KDBioSci

The recession set off discussions on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education[ 1 ]. The argument against a liberal arts education is that students accumulate debt to get the degree and then can't get a job to pay it off. The argument for a liberal arts education is that it creates global citizens that can use their broad skills to do anything. I don't think a liberal arts education is so broad compared to more technical or scientific degrees. Our world is very technological. How can an education be broad and enable students to go do anything if it doesn't include technical and mathematical skills? Computers and the Internet are such a big part of our lives now. I think a liberal arts education should include learning the basics of computer programming because anyone in any career will use computer tools that have computer control interface that is a lot like computer programming. I have seen professors of music using computer software to compose music. Englis

There are so many news articles lately on the value of college degrees. Of particular importance to me is the value of a science PhD. The basic problem is that there are too many science PhDs for traditional tenure track academic research positions. The number of PhDs generated at universities is based on available funding and the need for (cheap) labor for research projects, not on the job market for tenure track academic research positions. If PhD programs prepare students for other kinds of careers I don't think this is a problem. It really isn't a problem if PhD researchers are trained to transfer new technologies into new business ventures. That way some new PhDs will create new businesses to employ PhD scientists outside of academia. I have seen some suggestions that universities should grant more masters and less PhDs. Then the masters can pursue research careers. The problem I see with this is the PhDs are more likely to gain the top leadership positions. This  would