An NPR report quoted former Florida Governor Rick Scott as saying, “tax dollars” should not “educate more people who can’t get jobs in anthropology.”
An expert on higher education said, again according to NPR, that college students should question if their degree will lead to a job that is worth the cost of getting it.
Entry level salaries for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduates average well over $60,000. Over a lifetime, such degrees can mean millions more in income than is received by those in lower paying fields.
What are we to interpret from this? The ex-governor says public money should support only education in approved fields. The expert suggests the choice of a major should be based on future income. And a STEM degree is a smart move for financial reasons.
All the arguments have to do with money. And I do think students would be wise to enter their education with full knowledge of the financial implications of their choice.
But there is the inference in all this that college should be an advanced version of a vocational school. Don’t get me wrong. I think vocational schools are wonderful. They provide superb educations in specific fields that prepare students to enter the work force and have a comfortable life if they’re willing to work, often with more income than many with college degrees.
Colleges have always done this type of training, with rigorous majors in the sciences that have long produced the technical minds that have innovated our way of life. So what’s being asked is no major shift, at least for the technically oriented.
What is a shift is what we think of as a valuable education, and this raises the question of what education should be. Is it a waste of money to major in music or art or English or political science or psychology or history? Are the only important people the ones with a background leading to a big income?
I don’t believe it.
I grew up as a technical nerd. I knew little to nothing about art or music or a host of other subjects. Only in later life did I discover their value and their joy. I still don’t know much, but I have learned life Is richer with those facets in it.
And where would we be if it wasn’t for the contribution of all those in the non-scientific fields? There would be no books to inspire us, no art to enchant us, no history to teach us.
It’s true. Those who enter some fields have a more difficult time economically than others. That does not mean they are less happy. Just like the technical guru is tied to her electrons, others are drawn to their field with an equal passion, and we are lucky they are.
And pursuing an alternative degree does not consign you to the unemployed. Uber hired psychology majors to deal with unhappy riders and drivers. Opentable employed English majors to deal with restaurant owners to get them excited about what the organization could do for them.
Andrea Jung, a former CEO of Avon, was an English major. Cokie Roberts studied political science. Over my extended life I’ve had two amazing women as wives. Both were philosophy majors! What are the odds of that? One founded a behavioral medicine program for those with major diseases, 20 years before the medical community was ready, a community now incorporating much of her approach. The other is an activist who leads a statewide organization devoted to improving the lives of every person in the state. For both, the education received gave them the ability to “see” all the different areas that allowed them to think outside the box that encloses most of us.
It seems clear a college education should offer a variety of paths to everyone willing to enter them with full knowledge of what that implies. And all of us, including ex governors, should avoid thinking one degree is “better” than another, or that remuneration is the key to a happy or successful life.
***
If you’d like to receive an email notification when a new posting occurs, please drop me a note at robertbrigham-books.com
An expert on higher education said, again according to NPR, that college students should question if their degree will lead to a job that is worth the cost of getting it.
Entry level salaries for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduates average well over $60,000. Over a lifetime, such degrees can mean millions more in income than is received by those in lower paying fields.
What are we to interpret from this? The ex-governor says public money should support only education in approved fields. The expert suggests the choice of a major should be based on future income. And a STEM degree is a smart move for financial reasons.
All the arguments have to do with money. And I do think students would be wise to enter their education with full knowledge of the financial implications of their choice.
But there is the inference in all this that college should be an advanced version of a vocational school. Don’t get me wrong. I think vocational schools are wonderful. They provide superb educations in specific fields that prepare students to enter the work force and have a comfortable life if they’re willing to work, often with more income than many with college degrees.
Colleges have always done this type of training, with rigorous majors in the sciences that have long produced the technical minds that have innovated our way of life. So what’s being asked is no major shift, at least for the technically oriented.
What is a shift is what we think of as a valuable education, and this raises the question of what education should be. Is it a waste of money to major in music or art or English or political science or psychology or history? Are the only important people the ones with a background leading to a big income?
I don’t believe it.
I grew up as a technical nerd. I knew little to nothing about art or music or a host of other subjects. Only in later life did I discover their value and their joy. I still don’t know much, but I have learned life Is richer with those facets in it.
And where would we be if it wasn’t for the contribution of all those in the non-scientific fields? There would be no books to inspire us, no art to enchant us, no history to teach us.
It’s true. Those who enter some fields have a more difficult time economically than others. That does not mean they are less happy. Just like the technical guru is tied to her electrons, others are drawn to their field with an equal passion, and we are lucky they are.
And pursuing an alternative degree does not consign you to the unemployed. Uber hired psychology majors to deal with unhappy riders and drivers. Opentable employed English majors to deal with restaurant owners to get them excited about what the organization could do for them.
Andrea Jung, a former CEO of Avon, was an English major. Cokie Roberts studied political science. Over my extended life I’ve had two amazing women as wives. Both were philosophy majors! What are the odds of that? One founded a behavioral medicine program for those with major diseases, 20 years before the medical community was ready, a community now incorporating much of her approach. The other is an activist who leads a statewide organization devoted to improving the lives of every person in the state. For both, the education received gave them the ability to “see” all the different areas that allowed them to think outside the box that encloses most of us.
It seems clear a college education should offer a variety of paths to everyone willing to enter them with full knowledge of what that implies. And all of us, including ex governors, should avoid thinking one degree is “better” than another, or that remuneration is the key to a happy or successful life.
***
If you’d like to receive an email notification when a new posting occurs, please drop me a note at robertbrigham-books.com
RSS Feed