>

The point of college is not to learn job skills. That’s a trade school.
So, a person who doesn’t know shit about humanities thinks they shouldn’t be available to people who do know shit about humanities? K >

They are probably a fan of Ayn Rand. They're always coming up with silly opinions like the OP >

Define humanities… cuz a major in education, psychology, language, architecture, sociology all lead to useful professions. Teacher, psychologist, translator, psychiatrist, counselor, therapist, architect, etc. Even if more school is needed. Little more strained but Urban planning/Geography go into city planning. Making those degrees only available for the rich leads to a shortage of them. 
Even taking the majors out of it. Public unis need to still teach English, history,  communication. Those are universal skills that every Dr, Vet, lawyer, engineer need. 
Trade schools and unions need to be able to table in high schools. >

FWIW psychology, psychiatry, sociology, the various programs that produce therapists are not humanities- they are social or, in the case of psychiatry, medical sciences. Architecture is on the fence as well- with some considering it married to engineering and others considering more married to art. >

Absolutely. Depends on the university and how the majors are grouped. The social sciences tend to be under liberal arts >

"Critical thinking" alone is a humanities class. You want to keep the lower class out of something like this? Are you serious? >

Well yes, bc according to op the lower class MUST work a certain set of jobs. The rich should study whatever the fuck they want, paid by the government of course. >

When did this sub become “poorly thought out arguementative opinions” because lately that’s mostly what I’ve been seeing. >

I hate that this sub is just irrational rants that are unpopular due to how purely stupid they are >

I agree, I have probably 300 unpopular opinions, held only by myself because the opinions are stupid. I know this and the world doesn’t benefit by my making them public. So, I choose to keep them to myself. >


Government spending on education is meant to promote economic mobility in lower classes, right?

No, it's meant to educate people and create a more well rounded populace. STEM without the humanities is how you end with tech bros who don't understand how people work. >

Trust me man university level humanities does not really teach anything about how people work, that’s mostly just social skills. (And no, social sciences do not really teach social skills either) >

Have you actually been to a good university tho? Bc back in the day when I went to one they thought us critical thinking, skills needed for getting a job (communication, team working, IT competences) and gave us opportunities to network in the field of our choice. You sound like you went to uni to make friends you can party with and somehow confuse that with proper education. >

How do I sound like that sorry? The person above me implied that studying humanities will give you an understanding on how people work, I said no they do not lol, not even social sciences really do this. The classes are valuable and do teach important skills like the ones you mentioned, but none of those skills have anything to do with “how people work”.  Understanding “how people work” is just having good social skills and being observant, nobody teaches you this except your upbringing. >

I mean, i studied a degree in english and they literally explained how the human body works; how the brain works when speaking, what goes wrong during a stroke and how you recover and the mechanisms of speech, the way the vocal chords and tongue move. 
If you mean how people work from a social POV... wait until you hear about sociology >

I took an intro sociology class at my university and it was the easiest most brain dead class I ever took there. 95% common sense put into rigorous definitions. Maybe it gets more interesting, but at least at my university people who do this major are either athletes or those who just want to party all the time (and I guess have a lot of money to waste…). Oh and just looked it up, my university is apparently within the top 5 sociology programs in the country… wtf?? The truth is academia has no better understanding of humans than regular people (obviously not true for biological stuff like the example you mentioned). >

You barely touched the surface with an intro course. Academia is about a lot of research which you clearly haven't done. Your view is quite limited for someone who claims they went to uni. >

I'm currently living in a scenario that you have described, where the humanities and social studies are excluded from the education of STEM students so they can focus on STEM, in my country. 
And its bad. And I can say this, because I am one of those STEM students and I can tell the lack of humanitarian knowledge from my peers.
To put it lightly, in my country there are two major universities that represent this scenario. A university focused con STEM exclusively and another where STEM is imparted, along with humanities, but the focus is humanities. I study in the former.
Unfortunately, my university is riddled with cruel, uncultured and unethical students that are geniuses in their respective majors but complete morons for politics. It's so bad our own student federation is being investigated for money fraud and there's "bad blood" between both of the institutions I mentioned.
My major is in biotech, and my career is notoriously sensitive to ethics because of the nature of its work. Due to this lack of knowledge in sociology, politics and history we had a nationwide strike and almost ban against GMO crops entieely, because of the ignorance of the engineers in the past generation (many of which are teachers of mine today).
Yes, as an engineer I can see the need to educate us intensively regarding our majors but no amount of research will justify social ignorance. >

I totally see value in studying the humanities. That said, in the USA you have core classes that everyone takes and then you have to take a couple junior level courses outside your area. Like I took a couple junior level english and economics courses, even tho they weren’t directly or really tangentially related to my degree.
I think OP is talking about majoring in non-humanities, not that no such courses ought to be taken.
And… having relatives who got degrees in humanities known to have few if any actual job options, he has a bit of a point. The degree ought to prepare you for some job. How much does your degree really help you if it’s intellectually enriching but doesn’t help you find any employment? How much does it really help anyone else if you can’t use it to help anyone else? Maybe that’s something we should still invest in but he has a point.
Also… having been to undergrad, grad school, and now med school, I don’t think the liberal arts majors were any more moral than the engineers. Sure, econ students know more about the economics. That’s good. However the econ sector is notoriously corrupt. 
I strongly feel that university is a great place to learn facts and skills and have spent a lot of my life on that but I really wouldn’t recommend taking your moral worldview from them. >

I could be wrong, but aren't degrees like social studies or psychology part of the humanities in the US? Because those are the basis of professions like social workers or teachers or therapists, which is extremely valuable to society, but unfortunately widely underpaid and/or hard to build a career in. Or am I misunderstanding how the system works? 
And in general, while I understand where OP is coming from, I think only subsidizing degrees that have value in a strictly utilitarian sense is the wrong way. I truly think that a world without museums, theaters, archives, libraries, galeries, etc. would not be very worthwhile. Those areas already are highly elitist because it is so hard to make a living from them, and taking away subsidies or scholarships would only worsen the problem.
What we need to do is emphasize why humanity degrees have value and make it easier to actually make a living wage in those fields - especially such crucial professions as social workers or mental health professionals. >

Your premise is incorrect. Education is not just to promote economic mobility. A well educated, well rounded citizen with basic understanding of many different disciplines is a better member of society. One of the main benefits, one sorely lacking today, is the development of critical thinking skills. >

Yeah that's what we have 12 years of school before uni for. Now with content on any topic widely available anywhere anytime the need for uni level humanities is lower than ever. If you actually want to be a professor in that field, fine, but in my country unis are used as kindergartens for adults to mask unemployment numbers. >

imagine thinking people that finished 12 years pre-uni schooling are well educated. >

I mean If the high schools weren’t geared towards the lowest common denominator and incredibly remedial they would be well educated. Makes no sense that the kids averaging a 70 overall take mostly the same classes as kids with 99 averages until about the 10th grade, holds back people with actual learning potential. Kids below a certain GPA should be moved into trade schools and other educational opportunities, kids above that should be put in basically college courses. >

I hate to break it to you, but having a degree in STEAM isn't magically bringing people out of poverty. You need at least a bachelor's degree in most places to even have a chance. >


What the fuck does the A mean
That's something that should change. Our incessant need to have degrees and certifications for everything is debilitating to anyone starting out, having a higher barrier to entry for those already struggling >

Art. You know, because actual scientists have found that the arts are an important part of learning and an important component of scientific learning >

If you include art then shouldn’t it just be literally all degrees? Lmao >

It's usually art as a minor/ required electives rather than a whole degree. Example: I had to take an arts class and a humanities class to complete my biology degree >

That doesn’t mean it’s an art degree though lol. A has no place in STEM. Just taking preqs doesn’t mean you’ve studied the arts, that’s kind of an insult to a real art degree. I’m STEM and have take arts courses but I wouldn’t sit there and say I’m also educated in the arts >

Wow- the value of humanities is about what we can learn about ourselves, our species, where we have been and where we should be headed. Though this introspection may not appear fiscally fruitful on its face avoiding the mistakes of the past and celebrating and enriching ourselves culturally has an enormous value for us as a species and provides students with critical thinking skills and sufficient information to avoid the mistakes of the past. 
Your way of thinking is tremendously short sighted. >

I think for lower classes that is generally a waste of time. You dont do your best thinking hungry. So maybe we should focus on the starving part before the artist >

Are you try to be illogical? Or does that just happen for you? >

Oh fuck off with this “STEM is king” nonsense! We’ll always need people in the fields of psychology, history, political science, philosophy, and criminal justice, not even to mention journalism and communications. There’s value in the humanities and if you STEM nerds took more than a basic required course you’d know that. I don’t trash all over STEM so why do y’all do so for the humanities? >

Aren't teachers formed from many Humanities degrees in the US? Pretty essential. Also, the intake for these course massively affect the student numbers and therefore the local economy.
When my university thought about cutting humanities we responded by saying 'you'd have to close half the bars and eateries in this town' and they backed down. >

Fair >


Government spending on education is meant to promote economic mobility in lower classes, right?

Wrong. Taxpayer subsidized federal student aid is intended to develop qualitative reasoning and critical thinking skills in a democratically developed population. >


Wrong. Taxpayer subsidized federal student aid is intended to develop qualitative reasoning and critical thinking skills in a democratically developed population.

And how has that been working out?
Lots of big words >

It works just fine for those of us who got a four-year degree to develop qualititative reasoning and critical thinking skills. >

Because they vote for politicians that want to forgive their debt and can not carry their own weight in society? I question the rigor and knowledge a lot of these students learn. >

So businesses can have their loans forgiven with absolutely no issues, even if they were never supposed to get the loan in the first place, but average people can't? >

Businesses shouldn’t get bailed out either, prevents the free market from advancing and being more efficient. Currently we get big bloated companies that waste millions because they know if they go bankrupt, the government will save them. >

Forgiving student loans will be a boon to the economy more than bailing businesses out ever was. >

Neither should be done, nor do I wish to pay for either. I’m still currently paying back my student debt, but I’ll be damned if the solution is stealing more money from everyone to do so. If anything they should freeze all student loan interest increases, or atleast diminish them >

Do you watch TV? Watch movies? Watch YouTube videos? Read books? Read comics? Listen to music? Go to concerts? Go to theatre productions? Go to museums, planetariums, or aquariums? Listen to podcasts? Read news articles? Watch the news? Enjoy street art? Wear clothing? Wear shoes?
Congratulations. Those are the arts and humanities. Without those things we would lead a very boring and miserable existence. 
Not everything is about money. Not everything should be based on how much money someone or something can make. What an absolutely shitty view you have. >

Entertainment doesnt need a degree. I don't live in a city, street art is something I have literally never seen outside of public murals >

Well obviously if you’ve never experienced it then no one else needs to either. /s >

I think we need a dramatic shift in post secondary education. The current model we're using is hundreds of years old, Universities essentially acted as boarding schools for the rich, and a large portion of the education seemed to be centered around enforcing a division by class. 
Most people want to go to a school that provides them with skills that translate into a decent standard of living post graduation. Trade schools kind of fit this role but are more focused on working class or (lower) middle class careers; and not much is provided for white collar, upper middle class, careers. >

One of the problems is tech and trade schools suck at brainwashing their alumni into thinking people who went to their school are special.
More alternatives to traditional college would be great but won’t make much difference if the schools own the minds of hiring managers. >

The entire point of this argument is that it isnt special and it's what most people should do >

The point of most degrees are to recieve a Liberal Education.  That is, an education that exposes the student to a lot of different ideas in different disciplines.  If the goal was to only teach STEM, that might be better suited to a Tech School instead of a College or University.
So, yeah, dingus.  Your opinion is unpopular with me. >

I’ve been in engineering for 20 years and don’t know a single person that gives a flying fuck about the humanities or uses any of that in their job.
Forced humanities education is a scam to take more money from students.
If you care about reducing the cost of college you should be standing up for students not having to spend money studying things they don’t need regardless of what school they go to. >

Nobody’s forcing anyone to take humanities degrees. >

It is literal law that universities must teach basic humanities as part of gen eds >

economic mobility is, by definition, zero-sum. in other words, no more than 10% of people will ever be in the top 10%.
essentially your proposal is to use STEM and trades as a sieve to filter all the technically-minded people into the top 10% of society and shift everyone else out of it.
does that sound like a good idea? if yes, then you're on the same page as the chinese government. nothing wrong with that, but it means you don't give a fuck about people and society, only what it can produce. >

We don't need everyone to be in the top 10%, but taking money that would go into unproductive degrees and instead giving it to the disenfranchised to give them more useful tools to move up the socioeconomic ladder, even if by only a little bit, seems worthwhile to me >

for every stem person going up the ladder that necessarily means one non-stem person is going down the ladder. you're essentially segregating society based on a person's ability to do things you perceive to be of value. >

The material stuff you enjoy has to be created by someone. It doesn't just exist naturally in nature. >

the top 3 things people enjoy are sex, music, and food.
people beating drums on the beach in 500bc and fucking in the bushes were happier than most STEM majors ever will be >

All these humanities people like to live in houses, fly in airplanes, and modern entertainment. They want these things but they don't want to provide them. They want to force people to provide them to them with the government. >

technology made life worse, not better, for most of human history. technology only propagated because agricultural societies can field armies that can conquer hunter-gatherer communities. in such a system, after X amount of time, the tech/agricultural societies dominate, even if their lives are worse. it's tragic. people with shitty lives, working fields all day, destroy the lives of people having good lives . but having a good life doesn't help continue your existence, having an army does.
the average quality of life of a worker in an agrarian society has been measurably worse than that of a hunter-gatherer until perhaps a generation ago. oh yeah, slavery only came about once there were fields to work. >

Both humanities and STEM are important. And understanding topics within humanities helps you be better at STEM. For example, there’s a documented distrust in the healthcare system for black people. They’re less likely to seek out care and preventative measures. Black people are also more likely to die of certain diseases and medical conditions like childbirth, Covid, etc. Areas like sociology, history, in cultural studies help explain why that is and how to solve the issue. Understanding the impact of systemic racism that is still present in healthcare and unethical treatment of black people in the past by healthcare systems/medical research helps us understand why this is happening and cultural communications and such can help fix it. 
I have a STEM degree. I firmly believe that humanities classes help produce a better scientist. We need high level learning to understand things like what I mentioned above, to see that our experience isnt the only one and how other people experience the world, be able to communicate effectively to others not in our field, and just generally have compassion. Sometimes people in STEM are too mechanical and that ends up forming a gap between their studies/work and the general population. And than isn’t good. Humanities are important. 
Also I find it funny how STEM is always assumed to be “economically valuable” and always high paying. It isn’t. There’s many fields in STEM that aren’t high paying or even decently paying. I was offered a position as an analytical chem lab technician. The pay was minimum wage. I couldn’t afford to accept that job. Other jobs were usually offering a few dollars above minimum wage which I also couldn’t afford to take. I was lucky to get into a high paying industry. But many of these jobs aren’t high paying. There’s plenty of people who get science degrees and end up not being able to afford to work in their field because the pay is too low or working in their field and having a second unrelated job so they can scrape by. I’ve seen that a lot with people who graduated with me. I was one of the lucky ones. >

Give us this day our daily thread >

So, essentially, you'd like to substitute cultural development in any form for solely economic purpose. 
Fucking genius.
Jesus, some people would set fire to babies if it made the line go up. >

universities in general are already subsided entirely by private loans and federal student aide, a system that is outdated and favours people who can pay thousands for education. to exclude an entire population of poor people from learning in any way about the humanities (which includes psychology, history, sociology, and culture), would be so seriously unhelpful to society as a whole. that would leave only rich people to become psychiatrists, history teachers, social scientists, and plenty more. do you really think that rich people, or people who can afford college education completely independently, will want to do those kinds of jobs? 
i don’t think so. >

woah woah psychology is a science. you dont get to sneak that in with the useless drivel. Also, any field where the main job is teaching that field, probably isn't a very good one to be in. >

Psychology is 100% a humanities study. Just because it has scientific backing doesn't mean it isn't humanities. >

I'd argue it's not a humanity with scientific backing, it's a science with some humanities sprinkled in, but fair enough I suppose >

Linguistics is also a science and its considered to be in the humanities so... >

Linguistics is important, but is a small field that wont struggle to see jobs filled if it becomes more expensive >

Oof. Sounds like someone doesn’t believe that everyone deserves the right to equal access to education. >

That's... My whole point though. My entire point is we're misleading disenfranchised groups into believing that humanities will get them out of poverty only to put them in crippling debt. I'd rather we break that cycle by making the economic decision more accessible. >

Nobody is misleading them. Atlas shruggers like yourself have been beating that drum for decades without realizing that drum was made by an artisan educated in the humanities. >

A well educated populace disciplined in critical thinking skills is vital to have an effective voting population.
Completely aside from any economic benefit, continuation of our government as we know it is dependent upon a populace that can support it and not vote on the basis of lizard people living in the center of the earth.