Experience in resume...

I don't believe you have a degree yourself or any experience working in a situation where they are required - at all. You're simply spouting off bullshit.

Tell us - what is your personal experience in this area? Where did you earn your degree and how has it helped you be more valuable than others who have what you consider to be 'lesser' degrees? Be specific.

I knew I shouldn't have even bothered responding to the first post, as those who can't take the time to write properly certainly have no credibility when it comes to criticizing those who are trained to do so.

Cycloptichorn

You mean the "market" demands less queens and more pawn´s, is it that ?
Meaning, there will be always far less generals then soldiers...so what ?
What does that says about usefulness ? You mean making money ?
"Real players" in Liberal Arts, are not those who flood the market after the major´s degree, but that small minority who actually is capable of management...no lack of opportunities for those...so your comparison is not only flawed but linear in scope...

I think the idea of throwing experience into some education section is, well, kinda silly. Education, in a resume = college, classes or the like. Experience = work, including volunteer work. A resume is a formal, stylized document. Putting education into the experience section or vice verse doesn't do much except to not get the jobseeker a job. It's a formal document, like a legal brief. It has to be put together in a fairly specific manner (although there is room for variations). But the bottom line is, talking about any of this in the context of a resume is not exactly valid but that's because of the actual requirements of that particular species of document.

Now for the dissing of Liberal Arts majors.

There are people who graduate from college unprepared for the world. I dated a guy who got his degree in mechanical engineering, an eminently practical degree. He sells insurance now (we graduated college in '83 -- we are far from right outta school).

Another went to Law School with me. He works in a dairy (in all fairness to the people in the dairy industry, the dude never passed the Bar).

I did pass the Bar. I work in IT.

One of my former bosses has her PhD in Linguistics. Interesting but impractical, you might say. Yet she has been a manager for over a decade and no, she doesn't have an MBA. Yet she has weathered recessions -- including this one -- without batting an eye.

What is practical? What is useful under the standards?

Computer Science? Languages and programs change by the week. Engineering? In the 70s, engineers with great and wonderful educations in tubes were suddenly made obsolete when transistors came on the scene. Unless they adapted, they died out.

How 'bout degrees in things like English? In most of the jobs I've had (and yes, I mean the IT ones and, actually, I mean those even more), the ability to express oneself coherently on paper is extremely important. More so, often, than any computer class that one may have taken, for a lot of people learn coding. It's not every day that there is a coder who can actually write a coherent and compelling memorandum or other document without it being overly technical or written in marketspeak. I can do that. Most of my computer science colleagues could not.

Who's got the practical major now?

You are are getting personal, but I will entertain you. I have a joint degree in BS and MS in mathematics from UCLA ( which the last time i check, rank top 1 or 2 in my my major for the entire US). I have worked is a software development, Finance analysis, and am currently an actuary, & consultant. Now, may I ask what you do?

You don 't want to talk to me, because I don 't write properly? Is this right? For some of us, our fours years are done solving problems, and not partying, moron. This shows the limit of your skill set. To you, skills amount to only writing. I actually have to solve math problems.

Liberal argue degrees do in fact have low market value. No one really major in it because they want to make a living.

....
You work in IT? You ought to know that the people in the field are constantly learning. It is a perpetual struggle to keep up. You graduated in 1980 ' s, but how true is it in 2011? You mention a guy with a phd in linguistic, but not many people will go on to get a phd in the field. Some people will automatically get a job, because getting a phd indicate to people that they are smart.

Math problems are the easiest part of my job.

You don 't want to talk to me, because I don 't write properly? Is this right? For some of us, our fours years are done solving problems, and not partying, moron. This shows the limit of your skill set. To you, skills amount to only writing. I actually have to solve math problems.

analytical and communication skills that stem from that period have served me well - the ability to analyze data and manipulate data isn't useful if you're unable to properly present the results, convince coworkers, superiors and clients to take a certain course of action, or build bonds of trust and respect in a pressure-intensive workplace.

You are making false assumptions in this paragraph, and it doesn't serve you well.

I majored in History because I really enjoyed it and thought I would learn something. I did enjoy it and I did learn a lot - not just what happened, but the process of History itself and how to best discuss it with others. I chose something I enjoyed, because my life isn't dedicated to earning the highest possible return. I'm now super-happy I did and it has worked out great for me and my family. People I know who focused on which degree would be the most profitable aren't so happy and have had a harder road of it. I don't regret my decision in the slightest.

You started off this thread with an inflammatory attack towards people who you really don't know **** about. Why do you have such a poor opinion of people who took different degrees than you? Because we achieve success and you feel our road was easier, and it's not fair? Because you feel that your skill-set somehow makes you superior? Is one of us your boss now? That does tend to happen, yaknow.

I submit that you in fact know very little about the market and what it rewards - especially over time. Jespah is totally correct; as the years go by, one's education section becomes two lines on the resume. The fact that you seem really confused by this doesn't fill me with confidence regarding your opinion of others' skills and utility in the workplace.

I am not gonna tell you that there is no one out there with a useless degree. Lots of folks, I am sure, have 'em. But there are plenty of people with similar or even the same degrees who have rather effectively made something of themselves. Let's not throw them all into the same bin.

You can look some of the most profitable companies, and you notice that a lot of the founders, and CEOs got their degrees in math, physics, or engineering. They get the "management skills" they need in their MBA.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Math problems are the easiest part of my job.

What math do you use? Are you familiar with prove? Say can you be able to prove to me to me that some problems are NP-complete? Can you tell me something about mathematical models you use? What about risk management? What would be the risk of an insurance company with N people with each have a mean of mu, and variance of s^2 ?

Quote:

Quote:

You don 't want to talk to me, because I don 't write properly? Is this right? For some of us, our fours years are done solving problems, and not partying, moron. This shows the limit of your skill set. To you, skills amount to only writing. I actually have to solve math problems.

Quote:

analytical and communication skills that stem from that period have served me well - the ability to analyze data and manipulate data isn't useful if you're unable to properly present the results, convince coworkers, superiors and clients to take a certain course of action, or build bonds of trust and respect in a pressure-intensive workplace.

I don't see how your education match with what you do. How do you do statistical analysis without knowing probability, or statistics? In college, I focus all my energy to pure mathematics, but it is only latter that I pick up the probability, since those actuary exams are known to be quite difficult. It is not an easy thing.

Quote:

You are making false assumptions in this paragraph, and it doesn't serve you well.

No, it seems pretty clear to anyone that to you, your "skills" is writing, right?
If not, I am interesting in hearing what I am missing.

Quote:

I majored in History because I really enjoyed it and thought I would learn something. I did enjoy it and I did learn a lot - not just what happened, but the process of History itself and how to best discuss it with others. I chose something I enjoyed, because my life isn't dedicated to earning the highest possible return. I'm now super-happy I did and it has worked out great for me and my family. People I know who focused on which degree would be the most profitable aren't so happy and have had a harder road of it. I don't regret my decision in the slightest.

This is nice to know, but relevant to the issue.

The issue is the marketability of a liberal arts degree. It is just not marketable. It is a fact supported by observation, and data.

Quote:

You started off this thread with an inflammatory attack towards people who you really don't know **** about. Why do you have such a poor opinion of people who took different degrees than you? Because we achieve success and you feel our road was easier, and it's not fair? Because you feel that your skill-set somehow makes you superior? Is one of us your boss now? That does tend to happen, yaknow.

I am sure it is possible, but not very likely. You can look some of the most profitable companies, and you notice that a lot of the founders, and CEOs got their degrees in math, physics, or engineering. They get the "management skills" they need in their MBA. It is more likely that those people LA work at your local Starbuck.

Quote:

I submit that you in fact know very little about the market and what it rewards - especially over time. Jespah is totally correct; as the years go by, one's education section becomes two lines on the resume. The fact that you seem really confused by this doesn't fill me with confidence regarding your opinion of others' skills and utility in the workplace.

I am confused? I think education is an no going process, and it definitely goes beyond that 4 years.

jespah wrote:

I am not gonna tell you that there is no one out there with a useless degree. Lots of folks, I am sure, have 'em. But there are plenty of people with similar or even the same degrees who have rather effectively made something of themselves. Let's not throw them all into the same bin.

I not sure why you use the few that "made it" as representing that majority that don 't. A lot of people want to be actors/actresses, and want to make it big in Hollywood, but most don 't live up to their expectation. A more balance picture ought to reflect the majority of people, and not the minority of people.

I not sure why you use the few that "made it" as representing that majority that don 't. A lot of people want to be actors/actresses, and want to make it big in Hollywood, but most don 't live up to their expectation. A more balance picture ought to reflect the majority of people, and not the minority of people.

My BA is in Philosophy. I have never gotten a job as a Philosopher. That would mean it's useless, yes? But I got into Law School with it. So it's useful, right?

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You can look some of the most profitable companies, and you notice that a lot of the founders, and CEOs got their degrees in math, physics, or engineering. They get the "management skills" they need in their MBA.

A lot of founders, and CEO's, of hugely profitable companies have no degrees. <shrug>

Formal education can play a part in the success of some people.

Some people with degrees don't do well at all when they leave academia.

Good personal/psychological fit has become increasingly important when assessing potential employees.

Emotional intelligence, experience and education (formal or on-the-job) are all valued by employers.

That is true if you know people inside the profession and it helps that the professional is not too technical. It also has to do with the time. If you look at some of the richest people in the world, some of them tend to be old, and in professions like retail. The world these old rich people earn their fortune is quite a different world from the one we have now. In the past, it is easy to break into any profession with a whatever degree, but now, with global competition, and specialization, it is much harder. Case in point is that all the recent icon companies are from founders with ivy league education in math, physics, or engineering.

I'm not an actuary - I work on the financial end. I don't use mathematical models on any regular basis.

You seem to be confusing my job with your job. Not sure why. I'm not in a pissing contest with you re: math skills.

I know what you do isn't an easy thing. But you assume what others do IS easy. That's an error. Communication isn't easy, which is why so many people are bad at it.

It's pretty clear that 'your skills' isn't writing

I run several aspects of the financial organization for the company I work for, including a large amount of forecasting and planning. There's less math and formulas than there is situational analysis and marketplace knowledge.

You're incorrect. The fact that other professions out of college earn a higher starting salary has nothing to do with the marketability of LA degrees. And in fact, I think that you'll find many more people in business who have LA degrees than any other - because knowing one skillset in-depth, while useful, doesn't make one a well-rounded employee.

This is just an assertion on your part which you made up. You aren't looking at a data set to generate this opinion; just spouting off.

Not only that, but you didn't answer the question: why the negative opinion? Why such an inflated self-opinion?

You certainly sound confused about the difference between education and experience on a resume, and what items should go where.

Or maybe it's just your poor writing that makes you look confused.

As I said earlier - your lack of command or care in language skills sort of invalidates your weak attempts to put down others who you consider to have 'lesser' degrees.

This is boring, I've made my point in this thread. I won't bother to respond any further unless you have something interesting to add.

Check this out: http://www.lssaa.wisc.edu/careers/employers/documents/WhyHireaLiberalArtsmajorNEWDoc.pdf

You make some weak assumptions here. Experience is important, whether it is experience in the field or something like traveling in Latin America for a year practicing the language and appreciating the varied cultures. I put that on my last resume and people took notice. My current employer asked about it in my interview, and it gave me a chance to share something of myself while revealing my skill with the language and my affection for culturas latinas. In a town that is over half hispanic, and myself being bald and white, I think that experience in Latin America got me the job more or at least as much as my degrees or prior work experience. It depends on what kind of job you're looking for, too.

Most liberal arts majors have mastered the basics of grammar and punctuation, by the way, which is more than I can say about you. If English is not your first language I will give you a pass, though.

My humanities degree got me a job at a paralegal firm, and that job paid for my next degree... Besides, I think my first B.A. was worth it job or not. Regardless, I've never had difficulty finding work and I don't think any of my employers have considered me "pretty damn useless."

TuringEquivalent wrote:

jespah wrote:

I am not gonna tell you that there is no one out there with a useless degree. Lots of folks, I am sure, have 'em. But there are plenty of people with similar or even the same degrees who have rather effectively made something of themselves. Let's not throw them all into the same bin.

I not sure why you use the few that "made it" as representing that majority that don 't. A lot of people want to be actors/actresses, and want to make it big in Hollywood, but most don 't live up to their expectation. A more balance picture ought to reflect the majority of people, and not the minority of people.

It is actually not hard to define useful. I say a set of education, skill set , and experiences are useful if you can get a higher relative income to the rest of the population. The "value" of anything is determined by the market at a particular point in time. Suppose, you are old, and have very little experience, then you have a low market value in the labor market. Suppose you are really old( 100 years old), then you have a near zero market value.

I understand my thinking can be cold, and heartless. Some people like fanciful thinking, because it is comforting. I am not like that.