157 thoughts on “How Liberal Arts Hurts Our Economy”

1. Sometimes I feel sorry witnessing my fellow peers in university studying for worthless degrees. e.g Latin, Languages,philosophy. And these same individuals go on the streets protesting about the lack of jobs
   Its especially bad when the student has taken a college loan and has to slave away in some shitty, round the clock, minimum wage job

   1. Soon I fear STEM will have a lack in the US because its now one of the most sought after, especially in elite schools. When the market closes, it’s going to have a nasty impact on the US

   2. Oh, you mean the things that built Western Civilization?
      Hard work will not save us. Working around the clock will not save us.

   3. Yeah, fuck philosophy. It only gave us…everything. But you wouldn’t know that.

      1. Who is the most recent philosophy degree holder who had a part in that?

         1. Sam Harris
            Peter Thiel
            Saul Kripke…..

   4. The actual ‘worthless degrees’ are in sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, gender studies, communications, etc.

2. The true problem is many females are actively pursuing becoming a engineer/doctor, but naively misunderstand just how hard it is. While I do agree that many take liberal arts degrees, so many are competing for STEM fields right now that its scary. They’re doing the opposite of what you said– lot are trying to get into STEM. They’re going to create a rft in the market that is completely unavoidable. It’s like the law bubble in the 80s…many think they’re going to be an engineer/doctor, but social Darwinism takes hold and the job market becomes less and less viable.

   1. I agree with your medicine comment, many med schools are female majority. However there is still a lot more men in other hArd sciences and engineering.

      1. Even engineering is seeing more and more. Especially in biomedical engineering. Easily half of my class is biomedical, with at least a third female. Only one that’s mostly untouched is computers.

         1. Sorry, I have a friend who after years of working in a neuroscience lab decided to get a biomedical engineering masters from a top university, and ended up not employed in that field.

         2. That’s generally how it is. But it’s still a brutal major, Most don’t realize what they’re getting into.

   2. I don’t think I ever said that many weren’t trying to get into STEM. There’s just too many people applying for college right now, anyway. The fictional narrative to start was actually an example of underestimating how hard it is. Not to put down everyone, but those who aren’t pursuing LA degrees because they think they’re easier are grossly overestimating the work involved in becoming say, a doctor. Personally, I never wanted to do more than four years of school post-HS; I had sold enough of my soul.
      I’m tentatively planning on running my next column using Darwin in conjunction with welfare, so stay tuned.

3. Many formerly working class people refuse to work, creating a burden on society. Many middle class people are getting these BS liberal arts degrees and following them with BS jobs or unemployment, creating a further burden on society. The productiveclass shrinks every day, and I marvel that our grotesque behemoth of a civilization is still able to lumber on.

   1. It may be a good time to say America is no longer a job haven, especially in the north east. I think the real reason people want those penny-pusher jobs is not only because its easy to do (as compared to back-breaking labor) but it gives them the illusion of doing something. If people are asked why they want to be a doctor, the response I most often get is “I want to help people.” Bullshit, if you wanna help people mow my lawn. I don’t trust you with the syringe.

4. The truth is you can always find a drone to work hard. You can always find a nerd to work out the minutia. But they are not what build civilization any more than a plow horse creates agriculture.
   The problem with the current economy is the lack of people with a vision. All the middle and upper level positions are occupied by detail mad yes men who cannot project into the future.
   Not a thoroughly bad article, but you can tell it was written by 22 year old who hasn’t been around.

   1. While I admittedly haven’t been around, there is only so much depth you can cover in an article. The focus on this article was liberal arts. I do appreciate the points you made though.
      Like you said, too many people who can’t lay down a vision, or maybe they’re just too much of pussies. Might be a topic for a future post.

      1. Remember that the ability to organize and rationalize man’s ability to think were made by the artists. They started the ball rolling on abstract thinking, whether it was some cave painter 30 millenia ago who demonstrated that some scribbles on a wall could depict a whole way of life or some bard reciting epic poetry around a camp fire back during the bronze age showing a how events compounding in a fashion.

   2. Not quite accurate. There is a lot of vision, but vision carries risk. The people with the capital to fund projects are cautious about risk and want a return on their money. The managers that have control over other people’s money have a strong sense of CYA and avoiding any blame, because that blame has economic consequences.
      A sure thing of extracting oil out of the ground is going to beat your %5 chance of success project with vision.

      1. No, I mean a vision for society, a large goal. Not some petty games with a medium of exchange.

   3. I agree, the problem with these majors Trouble.maker mentions is the way they are approached and taught by professors and academic institutions. This is due to a lack of vision and critical thinking.
      These majors are highly politicized and generally taught through a narrow lens that comes off as liberal bias. They shy away from uncomfortable truths that run contrary to the party line. This is especially true of women’s studies. You won’t find professors lecturing on and or holding class discussions on female attraction to bad boys. That would open up a gray-shaded can of worms.
      A real curriculum would take hard empirical look at what makes 50 percent of our planet’s population tick. You can monetize that information into a useful job or a business. Instead you are taught useless feel-good platitudes that leave students unprepared when they get to the real world.

   4. Funny you mention vision. There’s a sports radio pundit I listen to named Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio. He’s known for his rants, which reflect on life and business by relating it to sports. He’s talked about vision, and how there are few great people in America that have it. When NBA Commissioner David Stern retired, he gave one of his best rants on how Stern’s vision made the NBA into great global brand.

   5. Yup, and especially the bit about the guy somehow being a hero for skipping lunch. This is precisely the kind of propaganda that corporations want you to swallow.
      I agree about the male/female thing in the article though.

      1. I agree for the most part. I hate to say it, but the people who I’ve been happy with the gals that have been assigned to my business for accounting. I think a LOT has to do with work culture. The author of the article writes, rather foolishly, about working through lunch like it’s some heroic endeavor.
         My first post-college boss would simply have lunch at the desk. In particular a healthy lunch that he brought in or had delivered. He taught all of us that sometimes (we’re in IT) the best solution to a hard problem is to stand up, go outside and walk for a few minutes, sit for a couple in the sun, and walk back in while thinking tangentially about the problem.
         Best dang advice on problem-solving I’ve ever been given. Stop what isn’t working, become physically active (he said that as a species we are 3d environment physical problem solvers), and stop attacking the problem head-on. Never skip a meal or eat junk, it clouds your thought. Avoid too much caffeine or sugar, it makes you jittery and less flexible in thought. Don’t try and fight your species specific programming, use it.

         1. You guys completely missed the point of the mini-story if you thought the guy was a “hero” for skipping lunch. The point was to illustrate how women are able to get away with shit like this in the workplace, not to promote that the man was a “hero”.

5. Another thing to consider is: forget all the high hopes of the space age/Star Trek Generation. Science and Technology is not the sole answer. When I hear that unrealistic optimism I think of Archimedes scribbling in the dirt telling a Roman Soldier: “μή μου τοὺς κύκλους τάραττε”- “Do not disturb my circles.”

   1. Welcome to my world. I keep telling my transhumanist friends that it makes no sense to say that we’ll become “immortal” by arbitrary dates in this century, like the currently popular 2045, because radical life extension happens in the rear-view mirror, after you’ve survived well past 120 years and in good physical and cognitive shape. They really should aim to live to a year like 2245. If they make it that far, then they can plausibly claim that they know how to do it.
      I read predictions back in the 1970’s and the 1980’s (yeah, I know this dates me) that this alleged life extension breakthrough would have happened already, by a year like 2010. Ironically nearly all the people who made these forecasts have died by now.

   2. Resulting in the Roman soldier killing him.

6. The author might only be 22, but he is far more perceptive than the “journalists” in the MSM and the idiot Ph.D. in the Cathedral’s ivory towers. Good job Trouble.Maker!
   Personally, I think a *good* liberal arts education can be a tremendous professional asset. Studying topics like history, philosophy, and literature from good professors makes one learn to think. The problem is the politicization of the academy, the addition of “bullshit” majors and not so much “liberal arts for liberal arts sake.”

   1. My Economics degree is actually a “Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences”.
      Imagine my disdain when I applied to the program and it was a BA instead of a BS. Fortunately having Arts instead of Science didn’t hold me back.

      1. Of course, economics is not a science…

   2. My BA and MA are in History and Library Science, respectively. I’ve managed to get a good job, but only because I was working part time in my current place of employment for my 7 years of undergrad and grad school. Given the job market now, part time work or internships in your future industry or place of employment, several years in advance of graduation, are vital in my opinion.
      I agree about the politicization of the academy. A comment I read recently on ParaPundit described it as a guild system. I love history, but rising up the ranks at a university as a professor is an arcane and tedious process. A number of years ago a very accomplished, British historian didn’t get a position at my university because he didn’t write enough on the subject of a particular interest/pressure group, so he was passed up for the politically correct candidate.

   3. I feel like I can get a better liberal arts education out of my own self interest on the side than I can get from any $100k credentialling academy. Books, internet discussion, tutors, recorded lectures and practice was better than the few liberal arts classes that I took as electives in university, and siginificantly cheaper and more flexible.
      We all know the power of the university is really the power of the credential, and the HR & Managers who find that credential important.

      1. – This is so true, but not just for liberal arts education…
         – I’m teaching myself the basics of International Business, I’ve set up a ‘required reading list’ which covers most of the key subject areas.
         – All that’s missing is the ‘credential’ of having a certificate

      2. Yup, just look at the bullshit that makes up most college Liberal Arts programs. Their biggest programs are ‘Studies’ programs.
         The classical stuff has been pushed to the side.
         ‘Studies’ majors available — from Google Search on “College of Liberal Arts”: (including Yoga Studies!)
         * Africana Studies
         * African American Studies
         * American Studies
         * Asian Studies
         * Chicano & Latino Studies
         * Film Studies
         * Global Studies
         * Journalism Studies
         * Religious Studies
         * Urban Studies
         * Women’s & Gender Studies
         * Yoga Studies MA
         And then the less prominent majors:
         * Anthropology
         * Art and Design
         * Art History
         * Classics
         * Communication
         * Comparative World Literature
         * Economics
         * English
         * Ethnic Studies
         * Geography and the Environment
         * Graphic Communication
         * Hispanic Studies
         * History
         * Humanities
         * International Studies
         * Journalism
         * Law and Society
         * Modern Languages and Literatures
         * Music
         * Performance Studies
         * Philosophy & Humanities
         * Political Science
         * Psychology
         * Social Sciences
         * Sociology
         * Theatre and Dance

         1. I’ve always wondered why Economics gets such a bad rap. No, it’s not as good as mechanical engineering, but if you combine it with math, computer, accounting, and finance courses (often called Applied Economics) you can do pretty well. In a world where a Bachelor’s is unfortunately a mandatory prerequisite for getting many jobs, for those who can’t hack it in Engineering and/or want some realistic opportunity to chase girls at university (it’s hard to find schools with Engineering programs and available hot women), it’s a pretty good choice.

7. Good post.
   I must know, in what industry was the hot-girl-in-tights job advertised?

   1. It’s prevalent across many. Take a look around your typical office scenario, there’s always some hot girl who just walks around, and nobody knows what she does.
      Hell, doesn’t even apply solely to offices.

      1. Prostitution still exists, y’know.

         1. Wives are just whores with a marriage certificate (Eva in Copper)

8. haha hot girl in tights so true. Recently interviewed for a supply chain position. 3 HR reps ,all slammin chicks interviewed me, asked me the same exact questions each of them, and most of the questions had nothing to do with the position. I felt like I was being recruited for sigma sigma sigma or some shit.

   1. fucking girls getting up in everyone’s business, shit

      1. Professional HR class. Laugh all you want Brad, they’re the gatekeepers to the jobs.
         Here’s a very funny thing I’ve noticed: Most of the gals in HR have English majors. The even funnier thing, odd emphases in the majors like ‘Medieval Poetry’.
         Think before you laugh too hard though: As I said, they’re the gatekeepers of employment.

9. I have a bachelor’s degree in Biochemical Engineering from May 2010. Every one of the four jobs that I had since then have been temp jobs. Only one required a college degree and it only paid $14/hr. I have since moved to a permanent position at my company and they are growing so opportunities to move into a technician and perhaps eventually an engineering position do exist, but until then I am working the graveyard shift for about $16.75/hr. This is a far ways away from the $60,000 per year right after graduation that my high school career counselor promised me in 2004.
   To be fair Chem E is one of the most “need job experience before you can get a job” engineering degrees out there, but still. This lack of STEM jobs is already here.

   1. Your problem is that you need to move. Not all jobs will be available in all areas. My computer science degree was getting me no where in my home town. I expanded my job search to be statewide and got $60,000 – $80,000/year job offers within a week.

      1. My younger co-worker achieved a professional certification, and suddenly many doors opened. Like you, he also widened his job search beforehand. Really, in tech, its a combination of experience, certification, and being willing to move.
         My friend makes $300 / hr writing database stuff as a contractor.

   2. AS much as i abhor this city, you should give DC (Dork Central) a look.

10. Got my bullshit degree (Comm/Spanish – I sucked at STEM courses) at an affordable Midwestern state school. Took a small loan but tuition cost per semester what some students pay per credit at a lot of schools. Worked hard after school in the field and have had a great career doing what I like. People hardly ever ask where I went to school; when they do it turns out they’ve never heard of it. When I was younger I was embarrassed of my alma mater’s lack of brand name but with all the frustrated Occupiers with $200,000 lib arts degrees out there, I’m proud of the affordable education I got. It’s almost like I cheated the system but in reality I just went with what I could afford.
    Imagine if any other commodity (gas, milk, wheat) had increased in price the way higher ed has since 1970. There’d be a revolution in the streets. Colleges get away with it because they know they can, so long as people accept that it’s “worth it.”

    1. College tuitions are a classic bubble, straight out of introductory economics. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs once it is popped.
       Whats really bad about all this student loan insanity is that most of those loans can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. The economy is going to stagnate for decades to come because millions of borrowers will be using almost all of their disposable income to make loan payments for the rest of their lives.

11. This isn’t so bad, but the title threw me off. Perhaps it should have been How Liberal Arts Degrees Hurt Our Economy? It’s not the academia of the liberal arts that is to blame, it’s the bloat of the field. I hold a painting degree, religious studies degree, and an MA in arts business and feel pretty successful as a 20-something. I’m also proud of what I’ve learned over the years. At most state colleges, the qualifications to enter a liberal arts program are just too lax. The lazy students fall
    into a history or sociology degree because it doesn’t require a program application. They couldn’t make a B in accounting, organic chemistry, or calculus, so they settle for anthropology that allows them to make a college career out of C’s. But hey, they earned a degree? This skews the statistics, because those are the entitled students who aren’t going to be successful. It makes the degree less valuable, but it’s not the subject itself.
    Just be careful before you bash the integrity of the liberal arts (sans degree) as a vital element to our economy. Fine arts like design, music, and theatre are billion dollar industries. I’d like for you to name a successful economy that doesn’t have a booming arts scene. You can’t say China, because they are taking over in auction sells right now. Studying that doesn’t seem like that bad of an idea. All those thinkers who study philosophy and anthropology because they truly love it will end up in museums, universities, and schools. They may not get paid as much as an engineer, but to say they are a drain to the economy is silly. That’s like saying teachers are bad for the economy, because that makes sense.

    1. And of course getting that piece of paper stating that you are an artist from a state accredited university is what makes someone on the same level as the greats of the past (lets just ignore their educational history).

       1. Not sure if that was an agreement or wrongful stab at me? Either way, you’re correct. Anyone who takes out loans for an art degree thinking that is an express ticket to success has a warped sense of reality. Most of the people in my classes sucked.

          1. Oh, perhaps I misread your comment. I thought you were saying that the problem isn’t the subject matter but instead that lowered standards. My point is that I see very little in the way of relationship between true art and college degrees.

          2. Ohhhh. I see where you’re going with it. I believe, from experience, that the lowered standards cause the subject to be diluted; that’s what makes the degree less valuable. When you’re studying something subjective, it is what you make of it. You’re challenged by your peers, and sucky peers make for sucky critiques. The actual subject is actually very important to study if you are talented and driven. Had you ever studied “the greats of the past,” you would know that they too studied before they made their masterpieces. It was just significantly more difficult to get into the Academy or earn an apprenticeship. If you go as far back as cave paintings, those greats were at least taking the time to experiment. While the actual diploma does not reflect your future success in the arts, the skills you learn propel you to be successful if you use the knowledge correctly.
             The same thing applies to medicine. Study all you want, get into that surgical residency, but if you have shaky hands… you’re screwed. Because that’s a fucking talent.

          3. Fair enough. But I’ll also add that studying as the greats did is something that bares little resemblance to what goes on in higher education these days as well. And even then there are many many artists that most people would consider top of their time that learned entirely by doing. For example lots of great guitar players never took lessons.

          4. I’ll give that to you, many famous musicians weren’t classically trained. And currently, the art school trend is for hipsters to so ironically study folk art. Arts degrees do turn out some major successes though, like scientific illustrators, authors, teachers, and creative business people. We didn’t all make bad decisions when choosing a major.
             Thanks for the debate! I’ve never commented on such a sexist site, but this topic is cool.

    2. You’re right about fine arts, but keep in mind that when it comes to something like music or design there are probably a whole lot more accountants and salesmen than actual musicians or artists. A minuscule number of people with Art degrees will actually end up with a career in “The Arts.” The economy would probably better off if most of those art students went to a trade school and studied plumbing or auto mechanics.

       1. I think you and Trouble.Maker make valid points, and I agree! There are a lot of baristas and secretaries with liberal arts degrees, and the economy would be better off if they chose a different path. I just felt the need to clarify that it’s not the actual liberal arts that are bad for the economy, but how easy it is to “earn” a degree in them.

          1. That’s definitely true. I would also change my comment to read “there are probably a whole lot more accountants and salesmen in the music and design industries than actual musicians or artists.”

          2. How very saucy of you. I cringe at that since arts business is a relatively new degree field, but you’re probably correct.

          3. Well, somebody has to run the place!!! If you were a music executive, would you let Kurt Cobain manage the books?

       2. Exactly. How many great musicians hold degrees in well, music.

12. Nice example of broconomics. Actually, the countries with more people working in government jobs are the most prosperous in the world. There is only one area in USA where there are far more government jobs than in any other country: the Army.

    1. Ha, I´ll take the “broconomics” thing, it exactly describes the kind of (lack of) vision of people that think in “it is common sense” terms. Well, Economics it is not.

    2. But which came first: The prosperity, or the government parasite load? Healthy animals can support larger parasite populations than sick animals.

       1. I meant countries with a better quality of life. You can have rich countries with huge inequalities and low social mobility, like USA (or my own country before the recession, Spain), and countries with a similar level of wealth but far better quality of life, like France or the Scandinavian countries. The latter are those with more people working for the government.
          The comparison with sick animals reveals a lack of understanding of basic economics, since poor countries always have very scarce government jobs.

          1. poor countries always have very scarce government jobs.

             Which supports my analogy. As a country gets wealthier, more people give up doing productive work and get on government payrolls.

          2. Well, I’ll do like I do with my pupils with poor comprehension skills:
             I meant countries with a better quality of life. You can have rich countries with huge inequalities and low social mobility, like USA (or my own country before the recession, Spain), and countries with a similar level of wealth but far better quality of life, like France or the Scandinavian countries. The latter are those with more people working for the government.

          3. Neither France or many Scandinavian countries have a bright future, if you are European you would know that France has one of the HIGHEST unemployment rates amongst not-yet-in-a-depression economies, it has held such title for over a decade. Scandinavian countries might have good quality services but are dying like the rest of Europe and have never produced anything compared to the rest of Europe (inventions, creativity are simply out of Scandinavia, but they still can be found in Deutschland and some spots in continental Europe and Britain.).

          4. The Scandinavian countries are not comparable to the U.S. If you think the U.S. has low social mobility then you really don’t know much about this country.
             Economic inequality is not exactly an indicator of a lesser quality of life. The “poor” in the U.S. have cell phones, cable T.V., computers, cars, welfare payments, clothes, medical care, etc. That sounds pretty good. So what if the gap between the wealthy and less-wealthy is larger here than in other countries? Our “poor” are fabulously wealthy compared to the poor in almost every other country.
             China has a gigantic government, and so did the Soviet Union. I don’t hear anybody praising the quality of life in those extremely poor places with huge numbers of government jobs.

          5. According to Hawk’s reasoning,Pakistan has a higher quality of life than Sweden since it has a higher percentage of people working in Government and lower wealth inequality.Or Algeria has better quality of life than New Zealand,or China better than Singapore,or Sri Lanka better than Hong Kong,or Ethiopia is better than France,or Zimbabwe is better than Hong Kong.

          6. Don’t try to pretend like you’re the teacher here.
             You fucked up and are now backpedaling to add additional criteria.
             Just admit it and move on.

13. Sociology is a Science, not some thing called “liberal arts” in your country. It is not an “occupation” (other than scientist, of course). I am one of those. I make money in other endeavors, but my task as a Sociologist is to find regularities in social life, find principles that make the social world work, and then find answers to the problems we all have. Why people don´t use public transportation in some places even if it is good? Why in some countries there is urban core decay, and in others the urban core is the best part of the city to live? What is “power”? How it is distributed? How people decide their position on the social scale? Is Bourdieu right about fields (of power)? Can then I operationalize his conception of “capitals” into a mathematic formula? Can “habitus” be consciously integrated/acquired into a body, or is it impossible?
    And so many more interesting things, all of which are done to make our world a better place for everyone. And yes, this includes the main points made here in ROK.

    1. That is to say, sociology is a science in countries that aren’t hysterical about identity politics.
       Sociology in America is about complaining how mean people are and how victimized others are. It’s about passing moral judgment and filtering statistics through their own (exclusively) leftist interpretations. Is that what scientists do?

14. Of course it hurts the economy. While these people are getting degrees that will prepare them to write papers on how boobs and penises are the same thing, they could be digging ditches. We need ditches.

15. This is a decent first article, but I think it would be better as two. The two halves don’t really seem to have much internal “linkage.” The first is mostly about male-female pay differentials within one very narrow situation, but the second is about useless government jobs geared towards useless degrees. The connection between the two is not very obvious.
    Can you tell I have a BA in English? I earned it in 2008 at CSUF, but I was lucky in that all of my professors were old-school Humanities professors instead of modern Liberal Arts professors. I went and got an A.A. in Accounting because I realized pretty quickly that it would be more useful, and it has been. The Accounting material was a breeze because those old English profs (who were merciless graders) taught me how to analyze huge sets of very complex data. Modern Liberal Arts profs don’t do this, they only teach people how to whine with big words. The Humanities has been degraded over the years by these retards.

16. To sum up a very complex series of points, the liberal arts are intended to inform and train the people who will lead a society. That’s what they’re for — creating better citizens who will lead more wisely, more justly, and with more understanding.
    Unfortunately, over the last couple of generations, this goal has gradually been replaced with the idea that the liberal arts exist for personal advancement — to “get a good job” and so on. The lessons you learn as a liberal arts student are, I’m convinced, priceless if you’re going to be responsible for a company, a community, a country. However, if you are not willing to or interested in this role, then they’re horrendously destructive.
    You end up distorting the concepts such an education provides, to serve your own ends,or the ends of a small subset of the society. Thus, you have gay rights activists perverting the entire concept of “rights’ to promote the idea of an LGBT museum on the National Mall. This has nothing to do with the welfare of the country — it is completely about promoting the interests of a small group of people. You have feminists constructing arguments for the current complete disaster of a a family culture in the name of “justice”. And so on. There is absolutely no interest among people like this in what’s best for all, or the general welfare of the entire society. Leadership means giving. These people are taking.
    And the female examples you cited in your article are perfect models for that. A degree in, say, women’s studies has no connection at all with the rest of society. Neither does sociology. What was once preparation for responsibility has now become a route to power, to influence, and ultimately, to a kind of widespread moral corruption. These are women who, thanks to the widespread belief that a liberal arts degree is a ticket to status, believe they are “entitled” to influence, to a voice, and so on, with no knowledge of the responsibility it entails.

17. I think Ted Cruz would approve of this article honestly we need more oil jobs and coal jobs so we can fuck up our environment. XD thanks for fat shaming week what a great spectacle that was

    1. Nice pictures you have there Sam. That must be the sort of things that turns you on.
       But please take it over to the gay porn sites you frequent.

18. Women should get paid the same as men? Absolutely! Women should work just as hard as men to get that pay! Absolutely!

    Uh, no, this sounds like a bad idea. Women should get less pay for the same work to discourage them from competing with men for the sorts of jobs which leverage men’s relative strengths over women. For example, I’d like to stop pestering girls to go into STEM careers because they generally lack the passion for them even if they have the IQ’s to understand the material and pass the coursework to earn the degrees. Cutting the salaries for women in technical fields traditionally dominated by men would reduce their incentives further, and make it easier for the capable men to earn decent wages and support family formation for the ones who want to do that.

    1. I like the way you think.

    2. Bull fucking shit sir, attitudes like this push women away from STEM their whole lives, so when it comes to picking majors is it a surprise fewer women choose STEM subjects? If someone told you your whole life you were inherently worse at something, would you persist?
       And even once they get into science, they have to put up with a wall of shit. It has been proven that the same CV is less likely to be hired and will be given a lower starting salary if the ‘applicant’ is female rather than male. Attitudes like this pervade all the way up the chain. ‘Passion’ has nothing to do with it, it’s discrimination and social conditioning. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-1
       There are plenty of women in all ranks of STEM who are more passionate than you are about spouting crap.

       1. Yeah, I don’t buy that.
          The study your talking about is from Yale, it’s probably flawed because they used specific names and didn’t take into any consideration the possibility of how the name would affect the applicant.
          It’s also got to do with pre-natal testosterone and how that affects the development of the brain at a young age. Women aren’t exposed to that. Go check out simon-baren cohen’s work on sexual difference and you’ll see why.
          When it comes to the 99th percentile of math students in high school, men outperform women 2:1. Why is that? Is the patriarchy oppressing them? Is the patriarchy saying that math ain’t cool? Is math male dominated even though it is taught equally at a young age.
          Yeah, there you go.

          1. It is not taught equally. Do you think all high schools are of the same caliber?

       2. He is correct though. Females have little passion for technology.
          They make good functionaries but don’t create new technologies or jobs.

          1. Fucking excuse me?
             http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038%2Fnj7449-399a

       3. Could it possibly be because women are on the whole, less productive than men in STEM, and that the wages offered in the labor market reflect this? That perhaps female engineer hires worked harder and solved more problems than the boys, they would get paid more for their expertise and tenacity? No, impossible. That’s crazy talk.

          1. It’s simple. Sexual difference is like aspergers autism spectrum. Women are on the opposite side of the spectrum where as men are closer side to aspergers/autistic people. There are no where near as many females suffering from autism/aspergers as there are male.. This is the role prenatal testosterone works on the sexes — high exposure to penatal testosterone == the overly ‘male’ brain, or autism/aspergers.
             The difference between male and female is that men are a bit like a high functioning autistics — great with numbers, abstractions and geometrical patterns. Women are better at understanding cognitive empathy, where as autistic people are not. It’s why we don’t really shed a tear when we see an emotional scene in a movie, whereas women get dramatically teary. Yet the new ‘media’ encourages males to cry because the patriarchy has obviously made it so that boys are repressed from crying.
             The entire STEM thing is bullshit. If you’re a female in a computer-science course there’s 10 asian guys ready to help you with your homework. There’s scholarships available. Google and Microsoft and other big ass companies take people in because of gender diversity. Exec positions for females are less competitive because of gender diversity.
             There’s a clear sexual difference. And they exist because for as far as we know, most biological organisms play two roles: stay at home, be the breadwinner. Our biological ancestors weren’t these anomaly off-shoot organisms who take on mutual roles. As a result our biology or evolutionary psychology is geared for purposes: the solitary strategic hunter who has no need for cognitive empathy, the caretaker who needs to know if the offspring is sick.
             Of course there are some exceptions to the rule and there are some with more prenatal testosterone than your typical female…and others who brute force their way through success, and probably go on to become great mathematicians and so on. Generally though, women are good at organising shit. They keep a tidy grade point average. They fear failure. They have neat handwriting. And keep a cohesive and consistent work patterns, making them reliable for a lot of jobs. But in STEMS, for the most part, they really lack the high levels of abstract thinking and intuition which is required for advancement in this arena — honest truth. They’re just way too textbook and academic.
             Any attempt to socially engineer this basic fact is some white knight bullshit that will eventually fuck the American economy.

          2. Your generalization is exactly the type of thing that DISCOURAGES women from pursuing STEM fields.

       4. Do you even live on this planet? How many people tell girls they can’t do STEM subjects versus how many who bleat on constantly about how the genders are equal and they can do everything?
          Even with discrimination, it doesn’t discount gender differences. And why do you think the stereotypes arose in the first place? “Plenty of women” isn’t a statistical parity, and you know it.

19. If you want to get an idea of what a liberal education used to involve, read John Milton’s recommendations in the 17th Century:
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/of_education/
    If had the IQ to master that much material and make good use of it, the experience practically turned you into a superior form of life. Try reading Milton’s Paradise Lost to see what I mean.

20. Tory is an idiot. That person works 375 extra hours a year minimum (not counting double hour tax seasons) for just $4000/yr extra. They are making less than $10/hr for the extra hours they work, counting double time during tax season. The firm seems satisfied with with the level of work Tori does. Is Tory as effective on a per hour basis as Tori? If Tory is, they should be pushing for a promotion hard now with their history of hard work, and if their hard work isn’t being appreciated, go move to a firm that would appreciate them. Or scale back the hours and use the extra time to study to become a more credentialed accountant.

    1. Tori knows who has the power in the company and knows what asses to lick. Always the same story: the lazy, cunning self-promoter being more successful than the hard-working nerd.
       I don’t have doubts about who will get the next promotion.

    2. Thank you, adiosfj. I see this all the time in my work in the financial industry, and you would think an accountant would be able to figure out the math here.
       Even if Tory does get a promotion based on his hard work, you have to ask: What kind of system promotes based not on management ability, but on willingness to sacrifices one’s life for sub-par wages?

21. I doubled majored in Spanish and Economics. Economics was brutal. I had at least double the work in my easiest upper-level Econ classes compared to my hardest upper-level Spanish classes. And I have a strong aptitude for both subjects.

22. As an European I can’t believe there are so many useless things available to study in American colleges.

    1. Nooo, you don’t have to study, you just pay up, wait four years then get your degree.

23. What on earth is a “communications degree”? Seriously, what the heck do you study when you major in “communications”?

    1. Communications = Advanced Chick Telepathy and shit

       1. The science of interpreting facial expressions.

          1. ICT? The ability to make things talk to each other. Oh, you mean that other comm degree.
             /snicker

24. My friend and I will be looking forward to African American Studies and Asian American Studies next year. Hopefully the economy will be fixed by the time we graduate so we’ll have good paying jobs.

    1. The latter is a good place to meet chicks if you are not the subject of study of the former.

25. You made up a story about two fictional people to prove a point? Doesn’t sound very empirical or hard-science based to me.

26. So you guys are not only sexist and casually racist but you’re also far-right, market-worshipping, “small-government” wackos? Fuck, this site is the whole package!
    1) Science funding is substantially greater than arts funding. That’s pretty much universally true.
    2) Science and technology funding is not going down because people are studying liberal arts. It’s going down because tea-party cranks stalled the government until the sequester hit. It’s going down because people don’t think theoretical research contributes to the economy. It’s going down because small-government cranks like you push for cuts left, right and centre.

    1. Small governments are superior to big governments. Big-government nations like France and the U.S. have stagnant economies, other ones like Greece are collapsing, and others like Russia are rotting on the ground.
       Use your “logic” and point out some people who don’t think theoretical research contributes to the economy. Also, I’d like you to point out the racists. I haven’t been seeing any around here.
       If you don’t like small governments then you should consider moving to China, but you better be careful because if you criticize them they’re likely to throw you in jail.

       1. So that article about an an “Indian bitch” who rightly called out a distasteful joke on domestic abuse, full of comments about how people should “avoid all Indian women” wasn’t the slightest bit racist?
          Now, I don’t support the regime in China (far too oppressive disgustingly inegalitarian. Anyone who thinks it’s a “communist” nation hasn’t a damn clue what communism means), but it’s funny that their ecomony is actually soaring. Funnily, so is the US’s, relatively; 2.2% growth beats a huge number of other nations.
          Greece arguably suffered from a lack of government oversight: a substantial part of it’s problem stems from tax colleciton failures.
          Also I love that you put the word logic in quotes. Like it’s scary or something.

          1. China’s economy is in a horrendous bubble. Real estate and construction makes up 40% of their economy. The U.S. only got up to about 27% before our own bust.

          2. Most of those “racist” comments you talk about are pretty damn sarcastic. The actual racist comments are a minuscule fraction of the total, and besides there was nothing racist in the article itself.
             The Chinese economy is experiencing a government-induced real estate bubble. They have whole towns and even cities which were constructed with government stimulus funds that are almost completely deserted.
             Historically, for the U.S. 2.2% YOY growth is terrible. Unemployment here is awful, at around 7.5%, depending on how you count. Control for different demos, and its much worse. Hell, I remember during the Bush II years people were complaining that 5.5% unemployment was unacceptable.
             We’ve even been flirting with disinflation at times.
             We have a rising stock market partly because the Feddies created a disincentive to savings & fixed income via extremely low and at times effectively negative interest rates. All of this sure as hell doesn’t sound like a “soaring” economy.
             Greece suffers from a bloated civil service and is failing because it is too big–too many moochers, not enough producers. Even if their tax service was 95% efficient they still wouldn’t be able to fund their operations. Their government is gigantic compared to the size of the population.

          3. No, Grizzly, there’s a limit to the sarcasm. This is same story with the “brogrammer” who was fired for being openly obnoxious in his tweeting life. Most people can and do take sarcasm well, or simply don’t give a darn, but eventually someone is bound to notice and act on it.
             A Physicist is right in pointing out that post-WTO China has never been Communist and could only be defined as swept by an authoritarian, centralist form of capitalism. It’s quite ironical that they suffer from the same kind of corruption, cronyism, revolving doors with corporate behemoths, bloat and inefficiencies and human right issues as the US “democracy” does.
             You have a rising stock market because, with the dollar getting more worthless every day, shareholders demand higher risk-free returns at the same liquidity levels, and that drives the entire stock market higher. With companies going tits up on a daily basis or posting dismal figures, there are no economic fundamentals supporting a S&P 1700 right now. It’s a pure effect of inflation, and one the world would be laughing at, if a collapse of your economy wouldn’t imply bad times for the rest of us.

          4. I’ve never mentioned Communism per se, so your comment on that is better directed at A Physicist. The form of the Chinese government is academic; the substance is that it is a totalitarian hellhole.
             The value of the dollar is technically falling, but with a few exceptions it has always been doing that just like every other currency throughout history. That loss has been between about 1.5% and 3% yearly for the last 20 years, which is astonishingly low. At times that loss has even turned negative, which means the dollar actually gained value. The rate of inflation isn’t having much of an effect, its the benchmark interest rates.
             People who have been traditionally satisfied with a lower return at a lower level of risk have been pushed out of vehicles like money markets or CDs and into things like dividend stocks and corporate bonds; this “pushing-up” effect has been felt at all risk levels ever since Greenspan started lowering rates.
             As for liquidity, that has radically changed within just the last 5 years. Modern technology has drastically improved liquidity on almost all investment vehicles.
             “Risk-free returns” is an oxymoron; risk-free returns do not exist. If there was no risk, then you would not have returns. T-Bills pay pay interest because there is an element of risk; that risk is extremely low, but it still exists. Nothing is “risk-free.”
             You feel that nothing supports the S&P 500 @ 1700? Do you mean to say that, apart from the obvious government-induced market distortions, five hundred multi-billion dollar corporations are fundamentally mis-valued?
             If you wanna criticize our economy, at least learn something about it first.

          5. I have been working in the financial markets for more than 15 years now, so I am hardly a newbie, but that’s not the point. The inflationary forces in play that are responsible for stocks rising, commodities rising and consumer trust indices being smashed are for everybody to see.
             One has to be a pretty stubborn and hardcore fanatic of the American Century not to see the US economy and society in a state of terminal decline. Bogus degrees offered at insane prices is but another expression of those inflationary forces. Risk free return no longer exists in its classical definition, as everything is distorted by continuing manipulation of credit levels and monetary masses by the central banks of half a dozen countries.
             There are many good companies in the US, not doubting that. But nothing supports such insanely highs for the S&P (or DJI, or Nasdaq), given that many of them have unrealistic leverage ratios and have been swimming in profit warning territory for at least a couple of years now.
             There isn’t much to learn about the markets or the economy anymore. Just stare at the abyss and realise that “there is no spoon”.

          6. 1. What inflation? My point is that inflation is not having much of an effect because it is so low, and has been for the last 20 years. It is certainly possible that it could come back with a vengeance, but **right now** it is almost negligible, depending on how you calculate it. As for commodities prices, you might find this interesting: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/key_commodity_prices.html
             2. Just because our economy isn’t perfect doesn’t mean we are in a state of terminal decline. I wasn’t alive back then, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people were saying the same thing in the 70s, or the 30s.
             3. The bogus degree prices are a classic textbook example of a bubble, i.e. huge markets willing to acquire something at any price, regardless of any inherent value. Inflation did not push these prices to such levels. I don’t dispute that certain central banks are distorting credit markets–that’s actually the core of the problem.
             4. “Risk-free returns” have never existed, they do not exist now, and they never will exist. Without risk there is no return. If someone offers you risk-free returns, then call the FBI because that guy is running a scam.
             5. Yes, some companies are heavily leveraged, but with rates so low it costs them next to nothing. Many others aren’t. Some companies aren’t making money, and others are making it hand over fist. Stock prices have been goosed by low rates, but fundamentally the U.S. economy is not failing.
             If you think things are so bad then run off to your underground shelter and scarf MREs for the rest of your life. I’ll stay up here with the money, the light, and the chicks. If I’m hiding out with you then where the hell am I going to have my target practice???
             And yes, I am a hardcore pro-American fanatic. When I stare into the abyss dollar signs stare back, and then they leap out towards me!!!

27. From experience girls do work more or less the same as men, that was not the issue…
    Long story short I fired my last female employ 6 month ago, the work environment and overall productivity has never been better. They all had at least a science bachelor but they were all unsupportable, back stabbing, drama queens.
    I will never hire a girl again.
    (Unless, maybe, when prostitution is legalized)

28. If you want to write something intelligent and back it up with “facts”, cite sources. Most men work significantly harder than women? I want to see numerous scientific studies that prove this. Your opinion means nothing to us. I want proof. Until then, this is all as meaningless as me saying unicorns are real (they totally are though…).

    1. go work in the real world and you will have plenty of proof.

29. I’m tired of hearing the unequal pay argument from feminists. Yes, if you are a girl with similar experience, education and a job as a man you deserve to get paid the same. But the stats are distorted. I’ve yet to see anyone present an apples to apples comparison in terms of gender pay.
    The complaints are backed up with distorted averages. I don’t see anyone stopping women from getting engineering or finance degrees. They don’t want that though. The stats say women dominate liberal arts degrees, while men still dominate degrees that result in higher paying professions. Sure, you women are getting more degrees than men according to the data. But these degrees are in poor paying liberal arts specialties.
    It is criminal to demand more pay because more women have degrees than men. It’s more complicated than that and there are no barriers to entry to high paying professions for women. You women make your choices, deal with it. This argument needs to be put to bed because it’s getting out of control and its a pure power grab.

    1. You’re over complicating it, which is easy–many people don’t understand how simple it is. The equal pay situation is this: If a woman and a man hold the same position, with the same credentials, same experience, same work load, and same hours, they have to be paid equally. That’s it.

       1. Uh that’s what I said. My point is it’s being made to be something bigger, as a power grab. I’m not over complicating it. The feminists are. And succeeding. The articles by feminists I have read don’t describe what you or I interpret gender pay gap to mean.

30. Enjoy. The. Decline. That’s all I got to say.

31. I recommend to all of you Jonathan Larson and his blog “real economics”. Read chapter ” Education-what folks must know” because it explains all you’re taking about. Conclusion – there should be more producers and less predators and their service. It only could be achieved trough change of existing educational istitutional mechanism (it’s a little bit OT). In any case, my warm recommendation.

32. Elite liberal arts degrees have their worth.
    Though if you can’t afford to attend one, or are anything less that an A-grade student – they are a costly waste of time.

33. say “Women’s studies”… not liberal arts. Liberal Arts contains philosophy, mathematics, languages, linguistics, political science, theology etc…all noble studies.

    1. Liberal art colleges are the best choice for those who are determined to rule. Those who rule (or help others to rule) can be both amazing students or very well politically conected and with nice pedigre. If you don’t belong to those two groups, you have nothing to do in such a places. It’s huge waste of time and money.
       Rest of population (especially males) are forced to work hard in production or service sector of economy in order to attain even a small success (compared to predators).
       On the other hand, it is easy to spot that women want to be “emancipated” overhelmingly in predatory occupations for two reasons:
       1. It’s easier to achieve such a degree;
       2. It gives feel of power over men (they think they are above general level of an ordinary man).

       1. And just one more thing: what is “noble” in our societes has been determined by just one constant – dictance from productive work.
          Women (as all of us) instinctively know that rule.

          1. The point you’re articulating is that it would make sense for someone to pursue liberal arts to get a job in the State. This is an issue of the State and the size of it, rather than the area of study, itself.
             If anything we need more philosophy.

          2. I agree. You’re right about philosophy. But also, in my opinion, appliance of certain kind of moralistic philosophy (especially Kant’s philosophy and his categorical imperative) on the society demands smaller influence of LA colleges on society in general. In other words, it’s inherently opposite. What it means?
             That means it would be great it we all were philosophers, but that is far from enough for having decent and honest life. For inctance, take Kant’s principle of universalisation. What would happen if we all are philosophers? Answer: we all would die out of starvation. So, it’s not morally acceptable. We should also know to do some practical (productive) things.
             So, what this kind of staf have in common with woman’s liberation? The point is all the women want to have only predator jobs. I don’t see women who are intrested in agronomy, engineering and/or mathematics. It’s the system that allows all this troubles we are in. There should be even lower quotas in the LA coleges. But when we talk about productive professions, they should be state-funded literally from kindergartens. That’s the way out. When productive proffesions work for themselves – they indirectlly work for all of us. They (why not most of us?) provide better products and services that we use in everyday life. Studies of such a profiles of professions should be free or at least not too expensive.
             In such a system, a bunch of women would have lost their predatory jobs and they would lower their criteria regarding men. It is not easy to become engineer or matematician. If you cannot make money in the free market your proffesion have no worth (or it is even parasitical). Parasitical proffesions are, for instance, the spies of state, various ideologists (among them feminists are easiest to spot), lords of money, corrupted inctelectuals etc.
             If you study some of LA colleges and if you have time, my warm recommendation to you is to read Thorsten Veblen’s book “The Theory of the Leissure Class”. Just to warn you: it’s not easy reading. But, I’m sure it would open your eyes in similar manner it had opened my eyes.
             ps. Sorry for my my gramatical and syntaxical mistakes because english isn’t my native languange.

    2. “Liberal Arts” also includes LGBT studies, sociology, and a plethora of other worthless fields of study.
       Math, an LA? Most would say it falls closer to science. Languages? Okay. Philosophy? What do you do with that? Theology? Same thing. Poly sci? Let’s just say every poly sci major I know isn’t doing anything related to that, at all.

       1. Math is a subject. Liberal Arts is not a subject, it is a course of study to achieve a well rounded, not overly specialized base of education.
          Math is foundational to knowledge. It is one of the classical liberal arts. If you do not have a foundation in math, you do not have a Liberal Arts education.

34. Another typical fallacy of the anti-feminist/MRA pack. The explosion of worthless liberal arts/general studies degrees is not due to feminists and PC champions taking over the White House. It’s just one of the many tricks colleges, especially the less coveted and for-profit ones, have been using to lure students from non conventional demographics so they could pack the fat government subsidy (up to 80% of tuition fees if I remember well).
    As somebody else commented below, subjects like social sciences and even gender studies are anything but useless, when taken with due thoroughness and assessed with due rigour. If a degree with the same name of mimicking the same syllabus is also offered by an ailing small town college or a for-profit institution so even Jenny the mom-of-two and part-time factory worker could get a degree, that’s a different matter and I for one wouldn’t want to generalise.

    1. You almost had me thinking you’d have logical content to your argument.
       And then you said “gender studies [degrees] are anything but useless”.
       Oh boy, that’s too rich. Excuse me while I catch my breath.

35. I didn’t know that cunts bigger than rush limbaugh existed, but then I found your blog. Good for you my friend, you have a bone to pick with everything and won’t stop until your fat whining ass is satisfied. You complain about people who complain. How ironic.

    1. “Fat” whining ass?
       How could you miss all the fat-shaming articles?

36. As someone ‘in the field’, this shrinkage of opportunities for people doing worthwhile things is something I’ve been thinking about and it’s something that makes me wonder about the future of society. I wonder how far we will have to go, how many accountants and HR people and marketing people we will have to have before the system becomes this huge strange masturbatory loop of people just walking around in circles and producing nothing of value.
    I wonder if that has already happened.

37. It does seem (others have stated) that there is less productive work being done in the US than was the case before. Whether by accident or design (quite likely), it takes a concerted effort to not join the herds of lemmings running off the ‘live for today’ cliff (which, frankly, is a feature of ‘liberal’ mentalities, whether or not someone calls themselves liberal or conservative, scientist or politician). Here’s my take on some other factors actually hurting our economy (beyond the Fed, naturally).
    Lack of logical thinking / reasoning
    Short attention span
    Low emotional intelligence
    Poor diet and lifestyle choices
    Sheeple not holding the PTB accountable
    Lack of self-awareness / knowledge of Self
    I can tie this all back to the last point – not knowing who you really are. In this way, philosophy is the most essential ‘liberal arts’ yet not as some f*ckin’ subject to study, but to actually ENGAGE IN. Self-inquiry, contemplating one’s existence, engaging in dialogue with other intelligent beings capable of being ruthlessly honest with themselves and you (because they care about you). Challenging your assumptions and prove your conclusions make logical sense is the key tenet of philosophy (in my layman’s interpretation).
    Engineering and Science (including Math) require logical thought or “people die,” environments are polluted. The workings of the fiat monetary system are apparent to observe if they stopped for an hour to read/contemplate it. But most people are too lazy, have too little integrity, don’t really stand for anything.
    That standard of value, of HAVING definite values and embracing a moral code of conduct, doesn’t exist with Liberal Arts in such an absolute sense. Even philosophy (when studied instead of practiced) is a quagmire of inane, ‘let’s all go crazy together shall we?!’ theories that could be solved (or rendered irrelevant) with a passionate dedication to self-examination. A reflective backward step as Buddhism describes.
    Not stopping at some petty realizations but actually committing oneself to Waking Up and washing one’s eyes of all the BS. This is indeed why the philosophers that made the West (and East) great helped created codes of conduct from their realization that subsequent (and in later cases unenlightened) leaders adhered to…until they didn’t. As a leader goes, so do the people.
    The anonymousconservative blog / site is really well-laid out and points to Liberal vs. Conservative as outgrowths of r vs. K in population dynamics. Watch the video of Mike Wallace getting torn a new one by a Marine Colonel to see what happens when faulty thinking gets called out in a brutally efficient way.
    I absolutely love the arts and music. We are neither left nor right brained but meant to be a dynamic synthesis of word and image, deductive logic and spontaneous intuition. Decartes, was visited by an angel in a dream who told him “The conquest of nature is to be achieved through measure and number.” That’s part of the story I was never told in math or physics classes but throughout history, the spiritual / esoteric / non-mathemtical side of existence have absolutely influenced our development as human beings. Left and right brains are meant to synchronize.
    Despite loving the arts, as the particular man I am, I’m utterly driven to create things of tangible value. It can be software or hardware, even sharing knowledge and learning some new skill. To me that’s all productive, creative, innovative and exciting! But it means I have to JUDGE what works and what doesn’t. I have to discern between various options and decide what is productive vs. destructive. I must apply my mind to problems and am constantly learning new and better ways to solve challenges. To be braver and bolder than the day before, to look in the mirror and see what I’m screwing up then correct that.
    Liberal arts-educated folks seem to hate the idea of JUDGEMENT. You can’t embrace every possible approach in an engineering, programming, physics, or biological sense, for the sake of ‘diversity training.’ Some ideas don’t belong on the white board. If an idea, product, formula, theory or organism is dysfunctional, it dies. There is no gov’t mandate that can keep it alive (indefinitely). If something is an affront to natural laws, IT WILL DIE. Dysfunctional ideas, however, take longer and struggle harder.
    Learning a tangible, physical skill (or 5) will complement a liberal arts background. There are plenty of people who are multi-faceted but it seems those numbers are decreasing (or maybe that’s just a judgment with too little data). I’ve come to amazing, functional realizations in my engineering-based work courtesy of ballroom dance classes. It gave me a clearer picture of how the details worked together. But I didn’t need 4 years of that, just a couple semesters.
    I think the real Return of Kings will come (and is only partly being created here) from men who can Wake Up, live as their true Self, speak the Truth, embrace all disciplines to find what may be valuable and live their deepest purpose.
    If you’re a history teacher and DEEPLY understand how history stands in relation to every other discipline, you’re going to be amazing! To stop with your own limited field of study is horrible and NOT want the great men that often are discussed on these pages did. Specialization is only useful when one has sufficient sense of the world at large. When you’ve found a main area to pursue, you do that with the curiosity of HOW it relates to everything else, not the smug confidence that it’s SUPERIOR to all others. It’s inclusive vs. exclusive, making you curious instead of hateful.
    The world more than every before needs full-spectrum, integrated men and women. I had to pursue women until I found 99.9% of relationships very unsatisfying. I realized the majority of the problem was with ME. So I looked inward, the road less traveled in the most fundamental sense. I wish for any man or woman reading to embrace your solitude. There is a vast nothingness within us that seems scary and many of us run from seeking any diversion or temporary pleasure. I know full well, having done it (and still sometimes succeptible). But the infinite emptiness within us is exactly where all the most beautiful virtues come from, Love, Wisdom, Truth, Compassion. They can’t be made or unmade, they simply are within if we have courage to really look and see.
    A human being who knows their purpose is worth listening to, however the purpose expresses itself (whatever degree you have). They are likely to have a broad sense of the potential of things, a dream that can transform. They see what others do not yet see and create space for that vision to unfold within another. If someone is brightly shining their light, in full knowing that their genuine purpose is being lived, then that radiance illuminates our own path.
    Any being who can and wants to be reasonable, logical, and as consistent as possible in their values will create value, order, and ultimately, provide vision that others can follow. Not because they’re trying to lead, but because they’re shining their light and navigating through the mysterious darkness that is Life.

38. I learned very little as an English major.
    Except:
    ·Penis ownership is grounds for incarceration.
    · White penises are more inherently wicked than their black and Mexican counterparts.
    · Eleven out of every ten men is raping someone right now.
    · Women would cure cancer, colonize mars and stop global warming dead in its tracks if men, but especially Caucasian men, would just get the hell out of the way.
    · Patriarchy= Hell.
    · Matriarchy = Heaven.
    · Rape is way, way worse than murder.
    · Men who criticize feminism are pussies.
    · Conservatives have the intellectual capacity of mosquito larva with Down’s syndrome.
    · Liberals enjoy godlike intelligence.
    · Male athletes make far too much money. Tiger Woods and Tom Brady should share their earnings with elementary school teachers, the real heroes of this country.
    · Cisgender privilege killed the dinosaurs.
    · You should never judge someone because of their religion – except to point out that their religion is totally sexist.
    · Einstein, Shakespeare and the Founding Fathers were rabid sexists. Let’s build a time machine, travel to the past and throw logs at their junk.
    · On second thought, building a time machine would require an expert understanding of math, science and the realities of our universe. So, fuck it. But we can all agree that Ben Franklin was a creeper, right? Say aye!
    · Patriotism = mental illness.
    · Tis not the sun, but the homosexual, who provides daylight, vitamin D,
    life-sustaining warmth, etc. Gays make the grass grow.
    · “There is no such thing as a strong man.” (Seriously, my English professor, Dr. Alice Robertson (Lol. “Doctor”. How the fuck can someone be a “Doctor” of literature? Fucking get over yourself. All my English professors demanded to be called “Doctor” and got super pissed and offended when students, i.e., me, failed to do so.) found a way to work that exact
    phrase into every other lecture.)
    · The wealthy should have a 95% income tax rate. Give the money to underprivileged, post-op transsexuals, the real heroes of this country.
    You’re probably asking yourself What does any of this have to do with English Literature? Well … nothing, but once feminism/liberalism/Marxism
    has bled its way into every nook and cranny of an institution any topic can/will
    be spun into a lengthy, group conversation about the crime of
    masculinity/benevolence of women/heroism of broke people.
    It goes likethis:
    “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a
    classic American novel. Its story takes place in the mid to late 1830’s, and it’s
    highly critical of slavery. It’s too bad Mark Twain wasn’t more critical of the
    egregious sexism that was all around him. Think about it. At the time this book
    was written, women would have to wait almost an entire century before suffrage…”
    And cue an hour long lecture about patriarchal injustice.
    Cue me snoring at my desk.
    Cue my embarrassment a few years later every time someone asks the dreaded, “What did you study in college?” question.
    Young men of the manosphere, e.g., get your fucking grades up. I know it’s rough. Being a sixteen year old dude is a mind fuck. You’re wound up. Testosterone is spraying from your ears. All you want to do is slam booze and chase ass. You do not want to sit down and shut up and stare at a piece of paper. Try to do it, though. Mediocre high school grades = a liberal arts college degree. A liberal arts college degree = having feminism rammed up your corn hole with a mop stick handle at the hands of a bitter, grey-haired, bull dyke who hates men almost as much as she hates her own wretched life.
    Thirty
    grand, fellas. Thirty. Thousand. Dollars. Look at it —-> $30,000. Not only was I beaten about the head with a radical liberal agenda for four years, and not only was I forced to sit through films with titles like The Dangers of Date Rape and Male on Female Violence in America: An Epidemic, it came with a five figure price tag.
    Roosh studied science in college. He’s makes a living as a writer. Which mean, if he would have majored in English he’d be making even more money as a writer.
    Right? Wrong.
    Dudes, go STEM.
    Go STEM or just don’t go.

    1. Ha, Welcome to Middlebury College!

    2. You know what? STEM isn’t for everyone (I always sucked at math and science), so if you can’t do STEM, join the Merchant Marines and see the world/learn a trade, and STAY overseas, or get a ESL Certificate and teach english overseas and STAY OVERSEAS (minimum 8-10 years), fuck plenty of bitches and learn a foreign language in a foreign culture to the point where you could be mistaken for a native. THEN come back to the U.S. and see what life has to offer. If it isn’t much, then GO BACK OVERSEAS AND STAY THERE!

    3. Same in Communications, Anthropology, Psychology etc. You’d think they’d actually teach something related to the name of the course, but it’s all victimizing bullshit.

39. Actually you’re an idiot but it’s not due to a lack of intelligence, simply a lack of perspective. Bear with me on this’ because it’s not some liberal plot alone that drove the horse-puckey you see in business today. Well, not entirely. You see, it’s a place where the Liberal and Conservative have joined forces for different reasons to create the worst of all possible worlds.
    Allow me to educate you on one thing quickly, sort of a precursor to the rest, the rise of the professional Human Resources department (HR). Many years ago, we had a much simpler process for getting hired. This was especially true in jobs that men had. You wanted to be an Electrician, you became an Apprentice. This was common in many jobs that one would consider skilled: Mason, Welder, Machinist, and yes, even CPA. For a VERY long time, right there with those evil Union workers, you would start work as an accountant by working for a CPA. There were no technical school degrees in accounting, anymore than there were schools (outside of the apprenticeship) for Electrician. You would go to school as an accountant to learn different business aspects, but your actual work began as a book keeper.
    Now, one thing about businesses, they want quantifiable metrics. They want repeatable uniformity. They also bloody well hate unions. Well, the professional HR class came up with a simple solution. The irony being, that it played directly into what the libbiest libs would love: People need college degrees as a metric. What degree is really not relevant, but that getting a degree would be a measure of the ability to complete something. Literally, go ask an HR drone what a degree means to them. Better than 8 in 10 will tell you that it’s nothing more than a measure to complete something they start. Exceptions are (of course) noted for certain specific programs like a Medical Doctor or even Licensed Professional Engineer. Then again, technically speaking, I don’t know if you really need a medical degree to take your MCAT or other board tests. I don’t think you need an engineering degree (technically) to take your LPE exam or a JD to take the bar. They’re professional exams, but I’m not positive as to the requirements before the test.
    So, now you have conservatives and liberals joined together in a fools errand: the college degree quantifiable metric. This leads to a ridiculous amount of degree inflation. Wait, we’re not done yet.
    Parents. Okay, not even pleasing them, but what they drill into you for most of your life. You are told by them, and others, that the only way to realistically get a good job, the American dream, et al., is to get that degree. These days, parents have been through the ringer. Many were union, and tossed to the side. I know of several union electricians, carpenters, masons, and other trades, that literally refused to teach their kids the trade. I mean LITERALLY told their kids ‘I refuse to teach you this trade, you’re going to college.’ They refuse because all they hear about, all that’s repeated to them, all that they are subjected to, says they are evil. All unions are vile, useless, evil things and the members are just worthless sods. They witness their pay shrinking, their benefits a fraction of what their father’s were. Why would they want their kids working in a career where they’re vilified by association and paid less every year? Forget that son, get a degree.
    This leads to more degree inflation. Businesses are so against unions, they’d rather not hire them. Parents don’t want their kids vilified so they don’t start training them early, and we’re losing a significant degree of skill due to this. (tangent: to build instruments used in many spaceflights, NASA employed master machinists with thousands of hours because they could (can) make things better than robots even today / in Japan automakers held contests yearly and the best master machinists could easily out do machines that were making parts down to thousandths of an inch) So now businesses need someone (tech schools) to train the new generation of electricians, welders, et al. There’s a trick with that, you’ve started the metric. Not only that, that gets you in the door. The senrority system is gone, so what’s the metric? Degrees! You want to go up past an hourly grunt? Get that 4 year ‘management’ degree. You’ve already got a start with that two year degree. That’s the metric now, it’s not skill. This applies to Tory and Tori.
    In the old days Tory would’ve started as an apprentice book keeper just out of high school. Heck, he might have started in high school. He would have then started taking ‘night classes’, or working part time except for a few weeks in tax season, to get his four year degree. THe whole time, he’s picking up tons of experience. Tory graduates college 5 years later (maybe 6) but has 5 years of book keeping experience! What a valuable commodity! Tori graduated in 4 years (maybe 5) but has 0 experience. Guess who get’s paid more, and who is told off if she complains. Reverse it, and the same would be true, if Tori had the 5 years of experience and Tory was college fresh, the pay scenario would reverse.
    Now we don’t really do this anymore, we use the degree metric. We hire people by degree, we don’t spend time training them anymore. Conservatives love it: it eliminates the need for the union. Liberals love it: it levels the playing field for ‘poor’. Both didn’t realize that it was simply going to lead to even higher costs than the old system of learning on the job and unions.
    Incidentally Tory (my accountant is actually named Dave) started at an old school accounting firm as a literal book keeper being trained. He went to school nights and is now on his way to being a partner there. Had his bosses hired by degree, he would be getting paid the same as the fresh-faced boy out of college. He doesn’t, he gets a heck of a lot more.

40. Actually you’re an idiot but it’s not due to a lack of intelligence, simply a lack of perspective. Bear with me on this’ because it’s not some liberal plot alone that drove the horse-puckey you see in business today. Well, not entirely. You see, it’s a place where the Liberal and Conservative have joined forces for different reasons to create the worst of all possible worlds.
    Allow me to educate you on one thing quickly, sort of a precursor to the rest, the rise of the professional Human Resources department (HR). Many years ago, we had a much simpler process for getting hired. This was especially true in jobs that men had. You wanted to be an Electrician, you became an Apprentice. This was common in many jobs that one would consider skilled: Mason, Welder, Machinist, and yes, even CPA. For a VERY long time, right there with those evil Union workers, you would start work as an accountant by working for a CPA. There were no technical school degrees in accounting, anymore than there were schools (outside of the apprenticeship) for Electrician. You would go to school as an accountant to learn different business aspects, but your actual work began as a book keeper.
    Now, one thing about businesses, they want quantifiable metrics. They want repeatable uniformity. They also bloody well hate unions. Well, the professional HR class came up with a simple solution. The irony being, that it played directly into what the libbiest libs would love: People need college degrees as a metric. What degree is really not relevant, but that getting a degree would be a measure of the ability to complete something. Literally, go ask an HR drone what a degree means to them. Better than 8 in 10 will tell you that it’s nothing more than a measure to complete something they start. Exceptions are (of course) noted for certain specific programs like a Medical Doctor or even Licensed Professional Engineer. Then again, technically speaking, I don’t know if you really need a medical degree to take your MCAT or other board tests. I don’t think you need an engineering degree (technically) to take your LPE exam or a JD to take the bar. They’re professional exams, but I’m not positive as to the requirements before the test.
    So, now you have conservatives and liberals joined together in a fools errand: the college degree quantifiable metric. This leads to a ridiculous amount of degree inflation. Wait, we’re not done yet.
    Parents. Okay, not even pleasing them, but what they drill into you for most of your life. You are told by them, and others, that the only way to realistically get a good job, the American dream, et al., is to get that degree. These days, parents have been through the ringer. Many were union, and tossed to the side. I know of several union electricians, carpenters, masons, and other trades, that literally refused to teach their kids the trade. I mean LITERALLY told their kids ‘I refuse to teach you this trade, you’re going to college.’ They refuse because all they hear about, all that’s repeated to them, all that they are subjected to, says they are evil. All unions are vile, useless, evil things and the members are just worthless sods. They witness their pay shrinking, their benefits a fraction of what their father’s were. Why would they want their kids working in a career where they’re vilified by association and paid less every year? Forget that son, get a degree.
    This leads to more degree inflation. Businesses are so against unions, they’d rather not hire them. Parents don’t want their kids vilified so they don’t start training them early, and we’re losing a significant degree of skill due to this. (tangent: to build instruments used in many spaceflights, NASA employed master machinists with thousands of hours because they could (can) make things better than robots even today / in Japan automakers held contests yearly and the best master machinists could easily out do machines that were making parts down to thousandths of an inch) So now businesses need someone (tech schools) to train the new generation of electricians, welders, et al. There’s a trick with that, you’ve started the metric. Not only that, that gets you in the door. The senrority system is gone, so what’s the metric? Degrees! You want to go up past an hourly grunt? Get that 4 year ‘management’ degree. You’ve already got a start with that two year degree. That’s the metric now, it’s not skill. This applies to Tory and Tori.
    In the old days Tory would’ve started as an apprentice book keeper just out of high school. Heck, he might have started in high school. He would have then started taking ‘night classes’, or working part time except for a few weeks in tax season, to get his four year degree. THe whole time, he’s picking up tons of experience. Tory graduates college 5 years later (maybe 6) but has 5 years of book keeping experience! What a valuable commodity! Tori graduated in 4 years (maybe 5) but has 0 experience. Guess who get’s paid more, and who is told off if she complains. Reverse it, and the same would be true, if Tori had the 5 years of experience and Tory was college fresh, the pay scenario would reverse.
    Now we don’t really do this anymore, we use the degree metric. We hire people by degree, we don’t spend time training them anymore. Conservatives love it: it eliminates the need for the union. Liberals love it: it levels the playing field for ‘poor’. Both didn’t realize that it was simply going to lead to even higher costs than the old system of learning on the job and unions.
    Incidentally Tory (my accountant is actually named Dave) started at an old school accounting firm as a literal book keeper being trained. He went to school nights and is now on his way to being a partner there. Had his bosses hired by degree, he would be getting paid the same as the fresh-faced boy out of college. He doesn’t, he gets a heck of a lot more.

    1. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit the traditional Lib vs Con narrative, but suck it up buttercups. This is a time both sides created a joint vortex of suck for their own reasons.

    2. You call me an idiot, yet your post here shows you clearly didn’t even bother to comprehend the entire article, as my argument was literally the same as you argued here. You then proceed to basically rewrite my fictional story to prove…oh, the exact same point.
       NOTE, “In the old days Tory would’ve started as an apprentice book keeper just out of high school.”
       These aren’t the old days Grandpa. I wrote about reality.

    3. If those “unions” didn’t have a history of discriminating against qualified blacks and other minorities, they would not have gone the way of the dodo. They actually would have had allies. Too bad. Those “apprentice shops” had an unfortunate history (in the US, not sure about the UK where YOU seem to be from) of being corrupted with the mafia/mob & racist (each white ethnic group holding on to their own guild and keeping out Blacks and Latinos). So you can’t blame black parents telling their sons to get college degrees cuz that they only way they will get into a trade. So basically, you whites created this shit situation, and you can’t blame anyone else, buttercup!

41. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c23sT4cDcUQ

    1. most important post of this thread.

42. I attended an inner city catholic high school. I went on to attend a highly competitive liberal arts in the northeast. I looked forward to taking courses that would stretch my mind. Japanese Philosophy. European Economics. Critical Analysis of 18th Century American Literature. Grades were on a bell curve. I enjoyed my classes and didn’t mind the low grades cuz I was still learning. Then I realized many of my classmates were RE-TAKING classes they had already taken at Andover, Exeter, Dalton, Deerfield. I also realized that my grades would have an impact on what professional graduate programs (law, business) I would get into after college. Lesson: Don’t take risky courses, take what you already know cuz you will get fucked in the end. No one cares about your C+ in Advanced Japanese Philosophy when Cody is getting an A+ in Communications 303. Cody gets into Harvard Law, you don’t!

43. All grievance courses are useless bullshit. Some girl once suggested I take an Asian-American studies course, told her I didn’t spend a ton of money to learn about nothing.
    She looked really aghast, telling me I should “get in touch with my roots”.
    Really, bitch. X-American courses are for whitewashed kids who think their identity is being an oppressed minority. The course doesn’t teach jack about thousands of years of Asian history, it just tells kids how mean people are to them so they grow up to be permanent victims with no real grounding in tribal, ethnic, or racial pride.

44. The downside of living in developed countries. Supply and demand rules supreme and with tons of people growing up thinking that it’s way more interesting to pay to be taught some philosophy bs instead of reading a damn book for free from the local library what can we expect? It’s easier and far more comfortable to study Liberal Arts than IT. Sure we don’t need only IT experts, we do need some social workers and such but damn it, these are not social workers with a calling, they are dumb kids with “opinions” and vlogs. And I bet it’s only gonna get worse till this whole sexism/bigotry/racism debate ends.

45. you guys are fucktards

46. This is the most boring post yet, (although congrats on not having fuckloads of wanky internet pictures, bar one) I can’t even read it it’s like reading my business book in the desert!

47. I’m also pretty confident your degree has gotten you nowhere seeing as this article is complete shit. pot calling the kettle black? The whole format of this blog is just… sad.

    1. Instead of being a passive aggressive little shit, why don’t just say what you disagree with in the article?

       1. Because that would involve making coherent arguments, which would be debated and could potentially shoot down this post. Also, I’m pretty sure she posted this comment, while at work, trying to look busy, as a 54k a year accountant.

48. I know of a lot of people, who are complete burnouts, only going to school with their parents money, that take liberal arts courses, because that is literally the only thing they can possibly succeed in. I don’t think liberal arts subtracts from the useful subjects, I think it does a great service by provided opportunities for people who are otherwise useless. If it was not for liberal arts, there would be, just as much effort going into the useful fields, but fewer people involved in the higher education system. The presence of liberal arts courses does no harm to people who don’t take them.

49. Be careful using the term “liberal arts” when what you really mean are specific majors. They are not the same thing. You can attend a liberal arts college and get a degree in Biology, Neuroscience, Chemistry, Physics, Computer Science, Mathematics, Accounting, Marketing, etc..or Women’s Studies. There is often confusion about “liberal arts” degrees and institutions. The liberal arts philosophy is one that emphasizes the interconnectedness of knowlege, critical thinking, open-ended problem solving, oral and written communication, and cross-disciplinary training. It is possible that one can have such a “liberal arts” background with a degree in French, Geology, Economics, or Molecular Biology. Liberal arts is an educational approach, not a specific degree. As an example, if you get your biology degree from a liberal arts college, you probably spent 1-2 years doing original research with a professor on a project that you developed. You probably presented it at multiple scientific conferences. You might have even published the results in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. At the same time, you probably studied abroad, might be fluent in German, and have used gas chromatography and an NMR before getting your degree. At a big state school, you probably took some online classes, sat in some giant auditorium with several hundred of your friends, and didn’t interact outside of class with your professors hardly ever. I’m not defending the particular majors that you mention, but I am a strong proponent of the liberal arts as an educational philosophy. Disproportionately more state university professors get their undergraduate degrees from liberal arts colleges. Liberal arts colleges produce disproportionately more PhDs in the sciences than non-liberal arts institutions and more professors from ALL universities choose to send their kids to liberal arts institutions (67%). This isn’t a coincidence. This is because they receive a far better and broader education.

50. You really have some point for that kind of thing especially that there are some people who might wanted to improve their knowledge on these kind of things. They can also promote some effective ideas on how to become successful for these kind of things.

Comments are closed.