Exactly. Success in other areas often relies on luck, talent and connections. When you’re 21 and making what seems to be the most important decision in your life, it’s way too easy to fall into a field where you’re being recruited: law schools want students with good grades, so do Wall Street and consulting firms.

As you note, they make it way too easy.

Any old degree can get you jobs with a “BA required”. Liberal arts, on the other hand, are pursued mostly because they’re fun and interesting. For many people, it is a chance to explore and learn about topics that will keep interesting them, but that they won’t be able to explore in the same environment once leaving college. And I think this is actually a positive thing, even if as a parent, the prospect of spending a fortune on a life-changing but ultimately non-profitable experience is somewhat frustrating. On the other hand, I think there are too many people who just fall into the liberal arts by default because they can’t do math and science. I was a sociology major, but I read more than most of my English major friends.

But I think the transition-to-career system needs some improving. A lot of people from my institution (also UChicago) went to law school because finding a good job right out of college is just pretty hard. Why did (and still do) so many people go to wall street or consulting? Because these jobs are easy to find—companies make an active effort to come to colleges and recruit graduates. Teach for America is successful in part because it simplifies the application process dramatically—rather than finding schools and applying for who-knows-what teaching job, having to write a cover letter and do research on each one, you can just apply to TFA (and you don’t need an education degree either). For students who know the right people, are good at building connections, or happen upon the right job, finding something may not be too hard. But for others, it can be a daunting process that is quickly abandoned for the safer and surer route of grad/professional school.

That makes a lot of sense to me, especially if “college degree” is specified instead of “some college experience.”

On the other hand, I remember looking at the list of graduating seniors each year and observing such a stark gulf separating those who were accepted at a college and those who weren’t. Either “accepted to a college” is the new “competent enough to merit a diploma,” or “competent enough to merit a diploma” never meant very much.

And how does one indicate “we want applicants who have demonstrated a willingness to learn whatever authority figures intend to teach them and to participate in a system of interaction constructed by authorities,” if not by requiring some proof of performance?

I dunno. The funny part was that “human relations” is a euphemism for human sexuality. Granted, there are many excellent courses in human sexuality offered at university, exploring gender roles et cetera, though these courses probably wouldn’t go by a euphemistic name. But the reason the phrase is funny in context, is because it inspires one to think of a priggish male law firm manager taking a course in “human relations” so that he can learn to smooth-talk his hawt secretary into bed, or some such priggish thing. Oh boy is he going to be disappointed when he sees the syllabus.

(Like any amusement, it’s not giggle-inducing once explained. Sorry.)

Anyway, I for one have appreciated the chance to your thoughts here at CT, and of course I’m glad to hear this momentary amusement at bianca’s observation hasn’t discouraged you (as a bit of a thin-skinned person myself, as Henri recently excoriated me for, I’m preoccupied with not stressing out other people). :-)

What this means is that HR consultants tell employers that, if they can afford to do so, they can lessen the risk of suit by requiring degrees, even if a diploma plus two years of work experience would attact equally qualified employees. And many employers follow this advice because discrimination law suits can be expensive and bad publicity.

So the college degree becomes the entry level requirement for many white collar jobs. We then get statistics that show that people with college degrees earn more money than those without, and interpret them to mean that the education confers greater productivity, when a more likely explanation is that the credential is an arbitrary threshold into the world of white-collar work.

And yes, so far, disparate impact survives Ricci. Justice Scalia would like to destroy it, but this has not yet happened.

Second paragraph should read:

Because for the last 20 years or so (until Sept ‘08) Wall Street’s been hiring liberal arts grads and luring them with far more money than Big Law ever did. To the point where BigLaw partners were pretty pissed about the low quality of the students they were seeing from the top law schools.

(correction in italics)

Because for the last 20 years or so (until Sept ‘08) Wall Street’s been hiring liberal arts grads and luring them with far more money than Wall Street ever did. To the point where BigLaw partners were pretty pissed about the low quality of the students they were seeing from the top law schools.

Even more pissed that they were losing the better ones to Wall Street too- lots of Wall Street firms raided Stanford, Harvard, Yale Law, etc. Silicon Valley too.

I went to law school before all that. And you’re all sort of dancing around the reason law school is so appealing: if you’re 22, earning your fortune in the industries that actually pay liberal arts grads good money* seems like a crap shoot. Silicon Valley (and not just as engineers- plenty of marketing types), advertising, Hollywood, the music industry—all the so-called “glamor industries” – reward people with history degrees pretty handsomely. But it’s not guaranteed. It’s a crap shoot and you actually have to have some talent. Not to mention be willing to start out as an assistant making $25K/year. Which usually means parents willing to help support you those first couple of years. And truth is, most upper middle class parents will gladly pay law school tuition for their precious Ivy grad. Paying for him or her to spend two years in LA working in the mailroom at William Morris? That’s not that easy a proposition.
So it’s off to law school.
And then- this is another point you all missed- junior comes out and scores a gig with Cravath. Which means he’s 25 and pulling in $150K/year. Which means he’s got a sick one-bedroom apartment in a fancy high rise building with a gym and swimming pool somewhere near Central Park. A share house out in the Hamptons. Buys his clothes at Barneys. And still has enough left over for vacations in Europe and the Caribbean.
Now you show me the 25 year old who, after living that large for a year or two says “hey, you know, this lawyer thing sucks. I’m going to pursue my dream and be a teacher. I’ll make $40K/year, live in a walk-up in Brooklyn and shop at Old Navy.”

Ain’t going to happen.

Maybe for a few, but for most, giving up that kind of lifestyle isn’t a reality.

So the moral here is keep asking questions Professor Harry. Maybe you’ll dissuade a kid or two from making the leap. Maybe you won’t.

But at least you’ll have tried.

*read up on this Anon and Bloix

Bianca Steele – I’m not saying that you’d want in your wildest dreams to take a human resources course, either for you or anyone you care about. I’m saying that if a person’s ambition is to be an insurance salesman or a paralegal, they might be just the person for those courses.

On one college visit, my son and I were taken on the tour by a young biology major whose career goal was to become a pharmaceutical salesperson. Ohh-kayy. We crossed that school off the list. But the job she wants exists. Just because I think she’ll be doing evil and destroying her brain while she’s at it doesn’ t mean that there’s no proper educational path for her to achieve it.

{But I’m worried Bloix might take offense at an extended discussion of this, so I’ll withdraw from further conversation about it—Bloix, no offense intended, and I do feel you have been making a solid and reasonable point, though we disagree around the margins.}

Of course, I think Bloix meant business administration courses on the topic of human resources administration, or some such thing—or maybe Bloix meant sociology courses—?—but I am now imagining a New Yorker type cartoon of a frat boy leaving the classroom and complaining, “I thought this was a course in human relations, but all we’re learning about is how people talk to each other!”

You’re kidding, right? Please tell me you’re kidding at least about the human relations coursework.