Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Any Place For Liberal Arts Degrees In Tech?

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes A new article in Fast Company suggests tech CEOs want employees with liberal arts degrees, because those graduates have critical thinking skills. Meanwhile, a new article on Dice (yes, yes, we know) posits that STEM degrees such as data science, IT admin, and electrical engineering are what science-and-tech companies are going to want for the foreseeable future. What do you think? What place do those with liberal arts degrees have in companies such as, say, Tesla or a biomedical engineering firm?

11 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not many.

  2. Short answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Maybe, if the culture turns towards having secretaries again.

  3. Ya, but... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... tech CEOs want employees with liberal arts degrees, because those graduates have critical thinking skills.

    ... employees with STEM degrees have critical thinking skills *and* STEM degrees. Just sayin'.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Ya, but... by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... employees with STEM degrees have critical thinking skills *and* STEM degrees. Just sayin'.

      Hrmmm. Just some random thoughts, as someone with a film degree that also codes and has a highly technical job -- I am a sound designer and a recording engineer. I will to some extent generalize, but that's what we're doing here.

      1) I've noticed that people can have really extensive technical knowledge but really not have any concept of social context or even the social utility of what they do. Indeed they'll often argue that the social utility is meaningless when compared to some teleological "search for knowledge," which is portrayed as valueless and objectively good, and questions of economy and competing interests are morally inferior.

      2) STEM people can be total philistines. They'll often deride art and creative pursuits as somehow less essential or necessary than the cause of science and progress. They don't seem to understand that "progress" itself is a moral concept deeply embedded within a complex philosophical value system, and indeed a lot of STEM people know nothing of philosophy or epistemology, and think the entire enterprise of philosophy is some sort of academic scam. I love me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he's completely put the foot in his mouth on several occasions when he thinks he's talking about philosophy of science, and I loved the new Cosmos but his depictions of certain historical events, particularly about Giordano Bruno, were glib and lacked rigor or sensitive knowledge.

      3) I've noticed that a lot of people with an engineering or medical background are subject to many forms of woo, quackery and crank ideas. Whenever someone prints a list of "scientists" who oppose Evolution/Global Warming/Old Universe, take your pick, the list is generally chock full of engineer Ph.Ds.

      4) Relatedly, I've noticed a lot of engineers are dilettantes who tend to see all problems in the world as simply problems of applied computer science, who don't respect professional expertise or knowledge, or respect the fact that things in the world can fundamentally differ in kind from the problems of science and engineering.

      5) Some STEM people can be highly dogmatic, if you ever get into an argument with one over some point they will not let go of, eventually they'll resort to some form of scientism, and insist that the thing you believe is false because its existence cannot be falsified. An important part of exposing yourself to art and creativity is acknowledging that you can't prove beauty exists falsifiably, and everyone can argue over wether this or that tulip is beautiful, but beauty exists.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Ya, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would be true, in theory, but in reality, most colleges are so crappy that people pass English Lit by conforming to the instructor's biases. It is an exercise in figuring out how the boss thinks - not in doing your own critical thinking.

    3. Re:Ya, but... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone with a degree in English Lit. SHOULD have critical thinking skills, especially if they went to a decent college. CS grads should also have critical thinking skills.

      They need to clarify the word "critical thinking" because it is just another buzz word that people keep using nowadays. To me, there are various type of "critical thinking" and how to apply to different situations. Of course, English Lit grad "critical thinking" could be different from STEM grad (both the approach and solution). So it is not easy to say either way is better unless the definition is clear.

      English lit. grads with decent programming skills would probably make for good gamer programmers, rather than simplistic scenarios.

      If an English Lit grad has decent programming skills, I would be very confused why the person would get the degree in English Lit in the first place??? Or even the person can do programming, I would not want to maintain the code the person wrote because the code may not be well formed. I would prefer the person to deal with the content/text/design layout or art, but not programming!

    4. Re:Ya, but... by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you back that up with data?

      http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/10/28/which-undergraduate-majors-score-the-highest-on-lsat/

      The best post-undergrad standardized test for critical thinking skills is the LSAT. Looking at the scores broken down by major, more STEM degrees appear in the upper half, but some, like Computer Science, don't fare too well, getting beaten by many non-STEM fields.

      Its worth noting that those taking the LSAT fall into the "I want to be a lawyer" category... and then please direct your attention to where "Pre law" is on the list. The scores on this list are from people self-selected for wanting to make the leap from whatever undergrad degree they had, to law school. Pre-law scores are below average because *everyone* who got a Pre Law undergrad now has to go to law school and therefore must take the LSAT. Selection bias is funny like that. Meanwhile, people with other undergrad degrees either have a deep passion/talent for law (providing the inspiration for succeeding on the LSAT) or they simply ignore law school and do whatever else it is they graduated to do.

      If you picked people at random (regardless of intention of going to law school) and sat them for the LSAT, you would get useful data. Please only interpret this as tacit disagreement with the premise that your data demonstrates the value non-STEM degrees; I am not trying to comment at all on the actual value of said degrees.

  4. Let's see your portfolio. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I'd tend toward Computer Science (since that is what my degree is in) I'd FIRST want to see what they've done already.

    Is there anything the Lit major can show that demonstrates his programming skills? Like patches submitted to a FLOSS project? Or a mobile app? Or even a personal website?

    It's not that you cannot get a programming job with a Lit degree. It is that the other candidates will probably have more DEMONSTRATED skills in the programming field.

    Show me that you CAN program (sufficient to the basic requirements of the project) AND that your Lit degree gives you a different perspective AND how you implement that perspective.

  5. I have both by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I graduated in 2003 and I have both a BA (philosophy) and a BS (CS;)).

    My experience is that spending a generous portion of my time writing made me both a better writer of prose -- and of code. To be counterfactual, is it really possible to express an idea in code that one cannot express in one's native language? Don't just think of yourself -- think of the many coders who come after you. I've noticed a trend toward offering "workshops" (which is, of course, a place where one does no work) or short classes on topics like "dynamic communication" or "how to write good documentation". The idea itself seems Quixotic -- could you teach an English major to be a competent C coder in a few mere hours of instruction? Why do we expect the reverse?

    Despite having been coding before I "done gone to college", I think there's a special clarity one gets by being able to express the same idea in different ways and choosing the simplest -- whether that language is Lisp or English.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  6. Re:You guys are always entertaining! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The dogmatism that I have seen and heard on the job and here on Slashdot makes all of you come across as delusional and self aggrandizing.

    LOL, you know, I won't dispute the point. Because I agree with it. It's been true for a very long time, and is widespread.

    What I suggest is that being an asshole isn't due to a lack of critical thinking skills, it's a personality defect which can subsequently be overcome. ;-)

    In some disciplines (*cough* Poli Sci *cough*) where there is no objective right or wrong, the ability to state a case for anything as being equally valid to anything else ... well, some of us don't see that as critical thinking, we see it as rhetoric and sophistry. Because you're not measuring against an objective standard.

    The problem comes when you do come from a discipline where things are right or not right, you end up with an overly simplified world view, and nuance becomes something you don't necessarily get.

    When there's no room for wishful thinking and sophistry, and you need to use empirical evidence to determine what is happening and what to do about it ... your "feeling" that your "belief" that the router must be sending moon packets is meaningless if you claim it has as much weight as me telling you that the cable is unplugged. Mine is testable and can be acted on, yours is the mistaken belief that if we solve the existential crisis of the router things will sort itself out.

    But it becomes a clash of cultures when someone's sensing/feeling/intuition has nothing to do with objective reality, and objective reality is the only thing which matters.

    And, likewise, people who only deal in objective reality and can't see past it are largely incapable of doing anything else, unless they've tried really hard to pick up an additional set of skills.

    Which means we mostly want to punch people who say the universe could be just a simulation or that a tree doesn't make any noise if anybody is around to hear it, because if it can't be proven true or false, it's probably just a pointless mental exercise. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Liberal Arts Teach Rhetoric not Critical Thinking. by extranatural · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a B.A. in Cognitive Systems, it's a multi-disciplinary degree, about 60% of my course work was Faculty of Arts, and 40% Faculty of Sciences.

    What I experienced while in University was this:

    Most liberal arts courses are driven by writing essays where you defend a thesis. The actual validity of your thesis didn't matter so long as you are able to find several points to defend it. What I commonly saw was students starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence which best fit the chosen thesis. Heck I did it myself after a while, it was much easier than looking at an entire body of work in a field and working forwards to a valid thesis. In a science course this would be called cherry picking the data, in liberal arts, it's called another day.

    My science course work on the other hand is where critical thinking was encouraged. I was taught how to write logical proofs, I was taught how to represent both everyday situations, and also computational operations in the form of atomic sentences. I was taught the dangers of conflating correlation with causation, I was taught the dangers of Type I and Type II errors. I was taught about common logical fallacies. I was taught how to evaluate information critically, I was taught the importance of internal consistency, I was taught how critically examine evidence.

    Perhaps some science students could use a little more course work in writing for the purpose of communicating to a broad audience in an uncomplicated way. But when it comes to critical thinking skills, I'll take a B.Sc. over a B.A. any day of the week.