"It's not that Liberal arts majors don't care about our job prospects. Surely, many of us are willing to trade some future earning potential for work we enjoy (certainly the case with me... two years out of college I was making $55k base plus more than $25k in bonuses, but I quit to take a job in non-profit making half that.)"

That's my point. You're willing to trade money for what you genuinely want to do. I don't see where we disagree; I just used the word "job" instead of "permanent career." In the way Fasces was talking they are synonymous and I was responding to him.

@BoSox,
Oh, I get it. And I agree with you, as far as you go. I just want to emphasize the additional but related point that an intelligent liberal arts major is highly employable, too. We're not just feel-good, right-brained, Bohemian drifters.

The prejudice of most science majors against Liberal Arts majors is predicated on the false assumption that you only learn the things you study, and stop learning when you graduate. That would be a sad, sad existence.

Well a missed : here and a missed : there, are you telling me you haven't made a grammatical error while on the Internet? In any case he is fluent in English, and would just annoy our teacher if he went there again.

@Rasmu,
If what he meant was "What is being suggested is that one should pursue a career they will have future income in, AND THAT as a liberal arts major you'll be drawing on cups at starbucks-if youre lucky." then that's fine and I owe him an apology.

But that's not what he said. The way he wrote it, the second sentence appeared to be an assertion of his opinion rather than an attempt to clarify what others were stating.

"Most liberal arts majors don't consider it a waste of time because they aren't concerned with money or job prospects, only their sense of self. They want to live their life their own way. As a self-admitted libertarian why would you have a problem with that?"
My problem with it is that the government is subsiding it. I already admited that I'm a liberal arts major, so obviously I don't completely oppose it, I oppose government involvement (through student loans or other) in it.

Especially making it free, that would be a bad idea.

Oh, and lest people think I'm trying to insult science/math-minded people, it's also a little unfair of BoSox, to imply that liberal arts majors don't care about money and STEM majors do. I know a lot of PoliSci majors who went into investment banking and are raking in huge salaries. I also know a lot of very good and charitable engineers doing really selfless charity work in developing nations.

"Early education (pre-school through elementary) is easily the most important age. If you don't get the things you need early, you aren't going to succeed later. "

That is what PARENTS are for.............................

Both ways work, "and that" or colon instead of the period. But it doesn't matter as the conclusion would be the same and he didn't mean to offend arts majors.

....before the State came in and told all of you that you were too stupid and incompetent to do anything on your own, parents actually (gasp....wait for it...) taught kids to read on their own. <What?!?! The heck you say...> Oh my word, it's true. Mommies and Daddies sat down with little snot nose and a book, and they learned colors and shapes and letters and numbers all (gasp...wait for it...) without some State-funded caretaker doing it for you. <What?!?! The heck you say...> Both of my daughters were reading before Kindergarten because (gasp....wait for it....) we taught them at home.

Maybe if Mommey and Daddy put down the crack pipe and stopped waiting by the mail box for their welfare check...maybe if Mommy and Daddy shut down the browser and stopped wasting all day on Fartbook....maybe, you know...maybe...Mommy and Daddy can be responsible for what they bring in to this world, and we wouldn't have to tax the responsible humans to death to take care of the stupid and lazy people...

Just saying...

<Wow....it's been says since I went off like that..that felt goooood....>

"That is what PARENTS are for............................."

Parents aren't as good as they used to be I guess. Or at least don't fit into the system as well.

@Krellin,
I don't think anyone would contest your suggestion that it would be far better for parents to teach their children to read.

But for those that don't, are you willing to penalize the child for the laziness of the parent, or would you prefer to give that child every possible chance to correct that failing now, so that he can teach his own children later and lift them all out of the cycle of dependence?

(Also, I must add, Krellin, your moderation over the last several days has not gone unnoticed. You've been on your best behavior, and it's been appreciated. Even the above outburst was civil and had a point to it. Keep up the good work! Gold star!)

hecks - I'll tell you what - *I* am tired of being penalized for the laziness of others. You can spend all the money you want on pre-K...and when the kid goes home to Mom and Dad staring at facebook and watching TV after spending the day in glorified recess (because 30 kids in pre-k classes is not an educational setting...it's organizaed chaos...) and Mom and Dad still won't read a book for them (because what the h*** do I send 'em to that d***ed school for...now get me another beer...) and the kid does not have the 5 minutes he may have actually spent learning anything like reading reinforced, then you have just wasted my tax dollars and glorified recess for pre-K kids with stupid parents.

Guess what...kids ALREADY go to pre-school...and they rarely come out reading unless there is parental support at home.

And here's anothe thought...you can't force equal outcome. Little Johnny can't read by kindergarten because Mom and Dad suck a**? Hey....lifes rough, man. But I'll bet when Johhny get's to real kindgergarten if he has a teacher there that isn't a piece of crap that they can't fire because of tenure, who gets measured on her outcomes (how well did her students learn)....then maybe, just maybe, Johhny will be reading by the end of kindgergarten despite Mom and Dad...

Have any of you ever "taught" a classroom full of 2, 3 or 4 years olds? I spent years "teaching" Sunday school to the little darlings. I love 'em to death, but trying to keep 5 of them engaged in listening to a story and talking about it is hard enough, and I make all the voices and put on theatrics to keep them engaged. The difference in mental ability at those early ages can be vast, especially if there are behavioral issues coming from the home. So the notion that the Federal government is just going to throw a bunch of tax dollars at Pre-K and suddenly kids will read is stupid....most likely the oppotie will occur because Mom and Dad think the government's got it covered

heck....to be blunt, every society needs its ditch diggers...and there is no shame if that is your fate? Or do you look down on the ditch diggers?

@ 2WL

They do at certain universities. Many colleges and universities have required classes in the liberal arts for all majors.

That doesn't mean they get a "liberal arts education". It means that they have a diverse curriculum. A liberal arts component to a curriculum is better than pure science anyway.

Yeah, but why should a pharmacist take a single course in philosophy or rhetoric? Also, is it easier to run a dedicated vocational pharmacy school or a university that has been modified beyond its original intent to train pharmacists?

"Guess what...kids ALREADY go to pre-school...and they rarely come out reading unless there is parental support at home."

Reading has never been taught in preschool. Preschool is about exposing children to the idea of education and to the social aspects of education. Most of pre K is playtime anyway, because like you said, ever try to teach a classroom of 3 or 4 year olds? Pre K kids learn to write their name, to use their imagination, cooperation, listening, drawing, basic science (senses, seasons, don't touch the oven) that basically set the stage for future learning.

My fiance went to a dedicated pharmacy college (for a four year program, she didn't end up with a Pharm D. but took the same coursework as pharmacists in a 5 year program) and her curriculum was entirely hard sciences with the exception of a token humanities class in their first year. She will be the first to admit, though, that scientists can't speak in public, write a decent paper without having someone else proofread and edit, or handle basic computer problems. And nobody takes "rhetoric" anymore, Grandpa Gunfighter.

I had to take 6 liberal arts courses as part of my BS in EE. Two of them were absolutely amazing and gave me great appreciation for the field. 4 of them were taught by jerk-off grad students/homeless men they found wandering in a park. Not only was it a waste of time, but I really don't take those fields too seriously ( although I freely admit Thats a ridiculous stance to take).

I think an introduction to liberal arts is very important for a well-rounded technologist, just as science and math is critical for liberal artists. But, you have to teach it well or you're just wasting everyone's time.

As to individual trade schools: I think you'd lose a lot in interdisciplinary work. Engineers work with physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists, etc. Some even work with kinesiologists, musicians, artists, etc. I'm sure the same can be said in the Liberal arts. collaboration is hard enough even at the same campus; it would be near impossible if people weren't even spatially local.

I do think that plans like Oregon's (if it passes) will seriously threaten the existence of some majors. Some liberal arts majors do make money, but honestly, it can be harder than in STEM. And before I'm attacked, I absolutely support the existence of liberal arts majors, and have never discouraged anybody from pursuing one (so far as I recall). ckroberts nicely summarized what higher education is and should be, but that doesn't mean it's remaining that.

everything should be free

free hat!

"Reading has never been taught in preschool. Preschool is about exposing children to the idea of education and to the social aspects of education."

Great,...so we want to soak the tax payers for more money tooooo.....expose children to the "idea" of education and the soci...."

I can't finish the sentence. The social aspect of 3 and 4 year olds is an exhausted, overburdened adult trying in vain to control the near-insanity that is a collection of msuhy-unformed brains.

My children learned the social aspect of being social / behaving well / learning / etc by sitting with their adult role models (Parents, Grandparents, other adults).

The completely asinine notion that children learn proper social interactions by grouping them in the chaos of large groups of children who know nothing about proper behavior, and are inherently greedy and violent is no way to teach children..

As a parent, *you* teach the these things in the small, controlled environment of your home. And, unless you are a worthless troll, you introduce your child to other children (siblings, neighbors, church friends, etc.) in small controlled environments where you can, as an adult, interact *with* them and teach them proper social interactions, etc.

You're lucky if your kid comes home from these glorious day-warehouses and they don't have more worse behavior from the troglodyte children that were dumped there by their parents, because the "teacher" is just trying to get them out of there in one piece with pants that aren't full of feces.

"Reading has never been taught in preschool. Preschool is about exposing children to the idea of education and to the social aspects of education."

Objection.
I'm not sure what pre-school you went to but it sounds awful.
When I was in pre-school we learned mathematics, reading, cursive handwriting, french, mandarin, some snack preparation skills, music and PE (There may also have been other stuff, those are the things I remember off the top of my head). I learned substantially more in my three years of pre-school than I did in grade 1.

Actually hold that thought. I went to a private pre-school. Maybe that's why we actually learned things.

Why the hate for PoliSci? Its a pretty typical pre-law degree, and on its own is pretty valuable for any sort of political work. And at least at my university it is being taught as a real social science with a focus on statistical analysis.

@Puddle,
I think I'm the only one who mentioned PoliSci, right? I wasn't hating. Just saying at my college it was a feeder for several big investment banks in NYC. PoliSci kids graduated making major bank compared to the rest of us humanities people.