Statistics indicate Millennial underemployment crisis is predominantly concentraded among liberal ar

The government can pay for liberal arts classes as electives and general requirements while still giving priority to STEM majors. The two are not mutually exclusive in a student's education.

I don't know, both of my kids taking Latin seem to enjoy it quite a bit.

And I'm glad they do. Yes, there is and should be an emphasis on STEM, but knowledge of the classics is also important. We want people who know how to think and solve problems and lead. Technical skills are important, but a well rounded person also has a decent knowledge of the humanities.

They can gwt those as part pf general ed course. I am talking about if you want to majpr in something useless withput market demand then, fine, you can do that, but you should have to pay for that yourself.

There is no reason why we should be uing public policy to encpurage people to get unemployable degrees.

What about the point that STEM education is far more expensive than liberal arts? A history major pays the same tuition as an engineering major, but the cost of providing those two degrees is significantly different. The STEM student is already more significantly subsidized.

If there is no market demand for that degree the government should not be subsidizing people to move into a job field where there is not enough jobs.

Also your premise is false. Departments like Engineering and Computer Science tend to generate patients for universities and liberal arts departments are almost always money pits which take money generated by the useful departments. Make the useless majors pay their own way and survie only on the money they generate so that they stop sucking respurces from the useful departments.

Got any links on that? I used to work at a university and saw the costs associated with different programs. Soft courses, involving a professor, a classroom, and maybe a teaching assistant cost about as much as course tuition from three students, yet those classes had 15-20 students. I know STEM brings in money, including quite a bit in federal grant funding. But liberal arts, business classes, etc., are pretty well covered by tuition.

And this is the type that keeps me from ever going to Brooklyn.

Agreed. The gen ed classes are getting out of control. Ok, so you want your lab rats and engineers to have SOME social skills? Fine. But there was no effin' reason for me to spend $20,000 on English, history, speech, music, religion, sociology, etc.

At the very least, they should make it so you can test out. I know you can CLEP out of some basics now, but then that grade counts as a C no matter what when some professional schools calculate your undergrad GPA. There's no room for C's bringing down your GPA if you're trying to get into med, dental, etc.

http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=facultysenate&p=/humanaites/

Humanities are net money losers for university. Worse they survive by taking money from the productive departments. Ethnic studies are the worst of the worst and no one should get a subsidy for that. Hell, several top notch Adian universities even got rid of such departments saying they were useless and a waste of resources.

Was that a response to my request for evidence? If so, it actually is not very supportive of your claim that humanities and other "soft" subjects are money losers. It basically says that universities aren't giving up the data, but logic and a base awareness of how tuition flows, what programs cost, etc., implies that at worst, non-STEM programs break even, and likely generate surplus revenue.

This post is proof that we need college students taking humanities classes that emphasize writing skills.

Seriously what the fuck did I just read?

You misunderstood me. I'm completely in favor of what you're advocating: government paying for all undergraduate level college courses, at least at public universities.

I just think it's important that students not put blinders on that shut them off to other areas of study. Just like a STEM major should take some humanities courses as general education requirements, so should a humanities major take some STEM courses.

This. If my major is, say, civil engineering and the uni wants/makes me take a bunch of non-related BS like English Lit along the way, then don't expect me to pay for those courses.

Probably STEM courses cost more because they typically include lab costs and special equipment, where liberal arts courses generally don't, or at least nothing more expensive than a library (that can all be online nowadays) and some studio space.

And I don't see why you can't fit some humanities into STEM classes anyway. Give a speech in any science class instead of taking an entire semester of speech. Write papers in every class and have them graded on technique and style of writing, grammar, etc. instead of simply substance. During Biology, take a moment to work in some Psychology. It's all related.

I could have done completely without the history, though. I know people swear it's important, but it was absolute torture for me and my good grades were 100% a result of regurgitate and dump. I learned nothing.

I'm sorta surprised to see Japanese as a Category V. Even with the writing system taking a while to master, the spoken language and grammar rules are fairly straightforward.

One a tangent to this, I remember hearing that up to a third of all college freshman in California had to take remedial English and/or math, including a disturbing number of AP students.

But your idea of incorporating essay writing and speech into the majors is exactly why high school college prep needs to be college prep; so you're not going over the same shit twice.

I wasn't aware you had Dayton for a teacher

I believe it. I came into college with a 10th grade education and a GED. My backwoods high school did not have AP anything, and I was appalled at how terrible the writing was in my 1st year English Comp classes. We had to do group learning exercises where we proofread other students' papers and gave pointers, etc. and I was embarrassed for them. Not trying to be rude because I am far from an expert, but I honestly could have done better in third grade.

Bull shit. It is proof we need electronic key boards that are worth a damn.

Or, you could maybe edit your damn posts before publishing, since you're not the only person that posts from their phone. Even Dayton can spellcheck his post, even though he knows fuck all about quotes.

I had one English teacher who told me that some of her students turned in papers where they spelled "that" as "dat" and used @ in place of "at".

Using @ versus "at" is very, very understandable if not tolerated or proper. Computers & the internet are changing a lot of things these days. That said I don't know what the deal is with generally bright people constantly mixing up:

then....than
to...too
threw....through
their.....there.....they're

Lemme axe you dis--what grade did they get?