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

Mezzotint

Well you've got the people who see university education as something that should be entirely utilitarian - a degree sausage factory that churns out obedient employees than are moulded to fit multinational companies' needs Vs those who see it as something far more fundamental to society, culture and knowledge development.

Generally, you'll never settle the argument.

Ficheall

Lorenzo Some Macaroon wrote: »

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.

Interesting one. I was sad to see it on fire, but are our learned philosophers better placed than STEM students to speculate as to whether the ~billion raised for its restoration would have been better directed to the Amazon fires or the homeless?

tylercheribini

Mezzotint wrote: »

Well you've got the people who see university education as something that should be entirely utilitarian - a degree sausage factory that churns out obedient employees than are moulded to fit multinational companies' needs Vs those who see it as something far more fundamental to society, culture and knowledge development.

Generally, you'll never settle the argument.

Preach.

Cordell

LirW

Mezzotint wrote: »

Well you've got the people who see university education as something that should be entirely utilitarian - a degree sausage factory that churns out obedient employees than are moulded to fit multinational companies' needs Vs those who see it as something far more fundamental to society, culture and knowledge development.

Generally, you'll never settle the argument.

Correct, and it's that a lot of people are happy with being utilitarian and be trained in a way that directly translates into an industry job. Nothing wrong with it, it ensures financial security early on. They'll struggle to understand how people can't do it this way because all you have to do is grinding it out and you'll be grand.

And the other way around there are people in arts that are aware of the way they choose and content with it not being straight forward. They don't understand how the first group does it the way it does.

And in between you have people in all nuances adapting their own way out of it just the way it suits them. Some have no bother with arts but couldn't do it themselves.
There'll also always be people that completely jump ship because they didn't get what they wanted out of their initial chosen path.

Markcheese

Lorenzo Some Macaroon wrote: »

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?

Well there are degrees that lead directly down a path (I know usually to a masters), so the engineering, medicinal, sciences Ect....
And there are degrees that show you know get along... So you've picked your subjects, turned up for lectures, passed your exams, for 3 or 4 years and either done another subject that makes you employable or a masters that shows what you can do elsewhere, and are now provably employable... That's no bad thing..

tylercheribini

LirW wrote: »

Correct, and it's that a lot of people are happy with being utilitarian and be trained in a way that directly translates into an industry job. Nothing wrong with it, it ensures financial security early on. They'll struggle to understand how people can't do it this way because all you have to do is grinding it out and you'll be grand.

And the other way around there are people in arts that are aware of the way they choose and content with it not being straight forward. They don't understand how the first group does it the way it does.

And in between you have people in all nuances adapting their own way out of it just the way it suits them. Some have no bother with arts but couldn't do it themselves.
There'll also always be people that completely jump ship because they didn't get what they wanted out of their initial chosen path.

Begs the question though why private industry are being allowed to influence publicly funded third-level institutions into tailoring courses to their employment needs. Surely apprenticeship programmes in these fields would be far more advantageous for all?

Cordell

Mezzotint wrote: »

Well you've got the people who see university education as something that should be entirely utilitarian - a degree sausage factory that churns out obedient employees than are moulded to fit multinational companies' needs Vs those who see it as something far more fundamental to society, culture and knowledge development.

Generally, you'll never settle the argument.

Actually the OP question (which degree is the most useful) is quite easy to settle: the degrees that gives you good employment opportunities. All the other degrees are only useful to be hung over the fireplace (no danger of them being burned, fuel costs money).
If you want to study philosophy, you do it for your self improvement, the degree itself is quite useless.

[Deleted User]

Pmacv1 wrote: »

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.

You can learn anything as a hobby is you want to, doesn't make it more or less valuable. Very hard believe the lectures were pointless, that they were not designed to increase students knowledge.

CrankyHaus

Both the blinkered STEMmers declaring that all other subjects have no value and those defending the liberal arts are a little bit right and a little bit wrong.

Liberal Arts and Humanities have considerable value. However there are simply not as many employment positions that require an education in them. Therefore in publicly funded education it is wasteful to have so many degrees and courses in them. It devalues the subjects themselves down to "something for people who don't know what they want to do but think they're supposed to go to college anyway". It shakes down the public purse for the benefit of a bloated further education industry (increasingly modelled on the grasping American example) and hoodwinks those young people by taking years of their most precious asset, time, and dumping them back out in the street with poor recompense. Less courses in these subjects would see them become more valued and in demand, with better career prospects for their less numerous graduates.

Education has a value beyond the utilitarian but the public funds have limits and are better directed first towards education of direct application. Leisurely pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake is more the preserve of the well off and subsidising their livestyle is a perverse inversion of the state's role in progressive redistribution of wealth.

Free education only exists because since the industrial revolution nations have needed an increasingly educated workforce. When 90% of people were farmers, hedge schools were good enough. Therefore public education was based on a utilitarian rationale, which should not be abandoned or disregarded.

LirW

tylercheribini wrote: »

Begs the question though why private industry are being allowed to influence publicly funded third-level institutions into tailoring courses to their employment needs. Surely apprenticeship programmes in these fields would be far more advantageous for all?

Because the private industry ensures a big input into the state's kitty. They openly collaborate with state funded institutions to get the best of the best out. Without the private industry colleges would struggle immensely to get funds for research to rank well internationally. They have a vested interest in the prestige university brings. Having a highly educated workforce looks good and having them readily trained is incredibly productive. You go and pick the best of the best and everyone else will find employment in the other 15 multinational companies that can get good use out of you. In-house training is very expensive.

Cordell

This, and also it benefits the graduates as they will be a better match for employment. Win-win.

LirW

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Education has a value beyond the utilitarian but the public funds have limits and are better directed first towards education of direct application. Leisurely pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake is more the preserve of the well off and subsidising their livestyle is a perverse inversion of the state's role in progressive redistribution of wealth.

Free education only exists because since the industrial revolution nations have needed an increasingly educated workforce. When 90% of people were farmers, hedge schools were good enough. Therefore public education was based on a utilitarian rationale, which should not be abandoned or disregarded.

And in the past this created a huge rift, people were trained but not educated.
Creating a third level environment that makes humanities and arts completely exclusive to people that don't struggle for money created a cohort of people with very similar interests and backgrounds, thus information can be easily interpreted to suit this demographic well, it's published this way and everyone with no in-depth understanding of it has to believe it because these people (that all come from very similar backgrounds) say this is the way it is.
Having these sorts of degrees only available for the wealthy can result for example in the following: Turkey denies the existence of the Holocaust in Armenia. Education material is influenced by historic research. If you have a lot of wealthy, they generally have similar attitudes because wealth is mostly generated in a capitalistic way. So it's easy to have people research topics in a homogeneous way because of their background and it's easier to convince a homogenic group why including this problematic chapter of history would be bad.

Another example is the Mandarin teaching material: there's only one institute in the world that publishes mandarin foreign teaching material. This institution is closely tied to the Chinese government and a lot of big names, like Jack Ma, donate money to it. The institute employs mainly people that are wealthy (and they got wealthy by taking advantage of China's developing economy) and people that are very close to the government in a way.
There recently was an article about mandarin language that's taught in Australia and the advanced stages are littered with subtle propaganda.

While I get that there needs to be regulation in place, money should never be the entry barrier to access education, in a perfect world anyway. It would make a lot more sense limiting places and have entry exams that test your aptitude for it.

I'm by the way in no way against STEM but this topic is close to my heart because I come from a entrepreneurial family (every single one of my parents/ grandparents were self-employed) with strong Humanities background. I know of the struggles and problems it brings but I've also seen them flourish because of their educational background.

nkl12xtw5goz70

"It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough—it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing" — Steve Jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI1MR-qNt8

Pmacv1

Lorenzo Some Macaroon wrote: »

"It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough—it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing" — Steve Jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI1MR-qNt8

Apple wouldn't exist without Steve Wozniak, just saying.

Cordell

technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities

Let me put it this way: maybe arts made the iphone a better product. Science and engineering made it possible to exist it in the first place. Without science and engineering there will be nothing, there is no way of preserving anything when no one knows how to print books and build libraries. Yes, both are important, without arts our life will be darker, but we're alive and living comfortably so to be able to enjoy arts because of science and engineering. It's much more difficult to enjoy a book when your child dies of pneumonia.

LirW

Ah just dance the measles away.

BarryD2

It's not what degree you study or even whether you have a degree at all, it's what you do in life, what contribution you make that matters. You could have an Arts type degree and contribute hugely to society in some role whether related or not. On other hand you could have a degree in medicine and be a complete waster.

EmmetSpiceland

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.

Developing good writing skills and the ability to read long, complex texts also should not be underestimated in today's soundbite-oriented world. You write articulately and clearly — studying English may have helped with that, and it's a skill that can be put to use across numerous fields.

Ah, come on now. Anyone in a book “club” can get all the information they’d need to produce a thesis on some old “classic” by using the information stored on wikipedia or sparknotes.

The idea that some wizened old lecturer reading aloud from an essay they wrote on the topic in 1974 is going to give the student any hidden “knowledge” is, quite simply, laughable.

Also, are you serious about the reading and writing “skills” part? Do you think that tutor and lecturers sit down with students and go over all the things they learned in primary school?? Seriously?!

That paperclip from Microsoft Office would be of more use. showing someone how to properly put together a “formal” letter.

tylercheribini

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Ah, come on now. Anyone in a book “club” can get all the information they’d need to produce a thesis on some old “classic” by using the information stored on wikipedia or sparknotes.

The idea that some wizened old lecturer reading aloud from an essay they wrote on the topic in 1974 is going to give the student any hidden “knowledge” is, quite simply, laughable.

Also, are you serious about the reading and writing “skills” part? Do you think that tutor and lecturers sit down with students and go over all the things they learned in primary school?? Seriously?!

That paperclip from Microsoft Office would be of more use. showing someone how to properly put together a “formal” letter.

Having completed one of these "worthless" Arts and Humanities degree's, "wikipedia or sparknotes" were certainly not acceptable sources for citation.

EmmetSpiceland

tylercheribini wrote: »

Having completed one of these "worthless" Arts and Humanities degree's, "wikipedia or sparknotes" were certainly not acceptable sources for citation.

They might not be “acceptable” but they have the same information, or the most “relevant” at least.

If you were stuck to provide further “backup” you could easily just hit the library, pick up a few books on the subject and use them as your official citations

Even on here you see people who claim to be some sort of “expert” on certain subjects and everything they put forward can be easily found on Wikipedia or with a simple “google” search.

Mezzotint

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Apple wouldn't exist without Steve Wozniak, just saying.

It wouldn't exist without the combination of technology, design, art and marketing know-how. One doesn't exist without the other and that's probably the fundamental point.

There's nothing wrong with taking a more utilitarian view of university or a more arts based view. They're both valuable.

Without one you've no infrastructure. Without the other, you've a society that's entirely absorbed in the pursuit of producing widgets. When you combine the two, you've humanity.

mandrake04

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't ever remember a time (i'm 45 btw) that the health service hasn't been embroiled in a row with doctors, nurses, consultants you name it.....always looking for more money and threatening to fúck off to Australia / America / Mars wherever pays best if they don't get it!!

And all the while insisting they're not in it for the money:D:D

I work in the medical industry in Australia and know quite a few Irish Doctors and nurses and sure the money is great but not all are in it for just the money, a lot just want to work on cutting edge techniques and technology...where they are well resourced and appreciated. Australia health system and hospitals are 15 years ahead of Ireland, especially doctors will gain experience they would never get in Ireland will return in the future with an advantage.

Also from experience lifestyle also plays a big part.

LirW

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

They might not be “acceptable” but they have the same information, or the most “relevant” at least.

If you were stuck to provide further “backup” you could easily just hit the library, pick up a few books on the subject and use them as your official citations

Even on here you see people who claim to be some sort of “expert” on certain subjects and everything they put forward can be easily found on Wikipedia or with a simple “google” search.

In fairness we live in a time where we can just about Google everything, knowledge is just a click away. You can do very comprehensive programming courses online, if you're into mathematics there are plenty of platforms were you can find solutions to common mathematical problems.

A lot of people working in academia in just about every discipline are more than happy to share their research or give people a heads up, it's not some sort of exclusive club that you're only allowed to join after grinding out 4 years of college like a good boy.
The amazing thing about the internet is it brings education into areas with poor resources. There are whole degrees (also in science subjects) that are obtainable without sitting in a class.

I don't know what your issue is with people holding art or humanity degrees but obviously someone pissed in your cornflakes.
I get it, you make a lot of money because you worked hard but other people feel they want to pursue something different in life, what's the issue with it?

tylercheribini

LirW wrote: »

In fairness we live in a time where we can just about Google everything, knowledge is just a click away.

Ironically in an era where free information has never been more abundant, critical thinking regarding the choice and consumption of such knowledge is often sorely lacking.

Pmacv1

tylercheribini wrote: »

Ironically in an era where free information has never been more abundant, critical thinking regarding the choice and consumption of such knowledge is often sorely lacking.

Yes, and a four year degree in Sociology and Gender studies is really going to teach people how to approach information critically.

joe40

LirW wrote: »

In fairness we live in a time where we can just about Google everything, knowledge is just a click away. You can do very comprehensive programming courses online, if you're into mathematics there are plenty of platforms were you can find solutions to common mathematical problems.

A lot of people working in academia in just about every discipline are more than happy to share their research or give people a heads up, it's not some sort of exclusive club that you're only allowed to join after grinding out 4 years of college like a good boy.
The amazing thing about the internet is it brings education into areas with poor resources. There are whole degrees (also in science subjects) that are obtainable without sitting in a class.

I don't know what your issue is with people holding art or humanity degrees but obviously someone pissed in your cornflakes.
I get it, you make a lot of money because you worked hard but other people feel they want to pursue something different in life, what's the issue with it?

There is a quote, (attributed to Einstein but I'm not sure) which states that
"Education is what is left behind when everything you have learned has been forgotten"

The skills, work ethic, thinking skills are all important regardless of the degree.

It does not matter what you learned in the past if you're not using the actual knowledge in everyday worklife it will be forgotten. The skills remain.

tylercheribini

Pmacv1 wrote: »

Yes, and a four year degree in Sociology and Gender studies is really going to teach people how to approach information critically.

You have completed such a course, or any for that matter?

Pmacv1

tylercheribini wrote: »

You have completed such a course, or any for that matter?

As I said to a previous poster, yes I've done four years in liberal arts to a master's level. I then went back a few years later to do a STEM post-grad.

Liberal arts lecturers make you toe a particular line, and if you disagree with their opinions, you'll get marked down heavily.

tylercheribini

Pmacv1 wrote: »

As I said to a previous poster, yes I've done four years in liberal arts to a master's level. I then went back a few years later to do a STEM post-grad.

Liberal arts lecturers make you toe a particular line, and if you disagree with their opinions, you'll get marked down heavily.

Straight away your Arts and Humanities( did this "Liberal Arts" label originate from stateside? I'am reading it a lot here) degree served as a stepping stone to a post-grad so not a useless venture at all.