I took and engineering and science program in college. The education was in learning how to learn, learning how to solve problems, and how to distinguish fact from fiction. It's served me well.

To make a living, it is necessary to learn a skill that people are willing to pay for.

▲

Brian_K_White 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

When I was an infant first couple years of college, us engineers knew we were the useful smarties. Art is nice and all but it doesn't grow crops or cure cancer. So the arts are just this luxury that we can only afford thanks to us non-luxury necessary engineers & scientists.

Sometime later I realized that stem only tells you how to build a bridge or a bomb etc. The humanities are what tells you whether to build a bomb or a bridge etc.

Stem is actually merely the brawn and the humanities are the brain.

▲

vineyardmike an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The education was in learning how to learn, learning how to solve problems, and how to distinguish fact from fiction

Sounds pretty close to a liberal arts education.

That said, not everything is about a job or work. Sometimes (usually) education is itself a goal.

	▲	WalterBright an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Sounds pretty close to a liberal arts education That's the plan, but it doesn't seem to work out too well. > not everything is about a job or work Yes, if you are independently wealthy. Need to pay back those student loans!
	▲	imtringued 19 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If education is the goal then it is a form of consumption and there is nothing wrong with consumption, but why should the government give out subsidized loans for consumption to young people? If people want to have an education for the sake of an education they should stop arguing in favor of maximally inflated tuition. You want the benefits of the consumer good while paying the least amount of money for it. Meanwhile the standard narrative is that people should be allowed to get into massive unpayable debts that trap them in deadend jobs while people who focus on money end up using their freedom to do the very thing the people who got into debt claim you can only do by getting into debt.

▲

alephnerd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn't preclude minoring or double majoring - which is what plenty of my peers who were also STEM majors often did (as did I)

Concentrating on monetizable skills is critical, but most colleges give enough space for interdisciplinary electives.

▲

WalterBright 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

At Caltech, the usual was to double major with one to make money, the other for fun. The fun one was usually Astronomy, where it was well known there were no prospects for employment.

In my case the problem was there were too many fascinating engineering classes to take. I tried to pick out ones that would be of maximum benefit to my chosen career.

	▲	alephnerd 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Tbf, Caltech is also a much more self selecting student base. Plenty of my MIT friends explicitly chose MIT over Caltech because they wanted a technical education but also the freedom to deep dive in English or Political Science as well (Caltech has great faculty in the HSS, but class choice was unsurprisingly limited). That said, based on your account age, I think you studied in the 1980s to early 2000s back when programs were much less interdisciplinary. It's much easier to double major with a STEM and humanities major from the 2010s to present versus before.