Rebuttal to Yahoo's "Useless College Majors" - Page 3

Vot123 · 01-22-2012, 01:00 PM

In defense of the theater major who is more into acting than the behind-the-scenes tech, might I add that the skills of acting goes beyond the mere field of entertainment. I mean, think of it: acting is stylized lying. The best actors are the ones who can seamlessly convince you of the falsehood that they are the character they are playing, or what they're saying is true. Ergo, the best liars are the best the actors. This can be used for both good or evil. Think Meryl Streep (good), and I'll leave the CC readers to think up their own bad example. The political stage must be called that for a reason, right?

Another acting skill is showmanship. How to look confident even when you're not, knowing how to speak, when to pause, how to modulate your voice to create an atmosphere. How to look directly at the audience to make a point. This is useful for teaching in any subject. The best instructor my D ever had was a former actor who taught history. His lectures were mesmerizing.

So there's hope for the majority of those theater majors who don't make it to Broadway, just so long as they also have some other interests on the back burner.

Davidabb84 · 01-22-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

the skills of acting goes beyond the mere field of entertainment.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

My aunt actually knows someone who just last month was accepted into the law school at Case Western, she told me about her yesterday. What did she do for undergrad? Majored in theatre at Northwestern, with a minor in philosophy. Theatre can take you places other than the stage.

Bogney · 01-22-2012, 01:10 PM

I am not sure that I will ever trust a theater major again! Who knew that they are the embodiment of Machiavellian deceit and trickery?

bobtheboy · 01-22-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

I take extreme offense to the insinuation that a major in TheatRE is useless. And it's reasoning is just idiotic. First, it ignores the fact that employment is show-to-show, so of course employment statistics at any ONE time will be low. And it claims that there are no non-acting uses for the major, so they'll be stuck "waiting tables," which is a complete falsehood.

Theatre and theater have the same meaning. Theater is the standard American spelling. Also, before you correct other people, make sure you know the difference between it's and its. Here, "its reasoning" is correct, not "it's reasoning."

Davidabb84 · 01-22-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

I am not sure that I will ever trust a theater major again! Who knew that they are the embodiment of Machiavellian deceit and trickery?

You have no idea. Most of my friends are theatre kids, and if they come into a room crying because their dog died, I have good reason to doubt them. One of my friends had a bunch of us convinced for over 15 minutes that her house had been robbed and that's why we couldn't go there. (Truth: her Grandparents were visiting and we wouldn't have been very welcomed)

And then there's the time where we're at lunch, and this guy comes across an article in French online he wished he could read. And another one of my theatre friends takes the phone and reads about 2 paragraphs worth of some made-up story about an arsonist. And we all think she's serious, then she hands the phone back and says, "Just kidding, I don't know French."

Don't trust theatre people.

Quote:

Theatre and theater have the same meaning. Theater is the standard American spelling. Also, before you correct other people, make sure you know the difference between it's and its. Here, "its reasoning" is correct, not "it's reasoning."

It was jokingly emphasized, but some people are very vehement in their belief that when referring to the art form, as opposed to a location, it should be spelled Theatre. I, too, hold this opinion, and while it's not actually that important to me, it's what you'll find is done in many situations. And while your eye for detail is impressive, this was an article that unfairly devalued an entire course of study, not an article on grammatical conventions, and it does not make my rebuttal any less valid that I made a common grammatical mistake, which is easy to do when you're typing away at 80 WPM.

ANDS! · 01-22-2012, 03:00 PM

Why do people get so bent out of shape about these articles? And why, in attempting to rebut the quantifiable (jobs, wages) they turn to the abstract (personal fulfillment, etc.)?

The point of the article is clear: Here are 5 majors which, for a variety of reasons (reasons being variables BLS cares about) are not great majors. End of story. Rebutting him based on facts that he neither brought up or addressed (Theatre as a gateway major to. . .) is about as wrongheaded as you think the article is.

Vot123 · 01-22-2012, 04:33 PM

Chill, ANDS! (I thought the extra exclamation point I almost put after your handle seemed redundant, though it would have been technically correct). I personally quite enjoy the bent-out-of-shape responses these discussions provoke. There's always some gem of new information I glean from them no matter how hackneyed the prompt. Just ignore the thread if it gets too silly.

PerpetualStudent · 01-22-2012, 04:38 PM

Apologies if these links have already been posted, here's a very recent study on employability and salary by major:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi...al.update1.pdf

And associated Washington Post article

Not all college majors are created equal - The Washington Post

The trend is pretty clear.

StrangeBro · 01-22-2012, 05:06 PM

If you think personal fulfillment is abstract, ANDS, you're probably a cyborg.

And there's nothing irrelevant about pointing out what he failed to address in his analysis.

paying3tuitions · 01-22-2012, 05:26 PM

Interesting links there, PerpetualStudent! I particularly liked enlarging the graph in your second link, then mentally tracking to compare the spaces between the 3 dots (for new college grad, experienced college grad, and graduate degree) in each career group listed. You are right, the trends are clear.

The biggest contrast of the chart, top to bottom, was the comparison of The Arts with undergraduate majors for Health and Education. Health and Ed, while leading to work that's not lucrative, at least have certification systems. Preparation for those tests and procedures are, in part, built into the undergraduate coursework. There's a base of knowledge among faculty, too, on how/when/where to attain the certifications. I'm sure that's helpful to new graduates to move right into the available, more numerous jobs nationwide in Health and Ed.

There is certainly nothing comparable in the Arts, whose dots lag behind other fields at all 3 points. I did notice, however, a big improvement for Arts majors who are "experienced" college graduates (as compared to new ones). That jibes with my observation that if you stick with it long enough, and don't throw in the towel, something will break positively. Meanwhile, others do change directions, leaving the stalwarts in place, still auditioning, networking, taking ever-improving positions/roles/contracts etc. There's every reason to give it up, and every reason to press on. It's up to the individual.

At least that's the situation for my S who is 5 years out of college with a theater major, His most recent play opened last night in NYC with his award-winning ensemble theater company in a Sold Out show at the start of its run. But please note: that took 5 YEARS of development to reach this stage of company and personal success in TheatRE (as they spell it). I thought of it when I tracked those dots from new college grad to experienced grad, in the Arts. When I think of how he threw himself at NYC auditions his first year out of college, there's no comparison to how his week flows today. But he put it together, bit by bit, over 5 years' time.

He doesn't even have an agent yet (wishes he did); does all this booking himself. And yet - last July - he was "unemployed" because that month he was between roles. It's something he has to allow for and make up during the year. That's what bank accounts are for. He cobbles his annual salary together. Taxes are paid as an independent contractor, sole proprietor of a small business (himself).

I also want to ask what exactly we mean by working a job in Theater? While it's great to have profit from ticket sales divided up to take home, or be on staff at the Kennedy Center for the Arts...in most cases the serious actors among his friendship circle have other "survival careers." His total salary comes home from a combination of situations: a dinner theater comedy-improv job (regular 3x/week), some side-jobs that rear their lovely heads (commercial photography doing headshots and other theater company photos). He has other steady income from something entirely unrelated to the stage, but nonetheless a high-skill, well-paid hourly rate (teaching afterschool Hebrew and SAT tutoring).

The money from all these sources is all green. He sees all of it as enabling his work in the theater. Some roles bring home pay, others done for free -- but each year, chosen more selectively for their artistic possibility and sheer networking power. Just as a business person invests his time on a few new projects as investments, a good working actor takes on some roles just to generate publicity or widen a circle of association within the same city. That often pays off months later in a contact that leads to a paying situation.

My point is (sorry to be long): on those days/hours when he's working as a tutor or after-school language teacher, is he *not* working in his field of theater? I would say yes he is, because it's all one package deal for him. Nearly all of his friends in theater (cast and crew) cobble things together similarly. The life is not for the faint of heart, that's all. His wife is incredibly understanding and similarly hardworking in one of those Health/Ed fields. It's a life.

Anyway, links much appreciated; I learned from them.

michael0360 · 01-22-2012, 05:29 PM

i agree with yahoos list completely.

Bookworm934 · 01-22-2012, 05:43 PM

^^ Well, it seems as if at least one of us (cough cough michael0360) spent no time reading all of the opposing comments on cc and yahoo and has instead decided to set himself up to lose an argument ....

ANDS! · 01-22-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

And there's nothing irrelevant about pointing out what he failed to address in his analysis.

It is when what you are failing to point out isn't even in the ballpark of the point the article is making. But yes, I'm a cyborg and we should all be Ag and Fashion Design majors sipping Rainbow Lemonade and oblivious to the long term consequences of our educational choices.

fogfog · 01-22-2012, 10:01 PM

My first thought after reading the item was...

as we try to feed a growing world population
...why aren't the agric and hort fields etc more important?!!!

WandMParent · 01-22-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

as we try to feed a growing world population
...why aren't the agric and hort fields etc more important?!!!

They might be important, but that doesn't mean that they're experiencing a massive amount of job growth. Technology makes it easier to produce more crops with fewer people, right?

(Besides, the real issue with feeding the world isn't the amount of food but how well we can distribute it -- there are some parts of the world where people starve on the streets while there are other parts where there is much more food than anyone is interested in eating, so we throw it away or give it away).