Heaven forbid someone should study something for any reason other than money. I'm pretty sure humanities majors realize they're not maximizing their expected salary.
> Almost all students cite getting a better job as a primary reason for attending college.
With a link to this study:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/heri-freshman-survey-2426...
Which says:
> Students are increasingly placing a premium on the job-related benefits of going to college. The portion of incoming freshmen that cited "to be able to get a better job" as a very important reason for attending college reached an all-time high of 87.9 percent in 2012, an increase from 85.9 percent in 2011 and considerably higher than the low of 67.8 percent in 1976.
So what's the solution there?
This is true, but is only part of the equation. You also need to factor in:
* The probability of them getting a humanities job.
* The cost of college.
If college is expensive and most humanities majors don't end up with humanities jobs, then your statement can be 100% but still a net loss for humanities majors in aggregate.
Edit:
As a side note - the first person to make a billion dollars from educational data will figure out how to gather accurate, unbiased data from all schools/colleges for accurate comparison data. Not even interpret the data, just gather it.
Because right now, working in the belly of the higher ed beast for decades and decades, I can tell you that any data you see has been scrubbed and scrubbed and interpreted as to make it functionally useless to compare programs within institutions, let alone separate institutions.
You're asking a bunch of teenagers about their life plans, or a bunch of 20-somethings to talk about something they put more energy into than they've ever put into anything in their entire short lives. Every adult in the room should realize that it's 80% bullshit rationalization.
What I've learned through many hobbies and non-academic classes across many disciplines is that there's a kernel of truth to the Kung Fu movie story arc. The instructor tells you what you need to hear right now, not the objective truth. Sometimes it's carrot, other times it's just keeping you from injury. You 'level up' every time the story changes, and you graduate when you see the training wheels and take them off. This 'rule' is just a guideline and you can break it in these situations.
What kids need to hear is that a few more years of hard work now will get them an easier life later on. They hear 'career' but college gets most of us out of whatever little bubble our parents and neighborhoods put us in. You are not in a little pond anymore and it doesn't matter how big of a fish you thought you were. It softens the blow when you graduate and discover the ocean.
If we didn't learn to build bridges in high school, we learned to build them in college. All of these things do help you in life, including your career, but typically it's indirectly. But you try telling a 16 year old who has just started looking at college pamphlets this and many just think it's more parental lecturing radio gaga.
What they believe is the bait. And hopefully by the time they see it for what it is, it's no big deal because they've got other motivations instead.
When you get a loan then financial concerns of is this a good investment should apply. If you don't have a loan - many people spend their money on all kinds off weird hobbies.
But it also shouldn't cost so damned much.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259912440_On_the_no...
* Health and life expectancy.
* Family life and marriage.
* Fertility and infant mortality.
* Intergenerational effects.
* Time allocation patterns.
* Asset management.
* Consumption behavior.
* Social cohesion.
* Adoption of new technologies.
* Crime reduction.
We need a term for the practice responding to requests for evidence by posting academic papers which do not contain the evidence.
The links you posted don’t answer that question. They have nothing to do with the study of those subjects, only the generic act of getting a degree.
Indeed those papers show the converse of the OP’s claim - they show that you do not need to study those subjects to get those benefits - any degree will do.
I've noticed that the majority of maintainers of a couple of high profile Linux distros are all European; the opportunity cost of doing so in the U.S. is just too high.
Yeah, I was grossed out when I read this. Glad I wasn't alone.
So this complaint is a bit of a straw man.
Yeah, one sentence or so in an entire article almost entirely about money.
That's nothing but an alibi or some sort of decorative item, meant as distraction from the rest of the perversion.
Money cannot buy everything, but it can solves a lot of problems.
The studying is not the problem anyone is talking about. People should study anything and everything they desire. The problem being addressed is spending a lot of money and taking out massive loans in order to study.
If you want to study Art, by all means definitely study Art. Just do not borrow $100,000 to do it.
After graduating I chose to audit 30 credits per semester for a year (for free, and while no longer being a student).
> Four in five engineering programs have ROI above $500,000, but the same is true for just 1% of psychology programs.
The only definition I've ever seen of literacy is the ability to read/write, with no requirement that the writing be particularly eloquent. I don't know of any college that would accept illiterate students (with the possible exception of the truly blind, who might have accommodations to use audio for all tests). It would therefore be impossible for a graduate of a 4 year college to be illiterate.
At some point anyone is going to acknowledge that the price isn't worth it. The ROI matters to absolutely everyone, without exception.