What would you tell your kid if they wanted to major in medieval history??

Thanks for the replies. Honestly though, I am very disappointed.

Kids who worry about the future don't major in medieval history. Kids who feel they have a safety net and don't sweat their future go this frivolous route. Sure some kids who go this route might do ok, but kids who are responsible about their future, make choices with better career options.

Maybe I shouldn't have offered to pay his college bill. In the long run I hurt him.

It's not frivolous at all. I get it -- you believe that college is nothing more than vo-tech, so majoring in medieval history is useless unless you're planning to become an academic. But you're begging the question (assuming what you want to prove). College is and can be more than job training. Besides, as other posters have noted, you can take a ton of math, statistics, and science classes outside your major to enhance your employability, if you are so inclined.

Typecasting most kids who pursue the liberal arts as irresponsible and frivolous is kind of stupid. I would say most personality characteristics are independent of the major. Poor students are poor students, regardless.

And even granting your case, there are many other factors involved in getting a good job than any particular major. Quality of the school, alumni relations, networking, playing sports (even at a club level), working part time, working your ass off as an apprentice, etc.

I agree that a college education is both a privilege and also a substantial investment. I'm disappointed but not surprised at your Babbittry.

Medieval history is frivolous, liberal arts is not. At least an English major is learning and developing communication skills. Enhancing you employability better be a huge concern considering the expense of college.

Now if you come from money, like you might, then enhancing employability through college is probably only a minor consideration for you. The real world doesn't work ,like that.

I don't come from money. I make my money from trading the markets -- a pursuit orthogonal to medieval history. As for your admonition that the "real world doesn't work like that", well, my grasp fluctuates with my p&l, and it's not always pretty in the short term.

History is itself a branch of the liberal arts. In fact, what we now regard as the foundational liberal arts (the trivium and quadrivium) arose during the Middle Ages.

Anybody who majors in medieval history does plenty of reading and writing ("learning and developing communication skills").

You keep making these assertions...ignorance is no shame but persisting in it is pure folly. "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." (Truman)

I'd say, "Go for it."

Actually, majoring in medieval history would set a kid up for a good career these days. Lots of gaming and major-studio films reflect a general sense that we're heading back into a dark ages--a time when epic heroes, superstition, warrior-virtues, are important.

If my kid said, "I want to major in Enlightenment philosophy," on the other hand, I'd freak out. No market for that right now.

You're an idiot. See my previous post.

When i say, "You're an idiot," I'm talking about these claims:

"Kids who worry about the future don't major in medieval history. Kids who feel they have a safety net and don't sweat their future go this frivolous route. Sure some kids who go this route might do ok, but kids who are responsible about their future, make choices with better career options."

Kids who worry about where we are right NOW, and where we're headed, would do well to major in medieval history.

Every hear of the Crusades? Jesus.

I don't see college as an investment in one's future. I think it's an experience that's valuable in and of itself which may conceivably translate to something that could "pay off." I kept myself alive for a couple years driving a taxi and never once thought that my education hadn't "paid off" because I was a cab driver. I was glad that I was an educated cab driver. I had loans to pay off at the time. I dealt with them as best I could and didn't regret that I'd incurred them.

MarcusM wrote:

Thanks for the replies. Honestly though, I am very disappointed.

Kids who worry about the future don't major in medieval history. Kids who feel they have a safety net and don't sweat their future go this frivolous route. Sure some kids who go this route might do ok, but kids who are responsible about their future, make choices with better career options.

Maybe I shouldn't have offered to pay his college bill. In the long run I hurt him.

Given how one of the biggest threats to world stability right now are medieval revivalists from the Middle East your son's choice of majors may be prescient.

Incidentally one of the brighter guys on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, was a history major, although I don't think his concentration was medieval history. However to STEM types all history is probably medieval.

I should add that I will always be grateful for a father who paid for college and endorsed my choice of majors.

Now, check out the graphs at this website

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/#.VhR_H_lViko

And also:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-previous-post-bears-repeating-in.html

The graphs plot GRE scores by majors. Click to enlarge. Note which fields have the smartest students.

not sure on the numbers wrote:

ScottEvil wrote:

Option 2: Major in whatever you want, take Calc I-III, Linear Algebra, 2-3 CS classes, 2-3 stats classes and maybe something like intro to machine learning.

Major's are only like 8 or 9 classes. That leaves around 20 others to do what's practical.

Wish I had known this in college.

I agree with your basic premise, but what school only requires 8-9 in-major classes? I'm pretty sure that the standard at my school is 90 credits of prescribed and elective coursework for the major, and 120 credits total. That would be more like 23-30 in-major courses and 30-40 total courses (depending on mix of 3 and 4 credit classes).

The school I went to. It had a minimum requirement for non-major hours.

pop_pop!_v2.1 wrote:

mba student wrote:

If it was a "dead end" how come the average MBA grad (at top schools at least) comes out making 120-130k in base salary plus signing and performance bonuses?

Ok, comprehension isn't your thing. If an MBA was such an magical thing, then I could get one while working at Arby's and go to a six-figure salary upon graduation. Somehow, that's not the case.

But, you go ahead and don't stop believin.

FYI: 120-130k isn't much where these jokers are being hired.

Sorry, but people making curly fries at Arby's aren't getting into top business schools. The 120-130k is just base as I said (talk about reading comprehension), all-in comp for typical jobs is 160-200k and for certain industries (PE in particular) first year all-in usually ends up 250-300+.

MarcusM wrote:Medieval history is frivolous, liberal arts is not. At least an English major is learning and developing communication skills. Enhancing you employability better be a huge concern considering the expense of college.

You really don't know what you're talking about. You learn the same communications skills in all of the liberal arts because you spend your time reading texts, discussing them, and writing papers about them. English majors might admittedly get a little deeper into parsing the precise language of a text, but there aren't major differences in the practical skills that he'll acquire in a history program. (Also, in my experience usually the major is called "history" and the medieval part is just an emphasis or concentration that may or may not even go on the degree itself.)

In any event, I'll echo what others have said. The financial value of a university education is largely about signalling. From an elite school, it absolutely does not matter what you study, because name of the school proves you're smart. Even at an average school, the point of taking STEM classes isn't necessarily to get an engineering job, but to prove that you're smart enough.

If your son is set on medieval history, here's my advice: Let him know that you support him studying whatever he wants, but that if he's going to do something esoteric with no obvious employment benefit, then he'd better really love it, and he'd better do very, very well. Tell him his grades in his major should be exceptional, that he should be a research assistant for professors, that he should start working on a serious research project of his own fairly early on. If he does those things, he'll be okay. He'll be poised to continue to graduate school (which is fully-funded, before you have a heart attack), and if he decides to go another direction, he'll have relationships with professors who will probably love him. His resume should show that he really accomplished something in medieval history, not that he just picked something goofy to kill four years while playing beer pong.

FWIW, I studied medieval literature and history. I spent countless hours learning the West Saxon language. This was, to most people's way of thinking, a total waste of time as there are only a handful of texts in ths language. In any event, I'm now a Supreme Court litigator at a large law firm, so it worked out.

Very easy for you to say since you're not the one paying the bill for this education. This is a parent who hopes his child is able to support him/herself with this college education. What if you were the one paying upwards of $100K for this degree? Perhaps you'd like to kick in a few bucks toward this noble goal. And yes, I read Sinclair Lewis while getting my degree in Accounting, so we business types can also be well-rounded. OP, I understand your view. I was in the same boat with my son who majored in Philosophy. I spoke with him about my concerns and he added a minor in Business. Now he is a project manager for a publishing company and writes a weekly column about ancient philosophical teachings for the modern world. He also told me that his minor was very valuable to his job search. Try this approach. Good luck.

Yes, my tone was a little snotty, and it looks like that's your real objection, not the content of what I said.

I understand the OP's point of view; I just disagree his premise that college is solely or mostly about job training. We both agree that a kid can add other courses or a minor to make himself more employable. You and your son were smart to do so.

Since your son was a philosophy major, he is probably pretty smart -- must have gotten it from his mother! Again, check out these graphs plotting GRE scores by majors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine....hR_H_lViko

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com...ng-in.html

Click to enlarge. Note which fields have the smartest students.

You are correct -- I am not going to "kick in a few bucks toward his noble goal" of putting a stranger's kid through college.

I put two of my own sons through college ('13 and '15) and have another kid on the way in 3 years, so yeah, I know all about paying the bills for education.

I'd tell him to at least have a minor that is more geared to a J O B. But.. like others have said, college teaches you how to think, how to process information, how to reach deadlines, schedule your time, etc.. It's not job training.

Or maybe he wants to teach or go into law?

I would tell him to prepare to be initially "completely unemployable" when you graduate as Carly Fiorina was, who is quoted as stating:

“I graduated from Stanford with a degree in medieval history and philosophy -- there is life after a medieval history and philosophy degree,” she said happily.​ After graduation, Fiorina said, she was “completely unemployable” so she tried out law school."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/09/30/carly-fiorinas-medieval-history-major-inspires-young-female-conservatives

Then I would tell him "You too may have a chance of running for President with no political experience"

Your posts were more than just snotty, they evidenced muddled thinking with your tendency to replace cogent argument with ostentatious verbosity. (I think when I told you I was middle class you jumped to a number of very faulty assumptions.)

Let me give you a few quick examples. My original post was regarding medieval history but you quickly switched that to me generalizing criticism toward all liberal art courses of study and liberal art students.

Now the graphs that you linked were a great example of your muddled thinking. The discussion was about coursework enhancing employability. I did say some lines a study are more likely to be selected by rich kids not worried about future employment. So twice you linked a correlation graph between SAT scores and majors. Can you see how totally irrelevant that is to the ability of those courses enhancing employability. If anything do you know what SAT scores correlate? The wealth and education level of the parents. If a course is selected by students with high SATs either it is perceived as a difficult course of study or students from rich families tend to select it. It says nothing about how the course enhances employability. Do you see how your thinking was muddled on this?

Not all liberal arts courses of study are the same and have the same degree of rigor. You also backtrack by saying well some courses should be added to enhance employability. (Implicitly admitting some lines of study are better than others)

You give bad advice to kids. College IS about preparing and putting yourself in a position to enhance a future career. Medieval history is not the best course of study to do this. For you to suggest that a course of study is not that important is just ivory tower type of thinking.

Maybe if you hard course work with rigor that emphasized critical thinking skills you might be better at this type of stuff.