I have always heard there is no such thing as a free lunch. So when the opportunity to have a free lunch with Mark Jacobs, dean of ASU's Barrett Honors College, came around, I naturally did everything I could to get myself included. And while I ate two delicious tuna sandwiches, some of the stereotypical and over-ambitious students began a discussion.
These students talked about the difficulties of landing a job with a degree in economics. From there, discussion ensued about which degrees are better than others. And it hit me -- I am never going to amount to anything.
This type of discrimination, which marginalizes "less practical" majors, is ignorant, ill bred and illegitimate. Although this is largely self-serving, I would like to take the opportunity to answer all of those engineering students who walk around with chips on their shoulders: your degree is no better than mine, and in no way does it mean you are any smarter than the rest of the student body at ASU.
A degree in the liberal arts or some other academic discipline that doesn't lead directly to the workplace is not inferior to degrees such as business or engineering.
Instead, liberal arts majors place a heavy focus on critical thinking; instead of mathematics, the focus is on strong reading comprehension and excellent writing skills. However, it appears that many think being able to read and write well is not practical for the workplace.
Apparently these people live in a world where their jobs require no interaction with humans or any language outside of algorithms and derivatives.
Take history, for example. A systematic and in-depth study of past civilizations and how they lived seems to me like a rigorous program that would challenge any student. But somewhere toward graduation, all of that studying and thinking becomes insignificant because it doesn't concentrate on how to draw up a company budget or build a frighteningly strong bridge out of toothpicks.
Or closer to my heart, take a look at philosophy majors -- whose degrees, along with a $1.50, will get them a cup of coffee. Philosophy demands that students ask tough questions about how we ought to live and what we ought to believe. Philosophical training mandates that we question what we gain from believing in God, or if we gain anything at all.
This training, representative of the liberal arts, showcases the supremacy of critical, disciplined thinking in some of life's most complicated and contentious areas.
Companies should seek out this training. Corporations need thinkers, not just doers. And if the corporate accounting scandals of 2002 show us anything, it should be that issues of ethics and morality touch every facet of life.
This discussion, where students complained about getting jobs with an economics degree because it isn't specific enough, brought out a larger truth about our society. We are more concerned about striking it rich than we are with obtaining knowledge. We're more interested in material things than we are with contemplating the abstract. We say to hell with intellectual curiosity because it won't get me that Cadillac Escalade with those spinning rims I saw on MTV last week.
The popularity of most contemporary music and television programs further illustrates the shrinking emphasis that we put on anything resembling deep, original thought. We listen to artists who are more dancers than musicians. And we watch shows like "The Apprentice," whose only moral is getting rich.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating a Platonic society ruled by philosopher kings. I don't even want power. I'm far more concerned with free lunches. All that I, and people like me, want is some respect from the rest of the academic community.
Liberal arts students, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Macy Hanson is a political science and philosophy sophomore. Reach him at macy.hanson@asu.edu
