What can I do with my political science (read: liberal arts) major?

Recently, I was perusing through the Rutgers political science website and came upon this long discourse:

(http://www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergraduate-mainmenu-135/what-can-i-do-with-polisci-mainmenu-157)

Let me save you some time and highlight parts of it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NOBODY CARES WHAT YOUR MAJOR IS EXCEPT YOU (AND YOUR PARENTS)"

"All the evidence we have suggests that, after you leave Rutgers, practically no one will care what you majored in. Potential employers will want to know whether you have the necessary abilities and skills to do whatever job they want done. A knowledge of French, say, may be required for the job, but the question will be how good your French is, not how many courses you took in it or what grades you got. Even graduate schools don't care much; one Political Science teacher in this department majored in physics, for example."

"What's going on here? Why does your major have so little connection to your occupation? The reason is quite simple. We won't let you specialize much in liberal arts education; to put it crudely, you won't learn enough in your major field to get hired just because of that knowledge. If you major in economics, for example, you're not an economist; you're someone with a bachelors degree who took some courses in economics. (If you want to become an economist, you'll have to do like your teachers and spend seven to ten years living economics twenty-four hours a day. However, since you are a sane person, you probably have better sense. If not, graduate school awaits.)"

"College graduates have relatively little specialized knowledge. Instead they (hopefully) have the critical skills of reading, writing, analysis, and open minds. Employers aren't fools (mostly); they don't expect Ph.D. knowledge from a B.A. If they hire a college graduate, they want someone who can learn and do things, which will help them. By and large, they couldn't care less that your major was. (The one exception comes in your first job, if you show them a record where the only thing of note is your major. So the trick is to get some more things to show them which they will find more useful--see the next section.)"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout my college career, I often was mocked for taking an easy major. What can you do with political science? Be a politician? What real value does it add? Those who were scared of math and science, those who were not necessarily academically precocious ended up being political science majors. Many (including myself) deflected the dreaded "What will you do when you graduate?" question with a profession of choice. Go to a typical political science class and many would state the trite few professional aspirations: lawyer, civil servant, professor, and politician. In fairness, nothing is wrong with these jobs. But the key difference is that while a decent paying accountant or engineer's job is almost (as long as you work hard and do well) -- guaranteed not everyone can be a top tier lawyer, a mayor, or tenured professor. The range in salaries if you will for those in politics from a "Get Out the Vote" foot solider analyzing which districts to strategically canvass for a Congressmen or Senator is wider when compared to the average (even bottom of the barrel) employed accountant. Furthermore, becoming a tenured professor is an incredibly difficult task with most academics languishing as a teaching assistant or assistant professor--mired with debt. (The lost earnings and opportunity cost of studying instead of working adds to the financial troubles.) Moreover, the demand for accountants and computer professionals are rising while there is an oversupply of lawyers and some would argue even bickering politicians.

In my opinion, with anemic economic growth, increased competition abroad, and the rising cost of higher education--universities are expected to become conduits to a well paying job. The average undergraduate carries around $20 thousand in debt when he/she graduates. Despite these costs, why do people still go to college in droves? The statistics don't lie--even in the current economic environment the college degree carrying population has a 5% unemployment rate when compared with the national 9.6%. The disparity becomes even more obvious when during the recession low paying jobs grew, high paying jobs were stagnant/exhibited slight growth, and middle class (manufacturing and other non-college related jobs) fell.

But I think the shift in the purpose of universities make the defense of my beloved political science major difficult. A few hundred years ago, a university education was closed off to anyone but the very rich and occasionally very brilliant. Aristocrats were the only ones who could waste four years (not earning any money) to sit around--thinking and learning. Proper etiquette, logic, rhetoric, philosophy, math, and science were all incorporated in making the well-rounded person. In this context, debating how governments should be run, what the purpose of our existence was, and other lofty questions made sense. This was a break and opportunity for the intellectuals to consider great thoughts. In that era, political science made sense. Today, political philosophy does not really help the bottom line of a large corporation. Obviously, the indirect argument that political science majors are able to read and think critically remain--but it’s not as tangible as a computer science major who can write what languages they can program on a resume.

So classes today--and there are numerous exceptions to this--are taken to maximize GPA, improve job prospects, and learning has become an indirect effect of checking off requirements for graduation. Cottage industries have grown around promoting the short cut mentality for graduation: www.ratemyprofessors.com, websites promising to write research papers for you, www.sparknotes.com providing in-depth summaries of major books, and companies giving you typed notes for your class so you avoid attending them.

Now there is nothing wrong with going to college with the intention of using it as a way to get a job. In fact, a labor economics professor of mine made the case that college was simply a way for companies to find out if you can work hard, meet deadlines, and deal with different personalities. After all, lets be honest, if we were immediately given an exam we took during our freshman year class of college how many of us could pass the exam? We can, however, relearn the concepts and pass the exam. The ability to learn and relearn new skills are what companies are looking for.

Thus, while reality has forced colleges to become a job training center for many--a political science major gives one an opportunity to think about things that a normal job may not allow: international relations, the structure of governments, political philosophy, or law. And for those lucky few--it maybe that your profession might require you to consider these issues daily. Who knows some of these issues may spark thoughts that you may never have considered--giving you an opportunity to understand the world a little bit better. After all, debating Socrates or understanding how our political institutions were set up may help you at least get a better grasp of the politics of today.

I still remember conversing with a Professor of mine and proudly showing off the diverse courses I had taken in economics, political science and history. He stopped and asked me: I assume you never took an art history class? I stood dumbfounded.

So should you major in political science? Consider your motives. But if your looking for guaranteed, well paying job--become a doctor, engineer, or accountant. Hopefully, one with lofty thoughts.

Education--key to future growth?

The recent 'Great Recession' has made many consider a fundamental question: What will drive America's future growth? Manufacturing, long the capstone of American ingenuity and innovation, has been outsourced to low wage countries. It does not stop there--with increasingly better educated foreign workers and an internet connection--many other things are being outsourced as well: call centers, accounting, and even basic legal 'grunt' work. The rest of the world is no longer satisfied with making America's shoes but want to rise up the value added chain by providing services. The crown jewels of India's IT industry--Infosys and Satyam--for example no longer just do back office data sorting but are slowly innovating their own technologies for the world's consumption. Jaguar, a car renowned for its performance and beauty, is owned by India's TATA motors that recently also introduced the world's cheapest car, Nano. China is stepping up research into producing planes and it is widely expected that it will launch a no-frills car in the US a few years down the lane--following Toyota's model of success.

We are experiencing precisely what globalization and capitalism espoused: a rising tide lifts all boats. But the problem is that while the emerging markets experience meteoric growth, the developed countries languish with anemic growth. Who knew that the tide can lift some boats more than others or maybe sink some boats in the process as well? Schumpter who coined the popular term 'creative destruction' may argue that we are going through it now--old, inefficient industries give way to new ones. After all, the golden rule of the liberalization of markets and capitalism is that pain in the short run through job losses (ex. outsourcing) will lead to long run gains.

But I think that there is an important issue that must also be addressed: if other countries are educating their workforce more and more to compete for higher wage jobs--where does that leave the US? China--despite severe disparities--is spending more and focusing on educating its students. In India, blink a few times, and another private engineering college is being built. Don't get me wrong--America still boasts the finest universities and most productive workers--but it is the ever worrisome 'percent change': while more engineers, scientists, and doctors are being churned out in India--the numbers have stagnated in America. Similarly, while their productivity and ability to perform increasingly complex work rises ours continue to stagnate. Sadly, some business leaders say that the areas of highest demand are very high skilled, high wage labor and there is a shortage of it in the fifty states

Similarly, America, while still dwarfing most countries in raw expenditures on education in the primary and secondary levels, has students who simply don't do nearly as well in the albeit controversial OECD Pisa Exams in Math and Reading. Many will argue that the countries that beat us have more homogenous populations, less poverty, and are smaller. These are fair arguments but what troubles me more is that if we want to continue innovating and improving our country we need smarter and smarter kids. We cannot just find excuses but must tackle the problems of poverty, diversity (language issues), and size head on. BUT when a recession hits our education system feels the shocks immediately: school budgets are being slashed, public universities are severely underfunded. In effect, we have collectively decided not to invest in our future when more than ever we need to.

Imagine my shock when I read articles that state that in the coming years the jobs that are primed for the most growth and thus demand are ones that DO NOT REQUIRE a college degree: Customer Service representative, health aide, and store clerk. While all these jobs are certainly important, it is astonishing that some economists are going further and challenging the third-rail of American education system by nitpicking the opportunity costs of college education as well. While children in the third world crave a higher education, Americans are reconsidering it? How is this possible?

With an increasingly knowledge oriented economy it is more necessary now than ever to pursue bold policy to retool our education system to maximize its efficiency. The conversation should really turn to how we should empower Americans to increasingly compete and earn high wages. After all, when all the accountants, paralegals, and computer engineers are outsourced--what will America's middle class do?