Useless majors?

[DwightEisenhower]

<p>Current Harvard student here, with a non-STEM concentration. You seem to have a pretty reasonable take on the “Humanities vs STEM” dichotomy that always pops up on these forums–much more reasonable than I usually see. But as someone who has wrestled with this issue a lot myself, let me add a few things:</p>

<p>It’s easy to overestimate how much more employable STEM concentrations are. Despite the career focused inclinations of most of its students, Harvard ostensibly tries to avoid pre-professional concentrations. Thus, there are very few concentrations at Harvard that, in and of themselves, directly prepare you for a non-academic career. At the very least, you would have to take the “S” and “M” out of “STEM.” Science and pure math concentrations at Harvard impart tangible skills, certainly, but not skills that directly put you on a “track” to a job. A chemistry concentrator may go to work for a pharmaceutics company, but is that so different from a government concentrator going to work for the State Department? There is no “pre-____” or “accounting” major at Harvard. Engineering and CS are probably the only exceptions.</p>

<p>A better way to look at the difference between STEM and non-STEM is that the skills of non-STEM concentrators are less readily apparent. This is because a chemistry grad from Harvard can be assumed to know some level of chemistry without which it would be impossible to do the coursework that he/she did. But you can’t assume much of anything about a government grad. Do they have a theoretical or practical background? Do they have a regional specialty? Do they have any experience -doing- anything? Do they have auxiliary skills like statistics or languages? </p>

<p>The challenge facing non-STEM concentrators is to answer those questions for their prospective employers. </p>

<p>

I’ve browsed the websites of various departments, and I notice that not only do some concentrations (such as computer science and applied mathematics) clearly state that job prospects are very favorable for students in those fields of study, but they also back up their claims with numerous worthwhile examples of successful alumni and of organizations/firms where alumni have gone on to work. On the other hand, other concentrations (such as East Asian Studies, for example) simply state, in general terms, that alumni have gone on to careers in certain fields. Furthermore, some concentrations (such as History of Art and Architecture) don’t state anything at all in regards job prospects. These observations, along with the current state of the job market, make me wonder whether the personal enrichment factor of a liberal arts concentration is good enough to look over a natural science or engineering concentration that teaches skills which have immediate real-world application (as opposed to vague skills such as “critical thinking” for which the liberal arts are usually praised).

</p>

<p>I would put very little stock in the department websites of the various concentrations. For the few concentrations I’ve dealt with, making their undergraduate websites informative and helpful isn’t exactly a high priority. </p>

<p>

I’m not one to indiscriminately denounce college students for whom vocational prospects don’t constitute a primary concern in college (and I don’t believe that all humanities students will starve to death), but really, does going to Harvard somehow insulate liberal arts majors from some of the unemployment that frequently affects hundreds of college graduates nationwide?

</p>

<p>Insulate? No. If you squander all your opportunities at Harvard, it’s like squandering all your opportunities anywhere.</p>

<p>But Harvard makes a ton of resources available to the non-STEM concentrator for answering those questions I mentioned above. At Harvard, no one -just- does their concentration. I’m a Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations concentrator, but if that were -all- that I did, I’d be in trouble. Harvard allows you to broaden your skillset, in both tangible and intangible ways, and I suspect that’s the advantage that we (and other top schools) have over schools with fewer resources.</p>

<p>

I’d like to study something that I truly enjoy, but I wouldn’t want to be blinded into thinking that the Harvard name and whatever connections I make in college would be enough to obtain a successful career. I don’t come from a family of very wealthy means, which is why this is a pressing concern for me.

</p>

<p>In other words, do all the non-STEM concentrators have trust funds to back them up if they end up unemployable? Obviously I’m exaggerating and putting words in your mouth, but this was a concern for me too. Honestly, if you’re worried about your financial situation after graduation, STEM vs non-STEM isn’t going to be the issue. I can show you plenty of ways to end up unemployed with a STEM concentration. </p>

<p>The issue, rather, is making sure you acquire a career plan at some point and take concrete steps to advance it. You can do this whatever your concentration is. Also keep in mind that you’ll probably do better at things that you truly enjoy. </p>

<p>

In addition, I’ve also been told on numerous occasions that the natural sciences are almost always more intellectually rigorous than the humanities and social sciences, something that I think would be true at most colleges in the United States but perhaps not true at a place like Harvard. Being someone who naturally inclines towards the liberal arts, I feel that such a belief undermines the work of many students in the humanities and social sciences who are pursuing demanding work at top universities. I’d love to hear the opinions of some current students in regards to this this idea.

</p>

<p>We’ve all heard this, and you’ll hear this probably for the rest of your life. I can’t speak for other schools but at Harvard it’s sort of based in fact, but not really. A better way to think of it is that natural sciences are more difficult on the bottom end. In other words, it’s much harder to do poorly in humanities and social science classes. The brightest students at Harvard will go to humanities and STEM alike, and they’ll have no shortage of intellectual rigor in their four years. But you can also “get by” in a government or econ class. You can’t really “get by” in orgo.</p>

<p>If you’ll indulge a bit of autobiography, I think I can tie together the otherwise scattered suggestions I’ve given above:</p>

<p>As I said, I’m a Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations concentrator. That title alone isn’t worth anything, because as I said, no employer can take that title and assume anything about my skills, except perhaps that I know something about the “Near East.” So, the burden fell on me to 1. identify a career path I wanted to pursue and 2. take tangible steps to advance it. So when I went to apply for jobs, I could say (figuratively): “sure, my concentration may not mean much to you, but here’s what else I’ve been doing”</p>

<p>For me, that meant deciding “Hey, I wanna work for the government in a foreign policy context.” The steps were getting really good at Arabic, studying abroad in a Middle Eastern country, doing research around a tangible and coherent subject, and interning at a government agency. As a rising senior, I’m expecting a job offer at the agency at which I interned, in spite of my supposedly unenemployable concentration. If I had a different career goal, such as wall street, I would have taken very different steps. Keep in mind nothing prevents you from doing a humanities concentration with a secondary in CS, if you think you would benefit from some tangible CS skills. (Hint: you would.)</p>

<p>Looking back on this post it’s quite rambly and I’ll probably want to delete it tomorrow, but I hope it helps somewhat to nuance the whole STEM debate a little bit.</p>