College Major (change is starting)

[Rick Law]

"Getting rid of any major ending with xxx studies" is a frequent comment I see in this forum.  Such change may be coming.

"The University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point has proposed dropping 13 majors in the humanities and social sciences — including English, philosophy, history, sociology and Spanish — while adding programs with “clear career pathways” as a way to address declining enrollment and a multimillion-dollar deficit.
...
...
The push away from liberal arts and toward workplace skills is championed by conservatives who see many four-year colleges and universities as politically correct institutions that graduate too many students without practical job skills — but with liberal political views.
...
...
“Although some majors are proposed to be eliminated, courses would continue to be taught in these fields, and minors or certificates will be offered.”

Programs that would be expanded, which “have demonstrated value and demand in the region,” include marketing, management, graphic design, fire science and computer information systems."  [Emphasis added]

Without quoting the whole darn thing, the article also (as expected) say school resources will be shifted accordingly.

Quote above from Washington Post:
^{https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/03/21/university-of-wisconsin-campus-pushes-plan-to-drop-13-majors-including-english-history-and-philosophy/?utm_term=.da1400cb6e77}

* * *

Usually I prefer to post this kind of posts without comment first so as to avoid biasing comments that followed.  I have very strong view about this so I am breaking my own MO.

While I read about it often, recently, I encountered a victim personally.  She was a cash-register ringer at Home Depot...  She was in excellent mood and talkative.  In her 50's, very happy that at last she is reaching the last payment on her college loan!  In her 50's.  And yes, she graduated in her early 20's, with (in her words) something that no employer wanted.

In addition to the Universities making such choice, I think there should be a limit and a "consumer warning" on federal student loans.

Along with the application pages, there should be one that lists "Percent of and number of loan made to majors in this field" and "Percent of students successful in find a paying job in this field within the first year after graduation", followed by "Warning - the system detected that more than 50% failed to find a job in your selected field."  On the same page, "Please sign on the selected line that you are aware you still must repay the loan even you failed to find a job.  The Federal Government can and will deduct directly from your pay check and perhaps seize your assets to cover the loan."

[ebastler]

I take exception to the view that "science and technology have value, the humanities have not". And I would certainly question whether marketing or "fire science" (?!) provide more value to the society than English or history. Universities are not only there to provide the workforce for industry, but also to advance our society as a whole, including our understanding of the past, present and future, in dimensions which go well beyond technology and marketability.

That being said, maybe the University of Wisconsin is mainly existing to cater to the local labor market. I don't know much about the US academic landscape, but assume that those interested in a career in academic research (be it in science or in the humanities) might go elsewhere to study? If that is the case, then the key emphasis to add to their press statement is that they want to focus on programs which "have demonstrated value and demand in the region".

Or, in other words: "We have realized that we are a somewhat provincial school, and will focus on catering to the needs of the employers in this province."   

By the way, I am also really intrigued by the juxtaposition of "students without practical job skills — but with liberal political views" in that article.  Believe it or not — it is possible to have highly practical job skills, e.g. in science or engineering, and have liberal political views at the same time...

[tpowell1830]

I hope this is a trend that is sustainable because I have always thought that the 'unusable' classes that I took to get my technical education was a method to enhance the coffers of the various institutes that I attended.

With that said, I immediately go into another similar topic which is more of a rant and simply my opinion. I believe that most teachers in primary and high school do not present subject matter that is pertinent to real life. I believe that the universities that teach teachers should revamp the entire system of teaching, at least here in the US so that each subject is presented in such a way as to show the students, not only the how of the subject, but the why. In other words, teach the subject and relate it to everyday life or relate it to why it is important for future subjects. Then teach why the next higher level subject is pertinent.

I remember my school years (way back in the '50s and '60s) and asking myself over and over again why this subject was relevant to my current life or future life. The result of my early development did not prepare me for life after schooling had been completed. The resulting guidance from teachers/school system of my early school life was nonexistent as well. Most of my real education started after I left college and I went out into the real world and the workforce in order to make a living. Similarly, my desire to learn more was not awakened until I was away from school, I think, mainly because I had no idea how things worked in real life. Granted, I can only relate to technical education because that is my passion, so if your interests are in a different area, I can't really comment.

Finally, with my rant over, for technical training in engineering and science, I believe that the shortest distance to get your education without all of the extra fluff that is mandatory in universities is a better path forward. There are a few exceptions to this, such as writing skills and social interaction, but I agree with much of the OP's comments. The cost wil be less, and the time needed to complete would be lowered.

EDIT: For those pursuing a liberal arts degree, many of the 'fluff' courses that I mentioned are pertinent, and , to be clear, I think that everyone has a place in the workforce.

[hans]

Some programs only make sense if you get into academic. Some people choose a subject they find fun and interesting, fall short to get into academic (competitive place), and then find struck with a degree that has no burden on the commercial world (not to say real world, as language plays a role in our daily lives).

Personally I think universities also should prepare for a career into the academic field of interest (PhD and tenure tracks at any [other] university). This prunes a bit of that branch, and makes it look like universities are more and more employed by the private sector. I thought the whole purpose of academic is that there is little commercial incentive, and that research is carried about because topics are relevant and can be solved.
Perhaps an university of applied sciences would be more suited to this approach, as it's an applied science and not academic..

Maybe consider the other extreme: let the private sector invest into their own education 'factories' if they really want to have the perfectly tailored students for their needs, and offer competitive programs for students to choose from. I bet this will fail miserably in terms of offering individuals a wide future prospect at a bachelor or master level, aside from the single career path of choice of course. Why would you teach someone more than needed? (i.e. spent money on courses) Why would you teach someone analog design if all you build is digital electronics? Skip it! Skip all the related math, let Matlab solve it! We don't need differential equations with digital design, difference equations is the most anyone will ever see. 
And then an EE student decides he wants to major in computer science instead, good luck "bridging the gap" if you haven't taught an EE guy anything about programming.

However I do fully agree that all programs should include statistics about the drop-out rates (e.g. % in 1 first year, % graduated after [program length + 1 yr]), employment rates after 1 to 5 years, salary indication, and overall satisfaction of the acquired career path. Then the decision of a student to chose the program is fully on themselves. I think this is quite common in Europe or atleast the Netherlands, as top lists of universities and programs are published each year for future students to compare.
Despite that, we still have got plenty of "weak" programs, like "recreational time management" (... in terms of organizing 'public events', wait, I still don't understand why this is a dedicated program?)

[Howardlong]

In the UK (except Scotland) and I presume some other countries, undergraduate university courses are what they say on the tin, they are three years, there is typically little non-relevant stuff. Typical entry is at 18 with graduation at 21.

Scotland degrees are four years, but typical entry age is 17, and tend to be specialised like the rest of the UK.

There is discussion about starting concentrated two year courses to reduce student debt burden.

Part of me says the US four year thing, padding with what some might call "bloat", is part of a cynical money making scheme, unnecessarily loading on more debt. But I am open minded enough to be open to any justifications for it, but it'll need to be more convincing than simply "creating a more rounded individual".

[Rick Law]

...
That being said, maybe the University of Wisconsin is mainly existing to cater to the local labor market. I don't know much about the US academic landscape, but assume that those interested in a career in academic research (be it in science or in the humanities) might go elsewhere to study? If that is the case, then the key emphasis to add to their press statement is that they want to focus on programs which "have demonstrated value and demand in the region".
...

You probably missed it further down in the same article.  In fact, they used the exact phrase!

"UW-Stevens Point proposes expanding academic programs that have demonstrated value and demand in the region, including..." [emphasis added]
(followed by the listed but I did not want to quote the whole darn article)

re: "I don't know much about the US academic landscape, but assume that those interested in a career in academic research (be it in science or in the humanities) might go elsewhere to study? "

Since my kid just went into college, I have some recent info on this.  Yeah, you choose your University and School based on what Majors/Minors they offer.

Some universities offers very specific major because of their specialized faculty.

...
By the way, I am also really intrigued by the juxtaposition of "students without practical job skills — but with liberal political views" in that article.  Believe it or not — it is possible to have highly practical job skills, e.g. in science or engineering, and have liberal political views at the same time...

They did not say equate the two, but instead they were referring to those within the overlap of the two subsets. 

Who you voted for really doesn't make you a better circuit designer (or not).  In my view, failure to separate political views from scientific work probably is a negative.

...
Personally I think universities also should prepare for a career into the academic field of interest (PhD and tenure tracks at any [other] university). This prunes a bit of that branch, and makes it look like universities are more and more employed by the private sector. I thought the whole purpose of academic is that there is little commercial incentive, and that research is carried about because topics are relevant and can be solved.
...
Maybe consider the other extreme: let the private sector invest into their own education 'factories' if they really want to have the perfectly tailored students for their needs
...
However I do fully agree that all programs should include statistics about the drop-out rates (e.g. % in 1 first year, % graduated after [program length + 1 yr]), employment rates after 1 to 5 years, salary indication, and overall satisfaction of the acquired career path. Then the decision of a student to chose the program is fully on themselves. I think this is quite common in Europe or atleast the Netherlands, as top lists of universities and programs are published each year for future students to compare.
Despite that, we still have got plenty of "weak" programs, like "recreational time management" (... in terms of organizing 'public events', wait, I still don't understand why this is a dedicated program?)

re: "Personally I think universities also should prepare for a career into the academic field of interest..."
I agree with you perfectly there.  Each university will decide what is best for their market.

re: "Maybe consider the other extreme: let the private sector..."
There is where vocational schools fits perfect as well.  If you are interesting in wood work, what is the point of studying Art History and other requirements for a degree.

re: "However I do fully agree that all programs should include statistics..."
The best and most important place to disclose that information is when students are going into huge debt in getting that degree.  They need to know the degree they are thinking of getting, only (randomly picking a small number) 19 guys in the last 5 years got a paying job .

In the USA today, we have tons of kids with a degree that may at best be able to absorb 10% of the annual graduates.  They need to know before they take on a loan that for all practically purpose, takes half your career-life to pay off.

[Edited for a couple of misspelled/missing word..]

[T3sl4co1l]

That being said, maybe the University of Wisconsin is mainly existing to cater to the local labor market. I don't know much about the US academic landscape, but assume that those interested in a career in academic research (be it in science or in the humanities) might go elsewhere to study? If that is the case, then the key emphasis to add to their press statement is that they want to focus on programs which "have demonstrated value and demand in the region".

SP is in BFE.  It may well be that they would better serve fire prevention, or forestry or the like, than humanities.  The people I know went there, probably did so because it was convenient (they grew up in the area?) or cheap (but I don't know how state college costs vary, if at all).

Keep in mind, Wisconsin is about 1/5th the population density of Germany, and yeah, we don't do free college, so, cutthroat business rules apply...

Tim

[ajb]

Part of the problem is that people of my generation (early millenials, born in the mid-late 80s) were generally told that we needed to go to college to get any sort of good job.  That was sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy: as more people went to college employers became more selective and used college degrees (often with little regard to the subject!) as an easy filtering criteria.  Combine that with stagnant wages, skyrocketing tuition costs, and college is a dramatically different financial proposition for the current generation than it was for the previous generation.  Unfortunately, many in my generation, and our parents and teachers who so often pushed us to go to college just because that was the done thing, didn't realize what was happening until it was too late.  Those of us who graduated and began job hunting during the recession of ~2008 were especially screwed. 

I don't see that eliminating particular degree programs is going to do anything to solve the core problems, which is that we're not offering affordable routes to well paying jobs.  A big part of this is the pointless credentialism of requiring a 4-year degree for too many entry-level positions, but there are some other bigger steps that should be taken:

- Incentivize the creation of living wage jobs that do not require 4-year college degrees--raise the minimum wage, provide tax incentives to increase wages, and a number of other things. 
- Control the cost of college (don't ask me how)
- Rebuild trade training and 2-year degree programs as respectable and worthwhile educational/career paths
- Provide support for people going to college or other training programs after spending a few years in the workforce--IE, don't force every 18-year old to commit a huge portion of their life and their future earnings to a career path until they have some life experience.  This ties in with other economic reforms as well.

[ajb]

By the way, I am also really intrigued by the juxtaposition of "students without practical job skills — but with liberal political views" in that article.  Believe it or not — it is possible to have highly practical job skills, e.g. in science or engineering, and have liberal political views at the same time...

It's a common right-wing talking point in the US.  College graduates tend to have more liberal/progressive views on average, so the suggestion is that this is a result of indoctrination rather than education or demographic selection (IE, certain socioeconomic cohorts that correlate with political views are more or less likely to go to college).  It's also of a piece with the right-wing idea that conservatives are hardworking folks who know how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while liberals are useless leeches who would rather complain and live off of welfare (aka, mooch off of hardworking conservatives) than work for a living.

[ebastler]

... the key emphasis to add to their press statement is that they want to focus on programs which "have demonstrated value and demand in the region".
...

You probably missed it further down in the same article.  In fact, they used the exact phrase!

We are in agreement here, and I saw the original quote. I just thought that the emphasis should be changed. The University of Wisconsin's key message really is: "We cater to the needs of the region; we are aware of that; we need to focus more on what the local labor market needs."

While I was poking fun at them in my previous post, that is an entirely rational approach to take. Although I might question whether such an institution should be called a "University".

...
By the way, I am also really intrigued by the juxtaposition of "students without practical job skills — but with liberal political views" in that article.  Believe it or not — it is possible to have highly practical job skills, e.g. in science or engineering, and have liberal political views at the same time...

They did not say equate the two, but instead they were referring to those within the overlap of the two subsets. 

Who you voted for really doesn't make you a better circuit designer (or not).  In my view, failure to separate political views from scientific work probably is a negative.

Right, that was my point. Whoever made that juxtaposition (the "conservatives" mentioned in the Washington Post article, I assume) was mixing up two very unrelated things. You can be an engineer with liberal views, or an unemployable historian with conservative views...

If the University of Wisconsin's plan to change their curriculum were really driven by a desire to produce less students with "liberal political views", they should probably reconsider... But I assume that is not what's behind their agenda.

[rhb]

English lit is excellent preparation for the law which was my original aim as an undergraduate.  Until I saw  what had come of the law since my grandfather's day.  So I went into the sciences via grad school.

Education is *not* job training.  Students who cannot afford formal education are being scammed by the faculty and staff for their personal benefit.

[mathsquid]

Education is *not* job training.

I agree that they are not the same thing, though there is significant overlap.

Students who cannot afford formal education are being scammed by the faculty and staff for their personal benefit.

Don't blame the faculty and staff. They are caught in the middle of it. The idea that everyone needs to go to college leads to larger enrollments, but with many students who are unprepared.  Combine that with the move to funding that is based on the performance (read graduation rates) of students, and faculty are squeezed in the middle, being asked to graduate more students who are less prepared, all while maintaining high standards. I suppose it's a typical case of "do more with less". This leads to the implementation of remediation programs, which should have little to no place in higher education.

Meanwhile, the push to do more with less leads to more classes being taught by part-time and temporary instructors. They are really being  screwed over, and if you want a good description of that, look at this article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/in-the-basement-of-the-ivory-tower/306810/ or the book version of it https://www.amazon.com/Basement-Ivory-Tower-Truth-College/dp/0143120298.

[rhb]

I was asked to sit on external advisory board at my alma mater.  The only thing they were interested in was my money.  They would not even reply to my attempts to start a discussion on what math people needed to know for certain specialties.  I could not even find out what level of math they were including in the courses currently.  Though I did know from board meetings that they had been asked by a major employer to improve the math training.

The school announced a few days ago that they are moving over 1/2 the library to a storage facility so they can make more room for students to sit and surf the internet.

I plan to visit the EE department at the branch location near me and see if any of the faculty  are interested in sparse L1 pursuits such as compressive sensing.  I'm not optimistic, but It doesn't cost much to try.  I *might* find someone to talk to about it. So far I just talk to the wall.

[Rick Law]

...

Students who cannot afford formal education are being scammed by the faculty and staff for their personal benefit.

Don't blame the faculty and staff. They are caught in the middle of it. The idea that everyone needs to go to college leads to larger enrollments, but with many students who are unprepared.  Combine that with the move to funding that is based on the performance (read graduation rates) of students, and faculty are squeezed in the middle, being asked to graduate more students who are less prepared, all while maintaining high standards. I suppose it's a typical case of "do more with less". This leads to the implementation of remediation programs, which should have little to no place in higher education.

Meanwhile, the push to do more with less leads to more classes being taught by part-time and temporary instructors. They are really being  screwed over, and if you want a good description of that, look at this article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/in-the-basement-of-the-ivory-tower/306810/ or the book version of it https://www.amazon.com/Basement-Ivory-Tower-Truth-College/dp/0143120298.

I disagree strongly.  Temporary Instructors aside, the full-time faculty and staff together IS the university.  It is them who defines what the university will be by the selection of the students they admit.  It is them who decide who and what get resources.  It is them who decide what is taught and what is not.  It is them who decides the general environment of learning in their institution...

Look at two examples here to see the different ends of the spectrum  (With in mind that so called "micro aggression" are the no-noes and thus not compatible with their university):

This is considered "Micro Aggression" by UCSC (University of California, Santa Cruz):
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”
“I don’t believe in race.”
“Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“You speak English very well.”
Dismissing an individual who brings up race/culture in work/school setting.
Use of the pronoun “he” to refer to all people
... ... ... ...

If they, the faculty and staffs are not the ones responsible for this idiocy, then who?  Can you expect a real education in an environment such as this?   What field can a mind numbed and caged individual Major in within a "learning" environment these "micro aggression" defined?

I have no objection from UCSC's nonsense.  Federal Student Loans are in part tax funded.  I do have an objection in public funding student to attend university dispensing such nonsense.  The world is unkind to stupidity.  Adding insults to injury, the student will have to pay back a loan that funded their mind atrophy.


On the other hand, the University of Chicago's open letter to incoming freshman from the Office of the Dean of Students:

Dear Class of 2020 Student:
Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance...
...
...
You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community.
...
... ... ... ...

I wish everyone who wanted to attend university can attend a university as mind-opening as what U of Chicago has defined for itself.

The UCSC list of micro agression is here:
^{https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf}

The U of Chicago letter is here:
^{https://news.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/Dear_Class_of_2020_Students.pdf}

[rstofer]

EDIT: For those pursuing a liberal arts degree, many of the 'fluff' courses that I mentioned are pertinent, and , to be clear, I think that everyone has a place in the workforce.

They do!  It's just that certain degrees lead to 'burger flipping'.  An honorable, if low paying, position.

If Universities want to teach liberal arts (and associated topics) knowing, as I am sure they do, that there is no possible way to make a living for having such a degree, should offer the program for free.  No, they can't shift and shaft the Engineering department into paying for it.  It has to be absolutely free.  The professors get no pay, the University gets no fees - the degree is worthless so it should be free.

There is a tendency in the Cal State system to charge different fees for different majors.  Worthless degree programs pay less than high reward degree programs.  This is readily apparent when you take an MBA program.  It is priced far higher than other MS programs yet it costs no more to deliver.  Well, other than salaries.  I assume STEM professors make more money than Art Appreciation professors.

The bigger problem is the practice of filling the student body with outsiders.  Out-of-state and foreign students fill the roster to the detriment of locals.  The state universities need to understand that the taxpayers (locals) OWN the schools, not the Regents.  Take all locals that apply and, only then, consider a few outsiders.  And no foreigners.  They can afford to go to private colleges.  At least, train Americans first!

[mtdoc]

It's a myth that a liberal arts education will not lead to gainful employment and a rewarding career.  There are many, many jobs that require a college degree that is not a STEM degree.  Even in medicine - liberal arts majors who then take the required pre-med courses (chem, physics, bio, math) - are encouraged and often have a leg up on the generic premed STEM major when applying to very competitive medical school admission in the US.

I fear there's some engineers here who have a very narrow view of what college education is about.  It should be more than vocational school. There are centuries of history of what (largely non-STEM) University education achieves.

I'm no fan of the the current PC/SJW and anti free-speech college fads but generalizing that nonsense to malign liberal arts education in general demonstrates a narrow mind IMHO.

[rhb]

Prior to WW II 5% of the population went to college.  A proper gentleman's education was Latin, Greek, European literature, mathematics and science.  That's still a very good preparation for many things, particularly the law.  It is *not* a job credential and was never intended to be.  It presumed that you came from a family of some means and you would go into the family business  or become a cleric.

The law, medicine, dentistry and engineering were single degree professions.  A few sciences required a 2nd degree.  The traditional working degree in geology was and is an MS.  Now all the professions are functionally 6-8 year, two degree programs.

The disparity in salaries among the various disciplines simply reflects the market realities.  Professors of English, Latin philosophy and such don't make much money because there is no competition for their services.  Many are able to do it because they have family money to fill the shortfall.

I spent 5 years getting a gentleman's liberal arts education.  My degree was in English lit because I could take a summer class and finish. To get a degree in geology I should have had to wait for the fall semester.  But a BA in geology is not a working degree, so there was no advantage.  I graduated and got a job as an assistant manager in a cafeteria.  I'd grown up in the restaurant business after Dad fled engineering sales to try his hand at real estate speculation.  His degree was in mining engineering and after the war that field went into a steep decline as mines were depleted or became uneconomic. 

I studied to become a mining geologist, but by the time I graduated in 1982, there were no metals mines in the US operating.  I think Sudbury was still going in Canada, but it was grim.  The mining journals had small ads in the back," PhD mining geologist, anything, anywhere any time."  Oil was still hiring in the fall of '81.  I accepted an offer in January, but in April I got a letter saying that my offer was contingent on showing up on the appointed day.  I defended on a typescript draft and made sure I showed up.  A year later I met a petroleum engineer who was working as a records clerk at Amoco.  It was the best job she could find.  I was constantly bombarded with resumes from recent graduates.

The whole point of getting an education is there is no guarantee that the job you trained for will be available.  Historically petroleum engineering has been the highest paying field for a single degree.

[rstofer]

I'm no fan of the the current PC/SJW and anti free-speech college fads but generalizing that nonsense to malign liberal arts education in general demonstrates a narrow mind IMHO.

That may be true but my personal point of view is this:  If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing for money.  The corollary is:  If it doesn't make money, it's not worth doing.

If I have to spend the better part of 6 years listening to lectures, losing sleep and pouring over homework, there better be a dumpster load of money at the other end.  Otherwise, I might as well get a head start on flipping burgers.

After I'm established, making a good living, if I want to dabble at the arts rather than racing motorcycles and small hydroplanes, so be it.  But at least I have a choice, and I choose speed!  With a liberal arts degree, the best I can hope for is a discounted hamburger at McDs.  I will darn sure not have the disposable income it takes to really do whatever I want if all I have is a liberal arts degree.

The idea that a liberal arts degree if PREFERRED over STEM for admission to med schools sounds typical, but wrong.  Analytical skills will always be in demand.  Art Appreciation brings nothing to the dance.

And, yes, colleges exist for the betterment of the taxpayers who paid to build them.  One way this happens is by training STEM types so they can go out and solve the problems of the world.  Or at least get high paying jobs and pay a disproportionate amount of taxes which will filter down to the other taxpayers as a whole.  They are exactly intended to train people to make a living.  In every case, high earners pay more taxes than low earners.

[rstofer]

The whole point of getting an education is there is no guarantee that the job you trained for will be available.  Historically petroleum engineering has been the highest paying field for a single degree.

And here I though a BSChemE was a sure route to a high paying job.  Traditionally, it has been.  OK, so I scratch that off the list.

I've been spending a lot of time on the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site looking at job titles, salaries and growth opportunities.  Any way you cut it, there is good growth in Computer Engineering (software side or hardware side).  It's cliche', I know, but there are a lot of jobs in the industry and the growth rate is fairly high.  It's easy to get one of 100,000 new jobs/year but not so much if there are only 1000.

Not for me, mind you, I'm long retired.  I haven't given a moment's thought to going back to work in over 14 years.  Retirement is good!

[mtdoc]

The idea that a liberal arts degree if PREFERRED over STEM for admission to med schools sounds typical, but wrong.

And you base that opinion on what exactly?

Here's my experience:  I taught physiology and neurobiology at a major university (UC Berkeley) and had many, many, pre-med students desperately trying to get accepted into med school.  Later, at the age of 34, I myself applied and was accepted into medical school. My wife and multiple friends are physicians. I know quite a bit about medical school admissions preferences.  All else being equal, a liberal arts major (with the requisite pre-med science courses) will have an advantage when applying to medical school over the typical STEM major. Thankfully, most medical schools still see the value in "well rounded" human beings.

Analytical skills will always be in demand.

If your are implying that only STEM majors learn analytical skills then your are incorrect.

And, yes, colleges exist for the betterment of the taxpayers who paid to build them.  One way this happens is by training STEM types so they can go out and solve the problems of the world.  Or at least get high paying jobs and pay a disproportionate amount of taxes which will filter down to the other taxpayers as a whole.  They are exactly intended to train people to make a living.  In every case, high earners pay more taxes than low earners.

It's a very narrow (but typical) view of the world that holds that only money adds value to society.

It is even a more narrow view that only STEM trained people are needed to solve society's problems.

[T3sl4co1l]

I disagree strongly.  Temporary Instructors aside, the full-time faculty and staff together IS the university.  It is them who defines what the university will be by the selection of the students they admit.  It is them who decide who and what get resources.  It is them who decide what is taught and what is not.  It is them who decides the general environment of learning in their institution...

It would be foolish to dismiss the power dynamic, that force which pervades all organizations period.  Not all faculty are created equally, nor represented as such.  The ones with the most influence and funding take precedence.  Look to them with a careful eye when you see something strange across the institution.

Indeed, it needn't be faculty at all.  Don't forget board members and donors (large single donors, and the smaller donors banded together as the alumni organization or what have you).

Tim

[tpowell1830]

I disagree strongly.  Temporary Instructors aside, the full-time faculty and staff together IS the university.  It is them who defines what the university will be by the selection of the students they admit.  It is them who decide who and what get resources.  It is them who decide what is taught and what is not.  It is them who decides the general environment of learning in their institution...

It would be foolish to dismiss the power dynamic, that force which pervades all organizations period.  Not all faculty are created equally, nor represented as such.  The ones with the most influence and funding take precedence.  Look to them with a careful eye when you see something strange across the institution.

Indeed, it needn't be faculty at all.  Don't forget board members and donors (large single donors, and the smaller donors banded together as the alumni organization or what have you).

Tim

Let us not forget that profit is a player.. (Ohhh, I pulled punches sooo much here, so much restraint.)

[Rick Law]

I disagree strongly.  Temporary Instructors aside, the full-time faculty and staff together IS the university.  It is them who defines what the university will be by the selection of the students they admit.  It is them who decide who and what get resources.  It is them who decide what is taught and what is not.  It is them who decides the general environment of learning in their institution...

It would be foolish to dismiss the power dynamic, that force which pervades all organizations period.  Not all faculty are created equally, nor represented as such.  The ones with the most influence and funding take precedence.  Look to them with a careful eye when you see something strange across the institution.

Indeed, it needn't be faculty at all.  Don't forget board members and donors (large single donors, and the smaller donors banded together as the alumni organization or what have you).

Tim

Let us not forget that profit is a player.. (Ohhh, I pulled punches sooo much here, so much restraint.)

First, let's dispatch with liberal art verses science.  The criteria at U.W. Steven Point established is in my view very wise: it is established as "career path" vs "no career path" and NOT liberal art vs Science or STEM.

Now reply to the quote in this reply:

To the extend that punches are pulled, my appreciation and many thanks.

Actually, in the finishing paragraph of the OP, I was pointing at exactly that - money.  I looked at it from the tuition-supply side.

Today, universities are mass-producing youth without clear career paths.  Apart from those independently wealthy, everyone else need a career.  Career-needing individuals without a career are an unproductive citizens requiring others to support them.  That wont make better human beings or a better society.  Easy to see that as support-requiring individuals increase, the society's living standard decreases correspondingly.  Further, when the number of those requiring support exceeds the capability of those can produce to support them, the society will break down. 

My opinion is that "safe zones" and speech limitation is an invitation to ideologues, and high percentage of ideologues are selecting majors based on ideology rather than financial return.  That is just my opinion.

Following the logic of that opinion, limiting those ideology driven stuff by limiting the supply of $ going into those university and to those ideology-driven fields.

By exposing the job stats for graduates, it should help reduce career-needing people pursuing something of ideology but without a career path.  If that doesn't work, we then need to go a step further by limiting the amount of public-supported loans that enable the career-needing individuals from education themselves with career-less paths.  We the public should not help them digging themselves into a deep hole.

EDIT: corrected misuse of word, I typed "ideal" when I mean "ideology" and a few other variations of that error.

[mathsquid]

I disagree strongly.  Temporary Instructors aside, the full-time faculty and staff together IS the university.  It is them who defines what the university will be by the selection of the students they admit. 

Wrong. Or at best, you're making a very broad generalization. I'm a full professor at a mid-sized state university, and I've worked in higher education for a long time. I'm basing this on my experience and what I hear from my friends at other institutions. I have no say over which students get in. Those decisions are made by administrators in student affairs (as opposed to academic affairs, which employs the faculty). If you want someone to blame for this, you want to look into student affairs and above.

It is them who decide who and what get resources.

I wish this were true. Decisions about who gets money and other resources happen at higher levels than rank and file faculty (ranging from deans up to state legislatures).

[ajb]

Some interesting facts to put the original article into better context:

- Adjusted for inflation, the UW system's budget has been essentially flat for at least the last ~7 years
- Adjusted for inflation, state funding for the UW system has dropped from $1.5 billion in 1974-75 to $1 billion in 2015-16
source

- Nationally, as of 2012, public college TOTAL revenue breaks down as follows:
_    25%: Tuition
_    7%:  Local Sources
_    23%: State Sources
_    18%: Federal Sources
_    27%: Other
Note that total revenue, including research grants, contract services, etc, IS NOT indicative of the breakdown of funding sources for education per se, of which student fees make up a larger proportion.
source

- In the University of California system (which is the only one I've found this data for so far), the portion of per-student cost of education funded by student fees went from 13% in 1990-91 to 49% in 2011-12
- Over the same period in the same system, adjusted for inflation, student fees have increased by 81% ($4708 to $8540*), while total per-student education spending has dropped by 54% ($37,539 to $17,390*)
* In 2012 dollars, with an inflation factor of 1.76 versus 1990 dollars
source

- This is especially interesting: Due to the recession of 2008, "a sharp spike in enrollment, largely driven by a weak employment market, meant that revenues per student decreased [...] between 2006–07 and 2011–12" (because state and federal funding did not increase with enrollment), which forced many colleges to raise tuition.
- in 2013, community college tuition made up about 37% of education costs, while at four year colleges it was 63%
source