choosing a major

[sol]

NPR recently did a segment (podcast/article) on some newly reported information about which college majors make the least/most money after graduation.

podcast audio, text, graphs:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/09/10/219372252/the-most-and-least-lucrative-college-majors-in-1-graph

The summary:  what you major in has far more bearing on your lifetime earnings than does what school you go to.  For getting rich, you're much better off getting an engineering degree from your local state school than you are getting an English degree from a prestigious/expensive university.

[mgreczyn]

I think (or perhaps I should say "in my experience") it's industry and school choice more than anything else.  For example, my first industry out of college was the military, where an undergrad in underwater basket weaving from North Dakota State University is exactly as lucrative as an MIT computer science / economics double major with a 4.0 GPA.  Fast forward to now, I have an MBA from a top 20 school and make solid money, but for an MBA, school and industry selection are paramount.  Had I attended one of the top 5 and worked in finance instead of wind energy, I could conceivably be pulling down 2-3x what I am now. 

Another example: wind energy employs skilled techs for turbine maintenance; this job can usually be obtained by getting an associates and being in good physical condition.  In speaking with these folks, a lot of them know people with similar backgrounds working in the oilfields making 2-3x as much.  Running a horizontal drilling rig blows many white collar jobs out of the water compensation-wise.   In the late 90s, a computer science degree was seen as a golden ticket, but by the end of 2001, computer science was almost seen as a dead end, the market for tech jobs dried up that quickly after the bust. Now; it's back on top.

Bottom line: IMHO it's a happy accident of history and economics that allows a 24 year old petroleum engineer to make $110k per year. For that first job, the undergrad degree can open some doors that might be otherwise closed, but in the long run networking and career flexibility matter much, much more than your undergraduate major.

[grantmeaname]

Don't rule out fields like accounting that have college credentials as the barriers to entry, though - without an undergrad degree or a masters in accounting, you cannot be a CPA and you cannot make more than about $40,000 in an accounting role. There are plenty of fields that are more meritocratic than that, but the right field of study is a condition of entry to some industries.

[sol]

I think (or perhaps I should say "in my experience") it's industry and school choice more than anything else. 

While I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion, the article quoted above provides a wealth of data to support the contrary position.

Me:  "This article says choice of major is way more important than choice of school.  Look at all the data!"

You:  "I think choice of school is way more important than choice of major.  I have an anecdote."

To be fair, they do highlight several exceptions and you may fall into one of them.

[destron]

Fast forward to now, I have an MBA from a top 20 school and make solid money, but for an MBA, school and industry selection are paramount.  Had I attended one of the top 5 and worked in finance instead of wind energy, I could conceivably be pulling down 2-3x what I am now. 

MBA degrees are, IMO, the exception rather than the rule here since the connections you make at a top 5 business school are, arguably, even more important than what you learn/

Bottom line: IMHO it's a happy accident of history and economics that allows a 24 year old petroleum engineer to make $110k per year. For that first job, the undergrad degree can open some doors that might be otherwise closed, but in the long run networking and career flexibility matter much, much more than your undergraduate major.

The article is based on data from the census. This is the first census where we have this data, and perhaps the first data where we can actually determine in a statistical way whether major or school choice is more important. The data also samples all people, not just recent college grads, so it takes into account people at the height of their career who have had time to network and take in the full benefit of a prestigious school. The conclusion they reached was that major choice had far more significance than school choice. A psychology degree at Yale will simply not get you as much money as a mechanical engineering degree from a state school.

The podcast also notes that perhaps one of the reasons petroleum engineers make so much money is that there are not very many graduates in the field, but you can't say that is true about many of the other high ranking majors.

[mgreczyn]

I think (or perhaps I should say "in my experience") it's industry and school choice more than anything else. 

While I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion, the article quoted above provides a wealth of data to support the contrary position.

Me:  "This article says choice of major is way more important than choice of school.  Look at all the data!"

You:  "I think choice of school is way more important than choice of major.  I have an anecdote."

To be fair, they do highlight several exceptions and you may fall into one of them.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to start a discussion, with people expressing their opinions, presenting counter-examples, possibly disagreeing with your interpretation of the study, etc.  Apparently, all you were trying to do was get people to admire your skill at digging up interesting data points.  Consider yourself lauded, you dug up something interesting from the internets.  Nice work. 

MOD EDIT: This is the type of tone we don't need.  It doesn't help your point.  All of the below is a good response, what did the above paragraph add?  Please curb the impulse in the future.  Thanks.  /END MOD EDIT


On the other hand, we are talking about a scientific piece of work.  Data and methodology are presented for interpretation, note the lack of a section entitled "conclusions"..., and we are left to draw conclusions for ourselves.  The authors state that "what you take while you're there [at college] matters alot" and present data showing the economic value of each major. Your interpretation (emphasis mine): "what YOU major in has far more bearing on YOUR lifetime earnings than does what school YOU go to..." 

I'm very comfortable taking issue with this, first because as far as I can tell the authors aren't drawing conclusions, rather they are just presenting their work, and second because it would be far more accurate to say that for the average student in search of an optimal financial outcome, choice of major has far more bearing on lifetime earnings than does school choice.  On the other hand, for any given individual, I argue that success is far more likely to come if you're doing something you enjoy; a petroleum engineer who hates their job is not likely to stick with it.  [edit: yes I realize this has little bearing on the school choice angle]. For getting rich, we all know that what really matters is spending vs assets, and not income. 

According to THIS study based on data from the same census, only 27% of graduates even get jobs related to their major: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/20/only-27-percent-of-college-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/.  Further, here is data showing that people who take jobs unrelated to their major tend to make less money than those who take jobs related to their major: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775706001415.  Bottom line: if Erin Ford doesn't like being a petroleum engineer, she is likely to take an unrelated job down the line and take a big hit to her earnings. Also, note that if your position is that a student should select a major based on optimizing potential lifetime earnings then she screwed up: had she read this study she would have known that she should have become a pharmacist instead.

I tend to agree with Cal Newport's interpretation of these data: http://calnewport.com/blog/2007/10/24/does-your-college-major-matter/

By the way, from my reading of the Georgetown study it appears that by far the most important factor in lifetime earnings is whether or not a given individual is a white guy.

[destron]

According to THIS study based on data from the same census, only 27% of graduates even get jobs related to their major: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/20/only-27-percent-of-college-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/.  Further, here is data showing that people who take jobs unrelated to their major tend to make less money than those who take jobs related to their major: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775706001415.  Bottom line: if Erin Ford doesn't like being a petroleum engineer, she is likely to take an unrelated job down the line and take a big hit to her earnings. Also, note that if your position is that a student should select a major based on optimizing potential lifetime earnings then she screwed up: had she read this study she would have known that she should have become a pharmacist instead.

The data doesn't show whether individuals are working in their major, only what each person with that major is earning. So, if Erin Ford changes careers and starts only making $50,000/year, she still gets ticked off in the petroleum engineer box. Similarly, if John Smith who majored in performance arts ends up working as a business advisor and makes over $100,000/year, he still get ticked off in the performance arts box.

[grantmeaname]

Two more articles for the "what's the right major" discussion:
The Atlantic in defense of the Humanities PhD, which explores why people go get doctorates in Art History. It assumes as a central premise of the argument that Humanities PhDs are well funded, which I hadn't thought was true but can't directly speak to based on experience. Other than that, it's relatively interesting, though.

Then there's the IEEE report debunking the "STEM crisis", which a redditor linked to a Time article considering the skills gap myth and a Forbes article pondering the skilled trades. All in all, the message seems to be that the water's fine in many places, but that choosing a major - even if reduced to only lifetime earnings - is not simple, and that the broad generalities don't really hold.

[Norrie]

I wish that I could go back to my 17 year old self and say, "honey, I know that you want to save the world and that is wonderful and precious. But you can do so by volunteering. Get the business or engineering degree, sweetie".

Instead I devoted six years to getting a Bachelors and Masters in social work, and my salary will basically remain barely above the poverty line for most of my (pretty great) career. Hold me.

[plantingourpennies]

More data-the earnings power of majors change over time, some drastically, some not so drastically.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html

I got a degree in philosophy; started out below median income, but will finish well above (according to the stats).

Best,
Mr. PoP

[Albert]

In my opinion such majors as "social studies" shouldn't even exist...

[grantmeaname]

In my opinion such majors as "social studies" shouldn't even exist...

Because?

[gimp]

In my opinion such majors as "social studies" shouldn't even exist...

Free market, man. People want to study it and universities offer it.

Listen, I love the "DAE STEM Master Race" trope. I'm feeling high and mighty with my fancy engineering skills. But the truth of the matter is, the world would be empty without these majors you think shouldn't even exist.

Now, I don't think people paying 50k/year to earn these majors are necessarily making the wisest choice. They may have been sold a lie, or maybe they were just mistaken, or maybe these things really will lead to good ROI for some of them. It's their business, but it's also my business that I don't want to indirectly fund their possible bankruptcy. Having said that, for a reasonable price, these studies are pretty damn important to society as a whole.

[Simple Abundant Living]

More data-the earnings power of majors change over time, some drastically, some not so drastically.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html

I got a degree in philosophy; started out below median income, but will finish well above (according to the stats).

Best,
Mr. PoP

I was a Phil undergrad, and DH graduated in liberal arts, with a minor in Phil. We are in a high tax bracket, because we sought work outside of our majors. I loved my humanities bachelor's degree because I feel like it made me into a well rounded, critically thinking person. Of course, I had no student loan debt because I went to a great state college and had my professor dad's half-tuition, as well as scholarships to pay the rest. My worry about kids in humanities is that they think they will work in their "field", and that they get up to their eyeballs in debt.

Here's a great article on this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/new-graduates-have-skills-not-fields/article14558219/

[Albert]

In my opinion such majors as "social studies" shouldn't even exist...

Free market, man. People want to study it and universities offer it.

Listen, I love the "DAE STEM Master Race" trope. I'm feeling high and mighty with my fancy engineering skills. But the truth of the matter is, the world would be empty without these majors you think shouldn't even exist.

Now, I don't think people paying 50k/year to earn these majors are necessarily making the wisest choice. They may have been sold a lie, or maybe they were just mistaken, or maybe these things really will lead to good ROI for some of them. It's their business, but it's also my business that I don't want to indirectly fund their possible bankruptcy. Having said that, for a reasonable price, these studies are pretty damn important to society as a whole.

Sure and I'm not advocating their closure by law. Nevertheless they don't make sense to me - those jobs could as easily be done without studying exactly that in university. Also it's not truly a free market even in US. Universities are supported by tax payer money (directly for state owned institutions, indirectly for private ones) and there would be very few students for that money without federally supported loan system.

In my understanding majors in universities ought to be either practical (business, economics, engineering, medicine, law etc) or scientific (philosophy, history, natural sciences etc). Social studies don't really fit into either category...

[grantmeaname]

Nevertheless they don't make sense to me - those jobs could as easily be done without studying exactly that in university. Also it's not truly a free market even in US. Universities are supported by tax payer money (directly for state owned institutions, indirectly for private ones) and there would be very few students for that money without federally supported loan system.

In my understanding majors in universities ought to be either practical (business, economics, engineering, medicine, law etc) or scientific (philosophy, history, natural sciences etc). Social studies don't really fit into either category..

Some people believe that being an educated citizen has value and that studying the humanities and social sciences are an effective way to become an educated, informed citizen capable of taking full part in society. Others believe that what you get from college is a set of skills, not a major, and that skills like critical thinking and careful analysis of arguments are important for employment even if the degree doesn't end in "engineering" (like the CEO of Lockheed Martin).

I've really got to question your dichotomy, too. Philosophy and history, which are not sciences and do not advance as bodies of knowledge by the scientific method, get to count as sciences for purposes of whether they should be allowed to exist, while anthropology, political science, sociology, linguistics, and psychology, sciences all, shouldn't be allowed to exist because they're 'social'? And even then, why is it that studying some impractical fields (history) is okay, but studying other impractical fields (english) is verboten? If you're going to say that only practical degrees should be allowed, you could at least apply the standard uniformly.

[Albert]

Nevertheless they don't make sense to me - those jobs could as easily be done without studying exactly that in university. Also it's not truly a free market even in US. Universities are supported by tax payer money (directly for state owned institutions, indirectly for private ones) and there would be very few students for that money without federally supported loan system.

In my understanding majors in universities ought to be either practical (business, economics, engineering, medicine, law etc) or scientific (philosophy, history, natural sciences etc). Social studies don't really fit into either category..

Some people believe that being an educated citizen has value and that studying the humanities and social sciences are an effective way to become an educated, informed citizen capable of taking full part in society. Others believe that what you get from college is a set of skills, not a major, and that skills like critical thinking and careful analysis of arguments are important for employment even if the degree doesn't end in "engineering" (like the CEO of Lockheed Martin).

I've really got to question your dichotomy, too. Philosophy and history, which are not sciences and do not advance as bodies of knowledge by the scientific method, get to count as sciences for purposes of whether they should be allowed to exist, while anthropology, political science, sociology, linguistics, and psychology, sciences all, shouldn't be allowed to exist because they're 'social'? And even then, why is it that studying some impractical fields (history) is okay, but studying other impractical fields (english) is verboten? If you're going to say that only practical degrees should be allowed, you could at least apply the standard uniformly.

Didn't you notice "etc." in my answer??? I simply didn't bother to name every single major... Everyone can study whatever they like, however it doesn't mean that government ought to sponsor everything that is fashionable.

[grantmeaname]

I wasn't objecting to your not listing every major I could think of. Here's what I'm getting at: why are impractical 'scientific' majors okay, and impractical 'social' majors not (to the extent that any of those labels mean anything and don't overlap)?

[LosingMoneyAllDay]

Honestly, In my opinion there are only 2 worthwhile majors that a person should look into if post-secondary is the way they want to go. If they are science/mathematically inclined, they should go do engineering. Specifically chemical or nuclear. Big money there.

And if not, computer science is a good one. Hell, you spend all day on your iPhone anyway, how about you learn how to program apps for money, instead of wasting time playing them!

~This is coming from a guy that was told to go into school for "what you liked best", so 4 years later I graduated with a B.Sc in Chemistry and Geography. No immediate job prospects...

[Albert]

If mathematics is not your thing then computer science probably won't be either.

[ritchie70]

If mathematics is not your thing then computer science probably won't be either.

Agreed, a proper CS curriculum should have a lot of math.

If you want to learn programming, not CS, go to a junior college.

[beltim]

Honestly, In my opinion there are only 2 worthwhile majors that a person should look into if post-secondary is the way they want to go. If they are science/mathematically inclined, they should go do engineering. Specifically chemical or nuclear. Big money there.

And if not, computer science is a good one. Hell, you spend all day on your iPhone anyway, how about you learn how to program apps for money, instead of wasting time playing them!

~This is coming from a guy that was told to go into school for "what you liked best", so 4 years later I graduated with a B.Sc in Chemistry and Geography. No immediate job prospects...

Wow, really? There's only 2 worthwhile majors? You're not exaggerating just a little?

[plantingourpennies]

Honestly, In my opinion there are only 2 worthwhile majors that a person should look into if post-secondary is the way they want to go. If they are science/mathematically inclined, they should go do engineering. Specifically chemical or nuclear. Big money there.

And if not, computer science is a good one. Hell, you spend all day on your iPhone anyway, how about you learn how to program apps for money, instead of wasting time playing them!

~This is coming from a guy that was told to go into school for "what you liked best", so 4 years later I graduated with a B.Sc in Chemistry and Geography. No immediate job prospects...

Also. You graduated with degrees in chemistry and geography in the middle of the biggest energy boom in years and yet still can't find work?

Best,
Mr. PoP

As it turns out, every major is terrible!

http://xkcd.com/1052/

Best,
Mr. PoP

[rocksinmyhead]

Honestly, In my opinion there are only 2 worthwhile majors that a person should look into if post-secondary is the way they want to go. If they are science/mathematically inclined, they should go do engineering. Specifically chemical or nuclear. Big money there.

And if not, computer science is a good one. Hell, you spend all day on your iPhone anyway, how about you learn how to program apps for money, instead of wasting time playing them!

~This is coming from a guy that was told to go into school for "what you liked best", so 4 years later I graduated with a B.Sc in Chemistry and Geography. No immediate job prospects...

Wow, really? There's only 2 worthwhile majors? You're not exaggerating just a little?

Haha, no kidding. Maybe he is not familiar with the oil and gas industry. Major in petroleum engineering or geology and you can make bank! (geology you'll also need a masters, but if you like rocks and science, then that part is fun)

[grantmeaname]

Or accounting and finance, which are critical to the functioning of our capital markets. Or operations, logistics, and marketing, which are critical to the supply chains that make and transport the products we depend on to live. Or health sciences. And so on...

[jcandoitbig]

doesn't really matter what you major in, as long as you learn the life lessons in college that are necessary to be succesful. learning social skills trumps most things (unless you're going pre-med or engineering)

i made 75k my first year out of college, in software sales with a psychology degree

[Argyle]

Also, as long as you're earning "enough," whatever that may be, maybe loving what you do is preferable to earning top dollar.  Mustachianism is all about living well within your means, right?  So if you can live on $30,000, it may not matter whether you earn $150,000 as an accountant or $80,000 as an anthropologist.  The accountant gets to retire earlier, maybe -- but maybe the anthropologist has enough job satisfaction that working longer is appealing.  In other words, there are variables beyond sheer earning power.

[Mr. Sharma]

The accountant gets to retire earlier, maybe -- but maybe the anthropologist has enough job satisfaction that working longer is appealing. 

I am deeply offended.  Accounting jobs are plenty satisfying!  Ah screw it, at least I get to retire earlier... maybe.     

On a more serious note, there should be a lot more thought going in to picking a college major.  Consideration should be given to the costs involved, expected payout in the future, job satisfaction, job stability, competency and every factor that the student would consider meaningful to him/her.  A major should then be chosen with the most appropriate balance of those factors and realistic expectations should be set upon graduation. 

Most students upon graduation are completely shocked by the end result as if they did not know the choices they made over the previous years would affect their future self.     

[grantmeaname]

I don't think so. I've never known a college student to act like that outside of an editorial.

[arebelspy]

I don't think so. I've never known a college student to act like that outside of an editorial.

+1.  One would have to be pretty thick to not be "completely shocked by the end result as if they did not know the choices they made over the previous years would affect their future self."

There are a few that stupid that manage to get through college, sure, but that's mostly overplayed by the media.

[expatartist]

I don't think so. I've never known a college student to act like that outside of an editorial.

+1.  One would have to be pretty thick to not be "completely shocked by the end result as if they did not know the choices they made over the previous years would affect their future self."

There are a few that stupid that manage to get through college, sure, but that's mostly overplayed by the media.

Yup I was aware that a painting degree limited my options, but that's what I was driven to do at that age. And the art degree has been a niche for the other things I've done since. It's been a great way to combine my goals of travel with teaching art/fellowships.

[grantmeaname]

Even the stereotypical fine arts major does not suck.

In other words: come on in, the water's fine!

[Mr. Sharma]

I don't think so. I've never known a college student to act like that outside of an editorial.

+1.  One would have to be pretty thick to not be "completely shocked by the end result as if they did not know the choices they made over the previous years would affect their future self."

There are a few that stupid that manage to get through college, sure, but that's mostly overplayed by the media.

Unfortunately, I hear about it too often every year when I prepare tax returns.  When you ask the parents/students for that dreaded Form 1098-E - Student Loan Interest Statement, there is almost always a negative background story that goes with it.  When I speak to my clients and look at the tax return with just about all of the financial variables at play, I've gotta believe that more thought/discussion at the beginning would have avoided the end result.   

[grantmeaname]

It's a biased sample if you're considering only the people with interest, and then further only those who are keeping their student loans around, and even then the only individuals to comment on it are those that are unhappy with it. You can get a degree with no loans; get a degree with loans and then pay them off; or get a degree with loans, keep them around, and not be sour about it. You're seeing few individuals from those categories.

[mgreczyn]

Even the stereotypical fine arts major does not suck.

In other words: come on in, the water's fine!

My wife turned a fine arts degree, a truckload of common sense and an mba into an high paying job.

[Ian]

I also don't think you should underestimate how often having a college degree is used as a minimum requirement. My specific degree may not have done me much good before I started teaching, but I did job counseling for a homeless shelter for a while and it made me realize how much I took it for granted. Lots of the better jobs in the service sector won't look at your application without a four year degree.

Though I agree with most people here, I do think the information available to incoming freshman is a little biased. At least I felt like I'd been given information that was closer to the ideal job market than the reality. There's also probably some confirmation bias at play: students have clear examples of others using their degrees, but no real sense of how many people don't.

[Prairie Stash]

One of the problems on this thread is not comparing regions.  In my locale (Western Canada) a traditional Blue collar worker can make more than most college majors.  A 2 year training course (to get journeyperson, done while working) and you can get a job making $80-90K. In a similar twist, Registered Nurses (university trained) here also make $80K, due to a massive shortage.  A CS degree here (in my hometown)? You're better off moving south to the U.S., lower risk with higher overall potential. Our local (1.1 million people) market is not comparable to California.

A big part of choosing a major, with regards to income, is to pick the market you want to live in. For a lot of degrees you're better off moving to the jobs.