Hey Veeky Forums

>EECS
What's the difference between that and CE ?

If you don't mind me asking, what was your college like? Did you at least get a quality education, also how much is your debt?

STEM is aways the way to go, not only it will give you intelectual status, because STEM majors actually needs the students to conquer difficult concepts in math, physics, biology and chemistry, but will give you a honorable job and money, enough money so you can mold your own liberal formation, only choosing to read the best and being free from the leftist view that plagues modern academics

If everyone majors in stem then there would be no leaves. Think about it.

Depends, where do you live?

America, where your literature degree will put you in debt and largely consist of being taught how evil white men are and how you need to get cucked while reading Toni Morrison, or Europe, where education is free to promote an educated society (no trump/clinton situations) and where you'll be immersed in an ancient cultural tradition?

I have four degrees from four different places, and my total debt is around 40k. The education overall was quite good, aside from art college, which was a waste of my time and brain cells (BFA minor in art history: I'm allergic to useful degrees). Given my pay as a permanent part-time adjunct prof, I should have the loans paid off a century or so after I die.

but I'm spic in spicland.

It doesn't fucking matter.

I majored in creative writing and minored in humanities. You know what I'm doing now? I work in technology as a database administrator (making bank) and writing short stories at night that get published in anthologies and a few print magazines (archaic, right?).

If you know exactly what you want to do and have a career path planned out, then dive into STEM or whatever.

t. smug STEMfag or delusional self depreciating humanities major, I can't tell which, both of them cram these bizarre fantasies into their heads.

Don't listen to these STEMfags. They're spastics. And I wouldn't say STEM subjects are always easier than humanities subjects. Some STEM subjects are dead fucking easy, and there's usually a right answer. STEMfags always just have to justify the fact they study something their parents wanted them to rather than something they can tolerate.

If you want to study humanities and be poor, do it. Don't think of your degree as anything other than buying into a lifestyle. If you study humanities, you'll gain some skills, if you put in the effort. Namely, you'll gain the ability to make arguments, evaluate arguments, read critically and thoughtfully, evaluate social texts and assumptions critically, and write well with clarity and with a good use of rhetoric. This very much depends on your school though. Most humanities subjects are easy to pass in, but far more difficult to excel in than a lot of subjects. They often have very very high reading loads, meaning that if you want to do well, you'll be reading pretty much constantly.

Don't buy into the meme that people completely don't value humanities at all for employment. It really depends on what field you want to enter, how well you did at your tertiary institution, and your overall passion.

If you want to live a life talking about books with bookish people, then why wouldn't you want to study literature and/or philosophy? Just keep in mind that you might not land the type of job that allows you to buy new cars all the time, have a modern pre-fab house to call your very own, and take various vacations throughout the year, like some STEMfags might get.

But then again, you might still get a job like that, even with a degree in a humanities subject.

I majored in English and minored in philosophy after deciding I hated law school. I've taken both science and humanities subjects (and contrary to what the STEMfags are saying, the science subjects are easier, mainly because you just have to show up and listen and do minimal study outside class.)

I'm in my final, fourth year. I don't have any regrets. I've always been poor. I grew up working class and poor with a single mother, and honest, being poor doesn't bother me that much.

You're not exactly selling it here.

One thing I learned about the humanities from college is that I can cheerfully learn as much about them as I want from open courses and the teaching company, but i sure as fuck cant get job training.

If you are a eurofag and denmark will pay for you to sip coffee and be NEET, go for it.

No american should be going for a history major or lit major at this point unless as says, you double major.

lol. being rich is way better than being poor.

t. previously poor person

...

In America you are at liberty to study history, lit, classics, etc. if:

1. You know for a fact you wish to do law (this is no longer a safe bet in the shit market we're in)
2. You know for a fact that you wish to teach.
3. You have social connections that can place you in a job.
4. You go to the sort of school that recruits heavily for IB/MBB/etc.
5. You don't give a fuck and you plan on figuring something out.

>. You have social connections that can place you in a job.
This is the only one I appreciate. If your dad is grooming you to run a huge company, read books and drink for 4 years and take some accounting courses.

>STEMfags are saying, the science subjects are easier, mainly because you just have to show up and listen and do minimal study outside class.)

try math you black shit :)

What is it that makes some people succeed professionally in academia and others not? Surely your entire phd cohort aren't part time adjunct profs. Why are they tenured and working full time and you aren't? Did they kiss more ass? Did they write a better thesis? Did they focus in critical theory while you focused on poetry, genre fiction, or travel narratives?

I'm thinking of going into an English graduate program, and am genuinely curious as to why some people succeed after they get the degree while others don't fare very well.

It's the market dingus.

# of PhDs minted (in thousands) ~ PP(54 / yr)

There are currently 1.54 million professors. Let's assume they're all about 32, and will retire at say 67.

So 1.54 million/35 = .044 million professors per year, or 44 (in thousands).

What is P(# PhDs minted

Because every tenure-track position I've applied to had at least 100 qualified applicants, and sometimes 300. That means they can pick precisely what they want, in terms of age, specific publications, secondary specialties, etc. It's not even as simple as the best guy gets the job: it's a matter of what their department thinks would be most useful given their ongoing research and courses. The odds are idiotic.

That would only be true if each TT position was being replaced when a prof retired. But the opposite is true: departments are quietly eliminating them whenever they can, so the percentage of FT faculty is dropping like a rock, and they rely on adjuncts like me to do much of the teaching: half the pay, no security, no complaints about the courses we get (who would dare? They'd just stop giving you courses). In a decade the number of tenure-track positions in most departments will be tiny. Even having adjuncts slave for them isn't good enough: my course sizes have tripled to 150 students in the past six years, and that's not good for anyone, especially the students paying high tuition.

Yeah, I think my dingy number is a best-case scenario.

Yours is the nuanced case, and it sounds even worse.

I had to make the tough decision myself in college, between Lit and History, I chose history because you gain a solid foundation of contextualizing fiction, and I felt i gained more appreciation from reading fiction.

where my puto?

Fuck no. I have a music performance degree in. Got out of college and found out we're not in the 16th fucking century anymore and nobody needs a court jester. I'm back in school now for programming.

Study as much literature as you can on your own time, but the job market is shit and getting shittier. Do literally anything STEM.