Hacker News Reader

Comment by chii | Hacker News Reader

> we as a society need to ... give them a path forward in life

that's what degrees like science/engineering is. It's a path forward. The trades are also one, but less "comfortable". What else could've society done?

View on HN

Personally, I think we need to make sure that college does not force you into debt for decades. The rise in tuition over the last 30 years is completely nuts. I think we also need to reevaluate what we really need from people graduating. I think there needs to be a serious discussion around how badly you need a STEM degree for some jobs. Do you need a CS degrees to test an application, probably not.

This leads me to another problem, because everyone wants to get a degree in a STEM field for a better job, the pool is diluted. I've met several people with degrees in CS where I seriously question if they actually ever attended class. (Actually from what I've seen the profitable jobs are really just in TE, science and math in undergrad seems to be little better than an English degree as far as decent job prospects.)

Provided a safety net? Collectively decided that education shouldn't be a gamble, and that the way we classify degrees as more or less useful is flawed? Funded more rigorous public education? Reduce the portion of labor value shaved off by executives and shareholders so that workers can live comfortably off of their labor without government assistance? As of now, society is doing practically nothing. Don't act like there's nothing more we can do.

There's something seriously concerning about having the only path forward be science/engineering and trades. That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. If fields such as architecture, literature, photography, film, journalism are populated by people who grew up with wealth, their privilege be reflected in their work. Would a journalist who grew up in a gated community be the best choice to cover and discuss income inequality and gentrification? Would an architect who has only lived in million dollar houses necessarily understand how to design public housing?

The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world. If this perspective is purely driven by the rich and the privileged, we risk losing an understanding of how the other half lives.

> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional.

Fulfilling careers that pay even a semi-decent wage for folks in those majors already kinda are limited to the (relatively, at least) rich. See Graeber's speculation in Bullshit Jobs re: the elevation of the military in certain circles as a reaction to all the doing-good-in-the-world or expressing-oneself while also making-ends-meet jobs being monopolized by those with family connections and/or existing money.

Of the fields you list, architecture stands out as different in that it seems hard to self study. The rest have already been totally subsumed by amateurs (photography) or are on their deathbeds (journalism). Youtubers are as well known if not more so than professional actors. Most journalists are already filtered down to the upper classes (the ones with jobs anyway).

Being productive in liberal arts, and more broadly, creative endeavors is absolutely attainable without a university degree. The internet has made self study, guidance and distribution open to anyone. It's also decimated many of these fields from a professional perspective.

> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional.

As it always has been except since the 20th century. Lots of writers of the past known as such today had to have patrons, be well-situated in society and commerce, or just be rich as hell. The period where a writer could be a published writer and make a living just by means of achievement was incredibly short.

There are many extremely successful people with 'useless degrees', like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston, but she had a metric ton of social capital which the middle class simply does not have.

The middle class ever had only limited opportunities, and since the middle class is shrinking, that's indicative of the opportunities getting boarded up.

> The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world

Thinking many years hard about engineering topics does the same. Plus, engineers do not not philosophize.

i would say that 90% of people do not have the talent for science/engineering that is necessary to succeed. and even if they did, that would just dilute the wages of those fields and make jobs harder to come by because there would be too many jobseekers and not enough jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com