Should colleges discontinue "career-less" majors?

[Ten oz]

While I believe the OP is wrong in its suggestion I do feel Elite Engineer is responding to a legitimate problem. I do campus outreach for my employer and have met a lot of students who selected their degrees rather arbitrarily based convenience, aren't sure how they will apply them, yet do expect them to result in better paying career options.  In the cases were people are taking on lots debt it can be very troublesome. I  also don't think many University don't enough to direct those who are merely pursuing the prestige of having a degree towards cost effective options. If one is able to secure loans and come up with tuition fees Universities will take the money. For some, at least to get started, City Colleges are superior options but students are pressured into Universities.  A lot of young people are very impressionable and the peer pressure to attend the most well regarded University within their social circle to impress others can supersede all else. As more and more people are saddled with debt later into life it will transform other areas of society. Buying a home use to be peoples initial big life purchase but now for many a degree is.

While I do not reject iNow's point about the salaries for Philosophers vs Welders I do feel salaries, at least here in the U.S, are relative to location. A person making 80k a year in San Francisco barely gets by while a person making half as much in Albuquerque is comfortable. General averages do not speak to individual lifestyles or needs.  

The OP overlooks a few things though. For starters it is new products and processes that move economies forward. Which degrees are best suited to an individual to succeed in the future isn't predictable as the OP implies. Any number of sought after vocational or technology skills from just a couple decades ago no longer useful. As AI comes online, automation continues grow, and peoples interest change so to will professional career fields. Even within existing career fields which aren't seemingly going anywhere there is room for change. I for one wish more people in Law Enforcement had education in Philosophy. As for Outdoors Recreation I definitely think  that is useful. As I type this part of my home State is on fire do to a camp site incident. 

The issue isn't that certain degrees are useless. This also should be a debate of whether education is a vehicle for personal growth or financial gain. Any degree type can be either useful or useless depending on the individual and everyone pursues whatever for their own reasons. The issue here in my opinion is the cost of tuition. We need to find a way to make College affordable for everyone. Public grade schools were established in the 1700's. In the hundreds of years since we have failed to figure out how to extend the system for Universities. I think it is time we do that. 

[CharonY]

On 11/13/2018 at 6:13 AM, Ten oz said:

Any degree type can be either useful or useless depending on the individual and everyone pursues whatever for their own reasons. The issue here in my opinion is the cost of tuition.

I can agree with that. In systems where students accrue debt to obtain their education, it is easy to see why it becomes a fiscal decision. It does colour interaction to a large bit.  There are increasing student services on campus and many folks (myself included) try to highlight the transferable skills (i.e. not the ability to memorize the right answers, but rather the ability to organize info and oneself, for example). You are also correct that despite all that there are few areas where a career path is obvious. Many students start thinking about their career only when they get closer to their degree and just assume life will continue in predictable paths, which it does not. As a consequence this:

 

Quote

This also should be a debate of whether education is a vehicle for personal growth or financial gain.

Is something I have been struggling with. Universities are set up to kind of provide both, students are obviously more interested in one or the other and I do feel that our curricula does is a bit ambivalent to reach either goal (but then I often think strongly in terms of optimization and may therefore overthink this issue). On a broader issue, I do think that a better educated public is a common good and it should not be on the individual to get enough money to afford one. With fiscal issues at the forefront it also leads to the rise of exploitative educational outlets. But even among proper universities some leadership are thinking of the institution as a business rather than a public service, a stance which I do not quite agree with.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I can agree with that. In systems where students accrue debt to obtain their education, it is easy to see why it becomes a fiscal decision. It does colour interaction to a large bit.  There are increasing student services on campus and many folks (myself included) try to highlight the transferable skills (i.e. not the ability to memorize the right answers, but rather the ability to organize info and oneself, for example). You are also correct that despite all that there are few areas where a career path is obvious. Many students start thinking about their career only when they get closer to their degree and just assume life will continue in predictable paths, which it does not. As a consequence this:

 

Is something I have been struggling with. Universities are set up to kind of provide both, students are obviously more interested in one or the other and I do feel that our curricula does is a bit ambivalent to reach either goal (but then I often think strongly in terms of optimization and may therefore overthink this issue). On a broader issue, I do think that a better educated public is a common good and it should not be on the individual to get enough money to afford one. With fiscal issues at the forefront it also leads to the rise of exploitative educational outlets. But even among proper universities some leadership are thinking of the institution as a business rather than a public service, a stance which I do not quite agree with.

Business is no better at predicting the future than is anything else. If it were AOL would be the worlds leading internet provider, Blockbuster the #1 streaming service, Nokia the top smart phone builder, and etc. Too incestuous of a relationship between business and education would stifle invention in my opinion. Business would simply demand more of what was already most profitable. People would become conditioned to think it the terms industries were promoting. It would be bad for business innovation in the long term. Over time it would also lower wages due to an excess of specialized individuals, supply and demand. 

You assume an "educated public is a common good". I don't disagree but have a variety of associated caveats with that. Primary one being the type of education. I'd also attach "common good" to the economy and security of a country. After all it was during a time of economic depression that Nazis rose to power in Germany. It is also in the more rural and economically depressed, least educated,  parts of the U.S. that Trumpism is strongest. Because of those reasons I think education should be provide by the govt. It is something the country needs and everyone benefits from. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Too incestuous of a relationship between business and education would stifle invention in my opinion.

I agree with that and am uncomfortable with some plans to have a school-to-company approach. Often also industry likes to outsource on-site training as much as possible to the unis and some jump on that,. While it provides short-term benefits for the graduates, I do not think that it is a good strategy overall for a variety of reasons, including what you mentioned.