What is the true value of a science degree in today's society?

[nismaratwork]

I note that the low sample size groups are noted... and highlighted red. It's not perfect, but it's honest.

 

[renz]

off topic, so physics is http://www.walletpop.com/2010/05/10/the-10-most-profitable-college-majors/" That's for people who go to non-academic route after their BS degree I suppose? :(
Starting salary doesn't seem right. Why am I in grad school?

 

[Chi Meson]

Small sample sizes.

They both work at the same shoe store.

 

[jduster]

I wouldn't call liberal arts subjects useless, but they are far less useful than other subjects.

My adage:
English and social studies if you want to talk about big problems.
Math and science if you want to solve them.

 

[nismaratwork]

off topic, so physics is http://www.walletpop.com/2010/05/10/the-10-most-profitable-college-majors/" That's for people who go to non-academic route after their BS degree I suppose? :(
Starting salary doesn't seem right. Why am I in grad school?

Probably because you want to do some good... you'll have a chance to cash in later.

@jduster: Hmmm... considering how far apart we seem to be politically, I must say I like that adage.

I'd add: find a liaison so the two connect, and inform each other.

 

[turbo]

I must be a freak. I started out in Chemical Engineering, switched to Liberal Arts and double-majored in English Literature and Philosophy, then spent much of my working life in technology as a chemist, paper-maker, and technical consultant to pulp and paper mills. Liberal Arts didn't sink my career - I turned down a 5-year pulp and paper scholarship so I could switch colleges and ended up working for about 20 years in that field anyway. The financial aid director at U of M kept me in his office about all the afternoon telling me how I was throwing my future away by switching from engineering to liberal arts. Finally, I told him to call my parents and talk to them if he wanted (he threatened that), and left. He knew my family was poor, and he knew that I was working my way through school and had no loans and only a few paltry local scholarships. Still, I found out with the help of my Honors advisor that I really had to get into Liberal Arts and pursue the courses that interested me.

 

[nismaratwork]

I must be a freak. I started out in Chemical Engineering, switched to Liberal Arts and double-majored in English Literature and Philosophy, then spent much of my working life in technology as a chemist, paper-maker, and technical consultant to pulp and paper mills. Liberal Arts didn't sink my career - I turned down a 5-year pulp and paper scholarship so I could switch colleges and ended up working for about 20 years in that field anyway. The financial aid director at U of M kept me in his office about all the afternoon telling me how I was throwing my future away by switching from engineering to liberal arts. Finally, I told him to call my parents and talk to them if he wanted (he threatened that), and left. He knew my family was poor, and he knew that I was working my way through school and had no loans and only a few paltry local scholarships. Still, I found out with the help of my Honors advisor that I really had to get into Liberal Arts and pursue the courses that interested me.

Yep, you're a freak, but a good freak.

 

[turbo]

Yep, you're a freak, but a good freak.

Thanks. I have always done things backassward, as my aunt used to say, but things seemed to turn out OK anyway.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks. I have always done things backassward, as my aunt used to say, but things seemed to turn out OK anyway.

Well there you go, good upbringing, smarts, and education... from there you can do anything.

 

[flyingpig]

Do you listen to music?
Do you watch movies?
Do you pay attention to the news?

Do you listen to music? Yes
Do you watch movies? No
Do you pay attention to the news? No, well if it is big enough it will get my attention

 

[mugaliens]

I wouldn't call liberal arts subjects useless, but they are far less useful than other subjects.

My adage:
English and social studies if you want to talk about big problems.
Math and science if you want to solve them.

It appears you're not at all familiar with the course of study in a contemporary liberal arts program:

The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science, the latter of which includes physical, biological, and social sciences. - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339020/liberal-arts".

Majoring in mathematics would be considered a narrow-spectrum program, whereas majoring in liberal arts would be considered a broad-spectrum program.

This is not to be confused with majoring in, art, for example, which again is a narrow-spectrucm program.

 

[PhDorBust]

I agree, programs for liberal arts are worthless. But this liberal arts themselves are not.

Looking at great novels, only a small fraction were written by those who "studied" literary composition. And the same goes for art.

And when did a broad-spectrum education help anything? The overwhelming sentiment of my professors is that "once you get in the boat, you stay in the boat", that is, the only way to achieve something is to devote yourself to your single field. The jack of all trades is an antiquated notion, our society of present requires razor-thin specialization.

 

[JaredJames]

I always laugh when I see 'toffs' on TV, studying Classical Literature at Oxford / Cambridge (I think that was the course, something to do with old books anyhow).

These people get accepted to study this crap when there are others out there who would really benefit from what those universities offer in other courses (physics, maths etc).

_{* Toff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff}

 

[MATLABdude]

I don't get this hate-on for the liberal arts or this notion that the (physical?--there's another can of worms...) sciences are extremely useful. Aside from trying to pigeon hole subjects into this dichotomy (how about mathematics, which is in the arts at some places, and science in others?) you're then trying to ascribe value (aesthetic and monetary) to the knowledge of the two.

Is being able to solve a partial differential equation any more or less valuable of a skill than being able to go in-depth into the socioeconomic and political causes, outcome, and contributing factors of World War I? Does the undergrad modern physics course (which briefly skims 50 to 80 year old work) any more or less valid than a modern media course?[*]

Knowledge is knowledge, beauty is beauty, and art is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, all three of those things overlap. Why cut off your nose to spite your face, especially since you're no longer in high school and don't have to shoehorn yourself and play identity-clique?

Higher education isn't usually about vocational training (with some exceptions, for instance, nursing / medicine, pharmacy, accounting, etc.) Even most engineers use just a tiny fraction of the direct material they learned in school (assuming they're not in sales, management or project planning--then it's probably even less, assuming you don't have an MBA or planning certificates or the likes). It's about being able to think, having some background and breadth of knowledge, and yes, being able to do intellectual and creative work (what I believe to be more intrinsic and less trainable qualities).

We constantly get threads over there in the Employment subforum about what careers physicists should go into. That's for the folks who get their physics undergrads, go to grad school, post-doc, and then can't find an academic / research position! And almost always, someone mentions finance or Wall Street! Okay, so that may be a bit of an over-generalization, but think how many jobs there are that directly use an undergrad physicists' know-how.

There's a joke that goes, "What did the fine arts major say to the engineer? 'Would you like fries with that?'" You're no more relegated to fast food / dead-end jobs than the next person--it's what you make of your life, experiences, and education. And in this down economy, there are probably folks with engineering degrees and responsibilities asking the arts grad whether or not they'd like fries and all the fix-ems. If you look at upper management, I'd be willing to make a small wager that there are more folks there with undergraduate degrees in the arts than in the sciences or engineering (although they all usually have some sort of degree).

So, given all the above, is going to college a waste except for those aforementioned fields? No, because it means that you should be a cut above the average person (who doesn't have a college degree) and that you should be able to take on more complicated tasks. That's not to say that you will, or that you're better / smarter than the guy without the degree (clearly, this isn't going to hold true), but that on the whole, you should be. And, if my (Canadian) university's numbers are correct, lifetime earnings potential will reflect this.

There are easy majors and sleeper courses abound. Smart and bright people go into all fields, not-so smart nor bright people end up in all fields. In the end, your knowledge, experiences, and education are as useless as you want them to be. Or not.

EDIT: [*] While I can still go into the history of World War I (not as well as I probably used to be able to), I haven't touched a PDE in nearly a decade. Maybe that means I should have been a history major, instead...

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't get this hate-on for the liberal arts or this notion that the (physical?--there's another can of worms...) sciences are extremely useful. Aside from trying to pigeon hole subjects into this dichotomy (how about mathematics, which is in the arts at some places, and science in others?) you're then trying to ascribe value (aesthetic and monetary) to the knowledge of the two.

Is being able to solve a partial differential equation any more or less valuable of a skill than being able to go in-depth into the socioeconomic and political causes, outcome, and contributing factors of World War I? Does the undergrad modern physics course (which briefly skims 50 to 80 year old work) and more or less valid than a modern media course?[*]

Knowledge is knowledge, beauty is beauty, and art is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, all three of those things overlap. Why cut off your nose to spite your face, especially since you're no longer in high school and don't have to shoehorn yourself and play identity-clique?

Higher education isn't usually about vocational training (with some exceptions, for instance, nursing / medicine, pharmacy, accounting, etc.) Even most engineers use just a tiny fraction of the direct material they learned in school (assuming they're not in sales, management or project planning--then it's probably even less, assuming you don't have an MBA or planning certificates or the likes). It's about being able to think, having some background and breadth of knowledge, and yes, being able to do intellectual and creative work (what I believe to be more intrinsic and less trainable qualities).

We constantly get threads over there in the Employment subforum about what careers physicists should go into. That's for the folks who get their physics undergrads, go to grad school, post-doc, and then can't find an academic / research position! And almost always, someone mentions finance or Wall Street! Okay, so that may be a bit of an over-generalization, but think how many jobs there are that directly use an undergrad physicists' know-how.

There's a joke that goes, "What did the fine arts major say to the engineer? 'Would you like fries with that?'" You're no more relegated to fast food / dead-end jobs than the next person--it's what you make of your life, experiences, and education. And in this down economy, there are probably folks with engineering degrees and responsibilities asking the arts grad whether or not they'd like fries and all the fix-ems. If you look at upper management, I'd be willing to make a small wager that there are more folks there with undergraduate degrees in the arts than in the sciences or engineering (although they all usually have some sort of degree).

So, given all the above, is going to college a waste except for those aforementioned fields? No, because it means that you should be a cut above the average person (who doesn't have a college degree) and that you should be able to take on more complicated tasks. That's not to say that you will, or that you're better / smarter than the guy without the degree (clearly, this isn't going to hold true), but that on the whole, you should be. And, if my (Canadian) university's numbers are correct, lifetime earnings potential will reflect this.

There are easy majors and sleeper courses abound. Smart and bright people go into all fields, not-so smart nor bright people end up in all fields. In the end, your knowledge, experiences, and education are as useless as you want them to be. Or not.

EDIT: [*] While I can still go into the history of World War I (not as well as I probably used to be able to), I haven't touched a PDE in nearly a decade. Maybe that means I should have been a history major, instead...

Well said, and bravo.

 

[qspeechc]

Looking at great novels, only a small fraction were written by those who "studied" literary composition. And the same goes for art.

Do you have any facts to support this? And what about the rest of literature, not just "novels"?

Up until about 100 or 150 years ago education was only for a select few who could afford it, and the level of liberal education in schools was much higher than it is today, never mind the level in universities. Thus in Shakespeare's time a man with only a school education could get a high office in government (one of the top jobs in those days), and was well versed in English and Classical literature, and probably French and Italian too. This is a kind of education that we do not have today. So although some writers may not have studied literature at university, they most definitely had a very sound education in the liberal arts from school. They would have anyway continued to study literature well past their school days, because it was considered an embarassment for an educated man not to be well familiar with the best of European literature. Nevertheless, all of the greats in literature studied literature, although perhaps not at university.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I always laugh when I see 'toffs' on TV, studying Classical Literature at Oxford / Cambridge

Me too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

Now, that’s some useless art that really liberate me!

 

[Feldoh]

I can't believe so many people in this thread are against the arts. I'm currently a Physics/English double major. For me I get a different kind of enjoyment out of each. I can appreciate the beauty of nature but at the same time it's interesting to look at other areas.

My physics advisor once told me that with physics we can understand the nature of sound and how we interpret it physiologically but physics can't tell you how to produce Mozart.

For me the arts are interesting because there is a human aspect to it. I find it interesting to study how we as humans interact with each other and our surroundings.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Watch it all.

 

[Topher925]

I agree. Studying any of the liberal arts in college in my opinion is a waste of time and resources. The world has a lot of serious problems, and learning about finger paintings and dancing isn't going to help solve them.

I think liberal arts has its place in society, as I do enjoy the occasional TV show and movie now and then, but you don't need a college degree to write a movie script or act. When you get down to the brass tacks of it all, the liberal arts is really just about entertainment and not anything salient.

 

[JaredJames]

My physics advisor once told me that with physics we can understand the nature of sound and how we interpret it physiologically but physics can't tell you how to produce Mozart.

Well, it can tell us why the music sounds good, it is trying to explain why these people are able to do what they do and I don't see a reason why after enough research and study we wouldn't be able to deduce what 'creates' Mozart.

For me the arts are interesting because there is a human aspect to it.

OK, fair enough, but then this

I find it interesting to study how we as humans interact with each other and our surroundings.

isn't the arts. This is science.

 

[xxChrisxx]

When you get down to the brass tax of it all, the liberal arts is really just about entertainment and not anything salient.

Without entertainment and more importantly culture, the world would be a very uniform and dull souless place.

As much as I don't really get art or poems etc, I can appreciate the joy it can give. I've been told that some paintings really do express the emotions of the painter.

I do however love music, James May did a programme a little while ago that looked at technology and it's use to recreate music. A computer wrote a piece of music for the piano in the style of Beethoven. Although it did sound like a Beethoven peice, it just lacked 'something' when played next to a real peice, where you can 'feel' the music.

The arts looks into why some things do seem to be more than the sum of their parts, in a way that science simply can't explain becuase it's inherently subjective.Also, I've got to say in the last 6-8 months or so there has seemed to a wave of intellectual snobbery creeping in on PF. (this isn't directed at anyone in particular)

 

[Triple_D]

Albert disagrees.

"It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks."
—Albert Einstein

 

[Triple_D]

Oh BTW, it's brass tacks, not brass tax.

 

[Topher925]

Albert disagrees.

"It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks."
—Albert Einstein

And which field of liberal arts did Albert study?

Oh BTW, it's brass tacks, not brass tax.

Whoops. Thats what happens when I post in the morning.

 

[ideasrule]

I agree. Studying any of the liberal arts in college in my opinion is a waste of time and resources. The world has a lot of serious problems, and learning about finger paintings and dancing isn't going to help solve them.

If finger painting and dancing don't help, how about politics, economics, history, sociology, culture studies, and anthropology? Understanding human behavior is the most important step in solving any problem, especially any problem in a democratic society.

I think liberal arts has its place in society, as I do enjoy the occasional TV show and movie now and then, but you don't need a college degree to write a movie script or act. When you get down to the brass tacks of it all, the liberal arts is really just about entertainment and not anything salient.

Even if this were true, so what? What's wrong with people pursuing their own interests and entertaining themselves, as well as their audience?

 

[Triple_D]

I don't know if Einstein specifically studied any of the "Liberal Arts" in college, or not. But what if he didn't? Is it necessary to take a formal class of study in a particular subject, in order to be able to appreciate it? I majored in physics and geology, but I still understand the importance of chemistry, biology, and the Arts.

The purpose of obtaining a liberal arts education, is to acquire general knowledge, and more importantly, to develop intellectual skills. It is primarily about learning how to be an independent thinker. Historically, a liberal arts education consisted of the study of several subjects, including philosophy, literature, languages, history, math, and science. Over the years, however, it seems as though math and science have been spun off by many universities into their own department. This has created a sort of "rift" in the educational system, and we see it in this thread. It's us (scientists) against them. And I think that is a damn shame.

The written and spoken language is how we convey ideas and thoughts. And learning to master that language is surely beneficial to anyone's life. Someone who speaks eloquently, most assuredly makes a better impression than someone who doesn't. Could any book be written without some ability to articulate ideas? Imagine trying to comprehend a technically correct, but poorly written, physics or math textbook. Imagine trying to write a technical paper, without having the ability to clearly express your ideas and theories.

Think about the subject of history, for a moment. Imagine if we had no knowledge of what happened in the world last week, or last year, or five hundred years ago. Or imagine a world without any philosophical thought. Philosophy, a word of Greek origin, which literally means "love of wisdom".

Imagine having no books to read, plays to see, music to listen to, news to comprehend, or Star Trek to watch. Read any of the classic books, and tell me they are a waste of your time. Take The Count of Monte Cristo, for example. A brilliant work of art, written by Alexandre Dumas, more than 160 years ago. 1300+ pages, not one of which, is boring or repetitive. Only a creative mind and master of the written language could have penned such a wonderful story.

The Arts (liberal and fine) enhance our lives. I'm not sure I would want to live in a world without them. Closing your mind to the Arts is so self limiting. And so sad.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Well said Triple D.

 

[jobyts]

Is there something called Conservative art?

 

[Dembadon]

It's difficult to objectively argue about a word that's meaning is subjective in nature. Without coming to an agreement on how the word "useful" is defined within the discussion, then nobody's in a position to say someone else is wrong.

To some, grabbing a friend/acquaintance and discussing a particular artist's work for a couple hours would be "useful."

To others, "useful" means that it must have have some practical application in the physical world.

There's nothing wrong with either point-of-view, and I'm sure there are many others. I enjoy these discussions, but I think they'd benefit from having the participants be a bit more precise with their definitions/explanations, as a few of the posters in this thread have done.