Why do people hate on arts students? I graduated at a college with many arts students. Admittedly, a top tier college (Merton, Oxford), but they were still doing these arts degrees which people hate on so much.
I got a great job after I graduated, at Google, but it's nothing compared to what many of my arts student peers did after they graduated.
My roommate studied classics. HN would laugh at that - what an idiot! He's now leading a team in a private intelligence agency that provides intelligence to companies working in places like Africa or China. He's done amazing stuff. He worked on the ground in Somalia, he's lived in Russia, France, China.
Another friend of mine studied Ancient English. What a moron, hey! He's now a Captain in the British Army. He's served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's currently on secondment to the Pentagon.
Another friend did French Literature. Didn't he know he'd never get a job? Actually he's a top investment banker in London. He earns six times what I do at Google. What an idiot hey!
Another guy, didn't know him really but he was in my college, is now an MP - equivalent of the US house of representatives. He studied History. Didn't he know it would't lead anywhere.
I feel like an idiot for doing CS. Many of those companies wouldn't have hired me as I look like a geek with no social skills. Now I'm at a top job for my field at Google, and I learn less than most of my peers who did arts.
People who get STEM degrees become workers. Some of them found great companies, but not many. My arts students peers became leaders, politicians, managers at the top of massively important companies and agencies.
You're highlighting a phenomenon that doesn't generalize. For graduates of places like Harvard or Oxford, a lot of employers really don't care what you majored in. They are looking for raw talent. That's why Barclays hires French literature majors. What they care about is the Oxford on the diploma, not the degree you got there.
Outside the top schools, however, the situation reverses. The employers that hire lots of arts majors (banks, consultancies, etc) aren't looking for people from lesser schools, while employers will happily hire engineering majors from a very wide range of schools.
You've yourself admitted that you're from a top school so maybe this is not a very representative sample . Atleast its true that under the present economic conditions STEM graduates are doing better in general ?
> "We're in a bubble for people with a non-Ivy League, non-technical education," says Andreessen, who studied computer science at the University of Illinois. "If you have a degree in English from a tier B state school, you're not prepared."
I did CS at a decent, but not as top tier university as you did (King's College London). And have had the opposite experience as you.
I got a great job even before I graduated and I am now working my way up in my second job. All my friends who did CS are either working in the field they wanted to, or doing a PhD.
My friend who studied Art History - essentially living off his parents' money while is occasionally does some freelance writing work
Another who studied Politics - working in a record store
A lot of them have given up on finding a career in the field they studied in and have gone into teaching.
Again it's not a representative sample, but I think it's closer to the norm as my university isn't a world renowned university like Oxford is.
This mirrors my experience. Hell, I came out of college with a B.S. in Psychology and my job options were very limited until after I left the Army. I gained more from that than I did with my college degree.
I ended up becoming a software engineer only after I made the decision to learn the skills on my own, in my spare time. Best decision I ever made.
However, almost everyone I know NOT in a science or finance field is struggling to survive.
You can't argue this by analogy, to make a real case for something like this you have to analyze a large group of art/english majors across the US. Not just a group from a top school which benefits from networking and the advantages a degree (any degree) from one of schools can get you.
Liberal arts graduates got something that 'STEM' graduates will be missing their whole lives: education. Education not in the sense of training in a specialized technical domain but in cultivation, in deeper understanding of their own cultural, historical, social, economical and political context. It is not surprising that the zeitgeist disregards those fields of study.
STEM graduates got something that 'Liberal Art' graduates will be missing their whole lives: education. Education not in the sense of understand one's culture, but in the deeper sense of how to advance humanity out of the dirt and trees. It is not surprising that the zeitgeist disregards those fields of study.
Not limited but based on your study at university. Most people never again get the chance to learn so much from educated people. I didn't realize and appreciate that when I was a student.
> Most people never again get the chance to learn so much from educated people.
This. I didn't realize it either, and I wish I had. I have a decent number of interactions with educated, intelligent people now, but not with the sort of frequency and intensity with which I had them at university.
I don't know that I ever want to be a proper student again, but I do miss that.
This is the best takeaway IMHO. I think the way he characterizes liberal arts isn't quite hitting the mark, however. My experience is that there's less wrong with liberal arts schools/degrees as there is with the legions of young people who wander into university with no real plan, and expect to get a job when they graduate with and English degree (which they decided on in their third year).
Gone are the days where everyone should try and go to college after high school, even if they don't know what they want from it. It's too expensive now, and a BA doesn't serve you well if you have no plan for how to use it. Many would be better just starting working and see where that takes them; college can come later. Many more would do better to just take up a trade, go to a school for that. We'll need plumbers, electricians, and other service-oriented specialists for a long time to come. But so many "office jobs" that required no real skill have been and are being replaced by computers; there isn't the previous cushion for the aimless recent BA graduate to fall on any more.
Big companies should never be viewed as "taking care" of you. Your labor is only worth what the market will bear, and thats changes for better or for worse.
It is really tiring when the answer to emergent large scale economic insecurity in developed nations is "be the best" or "be in one particular field". Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer, and there is a tipping point for economic insecurity where civil unrest threatens the established order. The best and the brightest can't exist in isolation, harvesting the rewards of a larger than ever economy while the middle and lower classes slide into destitution. At some point they will simply revolt and demand redistribution of the automated, capital intensive economy.
> The best and the brightest can't exist in isolation, harvesting the rewards of a larger than ever economy while the middle and lower classes slide into destitution
Exactly, they won't exist in isolation.
Articles like this may appeal us as engineers who stand to gain from automation, or those afraid of "the computer" who stand to lose from automation. But these combined do not characterize all the jobs that exist. Those that work as doctors, lawyers, etc. have no fear of "the computer" replacing their jobs. Even most blue-collar workers (construction, etc) would not need to have that fear.
Monetarily, the statistics pan out and STEM graduates earn more than liberal arts majors. But is that everything? There's a lot to be said for curiosity as a motivator for work - a lot of us here dive in to side-projects with zero care for monetary reward after. It's just to scratch an itch. Everybody has different itches to tend to.
Personally, I am an Art graduate (with a minor in Advertising). I graduated in May 2012 and have a 40hr/week job doing iOS development, getting paid more than I ever have (still not satisfied haha). Some of my peers on the Advertising side are really struggling for work, scrambling together portfolios to land an unpaid internship at one of the top agencies. I saw that landscape when I was still a student and diversified my skills - I started making apps, sans-CS (which is rather freeing once you get past some initial hurdles). I'd like to believe I'm a fairly competent iOS developer, coder and problem solver in general. Math was always my best subject throughout school, but the engineering school failed to scratch my itch. So did the business school, and the psychology curriculum, and really the advertising curriculum as well (but I had to get the degree sometime). I love art though. Learning about the importance of craftsmanship and really pouring my energy into creating something of aesthetic value is what I learned from my art degree. That was monetarily invaluable to me, despite paying tuition for those lessons.
I'm now on a STEM-ish career path with a liberal arts degree, albeit a little behind someone with a pure engineering background, but I'm a sponge when it comes to the new material - and it's all learnable.
Now that I'm at the end of my rant, I think the point of what I was trying to say is that Liberal Arts aren't a thing of the past, and can be very valuable. It's a little intellectually dishonest to believe that only CS based education is good.
I think you missed the point of the article. You are the exception, not the rule because you became an iOS developer. I inferred that the article was referencing art majors that don't teach themselves how to code.
I guess I thought that Andreessen made a correct abstraction, in that "superior creative talent or exceptional brain power will be essential" to succeed in the workplace (in 2042, and really every year before and after because nothing has changed). But his advice to only study STEM feels a tad biased - he's a STEM graduate. I'm saying that, from my perspective so far, STEM level education is entirely possible through the internet with self-motivation, and that had I done things entirely flipped (CS or equivalent Engineering degree) I wouldn't be happy from a creative perspective.
A lot of my art major friends may not be sitting with a fat check every month, but they're adding beautiful things to humanity and culture. To me that's a little more inspiring than a slightly bigger number in my bank account. But maybe I'm still young and naive.
I have a liberal arts degree, and I've been a residential carpenter for the last 13 years. I guess the money I earn puts me in the middle class. Looking back on that time it's fair to say I've left a lot of money on the table by not seeking a higher-paying job.
I don't think it's arguable that a Google engineer will not make more money than a carpenter on my crew. The thing that bothers me about articles like this is the sense that technocrats like Andreesen assume their needs are everyone else's.
I didn't see this as the takeaway from the article. If anything, I think his point was that you shouldn't get a liberal arts degree with no real plan and expect to find a job out of school. Certainly with additional work and effort, as I'm sure you did, you'll find a job; but just like you, it'll involve an employable skill rather than a sheet of paper that says "bachelor of arts" on it.
I think his point with tech degrees is that you can get one of those, have no real plan, and still get a job straight out of school.
I actually believe if you are thinking 20 or 30 years down the line your are actually going to need to have the AI merged into your own brain just to stay relevant, nevermind a job. The unaugmented humans will be, relatively speaking, mentally challenged.
I got a great job after I graduated, at Google, but it's nothing compared to what many of my arts student peers did after they graduated.
My roommate studied classics. HN would laugh at that - what an idiot! He's now leading a team in a private intelligence agency that provides intelligence to companies working in places like Africa or China. He's done amazing stuff. He worked on the ground in Somalia, he's lived in Russia, France, China.
Another friend of mine studied Ancient English. What a moron, hey! He's now a Captain in the British Army. He's served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's currently on secondment to the Pentagon.
Another friend did French Literature. Didn't he know he'd never get a job? Actually he's a top investment banker in London. He earns six times what I do at Google. What an idiot hey!
Another guy, didn't know him really but he was in my college, is now an MP - equivalent of the US house of representatives. He studied History. Didn't he know it would't lead anywhere.
I feel like an idiot for doing CS. Many of those companies wouldn't have hired me as I look like a geek with no social skills. Now I'm at a top job for my field at Google, and I learn less than most of my peers who did arts.
People who get STEM degrees become workers. Some of them found great companies, but not many. My arts students peers became leaders, politicians, managers at the top of massively important companies and agencies.