a friend of mine's dad is one of the higher ranking execs of what used to be wachovia and he was a religious studies major. The owner of the investment bank my brother works at was a history major.Fair enough.To answer your previous question as to why I majored in history, I was/am interested in it, and at the time thought I wanted to teach history.
How was a religious studies degree useful as an executive at a bank? Serious question.
Business is very useful. I guess my three branches of usefulness are: engineering, science, and business. Business is vital because it is the motor behind engineering and science. A lot of liberal arts are necessary for the other degrees to be used to their potential, so there is obviously a need for them; however, there are degrees like Art History and Religious Studies, that I feel serve no real purpose outside of being "interesting."This thread has brought the aforementioned point more to my attention. Specifically that the other degrees do play a role in engineering and science, so they do play an important role. I do concede in that respect.
We can’t live long without doctors and we live longer with breakthroughs. We need engineers to design a lot of our stuff. The artists can make a running car pretty, but we need the engineers to make the car run.
I would be forever lost without music, I’d really be sad without film, and a world where all the cars are boxes and all the buildings look like 1960s-70s architecture would just suck. You might not WANT to live. However, you need to be alive and have a safe place to live in order to enjoy all these wonderful artistic creations.
So yea, these fields are more important, but it really doesn’t matter. The others are still useful to society, just not as vital. More to the point, you can still make money doing this “less useful” stuff, and that’s the bottom line. People in film can make a whole lot more money per hour worked than people in some of these more vital fields.
[QUOTE=eason49;400140]Do you think the government should fund the arts? That’s sort of off-topic, but sort of related since this is a public university.[/QUOTE]
I do not believe they should bear the sole burden to fund the arts. I do believe that local governments should be encouraged to commission public art projects, such as the [I]Four Corners[/I] sculptures on Trade/Tryon. I believe that there should be write-offs and incentives for private business who commission art in a prominent, public place in their establishments, such as Ben Long’s [I]Three Frescoes[/I] in the Bank of America building lobby. Lastly, I do believe that the National Endowment for the Arts, which provides grants for artists to do their work, should continue to do so. This is a win-win. Arts increase culture and promote thought within a community, and the artist would not be doing it if he/she did not absolutely love what he/she was doing and fully believe in its meaning. Projects, however, are expensive and time consuming. The NEA helps fill the gap, because a lot of art would not be made without it.
For instance, I am working on a project over the summer which will hopefully be displayed in a gallery downtown, possibly in the McColl center. I’ve estimated that it will take 10-20 hours per week for the entire summer and cost me over $200 to make. I’ll bear the brunt of the money if I have to, but it would be very nice if I could find a patron to help with the costs. I do not want to apply for an NEA grant, partially because I want that money to go to more established artists who will bring more to their community than my project will to mine.
[QUOTE=eason49;400147]Fair enough.
How was a religious studies degree useful as an executive at a bank? Serious question.[/QUOTE]
most of the time, its just who you know and work ethic (if being promoted from within the company) or how well you can sell yourself if you are being hired from outside.
What do you do for a living Eason?
Hey NWA, eason is talking smack about your Religion Major. You might have to break out the can of whup-a55!
I don’t like NEA, & don’t think the gov’t should fund art, but I also don’t think that has anything to do with someone’s major. Art is a major just like History or Engineering.
[QUOTE=ChevEE;400142]:lmao: 
Nice!
You haven’t exactly shown a broad view of the situation yourself. You seem to think that the art on the money is more important than the financial system. How does art play a role in the financial system as it goes all digital? I won’t deny art’s role in society, but neither can you deny the impact of engineering alone on society in the last 100 years. Both contribute to society. Engineering is my bread and butter. I love physics and math and it’s what pays the bills. At the same time, I turn on the radio as soon as I get in the car and love hearing my wife play the harp. Each has it’s role.[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to discount the financial system or any of the vital technical fields in our society. I am trying to defend my chosen profession, which has been called “useless”. To say that any profession is “useless” is an attack on every person who has given their time to learn/and or practice it, and speaks volumes for the lack of intelligence of whoever says that it is “useless”.
The reasoning for majoring in English or Art is that you major in what you are good at, interested in, and what you feel will best prepare you for your career path. Sometimes, each of these criteria get weighed differently based on what is most important to you and your college experience/career ambitions.I want to go to law school. I’m good at research, reading, writing, communicating orally. I’m terrible with computers, math, and science. I major in history because it allows me to excel at what I’m good at and it will adequately prepare me for law school.
Just so I have some response that is actually on topic, I’ve always felt that we were more technological since I got here in 2004. I am coming from CS so keep that in mind.
As an Engineering student I have no problem with this. The William States Lee School of Engineering brings in 85% of the non state funding to this campus. We are the #1 patent seeking and #2 patents granted University in this nation. We are the only institution other than NIST to be certified to measurements in the nanometer range, making us a world leader in precision Metrology. The new Bioinformatics Center will help solidify our position as a world leader in bio-engineering and EPIC will make us a world leader in energy production technology.
All of this is good for the whole University long term. Our technically disciplines are helping us to carve a leading position in emerging fields throughout the world. Our positions in these fields as a world leader will bring recognition and financial success we can build on and redistribute across ALL programs. Eventually this investment will help pay for a Med School and the Liberal Arts Doctorates of the future. Like football, its growing pains now for a healthy future tomorrow.
[QUOTE=jfickett;400083]I want to go to law school. I’m good at research, reading, writing, communicating orally. I’m terrible with computers, math, and science. I major in history because it allows me to excel at what I’m good at and it will adequately prepare me for law school.[/QUOTE]
If you want to go to law school, get a B.S., not a B.A. You are much more attractive to both the schools and employers with a degree in science/math/engineering/accounting/etc
Follow my buddy’s path to riches:
or, just take the advice of the admissions dean I had a beer with in Atlanta - have a useful degree if you want to get in. “We get thousands of applications from english and poli sci majors”.
I do not believe they should bear the sole burden to fund the arts. I do believe that local governments should be encouraged to commission public art projects, such as the [I]Four Corners[/I] sculptures on Trade/Tryon.I agree with this. This serves the community.
I believe that there should be write-offs and incentives for private business who commission art in a prominent, public place in their establishments, such as Ben Long's [I]Three Frescoes[/I] in the Bank of America building lobby.I totally disagree. If they want something attractive in their building which may attract more costumers, they should pay for it.
Lastly, I do believe that the National Endowment for the Arts, which provides grants for artists to do their work, should continue to do so. This is a win-win. [B]Arts increase culture and promote thought within a community[/B], and the artist would not be doing it if he/she did not absolutely love what he/she was doing and fully believe in its meaning. Projects, however, are expensive and time consuming. The NEA helps fill the gap, because a lot of art would not be made without it.Hogwash. I've never thought about any of these works, I never heard anyone talk about thinking of these works, and I have never had anyone talk to me about these works. We'd be just fine without them.
Some people like this stuff a lot. Some people actually care about these works. That’s fine. I’m all for art and stuff, but we should not be using tax payer dollars to pay for it unless perhaps it’s something to beautify a city like the Trade/Tryon stuff. (I’m pretty sure there is other stuff NEA funds that I don’t totally disagree with.)
I kind of agree with lew, but not completely. Some arts projects may indeed promote culture and intellectual thought, but big orange/brown cookie shaped discs along the light rail line do not. Museums IMO are a good use of public money, putting art in a firehouse, police station, etc is not. It’s ridiculous that 1% of the cost of any government project has to be art.
I always thought Engineers, Doctors, Scientist always work towards a goal, whereas arts majors work freely.
I graduated with an arts degree and I did business. Hell, we need history and english teachers.
When I told all of the U of Charlotte people to call us Charlotte Tech or NC Tech a couple of years ago, I got my head bit off. I do like CTU with Jack Bauer as the back-up mascot.If the scientists didn’t have someone to teach them English they’d… Do their experiments in Spanish! LOL.
Jut because we might lean towards technological programs doesn’t mean we have to name the school that too. We can still be U of Charlotte and have technological programs.
[QUOTE=Normmm;400176]Jut because we might lean towards technological programs doesn’t mean we have to name the school that too. We can still be U of Charlotte and have technological programs.[/QUOTE]
If it came down to choosing between UNC Charlotte and North Carolina Tech (or NC Tech or however you want to abbreviate it) which would you take?
[QUOTE=thelew1014;400178]If it came down to choosing between UNC Charlotte and North Carolina Tech (or NC Tech or however you want to abbreviate it) which would you take?[/QUOTE]
I once advocated a name change on here to NC Tech (North Carolina Technical Institute).
My football support yielded much better results from our fellow posters.:dry:
UNC Charlotte…
[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;400179]I once advocated a name change on here to NC Tech (North Carolina Technical Institute).
My football support yielded much better results from our fellow posters.:dry:[/QUOTE]
I know you did. I mocked up a logo.
[QUOTE=thelew1014;400182]I know you did. I mocked up a logo.[/QUOTE]
Still got that?
NC TECH! There’s TWO C-Picks in that name!:biglaugh:
Ugh, no “Tech”. Please.