses the role of women in the past and present, the role of men, how they changed and shifted, what problem each of them faces in different societies, it's a lot of sociology and some psychology and all of it quite centered on the 2 different sexes.
Of course it talks about LGBT too because this is a big part of it since these people face unique challenges because they're very much the opposition of societal norms we use for a long time, with no fault of their own (you hardly choose to be gay).

It's probably not how you imagine it and while it attracts a share of bollixes, it's a lot more unexciting than you'd think.
People with gender study degrees would for example be quite employable in the wider HR field because diversity is a big thing for a lot of companies.

tylercheribini

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Here's my list:

1. Gender Studies
2. English
3. Classics
4. Theology/Philosophy
5. Sociology

Honourable mention to Politics

Most useful:

1. Medicine
2. Computer Science
3. Physics/Chemistry
4. Engineering
5. Nursing

“Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts; nothing else will ever be of any service to them.”
― Charles Dickens, Hard Times

Funny this was written around the time of our last Industrial Revolution.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Pmacv1 wrote: »

The only way English/Philosophy will become useful is if all technology is destroyed and we end up in a post apocalyptic world with no electricity.

Should people study only things that are "useful"?

Should we teach "useless" subjects like English, history, and art in secondary school? Or just scrap the whole thing and focus exclusively on "useful" subjects?