<p>I know plenty of students that want to study engineering or computer science, but are deterred by the after-effects of the dot com bust and outsourcing. “What’s the point in engineering if all the jobs are shipped over seas?” seems to be the sentiment among these technically inclined students. I can’t really blame them. Science and math are big fields, because outside of finance, they don’t seem viable. You need a PhD for your degree to be financially viable. Yet that same degree makes one subject to being “overqualified”. Teaching spots in universities are competitive. Sciences that could be lucrative are the only ones worth studying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly my point. There are options to be explored, Mathematics offers great skills in many fields. However, they are not being explored because people think “they are not relevant to life.” The same people then complain about our health care system and lack of medicine that doesn’t do more harm than good.</p>
<p>Sorry, based on the struggle for employment of Math and Science PhD’s in the States, I don’t see where you are coming from.</p>
<p>And, as the math/science requirements are sky rocketing UP across the nation at the HS level(in the 60’s it was Algebra 1, now it is Trig as the requirement, was Geometry, now Pre-Calc as the expectation; was 2 years of science 10 years ago, it is now 3 or 3 1/2).</p>
<p>So I think your problem doesn’t exist, yet is being adressed anyway.</p>
<p>Why would math and science PhD’s be unemployed, and lit majors employed if innovation comes from science. It comes from talent. If education bred innovation, then civilization’s peak would never have moved from the valley between the Tigris and Euprates. Innovation(well, technically entrepreneurship) is the unknown quantity in economics, because we don’t know where it comes from. Education was the strongest in the Mid-east, then Egypt, then Greece, then Egypt again, then Rome, then back to the Mideast, China, all through Europe on to our schools of today with Oxford and Cambridge bridging to Harvard and Yale. Clearly we don’t see unlimited growth of superior education, we see that innovation springs up in new places.</p>
<p>If technical talent was the origin, then the Soviets would have won. Except Germany would have won before them. And EU would be pitiful, while Asia would be invincible.</p>
<p>My high school offered every science AP, and no language AP’s, no art, no music, and only US and Euro history and psychology among the ‘soft’ sciences. A bland public, no ‘technical academy’ or similar institution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason of the advance is not a decrease in material covered, it lies in the greater amount of material to cover. Also, more jobs require more refined skill, no longer do we have skilled or unskilled labor as the focus, with high schoolers able to get manufacturing jobs. Instead, people need to get other positions. Additionally, a much broader work force exists today, making the competition all the more fierce. Americans get their jobs only by being incredibly superior to their foreign competitors. American workers cost more. A lot more. And that propells the advance in requirements, not some silly claim that we don’t have the technical savy we used to.</p>
<p>
I still think English Composition is important for all students. IMO even engineering students can benefit. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting we need MORE medicine that harms people? I think we have plenty but hey. That’s just me. I’m not much of a gambler. </p>
<p>In law school you protest the old saying that “they say the smartest person in the world is a law student” (and the smartest is probably a first-year) . You don’t have to be in practice very long before you realize “they” were right. I wonder. Do engineers come to the same realization?</p>
<p>I still think a broad liberal arts and sciences based education is a fine preparation for living. I worry about folks who take only tech courses but that is their right and , as I said before, there are schools that cater to them. I suggest finding one of those schools and leaving the liberal arts and sciences schools alone. I like them just just fine the way there are. As always just my opinion.</p>
<p>Edit: I should say that I also worry about those who take no science or math courses. That goes with “broad -based” IMO.</p>
<p>
As a scientist-in-training, I think that the ability to think creatively and abstractly is probably the most important factor necessary to succeed in science and engineering. The ability to write clearly and concisely is a close second.</p>
<p>Object to the foundation.</p>
<p>I’ll take math when you take logic.</p>
<p>“I’ll take math when you take logic.”</p>
<p>Well said. I can’t believe the number of unsupported assertions the OP is throwing around like they’re Gospel truth. This psychology major (horrors!) is not impressed.</p>
<p>Interesting report on how higher education in this country compares to the rest of the world: [MEASURING</a> UP INTERNATIONALLY: Developing Skills and Knowledge for the Global Knowledge Economy](<a href=“สล็อตเว็บตรง FAFA365 มาตรฐานเว็บตรงสล็อต แตกง่ายกว่าเดิม 3 เท่า”>สล็อตเว็บตรง FAFA365 มาตรฐานเว็บตรงสล็อต แตกง่ายกว่าเดิม 3 เท่า)</p>
<p>[Mathematicians[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Median annual earnings of mathematicians were $86,930 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $62,970 and $106,250. The lowest 10 percent had earnings of less than $43,500, while the highest 10 percent earned more than $132,190.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD)%2C_Chemistry/Salary]PayScale”>Doctorate (PhD), Chemistry Salary | PayScale]PayScale</a> - Doctorate (PhD), Chemistry Salary, Average Salaries](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm#emply]Mathematicians[/url”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm#emply)</p>
<p>So by making higher salaries they don’t have as many jobs opportunities as English majors? Right.</p>
<p>“I’ll take math when you take logic.”</p>
<p>So by stating the facts that the US is pretty far behind in terms of education I am being illogic? Very intelligent approach. I feel we should be pushing to be #1, not #30</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Engineering students continue to command positions in a comprehensive list of fields.</p>
<p>[From</a> Rumors to Facts: Career Outcomes of English PhDs](<a href=“http://www.mla.org/bulletin_124043]From”>http://www.mla.org/bulletin_124043)</p>
<p>English PhDs do not have “more jobs” than science and math PhDs. Check your sources. They earn, on average, higher salaries. </p>
<p>The demand for employees in these fields have been rising consistently. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
As a scientist-in-training, I think that the ability to think creatively and abstractly is probably the most important factor necessary to succeed in science and engineering. The ability to write clearly and concisely is a close second.
[/quote]
It is indeed important, I don’t argue that. I argue our lack of innovation, and it is not due to the lack of literature skill. Our cars don’t suck because we aren’t reading enough Shakespeare. </p>
<p>The only reason there aren’t as many jobs in Math and Science are because we are sending all the jobs overseas to more qualified and better educated (in their perspective fields) students.</p>
<p>[The</a> Tartan Online : American math and sciences slipping](<a href=“http://www.thetartan.org/2006/2/20/news/prep]The”>American math and sciences slipping - The Tartan)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/opinion/l19friedman.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/opinion/l19friedman.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting article/comparisons of ROI’s for various degrees:</p>
<p>[Is</a> your degree worth $1 million – or worthless? - MSN Money](<a href=“http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx]Is”>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx)</p>
<p>That IS an interesting report (momochka’s post #49), but it doesn’t have all that much to say about the content of US higher education. Three things jumped out at me: </p>
<p>(1) The relatively low levels of both average high school achievement in the U.S. (although mainly compared to countries that are notably non-diverse) and percentage of students achieving at a high level.</p>
<p>(2) Between 1995 and 2003 the United States had the greatest absolute and percentage improvement in both math and science scores for 8th graders amoung the countries studied (in fact most countries suffered declines, some substantial).</p>
<p>(3) Given higher education participation rates, it is clear US colleges are full of kids who are much less well prepared than in other countries. Here, the higher education participation rate is 60%, and only 27% of students scored in the top two levels of proficiency in math as 15-year-olds. 60% of those kids is going to include a significant number of kids who were third- and fourth-level at math as 15-year-olds. In other countries, where the higher education participation rate is more like 50%, that is likely to exclude a meaningful number of kids who were in the top two levels of math proficiency as 15 year-olds.</p>
<p>That perhaps helps explain the high degree of stratification in the U.S. higher education system. The higher education system here is accomodating a much wider range of skill levels than is the case elsewhere. (Note that the study does not factor out community colleges and similar institutions, which exist here at a much larger scale than anywhere else. I think the difference would still be significant if they were excluded, though.)</p>
<p>doubleplay’s article, by the way, based on census data, shows that there is not a lot of meaningful difference between the lifetime value of mere bachelor’s degrees in “science” compared to “liberal arts”, and that “liberal arts” has a higher value than “social science” at the bachelor’s level. However “science” PhDs have a decent payoff. (And – shocker! – the money is in professional degrees.)</p>
<p>while the arts are important, the fact of the matter is we are falling behind in education, mainly math and science. I agree with UriA702, a good course of action would be introducing natural sciences at an earlier age, and pushing them as hard as we push the humnities. Most industrialized nations are far more advanced, if we want to reduce the amount of jobs outsources we should work on it.</p>
<p>The fall in our economy is partially due to the huge number of imports and not enough exports. it’ll be hard to regain our ground economically when everything ww buy stimulates foreign economies, not our own. Education in the US in general is not up to par. That is simple fact.</p>
<p>Another interesting article about educational gap between generations is posted on [Measuring</a> Up | The National Report Card on Higher Education](<a href=“http://measuringup.highereducation.org/]Measuring”>http://measuringup.highereducation.org/)
Click on the ‘More’ link under ‘International Comparisons’, and then select the ’ Introduction: International Comparisons Highlight Educational Gaps Between Young and Older Americans’ report.</p>
<p>What keeps many students from getting an engineering degree is an inadequate underpinning in math and science. They drop like flies in their freshman/sophomore year of college. It’s not english, social studies, or humanities that cause their downfall- it’s freshman calculus, chemistry, physics, bio, orgochem… Why can’t students hack those entry level courses? Inadequate preparation in high school in math and science.</p>
<p>I suspect that most jobs, including technical jobs, are outsourced because people in other countries will do them for less money, not because there is nobody in the U.S. who can do them as well. I’m not sure how pushing more U.S. students into technical majors will help the situation.
I also think that the major fallacy of this whole thread is the inability to distinguish a liberal arts education from poor choice of major. The fact that a classics major might have trouble finding a high-paying job has nothing to do with a liberal arts education vs. a technical education.</p>
<p>It’s kind of shocking that master’s in education make less than bachelor’s. Something very wrong there.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, I tend to agree that a broad liberal arts and science education is a fine preparation for living. But what I have found is that an appreciation in the arts, some level of competency in the humanities and writing can be acquired as an active adult learner. At least to the point of living well.</p>
<p>The physical/applied sciences are a different matter. While I can pick up my autographed copy of Hayden Carruth’s “Collected Longer Poems” and enjoy it greatly on first reading, I cannot fathom doing the same with a text on number theory or particle physics.</p>
<p>But I think what bothers me most is the claim that a liberal arts education has a monoply on development of well cultivated critical thinking. As defined by Paul and Scriven( [CriticalThinking.org</a> - Defining Critical Thinking](<a href=“Critical Thinking”>Critical Thinking) ), one of the objectives of most science/engineering cirricula is to develop well cultivated critical thinking. This is because in the real world many problems can be solved in a number of ways, face the challenge of competing objectives and require collaboration by members of the development team to reach consensus on the best solution. As educators we need to teach our students how to function in such an environment, ie think critically.</p>
<p>I was speaking with a student who graduated recently and is working in an environmental engineering firm which was designing a facility to eliminate sulfur dioxide gas buildup in a sewer pipeline using hydrogen peroxide. They had prepared the plans for approval by a local planning board, calling it a chemical feed facility. He made a recommendation that all the sheets be modified to rename it an odor control facility. Both titles were accurate but which do you think would have the best chance of being approved by a board of citizens. The firm immediately made the title change and the project was approved without a hitch. Critical thinking!</p>
<p>US tech employment is not in as bad of shape as many believe-
[U.S</a>. Tech Employment Hits Its Highest Point In Seven Years – Computer-Related Employment](<a href=“http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201002045]U.S”>news)</p>
<p>Many of the fastest growing occupations here in our very own country will be in math/science-related fields- healthcare, computer, engineering/tech:
<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/art5full.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/art5full.pdf</a></p>
<p>As a parent of two engineering students, I’m heartened by the outlook. But what I see are too many high school and college age students who are interested in pursuing engineering and science related disciplines, but either don’t even try because they think it’s going to be too ‘hard’ or wash out after a year because it is too hard. Meanwhile, if you look back at what they took in high school, you clearly see a lack of challenging math/science curriculum. It’s really no wonder that we see so many people coming into our country snagging up engineering jobs. It’s actually a positive sign- there are engineering jobs to be had IN THE US, and there will be even more jobs over the next eight years.</p>
<p>There is no value to arguing over what the ‘better’ degree is. The best degree is that which you are interested in and will make you happiest. Bottom line… do what makes you happy. Happiness cannot be overrated enough.</p>