Alex,

I think you're way off on #4. Why is an art history degree less valuable to society than an engineering degree?

I think #s 6, 8, and 10 are spot on.

1) not sure I understand this exactly, but then I was never into politics very heavily.

2) couldn't agree more. our public education system is extremely broken

3) that's an interesting idea

4) the price tag isn't actually based on the degree, it's based on the class load (number of hours), from my understanding. Most of your education isn't even focused on the degree, if i'm not mistaken (not a college grad here). I mean for the first year or so everyone is practically taking the same classes. By that reasoning then some classes should cost less than others.

5) I'm not sure I follow your statement there. Although I agree with the government control. I think power should be moved back to the states were it belongs.

6) I actually find both of these things kind of funny actually. The money thing, I can care less about personally. They could print money with Benedict Arnold for all I care. The flag, well, I personally have a lot of feelings about this. Although I know it causes folks to feel alienated, I am not sure it's for the right reasons. The Civil War is now taught in schools that it was all about slavery, which is not entirely true. Although there are some slavery aspects, I don't even believe for a second it was even in the majority of the reasons for the war (don't get me wrong, the end of slavery is great). This goes hand in hand with our broken education system. People are not educated about what really took place and are being convinced that it was all something else. Nor do they seem to even care that they are ignorant on the matter because it's now become the socially acceptable view.

7) you never struck me as a cynic, so that does surprise me (then again, compared to me...)

8) Again not sure what you mean

9) I think most people's politcal views these days are taught. I speak to many people who are very passionate about what they believe, yet can't intelligably argue their viewpoint. I'll even find myself playing devil's advocate with someone I actually agree with, but think they're reasoning is wrong. People get strong opinions about things all the time that they can't seem to understand themselves, nor do they think about what their idea will mean.

10) I couldn't agree more. Politicians are nothing but wind bags. I don't know how we allowed politics to evolve into this. People would rather vote for someone that sounds good saying nothing than someone that sounds bad saying something. I'm suddently reminded of Futurama with the clone candidates.

Jack Johnson: "I say his 3 cent titanium tax goes too far"
John Jackson: "and I say his 3 cent titanium tax goes not too far enough"

I consider #4 to be self-evident, which I guess makes me kind of wacko.

Generally I believe that art will take care of itself. Amateur interest and the self-education that comes with that is a lot more compelling for the arts than the sciences. The number of people interested in art is naturally greater than that of those interested in complex math.

The surplus in liberal arts majors is indicative that, I think. It's also indicative of supply/demand issues and of questionable career choices being enabled with state subsidy. We have so many of some majors that it requires a PhD to be able to do a whole lot useful with it (and even then, what you can do with it doesn't pay very well). What's the state's interest in creating more? And questionable career choices, it encourages people to major in things that will not reward them with financial security (which will bite society's rear in the end).

None of this is to say that I do not put value on liberal arts degrees. And cutting back on subsidy would never make them no longer exist. It would become like private universities: the province of the gifted and the leisure class that can take on the costs themselves and have a greater degree of padding for failure.

Kavey,

4) In most places I've seen, it's a combination. Regardless, charging more or less on a class-by-class basis is even better, in my view.

6) On the flag issue, even if they are entirely irrational (and I do not believe they are), if a significant portion of the population (that can be made happy, anti-everything people need not apply) objects to something on the money, the seal, or the pledge, and it doesn't have to be there, then it should be removed.

9) I think most political views are a combination of our environment and our reaction to our environment. A whole lot of it comes down to self-perception. This could be a post in and of itself.

I vehemently disagree with you on # 4.

"Art will take care of itself."

What does that mean? Art is beautiful; one of the joys of life. Why is pursuing advanced study of the themes and foundations of art less worthwhile than a preprofessional degree?

I mean no offense, but you haven't justified your opinion on this other than by referring to your bedrock belief that art history -- or other liberal arts degrees -- is a "questionable career choice."

That's circular. I'm asking why it is that an engineering degree is more valuable to society than an art history degree, and you're basically saying it is so because "it is a questionable career choice" or because it "isn't useful."

But that just invites the question of why it is questionable or what makes it not useful.

I hear the opinion that a liberal arts degree is less useful than a preprofessional degree, and it makes me madder than anything. A liberal arts degree teaches one how to think. My philosophy degree has prepared me to contribute to society in ways an accounting degree never could (NTTAW a finance degree). It has given me a set of analytical tools which I can apply to all aspects of my life -- career, personal, everything.

It is the very height of utility and practicality.

What makes an art history degree less useful than an engineering degree?

A lot of it depends on how you define "worthwhile." From a personal standpoint, an art history degree can be much more worthwhile than an engineering one. But from a societal standpoint, I view the latter as being more valuable.

Philosophy is a poor example when it's used in leading towards something else (including a higher degree in the same discipline) because that is quite useful. The same for an English degree that leads to being able to teach. But a BA in English is less useful to society than a BS in Chemical Engineering. It's demonstrated, in my mind, by the job opportunities available. Engineering firms don't open up because there are so many engineers, engineers are produced to fill a need. A need that doesn't exist nearly as much for English BAs. If we needed more English majors, there'd be a lot less of them working in other fields right now. Art history is a "questionable career choice" because there is much competition for relatively few available positions (and a good deal of those positions on the public dole).

I mean two things by art being able to take care of itself. First a lot more people are naturally interested in art because there are tons of people that are interested in it whether they're being paid or not (or maybe I should said whether the education required is being paid for or not). Without the financial incentive, few would be as interested in engineering pursuits, and without the formal education not nearly as many would be capable of doing it. Art is more intuitive, while engineering more vocational. I'd figure that there are far more successive artists out there are without degrees than successful scientists.

Your point is only valid to the extent utility in society is seen as a function of "job opportunities."

I don't think the best measure of utility of a given course of study to a society is measured by job opportunities in the field. The market will correct itself anyway -- if there isn't as great a need for art historians, there will be fewer jobs in art history.

But the normative claim you're making doesn't follow from the empirical one. Why does it follow from the fact that there are fewer art historian jobs that the job of art historian is any less valuable or important to society? Does it follow from the fact that there are less jobs as U.S. Senator that it is less valuable than a construction worker?

It's the naturalistic fallacy -- mistaking 'is' for 'ought.' The fact that there are less jobs for art historians, or philosophers, or literary theorists, does not mean that there ought to be less -- or that they are any less valuable. There is obviously a greater need for engineers than art historians -- but you need more inferential steps than just this premise to conclude that the person who graduates with a degree in engineering contributes more to society than the one who graduates with a degree in art history.

The art history major will also find a job, and will therefore contribute to society in that measurable capacity as well. Why does the fact that the AH major may take a non-AH job make the AH degree itself any less valuable to society than the engineering degree?

#1 - The biggest myth in American politics is that government-provided benefits don't cost you anything.

Sadly, this is the myth that both parties feed us every time they need to buy a particular demographic's vote, and it's how we got many of the social welfare programs in the first place.

#2 - I have some points of agreement on there. Any reform that's large enough to fix the inherent problems we have right now probably qualifies as metaphorically doing what you said anyways.

#3 - "People move where the jobs are." People regularly living a 2-hour drive from their workplace is something that's pretty much unique to Houston; try going anywhere else and people would get REALLY pissed off if the gov't told them they could only get a loan if they were willing to live another 50 miles away.

Plus, the environmentalnuts would have a heart attack over the increased drive times and pollution.

4 - Uhm... confusing. And to some extent they already do Alex; for example, each college at UH and even each department within gets to set their own course usage and equipment usage fees.

5 - True, but consistent libertarianism isn't bad for your health.

6 - I think that "In God We Trust" should not be removed from the currency, because it is historically relevant. Then again, I have no problem with local municipalities having Christmas parades, or manger displays, or crosses/bibles on their coat of arms, or anything else.

The Constitution says that CONGRESS, specifically, cannot make laws respecting organizations of religion, and says that any power specifically denied to the federal government is reserved to the People and the States.

I further believe that these two portions of the Constitution need to be engraved onto a gold brick, topped with a slice of lemon, and smacked repeatedly into the sides of the head of each Justice of the Supreme Court until they understand it, because they clearly have never bothered to READ the Constitution.

As for the Confederate flag, I have no more problem with its presence than I do with the presence of the Union Jack on the Hawaiian Flag, the presence of the Calvert and Crossland emblems on the Maryland Flag, the "Sic Semper Tyrannis" on Virginia's, the colors of Spain on the New Mexico flag, or... you get the idea.

7 - meh.

8 - I agree. Americans are overworked; the big problem we have, too, is that any time we DO take vacation our bosses give us a guilt trip over it.

9 - I'm still trying to work out what you're saying here. I'll get back to you .

10 - "Un-patriotic" I can agree with. Hypocrisy is too common for me to ignore it like that - and unlike "Un-patriotic" it can be relevant.

I'm not saying that being an art historian is less important than being an engineer (or, if that's what I was saying, it wasn't what I meant to). I'm also confident that there will continue to be art historians as there are plenty of private universities that offer up those degrees for a fee. I also believe (though it is actually not imperitive to my central argument) that there are few enough art history positions out there that they could be filled with self-studyers. That doesn't make the job unimportant or less important than others (I personally believe it to be, but that's a value judgment), but it does make subsidizing their education less so.

But let's take the senator example and play around with that for a moment. Let's say that there was a Senator degree available. Let's say that the Senator degree was of limited use outside that field. Despite the importance of that position, would you say its in society's interest to subsidize a major that's producing a surplus of a limited field? I would say not.

As far as "who contributes more to society" goes, it depends on what you're looking at. I'm looking primarily at the market. I think the government should look primarily at the market, too, when using public funds to subsidize education. That seems to be the root of our disagreement.

3) I may not be clear. I'm not talking about moving from Seattle to suburban King County but rather moving from Seattle to Kansas City. People will go where the jobs are, but companies themselves are pretty keen on going where the labor is cheaper. That's why Boise is such a hotspot right now, for instance. Transitioning people inland should be more a priority than escalating property values by subsidizing housing in expensive areas. And the commutes will get shorter.

4) There is some differential, but not nearly to the extent that there would be if I were in charge. And the differential now is based more on the popularity of a major and the incidental costs (labs, etc.). Mine would be based on market demands.

6) The currency issue is only relevent because we stopped trusting gold and started trusting monetary authorities playing god. In Gold We Trust made sense and was necessary while stablishing the currenty. In God We Trust is unnecessary. You may not view the confederate flag as more offensive than the union jack, but it's not you that is justified to be offended. If a signifigant number of the Hawaiians object to the Union Jack, then it shouldn't be there either.

8) Any employer that gives me grief for taking vacation time is not an employer I want to work for. That part generally hasn't been a problem for me. Though I've heard others complain about it.

10) The problem with "hypocrisy" is that it has been used so broadly for so long by so many people that it's been stripped of all meaning. It's gotten to the point that you can be called a hypocrite for holding any position if it's even remotely related in the mind of another to another position where you hold a "contradictory" position ("You think alcohol should be legal but LSD shouldn't. Hypocrite!"). Or you can be a hypocrite if you learn from your mistakes ("You smoked pot but don't think your kids should be able to? Hypocrite!"). Either the word is being regularly misapplied or it is inherently not a bad thing, but it's increasingly difficult to firmly hold any position without someone, somewhere, believing that you are hypocritical. The same with strongly disagreeing with the actions of our government/military/countrymen without being "unpatriotic."

And, like the patriotism thing, it doesn't actually address any arguments. So what if a gun owner believes in complete gun confiscation. Does that make his arguments invalid? It might make him not-the-best-messenger, but it's an lazy style of argument because it can be applied to almost anyone no matter how sound or faulty their argument.

I understand your argument better now. We ultimately disagree on the propriety of a complete market-based analysis to measure 'utility to society' of a given degree.

That's one of my fundamental beefs with all economics: the conflation of the empirical with the normative.

I simply do not agree that the best way to measure the utility to society of a given degree is to calculate the number of job openings in that specific field. If that were the best way, a philosophy major would be virtually useless -- given that it is almost impossible to land a decent philosophy job these days -- and we have already agreed that it is not at all useless.

As you state, that is not even a measure of 'importance' (to society?), or perhaps 'contribution' to society?

I'm not saying that the question of available careers in the field is irrelevant. It is relevant, but I think it is absolutely not, by itself, a very useful, ha ha, or desirable measure of the utility of a given degree to society.

I do want to say it's not that I value worth solely on economic utility, but rather that I think our federal government should when dispensing funds.

There are times when I think the government does have to get involved in quality-of-life issues regardless of the economics involved, but I don't view a college education in that light as most others do.

Fair enough. I don't share your view re the federal government, which is partly why I'm such a supporter of the NEW.

Alex -- I should also apologize if I seemed a little over-the-top in this thread. The topic struck close to home because of the career change I am effecting (blog will carry all details in the next few days, but you can email me if you want more info).

#4 -- heh; as far as I knew, the funding went the other way. At least at UT and the Ivies, there's massive federal and private fellowships for such things as, well, Sanskrit, while people doing law, engineering, business, medicine, and more practical things have to pay their own way or take out loans based on future income (that being the main difference, perhaps -- Sanskrit majors can't bank on *having* a future income).

Speaking to Sanskrit still: for quite some time (i.e. up until about 25 years ago), it was studied (in Boston at least) by independently wealthy gentlemen, a few of whom are still around. The thing is, nowadays, the class of independently wealthy upper-crust scholars is practically defunct.

Not to say I approve of federal scholarships favoring Sanskrit scholars over doctors -- I just live on them, that's all :)

Alex,

I disagree greatly with #6. Removing "In God We Trust" from all currency would be far more divisive and offensive to more people than simply keeping it there. In truth, only a very tiny minority of Americans are offended by the words, so even by your own standard of a "significant" number of persons being up in arms, I really don't think there's any reason to remove the phrase.

Besides, it's the national motto.

Oh, and I don't think it's constitutionally dubious, either -- save under errant Supreme Court precedent.