| what do you do? i hear some people go further into academia. i've never found my place in it however. the anecdotal stories of people doing something unrelated their major is all too common. looking into the future, something that is interesting to me is dealing with the well-being of others. there are some kinks within me i could work on, namely working/dealing with other people. |
p0ckyy said: looking into the future, something that is interesting to me is dealing with the well-being of others. there are some kinks within me i could work on, namely working/dealing with other people. clinical psychology doing/learning talk therapy and social skills training is better for that |
| Bold of you to assume that majors of easily one of the most superfluous fields can help people in anyway. Not sure if it's me, but the title and the body of the thread seems very disconnected. In the event that both are indeed connected, philosophy is palpably useless in most cases, unless you want to pick up 14 year old girls with deep talk, then we'd have a problem with law enforcement. There's enough disgrace in taking up the subject as interest or hobby, but going full professional only really shows how limited your practical cognition can be. |
Yarub said: In the event that both are indeed connected, philosophy is palpably useless in most cases, unless you want to pick up 14 year old girls with deep talk, then we'd have a problem with law enforcement. maybe he wants to be a preacher with all the ethics/morality in philosophy or even a motivational speech giver lol |
deg said: You do whatever you want, still wouldn't change the fact that ethics/morality is transcendental. So in the end, people will just believe what they want.Yarub said: In the event that both are indeed connected, philosophy is palpably useless in most cases, unless you want to pick up 14 year old girls with deep talk, then we'd have a problem with law enforcement. maybe he wants to be a preacher with all the ethics/morality in philosophy or even a motivational speech giver lol |
Yarub said: ironically using philosophy to try to invalidate philosophy, nice You do whatever you want, still wouldn't change the fact that ethics/morality is transcendental. So in the end, people will just believe what they want. but really, law is just applied philosophy, and changes over time |
hverfa said: Philosophy isn't a tool, it's a guidebook, and a shitty one at that. So yes, the transcendentalism is logical, and my conclusions are deductions of experience. Now shoo with your universalism. Yarub said: ironically using philosophy to try to invalidate philosophy, nice You do whatever you want, still wouldn't change the fact that ethics/morality is transcendental. So in the end, people will just believe what they want. but really, law is just applied philosophy, and changes over time |
| I'm studying philosophy, but in a course that is radically against what is commonly taught in universities. The way how people were led to accept philosophy as something in which someone can have an academic career was one of the biggest mistakes that happened in the modern society, though I'm also doing a different course in a university. And you don't even need a course to study it; You can study philosophy by reading books of philosophy, which is a much more trustworthy method than spending hours every week listening to idiots with diplomas signed by other idiots preaching their ideologies disguised as philosophy. You can start with Plato and Aristotle, that are the most important ones, and then read Saint Augustine, Leibniz, and Edmund Husserl, among others, but don't fall for the trap of Immanuel Kant's intersubjectivism or Nietzsche's existentialism. |
ColtBuntlineJul 8, 2020 9:43 PM
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
| Once thought about making it my focus, then found out it can be on the peripheral. Its a tricky thing, but I think philosophy can be helpful in not-so intuitive ways. In policy, it may help focus the policy and limit unintended consequences. It could also not supply concrete answers so enjoy. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
morimemen said: deg said: clinical psychology doing/learning talk therapy and social skills training is better for that This reply's probably too late to be of use to you. I do philosophy in the UK, so might be completely different anyways (in particular, I've only been doing analytic philosophy). A good intro to philosophy would probably be some thinking about some 'big' questions, like, 'how do we know we're in the matrix?', 'if I get reincarnated into an Isekai, does it prove that what is essential to humans is the soul?', 'are there possible worlds, or even impossible ones (ones in which, say, 1+1=3)?', etc. Not that related to other people at all. So yeah, psychology will prepare you much better for improving others' wellbeing. Speaking for myself, I have gained nothing but depression from my education so far. im not much knowledgeable about Philosophy but ye if you start thinking of Metaphysics stuff then you will likely feel some Existential Crisis or Depression like you said |
| @morimemen btw Stoicism is the only therapeutic philosophy that i know of maybe there is more that you can share being a philosophy major |
| I'd like to congratulate all of them on completely wasting the ultra rare privilege (globally) of being able to get a college level education on playing around for four years asking meaningless questions and studying useless information rather than studying something of actual value to society. It's selfish and it's childish as opposed to the actual adults who bite the bullet for society going thorough hardships learning how to become something of actual importance like an Engineer or a Doctor. It's total bullshit that all these colleges get away with taking advantage of naïve / dumb people, offering them useless degrees despite the fact these colleges know full well that it's going to put the students in a shit load of debt that they're going to struggle to be able to pay off due to the fact they can't even get job in their major (let alone a high paying job). |
Kyotosomo said: I'd like to congratulate all of them on completely wasting the ultra rare privilege (globally) of being able to get a college level education on playing around for four years asking meaningless questions and studying useless information rather than studying something of actual value to society. It's selfish and it's childish as opposed to the actual adults who bite the bullet for society going thorough hardships learning how to become something of actual importance like an Engineer or a Doctor. It's total bullshit that all these colleges get away with taking advantage of naïve / dumb people, offering them useless degrees despite the fact these colleges know full well that it's going to put the students in a shit load of debt that they're going to struggle to be able to pay off due to the fact they can't even get job in their major (let alone a high paying job). Higher education should not be restricted to training people with skills for 'practical' uses, nor should people feel an obligation to 'work for society'. Many subfields in STEM disciplines have just as much practical use as those commonly subject to ridicule and jest in the humanities. Higher education should be about honing your skills and talents for something you are passionate about learning or exploring. |
Opticflash said: Kyotosomo said: I'd like to congratulate all of them on completely wasting the ultra rare privilege (globally) of being able to get a college level education on playing around for four years asking meaningless questions and studying useless information rather than studying something of actual value to society. It's selfish and it's childish as opposed to the actual adults who bite the bullet for society going thorough hardships learning how to become something of actual importance like an Engineer or a Doctor. It's total bullshit that all these colleges get away with taking advantage of naïve / dumb people, offering them useless degrees despite the fact these colleges know full well that it's going to put the students in a shit load of debt that they're going to struggle to be able to pay off due to the fact they can't even get job in their major (let alone a high paying job). Higher education should not be restricted to training people with skills for 'practical' uses, nor should people feel an obligation to 'work for society'. Many subfields in STEM disciplines have just as much practical use as those commonly subject to ridicule and jest in the humanities. Higher education should be about honing your skills and talents for something you are passionate about learning or exploring. If you're some rich kid who can afford to blow four years studying useless bullshit hey it's a free country. The problem is most of the assholes who do this shit then proceed to turn around and demand free college and that all student loan debt should be forgiven; that the people who actually had to act like adults and work hard so they can get a real job that actually contributes to society, that these people should be forced to completely cover the costs of those assholes' four years of bullshitting around. I'm sorry but they are deeply selfish, plain and simple. It should be illegal for colleges to charge flat rates (at least for government funded colleges), the entire system should be replaced with one where Colleges take a percentage of your income for a specific number of years. That way if Colleges offer people majors for which there's no job market for, they won't be able to make their money back. This will force them to adjust the amount of spots open for each major to what the market is actually demanding. If people can't do well enough to transfer into the program for said major because there's so few spots (like there would be for say philosophy), too bad, they can go to a trade school or some alternative means of education. Shit like philosophy is best pursued as a hobby. If you can make a career out of it on the side while you work a real job, and find enough success with it that it can become your new full time job, awesome, I'm happy for you. But for the vast majority of people there is zero future in so many of these majors and it's completely idiotic we offer them to so many people. |
Kyotosomo said: Opticflash said: Higher education should not be restricted to training people with skills for 'practical' uses, nor should people feel an obligation to 'work for society'. Many subfields in STEM disciplines have just as much practical use as those commonly subject to ridicule and jest in the humanities. Higher education should be about honing your skills and talents for something you are passionate about learning or exploring. If you're some rich kid who can afford to blow four years studying useless bullshit hey it's a free country. The problem is most of the assholes who do this shit then proceed to turn around and demand free college and that all student loan debt should be forgiven; that the people who actually had to act like adults and work hard so they can get a real job that actually contributes to society, that these people should be forced to completely cover the costs of those assholes' four years of bullshitting around. I'm sorry but they are deeply selfish, plain and simple. It should be illegal for colleges to charge flat rates (at least for government funded colleges), the entire system should be replaced with one where Colleges take a percentage of your income for a specific number of years. That way if Colleges offer people majors for which there's no job market for, they won't be able to make their money back. This will force them to adjust the amount of spots open for each major to what the market is actually demanding. If people can't do well enough to transfer into the program for said major because there's so few spots (like there would be for say philosophy), too bad, they can go to a trade school or some alternative means of education. Shit like philosophy is best pursued as a hobby. If you can make a career out of it on the side while you work a real job, and find enough success with it that it can become your new full time job, awesome, I'm happy for you. But for the vast majority of people there is zero future in so many of these majors and it's completely idiotic we offer them to so many people. I am not an advocate for free education (nor am I staunchly against it), so I cannot speak for people who wish for their undergraduate Philosophy degree to be paid in full. However your view hinges on the notion that people should live to be of some 'practical' use in society by working for the benefit of others. Your view here is not even well defined - 'practical' or beneficial in what way? In the form of entertainment? Increasing the average human lifespan? Or perhaps making things more convenient via technological progress? Your stance doesn't even address why we should prioritize these 'practical' aspects and condemn those who couldn't care less. Not only do some people not have the aptitude for (or an interest in) these 'practical' jobs, but shunning those who don't choose such and such career paths is an insular outlook to say the least. It's authoritarian and completely diminishes the intellectual and creative pursuits, and passion for the sciences, arts and entertainment, that have always been an important part of human history. If one wishes to study Philosophy in college, they should not be condemned for it simply because they are not learning skills that are considered practical. Furthermore, if they decide to pursue a PhD and later academia, they for sure will be funded - someone will be paying so that they can further explore their subject of interest. Are you suggesting that we cut all funding to subjects that are 'useless' because it doesn't fit into your criteria for practicality? Why should the philosopher not be allowed to make a living being paid to extend the field of Philosophy if that is something he is passionate about? Many STEM fields have no practical significance that would benefit the average person in society either - a physicist for example spending years studying black holes or field theories will amount to nothing for society other than for the other experts who are interested in his subject. Why should they be ostracized simply because they dedicated their life to working on something they are passionate about without relevance to the rest of society? Similar arguments can also be applied for entertainment. Today we have more anime than most are able to watch in a lifetime, and many more works from LN and manga authors whose works will never make it to a studio for production. These people get paid to write stories filled with cliches that can be substituted for one of the many other works that have already been produced. These authors contribute nothing to society otherwise as one can easily find existing substitute works or entertainment outlets. Should we condemn such authors also, because they did not go to college and choose to be an engineer to help build the next wireless infrastructure or a doctor to help treat the next person with diabetes? By your logic, much of the entertainment industry shouldn't exist as there are already enough works for one to consume for several life times. |
| Oh wow, this thread. I see that it's kind of been necroed, but whatever. I'm just going to save myself a headache and answer the OP's question. Hi, I have a Bachelor's in philosophy. I work at an English e-learning company in China doing curriculum development. My experience and the degree (the major doesn't matter) qualify me for the job. I studied philosophy knowing I wouldn't ever want to use it academically or professionally. It was an interest. Skills and experience are what is really going to shape the types of jobs you can get. I find the only explicit time I use philosophy is when I come up with values for lessons. As it turns out, not many people know how to determine what is considered a value. I hope that helps. OH, and I make A LOT of money. |
| @Opticflash You seem to have completely missed the first part of my statement. I have zero issue with people majoring in stupid bullshit if it's on their own dime. My issue is when they make other people burden the cost. The market decides how much of a demand there is for every kind of role in society and at the end of the day there is a LIMITED number of positions for every job no matter how highly regarded no matter how lowly regarded. And it's completely idiotic for our education system to convince people to put themselves under huge amounts of debt to prepare themselves for a job position that doesn't exist. There are NO reasonable arguments in favor of this, that much is simply common sense. To act like there is just screams fantasy. |
Kyotosomo said: @Opticflash You seem to have completely missed the first part of my statement. I have zero issue with people majoring in stupid bullshit if it's on their own dime. My issue is when they make other people burden the cost. Your very first post gave the impression that you had an issue with people studying "useless bullshit", so far as calling them selfish and childish for not choosing a degree with technical practicality. Had you only had an issue with people demanding their tuition be paid by someone else, you should have phrased your very first post differently. Moreover, you are generalizing a whole group of people. Kyotosomo said: The market decides how much of a demand there is for every kind of role in society and at the end of the day there is a LIMITED number of positions for every job no matter how highly regarded no matter how lowly regarded. And it's completely idiotic for our education system to convince people to put themselves under huge amounts of debt to prepare themselves for a job position that doesn't exist. There are NO reasonable arguments in favor of this, that much is simply common sense. To act like there is just screams fantasy. The purpose of higher education is not and should never be solely about training people for the job market. Higher education at its core allows people to explore their intellectual interests and helps foster their passion for their chosen field of study. It is (at the undergraduate level) akin to entertainment where the consumer buys in this case knowledge (and some critical thinking skills) associated with their field. If you have no problem with people purchasing video games and movies for their own entertainment, you should have no problem with people purchasing their degrees. You wish to forcibly restrict the amount of degrees awarded and seats available for a specific field based on the demand in that field in the job market. If university A grants 500 Philosophy degrees per year and there are 10 new "Philosophy" jobs per year, you wish to force the university to drastically cut the number of seats available for Philosophy. This would also apply to numerous other fields, including many STEM fields such as physics and mathematics, where jobs purely in these fields are scarce. This only discourages people from pursuing their passion, hinders intellectual freedom and creativity makes it more difficult for people to switch fields if the first one no longer interests them. It encourages work environments where people are not happy with their jobs because they feel compelled to choose a degree or career path they have little interest in. Moreover it destroys academia because so little people will join field X and even fewer will wish to continue for a PhD and become a researcher in field X, in addition to the quality of applicants being inherently restricted. I think what you want here instead is for universities to be more open about the job prospects in each field, and where graduates usually end up in, so that students can make better informed life decisions. |
OpticflashMay 23, 2021 11:21 PM
| @Opticflash Oh it is still absolutely useless bullshit, my stance on that remains. Unless you have an extreme talent for your niche major or get into a top tier school for it (as in either case you can likely fill one of the few slots where we actually need people to fill said job role) you are absolutely wasting your time being selfish and childish. The purpose of higher education is not "to find yourself" it's to train you for a job end of story. If you want to explore your interests there are countless other ways to do that without blowing six figures to do so (and frankly you'd probably get a more meaningful education in said interest outside of college anyway as the way most courses are structured isn't conducive to a meaningful education). I have no issue with people taking various classes to figure out the specifics of what they want to do, or changing majors if they find themselves hating their chosen field; but much of this exploration should already be done before going to College. High Schoolers need to be extensively looking into these subjects prior to college applications preferably even demoing the work if they have the privilege. And the fact that people don't do this shit is why so many of them end up getting fucked over with a useless degree or a degree in something they hate. And it's not forcibly cutting spots, there are other institutions where you could get an education in these majors if you're really hell bent on throwing away your money and time on a formal education in them, but it's completely immoral to waste the taxpayers' dollars on institutions designed specifically to mislead these people into studying useless bullshit in exchange for nothing other than crippling debt. And I have no issue with cutting down on less useless STEM fields too. The same way I have no issue with opening up more slots for useful non-STEM fields. Let the Free Market decide. If too many spots get cut, wages go up (due to employers vying for employees in a shortage) and colleges are incentived to open up more spots because they'll get a cut of said higher wages. And if too many spots open up and the college loses money on these people due to lowering wages from oversaturation in the job market, spots get cut down again. Also how in the hell are intellectual freedom and creativity suppressed by doing this? You're acting as if there's no such thing as hobbies, that it's impossible to learn things on your own, and as if people don't take courses / electives outside of their major (which is often how people end up switching majors) Also saying it encourages a work environment where nobody is happy is a horrible argument. Either way they're not gonna get a job in that passion. Except your way they're stuck with six figures of debt whereas my way leads into a major they at least have a chance of enjoying or will at least lead them to a job that provides financial security giving them ample cash flow to pursue their passion as a hobby or if they find enough success with it, as a job later on. Or they could also pursue it full time post retirement (and with money you can retire decades earlier). It's also worth noting even if you enjoy something, a job is still a job (this often sucking the fun out of things people once loved), often our pursuits are better left just as hobbies depending on the scenario. However yes absolutely universities should be legally required to disclose the average rates at which students in each major at said university are able to find a job in their given major (or at least adjacent to it). And as mentioned, all this exploration should be done in Highschool. Elementary School and Middle School general education are more than enough. Highschool general education is a joke. It's almost all useless (one or two subjects AT MOST apply to what you end up doing for a living) and even if it weren't all useless most kids don't retain any of it. Highschool should basically be nothing but electives and exploring what you want to do so that you know when it's time to apply for colleges. And if that means less weight on grades and more weight on the SATs, College Essays, and extracurriculars then so be it that's well worth it. |
Kyotosomo said: @Opticflash Oh it is still absolutely useless bullshit, my stance on that remains. Unless you have an extreme talent for your niche major or get into a top tier school for it (as in either case you can likely fill one of the few slots where we actually need people to fill said job role) you are absolutely wasting your time being selfish and childish. The purpose of higher education is not "to find yourself" it's to train you for a job end of story. If you want to explore your interests there are countless other ways to do that without blowing six figures to do so (and frankly you'd probably get a more meaningful education in said interest outside of college anyway as the way most courses are structured isn't conducive to a meaningful education). I have no issue with people taking various classes to figure out the specifics of what they want to do, or changing majors if they find themselves hating their chosen field; but much of this exploration should already be done before going to College. High Schoolers need to be extensively looking into these subjects prior to college applications preferably even demoing the work if they have the privilege. And the fact that people don't do this shit is why so many of them end up getting fucked over with a useless degree or a degree in something they hate. ... Also how in the hell are intellectual freedom and creativity suppressed by doing this? You're acting as if there's no such thing as hobbies, that it's impossible to learn things on your own, and as if people don't take courses / electives outside of their major (which is often how people end up switching majors) The purpose of higher education is both to cultivate one's intellectual interests and to train students for the workforce. Many people go into college already with a set goal in mind no matter how much high school or parents swayed them into a particular subject. However many of these people, once they become acquainted with the workload, the nature of the subject, or the job prospects, decide to switch to a different field. Do you realize that many universities for instance in Europe and commonwealth countries ask applicants to declare their major prior to enrolling in the university? People already select what major they wish to do, yet many drop out or switch majors after the first or second year. Your proposal only severely limits options for students to switch fields. There's no such thing as a "hobby" in a subject. You're not a "hobby" philosopher or engineer or chemist or physicist or mathematician. You underestimate how valuable an education is in understanding and contributing towards a subject. I can guarantee you 99.9999999% of "hobby physicists" won't be studying conformal field theory for example or writing research papers to publish in journals; they'll look at a few BuzzFeed videos to try to impress their friends with. They'll never go from "hobby" to "job" without a degree, and in many instances an advanced degree (Masters or PhD) is required. Your proposal would hurt academia (which in turn drives industrial change) if not destroy it entirely by first limiting the number of students that want to try get a taste of field X beginning at the Bachelor level. Kyotosomo said: And it's not forcibly cutting spots, there are other institutions where you could get an education in these majors if you're really hell bent on throwing away your money and time on a formal education in them, but it's completely immoral to waste the taxpayers' dollars on institutions designed specifically to mislead these people into studying useless bullshit in exchange for nothing other than crippling debt. And I have no issue with cutting down on less useless STEM fields too. The same way I have no issue with opening up more slots for useful non-STEM fields. Let the Free Market decide. If too many spots get cut, wages go up (due to employers vying for employees in a shortage) and colleges are incentived to open up more spots because they'll get a cut of said higher wages. And if too many spots open up and the college loses money on these people due to lowering wages from oversaturation in the job market, spots get cut down again. First do you know what the taxes go towards in education? You are assuming taxes go towards paying some guy to get a "useless" degree or else superfluous spending by the university, and therefore the university "owes" the taxpayer by tailoring the number of seats for the job market. This is nonsensical because you're not in charge of what specific purpose your taxes go towards; this is decided by the state or at the federal level. Your issue should be with the taxation system instead and who's in charge of spending taxes on what. It's also nonsensical because you have given absolutely no justification for why such a system is beneficial for the job market in the long run. What problem are you trying to solve and why does your method work? People may be discouraged to even enroll in programs for instance. The drop out rates would likely increase. Average job satisfaction would go down. Letting people spend on whatever undergraduate degree they want may even be beneficial for the education system due to more funding available. Kyotosomo said: Also saying it encourages a work environment where nobody is happy is a horrible argument. Either way they're not gonna get a job in that passion. Except your way they're stuck with six figures of debt whereas my way leads into a major they at least have a chance of enjoying or will at least lead them to a job that provides financial security giving them ample cash flow to pursue their passion as a hobby or if they find enough success with it, as a job later on. Or they could also pursue it full time post retirement (and with money you can retire decades earlier). It's also worth noting even if you enjoy something, a job is still a job (this often sucking the fun out of things people once loved), often our pursuits are better left just as hobbies depending on the scenario. Care to explain how a decrease in job satisfaction is a horrible argument? I can list several scenarios that is a logical corollary to your proposal
Imagine a surgeon with fatigue and little motivation to do their job; the potential risks are dire. You also neglected the fact that people can obtain jobs not directly related to their field after graduating. A Philosophy or English major may be hired by a journalist. A Mathematics major may be hired by a financial institution. Some employers may view favorably a candidate with a degree, others won't care. Do you wish for universities to say "you got a Bachelors majoring in Philosophy but are a journalist, which isn't related to Philosophy. Therefore I'm not going to charge you tuition because you aren't working in your field of study, and since I now can't make that money back I'm going to cut the number of seats available for the Philosophy major."? If so, what exactly does this solve? |
OpticflashMay 24, 2021 9:42 PM
| @Opticflash American universities require students to declare a major ahead of time too hence the importance of helping students explore ahead of time what they want to do so they're not locked into something they won't like or end up wasting years on classes that don't pertain to the major they end up switching to. I also very explicitly mentioned that some people understandably may switch majors upon realizing the work wasn't what they thought it would be or upon taking non-major courses that spark far more of an interest in them; I see no issue with people doing that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't extensively prepare kids for selection prior. However the idea you can't pursue a hobby in a subject is ludicrous, you can ABSOLUTELY pursue a hobby in most majors. Obviously not something like medicine or rocket science or other super high level stuff, but you can EASILY study the subject of philosophy on your own with pretty much the same level of effectiveness if not more. You don't need to major in dance theory to learn how to dance. You don't need to major in Computer Science to start coding applications. I could go on endlessly about most majors. Not everybody needs to go to College, for many it's a complete waste of time. College for the most part is really only useful to you if you major in something you can't effectively learn on your own OR if you can get into a top college (as even a major in basket weaving is useful if it's from for example Harvard, often the value of College is solely in the piece of paper and the connections you make not anything you actually were taught in class). Also we absolutely ARE in charge of where are taxes going based off who we vote for as they can push for / vote for policies that fix the education system (unfortunately the teacher's union has dump such a fucking astronomical amount of money into politics it's making it impossible to fix the system. Also in America in states like the one I live in we have what are called propositions where the people can vote on specific laws. And in California which has the biggest state school system in the country BY FAR we could ABSOLUTELY pass propositions that target specific issues in the education system and fix them (unfortunately my same state all the politicians are in bed with the teacher's union and people refuse to vote these assholes out because they're afraid the other guy will be worse on other issues). Also in what world is letting the Free Market decide not AMAZING for the economy? To even suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if you're aware of this but there is a fucking MASSIVE student loan debt crisis in America right now (I'm talking trillions of dollars) because more than half the people who go to College aren't able to get a job with their degree. This is because they blew six figures on a useless degree for which there was no market demand, and then because there are no jobs in said field they are forced to take some no education required job (that they could have taken anyway without having gone to college) that'll take them forever to pay off their debt with. Meanwhile, there are many fields where there is a massive shortage in workers preventing companies from operating at full efficiency to help the world with their products / services and to help grow the economy. Letting the Free Market sway the amount of positions open for each of these majors is simply common sense. You completely missed my point on job satisfaction, I'm not repeating myself again there go back and read it. And I did not neglect obtaining jobs indirectly related to their major's field hence why I mentioned not being able to get a job in it or ADJACENT to it. Pay attention. Also income share agreements take a percentage regardless of what job you got like in the event you get a degree in Electrical Engineering but one thing leads to another and you for some reason end up teaching Computer Science at a High School they're still taking their cut either way. Also they include a limit on the off chance you became wildly successful for example off company stock or starting your own business that way if you become a multi-millionaire they don't just get to take a part of that because they provided you with a degree you didn't use. EDIT: Also I'm not even sure there's a point in carrying on this conversation since clearly at the end of the day this is an irreconcilable difference on what the point of higher education is. I'm in favor of a society where the point of college is strictly to train you up for a job, primarily to set you up for success and to contribute to society although with the necessary pre-college research hopefully allowing one to find something that will also fulfill them (but if not oh well that's partially what hobbies are for). Whereas you're in favor of a society where much of the point in college is to expand one's intellectual horizons and explore who they are as people, that these can't be done efficiently outside of College, and also that you shouldn't be forced to work a job you don't enjoy (regardless of whether that's realistic given you can't force job creation for positions we simply do not have a need for, and you can't get around the fact there are tough shitty jobs that SOMEBODY'S gotta do). EDIT 2: Yeah just saw your silly response to this post not to mention I've grown kind of bored of this conversation as it's heading nowhere. Was interesting for a while though, for what it's worth the American education system is heading your desired direction so you can be happy about that. Can't say I'm happy about the ever increasing amount of suffering it's causing, growing damage it's doing to the economy, and the fact it's assisting in helping the social fabric of our country swirl faster and faster down the drain but oh well sometimes stupidity and corruption wins out and there's nothing we can do about it. I mean hey I'll be perfectly fine, I just feel bad for everybody else who won't be thanks to the way our shitty education system abuses the naive. Oh well, best of luck. |
KyotosomoMay 25, 2021 12:27 AM
Kyotosomo said: @Opticflash American universities require students to declare a major ahead of time too hence the importance of helping students explore ahead of time what they want to do so they're not locked into something they won't like or end up wasting years on classes that don't pertain to the major they end up switching to. I also very explicitly mentioned that some people understandably may switch majors upon realizing the work wasn't what they thought it would be or upon taking non-major courses that spark far more of an interest in them; I see no issue with people doing that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't extensively prepare kids for selection prior. Sure, "extensive preparation" still does not guarantee people don't switch majors or even minimizes the number for that matter. Your proposal would make it difficult for people to switch majors because you want to (severely) limit the number of seats in field X because there are little job opportunities in field X. If people were freely allowed to switch majors, there would be no point in limiting the number of seats; one can simply switch from economics to philosophy after one semester, bypassing the limited number of seats for the Philosophy major. Kyotosomo said: However the idea you can't pursue a hobby in a subject is ludicrous, you can ABSOLUTELY pursue a hobby in most majors. Obviously not something like medicine or rocket science or other super high level stuff, but you can EASILY study the subject of philosophy on your own with pretty much the same level of effectiveness if not more. You don't need to major in dance theory to learn how to dance. You don't need to major in Computer Science to start coding applications. I could go on endlessly about most majors. Not everybody needs to go to College, for many it's a complete waste of time. College for the most part is really only useful to you if you major in something you can't effectively learn on your own OR if you can get into a top college (as even a major in basket weaving is useful if it's from for example Harvard, often the value of College is solely in the piece of paper and the connections you make not anything you actually were taught in class). Do you know what exactly they teach in Philosophy or Dance Theory? It's ridiculous to suggest that Philosophy teaches you "philosophy" or Dance Theory teaches you "how to dance", as if the entire curriculum teaches students topics that people can master in a few weeks or months or by watching BuzzFeed videos. Virtually nobody would have the time and motivation to study at least the undergraduate curriculum on their own. You also said you have no issue cutting down "useless STEM fields"; that would include fields such as physics and mathematics. Furthermore, what if these people want to do a Masters or PhD? Again your proposal destroys academia and very specialized career paths because you wish to restrict the number of seats at the Bachelor level. Kyotosomo said: Also we absolutely ARE in charge of where are taxes going based off who we vote for as they can push for / vote for policies that fix the education system (unfortunately the teacher's union has dump such a fucking astronomical amount of money into politics it's making it impossible to fix the system. Also in America in states like the one I live in we have what are called propositions where the people can vote on specific laws. And in California which has the biggest state school system in the country BY FAR we could ABSOLUTELY pass propositions that target specific issues in the education system and fix them (unfortunately my same state all the politicians are in bed with the teacher's union and people refuse to vote these assholes out because they're afraid the other guy will be worse on other issues). Then why are you targeting higher educational institutions as if they were the source of the problem when your frustration is on how money from taxes are issued? Kyotosomo said: Also in what world is letting the Free Market decide not AMAZING for the economy? To even suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if you're aware of this but there is a fucking MASSIVE student loan debt crisis in America right now (I'm talking trillions of dollars) because more than half the people who go to College aren't able to get a job with their degree. This is because they blew six figures on a useless degree for which there was no market demand, and then because there are no jobs in said field they are forced to take some no education required job (that they could have taken anyway without having gone to college) that'll take them forever to pay off their debt with. Meanwhile, there are many fields where there is a massive shortage in workers preventing companies from operating at full efficiency to help the world with their products / services and to help grow the economy. Letting the Free Market sway the amount of positions open for each of these majors is simply common sense. I've already explained how there are major issues with your proposal.
There are additional problems; for instance why shouldn't students study internationally and be swayed to live in other countries if American universities decide to place a restriction on what educational opportunities are available? America doesn't exist in a vacuum. Those crippling student loan debts are an American problem; the source of the problem is the high tuition rates and not the number of seats for each field. You are attempting to put a band-aid on something while harming something else. Student debts are temporary funds from the government towards expenses by educational institutions. Kyotosomo said: You completely missed my point on job satisfaction, I'm not repeating myself again there go back and read it. And I did not neglect obtaining jobs indirectly related to their major's field hence why I mentioned not being able to get a job in it or ADJACENT to it. Pay attention. Also income share agreements take a percentage regardless of what job you got like in the event you get a degree in Electrical Engineering but one thing leads to another and you for some reason end up teaching Computer Science at a High School they're still taking their cut either way. Also they include a limit on the off chance you became wildly successful for example off company stock or starting your own business that way if you become a multi-millionaire they don't just get to take a part of that because they provided you with a degree you didn't use. You gave absolutely NO elaboration on job satisfaction and didn't explain how I'm wrong at all. On another note, sure, let's say "job at financial institution" is a job adjacent to the field of Mathematics. So is Accounting, Economics, etc, so why have seats for 200 Mathematics majors and 200 Accounting majors when you could go for 10 Mathematics majors and 390 Accounting majors, given that Accounting is the more "practical" of the two? It's pointless to talk about what's "adjacent" when other majors already fill in the vacancy for these adjacencies and more. |
OpticflashMay 25, 2021 12:09 AM
More topics from this board
» How do you live nostalgia?Zakatsuki_ - Yesterday |
13 |
by Clonazenyan
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
» Should I confess to a friend of mine?SHSL_simp - Jul 14 |
36 |
by KayKimii
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» スキンケア事は男性にとって必要でしょうか？ is skin care necessary for men ?ISeeLifePeople - 8 hours ago |
11 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What are some authors and figures that you hold in high esteem?FilthyApollo - 11 hours ago |
12 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» The Proust phenomenonRobertBobert - Today |
9 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
1 hour ago |