Study: Liberal arts education helps in down economy

Roger_Dooley · 01-25-2012, 09:56 AM

Be a little skeptical, as the study was done by the Social Science Research Council, but some interesting findings:

Quote:

It found that students who had mastered the ability to think critically, reason analytically and write effectively by their senior year were:

•Three times less likely to be unemployed than those who hadn't (3.1% vs. 9.6%).

•Half as likely to be living with their parents (18% vs. 35%).

•Far less likely to have amassed credit card debt (37% vs. 51%).

From: Liberal arts education lends an edge in down economy ? USATODAY.com

The other aspect of these conclusions is that one doesn't have to have a liberal arts degree to achieve the characteristics deemed effective. I'd say most engineering grads think critically and reason analytically (perhaps to a greater degree than liberal arts grads), and many can write well, too.

Sue22 · 01-25-2012, 10:33 AM

"Recent college graduates who as seniors scored highest on a standardized test to measure how well they think, reason and write — skills most associated with a liberal arts education — were far more likely to be better off financially than those who scored lowest, says the survey....Arum also cautions that the study doesn't speak to whether high-scoring graduates picked up their skills while in college."

So what this study seems to be saying is that smarter students with better communication skills do better financially. Not exactly earth shattering news. It doesn't tell us anything about whether these high scoring students were liberal arts majors at all. I'd like to see the same study repeated using the ability to handle quantitative material as the measure. I'd be willing to bet the higher scoring students on that test would have better outcomes than those who scored poorly as well.

I'm a bit believer in liberal arts education but I think whoever wrote this article, and in particular this headline, needs a little more education him or herself!

sheldonxp · 01-25-2012, 12:38 PM

Those going to these colleges are, for the most part, likely to be more affluent in the first place than the average joe.

Roger_Dooley · 01-25-2012, 01:22 PM

It would be interesting to see the data broken down by field of study, vs. the nebulous "most associated with" link.

hudsonvalley51 · 01-25-2012, 04:23 PM

The article is about a "liberal arts education," not Liberal Arts Colleges. One can acquire a liberal arts education at small undergraduate colleges, at "masters universities" and at large research universities. The minority of these places offering a liberal arts education attract primarily the affluent. Sure, St. Lawrence University, Amherst College and Princeton attract their fair share of the offspring of the 1 percenters, but you don't have to be wealthy to get an excellent liberal arts education at North Carolina, Wisconsin, SUNY Binghamton, the UCs, Texas, Ohio State (or the Ivy League schools for that matter).

xiggi · 01-25-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

The article is about a "liberal arts education," not Liberal Arts Colleges. One can acquire a liberal arts education at small undergraduate colleges, at "masters universities" and at large research universities.

A liberal arts education is most often misunderstood and misrepresented as a loose compilation of nebulous and worthless classes. It surprises many that a school such as Penn's Wharton likes to advertise its excellence in the ... liberal arts.

And, it seems that some find it annoying to have to admit that graduates from Harvey Mudd are both liberal arts graduates and graduates who earn the most upon graduation. The horror. The horror!

NovaLynnx · 01-25-2012, 10:23 PM

I think you can have a liberal education even as a...STEM major. It just depends on your program and what courses you take. I was a psych major, but I took several advanced English/writing courses, as well as advanced religion courses. I realize STEM majors may not have as much room in their schedules as I did as a psych major, but they can still take their general education courses seriously and learn about more than just math and science. They can learn to write and think critically in all of their courses, and they can learn to appreciate history and literature even as a physics major. I think the problem is with those who only want to learn about their major and hate/don't try to learn or retain information in any other courses - they're the ones who miss out on the value of a diverse education.

TomServo · 01-26-2012, 02:17 AM

So students allegedly possessing something which can't be measured had their success probabilities measured to two significant figures?

mikemac · 01-26-2012, 08:04 PM

Having clicked on the link, led me add a quote from the article

Quote:

Recent college graduates who as seniors scored highest on a standardized test to measure how well they think, reason and write — skills most associated with a liberal arts education — were far more likely to be better off financially than those who scored lowest

Gee, is that a surprise? Employers don't rush out to hire those who have lower abilities to think, reason, and write?

Nothing to see here...

sailfish · 01-26-2012, 10:45 PM

But if a great LAC is an option, choose it if at all possible. INMHO it will offer the best possible undergraduate education almost every time.

fca719 · 01-28-2012, 12:41 AM

"And, it seems that some find it annoying to have to admit that graduates from Harvey Mudd are both liberal arts graduates and graduates who earn the most upon graduation. The horror. The horror!"

Xiggi, you are one of my heroes, but let us think more clearly. Do you think that the main driver of the earnings of Mudders are because of their liberal arts education or their STEM education? How would you explain the difference in earnings between graduates from Mudd and, say, Pitzer?

Ilovecolgate · 01-29-2012, 08:14 AM

Look at the payscale chart, top LACs graduates earn much less than national university,harvey mudd doesn't count, it is a very good engineering school combines with LACs, and everything asociates with engineering means $$$
It is true that LAC's graduates will be more adaptable to every economic situation because of their Liberal art disciples which mean they can be employed in any field, not just one field like research university.

NovaLynnx · 01-29-2012, 11:52 AM

Considering many people are expected to change their career paths a few times throughout their lives, I wonder what really pays off in the long run in this consideration? Would STEM majors really find it more difficult to switch career paths than a liberals arts major? Or are STEM majors less likely to change because its more difficult to change, or because of the money, or because they're more likely to enjoy their careers long-term? I'd love to see some research on this. I would think liberal arts majors are more likely to switch careers in life because it is somewhat easier and might only require a few extra classes or a graduate degree and may not mean a big different/drop in salary. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing to change careers. I'm just curious which majors are more like to change and why.

fca719 · 01-29-2012, 01:21 PM

@Ilovecolgate: Fully agree with you. That's why I do not understand why Xiggi (a person who I respect much and that should know better) tried to use Harvey Mudd graduates as an example of liberal arts students who earn the most upon graduation. Clearly the reason is the strong engineeirng/STEM training provided by Mudd.

ucbalumnus · 01-31-2012, 12:36 AM

Remember that "liberal arts" properly includes science and math as well as humanities and social studies. The graduates of Harvey Mudd are probably more well rounded than those of most other liberal arts colleges -- Harvey Mudd offers only STEM majors (so students have to take science and math courses), but all students must take at least 11 humanities and social studies courses (probably about a third of the courses needed to graduate).