Why the us should cut useless courses from college degrees.

[Southern Avarsarstan]

To say that abolishing the humanities will somehow cause the entrenchment of a political elite is a non-sequitur. Ironically, we see an overwhelming entrenchment of leftists in academia, meaning that your solution for defeating entrenched political elites is to submit to entrenched academic elites.

In any case, the declining quality of education means that educating people in the humanities, or most anything else, will at best have only a negligible effect on how well informed the population is. And of course, you'd be inundating students in debt with poor job prospects, thereby making them more dependent upon political elites.

Technically, learning about the tax code is objectively more valuable than the humanities. Learning how to minimize your own tax burden will probably earn you more than you'll get at Starbucks, which is pretty much all that a degree in the humanities will get you. And if you really care to study the humanities, you can log onto many online resources, such The Great Courses Online, for tiny fraction of the expense of a college education! And you'd have access to a far broader range of subject than a college can ever offer you.

Dealing with local elites will hardly be any better than dealing with the usual "top-down" college elites. And if you really want to take down college elites, just get the state to stop funding college altogether, and eventually people will begin favoring trade schools. College elites will lose their influence, meanwhile students will have actual marketable skills, better job prospects and low debts, lessening their dependence upon political elites.

College is a terrible place for such things to thrive. Safe spaces and other such impediments to free speech interfere with individual expression and critical thinking. A lack of critical thinking reduces democratic engagement to a mere popularity contest. It doesn't take a PhD to see that college is not the ideal home for arts and the humanities.

I'm sure the guy with a swastika stand-in on his flag is really concerned about democracy, individualism, and critical thought.

Good catch, I didn't even see that.

[Vetalia]

Technically, learning about the tax code is objectively more valuable than the humanities. Learning how to minimize your own tax burden will probably earn you more than you'll get at Starbucks, which is pretty much all that a degree in the humanities will get you. And if you really care to study the humanities, you can log onto many online resources, such The Great Courses Online, for tiny fraction of the expense of a college education! And you'd have access to a far broader range of subject than a college can ever offer you.

I think you underestimate just how difficult learning about the tax code is and how unlikely it is what you learn in a run-of-the-mill 1040-prep class will enable you to actually reduce your tax burden in any meaningful way beyond what buying a license for TurboTax or stopping by H&R Block will achieve. There's a reason why there's a full-blown graduate degree in the accounting field related to taxation...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Technically, learning about the tax code is objectively more valuable than the humanities. Learning how to minimize your own tax burden will probably earn you more than you'll get at Starbucks, which is pretty much all that a degree in the humanities will get you. And if you really care to study the humanities, you can log onto many online resources, such The Great Courses Online, for tiny fraction of the expense of a college education! And you'd have access to a far broader range of subject than a college can ever offer you.

I think you underestimate just how difficult learning about the tax code is and how unlikely it is what you learn in a run-of-the-mill 1040-prep class will enable you to actually reduce your tax burden in any meaningful way beyond what buying a license for TurboTax or stopping by H&R Block will achieve. There's a reason why there's a full-blown graduate degree in the accounting field related to taxation...

Not to mention that it’s ongoing. My husband and father-in-law have to devote time to continued education every year in order to stay current with taxation changes and code changes. It’s not something a mere online or one-two week course will teach.

[Vetalia]

Not to mention that it’s ongoing. My husband and father-in-law have to devote time to continued education every year in order to stay current with taxation changes and code changes. It’s not something a mere online or one-two week course will teach.

It's way worse than what I deal with as a CPA working on the audit/assurance side of the profession, it's pretty much SALY for most accounting matters. Our stuff tends to be more complicated and difficult than the tax changes when it happens but otherwise it's pretty quiet. The problem I have is that people hear I'm a CPA and immediately ask me about taxes...I have to tell them I literally have no idea what to do in regards to their returns because I haven't worked on a single tax return other than my own in over 7 years. I can audit/review/compile your financial statements and provide business consulting services but I sure as hell can't do your taxes.

I mean, technically I could do your taxes since I'm a CPA and can by default prepare and sign returns and represent you before the IRS, and I can pass the INT check to understand all of the forms, but it would be like engaging a civil attorney to handle a criminal case, or vice versa. Much better to hire me for what I'm good at and hire someone who's good at taxation to handle that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not to mention that it’s ongoing. My husband and father-in-law have to devote time to continued education every year in order to stay current with taxation changes and code changes. It’s not something a mere online or one-two week course will teach.

It's way worse than what I deal with as a CPA working on the audit/assurance side of the profession, it's pretty much SALY for most accounting matters. Our stuff tends to be more complicated and difficult than the tax changes when it happens but otherwise it's pretty quiet. The problem I have is that people hear I'm a CPA and immediately ask me about taxes...I have to tell them I literally have no idea what to do in regards to their returns because I haven't worked on a single tax return other than my own in over 7 years. I can audit/review/compile your financial statements and provide business consulting services but I sure as hell can't do your taxes.

I mean, technically I could do your taxes since I'm a CPA and can by default prepare and sign returns and represent you before the IRS, and I can pass the INT check to understand all of the forms, but it would be like engaging a civil attorney to handle a criminal case, or vice versa. Much better to hire me for what I'm good at and hire someone who's good at taxation to handle that.

Don’t worry. I understand. My husband is an Enrolled Agent and gets asked about book-keeping all the time. I think that people assume “deals with numbers so they must know about taxes or bookkeeping!” Most CPAs I know would rather not do taxes.

[Liriena]

College is a terrible place for such things to thrive. Safe spaces and other such impediments to free speech interfere with individual expression and critical thinking. A lack of critical thinking reduces democratic engagement to a mere popularity contest. It doesn't take a PhD to see that college is not the ideal home for arts and the humanities.

What are these "safe spaces"? Why do they not exclude that first year libertarian who rants in philosophy classes?

Oh what I wouldn't give for "safe spaces" where baby's first Milton Friedman is forced to shut the fuck up.

[Vetalia]

Don’t worry. I understand. My husband is an Enrolled Agent and gets asked about book-keeping all the time. I think that people assume “deals with numbers so they must know about taxes or bookkeeping!” Most CPAs I know would rather not do taxes.

What's funny is I refer people to EAs I know when they ask and they're like "but he's/she's not a CPA", not realizing that EAs are by far the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the nitty gritty of the tax code. Unless a CPA makes it clear they specialize in taxation...we as a profession don't know much more than to be dangerous. I guess on the converse it would be like asking an EA or tax CPA about FASB or GASB standards on revenue recognition and leases.

An experienced CPA or attorney in tax might be able to quite the chapter and verse of Tax Court decisions and precedent before the IRS but they'll cost you a fortune to get to the same conclusions up front that a solid EA can get you to, with much less time and paperwork in the interim.

Long story short, EAs are a godsend during an IRS audit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Don’t worry. I understand. My husband is an Enrolled Agent and gets asked about book-keeping all the time. I think that people assume “deals with numbers so they must know about taxes or bookkeeping!” Most CPAs I know would rather not do taxes.

What's funny is I refer people to EAs I know when they ask and they're like "but he's/she's not a CPA", not realizing that EAs are by far the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the nitty gritty of the tax code. Unless a CPA makes it clear they specialize in taxation...we as a profession don't know much more than to be dangerous. I guess on the converse it would be like asking an EA or tax CPA about FASB or GASB standards on revenue recognition and leases.

An experienced CPA or attorney in tax might be able to quite the chapter and verse of Tax Court decisions and precedent before the IRS but they'll cost you a fortune to get to the same conclusions up front that a solid EA can get you to, with much less time and paperwork in the interim.

Long story short, EAs are a godsend during an IRS audit.

I guess that’s because people are more familiar with CPAs than with EAs.

[Katganistan]

I should change my name to Victor so I could write history.

Hmmmm? Dangerous. What if many people hate an incident. They might look for Victor.

Hm. Immoren may have something there.... after all, 'to the victors go the spoils'.

[Kubra]

What are these "safe spaces"? Why do they not exclude that first year libertarian who rants in philosophy classes?

Oh what I wouldn't give for "safe spaces" where baby's first Milton Friedman is forced to shut the fuck up.

more safe spaces, more safe spaces!

[SD_Film Artists]

Hmmmm? Dangerous. What if many people hate an incident. They might look for Victor.

Hm. Immoren may have something there.... after all, 'to the victors go the spoils'.

Just don't be called Will or Shirley.

[Forsher]

The vast majority of it can't lol

Moreover, it's absolutely not a scientific field.

Yeah. Good historians will do their due diligence with what they've got, but there is not scientific theory or method to it.

Nah.

Scientific theory/method's basically complete nonsense.

The best you can do is say it's about inference and testing, but that's most disciplines. Including history. The difference is that it's a bit harder to test the big ideas in history than physics.

What makes history non-scientific is that it's not based on the "natural world" and consequently is able to change the questions to fit the evidence (since, usually, there's no hope of new/further evidence whereas palaeontologists always do have that hope).

It is content not methodology that separates the humanities, the social sciences and the sciences. Economics faces many of the same problems as history, but we don't try and understand scarcity by reading War and Peace. We might, however, try and understand the society that wrote War and Peace by reading it.

Ok, so imaginary people doing a bad thing. Gotchu.

You're saying that historical revisionists don't exist?

Revisionism is just another word for "new theorising".

The difference is that people will accept classical mechanics as being superseded by quantum mechanics but the idea of revising historical understanding apparently requires a new word completely.

Revisionists should be reserved for academic historians who need a short-hand to describe the arguments being advanced in the new theories. It should not be appearing in a lay forum... it has no place here.

Yeah. Good historians will do their due diligence with what they've got, but there is not scientific theory or method to it.

I mean, it's just not testable or repeatable. It relies fundamentally on the idea that there may be forms of knowledge that we have access to prior to experience (e.g. knowledge of the possible).

You strawman science to critique (possibly even criticise) history. Uncool.

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

Liriena is wrong. History isn't politics, history is narrative. Politics is also narrative.

It is not possible to present an objective history that humans can understand.

You can list a series of facts that we know are facts (for example, Sutton Hoo was a ship buried in the ground or William the Conqueror was credited with having been crowned) but the mere act of listing them imposes a narrative. A large part of that comes down to inclusion or exclusion.

You could, in principle, do an objective history but it would consist of a word cloud that has no links drawn between any facts and it would have to include literally all known historical facts. This, of course, wouldn't be history at all.

What good historians do is present defensible interpretations of the past based on available evidence. It is an exercise in narrative that should be intended to capture some nebulous goal of "the truth" and not a quest for objective reality (in large part because there is no singular reality... there is only one natural world, but there is no a priori reason to consider George W Bush's reality of 9/11 over Tony Blair's or Osama bin Laden's or, yes, someone born on 11.09.2019). Whose truth is a very troublesome question for historians. But that, and imo this is where the likes of Hayden White went/go wrong, doesn't mean giving up on truth.

[SD_Film Artists]

You're saying that historical revisionists don't exist?

Revisionism is just another word for "new theorising".

The difference is that people will accept classical mechanics as being superseded by quantum mechanics but the idea of revising historical understanding apparently requires a new word completely.

Revisionists should be reserved for academic historians who need a short-hand to describe the arguments being advanced in the new theories. It should not be appearing in a lay forum... it has no place here.

I think the important thing is the motive; if the history is being changed specifically to further a political motive. For example:

Nazi Germany faking/exaggerating historical "finds" in order to promote the idea of Aryan superiority= bad.

Teaching about the British Empire exclusively in the context of slavery and invasion to promote the idea that said things were unique to the empire and other European powers= bad.

Finding the remains of a British-owned slave ship and publicising the findings of the archeological study to help people who are interested in that area of history= good.

Recognising the fact that the British Empire invaded a lot of places= good..or at least not incorrect.

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

Liriena is wrong. History isn't politics, history is narrative. Politics is also narrative.

It is not possible to present an objective history that humans can understand.

You can list a series of facts that we know are facts (for example, Sutton Hoo was a ship buried in the ground or William the Conqueror was credited with having been crowned) but the mere act of listing them imposes a narrative. A large part of that comes down to inclusion or exclusion.

You could, in principle, do an objective history but it would consist of a word cloud that has no links drawn between any facts and it would have to include literally all known historical facts. This, of course, wouldn't be history at all.

What good historians do is present defensible interpretations of the past based on available evidence. It is an exercise in narrative that should be intended to capture some nebulous goal of "the truth" and not a quest for objective reality (in large part because there is no singular reality... there is only one natural world, but there is no a priori reason to consider George W Bush's reality of 9/11 over Tony Blair's or Osama bin Laden's or, yes, someone born on 11.09.2019). Whose truth is a very troublesome question for historians. But that, and imo this is where the likes of Hayden White went/go wrong, doesn't mean giving up on truth.

As mentioned before, I think historians and journalists can be unbiased in a general sense even if it's impossible to be 100% unbiased as the simple act of telling a narrative will require editorial decisions which will be different from the decisions of another historian even if they share the same politics. Like with sports referees; it's impossible for a referee to be 100% unbiased but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have blatantly biased referees helping their national team.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah. Good historians will do their due diligence with what they've got, but there is not scientific theory or method to it.

Nah.

Scientific theory/method's basically complete nonsense.

The best you can do is say it's about inference and testing, but that's most disciplines. Including history. The difference is that it's a bit harder to test the big ideas in history than physics.

What makes history non-scientific is that it's not based on the "natural world" and consequently is able to change the questions to fit the evidence (since, usually, there's no hope of new/further evidence whereas palaeontologists always do have that hope).

It is content not methodology that separates the humanities, the social sciences and the sciences. Economics faces many of the same problems as history, but we don't try and understand scarcity by reading War and Peace. We might, however, try and understand the society that wrote War and Peace by reading it.

You're saying that historical revisionists don't exist?

Revisionism is just another word for "new theorising".

The difference is that people will accept classical mechanics as being superseded by quantum mechanics but the idea of revising historical understanding apparently requires a new word completely.

Revisionists should be reserved for academic historians who need a short-hand to describe the arguments being advanced in the new theories. It should not be appearing in a lay forum... it has no place here.

I mean, it's just not testable or repeatable. It relies fundamentally on the idea that there may be forms of knowledge that we have access to prior to experience (e.g. knowledge of the possible).

You strawman science to critique (possibly even criticise) history. Uncool.

I'm studying history, it wasn't a critique. If anything, it was a critique of science, not history.

Also, history doesn't involve a lot of testing.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmmm? Dangerous. What if many people hate an incident. They might look for Victor.

Hm. Immoren may have something there.... after all, 'to the victors go the spoils'.

Hmmmm....goooood point......ok I am changing my name to Victor!

[Valkalan]

It will lead to a less politically adept and engaged citizenship; it will mean fewer people will have the skills to do administrative and policy work and less people will understand the systems. Instead most of this information will be much easier to control, and people will be much easier to manipulate.

Skills are acquired through work, not an education. Encouraging a college education will only mire the youth in debt, with few skills and poor job prospects. And even if college were effective at enlightening the youth and imbuing career skills, it would still be cheaper to go to a trade school and learn skills for a fraction of the expense, while having less debt, better job prospects and more cash on hand to invest in some enlightening reading material, again for a fraction of the expense! You might as well be trying to sell me $1,000 sat phone from the 1980's, when I have a modern smart phone which I bought on sale for $79.99.

It's also worth noting that automation will have effects on the sorts of jobs that will be available. There won't be as many admin jobs, since you'll be able to use technology to accomplish more with less admin staff. Therefore, it makes more sense to send people to trade schools, where they are more likely to learn about programming or robotics, which will both be key aspects of a 21st century economy.

Just as you believe that learning about the tax code is 'objectively valuable' - knowing the system of government, its powers, and history is also valuable. However, only one of these needs a full course. You should take a look at why Uzbekistan banned political science.

I agree that such knowledge is valuable, but again, given the negligible degree by which colleges have actually enlightened the public and the enormous expense of college, such courses are best left to the realm of the market. Those who take in interest in such topics can acquire relevant reading material for a fraction of the expense of a college education! Not to mention, you'd also have access to a far broader range of material and perspectives.

Should also point out that there are not 'poor job prospects' for the humanities and for art. Not to mention that learning how to write or create other forms of art allows you to...make money!

If you think the only thing you can do with a degree in arts or humanities is work as a barista I'm not sure if you understand what the humanities are.

Also learning how to file taxes and learning the legalities of the tax code is not something that needs a full course, and definitely not something that should be limited to college.

You do understand that a very large fraction of college grads, including even those who studied things outside of the humanities and art, and either unemployed or underemployed, right? Even if you did learn how to write well or achieved some modicum of artistic excellence, most employers simply won't care if you don't also have work experience and/or more valuable skills like being able to program, being able to competently trade on the stock market, or being able to understand the tax code to help the company save lots of money.

Defunding education will not do anything but further entrench elites, and devolution will not create elites - that is an extremely statist argument. Also its important to fund both university level education AND trade schools, while giving ALL schools more power at a local level to determine curriculum in tandem with their communities. Those communities know better than some fluff hundreds of miles away what is relevant to them.

You know what the best from of devolution is? How about getting the state out of education entirely! When taxpayers no longer subsidize colleges or student loans, colleges will have to figure out how make their course more affordable, and more relevant to a modern economy, to survive. Instead of a four year degree, how about paying as you go for only the specific classes that you want or need? How about colleges going for economies of scale by offering online courses to millions of potential customers, for the same price as a Netflix subscription? These are the things that happen in the market that will never happen on colleges today, because state funding removes the need for creativity and competition.

I think you have a very confused understanding of how college functions, it seems based more on memes and chan posts than reality. I doubt I can do anything about that except point it out!

Did know that an ad hominem is an admission of intellectual defeat? I think you need to spend more time learning about economics, especially the concept of opportunity costs, and then you'll understand why college is overrated and overpriced.

Not even going to respond to the 'entrenched leftists', since its long debunked conspiracy.

The only real peddlers of conspiracy theories are academics themselves, who fabricate all manner of economic pseudo-science, including the supposed exploitation of workers by capitalist oppressors, while hypocritically exploiting students with inflated tuition costs.

I think you underestimate just how difficult learning about the tax code is and how unlikely it is what you learn in a run-of-the-mill 1040-prep class will enable you to actually reduce your tax burden in any meaningful way beyond what buying a license for TurboTax or stopping by H&R Block will achieve. There's a reason why there's a full-blown graduate degree in the accounting field related to taxation...

TurboTax and H&R Block are mostly useful for those who earn income from one or a small amount of sources, in which case the tax code is relatively simple. Now imagine that you're earning income from a variety of sources, such as small businesses, the sale of real estate, and gains on the stock market. Now the tax code becomes much more complex, and a minor mistake on your tax returns can be very expensive. Now image that it isn't just you we're talking about, but a large multinational corporation, holding billions of dollars in assets in different nations. At that level, knowledge of the tax codes could save millions, perhaps even billions. Companies will pay you very handsomely for your knowledge of the tax code. That is why knowledge of the tax code is valuable, much more so than a degree in the humanities.

I'm sure the guy with a swastika stand-in on his flag is really concerned about democracy, individualism, and critical thought.

Judging me by my appearance? You are a shining paragon of enlightenment and reason. You alone are a testament to the quality of our fine school system!

[Dakini]

I'm sure the guy with a swastika stand-in on his flag is really concerned about democracy, individualism, and critical thought.

I know, right?


edit: damn broken quote tags

[Dakini]

Technically, learning about the tax code is objectively more valuable than the humanities. Learning how to minimize your own tax burden will probably earn you more than you'll get at Starbucks, which is pretty much all that a degree in the humanities will get you. And if you really care to study the humanities, you can log onto many online resources, such The Great Courses Online, for tiny fraction of the expense of a college education! And you'd have access to a far broader range of subject than a college can ever offer you.

I think you underestimate just how difficult learning about the tax code is and how unlikely it is what you learn in a run-of-the-mill 1040-prep class will enable you to actually reduce your tax burden in any meaningful way beyond what buying a license for TurboTax or stopping by H&R Block will achieve. There's a reason why there's a full-blown graduate degree in the accounting field related to taxation...

Also, the fact that filing taxes in the US is so needlessly difficult is largely due to lobbying by companies like H&R block.

[Fahran]

Skills are acquired through work, not an education.

It depends on the skills in question. I have gained quite a few skills through education and running student organizations, probably a good deal more than in my job as a server. With regard to my future profession, education at an appropriate institution is a prerequisite. Trust me, you don't want me operating on your spine as on-the-job training with no formal education preceding it.

Encouraging a college education will only mire the youth in debt, with few skills and poor job prospects. And even if college were effective at enlightening the youth and imbuing career skills, it would still be cheaper to go to a trade school and learn skills for a fraction of the expense, while having less debt, better job prospects and more cash on hand to invest in some enlightening reading material, again for a fraction of the expense! You might as well be trying to sell me $1,000 sat phone from the 1980's, when I have a modern smart phone which I bought on sale for $79.99.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. We do need more people attending trade schools, certainly, and they do have a lot of social value, but you're dramatically downplaying the importance of degrees that impart broad skill sets related to critical thinking and research. A university education is still needed to give us the doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, and engineers we need. And, beyond that, education isn't exclusively about employment.

It's also worth noting that automation will have effects on the sorts of jobs that will be available. There won't be as many admin jobs, since you'll be able to use technology to accomplish more with less admin staff. Therefore, it makes more sense to send people to trade schools, where they are more likely to learn about programming or robotics, which will both be key aspects of a 21st century economy.

Is this another "learn to code" moment? I'm a hundred percent certain you cannot replace engineers, historians, accountants, biochemists, philosophers, and astrophysicists with robots that do not possess extremely advanced AI and the emergent properties that comprise sapience.

I agree that such knowledge is valuable, but again, given the negligible degree by which colleges have actually enlightened the public and the enormous expense of college, such courses are best left to the realm of the market.

This implies universities are separate from the market. Beyond that, education has been essential to enlightening the public, enriching our culture, and growing our economy.

Those who take in interest in such topics can acquire relevant reading material for a fraction of the expense of a college education! Not to mention, you'd also have access to a far broader range of material and perspectives.

Lectures and engagement in the Great Discourse amount to more than reading books. Universities train you in paradigms, critical analysis, communication, etc. You can tell the difference between a university-educated philosopher and a person who simply reads philosophy in most circumstances.

You do understand that a very large fraction of college grads, including even those who studied things outside of the humanities and art, and either unemployed or underemployed, right? Even if you did learn how to write well or achieved some modicum of artistic excellence, most employers simply won't care if you don't also have work experience and/or more valuable skills like being able to program, being able to competently trade on the stock market, or being able to understand the tax code to help the company save lots of money.

Companies and our present culture have perverted incentives to an extreme degree. A lot of jobs will demand a college degree, a high GPA, prior work experience, and a wide array of other competencies because of the disconnect between managers and the workforce, the unnecessary premium placed on certifications, and the decline in genuine on-the-job training. We're living in a buyers' market for labor and prior generations have largely been dishonest about what they want from us. Most of the skills you're mentioning don't even require trade school experience to achieve basic competence. And the one's you do mention can all be taught at colleges. Business majors, who learn all of those skills aside from coding, are very often underemployed. In short, it's a lot more complicated than you're suggesting. My biochem degree and premed focus are likely to serve me better than the guy who took business law and intermediate finance classes, supposing I can get into med school.

You know what the best from of devolution is? How about getting the state out of education entirely! When taxpayers no longer subsidize colleges or student loans, colleges will have to figure out how make their course more affordable, and more relevant to a modern economy, to survive. Instead of a four year degree, how about paying as you go for only the specific classes that you want or need? How about colleges going for economies of scale by offering online courses to millions of potential customers, for the same price as a Netflix subscription? These are the things that happen in the market that will never happen on colleges today, because state funding removes the need for creativity and competition.

Netflix isn't doing so hot at the moment. And the issue is certification. Companies allegedly want people who can code, trade stocks and do financial analysis, and write guides and booklets and manuals, but they don't want to pay the premium associated with those certifications and degrees and don't have to because the labor market has provided an abundance of certifications and degrees to them.

[/spoiler]Did know that an ad hominem is an admission of intellectual defeat? I think you need to spend more time learning about economics, especially the concept of opportunity costs, and then you'll understand why college is overrated and overpriced.

Economics is probably one of the majors you're talking about honestly.

The only real peddlers of conspiracy theories are academics themselves, who fabricate all manner of economic pseudo-science, including the supposed exploitation of workers by capitalist oppressors, while hypocritically exploiting students with inflated tuition costs.

Because all academics are Marxists? You literally rely on university-educated people for very basic amenities on a daily basis.

TurboTax and H&R Block are mostly useful for those who earn income from one or a small amount of sources, in which case the tax code is relatively simple. Now imagine that you're earning income from a variety of sources, such as small businesses, the sale of real estate, and gains on the stock market. Now the tax code becomes much more complex, and a minor mistake on your tax returns can be very expensive. Now image that it isn't just you we're talking about, but a large multinational corporation, holding billions of dollars in assets in different nations. At that level, knowledge of the tax codes could save millions, perhaps even billions. Companies will pay you very handsomely for your knowledge of the tax code. That is why knowledge of the tax code is valuable, much more so than a degree in the humanities.

If everyone becomes an accountant, we'll devalue accountants in the labor market as well. Because, again, the market and education are a lot more complex and nuanced than your descriptions of them imply.

Judging me by my appearance? You are a shining paragon of enlightenment and reason. You alone are a testament to the quality of our fine school system!

Can we not?

[Kubra]

Yo how did you guys do in workers exploitation 302 midterm?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

What’s useless to one person could be useful to another, so cut nothing.

[Vetalia]

TurboTax and H&R Block are mostly useful for those who earn income from one or a small amount of sources, in which case the tax code is relatively simple. Now imagine that you're earning income from a variety of sources, such as small businesses, the sale of real estate, and gains on the stock market. Now the tax code becomes much more complex, and a minor mistake on your tax returns can be very expensive. Now image that it isn't just you we're talking about, but a large multinational corporation, holding billions of dollars in assets in different nations. At that level, knowledge of the tax codes could save millions, perhaps even billions. Companies will pay you very handsomely for your knowledge of the tax code. That is why knowledge of the tax code is valuable, much more so than a degree in the humanities.

That's exactly my point; a handful of courses in tax preparation taken as an elective in lieu of, say, humanities courses, aren't going to give you anywhere near the level of knowledge necessary to achieve what you are describing. Companies that pay that kind of money do so for people with degrees in law or accounting and generally only hire experienced professionals who are CPAs, EAs or attorneys (all of which require extensive additional education and training beyond a regular college degree). The value of the degree comes from supply and demand; if everyone could become a tax pro with a couple of courses, or if the US scrapped its Byzantine code in favor of a very simple version, the value of this knowledge would plummet and become virtually worthless.

On the other hand, being exposed to different fields of study broadens your knowledge base, develops interests and lets you interact with different personalities and people with different backgrounds.

And who knows, you might end up liking one of those other fields more and pursue that instead. Money isn't the only factor in the value of an education or career choice, just like the rest of life.

[Fahran]

Yo how did you guys do in workers exploitation 302 midterm?

I feel confident that I can exploit the industrial proletariat like a pro after university with the skills and knowledge I have gained in this course.

[Forsher]

Revisionism is just another word for "new theorising".

The difference is that people will accept classical mechanics as being superseded by quantum mechanics but the idea of revising historical understanding apparently requires a new word completely.

Revisionists should be reserved for academic historians who need a short-hand to describe the arguments being advanced in the new theories. It should not be appearing in a lay forum... it has no place here.

I think the important thing is the motive; if the history is being changed specifically to further a political motive. For example:

Nah.

For example, let's look at history from below. It's hard not to see its position as being explicitly political. Does that make an account of, say, the French Revolution from below "bad" revisionism? No, not at all. Even if it's a causal account instead of just exploring what the French Revolution means to poor rural French Village #328.

Revisionism as a term quite simply has no place in popular thinking about history.

As mentioned before, I think historians and journalists can be unbiased in a general sense even if it's impossible to be 100% unbiased as the simple act of telling a narrative will require editorial decisions which will be different from the decisions of another historian even if they share the same politics. Like with sports referees; it's impossible for a referee to be 100% unbiased but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have blatantly biased referees helping their national team.

Bias is a binary... something either is or isn't biased.

Presenting Argentina as having a valid claim to the Falklands, for example, just isn't history. There's no reasonable basis to make that claim. Talking about how Argentina uses arguments rooted in history to claim the Falklands is history. What differentiates the two activities is that one is defensible based on the evidence and the other isn't. It's not a matter of what is and isn't biased but instead of what is and isn't academic. History is academic. As a lecturer once put it... history without footnotes, isn't history.

I'm studying history, it wasn't a critique.

The one has nothing to do with the other. Look up a poster called Yootwopia. Or, of course,the likes of Hayden White. Unfortunately Yoot was DoS'd before I'd ever heard of White and co. but I imagine Yoot was one of the "and co." when it comes to the philosophy.

If anything, it was a critique of science, not history.

Then you wrote it the wrong way round. What you wrote is "here is this good thing that science does and history doesn't do".

Also, history doesn't involve a lot of testing.

Testing means nothing more than comparing an idea to a reality.

Historians usually think of their task as being more inferential which means taking reality and developing ideas that fit it. There's no predictive component to it... no sense of "okay, this inference implies that X will follow and, lo, X followed" which is a classic "test"... but there is a lot of "hmm, I've got this new idea, let's see what happens when I subject the evidence to it".

Similarly, you might take a dispute. For a simple one... functionalist/structuralist vs intentionalist accounts of the Holocaust. Each "side" can be seen as a theory and when they argue with each other... rebutting points... what they're actually doing is "testing". They'll go, "Look at this and this and this" and then they'll say "the better inference is..." which is a test.

[Kubra]

Yo how did you guys do in workers exploitation 302 midterm?

I feel confident that I can exploit the industrial proletariat like a pro after university with the skills and knowledge I have gained in this course.

whoa there don't be overconfident, we still have our field placement starting next month.