My problem is with the whole concept of college as a training facility, as opposed to providing a country with an educated citizenry. And you touch upon this with this quote:
Today, many schools grant degrees where the student has learned next to nothing useful; and many employers are starting to figure this out.
Don't you see that you have bought into this idea? That "learning next to nothing useful" states succinctly how you see the role of higher education. What a small and limited role that you perceived advanced education to be.
I was simply pointing out that a political science degree was a negotiable commodity, at least once upon a time.
And yes, you could rebut me by my noting that I had intended to use the degree as a stepping stone to law school, which would have given me a profession from which I would benefited economically.
I do like to think, though, that I learned a lot about the society in which I live while in undergraduate school. That was augmented, BTW, by my second degree (in economics).
Gotta run now. That's all I have to say.
I understand your points completely. I often work for a senior executive, extremely sharp, who had a history degree (many years ago), and can cut through mathematical analysis like a knife though butter.
Some degrees are a prerequisite for a license to practice in a particular area (engineering, law, medicine, etc). All degrees, to some extent, help employers solve an information problem—hence the marketability factor of a degree.
Look, it’s not my fault that liberal arts faculty are overrun by left wing loons who no longer teach critical thought and logical discourse. One does not need math to have a logical mind or make a sophisticated argument, take for example Ronald Coase, however, it is the case that to the extent logic is taught at universities today, one is more likely to find it in fields with a concentration of math.
[Please accept my apology if I sound obnoxious, condescending or rude. It’s really not my intent. I have enjoyed the chat very much.]