China To Cancel College Majors That Don't Pay

theodp writes "The WSJ reports that China's Ministry of Education plans to phase out majors producing unemployable graduates. The government will soon start evaluating college majors by their employment rates, downsizing or cutting those studies in which more than 60% of graduates fail for two consecutive years to find work. What if the U.S. government were to adopt China's approach? According to the most recent U.S. census data, among the first majors to go: psychology, U.S. history and military technologies. Lest you computer programmers get too smug, consider this."

Comments

Re:Fuck China

[Montezumaa]

What in the fuck is wrong with you? You think that posting links to bestiality is funny?

Do Not Click that link! It does contain a video of bestiality.

Hmmm...

[mpsmps]

...cutting those studies in which less than 60% of graduates fail for two consecutive years to find work.

I guess the headline should be "China to Cancel College Majors That Do Pay

The US fields with highest unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the link in TFA, the US majors with the highest unemployment rates are

• Psychology, 19.5%
• Fine arts, 16.2%
• US history, 15.1%
• Library science, 15%
• Educational psychology, 10.9%

The first computer-related field is "computer administration management and security" at 9.5%. Whatever the heck that is - sounds like a wannabe-degree.

Anyhow, it's an interesting table, because you can sort by unemployment, earnings or popularity...

Re:Economics, or stability?

[antifoidulus]

This is especially true in China, during the cultural revolution academics were often dragged out of their houses and put on trials in kangaroo courts for being part of the bourgeoisie. Part of the reason China's university system is still pretty weak is that they literally killed off most of their academics and installed party shills instead.

Re:Psych

[ultranova]

Awesome, you are just using good people in creating more bureacracy, because that's what we really need right?

Perhaps. There's a limited amount of money for projects, and that means that someone needs to decide who gets it. Not only would it preferable for that person to have a three-digit IQ and basic reading comprehension skills, but also enough time to think and compare various potentially worthwile projects to decide which gets the resources, which in turn requires sufficient manpower to spread the projects to (especially if you want multiple people to take a look at a proposal, to compensate for personal biases and a single person getting multiple worthwhile proposals by chance). Also, in order for that person to do his job well, the grants need to be written clearly and convey the necessary information, making their writing a skill of its own - and preferably done by someone who is not personally invested in the project.

Obviously, the law of diminishing returns applies here too, but a well-working bureaucracy is vital for any large organization.