This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think we should accept that there are degrees that are primarily conspicuous leisure. Philosophy, literature, history - they are qualitatively different from STEM degrees or BA/Marketing/Accounting/Finance/Law.
The latter are, honestly, glorified trades. "Oh, you come from a class that has to work for a living? Here's a four-year course that will help you earn more or at the very least will reduce your occupational hazards to hemorrhoids." The former are for trust-fund kids and for those few who can't imagine any other future for themselves and are willing to sacrifice their economic prospects to study the agricultural practices of 18th century SEA peasants.
As long as we keep lumping them together into "find your true vocation", people will remain confused and angry: both the undergrads that were duped into getting a useless degree because Miss Doe the high school history teacher was their favorite and the professors that have been deluding themselves about their relative worth.
You're both overstating and understating the situation.
On one hand, it goes way beyond just literature and philosophy. Open up the STEM box and you'll find that it's only really the T and E parts that lead directly to careers. There might be more demand for PhD graduates in the sciences but the majority of students stop with a bachelors and there aren't really any more jobs that specifically need a degree in e.g. biology than those that need you to have studied history. High school teacher is basically the full list.
But on the other hand, you're missing the generic value of a degree. Pretty much all white collar jobs these days need you to have a degree and most aren't particularly picky about what you studied. Yes, maybe a lot of that is just signaling, but the signal is a real thing (earning a degree proves that you have some combination of intelligence and conscientiousness, which is also valuable to an employer) - so playing the game is rational for both students and companies.
More options
Context Copy link
A BA was originally about helping wealthy and intelligent people to lead a more enriched life.
The problem is that schools took over credentialization without adjusting their programs.
Right now no one has an interest in explaining to students which subjects are rich kid majors.
I think the real solution is to involve actuaries in the federal student loans program. Analyse data and warn kids that their program is unlikely to ever pay off their student loans.
Or make the whole thing more direct and don't provide loans that are statistically unlikely to be repaid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would add all of the Social Sciences to the list. Pretty much all papers I read leave me with the thought "that's nice to know" and not "this will change how we do things and generate all sorts of positive effects in practice". I'd really like to know how many Social Science papers had any large positive impact on any policy. I would guess it's a small minority and if we stopped doing it altogether, almost nothing of practical value would be lost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link