The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: duyen on January 25, 2025, 06:44:09 PM
-
My elder child will be going to college in 2 1/2 years. I am wondering what major should she take so that she can land a good successful career. She is pretty much open and having a good successful career is the most important thing.
What are some majors that you recommend that have most job opportunities and are worth spending money and time for college
-
I don't think you can pick a field based simply on wanting to land a good successful career. You need a little more input than that. Not everyone has skills that will make them particularly successful in every career. Not everyone will enjoy working in a particular career enough to avoid burning out.
There are plenty of fields that can be good and successful. Doctors (both people and animal), lawyers, most types of engineering, business, economics, finance, actuarial science, etc. Any of them can easily lead to good, successful careers.
-
I have an international relations degree. My career is not international relations. I’m a firm believer that college is not trade school. The ability to communicate and critically think are two traits that will lead to a good career no matter what major one picks.
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
-
What does she enjoy and what is she good at? She should follow her passion and talents, and then find a way to monetize it. I come from a family of liberal arts degrees (sociology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics), and we're all in great careers with really good salaries. I would say that just a bachelors is not enough though. We all also have advanced degrees and professional licenses in our fields.
My friend is a history major, went to law school, and became a lawyer. She FIRE'd before me. A cousin studied fine arts, got a masters in architecture, and his building designs now win international awards.
Moral of the story, we all trained in areas in which we already had a natural interest and aptitude. Having a passion for the field allowed us to stick with the years of training required to be an expert in our respective fields. Having a natural talent for the field allowed us to more easily understand and apply the concepts, which made us better than the competition. That in turn made us more competitive when it came time to look for work.
Also, I would avoid taking on debt to finance a degree as much as possible. I'd rather work long hours every summer (and get job experience and develop soft skills necessary to be successful in the work world!), spend every weekend applying for scholarships (free money!), and work part-time during the school year (develop time management skills!) before taking on debt.
-
Doctor, Lawyer, Banker - all have decent prospects in most locations.
-
Accounting and then CPA if she is good with details and self study. You will easily make 6 figures within 2-3 years. But will cap out unless you have the ambition and personality to be CFO or the ability to work long hours and network in order to become a partner in a CPA firm. So on the low end of the degree is a safe, in demand degree that will guarantee you always have a job and decent pay (although can be boring and/or stressful). But the high end jobs where you are making $200k+ are also very attainable if you have the right personality and are willing to put in the time and work. But you need to work near the major business/finance areas to more easily reach the high end salaries.
-
Physical Therapy Assistant
higher: Physical Therapist with Masters Degree
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My first thought was any major that helps her build or maintain the robots.
-
I second accounting. From talking with my friend who now runs an office of a big 4 accounting firm, they can't even fill their openings with accounting majors and now look to other majors to fill the gap. No one wants to be an accountant, that included me. It's not sexy and there won't be any tv shows made about your work.Though I am sure glad I did it. I ran companies in my twenties and started companies in my thirties. With out my accounting skills it would have been much harder. Only about half the accountants I know practice in any form, most had a similar track to me. Those that still do are very well paid.
-
K, as someone who has done an enormous amount of career advising, I'll share my 2c.
In the vast, massive world of careers, an extreme minority have a clear degree path that leads to them, and most of those careers require grad school degrees. So it makes no sense to focus on specific undergrad majors as a key factor in determining career success unless the kid has very strong aptitude for one of the extremely rare undergrad subjects that has a clear pathway to a career.
Like, if your kid is SUPER into software programming or is the captain of the robotics team or the mathletes, then their choice of undergrad isn't likely to have much impact on their future career.
Also, as the holder of not one but two career-specific graduate degrees that lead to specific licenses to practice in specific careers, it is NOT a path I recommend for anyone who isn't specifically passionate about that specific career.
Why? Because getting one of those degrees opens very, very few doors and closes the rest. That's why I have 2, because while I LOVED my previous profession, it was hard on my body and when I sustained an injury that made it impossible to continue in the work I loved, my transferrable skills were so limited that I didn't like any of the options I had for alternative careers.
I was lucky enough to be able to afford not to work and to be able to afford a second round of expensive professional school tuition, so now I'm in a different licensed profession where a lot of my skills are transferable.
My spouse on the other hand? They have undergrad and master's in philosophy and political science. They've built a phenomenal career and have literally limitless possibilities for pivoting. I have two doors open to me in certain jurisdictions, they have literally thousands across the globe.
We're both particularly successful in our fields and make about the same amount of money. But here's the kicker, the skills that make both of us successful weren't anything we learned in school. We're both able to deftly navigate our professions because we are both extremely skilled researchers and networkers.
No matter what profession someone chooses, they need the ability to recruit professional mentorship, they need to be able to research where the opportunities are and what skills/knowledge they need to acquire to be able to compete for those opportunities.
I've told many, many young people that if they are just using university to go to class and get good grades in assignments, they're missing out on at least 50% of the professional development opportunities that being in school can provide.
If you don't have amazing networking skills to teach kids, then help them get access to people who do.
In that process of teaching them how to network, get them in front of people with "good successful careers" who can give them perspective on what those careers entail.
Every "good successful career" has bottles necks somewhere along the line. It's critical to understand where those bottle necks are and what skills/sacrifices are necessary to progress past them. These are the things that a young adult needs to reflect on, not what major has the best stats for grads.
If a particular degree has great stats for grads, like medicine, it means the bottle neck is primarily getting in to medicine, and the sacrifices are having to do med school and residency. Those are some pretty massive bottle necks and sacrifices for a career that are definitely not worth it unless they will love that career.
Take your average young person who has the discipline and aptitude to do well in medicine. Now give them a few hundred thousand dollars to invest, make them work unpaid for 80-100hrs/wk for years, willing to be on-call and do overnights while underpaid for a few more years, make them take endless bullying and abuse while sleep deprived, make them scrape and beg for every speck of mentorship they can find...that kid is likely to end up far more successful than your average MD, hell, they'll probably end up rich before your average surgeon gets their first decent paycheque.
When I look back on my education, the time, money, and energy I put in, just how much I needed to figure out for myself along the way, how hard I had to fight for decent mentorship, I honestly could have invested in hot dog stands and probably been even more successful.
Now that's not to say that I regret my career choices, I'm making that point to say that when choosing a door-limiting degree, you want to make sure that you deeply understand the career you're committing to before doing so, that you understand the path to success and what sacrifices it will take, and you want to compare those to other careers to make sure they're worthwhile.
I have LOVED my professions, they have been deeply and powerfully meaningful to me. But if my goal was just to be successful, I would could have done so many other things.
My spouse also powerfully loves their profession, but they had no clear pathway to get there. They just started working and put in enormous effort to learn and grow and curate the best career experience possible. In the end, we both have amazing, lucrative, interesting careers, but again, I'm limited in the pivots I can take in response to personal or market forces, and I'm limited as to the jurisdictions I can work in. Meanwhile, my spouse has curated a skill set that is valuable everywhere in the world to governments, NGOs, and private sector companies, and they can pivot easily with just about any market forces.
Get your kid talking to different professionals, this will teach them basic networking skills and it will teach them about different professions. Either yourself or with the help of someone who is an expert on careers, put together interview questions with your kid that will help them grasp the key elements of different professions, and help them identify their own strengths and weaknesses and in which industries those strengths and weaknesses would play the biggest roles.
I thought I wanted to be a vet or surgeon until I actually spoke to vets and surgeons. I knew the elements of the careers that I was interested, but I needed a realistic view of the careers in order to know if I would actually fit within them. I learned that I wouldn't and saved myself A LOT of suffering.
I literally *just* got off of a call with a student in my current field and every time I speak to these students in this program that leads to one license and one career, I'm always horrified about how little fucking research they did into the reality of the career BEFORE committing to massive tuition fees and years of unpaid labour. Like, WTF???
But that's how most people make education and career decisions when choosing these extremely limited education paths. They think a career sounds good, they get into the program, and then they're shocked to find out that they still need the exact same business and networking skills that every other profession requires if they have any hope of thriving.
So don't push your kids to pursue any one degree or career path, help equip them with the skills to figure that out for themselves.
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.
As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.
-
Nursing. Stellar pay, universally and continuously needed, cannot be automated away, high salary / college cost ratio. With a 4-year nursing degree, work the next 8-10 years as hard as you would have while living the lifestyle you would have if you were to go to medical school and you'll be a millionaire before doctors even start paying back their loans.
-
The people I know who are making the most as freshly-graduated 23-year-olds without going to grad school mostly studied comp-sci or some form of engineering. There is nothing "wrong" with aiming for economic optimization, and I would frankly encourage any smart kid from a poor family to pursue one of those kinds of degrees, with the understanding that success in those fields of study takes a lot of raw brain power a lot of people are not blessed with. Accounting or the like can be easier paths to similar employability/stability fresh out of school.
That said, if you have the economic means to be pursuing FIRE, your kids presumably are entering adult life with enormous advantages. Given that you are creating generational wealth and positioning your family in the modern "upper middle class" aristocracy, it's maybe appropriate for them to take advantage of some of that privileged position. The old John Adams quote is not exactly elegant, but it does gesture at what something that's meaningful to me about family legacy and "the American Dream":
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
I think "follow your passion" as a society-wide mantra has generally proven harmful, because promising people upward mobility and then guiding them down the wrong path is a clear recipe for bitterness and resentment at society. But you have done the upward mobility thing. Your kids are going to be fine if they get a liberal arts degree and then maybe fart around for a year or two before going to grad school or getting some other certification that leads them to their "real" career. Be real with them about the trade-offs, and acknowledge that outside of specific high-demand fields, grad school is an increasingly necessary differentiator for many people.
-
The people I know who are making the most as freshly-graduated 23-year-olds without going to grad school mostly studied comp-sci or some form of engineering. There is nothing "wrong" with aiming for economic optimization, and I would frankly encourage any smart kid from a poor family to pursue one of those kinds of degrees, with the understanding that success in those fields of study takes a lot of raw brain power a lot of people are not blessed with. Accounting or the like can be easier paths to similar employability/stability fresh out of school.
That said, if you have the economic means to be pursuing FIRE, your kids presumably are entering adult life with enormous advantages. Given that you are creating generational wealth and positioning your family in the modern "upper middle class" aristocracy, it's maybe appropriate for them to take advantage of some of that privileged position. The old John Adams quote is not exactly elegant, but it does gesture at what something that's meaningful to me about family legacy and "the American Dream":
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
I think "follow your passion" as a society-wide mantra has generally proven harmful, because promising people upward mobility and then guiding them down the wrong path is a clear recipe for bitterness and resentment at society. But you have done the upward mobility thing. Your kids are going to be fine if they get a liberal arts degree and then maybe fart around for a year or two before going to grad school or getting some other certification that leads them to their "real" career. Be real with them about the trade-offs, and acknowledge that outside of specific high-demand fields, grad school is an increasingly necessary differentiator for many people.
Follow your passion is a great advice if it's paired with tangible and actionable advice on figuring out the business elements of following your passion, and being realistic about how to monetize it.
My feminist lit buddy is passionate about writing, but it's unrealistic for her to make a solid living from writing essays about feminist literature, but she does extremely well writing in the O&G industry where there aren't a lot of writers.
-
The thing with liberal arts degrees is that sure there are success stories, but it's not appropriate to judge by the success stories because with a million graduates a year there's bound to be a few. The rewards of a degree should be judged by the median degree earner when considering a future path, unless there's a solid reason to think the prospective student is significantly different than median.
-
The thing with liberal arts degrees is that sure there are success stories, but it's not appropriate to judge by the success stories because with a million graduates a year there's bound to be a few. The rewards of a degree should be judged by the median degree earner when considering a future path, unless there's a solid reason to think the prospective student is significantly different than median.
I guess you missed my previous post where I talked about what it takes to be successful.
Some degrees have a more prescribed and limited path to success while others have a broader one. In either case, the young adult needs to learn the skills to become successful in an industry, in more technical/professional degrees, they learn a lot of the skills to become successful in school, but not all. However, the skills they learn in school come with the trade off of being more limited.
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
In the end though, both paths require a lot of independent learning and mentorship beyond just taking classes and getting good grades, and this is what I find most parents fail to teach their kids, largely because no one taught them.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
I'll just have to politely disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.
-
The people I know who are making the most as freshly-graduated 23-year-olds without going to grad school mostly studied comp-sci or some form of engineering. There is nothing "wrong" with aiming for economic optimization, and I would frankly encourage any smart kid from a poor family to pursue one of those kinds of degrees, with the understanding that success in those fields of study takes a lot of raw brain power a lot of people are not blessed with. Accounting or the like can be easier paths to similar employability/stability fresh out of school.
That said, if you have the economic means to be pursuing FIRE, your kids presumably are entering adult life with enormous advantages. Given that you are creating generational wealth and positioning your family in the modern "upper middle class" aristocracy, it's maybe appropriate for them to take advantage of some of that privileged position. The old John Adams quote is not exactly elegant, but it does gesture at what something that's meaningful to me about family legacy and "the American Dream":
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
I think "follow your passion" as a society-wide mantra has generally proven harmful, because promising people upward mobility and then guiding them down the wrong path is a clear recipe for bitterness and resentment at society. But you have done the upward mobility thing. Your kids are going to be fine if they get a liberal arts degree and then maybe fart around for a year or two before going to grad school or getting some other certification that leads them to their "real" career. Be real with them about the trade-offs, and acknowledge that outside of specific high-demand fields, grad school is an increasingly necessary differentiator for many people.
Follow your passion is a great advice if it's paired with tangible and actionable advice on figuring out the business elements of following your passion, and being realistic about how to monetize it.
My feminist lit buddy is passionate about writing, but it's unrealistic for her to make a solid living from writing essays about feminist literature, but she does extremely well writing in the O&G industry where there aren't a lot of writers.
For sure. I "followed my passion" into music, and later wised up about differentiating between what kinds of music I found most fulfilling to play on one hand, and how to make a decent living with my skillset on the other hand. There are ways to turn all kinds of passions into careers... but in doing so, you will be severely compromising on major aspects of what you're passionate about.
Following a passion can lead to good outcomes, but it's not necessary. My steelman argument for "passion" is that it can perhaps be a motivating force to develop valuable skills, but in turning a passion into a sustainable career, the passion itself is very rarely a lasting source of satisfaction with your working life.
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.
As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.
My oldest dd has an undergrad degree in English ( she had a fantastic scholarship) and a grad degree in Bible, and she makes a very comfortable living doing technical writing for medical software.
So I think you should study what you want and go from there.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
-
Based on my younger daughter's experience, I would say that math is absolutely the best major at the moment. It opens doors to almost anything that your kid might want to do. Of course, it also happens to be the toughest major (except probably electrical engineering which comes a close second).
-
The people I know who are making the most as freshly-graduated 23-year-olds without going to grad school mostly studied comp-sci or some form of engineering. There is nothing "wrong" with aiming for economic optimization, and I would frankly encourage any smart kid from a poor family to pursue one of those kinds of degrees, with the understanding that success in those fields of study takes a lot of raw brain power a lot of people are not blessed with. Accounting or the like can be easier paths to similar employability/stability fresh out of school.
That said, if you have the economic means to be pursuing FIRE, your kids presumably are entering adult life with enormous advantages. Given that you are creating generational wealth and positioning your family in the modern "upper middle class" aristocracy, it's maybe appropriate for them to take advantage of some of that privileged position. The old John Adams quote is not exactly elegant, but it does gesture at what something that's meaningful to me about family legacy and "the American Dream":
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
I think "follow your passion" as a society-wide mantra has generally proven harmful, because promising people upward mobility and then guiding them down the wrong path is a clear recipe for bitterness and resentment at society. But you have done the upward mobility thing. Your kids are going to be fine if they get a liberal arts degree and then maybe fart around for a year or two before going to grad school or getting some other certification that leads them to their "real" career. Be real with them about the trade-offs, and acknowledge that outside of specific high-demand fields, grad school is an increasingly necessary differentiator for many people.
Follow your passion is a great advice if it's paired with tangible and actionable advice on figuring out the business elements of following your passion, and being realistic about how to monetize it.
My feminist lit buddy is passionate about writing, but it's unrealistic for her to make a solid living from writing essays about feminist literature, but she does extremely well writing in the O&G industry where there aren't a lot of writers.
For sure. I "followed my passion" into music, and later wised up about differentiating between what kinds of music I found most fulfilling to play on one hand, and how to make a decent living with my skillset on the other hand. There are ways to turn all kinds of passions into careers... but in doing so, you will be severely compromising on major aspects of what you're passionate about.
Following a passion can lead to good outcomes, but it's not necessary. My steelman argument for "passion" is that it can perhaps be a motivating force to develop valuable skills, but in turning a passion into a sustainable career, the passion itself is very rarely a lasting source of satisfaction with your working life.
For me the key is building a sense of what work is actually like and understanding passions within that reality.
Teens base most of what they're passionate about on what they see in the media and the limited exposures they have in life, so those passions are profoundly limited in terms of understanding what they mean in a professional world.
That's where an enormous amount of exposure to what different careers are like can very much help calibrate a young person's understanding of passion in a more realistic way.
FTR, I had passion for something as a teen and I happen to be doing exactly that thing now professionally and I don't have to compromise to do it in a way that makes me a lot of money. But it helps that I actually understood the career when I decided I had a passion for it. I just decided to pursue something else during undergrad because I developed more passions and wanted options that could include multiple passions. Which is exactly what I found in my last career.
The things I ask young people to think about are whether they're passionate about collaborating with people, or coming up with solutions by themselves, are they passionate about details or broader ideas, do they get a thrill out of leadership, or do they prefer clear guidelines? Do they love researching topics in detail or do they prefer running with ideas and working things out as they go? Do they thrive with a regimented schedule like school or do they find themselves more motivated during the summer?
I focus less on "I'm passionate about manatees" and more on "I'm passionate about coming up with ideas after researching a ton about a thing I'm interested in" or "I'm passionate about having my ideas heard," etc, etc.
It doesn't actually take all that much to tease out what professional traits a very young person has that will likely make them more or less successful in different kinds of roles, or what kind of education would facilitate strengthening/shoring up those skills.
The problem I see over and over and over again is that kids are depending on their parents for insight about careers and most parents know fuck all about most careers and don't have the knowledge required to really assess what their kid might actually be amazing at.
For years and years parents have come to me to try and convince their kids to study what I did because I had one of those careers that every parent pushed their kid into.
The first thing I would tell them was "one of the main drivers of me choosing this career was for geographic flexibility." Nothing about the science of the helping people or whatever. Seriously, the #1 factor in me choosing my career was the ability to work anywhere I wanted to live. I was incredibly passionate about being able to choose my location and not getting stuck somewhere I hated because that's where my industry was located.
The look on the parents' faces when it hit them that it never even crossed their minds to think of that was priceless.
Then I would talk about autonomy and responsibility. How I had figured out that there's a massive trade off when it comes to autonomy. You have more freedom, but you also have higher stakes and everything comes down to you, there's nowhere to turn when shit goes wrong, you have to take it on the nose and be very comfortable with getting in shit for your choices.
For me, dealing with authority that I don't respect is more painful than the buck stopping with me, so I will always chose the role where I'm more likely to take the hits with zero support than to deal with the bullshit of crappy authority and have no freedom to do anything about it. I emphasized this as one of the most critical things to determine about a career.
Then I would talk about independent vs collaborative work and highly fluid vs highly prescriptive work. Some jobs are all about pushing the limits and coming up with creative solutions and more unpredictable success, other jobs are all about following a prescriptive pattern as faithfully as possible with very clear rules for success. Are they the kind of person who seeks to perfect things or the kind of person who is comfortable with more grey areas and abstraction?
Different personality types respond very differently under these conditions.
I would go through a whole series of extremely important traits of careers before even touching on the broad strokes subject matter of a career. Because a sales role is a sales role in any industry. A management role is a management role. A research role is a research role. A writing role is a writing role.
It matters more that someone figure out what kind of roles they will thrive in and then from there they can figure out what industries would make most sense to pursue those roles in, and then figure out what education would best facilitate working in those industries.
As a teen I interviewed so many adults to understand various careers, industries, and roles, and in doing so, I was able to see the patterns of roles and industries that would make sense for me. Then I kept doing that kind of research all through undergrad.
By the time I chose my career, I had probably interviewed a few hundred people about their careers, spent many hours in the career center, and changed my major several times.
I can firmly say now looking back that if my goal was to make a lot of money, I would have been best off sticking with just my humanities degree, not bothering with my doctorate, and taking the job I was offered in 4th year to do large scientific equipment sales.
But when I was offered that job, I asked to interview one of the sales reps and decided that although I had a lot of passion about research, I wouldn't enjoy the constant travel aspect of the job, nor did the relentless pressure of sales targets appeal to me either. By that point I had interviewed enough sales people to have a solid understanding of that role and that just because I would be good at it doesn't mean I would thrive in it.
But yeah, if I looked at the median income of people in that role, it sure would have looked like a great option had I not thoroughly researched what the career would really be like day-to-day and how it wouldn't fit with my actual passions.
-
Thanks all for your replies. I summarized key points below. My DD is introvert and not great at people relationships. She is ambitious about her career and works hard. She is leaning towards medicine (wants to do it in Europe as the costs are low and takes much less time). She can't handle stress that well and is not great with people so I am a bit worried about medicine side. The other option she spoke about is Finance but we both are not sure about the career options there. She doesn't want to go towards Computer Science as per her she's not good with the logic and programming skills.
- Recommended: Engineering, Doctor, Accounting (followed by CPA, so many jobs available), Physical Therapist, Nursing (you’ll become a millionaire before doctors even start their paycheck)
- Go for some form of computers or eng degree; even accounting is fine. But liberal arts and others waste of time. “Follow your passion” is bad advice
- Math major is toughest but opens lot of doors
- Specific degrees open few doors but close many others; so avoid them. Networking more important. Evaluate your major (pros and cons) before taking it. e.g., surgeon or doctor can be very difficult path
-
Oh, math.
Here’s the thing about math degrees. They’re exactly the same as any of the liberal arts degrees. It ends with a piece of paper proving someone has spent 4-ish years learning how to problem solve, analyze, communicate, and think critically. The only thing that sets a math degree above a BA is the public’s generalized fear of mathing.
In fact, math majors might emerge little poorer in final skillset since they tend to write fewer papers than those who emerge with BA’s. And just like those BA’s, the newly graduate math’er must go forth into the bright world and flail around trying to figure out what the fuck job is going to hire them. Because it turns out, there just aren’t that many jobs that require someone sit around doing “math.” Just like there aren’t that many jobs that require someone to sit around doing “Russian/anthroplogy/sociology/English.”
All a math degree does is prove someone is smart enough to get through college. Just like a degree in Russian, or anthropology, or sociology, of goddamn mothfuckin’ English.
Signed,
A math major (who does not math at work (because those don’t really exist)
-
...The things I ask young people to think about are whether they're passionate about collaborating with people, or coming up with solutions by themselves, are they passionate about details or broader ideas, do they get a thrill out of leadership, or do they prefer clear guidelines? Do they love researching topics in detail or do they prefer running with ideas and working things out as they go? Do they thrive with a regimented schedule like school or do they find themselves more motivated during the summer?
I focus less on "I'm passionate about manatees" and more on "I'm passionate about coming up with ideas after researching a ton about a thing I'm interested in" or "I'm passionate about having my ideas heard," etc, etc.
It doesn't actually take all that much to tease out what professional traits a very young person has that will likely make them more or less successful in different kinds of roles, or what kind of education would facilitate strengthening/shoring up those skills...
This is a spectacular line of questioning... and I think it's exactly what's wrong with typical "follow your passion" thinking. The way people interpret "follow your passion" is always about the manatees. Choosing a job based on day-to-day realities of the job (solitary thinking, collaboration, spending time outdoors, location flexibility, working with certain kinds of people, etc.) is way more important than it being vaguely related to some pre-existing interest.
So I suppose we can agree to disagree on our interpretations of "follow your passion," and I can otherwise tell OP: listen to Metalcat. This is really excellent advice. Kids don't know shit about careers, so part of the point of college is simply meeting people who they can learn about careers from, and learn which skills are important to develop. If they take that job seriously, they will be highly employable with any generic liberal arts degree.
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.
As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.
I 100% believe that. I was just saying that if you are going into debt for a degree some have a better chance of having a good ROI than others.
-
Oh, math.
Here’s the thing about math degrees. They’re exactly the same as any of the liberal arts degrees. It ends with a piece of paper proving someone has spent 4-ish years learning how to problem solve, analyze, communicate, and think critically. The only thing that sets a math degree above a BA is the public’s generalized fear of mathing.
In fact, math majors might emerge little poorer in final skillset since they tend to write fewer papers than those who emerge with BA’s. And just like those BA’s, the newly graduate math’er must go forth into the bright world and flail around trying to figure out what the fuck job is going to hire them. Because it turns out, there just aren’t that many jobs that require someone sit around doing “math.” Just like there aren’t that many jobs that require someone to sit around doing “Russian/anthroplogy/sociology/English.”
All a math degree does is prove someone is smart enough to get through college. Just like a degree in Russian, or anthropology, or sociology, of goddamn mothfuckin’ English.
Signed,
A math major (who does not math at work (because those don’t really exist)
Seconding that getting that first and second job with a math degree can be a hurdle.
Signed,
A math major (and applied math master) who kinda does math at work. Somewhat.
-
I think everyone is missing the point when they focus on the field or the degree. What's important are your marks, your school and your career path. If you get top marks in finance/maths/computer science from a great school, you will be set to go into investment banking, software engineering or quant, which to me are the fields with the best bang for buck (in terms of earnings). However, if you get mediocre marks in computer science or an MBA from a shitty school, you'll be getting a helpdesk job or maybe working at Macca's. Really, the field (i.e. degree) is not so important as the school which confers it, and your marks in getting it. And for those who say school doesn't matter, I think it matters a great deal, because an 65 average at a top school will be regarded the same as an 80 average at a mediocre school.
-
Signed,
A math major (who does not math at work (because those don’t really exist)
I thought certain jobs in quant and tech do use maths at work?
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.
As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.
I 100% believe that. I was just saying that if you are going into debt for a degree some have a better chance of having a good ROI than others.
My ENTIRE point, which I have written now multiple loooong posts about is that the factors that determine success go so far beyond degree choice.
It's insanely reductive to even think "what degrees lead to success" as if that's some kind of universal property, and not highly dependent on the individual human beings involved in these major life decisions.
My entire point is to teach children how to make effective school and career decisions, which requires a lot more analysis and research than just googling median incomes of various grads.
My advice is to take the decision much MORE seriously, not less seriously, but my biggest advice is for parents not to assume that they even have the knowledge to figure this out for their kids.
Parents, aka basic adults, don't generally have special knowledge about careers, they usually have extremely limited knowledge about their own careers, maybe a bit of insight about the careers of their family members and maybe some friends and people they dated.
In no way do general adults have the kind of expansive insight kids need to figure out what kinds of professional roles they would thrive in. So they should recruit help to figure these things out.
And if those parents are not exquisite networkers who can easily recruit that kind of help, then they should DEFINITELY recruit help because learning how to network to get guidance, mentorship, and information is the most critical skill any kid can learn for figuring out their own career success.
If I had listened to the ignorant adults in my life when I was younger, I would have become an architect. Why? Because I was a national math champion and a very skilled artist, and when people think to combine those two broad topics, they automatically go to architecture.
Lol, I can't even begin to describe how BAD architecture would be as a career fit for me. But the median salary sure looks pretty good!
-
Oh, math.
Here’s the thing about math degrees. They’re exactly the same as any of the liberal arts degrees. It ends with a piece of paper proving someone has spent 4-ish years learning how to problem solve, analyze, communicate, and think critically. The only thing that sets a math degree above a BA is the public’s generalized fear of mathing.
In fact, math majors might emerge little poorer in final skillset since they tend to write fewer papers than those who emerge with BA’s. And just like those BA’s, the newly graduate math’er must go forth into the bright world and flail around trying to figure out what the fuck job is going to hire them. Because it turns out, there just aren’t that many jobs that require someone sit around doing “math.” Just like there aren’t that many jobs that require someone to sit around doing “Russian/anthroplogy/sociology/English.”
All a math degree does is prove someone is smart enough to get through college. Just like a degree in Russian, or anthropology, or sociology, of goddamn mothfuckin’ English.
Signed,
A math major (who does not math at work (because those don’t really exist)
Seconding that getting that first and second job with a math degree can be a hurdle.
Signed,
A math major (and applied math master) who kinda does math at work. Somewhat.
My daughter, the math major, will be graduating this year with several job offers although she will most likely be going to grad school. In contrast, her friends who are CS majors are finding it a bit harder to get hired. I will admit that it helps that she is at one of the top tech schools in the country but still, from what she told me, the math majors have all found jobs or some slot in grad school.
-
Oh, math.
Here’s the thing about math degrees. They’re exactly the same as any of the liberal arts degrees. It ends with a piece of paper proving someone has spent 4-ish years learning how to problem solve, analyze, communicate, and think critically. The only thing that sets a math degree above a BA is the public’s generalized fear of mathing.
In fact, math majors might emerge little poorer in final skillset since they tend to write fewer papers than those who emerge with BA’s. And just like those BA’s, the newly graduate math’er must go forth into the bright world and flail around trying to figure out what the fuck job is going to hire them. Because it turns out, there just aren’t that many jobs that require someone sit around doing “math.” Just like there aren’t that many jobs that require someone to sit around doing “Russian/anthroplogy/sociology/English.”
All a math degree does is prove someone is smart enough to get through college. Just like a degree in Russian, or anthropology, or sociology, of goddamn mothfuckin’ English.
Signed,
A math major (who does not math at work (because those don’t really exist)
I did applied math/statistics. It was a graduate degree, had lots of programming and predictive modeling in the class work, and was probably more directly career-relevant than just a math degree. Also, my job paid for it.
-
A young, female plumber would be able to pretty much write her own ticket. Little or no cost of entry with apprentice programs. High wages that will only increase. Constant, steady demand. Cannot be outsourced or replaced by AI. Female plumbers are coveted in a male dominated field.
My former BIL makes way more per year as a trim carpenter than I do as an engineer. He's his own boss (for better or worse).
If I were going to suggest a degree strictly based on expected income, it would likely be in the medical field. Could be hands on like a nurse, surgeon, or anesthesiologist. Could also be hands off like biomedical engineer, medical device sales, etc. Again, there are jobs here that are difficult to outsource or replace, and there will always be demand for their services.
-
I'm with Metal on this.
I have a nephew who figured out in his first semester that networking with academia and joining clubs/activities and taking on an unpaid internship (that he's turned into a paid internship) would be the best way to get the most out of his college years. His parents were surprised that he figured this out since they are not particularly good at networking.
He figured out how to get a free ride to a state school and turned down a more prestigious school because he didn't want to be saddled with debt. His assumption is that he will go to a more prestigious graduate school.
I've never met a more focused, well-rounded, young adult. He's not the smartest kid in the room, but he applies himself and looks for mentors when he needs them. I suspect he will be wildly successful in anything he chooses.
The point of this long anecdote is that his major is WAY less important than his drive and the transitional skills he's developed.
-
A young, female plumber would be able to pretty much write her own ticket. Little or no cost of entry with apprentice programs. High wages that will only increase. Constant, steady demand. Cannot be outsourced or replaced by AI. Female plumbers are coveted in a male dominated field.
My former BIL makes way more per year as a trim carpenter than I do as an engineer. He's his own boss (for better or worse).
If I were going to suggest a degree strictly based on expected income, it would likely be in the medical field. Could be hands on like a nurse, surgeon, or anesthesiologist. Could also be hands off like biomedical engineer, medical device sales, etc. Again, there are jobs here that are difficult to outsource or replace, and there will always be demand for their services.
Just out of curiosity, does it take a lot of physical strength to be a plumber? Not looking to pivot careers lol just wondering.
also +1 @Metalcat
My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.
If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible
-
A young, female plumber would be able to pretty much write her own ticket. Little or no cost of entry with apprentice programs. High wages that will only increase. Constant, steady demand. Cannot be outsourced or replaced by AI. Female plumbers are coveted in a male dominated field.
My former BIL makes way more per year as a trim carpenter than I do as an engineer. He's his own boss (for better or worse).
If I were going to suggest a degree strictly based on expected income, it would likely be in the medical field. Could be hands on like a nurse, surgeon, or anesthesiologist. Could also be hands off like biomedical engineer, medical device sales, etc. Again, there are jobs here that are difficult to outsource or replace, and there will always be demand for their services.
Just out of curiosity, does it take a lot of physical strength to be a plumber? Not looking to pivot careers lol just wondering.
also +1 @Metalcat
My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.
If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible
Lol, and my experience is in having two of the kind of career-specific degrees that lead that parents tell their kids to get.
Which is why I've always been able to charge substantial fees to give advice to all of the poor saps in my own professions who never were taught the basics of research, networking, or any basics of even understanding the market they've decided to get into.
I literally had a meeting yesterday with a middle aged military medical professional looking to change careers, and this person is at the end of their new degree.
She was fascinated by how much I knew about the industry and was like "how did you learn all of this stuff? You're only a term ahead of me!!"
And I was like WTF?? This person virtually did ZERO research before spending mid 5 figures and countless hours on a new degree. She looked at the hourly rate that professionals charge and thought "that looks pretty good" and just went for it.
She had zero clue about what the market conditions were, where the barriers to success were, what trade offs and sacrifices need to be made early in the career, later in the career, scalability, etc, etc, etc. She was fucking fascinated by how much I knew and gobsmacked when I said that I found out most of this BEFORE I committed to the degree program.
She was like "BUT HOW???" and I was then gobsmacked because all I did was send a pile of emails to clinics across the country and ask if the owners would spare a few minutes to answer a few questions. From there I got everything I needed to have a strategy as to how to be successful in the field, and knowing my own aptitudes, I knew the trade offs would be worthwhile for me.
I had been considering a different program, but some of the career trade offs weren't so appealing, so I declined that offer despite the option of getting a full ride and instead paid a premium for a different program because the outcome would suit my individual circumstances better.
Had I based my choice on just what I found on Google about the stats of the profession, I 100% would have chosen the first degree with the full ride and the much, much lower overall competition for market share. Instead I picked the more expensive school with the shittier reputation, going into the field with way more competition and much lower overall success rate for grads.
Why? Because I made a lot of phone calls and figured out the barriers to success and identified which barriers would actually be easier for me, an individual, not aggregated data.
Each time I've made a career decision, I've put hundreds and hundreds of hours into research before commiting to expensive, highly specialized, career limiting programs.
And every single step along the way I've had many, many opportunities to make A LOT more money by NOT doing those kind of jobs. I chose these limiting programs/professions because I know what I love, and more importantly, I know what I hate.
But I've basically been criminally underpaid my entire career relative the time, money, and energy I've put in to my careers.
Lol, my favourite was that in my former profession, as I mentioned, my colleagues would often pay me for business advice, which was really basic knowledge that anyone entrepreneurial should know, but they didn't, so that was fun for me.
But I got recruited by a high end financial firm and the owner, who was 5 years younger than me and had a fraction of the education I did, was mocking me in a friendly way about how I put in all this work to reach the level that I had professionally, only to end up just being paid for my time, which every business person knows is a shit and poorly scalable model.
He then said "let me know when you're ready to make real money." And he was right, if what I wanted to do what maximize my income, dropping the entire medical profession and going into business with him as he proposed was by far the best move.
This guy's wife was an ER MD and he referred to her job as a her "cute paid hobby" but he was the one who paid the bills.
Note, he's not as much of an asshole as he sounds, this was all said tongue-in-cheek, but he wasn't wrong. His practice was marketing to medical professionals and he was always kind of horrified at how much harder we all worked and how much less we all made compared to him and his partners.
I declined the offer to make boat loads more money for the same reason I've always turned down opportunities to make boat loads of money, I don't need boat loads of money and I don't enjoy the work involved in making them. I would rather make much less money and do work I love. But I'm a sentimental softie that way.
So yeah, let's maybe not push these degrees on kids, especially without having them talk to at least a few dozen folks in those professions with a well-curated list of interview questions that can ACTUALLY give them insight into whether they would thrive under those conditions or not.
Any, and I mean ANY career that has a high rate of pay should be examined closely for the cost of that pay. There's always a substantial cost, and it comes down to the individual if that cost is worth paying.
-
Thanks all for your replies. I summarized key points below.
- Recommended: Engineering, Doctor, Accounting (followed by CPA, so many jobs available), Physical Therapist, Nursing (you’ll become a millionaire before doctors even start their paycheck)
- Go for some form of computers or eng degree; even accounting is fine. But liberal arts and others waste of time. “Follow your passion” is bad advice
- Math major is toughest but opens lot of doors
- Specific degrees open few doors but close many others; so avoid them. Networking more important. Evaluate your major (pros and cons) before taking it. e.g., surgeon or doctor can be very difficult path
Ummm, you seem to have missed one of the major points here. Yes, some people will tell you liberal arts are a waste of time. I will just sit here and laugh all the way to my bank account. Former English major here, married to a Ph.D in Electrical Engineering (with a double major in EE and Physics to boot). Guess who makes more? Well, ok, this year I think he beat me. But I'm only working half-time right now, and he's 50+ hrs/week.
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
The thing is, engineers tend to top out after a while, unless they make a shift into something that brings a non-technical leadership role. My DH would be making a LOT more money if he had skipped the Ph.D and gotten an MBA instead. The frustrating thing is that he is way, way smarter than his bosses, and he actually speaks "business" very well. But those bosses will never see him as their equal and worthy of a VP role, because he has the wrong degree for that role. Which is fine; we're FI, and he loves doing advanced tech stuff. But if he wanted to chase the money, his serious technical knowledge would have been a detriment, not an asset.
It's like any kind of business or job: the skills that get you through the door and help you succeed at the beginning are not necessarily the skills that you need to move to a management level, or an executive level. So even if you start out as, say, an engineer, if you want to move above that level, you will likely need another degree on top of that, to learn those other skills. OTOH, someone with, say, a business degree (or even -- gasp! -- English) won't likely make as much to start with, but can be more prepared for that next step. I strongly agree with what someone wrote above: liberal arts is not about a specific topic as much as it is about critical thinking, logic, reading comprehension (yes it sounds like something every second-grader should know, but you'd be amazed how many people struggle to really interpret what someone is saying), understanding how to research and synthesize information -- basically, taking thoughts and ideas and words apart and putting them back together in a useful and effective way. If you really think about it, anyone successful needs to be an effective communicator above all else. Yes, that's a given with my job, where my ultimate role is to persuade people that I'm right. But my DH is in as technical a field as you can find -- and if he wants to keep doing that, he needs to be able to convince his boss and his customers that what he is doing is worth the money they are giving him. [Hmmm, maybe we should change the name of the major from "English" to "language engineer"]
The other thing to think about is whether you want a "safe" mid-level career, making plenty of money but not necessarily the big bucks, or if you want a career that is more polarized, where you have a chance to make really big bucks but most people don't. Again, engineers, professors, nurses, plumbers, accountants, etc. offer the first choice. Lawyers and doctors and finance bros offer the second (finance bros can actually be a coupld orders of magnitude above the first two). But that big money comes with lots of tradeoffs -- lots and lots of years of study and/or very long hours, many tradeoffs in a personal life, a very significant chance of not reaching those highest heights.
The way most people succeed is to find an area that is interesting enough to them that they are willing to put in the work to become really, really good at it. In the end, the degree matters less than what you make of the opportunities you are presented. It is better to graduate top of your class in a degree that you were willing to work hard for than to scrape through with Cs in an area you're not really that interested in because someone told you that degree if useful. It is just as important to throw yourself into contacts with professors and employers and hustle as it is to do well on your work. Don't worry as much about learning a specific skill or body of knowledge, except as the basics for whatever path you choose (obviously, engineers need to know physics, right?). Because the world is always changing -- faster than ever, in fact -- and the skills/knowledge you will need to succeed in 20 years are very different than they are now. And you'll never be able to predict what those future needs will be. Mental flexibility, a continued drive to learn new things, is far more important than whatever specific universe of knowledge you have when you graduate.
I really want to emphasize that last bit. The job I have now didn't exist when I graduated. Literally. There were few female lawyers, even fewer female partners, and zero part-time female partners -- and my particular field (environmental) was very very young back then, with not even 5% of the regulations as we have now. My knowledge of "environmental law" when I graduated (which was basically, "there are three major statutes, and this thing called the Code of Federal Regulations") was entirely useless; I learned on the job, and I had to keep learning to stay in any way competitive.
But the much, much bigger shift is in what the job actually requires. When I was in law school, they largely taught research. The most critical skill back then was finding the best case -- everything was in books, and you literally had to learn how to find things. There were several companies that had done things like develop outlines with all of the legal principles distilled down to specific numbers (like 8.2.1 kind of thing), and so you had to learn all of those principles well enough to understand where to start to look -- and then follow that trail through a bunch of false starts to get to something useful. Literally hours and hours to find anything. Then boolean searching came along (like Google), and the world changed. Now infinite knowledge -- facts, data -- is at your fingertips. So now what makes people valuable isn't figuring out how to find information -- it's the ability to winnow through 100,000 meaningless data points to get to the one that actually matters. It's about distilling and synthesizing more than finding and memorizing. Luckily, those happen to be my strengths. And I do mean "luckily": I never would have been able to predict that shift when I was choosing a career.
Which, to me, circles back to the value of a liberal arts education. The nice thing about liberal arts is it isn't one thing -- you need to learn science and math as well as writing and history and art. It inherently trains a degree of mental flexibility and a broad base of knowledge that positions you to learn and adapt. Even my DH, btw, argues passionately that the traditional engineering education is too narrow, because all of the advances are made where different disciplines cross over. Yes, we will always need someone who can keep the engines running. But the engineers who are going to have the best chance at making serious money are the people who can cross disciplines, like neuroscience, or quantum computing, or pharmaceutical manufacturing, etc. etc. etc.
-
I have an international relations degree. My career is not international relations. I’m a firm believer that college is not trade school. The ability to communicate and critically think are two traits that will lead to a good career no matter what major one picks.
100%
I am a full-time college instructor. I am also a firm believer that college is not trade school. That is not putting down trade school. That is a great option for other people as well.
College is different than trade school because the focus is critical thinking. Critical thinking is super important in today's world, IMO.
I am an extreme example, but the amount of money and time spent on my degree is a terrible ROI on salary. However, it's been great on building wealth and quality of life.
I got a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology and basically studied behavioral economics in grad school. It was 2 years full-time in a MA program and another 5 years full-time in a Ph.D. program. I left ABD and it took me another 4 years to finish my dissertation. I left with 57K of student loan debt and my first faculty job paid 40K/year with an option to teach a summer course for another 5K.
I'm now 45 years old and my salary is $61,700/year. However, with health insurance and retirement benefits my total compensation is around $90,000/year. However, my full-time is only about 1,000 hours/year. I work 30 hours/week about 32 weeks/year with 20 weeks of vacation. My wife is a substitute teacher and personal assistant for a real estate agent and makes 25K/year. Our net worth is 1.7 million and our life is awesome. If I wanted to double my income with a soul sucking corporate job, I could do that in about 6 months. If I wanted to triple my salary, I could do that in about 2 years. However, I consider it to be unnecessary. We have a great life and a high paying corporate job would screw that up.
-
Just putting in my .02 cents of how I tend to think about this...
Instead of advising young people to go to a certain specific college or university and getting a certain specific degree to do a certain specific high income, high stress job, I encourage young people to think about what sort of life and lifestyle they want to have first, and why.
Do they want to get married? Have children? Do they want to travel the world? Do they want a minimalistic lifestyle in a small apartment, or do they want a giant house? Do they want to live in the city or the suburbs or country? etc.
I view this as the most important questions - especially the *why* behind each question so they understand themselves better and understand why they want to live a certain sort of life or lifestyle.
After these questions are asked the next most important question is who they want to marry and what relationships they want to have and - again - why. What sort of person is best suited to support their life and lifestyle goals? Frankly I think who you marry and what relationships you have is more important than what career you choose.
The next most important question is what sort of career / job / business will support a certain sort of lifestyle. With a more minimalistic single no children lifestyle expenses can be a lot lower than with a more extravagant married with children lifestyle, so your potential career choices can be much broader if you have lower expenses.
If you want to retire early or have a large family (or do both) or do other expensive things like travelling the world, then you'll need a pretty high income career or business to support these goals. So this sort of limits your career choices to only high income careers, and this needs to be balanced with what sort of life someone wants.
Finally - once someone has what life they want figured out, who they want to marry, what lifestyle they want, if they want children, travel, retire early, and what sort of career they want, then they can pick what the best college major is to support this career.
So I actually view the college major as not a very important or useful thing to pick, in the grand scheme of things. I think there are a lot of other things and questions that a lot of young people never really think about, which they probably should think about, which are more important than what college major they pick.
In my case - I started my software development career after buying some programming books in high school. With this I was able to start working as a professional software engineer at a young age, completely self taught.
Basically some family members knew a guy who owned a small business who needed some software made, and they knew I was already programming my own video games, so my first software development gig was while I was in high school. I took this experience to a large company after high school and was able to get hired on with no degrees at all.
After this I completed an associated degree at a local community college for free. The community college that I went to is only 4-5k per year in tuition, so even if I didn't have grants and scholarships pay for it it would have been (and still is today actually) a very affordable education option.
So I actually have no personal money tied up in my career aside from the initial $500 dollars that I spent on technical books in school, yet I make around $150,000 / year. I haven't spent any other money to support my career or education at all, so the schooling and education and training required to do my job was pretty minimal. Most of it is actually just previous software development experience gained from working at previous companies.
In general though - my career isn't really about the money or roi on my educational investment.
It's more about if my job supports my life, lifestyle, health, relationships, and happiness or not - all of of which are way more important than what sort of job / income / career / college major I chose.
So - to summarize - I tend to think it's more important to think about what sort of life and lifestyle you want to live, including who you marry and what relationships you have, and what sort of career you want to choose, than what college major you choose.
The decision of which college major to choose really should be driven by what sort of life you want to live, and not the other way around.
-
I think that where some people get tripped up with the STEM/liberal arts divide is in the variability. Like, when I think back to my engineering courses in university vs the liberal arts ones that I took there was a clear difference between the two.
With the engineering stuff there was a minimum (usually easily gradable) baseline that had to be achieved to pass. Pass all the engineering classes, and you'll have the baseline necessary to do engineering work. This is true even if you just barely squeak out a pass in all the courses. You may not end up the greatest engineer in the world, but you'll be able to do the job because there was no way to pass without having to learn the stuff to a minimum level.
With the liberal arts stuff, it was assumed that you were going to try hard . . . but not always marked in such a way that it rewarded that hard work. This might just be for the liberal arts courses that I took, but it was pretty simple to pass classes by gaming the system without really getting much actual learning out of the class. Concepts from earlier classes weren't always structured to solidly form the basis for later classes in the way that the engineering stuff did. I feel like you got out of these classes what you put into them, but what you got out of them was very unrelated to the marks you ended up with. (I got a tremendous amount out of the music classes that I took, while only receiving average marks. I got amazing marks in environmental science, psychology, and philosophy while doing no work, learning dick all, and basically coasting because I was focusing on the engineering stuff I had to take at the same time.)
This is why liberal arts often get the 'oh, that shit is easy/useless' kind of label - because it can be if your approach towards it is bad. If your kid isn't interested in liberal arts and is just going to school to party with friends - my suspicion is that they can totally graduate with decent marks by half-assing their way through. And that will be a shit preparation for a career later in life. Or they can really hustle and work hard in their liberal arts degree, not necessarily show much more for it in the marks, but pick up tons of invaluable life skills that will serve them well throughout a working career. These are going to be the folks to can use their degree to enter into and succeed just about anywhere.
If your kid is going into a hard STEM field like engineering, there is less leeway to fuck around. If they don't work hard, they'll fail out. If they pass, then they're probably going to be prepared to do work in a particular field to at least some minimum level of acceptability. The kids who barely squeak through might well be less prepared to switch fields to something else . . . so if it turns out that they don't like what they chose, they certainly could feel stuck after a couple years of working. Engineering positions can often be draining/time consuming and cause folks to stagnate into their positions until they're incapable of doing anything else. But there's a minimum level of hard work that goes into the degree, if you can keep that forced continuous learning going, this can be applied to anything that interests you in the future. I know a great many engineers who have switched into completely different fields from what their degree is (most going into trades - plumbing, electrician, home inspector, pest control, farming but also some who have gone into writing and farming). I also know a great many engineers who have ended up incapable of doing anything else after half-assedly barely working in a position until they lose the ability to learn new stuff.
So I don't think that it's a matter of 'liberal arts are bad', 'liberal arts prepare you for doing anything', 'STEM is always best', 'STEM folks can't do different things'. Everything depends on the type of person, their interests, and their approach to work. Like I said, liberal arts seen to allow a lot more leeway/variability in school. With STEM stuff (at least with the engineering programs that I was involved with) the degree itself is harder to get, but the careers that it leads to can sometimes lead to mental stagnation that must be constantly fought. There's no easy/sure-fire cookie cutter way to success.
-
You don't NEED a STEM degree. I know plenty of people who have got a great ROI on many different types of degrees, but it really came down to two things. They had the ability to adapt and do something completely unrelated to the degree and/or went to a very affordable school. If you can graduate debt free or very close to it, I think that any college degree is worth it. The point I was making earlier is that spending 60k on undergraduate makes this equation tougher.
-
You don't NEED a STEM degree. I know plenty of people who have got a great ROI on many different types of degrees, but it really came down to two things. They had the ability to adapt and do something completely unrelated to the degree and/or went to a very affordable school. If you can graduate debt free or very close to it, I think that any college degree is worth it. The point I was making earlier is that spending 60k on undergraduate makes this equation tougher.
If I were to spend a large sum on education for my kid, then I would REALLY heavily emphasize that they need to get a hell of a lot more out of the experience than just what they learned in classes.
-
Thanks all for your replies. I summarized key points below. My DD is introvert and not great at people relationships. She is ambitious about her career and works hard. She is leaning towards medicine (wants to do it in Europe as the costs are low and takes much less time). She can't handle stress that well and is not great with people so I am a bit worried about medicine side. The other option she spoke about is Finance but we both are not sure about the career options there. She doesn't want to go towards Computer Science as per her she's not good with the logic and programming skills.
- Recommended: Engineering, Doctor, Accounting (followed by CPA, so many jobs available), Physical Therapist, Nursing (you’ll become a millionaire before doctors even start their paycheck)
- Go for some form of computers or eng degree; even accounting is fine. But liberal arts and others waste of time. “Follow your passion” is bad advice
- Math major is toughest but opens lot of doors
- Specific degrees open few doors but close many others; so avoid them. Networking more important. Evaluate your major (pros and cons) before taking it. e.g., surgeon or doctor can be very difficult path
Your daughter will be best served by:
1. working on her communication and people skills. Being an introvert means your social battery is drained by people, not that you're automatically bad at peopling. She's got work to do.
2. working on her coping techniques and methods of stress management.
3. Researching different fields/jobs and talking to people in those fields when possible.
4. Deciding for herself what she wants to do with her life, within the constraints set by outside influences.
5. Making a plan that allows for flexibility when life throws curveballs, executing the plan, and adapting as needed for the curveballs.
-
If your daughter doesn't deal well with stress, medicine is probably not the right fit, for several reasons. Maybe something like a PT, but even nursing is very high stress, as is nursing school.
And while I firmly believe that practical, employment considerations should be part of a college major or career path decision, they shouldn't be the only one. You also need something you have somewhat of an aptitude for and that you might not be miserable doing. I think "follow your passion" is bad advice in many ways, but "ignore your preferences and chase the money" is equally bad.
Also, life and trends change. Today's money-making career with people shortages could be the next decade's oversaturated, underpaid field.
Therapy to help her figure out stress and "not being great with people" (which is often, but not always social anxiety, neurodiversity, or similar) would serve her will in life, no matter what major or career she chooses, and the sooner she does it, the better.
-
If your kid is going into a hard STEM field like engineering, there is less leeway to fuck around.
100% agree with this whole post. Also, for the OP: keep in mind that you can do STM with a liberal arts degree, too (I was almost a chemistry major). They may not have the "E," but science/math/health/etc.? You betcha. Many, many liberal arts grads go to med school or into Ph.D programs in other hard sciences.
The thing that I don't like about traditional engineering majors (and both my kids are engineers -- 1 graduated, 1 in college) is that the courseload is so rigorous and structured that you have to know exactly what you want to do as soon as you start; in some cases, you even need to be admitted separately to a particular program, so even if you are admitted to the school, you might not get the major you want. If you are 17-18 and know for sure what you want, that's awesome. Like, I look at my DS and realize that "engineer" is a genetic condition, not a job title, so college is just giving him skills to be who he has always been. ;-) He is very happily at an uber-techie school and has found his tribe.
OTOH, if you're not sure, that kind of intensive early focus makes it easy to miss other opportunities and fields that you might be really good at and enjoy more. The feature and the bug of a liberal arts degree is that they force you to try a bunch of different fields. Which is why I strongly encouraged my DD to choose the liberal arts school with the engineering program, vs. the very engineering-focused STEM school. She thought she wanted to be an engineer, but she is not nearly as tech/equipment focused as my DS (plus she kept doing the "I want to major in XYZ" and at the same time explaining how she didn't actually like any of the career paths that naturally flow from that major!). So I wanted her to have options. Turns out she did major in engineering, but she also really enjoyed some of her liberal arts classes, too -- and boy has her writing improved. The writing and presentations skills she got from those classes she was "forced" to take are going to serve her well wherever she ends up.
-
Thanks all for your replies. I summarized key points below. My DD is introvert and not great at people relationships. She is ambitious about her career and works hard. She is leaning towards medicine (wants to do it in Europe as the costs are low and takes much less time). She can't handle stress that well and is not great with people so I am a bit worried about medicine side. The other option she spoke about is Finance but we both are not sure about the career options there. She doesn't want to go towards Computer Science as per her she's not good with the logic and programming skills.
- Recommended: Engineering, Doctor, Accounting (followed by CPA, so many jobs available), Physical Therapist, Nursing (you’ll become a millionaire before doctors even start their paycheck)
- Go for some form of computers or eng degree; even accounting is fine. But liberal arts and others waste of time. “Follow your passion” is bad advice
- Math major is toughest but opens lot of doors
- Specific degrees open few doors but close many others; so avoid them. Networking more important. Evaluate your major (pros and cons) before taking it. e.g., surgeon or doctor can be very difficult path
Your daughter will be best served by:
1. working on her communication and people skills. Being an introvert means your social battery is drained by people, not that you're automatically bad at peopling. She's got work to do.
2. working on her coping techniques and methods of stress management.
3. Researching different fields/jobs and talking to people in those fields when possible.
4. Deciding for herself what she wants to do with her life, within the constraints set by outside influences.
5. Making a plan that allows for flexibility when life throws curveballs, executing the plan, and adapting as needed for the curveballs.
Very much this.
A big part of my job now is helping newly disabled people and neurodivergent people navigate their professional options. So much of success is understanding ones own characteristics and working with them instead of against them.
-
There are plenty of rankings of these things. Pull up the list and have your daughter look at them
https://www.payscale.com/college-roi
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/slideshows/national-universities-liberal-arts-colleges-with-the-best-roi?slide=24
Spoiler alert: MIT is top. Now getting in there is another matter..
-
Nursing. Stellar pay, universally and continuously needed, cannot be automated away, high salary / college cost ratio. With a 4-year nursing degree, work the next 8-10 years as hard as you would have while living the lifestyle you would have if you were to go to medical school and you'll be a millionaire before doctors even start paying back their loans.
My wife is a nurse. She likes it, but you are basically treated like the hired help. Some Drs are better than others. But neither I or my wife would encourage our kids to go into nursing. The pay and job security are good. But the hours are terrible or the hours are good but the pay is terrible for a 4 year degree. You are treated like an assistant at best and servant at worst. And there is no upside unless you become a nurse practitioner. These are all generalities. But she has worked at several different hospitals in several different states, and also as a school nurse.
-
...My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.
If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible
+1
"Follow your aptitude" is a little less catchy than "follow your passion," but definitely rings true. I am a lot less passionate about classical music than a lot of musicians who are making a lot less money than me. But I was talented and I enjoyed being exceptional at something, so I kept working hard enough to be a big fish while moving up to bigger and bigger ponds.
I was also drawn to it less because of inherent "passion" but because of lifestyle factors. I met professional orchestra musicians and learned that they made decent enough incomes to enjoy a reasonable middle class lifestyle while only working for a few hours a day. I was drawn to it, in a very real sense, out of laziness, and a very similar attitude to what motivates FIRE. I saw, "oh, in this career I can frontload a ton of work in the practice room to high school and undergrad, and then I get to work less for the rest of my life."
A lot of classical musicians will try to dissuade kids from pursuing it, because they know how big of a risk it is, how many people fail, and how many of even the people who succeed end up jaded and disgruntled. They always say, "don't follow this career path unless you cannot imagine yourself doing anything else." I just sure as shit knew I couldn't imagine myself spending 40 hours a week sitting in an office. If I were born 10 years later and got to see as a teenager what was about to happen with remote work, I likely would have chosen something much more "sensible."
-
My kid is 14. She has 2.5 years left of High School. She will have almost 90 credits towards college on the School Districts dime.
We are paying for her Bachelor's Degree our rule is her BS degree MUST stand on its own. She wants to be a Pharmacist which is great. But pre-pharmacy is not an option. We had to explain to her that what happens if you get through your BS degree and decide I am done with School? So She has decided Chemical engineering is what she is currently planning on going into then she is thinking Pharmaceutical Engineering But then she saw how much a Chemical eng makes and was like...I am not sure. So we will see
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
Each is difficult in its own way to get into. Each has either a bipolar distribution or major barriers to entry.
In terms of liberal arts, I don't really rate it as a degree (I have one) because the skills that it focusses on (writing, analysis, critical thinking) are things you can learn for yourself, and indeed probably, if you're smart, should have learned for yourself before getting to university. One or two semesters of electives during your main degree can fill in any gaps in your knowledge. Also, my experience of my Arts degree is that the ceiling was much, much lower, i.e. it was easier to get high marks, which then dilutes the signalling ability of the degree. But it may all be a moot point because liberal arts makes a good undergraduate degree if you're going into law or some other graduate field.
I'm not saying that the skills valuable to a liberal arts degree are not useful - indeed, they are the most useful of all. But I think it's an inefficient way of honing skills that if you are smart you should either already have, or you should be able to pick up through independent reading (for pleasure).
-
In terms of liberal arts, I don't really rate it as a degree (I have one) because the skills that it focusses on (writing, analysis, critical thinking) are things you can learn for yourself, and indeed probably, if you're smart, should have learned for yourself before getting to university. One or two semesters of electives during your main degree can fill in any gaps in your knowledge. Also, my experience of my Arts degree is that the ceiling was much, much lower, i.e. it was easier to get high marks, which then dilutes the signalling ability of the degree.
To save myself a few paragraphs, this is my exact experience. I'll add though that if a PoliSci major says "analysis" you should immediately in your mind replace that word with the phrase "assorted words on a common theme" to get its true meaning in context.
-
Nursing. Stellar pay, universally and continuously needed, cannot be automated away, high salary / college cost ratio. With a 4-year nursing degree, work the next 8-10 years as hard as you would have while living the lifestyle you would have if you were to go to medical school and you'll be a millionaire before doctors even start paying back their loans.
My wife is a nurse. She likes it, but you are basically treated like the hired help. Some Drs are better than others. But neither I or my wife would encourage our kids to go into nursing. The pay and job security are good. But the hours are terrible or the hours are good but the pay is terrible for a 4 year degree. You are treated like an assistant at best and servant at worst. And there is no upside unless you become a nurse practitioner. These are all generalities. But she has worked at several different hospitals in several different states, and also as a school nurse.
Lots of truth. Nurses are a pure commodity. Like human gold. The are fungible, interchancheable, indivisible. As long as nurses and humans exist, they will automatically be assigned the value of a strong middle class lifestyle in any human society. No more, no less. In the US that practically corresponds to $50-$200k per year base pay (LCOL to VHCOL). No upside. No downside.
However being a commodity has two advantages. First, if you double your shifts you multiply your pay by 2.5X. Direct link, immediate effect. Extra shifts are nearly always available. Not like any other field, where extra pay may not be available, may have an indirect link, or may take years to pay off. That's why it's ideal for a young new grad, because they can out-earn their peers in other fields instantly and with certainty. Thus as I said putting in the same time and effort as a med student while living the student lifestyle can lead to $1M by the time the med student graduates.
Second, hospitals have something of a market for nurses going. Being a commodity makes you very flexible. You can pick up 2-3 month stints in any state, or possibly even in other countries, for good pay. Current hospital near us offers full annual pay if you accept permanent 2-day weekend shift. Pay is $100k per year by your second year of experience, so this is $100k/year for working two days a week which grows constantly as you gain experience. Pick up another two days per week, and it's nearly $200k/year for 200 days/year (as a second year nurse!). Others like their weekends, but arrange alternating 6 days on / 8 days off shifts. Some just work three, four, or five days every week. Some alternate 3 and 5 days a week to alternate long weekends and overtime pay. Some are on the per diem roster but have no regular schedule. The hospitals offer financial incentives to lure nurses in when they are under staffed, so you can sit around and enjoy life until the incentive is high enough, then pick up a few shifts and make $100k by working assorted days throughout the year at whim. It really offers more flexibility than any degree I know.
-
Nursing. Stellar pay, universally and continuously needed, cannot be automated away, high salary / college cost ratio. With a 4-year nursing degree, work the next 8-10 years as hard as you would have while living the lifestyle you would have if you were to go to medical school and you'll be a millionaire before doctors even start paying back their loans.
My wife is a nurse. She likes it, but you are basically treated like the hired help. Some Drs are better than others. But neither I or my wife would encourage our kids to go into nursing. The pay and job security are good. But the hours are terrible or the hours are good but the pay is terrible for a 4 year degree. You are treated like an assistant at best and servant at worst. And there is no upside unless you become a nurse practitioner. These are all generalities. But she has worked at several different hospitals in several different states, and also as a school nurse.
Lots of truth. Nurses are a pure commodity. Like human gold. The are fungible, interchancheable, indivisible. As long as nurses and humans exist, they will automatically be assigned the value of a strong middle class lifestyle in any human society. No more, no less. In the US that practically corresponds to $50-$200k per year base pay (LCOL to VHCOL). No upside. No downside.
However being a commodity has two advantages. First, if you double your shifts you multiply your pay by 2.5X. Direct link, immediate effect. Extra shifts are nearly always available. Not like any other field, where extra pay may not be available, may have an indirect link, or may take years to pay off. That's why it's ideal for a young new grad, because they can out-earn their peers in other fields instantly and with certainty. Thus as I said putting in the same time and effort as a med student while living the student lifestyle can lead to $1M by the time the med student graduates.
Second, hospitals have something of a market for nurses going. Being a commodity makes you very flexible. You can pick up 2-3 month stints in any state, or possibly even in other countries, for good pay. Current hospital near us offers full annual pay if you accept permanent 2-day weekend shift. Pay is $100k per year by your second year of experience, so this is $100k/year for working two days a week which grows constantly as you gain experience. Pick up another two days per week, and it's nearly $200k/year for 200 days/year (as a second year nurse!). Others like their weekends, but arrange alternating 6 days on / 8 days off shifts. Some just work three, four, or five days every week. Some alternate 3 and 5 days a week to alternate long weekends and overtime pay. Some are on the per diem roster but have no regular schedule. The hospitals offer financial incentives to lure nurses in when they are under staffed, so you can sit around and enjoy life until the incentive is high enough, then pick up a few shifts and make $100k by working assorted days throughout the year at whim. It really offers more flexibility than any degree I know.
This is true, with some caveats. The two weekend shifts are 12 hrs each. So you are getting paid full-time salary for working 60% time. But you work every weekend, all weekend. And yes when they are really short staffed places will offer incentives but you will be working in an understaffed situation which can be stressful and even unsafe. Plus there may be a culture or policy reason why no one wants to work at that particular hospital. I'm not saying nursing isn't a decent profession, I just think it's not that great compared to other degrees. If it didn't require a bachelor's, I'd say it compares very favorable to other careers that don't require a degree.
I also would not recommend medical doctor to someone who wants to retire early. Comparing myself to my friend who is a Dr, his breakeven with me is around age 40. But if we both retired at 40, he would have put in a lot more hours and stress. A medical Dr should work at least until 50 to make it worthwhile. But most work to 65+ because it's a big part of who they are.
-
Nursing. Stellar pay, universally and continuously needed, cannot be automated away, high salary / college cost ratio. With a 4-year nursing degree, work the next 8-10 years as hard as you would have while living the lifestyle you would have if you were to go to medical school and you'll be a millionaire before doctors even start paying back their loans.
My wife is a nurse. She likes it, but you are basically treated like the hired help. Some Drs are better than others. But neither I or my wife would encourage our kids to go into nursing. The pay and job security are good. But the hours are terrible or the hours are good but the pay is terrible for a 4 year degree. You are treated like an assistant at best and servant at worst. And there is no upside unless you become a nurse practitioner. These are all generalities. But she has worked at several different hospitals in several different states, and also as a school nurse.
Lots of truth. Nurses are a pure commodity. Like human gold. The are fungible, interchancheable, indivisible. As long as nurses and humans exist, they will automatically be assigned the value of a strong middle class lifestyle in any human society. No more, no less. In the US that practically corresponds to $50-$200k per year base pay (LCOL to VHCOL). No upside. No downside.
However being a commodity has two advantages. First, if you double your shifts you multiply your pay by 2.5X. Direct link, immediate effect. Extra shifts are nearly always available. Not like any other field, where extra pay may not be available, may have an indirect link, or may take years to pay off. That's why it's ideal for a young new grad, because they can out-earn their peers in other fields instantly and with certainty. Thus as I said putting in the same time and effort as a med student while living the student lifestyle can lead to $1M by the time the med student graduates.
Second, hospitals have something of a market for nurses going. Being a commodity makes you very flexible. You can pick up 2-3 month stints in any state, or possibly even in other countries, for good pay. Current hospital near us offers full annual pay if you accept permanent 2-day weekend shift. Pay is $100k per year by your second year of experience, so this is $100k/year for working two days a week which grows constantly as you gain experience. Pick up another two days per week, and it's nearly $200k/year for 200 days/year (as a second year nurse!). Others like their weekends, but arrange alternating 6 days on / 8 days off shifts. Some just work three, four, or five days every week. Some alternate 3 and 5 days a week to alternate long weekends and overtime pay. Some are on the per diem roster but have no regular schedule. The hospitals offer financial incentives to lure nurses in when they are under staffed, so you can sit around and enjoy life until the incentive is high enough, then pick up a few shifts and make $100k by working assorted days throughout the year at whim. It really offers more flexibility than any degree I know.
This is true, with some caveats. The two weekend shifts are 12 hrs each. So you are getting paid full-time salary for working 60% time. But you work every weekend, all weekend. And yes when they are really short staffed places will offer incentives but you will be working in an understaffed situation which can be stressful and even unsafe. Plus there may be a culture or policy reason why no one wants to work at that particular hospital. I'm not saying nursing isn't a decent profession, I just think it's not that great compared to other degrees. If it didn't require a bachelor's, I'd say it compares very favorable to other careers that don't require a degree.
I also would not recommend medical doctor to someone who wants to retire early. Comparing myself to my friend who is a Dr, his breakeven with me is around age 40. But if we both retired at 40, he would have put in a lot more hours and stress. A medical Dr should work at least until 50 to make it worthwhile. But most work to 65+ because it's a big part of who they are.
No one should become a doctor for the money.
-
I worked with hundreds of college students on choosing their major and career path. One thing that we always tried to emphasize is that traditional career tests/inventories focus almost entirely on interests -- but entirely ignore personality (among other variables).
For example, most astrophysicists spend a lot of time working alone analyzing data. And then there is Neil DeGrasse Tyson who is on the Tonight Show -- but he's an astrophysicist too. I'd imagine Neil would be miserable if he spent 50 hours a week in an office by himself. You've not only got to find a fit with your interests, but also a job/work environment that fits with your personality.
And +1000 for getting an accurate view of the job duties before investing time and money in the career path (particularly by job-shadowing, interning, and apprenticing). For example, there appears to be an epidemic of lawyers who didn't realize they would be proof-reading contracts for 50 hours week.
-
I worked with hundreds of college students on choosing their major and career path. One thing that we always tried to emphasize is that traditional career tests/inventories focus almost entirely on interests -- but entirely ignore personality (among other variables).
For example, most astrophysicists spend a lot of time working alone analyzing data. And then there is Neil DeGrasse Tyson who is on the Tonight Show -- but he's an astrophysicist too. I'd imagine Neil would be miserable if he spent 50 hours a week in an office by himself. You've not only got to find a fit with your interests, but also a job/work environment that fits with your personality.
And +1000 for getting an accurate view of the job duties before investing time and money in the career path (particularly by job-shadowing, interning, and apprenticing). For example, there appears to be an epidemic of lawyers who didn't realize they would be proof-reading contracts for 50 hours week.
I'm in a heated WhatsApp conversation at this very moment about how little people understand about the professions they choose based on naive notions of the broad topic of the profession they're interested in.
It truly blows my mind how little research my colleagues did before choosing this profession, and for MANY it's a second profession, so we're talking about middle aged people who have had full careers before this. And yet, they don't even grasp the basics of what the career is even like before committing years and many dollars to an extremely limited, licensed profession.
This is why the very, very first and foremost thing I bring up when discussing career choice is my priority of geographic flexibility. Because this is a MAJOR career factor, but not one that people even think about when they think "I like manitees."
It gets them out of the categorical thinking about careers and into the more holistic conceptualization of a career as more of a lifestyle decision and less of a vocational one.
Because yeah, if you hate cities and traffic, picking a job that only has downtown locations in major cities is probably the worst career choice you can possibly make, regardless of how much you like the actual work.
I once read a summary of a study, I cannot remember where from and I cannot find it as it was from decades ago about how the number one predictor of job satisfaction was how little time people spent in rush hour traffic.
Whether that's true or not, I read that at 20 years old and it had such a profound impact on how I thought about career because it had never dawned on me that careers were truly holistic life choices.
So yes, pursuing one's passion is important. But framing it where they pursue the overall lifestyle that will produce the highest level of satisfaction and passion for life for that individual is what really matters.
-
I think that part of the problem is that for most, the decision that's made about what major to choose is made way too early in life. Coming out of high school I had a few interests, but no idea what my lifestyle preferences were.
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
No, those are not "right out of college" jobs. Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job. I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education. Engineering can get you $60K-90K (possibly more) straight out of college and a fairly steady career path in most areas, but a BS in ME won't ever get you a million-dollar payday (unless you luck into being employee #3 at a company that goes big, but that's not a career path you can bank on). A specialist surgeon can make millions, but only after years of med school, residency, and further training in a specialty.
We are actually in violent agreement here. My point was precisely what you were saying: you can get some good jobs with a BA/BS, but those often have limited upside. You can shoot for the really big bucks, but those tend to have major barriers to entry (like many extra years of schooling/training/scutwork). Those are different categories of jobs, and just saying "I want a career that pays well" isn't specific enough about what that means. You need to specify whether you mean "I want to make $90K at 22 and earn my way up to $200K," or "I'm willing to make $40K/yr for 60-hr weeks for years of school/training so that I can be bringing in $1M+/yr by 45"?
-
I worked with hundreds of college students on choosing their major and career path. One thing that we always tried to emphasize is that traditional career tests/inventories focus almost entirely on interests -- but entirely ignore personality (among other variables).
...
This is interesting because I was going to ask, do high schools and colleges still offer these career aptitude tests? I'd think that's a good starting point for those who are really at a loss and don't have capable adults around to help guide them.
And I agree with others that it's a stretch to think a 17 year old would know a) their academic inclinations and b) how that fits into the working world on a daily basis.
Finally, I'm just glad we humans all have different personalities and preferences - I had to laugh at one of the posters who said they couldn't imagine themselves working in an office for 40 hours/week, but I did just that for decades!
It was a great fit for me, gave me a stable middle-class life, a work week with hours that meant I was off every weekend and colleagues who liked and respected me for my company knowledge and work ethic.
By chance, I also got a small pension which allowed me to retire at a normal retirement age.
I realize today is different with the advent of AI, no pensions, gig jobs vs. long-term employment, etc. so I feel compassion for those teens just entering college and the work force.
Being smart and hard-working does not always guarantee a successful and fulfilling life.
-
I worked with hundreds of college students on choosing their major and career path. One thing that we always tried to emphasize is that traditional career tests/inventories focus almost entirely on interests -- but entirely ignore personality (among other variables).
For example, most astrophysicists spend a lot of time working alone analyzing data. And then there is Neil DeGrasse Tyson who is on the Tonight Show -- but he's an astrophysicist too. I'd imagine Neil would be miserable if he spent 50 hours a week in an office by himself. You've not only got to find a fit with your interests, but also a job/work environment that fits with your personality.
And +1000 for getting an accurate view of the job duties before investing time and money in the career path (particularly by job-shadowing, interning, and apprenticing). For example, there appears to be an epidemic of lawyers who didn't realize they would be proof-reading contracts for 50 hours week.
I'm in a heated WhatsApp conversation at this very moment about how little people understand about the professions they choose based on naive notions of the broad topic of the profession they're interested in.
It truly blows my mind how little research my colleagues did before choosing this profession, and for MANY it's a second profession, so we're talking about middle aged people who have had full careers before this. And yet, they don't even grasp the basics of what the career is even like before committing years and many dollars to an extremely limited, licensed profession.
This is why the very, very first and foremost thing I bring up when discussing career choice is my priority of geographic flexibility. Because this is a MAJOR career factor, but not one that people even think about when they think "I like manitees."
It gets them out of the categorical thinking about careers and into the more holistic conceptualization of a career as more of a lifestyle decision and less of a vocational one.
Because yeah, if you hate cities and traffic, picking a job that only has downtown locations in major cities is probably the worst career choice you can possibly make, regardless of how much you like the actual work.
I once read a summary of a study, I cannot remember where from and I cannot find it as it was from decades ago about how the number one predictor of job satisfaction was how little time people spent in rush hour traffic.
Whether that's true or not, I read that at 20 years old and it had such a profound impact on how I thought about career because it had never dawned on me that careers were truly holistic life choices.
So yes, pursuing one's passion is important. But framing it where they pursue the overall lifestyle that will produce the highest level of satisfaction and passion for life for that individual is what really matters.
Great post, and I also think we need to define far more broadly the concept of pursing your passion. If seeing the great DJ sets is your passion, that nursing job where you work two twelve-hour weekend shifts is a nightmare as that eats up your weekends which is [I assume] mostly when those epic DJ sets take place. But if you love the American National Parks (and live in the USA), then that nursing job might be great as you can travel 5 days at a time as much as you want. So nursing is a career that allows you to follow your passion even though your actual employment has nothing to do with nursing.
We seem to think that "follow your passion" only means that your employment activities should be directly related to the thing you are passionate about. If we expand that definition to mean that your employment should allow in some way for you to indulge your passions, we no longer mean that you need to actually be a DJ or a music-producer--only that you choose a career that allows you to have DJing as part of your life, even if it happens while you aren't at work.
If you love the theater, you don't need to be an actor. But being a livestock vet might not be the best choice as it could have you living in more rural locations where you have access to fewer high quality productions. Unless loving the theater means actually acting, in which case anywhere with a local theater troop might suffice. (And of course you could end up being a vet at the San Diego Zoo, which puts you in a large city, but that's not the likely outcome of being a livestock vet.)
We don't always need to monetize our passions to live them fully. In many cases, it's better not to monetize them. Instead, we need to monetize something that doesn't make us miserable and has a high likelihood of leaving room for our passions.
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
No, those are not "right out of college" jobs. Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job. I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education.
Hmm, my understanding is that you can get into quant or investment banking just with extremely good marks in a competitive undergraduate degree (4 years) - you don't need a master's or graduate degree to get in. To me that is best bang for buck. The downside is that it's not easy to get in.
-
This is true, with some caveats. The two weekend shifts are 12 hrs each. So you are getting paid full-time salary for working 60% time.
I also would not recommend medical doctor to someone who wants to retire early. Comparing myself to my friend who is a Dr, his breakeven with me is around age 40. But if we both retired at 40, he would have put in a lot more hours and stress. A medical Dr should work at least until 50 to make it worthwhile. But most work to 65+ because it's a big part of who they are.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather earn $100k by working 2x12's than 5x8's by a very wide margin!
Yes, I did an NPV on Doctor vs Nurse with an assumed 7% discount rate and got the breakeven at around age 50. It would be similar vs other well-paid 4 year degrees.
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
No, those are not "right out of college" jobs. Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job. I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education.
Hmm, my understanding is that you can get into quant or investment banking just with extremely good marks in a competitive undergraduate degree (4 years) - you don't need a master's or graduate degree to get in. To me that is best bang for buck. The downside is that it's not easy to get in.
Not sure about quant -- I was assuming advanced math degree for that. You're right about IB; there's just a very limited number of colleges the top firms recruit at, and it's still very much an old-boys' club (a/k/a classic barriers to entry). But I think you're also eventually going to need an MBA.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
-
"We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
This is a thing I've wondered about having often heard it too.
There are terrible writers who are engineers, and the same who are liberal arts majors. It's not unusual to run into many great writers from both. I don't believe that a liberal arts degree is any guarantee of learning to write well or persuasively.
As far as critical thinking . . . I mean, that's what engineering is. A large part of what you do day to day as an engineer absorb a wide variety of facts, observations, and arguments and draw a conclusion or make an informed choice from them. The idea that engineers are uncreative drones following a set path all the time is badly misinformed.
-
Slight hijack; a friend just told me their 35 yo DD is at a crossroads and wants to get a two year graduate degree in social work, at a cost of $40k.
My first questions came straight from this thread: what research have they done to determine what and where the available jobs will be, and what do they pay?
To me it seems like social work is a career ripe for burnout.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
-
"We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
This is a thing I've wondered about having often heard it too.
There are terrible writers who are engineers, and the same who are liberal arts majors. It's not unusual to run into many great writers from both. I don't believe that a liberal arts degree is any guarantee of learning to write well or persuasively.
As far as critical thinking . . . I mean, that's what engineering is. A large part of what you do day to day as an engineer absorb a wide variety of facts, observations, and arguments and draw a conclusion or make an informed choice from them. The idea that engineers are uncreative drones following a set path all the time is badly misinformed.
It's more that the engineer way of thinking is a very particular framework.
In my finance work we would always joke that there were engineer clients and then there was everyone else.
Each way of understanding has its strengths and limitations. The engineers tend to be spectacularly aware of their system's analytical advantages and amusingly oblivious to its limitations. Charmingly so much of the time.
-
Slight hijack; a friend just told me their 35 yo DD is at a crossroads and wants to get a two year graduate degree in social work, at a cost of $40k.
My first questions came straight from this thread: what research have they done to determine what and where the available jobs will be, and what do they pay?
To me it seems like social work is a career ripe for burnout.
Yes, this is also a career that NO ONE should pursue without talking to many social workers first. Skill-wise, my work has enormous overlap with social work, but I would never survive in that kind of work.
-
I have an international relations degree. My career is not international relations. I’m a firm believer that college is not trade school. The ability to communicate and critically think are two traits that will lead to a good career no matter what major one picks.
100%
I am a full-time college instructor. I am also a firm believer that college is not trade school. That is not putting down trade school. That is a great option for other people as well.
College is different than trade school because the focus is critical thinking. Critical thinking is super important in today's world, IMO.
I'm in general agreement with the above, as well as the lines of what @Laura33 and @Malcat have offered.
What I'll add is that "college" is such a fragmented category of goods and experiences at this point that talking about it singularly is going to be misleading.
At the top end, you have extraordinarily selective institutions with sterling name brands: the Ivys (cue the Cornell snark), Ivy-adjacent (MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, etcetera), and the top ~10 liberal arts colleges (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etcetera). They are basically always worth it, and your particular major doesn't matter much. You can be a Harvard history major and still get a job at McKinsey just because your degree says you're smart and know how to learn. These schools also have gobs of money, so the undergrads rarely take on student loans. The network is invaluable, or at least it can be for a person who can use it.
On the other end, you have places with no exclusivity or brand equity: regional branch campuses of state universities, community colleges, struggling private places, etcetera. If you're going there, the degree and specific skillset are everything. The highest value from these places is in fields with standardized credentialing that stands in for brand value in the hiring process, ideally a licensure that creates professional moat. Think of the CPA, or a license in teaching or nursing. The credential, not the degree, is the value added.
Either of the above approaches can be really good options.
What I would not do is go down a path that lacks both brand equity and credentialing. That's very rarely a good value, because there's no moat. Eventually any hot field will get flooded and wages/opportunities will decline. That also goes for trendy fields like computer science (I share a floor with some of them), where every university in the country has stood up a half@ssed program churning out lots of mediocre grads with no particular aptitude or interest beyond a Google-level salary, who undercut the market and land in some IT support role at a non-tech business. The same thing happens in any field with minimal gatekeeping. Eventually the hot new field gets flooded. So, either go to college for a name brand, or go to college for a credential.
And, I hope it goes without saying that any parent sending an 18 year old off to college is thinking about how that place will impact their character and personal development. The values of the school matter, because they're the context where most students really grow up.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
Well, since we're arguing anecdata,* let me start by noting that I work with engineers practically every freaking day (my field is very technical). Live with one, too. And I can tell you that the number of engineers I've worked with who write as well as the lawyers I also deal with on a daily basis is pretty damn small. And the standard engineer approach to critical analysis of text tends to be highly literal, which is fine as far as it goes, but many times the regulations as a whole don't support that interpretation (they're very good at hyper-focusing on a specific sub-sub-subsection that supports the desired outcome). Honestly, smart engineers are some of my most frustrating clients, because they refuse to look beyond the very precise word or sentence they are fixated on and focus on the bigger-picture.**
From what I've seen, substantive writing ability (i.e., writing on specific topics vs. writing poetry/fiction) correlates with the ability to think logically and clearly. It doesn't surprise me that engineers can think clearly, because you have to be able to do that to solve the math/science problems you have to to get that degree. And not all humanities degrees require that (for example, studio art strikes me as something that doesn't neccessarily emphasize logic and rhetoric).
But the ability to think clearly/logically is not the be-all, end-all; it is necessary but not sufficient. Practice, training, experience, critical feedback -- all of the actions that make someone a better engineer also make people better thinkers/writers/critical readers. From what I have seen, engineers are good at identifying, conveying, and interpreting specific facts. Because, duh, that's what the ones I work with do. They are often not as good, however, at things that are not as clearly defined, at things that are somewhat outside-the-box -- things like reading between the lines to figure out what someone actually means, persuasive writing, putting specific data in a larger context, etc. Not because they're not smart, but because that's something that is not part of their daily job and so not something they're trained to do.***
And I think that goes to some of my frustration with dismissing liberal arts in general: there is this underlying assumption that "hard" knowledge like science and math is something that you can learn only in school, whereas "soft" skills -- skills that can't be measured on an objective scale, like writing and critical thinking -- are things that any smart person can pick up at any time on their own. Ergo, the conclusion seems to be that a STEM degree is a "real" degree where you learn "real" things, whereas a liberal arts degree involves no actual knowledge or skills above baseline. And, honestly, that's just total bullshit. Sure, engineers can improve their critical thinking and writing skills on their own -- just like I can refresh myself on my calculus and physics on my own. But neither option just sort of magically appears without intensive, focused effort and feedback. And the vast majority of us figure that what we currently know/do is good enough and don't bother to put in that kind of work.
It's a little bit like learning a language. At first, you need to be able to figure out vocabulary, sentence structure, all those written and unwritten rules. That strikes me as a very logic-based analysis. But when you become fluent in another language, the differences between that language and your native language can also give insight into a different way of thinking and approaching life. The former is measurable and objective; the latter is not. But that doesn't mean that the latter has no value, or that simply achieving the a basic level of competency in the former necessarily brings the latter along with it.
Any smart person can learn how to write. Any smart person can learn science and math.**** Someone who is capable of both is going to get better at the one they work on the most; you can't simply focus on one and assume the other will come along for the ride.
I do agree that some liberal arts majors likely provide an easier path for underachievers to skate through, because there is not the intensive weed-out that engineering often provides. But when someone asks about the value of a college degree, they're not usually asking, "where can my kid go to put in the least effort and still graduate?" They are asking about what path will best serve a reasonably focused and driven person -- the kind of kid who will put in the effort to succeed at whatever program they enroll in. And for those kids, liberal arts can convey a comparable level of learning and training and knowledge and intellectual growth.
[Also what Metalcat just posted while I was editing this]
*A logical fallacy, btw.
**#NotAllEngineers. They're also some of my best clients.
***Interestingly (to me), this is what a lot of the newer cross-disciplinary engineering programs are trying to do.
****Except my HS BFF, who was a total math-phobe. Like SAT 780 verbal (in the '80s), 365 math. Go figure.
-
"We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
This is a thing I've wondered about having often heard it too.
There are terrible writers who are engineers, and the same who are liberal arts majors. It's not unusual to run into many great writers from both. I don't believe that a liberal arts degree is any guarantee of learning to write well or persuasively.
As far as critical thinking . . . I mean, that's what engineering is. A large part of what you do day to day as an engineer absorb a wide variety of facts, observations, and arguments and draw a conclusion or make an informed choice from them. The idea that engineers are uncreative drones following a set path all the time is badly misinformed.
It's more that the engineer way of thinking is a very particular framework.
In my finance work we would always joke that there were engineer clients and then there was everyone else.
Each way of understanding has its strengths and limitations. The engineers tend to be spectacularly aware of their system's analytical advantages and amusingly oblivious to its limitations. Charmingly so much of the time.
At least we're charming. :P
-
...It truly blows my mind how little research my colleagues did before choosing this profession, and for MANY it's a second profession, so we're talking about middle aged people who have had full careers before this. And yet, they don't even grasp the basics of what the career is even like before committing years and many dollars to an extremely limited, licensed profession. ...
Yes, there is zero excuse for second-career adult-students to not have done the research. This was a common occurence for 18 year old college students. Here's one of several experiences I had -- I was meeting for the first time with a new first-year college student who had moved almost 1,000 miles to attend (and play Division III football -- the lowest division (aka, you'll never play professionally)) at the small college where I worked. He was likely paying about $35k/year to attend.
Dr. Smokystache (his first-year academic advisor): Have you thought about a major that you want to purse? To be clear, we don't require you to pick one right away, but we could have you take classes that help you clarify your interests.
First-Year Student: Yes! I definitely want to major in Geology. Where I am from in Texas, there are lots of oil companies that hire geologists and they make great money.
Dr. Smokystache: Yea, we don't offer that major. In fact, as a small liberal arts college, we don't have a single class on geology. (in my head: "I see you didn't ask any questions beyond the tour of the football facilities")
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
I think there's a huge confound here though. I have no doubt the liberal arts majors were the very top of their class, because what choice do they have? It's not like that can get a high performing job in their field lol. I doubt you got nearly the same level STEM students though. If you have a very highly paid career path immediately available to you, there's not much reason to put in years of extra effort to go into something else unless you really are passionate about it or weren't particularly good at STEM.
-
I have an international relations degree. My career is not international relations. I’m a firm believer that college is not trade school. The ability to communicate and critically think are two traits that will lead to a good career no matter what major one picks.
100%
I am a full-time college instructor. I am also a firm believer that college is not trade school. That is not putting down trade school. That is a great option for other people as well.
College is different than trade school because the focus is critical thinking. Critical thinking is super important in today's world, IMO.
I am an extreme example, but the amount of money and time spent on my degree is a terrible ROI on salary. However, it's been great on building wealth and quality of life.
I got a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology and basically studied behavioral economics in grad school. It was 2 years full-time in a MA program and another 5 years full-time in a Ph.D. program. I left ABD and it took me another 4 years to finish my dissertation. I left with 57K of student loan debt and my first faculty job paid 40K/year with an option to teach a summer course for another 5K.
I'm now 45 years old and my salary is $61,700/year. However, with health insurance and retirement benefits my total compensation is around $90,000/year. However, my full-time is only about 1,000 hours/year. I work 30 hours/week about 32 weeks/year with 20 weeks of vacation. My wife is a substitute teacher and personal assistant for a real estate agent and makes 25K/year. Our net worth is 1.7 million and our life is awesome. If I wanted to double my income with a soul sucking corporate job, I could do that in about 6 months. If I wanted to triple my salary, I could do that in about 2 years. However, I consider it to be unnecessary. We have a great life and a high paying corporate job would screw that up.
The problem with this line of thinking is it is a very American view of college, which is ironic because our college is not free. In Europe no one wastes time on general electives, it is in-major classes only. I would have LOVED to save $$ and skip all my general electives as I and my cohort took the easiest courses possible to boost our GPA.
IMO, college should be trade school, with as much experiential learning/co-ops/apprenticeships as possible. You need a plan going in to get you out with minimal debt and a job at the end.
To the OP: I majored in Civil Engineering which is very tangible, hard to outsource career. Pre-remote work I transitioned to Construction Management which is about as merit based as profession as you can get. I'm not sure I would recommend it because it can be stressful but cleared $190k this year with 15 years experience. If I could do it over again I would probably have stayed in design consulting as Water Resources Engineering always came easy to me. if I knew remote work would take over but in 2011 I had a kid on the way and needed a raise. If you stick it out in design consulting you will most likely get some sort of ESOP out of it as well.
-
OK reply to the room rather than individuals. I'd say that engineers evaluate the world by constructing little mental walled gardens, and carefully evaluating all relationships within the wall, and all inputs and outputs across the wall. This is is really the only way to establish a system in which everything is precisely known. The limits of this are obviously are that the walled gardens get constructed in the wrong place, the walls don't include the right things, and that the gardens are necessarily quite limited in size because they quickly become too large to work with. I can see why it would be charming to an outsider, because with a little prodding it's pretty clear where the garden walls are and it would look like a series of little engineer nests.
Liberal arts majors make mental models in which causal relationships are vague, inputs and outputs are unknown, and no there is no known limit or boundary. The downsides then are that liberal arts mental models can be wholly detached from reality and completely illogical. Liberal arts majors produce endless words based on anecdotes, truisms, popular sentiment, ego, and poor reasoning yet amount to nothing.
Probably because while I have both I identify as an engineer, but I much prefer the engineer method. It's pretty easy to understand and persuade the engineers to adjust the walls of their gardens though there will always be a slight ego cost, but that disappears quickly. Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
-
I have an international relations degree. My career is not international relations. I’m a firm believer that college is not trade school. The ability to communicate and critically think are two traits that will lead to a good career no matter what major one picks.
100%
I am a full-time college instructor. I am also a firm believer that college is not trade school. That is not putting down trade school. That is a great option for other people as well.
College is different than trade school because the focus is critical thinking. Critical thinking is super important in today's world, IMO.
I'm in general agreement with the above, as well as the lines of what @Laura33 and @Malcat have offered.
What I'll add is that "college" is such a fragmented category of goods and experiences at this point that talking about it singularly is going to be misleading.
At the top end, you have extraordinarily selective institutions with sterling name brands: the Ivys (cue the Cornell snark), Ivy-adjacent (MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, etcetera), and the top ~10 liberal arts colleges (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etcetera). They are basically always worth it, and your particular major doesn't matter much. You can be a Harvard history major and still get a job at McKinsey just because your degree says you're smart and know how to learn. These schools also have gobs of money, so the undergrads rarely take on student loans. The network is invaluable, or at least it can be for a person who can use it.
On the other end, you have places with no exclusivity or brand equity: regional branch campuses of state universities, community colleges, struggling private places, etcetera. If you're going there, the degree and specific skillset are everything. The highest value from these places is in fields with standardized credentialing that stands in for brand value in the hiring process, ideally a licensure that creates professional moat. Think of the CPA, or a license in teaching or nursing. The credential, not the degree, is the value added.
Either of the above approaches can be really good options.
What I would not do is go down a path that lacks both brand equity and credentialing. That's very rarely a good value, because there's no moat. Eventually any hot field will get flooded and wages/opportunities will decline. That also goes for trendy fields like computer science (I share a floor with some of them), where every university in the country has stood up a half@ssed program churning out lots of mediocre grads with no particular aptitude or interest beyond a Google-level salary, who undercut the market and land in some IT support role at a non-tech business. The same thing happens in any field with minimal gatekeeping. Eventually the hot new field gets flooded. So, either go to college for a name brand, or go to college for a credential.
And, I hope it goes without saying that any parent sending an 18 year old off to college is thinking about how that place will impact their character and personal development. The values of the school matter, because they're the context where most students really grow up.
Good points, some of he highly (un) selective liberal arts colleges are the worst offenders in the college affordability crisis. They trick students to go there(instead of state schools) by promoting BS like small class sizes, nice gym, cafeteria. But you are left with a generic degree with alot of debt, and no alumni base or career services department.
LUCKILY, many of them are failing. In Massachusetts Newbury, Becker, Mount Ida, and Wheelock have all failed recently. I see lot behind them as well. I hope we end up with an elite tier of private schools (need blind), a mid tier of semi selective private schools that give alot of merit aid and some financial, then the state schools. I think this would benefit everyone.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
I think there's a huge confound here though. I have no doubt the liberal arts majors were the very top of their class, because what choice do they have? It's not like that can get a high performing job in their field lol. I doubt you got nearly the same level STEM students though. If you have a very highly paid career path immediately available to you, there's not much reason to put in years of extra effort to go into something else unless you really are passionate about it or weren't particularly good at STEM.
You don't think the STEM students in med school are top students??
-
"We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
This is a thing I've wondered about having often heard it too.
There are terrible writers who are engineers, and the same who are liberal arts majors. It's not unusual to run into many great writers from both. I don't believe that a liberal arts degree is any guarantee of learning to write well or persuasively.
As far as critical thinking . . . I mean, that's what engineering is. A large part of what you do day to day as an engineer absorb a wide variety of facts, observations, and arguments and draw a conclusion or make an informed choice from them. The idea that engineers are uncreative drones following a set path all the time is badly misinformed.
It's more that the engineer way of thinking is a very particular framework.
In my finance work we would always joke that there were engineer clients and then there was everyone else.
Each way of understanding has its strengths and limitations. The engineers tend to be spectacularly aware of their system's analytical advantages and amusingly oblivious to its limitations. Charmingly so much of the time.
At least we're charming. :P
:D
-
Good points, some of he highly (un) selective liberal arts colleges are the worst offenders in the college affordability crisis. They trick students to go there(instead of state schools) by promoting BS like small class sizes, nice gym, cafeteria. But you are left with a generic degree with alot of debt, and no alumni base or career services department.
LUCKILY, many of them are failing. In Massachusetts Newbury, Becker, Mount Ida, and Wheelock have all failed recently. I see lot behind them as well. I hope we end up with an elite tier of private schools (need blind), a mid tier of semi selective private schools that give alot of merit aid and some financial, then the state schools. I think this would benefit everyone.
I mostly agree, but I disagree that state schools should get a blanket pass as a good value. Way too many have normalized taking six years to get a four year degree, and that's a huge opportunity cost. Not to mention the residency costs, whether on campus or off.
Outside of noteworthy state flagships (which still need to reduce their time to degree for undergrads), most public colleges are going to struggle to justify their costs as full time, residential institutions. I think they really need to move toward a European model of students living at home all the way through, working on the side, and no debt. As it is right now, the residential costs make a cheap state school tough to pencil.
-
Good points, some of he highly (un) selective liberal arts colleges are the worst offenders in the college affordability crisis. They trick students to go there(instead of state schools) by promoting BS like small class sizes, nice gym, cafeteria. But you are left with a generic degree with alot of debt, and no alumni base or career services department.
LUCKILY, many of them are failing. In Massachusetts Newbury, Becker, Mount Ida, and Wheelock have all failed recently. I see lot behind them as well. I hope we end up with an elite tier of private schools (need blind), a mid tier of semi selective private schools that give alot of merit aid and some financial, then the state schools. I think this would benefit everyone.
I mostly agree, but I disagree that state schools should get a blanket pass as a good value. Way too many have normalized taking six years to get a four year degree, and that's a huge opportunity cost. Not to mention the residency costs, whether on campus or off.
Outside of noteworthy state flagships (which still need to reduce their time to degree for undergrads), most public colleges are going to struggle to justify their costs as full time, residential institutions. I think they really need to move toward a European model of students living at home all the way through, working on the side, and no debt. As it is right now, the residential costs make a cheap state school tough to pencil.
Good points! And as I mentioned above I find is funny that America is so obsessed with this notion of "college experience" when we have to pay through the nose for it, and in Europe it's free but many just live at home or in apartments with their friends. No dinning hall sushi, frats, sports, general electives, high end gyms, etc.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
I think there's a huge confound here though. I have no doubt the liberal arts majors were the very top of their class, because what choice do they have? It's not like that can get a high performing job in their field lol. I doubt you got nearly the same level STEM students though. If you have a very highly paid career path immediately available to you, there's not much reason to put in years of extra effort to go into something else unless you really are passionate about it or weren't particularly good at STEM.
You don't think the STEM students in med school are top students??
If you're a top engineer, and you have a great and high earning career available, why would you go to med school? Even for a mediocre engineer the NPV for med school would not break even for about 20-30 years. If you're a top engineer the NPV would never tilt toward med school. You'd only do it if you never had the intention of being an engineer in the first place, or suddenly became very passionate about healthcare for some reason.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
Sure but if others can generalize about engineers I can generalize back. In practice of course to function in society anyone who is not Donald Trump will eventually get some reality (or at least social) checks for their ideas, sooner rather than later in a professional capacity. It's also not always a disadvantage. For example (I think someone alluded to this), if an engineer is working with a client who instructs the engineer to do something based on something objectively wrong, the engineer would often just shut down. Like, I'm sorry there's just no way I can proceed with that. A liberal arts major may not feel the pull of objective reality as strongly and would just be like "yeah, we can make that happen!" and find a way to make it so.
-
If you're a top engineer, and you have a great and high earning career available, why would you go to med school? Even for a mediocre engineer the NPV for med school would not break even for about 20-30 years. If you're a top engineer the NPV would never tilt toward med school. You'd only do it if you never had the intention of being an engineer in the first place, or suddenly became very passionate about healthcare for some reason.
STEM degrees are not synonymous with engineering degrees though. I compared STEM grads in med school to arts grads. Many, many students in STEM undergrads want to go to med school as their top choice, and not a ton of arts students aim for med school, so I'm not sure I get your point.
Also yes, no one should go to med school for money, only if they have an overwhelming drive to be an MD.
As to what options arts grads have, there are tons of job options for enterprising arts grads. That would be the entire premise of all of my responses so far.
I made the point multiple times that I would have ended up much wealthier had I taken any of the very good job offers I had at the end of my undergrad degree instead of going to grad school.
I personally chose my program because I wanted to do that job, and I did love it. But I would be so much richer by now had I just stuck with my liberal arts degree.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
Sure but if others can generalize about engineers I can generalize back. In practice of course to function in society anyone who is not Donald Trump will eventually get some reality (or at least social) checks for their ideas, sooner rather than later in a professional capacity. It's also not always a disadvantage. For example (I think someone alluded to this), if an engineer is working with a client who instructs the engineer to do something based on something objectively wrong, the engineer would often just shut down. Like, I'm sorry there's just no way I can proceed with that. A liberal arts major may not feel the pull of objective reality as strongly and would just be like "yeah, we can make that happen!" and find a way to make it so.
I am fortunate to work with both engineering undergrads and philosophy undergrads every semester, neither of which are my area. There are smart kids and duds in both fields. But I certainly wouldn't say that philosophy students as a group feel any less the "pull of objective reality" than the engineering students as a group, or are any less rigorous in their analyses. When you regularly work with cross sections of the student body, the stereotypes of what students are like fall apart quickly.
One thing that the liberal arts are supposed to teach students is that important problems don't always have a single right answer, but there are better and worse ways of making choices between competing goods. Many students from across the university resist that sort of critical thinking, and that comes both from students who want to insist that there is always a single right answer, and from students who reject any right answers.
-
One thing that the liberal arts are supposed to teach students is that important problems don't always have a single right answer, but there are better and worse ways of making choices between competing goods.
Many students from across the university resist that sort of critical thinking, and that comes both from students who want to insist that there is always a single right answer, and from students who reject any right answers.
It's not possible to analyze a problem and suggest a solution without realizing this. Creating metrics to analyze the difference between various options, and evaluating from multiple possible solutions is the backbone of most applied science - but it's also how a musician writing a piece selects between scale options in a solo, or how an artist painting determines how much brown to mix with the red.
I feel like most programs at university would teach this by necessity.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
Sure but if others can generalize about engineers I can generalize back. In practice of course to function in society anyone who is not Donald Trump will eventually get some reality (or at least social) checks for their ideas, sooner rather than later in a professional capacity. It's also not always a disadvantage. For example (I think someone alluded to this), if an engineer is working with a client who instructs the engineer to do something based on something objectively wrong, the engineer would often just shut down. Like, I'm sorry there's just no way I can proceed with that. A liberal arts major may not feel the pull of objective reality as strongly and would just be like "yeah, we can make that happen!" and find a way to make it so.
I am fortunate to work with both engineering undergrads and philosophy undergrads every semester, neither of which are my area. There are smart kids and duds in both fields. But I certainly wouldn't say that philosophy students as a group feel any less the "pull of objective reality" than the engineering students as a group, or are any less rigorous in their analyses. When you regularly work with cross sections of the student body, the stereotypes of what students are like fall apart quickly.
One thing that the liberal arts are supposed to teach students is that important problems don't always have a single right answer, but there are better and worse ways of making choices between competing goods. Many students from across the university resist that sort of critical thinking, and that comes both from students who want to insist that there is always a single right answer, and from students who reject any right answers.
In Psychology, creative thinking is defined as the ability to come up with more than one solution to a problem. For most problems in life, there are many different ways to solve it with different pros and cons. Creative thinking considers all the different possible solutions and then analytical thinking tries to pick the best possible solution. If you skip the creative thinking part and go straight to analytical thinking, your solution will be sub-optimal.
-
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
To me this is one of the problems with anyone wanting to pursue humanities - it's a lot harder to signal your quality as a student when the overall undergraduate cohort is more likely to be weak.
If the ceiling isn't there, you're going to have to do further study (like a J.D.) or some other means of showing your ability.
-
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
To me this is one of the problems with anyone wanting to pursue humanities - it's a lot harder to signal your quality as a student when the overall undergraduate cohort is more likely to be weak.
If the ceiling isn't there, you're going to have to do further study (like a J.D.) or some other means of showing your ability.
Not necessarily. What it means is that you need to develop professional skills that your degree won't teach you, but that can be cultivated during school.
I've posted multiple times here that one of the messages I give all young people going into university is that if their only focus is going to classes and getting good grades, then they're missing at least half of what school has to offer in terms of professional development.
There are tons and tons of executives out there who have liberal arts backgrounds. The most common undergrad among CEOs is a BA. Many also have MBAs, but most executives I know who have MBAs gor them during their career as part of their professional development, not immediately after their undergrad as a way to "get a decent job."
In fact, my ex FIL teaches at one of the top 10 ranked MBA programs in the world and his own son couldn't even get in until he had at least 5 years of professional experience under his belt. His son had a background in anthropology and ended up a very successful PR executive, then moved into politics, *then* got the MBA, and then became the president of a prestigious non profit...then died from his cocaine problem, but that's a whole other issue with some succesful folks.
So a lot of the most successful people in the world are building those careers off of an arts education. But they aren't getting the skills to do so from their undergrad courses, they have to cultivate those skills the same way the STEM background CEOs have to. Somewhere along the way, they need to learn how to succeed in business, and really good mentorship is key to that at every step of the game, for everyone.
Very few people are just naturally good at being highly successful based on what they learn in university alone.
Now, some people luck into really great mentorship along the way to learn these things. Maybe they have successful parents, maybe they've just connected well with helpful people, who knows. Some people don't have to actively look for the kind of mentorship that teaches them skills to be successful. But others have to actively seek it out.
My whole point in this thread has been to either directly mentor kids on this or help them.network with mentors who can.
-
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
To me this is one of the problems with anyone wanting to pursue humanities - it's a lot harder to signal your quality as a student when the overall undergraduate cohort is more likely to be weak.
If the ceiling isn't there, you're going to have to do further study (like a J.D.) or some other means of showing your ability.
Not necessarily. What it means is that you need to develop professional skills that your degree won't teach you, but that can be cultivated during school.
I've posted multiple times here that one of the messages I give all young people going into university is that if their only focus is going to classes and getting good grades, then they're missing at least half of what school has to offer in terms of professional development.
There are tons and tons of executives out there who have liberal arts backgrounds. The most common undergrad among CEOs is a BA. Many also have MBAs, but most executives I know who have MBAs gor them during their career as part of their professional development, not immediately after their undergrad as a way to "get a decent job."
In fact, my ex FIL teaches at one of the top 10 ranked MBA programs in the world and his own son couldn't even get in until he had at least 5 years of professional experience under his belt. His son had a background in anthropology and ended up a very successful PR executive, then moved into politics, *then* got the MBA, and then became the president of a prestigious non profit...then died from his cocaine problem, but that's a whole other issue with some succesful folks.
So a lot of the most successful people in the world are building those careers off of an arts education. But they aren't getting the skills to do so from their undergrad courses, they have to cultivate those skills the same way the STEM background CEOs have to. Somewhere along the way, they need to learn how to succeed in business, and really good mentorship is key to that at every step of the game, for everyone.
Very few people are just naturally good at being highly successful based on what they learn in university alone.
Now, some people luck into really great mentorship along the way to learn these things. Maybe they have successful parents, maybe they've just connected well with helpful people, who knows. Some people don't have to actively look for the kind of mentorship that teaches them skills to be successful. But others have to actively seek it out.
My whole point in this thread has been to either directly mentor kids on this or help them.network with mentors who can.
Don't disagree, but how many of them went to a top 10 LAC like Williams or Amherst?
-
Don't disagree, but how many of them went to a top 10 LAC like Williams or Amherst?
I have no clue, but if they are largely from elite schools, that would support my whole position that networking and mentorship are critical to a lot of career success because that's the main advantage of elite schools.
If I lived in the US, I would never send a kid to an expensive school without fully equipping them with top notch networking skills.
-
...
If you're a top engineer, and you have a great and high earning career available, why would you go to med school? Even for a mediocre engineer the NPV for med school would not break even for about 20-30 years. If you're a top engineer the NPV would never tilt toward med school. You'd only do it if you never had the intention of being an engineer in the first place, or suddenly became very passionate about healthcare for some reason.
This comment jumped out at me. I was talking with the dean of my engineering school a while ago, and he said that most of the letters of recommendation he writes for med school are for the top achieving women who've had a few years of work experience. He assured me that they were incredibly successful, pretty much universally (although he's paid to say that).
There's lots of reasons you'd leave a great and high earning career - but one of them is that the environment is terrible and you think you can do something different and excel.
note, this is before the Canadian healthcare system really shat the bed - I'm not sure that anyone would currently suggest that medicine is going to be less catastrophically stressful than engineering in the current environment
-
Over the last year I have interviewed around 7 students that were in their last year of an Engineering program, for a rotational program in our company. The position (for a fresh grad with nothing more than internship experience) paid over $100k, great work life balance with 2-3 days/wk remote, in a major US City, etc. Our first two candidates we selected both declined the position as they accepted offers elsewhere. Probably a blessing in disguise as the candidate that finally accepted has been fantastic. Engineering the lot of students, there is very clear distinctions between those with strong social/selling skills and those that just seem to be lacking across the board.
Engineers where I work with around 10 years experience make around $200k-$250k per year. I’m not a degreed engineer (2 year degree in welding technology) and I’m a department manager in the same industry and make about $260k total compensation with 15 years experience.
That being said, I’d echo others a caution against just looking for a degree to make the most money. That being said, I do think that “some” sort of direction is necessary. If someone is passionate in engineering or the medical field, then they are great options. Some general degrees can be great, but it really depends on the person and their individual characteristics. Some people do not have the soft skills to really succeed without a clear direction.
-
If someone is going to get a less career-specific degree, they will have to also do much more independent learning to figure out how to build a successful and lucrative career. The trade off is that they will have a far broader selection of options available to them.
I think this is wrong though. Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree. However some also have the option of a degree with a high median salary, and some don't because, for example, they got liberal arts degrees. (No offense I got a liberal arts degree too! However I am very glad I also got two engineering degrees to put the bacon on the table!)
"Anyone can have a far broader selection of options if they look outside their degree."
- I won't speak for @Metalcat, but my reaction is that I don't agree with this part of your statement. The benefits of a liberal arts degree are baked into the degree itself -- the focus on critical thinking, writing, and related skills that are not emphasized in more job-tracked degrees. An example: My brother has a degree in aerospace engineering. He's brilliant ... with math and databases and solving computer-based problems. But he'll misspell three words when he writes a check ... and don't even think about asking him to write a paragraph.
I think one thing we often forget is how quickly some career fields change. A 60 year old who went to college at age 18 would have started around 1983 ... a decade before the internet became wide-spread and most businesses weren't using computers except for highly specialized skills - so before spreadsheet software, before easy access to databases, before email and online marketing, etc.
I certainly agree that simply having a liberal-arts degree isn't enough, by itself, to be successful, and I'd also agree that there are some engineers who write better than Liberal arts graduates. I would also agree that job-tracked degrees like engineering, nursing, and business may start by making a higher income. But I wouldn't buy the argument that those degrees do a great job for preparing one to be successful in another field; whereas liberal arts majors assume from the beginning that they will likely need to apply their skills to a range of possible opportunities.
Ok, guess I do want to reply. I took a class which was cross listed as PoliSci, Natural Resources, and Civil Engineering. The professor was a lawyer who shared the statistics of the major course essay results after each one. He had taught the course for something like 10 years, and in every single year the civil engineers had the highest average essay scores by a reasonable margin, which the professor thought was hilarious since engineers were supposed to be bad writers. I can tell you the engineers regarded the class as a coast class that they took for an easy grade without too much work, and the engineers who were represented in the statistic were certainly not the better writers in their cohort. Whereas I have no reason to think the PoliSci majors were atypical. Also I learend more critical thinking in the first two years of an engineering degree than any full-fledged humanities BA. "We're better writers!" and "we learned critical thinking!" are comforting myths that liberal arts majors tell themselves, but there is no basis to them (which is exactly why you should never trust "analysis" done by a PoliSci major).
There's a huge confound here though, which goes back to one of my original points.
Engineering degrees tend to attract better students overall compared to liberal arts degrees.
I mentioned in my doctorate how the liberal arts majors had a massive analytical and writing advantage over the STEM students, but that was in a program where the average entrance GPA was >3.9/4.0, it was the very top liberal arts students vs the very top STEM students.
The average performance and outcome of the liberal arts category will always be poorer because the STEM degrees will always have, on average, more disciplined and harder working students.
But that means nothing for one individual's outcomes whether they pursue arts or STEM.
I think there's a huge confound here though. I have no doubt the liberal arts majors were the very top of their class, because what choice do they have? It's not like that can get a high performing job in their field lol. I doubt you got nearly the same level STEM students though. If you have a very highly paid career path immediately available to you, there's not much reason to put in years of extra effort to go into something else unless you really are passionate about it or weren't particularly good at STEM.
You don't think the STEM students in med school are top students??
If you're a top engineer, and you have a great and high earning career available, why would you go to med school? Even for a mediocre engineer the NPV for med school would not break even for about 20-30 years. If you're a top engineer the NPV would never tilt toward med school. You'd only do it if you never had the intention of being an engineer in the first place, or suddenly became very passionate about healthcare for some reason.
My step-dad was a senior partner of a small engineering firm (30 employees) from age 50 to 70. He worked about 70-80 hours/week. Before becoming partner, it was probably 60 hours/week. He made a good salary, but his hourly wage was low. He was able to travel and take vacations, but he would still work about 4 hours/day when on vacation. I'm good at math and could have worked for him and been the next CEO. No thanks.
One of my tenants was an ER doctor. At 34 years old in 2020 he was making 520K in Jacksonville, FL. He took a pay cut to move to Hawaii and make around 360K/year in 2021, but he only works 8 days/month. I'm assuming it was a 24 hour shift, but I'm not sure.
One of my students left mid-semester in 2023 because his girlfriend was a heart surgeon and took a high paying job in a remote location in North Dakota. They offered her 1 million/year.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
Sure but if others can generalize about engineers I can generalize back. In practice of course to function in society anyone who is not Donald Trump will eventually get some reality (or at least social) checks for their ideas, sooner rather than later in a professional capacity. It's also not always a disadvantage. For example (I think someone alluded to this), if an engineer is working with a client who instructs the engineer to do something based on something objectively wrong, the engineer would often just shut down. Like, I'm sorry there's just no way I can proceed with that. A liberal arts major may not feel the pull of objective reality as strongly and would just be like "yeah, we can make that happen!" and find a way to make it so.
Or, alternatively, my specific experience:
-- Engineer decides on an interpretation of the regs that gets him the answer he wants and is literally supported by the grammar and word choice of a specific sub-sub-section.
-- My broader experience tells me that this interpretation exposes the company to a very high degree of enforcement risk, with potentially millions of dollars in penalties. I am not pulling this out of my ass, nor is it some fear-mongering egotistical need to make everyone jump. Here are my data points:
-- First, regulatory analysis: that one particular subsection is the outlier; when you read the entire regulation, the rest of the provisions demonstrate that subsection is inconsistent with everything else.
-- Next, experience: I have not had an enforcement action related to this provision. But I have dealt with many, many other similar circumstances (because, really, regulations cannot possibly envision all potential future circumstances). And the consistent theme, across multiple regulations and multiple years, is that both agency enforcement people and courts take the position that you need to interpret each sub-sub-section within the meaning of the regulation as a whole.
-- Next, risk: If the agency finds out about this interpretation and disagrees (as is very likely), the best-case result will be several years of enforcement, followed a consent decree with millions of dollars in penalties and more than that in corrective actions. Even worse is the possibility of criminal enforcement: I have personally defended a company lawyer against criminal charges for doing something that literally complied with what a subsection stated but that the agencies and court later decided was not what the agency intended. Yes, we ultimately got the charges against him personally dropped -- but that was after four years of investigation, and it entirely destroyed his career (and he was the guy who was trying to clean up a huge mess that someone else had created).
-- Result: engineer doubles down. His box is focused around that sub-sub-section, and that interpretation is objectively correct. My concerns and experience do not fit within the box as he has defined it; therefore, I am at best wrong, and at worst just pushing the bosses to do what I want, while ignoring objective reality that says he's right.
In the end, neither of us is the decisionmaker, and my description of the risks and benefits of the various interpretations convinces the company not to do what the engineer recommended.
I am sure he was telling himself that my analysis was divorced from reality and based on some unknown and completely illogical assumptions, whereas he had a clearly-defined analysis with identifiable inputs and a logical output. But my specific experiences and judgment are not wrong simply because he did not think to consider them in his analysis. Nor does the fact that he cannot quantify and define my inputs and outputs mean my conclusion is illogical and unsupported.
IOW: An "objective" analysis that is too limited can lead to results that are just as wrong as an analysis that is not based on clearly-defined inputs. If you don't get something, it's always better to ask why instead of simply assuming that the other guy is just making shit up that is completely divorced from objective reality.
-
Good luck persuading a liberal arts major that everything they understand about a subject is completely detached from reality, patently false, and ultimately irrelevant. It's actually exasperating. Like, for all that work, could you not have spent a few minutes on at least a basic reality check?
I think you realize you're painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, but it's still worth noting since you're talking about how others are failing with reality checks.
Sure but if others can generalize about engineers I can generalize back. In practice of course to function in society anyone who is not Donald Trump will eventually get some reality (or at least social) checks for their ideas, sooner rather than later in a professional capacity. It's also not always a disadvantage. For example (I think someone alluded to this), if an engineer is working with a client who instructs the engineer to do something based on something objectively wrong, the engineer would often just shut down. Like, I'm sorry there's just no way I can proceed with that. A liberal arts major may not feel the pull of objective reality as strongly and would just be like "yeah, we can make that happen!" and find a way to make it so.
Or, alternatively, my specific experience:
-- Engineer decides on an interpretation of the regs that gets him the answer he wants and is literally supported by the grammar and word choice of a specific sub-sub-section.
-- My broader experience tells me that this interpretation exposes the company to a very high degree of enforcement risk, with potentially millions of dollars in penalties. I am not pulling this out of my ass, nor is it some fear-mongering egotistical need to make everyone jump. Here are my data points:
-- First, regulatory analysis: that one particular subsection is the outlier; when you read the entire regulation, the rest of the provisions demonstrate that subsection is inconsistent with everything else.
-- Next, experience: I have not had an enforcement action related to this provision. But I have dealt with many, many other similar circumstances (because, really, regulations cannot possibly envision all potential future circumstances). And the consistent theme, across multiple regulations and multiple years, is that both agency enforcement people and courts take the position that you need to interpret each sub-sub-section within the meaning of the regulation as a whole.
-- Next, risk: If the agency finds out about this interpretation and disagrees (as is very likely), the best-case result will be several years of enforcement, followed a consent decree with millions of dollars in penalties and more than that in corrective actions. Even worse is the possibility of criminal enforcement: I have personally defended a company lawyer against criminal charges for doing something that literally complied with what a subsection stated but that the agencies and court later decided was not what the agency intended. Yes, we ultimately got the charges against him personally dropped -- but that was after four years of investigation, and it entirely destroyed his career (and he was the guy who was trying to clean up a huge mess that someone else had created).
-- Result: engineer doubles down. His box is focused around that sub-sub-section, and that interpretation is objectively correct. My concerns and experience do not fit within the box as he has defined it; therefore, I am at best wrong, and at worst just pushing the bosses to do what I want, while ignoring objective reality that says he's right.
In the end, neither of us is the decisionmaker, and my description of the risks and benefits of the various interpretations convinces the company not to do what the engineer recommended.
I am sure he was telling himself that my analysis was divorced from reality and based on some unknown and completely illogical assumptions, whereas he had a clearly-defined analysis with identifiable inputs and a logical output. But my specific experiences and judgment are not wrong simply because he did not think to consider them in his analysis. Nor does the fact that he cannot quantify and define my inputs and outputs mean my conclusion is illogical and unsupported.
IOW: An "objective" analysis that is too limited can lead to results that are just as wrong as an analysis that is not based on clearly-defined inputs. If you don't get something, it's always better to ask why instead of simply assuming that the other guy is just making shit up that is completely divorced from objective reality.
There's also the confound that autism is over represented among engineers, which as someone who works with autistic folks, makes A LOT of sense to me, as autistic thinking is all about logical frameworks of understanding.
So when a lot of people generalize about the engineer personality type and style of reasoning, they're often also commenting on particular manifestations of autism.
And it's not that there are so many autistic engineers just that interacting with them can be so distinctive and their frameworks so anchored in engineering that the experiences can be very memorable
So if you have enough encounters of rigid framework, black-and-white thinking from someone who basically insists that you're a fucking idiot, and justifies it via their engineering knowledge...yeah, it's easy to think it's an engineering thing, when it could be more of an autism thing.
-
Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day. In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts)
These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.
-
Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day. In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts)
These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.
Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.
-
So if you have enough encounters of rigid framework, black-and-white thinking from someone who basically insists that you're a fucking idiot, and justifies it via their engineering knowledge...yeah, it's easy to think it's an engineering thing, when it could be more of an autism thing.
I know I don't need to say this to you, but I don't think All Engineers Are . . . . I couldn't do my job without the many excellent engineers I have worked closely with (it's so much easier when I can trust them to get the technical details right and they can trust me to frame all of that up within the overall risk/cost business decisionmaking framework). And, you know, I am married to one, and have managed to remain so for over 25 years now. ;-) So I was very careful to note in my initial comments that I'm not implying that all engineers are any specific way (although I do stand by my initial comment that as a rule, our lawyers are better writers, because that is a learned skill that requires training and practice, which we have to a much greater degree).
I just get really fucking pissed at comments suggesting that engineers are always logical and rational and thus right, whereas liberal arts majors have no connection to reality because they don't use the same clearly-defined objective decisionmaking matrix.
-
So if you have enough encounters of rigid framework, black-and-white thinking from someone who basically insists that you're a fucking idiot, and justifies it via their engineering knowledge...yeah, it's easy to think it's an engineering thing, when it could be more of an autism thing.
I know I don't need to say this to you, but I don't think All Engineers Are . . . . I couldn't do my job without the many excellent engineers I have worked closely with (it's so much easier when I can trust them to get the technical details right and they can trust me to frame all of that up within the overall risk/cost business decisionmaking framework). And, you know, I am married to one, and have managed to remain so for over 25 years now. ;-) So I was very careful to note in my initial comments that I'm not implying that all engineers are any specific way (although I do stand by my initial comment that as a rule, our lawyers are better writers, because that is a learned skill that requires training and practice, which we have to a much greater degree).
I just get really fucking pissed at comments suggesting that engineers are always logical and rational and thus right, whereas liberal arts majors have no connection to reality because they don't use the same clearly-defined objective decisionmaking matrix.
Lol, no worries, I didn't for a second think you were implying that. I was more making a comment on how generalizations about engineers can come about.
-
Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day. In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts)
These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.
Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.
Charming AND cute! Careful lady, I'm a married man . . .
-
I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.
For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.
However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.
Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.
I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.
As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.
A friend of mine has a degree in English with an emphasis in Poetry. She does data analysis and statistical modelling of statewide data for her entire company.
-
Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day. In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts)
These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.
Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.
Charming AND cute! Careful lady, I'm a married man . . .
Lol!
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
No, those are not "right out of college" jobs. Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job. I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education.
Hmm, my understanding is that you can get into quant or investment banking just with extremely good marks in a competitive undergraduate degree (4 years) - you don't need a master's or graduate degree to get in. To me that is best bang for buck. The downside is that it's not easy to get in.
Not sure about quant -- I was assuming advanced math degree for that. You're right about IB; there's just a very limited number of colleges the top firms recruit at, and it's still very much an old-boys' club (a/k/a classic barriers to entry). But I think you're also eventually going to need an MBA.
The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.
-
Don't disagree, but how many of them went to a top 10 LAC like Williams or Amherst?
I have no clue, but if they are largely from elite schools, that would support my whole position that networking and mentorship are critical to a lot of career success because that's the main advantage of elite schools.
If I lived in the US, I would never send a kid to an expensive school without fully equipping them with top notch networking skills.
I disagree with this. The main advantage of going to an elite school is being part of a strong cohort. The standard of coursework will likely be higher (because the cohort is smarter), and graduating with strong marks from an elite school gives you much better cred with the most exclusive graduate employers (e.g. biglaw, IB, quant, etc) than graduating with equally strong marks from any other school. You also have more chance of getting a post-grad scholarship or offers overseas if you want to do that.
Networking is important, but a lot of it also relates to the cohort effect mentioned above. If your mates are all really smart, capable kids, you are going to pick up a lot of things you wouldn't elsewhere.
I agree that if you're not particularly smart, then networking is more important than whatever academic stuff you do at school.
-
When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that? Do you mean highest pay right out of college? That's pretty simple: some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind).
Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.
The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.
No, those are not "right out of college" jobs. Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job. I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education.
Hmm, my understanding is that you can get into quant or investment banking just with extremely good marks in a competitive undergraduate degree (4 years) - you don't need a master's or graduate degree to get in. To me that is best bang for buck. The downside is that it's not easy to get in.
Not sure about quant -- I was assuming advanced math degree for that. You're right about IB; there's just a very limited number of colleges the top firms recruit at, and it's still very much an old-boys' club (a/k/a classic barriers to entry). But I think you're also eventually going to need an MBA.
The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.
I agree with your general point, but the starting salary in IB/biglaw is much more than $100k. And in any event the starting salary isn't important - it's the ability to quickly make it to $350k+ within a few years of starting that differentiates it from other professional jobs - and the pay continues to ramp up after that. True that it's not an easy job and it's not a 9-5 gig.
-
Meanwhile the OP checked-out about 100 posts ago.
😂
-
Meanwhile the OP checked-out about 100 posts ago.
😂
This is pretty much how every thread goes.
Someone starts a thread with a question or observation,.a lot of people weigh in, then some people who enjoy debating will debate about the specifics and minor details until the end of time.
Sometimes the most useful information actually comes out in these debates about seemingly minor details long after the OP has checked out.
-
Don't disagree, but how many of them went to a top 10 LAC like Williams or Amherst?
I have no clue, but if they are largely from elite schools, that would support my whole position that networking and mentorship are critical to a lot of career success because that's the main advantage of elite schools.
If I lived in the US, I would never send a kid to an expensive school without fully equipping them with top notch networking skills.
I disagree with this. The main advantage of going to an elite school is being part of a strong cohort. The standard of coursework will likely be higher (because the cohort is smarter), and graduating with strong marks from an elite school gives you much better cred with the most exclusive graduate employers (e.g. biglaw, IB, quant, etc) than graduating with equally strong marks from any other school. You also have more chance of getting a post-grad scholarship or offers overseas if you want to do that.
Networking is important, but a lot of it also relates to the cohort effect mentioned above. If your mates are all really smart, capable kids, you are going to pick up a lot of things you wouldn't elsewhere.
I agree that if you're not particularly smart, then networking is more important than whatever academic stuff you do at school.
Graduating from "Big Name School" and capitalizing off of that reputation and having cohort effects *is* part of networking.
A huge part of networking is to raise your own profile through the people and institutions you connect yourself with.
People don't just hire from elite schools because the education is objectively better, it's also because of the culture, mentorship, and connections within those schools.
I think you don't disagree with me, I think you just have a different definition of networking.
To better explain, I'll give personal examples.
My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.
My school was more elite though. Why? Because the caliber of faculty we had access to for mentorship was insane. So while it made minimal difference as to how they taught the exact same material, it made a huge difference as to what we could learn from them outside of classes, and the value of their reference letters for getting into highly competitive specialty programs.
That's all networking. Networking = leveraging connections.
My second professional degree was at an online program where most of the instructors were in the US. Again, as an accredited program, the caliber of education had to essentially be equal to all equivalent programs across the country, and the quality of the actual coursework was top notch. But the networking value was gobshite.
I didn't bother connecting with the faculty for mentorship because they aren't even in my country, nor did I bother much connecting with my classmates since I would never speak to most of them again, so there was no point. Instead, I sought all of my mentorship and peer connection outside of the program. I connected with professional associations instead and built a rich, supportive peer and mentor community in parallel to my school program.
Quality of actual coursework is one thing, but it's not the main thing that gives elite graduates their advantages professionally, it's largely the ability to leverage the connections/associations of elite programs that matters.
By definition, your alma mater will always be part of your network that you can leverage. The more value that network has, the more leverage it provides.
-
Graduating from "Big Name School" and capitalizing off of that reputation and having cohort effects *is* part of networking.
A huge part of networking is to raise your own profile through the people and institutions you connect yourself with.
People don't just hire from elite schools because the education is objectively better, it's also because of the culture, mentorship, and connections within those schools.
I think you don't disagree with me, I think you just have a different definition of networking.
Yes, after you've explained your definition of networking, I agree that's one of the main benefits of going to a good school.
Quality of actual coursework is one thing, but it's not the main thing that gives elite graduates their advantages professionally, it's largely the ability to leverage the connections/associations of elite programs that matters.
Yeah - the quality of coursework reflects the quality of the cohort, and it's more the latter than the former that gives the cohort its strength.
-
If you aren't good at networking a lot of the alure of a "good school" can go out the window.
I work with guys who went to Standford, CAL, and Ivy league schools. Nobody really cares where they went to school if they suck at their job. Going to a prestige school is good but doesn't guarantee anything. It can shuffle the deck in your favor but does guarantee anything.
If you are racking up the debt just to go to a prestige school the juice usually isn't worth the squeeze. If scholarships or you parents can make it make sense it usually is worth it.
-
My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.
OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now. I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc. But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning. Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling. And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.
My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering). The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes. She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well.
My DS chose a small engineering-focused school. All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes. Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD. Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know. DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there). To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer.
I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD. Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do. But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.
Oh, just saw the post about the cohort: I don't think that explains the difference here. Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses. I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude. It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.
-
My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.
OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now. I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc. But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning. Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling. And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.
My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering). The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes. She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well.
My DS chose a small engineering-focused school. All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes. Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD. Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know. DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there). To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer.
I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD. Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do. But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.
Oh, just saw the post about the cohort: I don't think that explains the difference here. Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses. I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude. It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.
Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.
I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.
I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.
I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.
Hopefully that clears things up.
-
...My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.
If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible
+1
"Follow your aptitude" is a little less catchy than "follow your passion," but definitely rings true. I am a lot less passionate about classical music than a lot of musicians who are making a lot less money than me. But I was talented and I enjoyed being exceptional at something, so I kept working hard enough to be a big fish while moving up to bigger and bigger ponds.
I was also drawn to it less because of inherent "passion" but because of lifestyle factors. I met professional orchestra musicians and learned that they made decent enough incomes to enjoy a reasonable middle class lifestyle while only working for a few hours a day. I was drawn to it, in a very real sense, out of laziness, and a very similar attitude to what motivates FIRE. I saw, "oh, in this career I can frontload a ton of work in the practice room to high school and undergrad, and then I get to work less for the rest of my life."
A lot of classical musicians will try to dissuade kids from pursuing it, because they know how big of a risk it is, how many people fail, and how many of even the people who succeed end up jaded and disgruntled. They always say, "don't follow this career path unless you cannot imagine yourself doing anything else." I just sure as shit knew I couldn't imagine myself spending 40 hours a week sitting in an office. If I were born 10 years later and got to see as a teenager what was about to happen with remote work, I likely would have chosen something much more "sensible."
You know I never really thought about it, but my path and motivations were similar. I also cannot do 40 hr/week in an office (I do sometimes work more than 40 hours seasonally but it's not tied to an office), I still really think 40 hr/wk in a cubicle is insane. I really like your perspective, thanks. A fraction of what I do is "sensible" sort of, and I have capitalized on it (and still could go deeper in that area for higher pay). My current work comes with great benefits, is flexible, and never dull, I love it. But it's not sensible or super high paying but I happily exchanged that for good lifestyle and would do it again if I had the chance.
-
Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.
I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.
I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.
I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.
Hopefully that clears things up.
Hmmmm, thanks for posting such a rational response that I no longer have any reason/justification for avoiding my work. Sigh. You're letting me down here, @Metalcat. . . . ;-)
-
My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.
OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now. I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc. But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning. Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling. And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.
My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering). The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes. She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well.
My DS chose a small engineering-focused school. All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes. Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD. Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know. DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there). To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer.
I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD. Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do. But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.
Oh, just saw the post about the cohort: I don't think that explains the difference here. Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses. I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude. It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.
Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.
I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.
I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.
I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.
Hopefully that clears things up.
I believe this is very discipline specific. For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties).
-
...My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.
If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible
+1
"Follow your aptitude" is a little less catchy than "follow your passion," but definitely rings true.
For sure. I see students all the time who are floundering because they're getting pressure from parents to try and do something outside of their aptitude and preparation.
I'm resisting the urge to rage a bit at the parenting outcomes I see. In sum, I think lots of parents engage in magical thinking about where their kid is heading while also failing to do any of the prep work when the kid is at home that would have either enabled them to go that route or revealed that they don't have the aptitude for that route. Like the kid is just going to float through a mediocre public high school curriculum and college is going to do the rest. That's not how it works.
-
The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.
I agree with your general point, but the starting salary in IB/biglaw is much more than $100k. And in any event the starting salary isn't important - it's the ability to quickly make it to $350k+ within a few years of starting that differentiates it from other professional jobs - and the pay continues to ramp up after that. True that it's not an easy job and it's not a 9-5 gig.
Yeah I'd be pissed if I got only $100k starting in IB!
With my state school MSc in engineering I got a 70k starting salary, in 2009! That's almost exactly 100k adjusted for inflation. To be an ahole wall street bro they'd better get $300k starting salary! And of course the bonuses can quickly bump you to 500k+..
-
Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.
I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.
I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.
I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.
Hopefully that clears things up.
Hmmmm, thanks for posting such a rational response that I no longer have any reason/justification for avoiding my work. Sigh. You're letting me down here, @Metalcat. . . . ;-)
I know, I'm such a dick sometimes.
-
I believe this is very discipline specific. For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties).
I have no idea where my doctor or dentist went to school, as I selected both of those based on the convenience of the office locations and appointment availability. I just had a discussion with the scheduler at my doctor's office and she told me that the doc I've seen in the past doesn't have any availability until April. I said that I'm just coming in for an annual checkup and that I assume any of the medical professionals in the building can handle that, so schedule me with whoever has the earliest afternoon appointment available. Still couldn't get in until early March though. -__-
-
On Dispersion of Outcomes:
A reason why many don't consider liberal arts a good degree is the dispersion of outcomes. Yes, there are a large number of highly successful liberal arts majors out there. Let's say that every year 1 million students graduate with liberal arts degrees, and 100k with engineering degrees. 100k of the liberal arts majors go on to higher powered and higher earning careers than the average engineer. You could then say that there are far more liberal arts degree holders who earn more than the median engineer than there are engineers, and have plenty of anecdotes. You could also say that the median engineer earns more than 90% of the liberal arts degrees. However many of the common college major recommendations aren't because of their upper end potential, they are because of constrained lower end outcomes.
I see several posters attempting to associate the successful liberal arts degree holders with the typical graduate, or even worse with all students entering their freshman year declaring a liberal arts degree. And that's not a great association because there are big differences between those groups. In essence if you are going to recommend or pursue a liberal arts degree, you should know in advance the person is going achieve an outcome in the top quartile of all graduates. Or perhaps take some discrete steps to ensure that outcome, which Metalcat seems to be suggesting.
Even so, it's probably harder than you think to predict who will be in the top quartile. It's like picking will be in the final four or sweet sixteen before the NCAA tournament begins (try if you never have). Even the seeming best candidate can go out in the first round, while apparent mediocrities often linger. It's a whole lot easier to pick them after the tournament is over. To provide my own anecdote, I have a friend who has an English degree including some graduate work from Berkeley, but got bored of it and wandered the world a bit before moving in with his parent in a trailer in the far middle of nowhere in a more inland state. He fumbled around a bit before getting a teaching license in nearly as middle of nowhere in the state, and then took a job as a high school English teacher in one of the most hard-up schools in a nearby middle sized city. I'm sure he'll be successful as a teacher, and his students are lucky to have him. But he's obviously highly intelligent and deep thinking, and having seen the process I don't have the impression this was an outcome he hoped for at the start. And my impression, backed by some data, is that several people have an outcome more like this for every Laura33, and you may/probably will not know in advance which you are. (For more anecdote, the guy's wife has an engineering degree, but her real passion is beauty, so she opened her own independent beauty salon which ballooned to around a dozen employees within a year or two, before she decided it took too much time to deal with and sold it).
If you don't have a high degree of confidence and list of discrete steps you can take to guarantee an outcome in the top 25%, it might be worth looking into a more disciplined field of study.
On Critical Thinking
I confess, I don't actually know what critical thinking is. I'm fairly certain it's a meaningless word liberal arts majors made up to describe themselves, similar in concept to No True Scotsman. Fortunately, I have a piece of paper from an accredited institution that says I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Political Science, so I know that even if I don't know what critical thinking is I must possess this mystical ability. By the power of critical thinking vested in me, I assess that, to the extent I possess any, I learned a heck of a lot more of it from my engineering degree. I further assess this is a typical outcome, and all or nearly all students who graduated simultaneously with both would have a similar conclusion. Sure it has its limitations, but the type of critical thinking taught by an engineering degree has a far more powerful impact on your ability to affect the material world, and also a far more powerful impact on your mind.
On Well Rounded Trade Schools
Another myth is that only humanities majors are well rounded. Now to be sure I am 100% in agreement that engineering doesn't teach as much of the liberal arts and humanities (another confession I don't think I know the difference between those) as I think it should. To demonstrate, I spent an entire extra year in school earning a BA because I didn't think I was getting enough out of my engineering degree. But pretty much any university will ensure its graduates are well rounded. Engineers regularly complain that they think non-engineering courses are a waste of time, but universities and colleges of engineering hold firm, insisting that they are universities not trade schools. My strong opinion when I graduated was that is was really wrong that only engineers could take engineering classes. I felt it would do a heck of a lot of good if liberal arts majors could take statics or even be required to pass it in some cases. I think statics should also be offered for philosophy and psychology credit, because those two majors could really benefit from the insights and methods of thinking. Statics isn't that useful in itself, but it's real name should be "introduction to thinking like an engineer."
In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.
So a lot of the most successful people in the world are building those careers off of an arts education. But they aren't getting the skills to do so from their undergrad courses, they have to cultivate those skills the same way the STEM background CEOs have to. Somewhere along the way, they need to learn how to succeed in business, and really good mentorship is key to that at every step of the game, for everyone.
See, if you said "The real power of a liberal arts degree is that it allows you to coast through school with plenty of free time to work on the truly powerful life skills of making friends and learning how to network. This is especially true at elite universities where the most intelligent people in the world have little better to do than befriend and learn to interact with the children of the richest and most powerful people in the world before they all move on to bigger and more important things," then I would totally agree.
I've been using engineering and liberal arts as examples because I have degrees in both. There are plenty of others out there of course, but I have less personal insight into them.
-
...For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties)...
I'll nitpick just to say, the Stanford-educated K12 teacher is far more likely than their colleagues from worse colleges to have opportunities to work in districts with better pay, and to move up the admin track to principal/super-intendant. That can be a pretty damn good career track. I know a guy who's comfortably retired in Santa Barbara off his public school teaching->admin career. I'd say Santa Barbara is a strong contender for genuine "paradise on Earth" (with housing costs to match), so I'd say any career path that allows one to spend their career and retirement there is a smashing success story.
In almost any career path, there are ways to set oneself apart to earn more, and going to a great school (or at least being able to get in to a great school) is at least highly correlated with being able to do that.
---
As an example that seemingly has very little to do with college or education at all, I have a few friends and some family who work in the coffee business, and their success at moving up the ranks within the world of coffee is very correlated with their education. None of them have any "business" education, but of the people I know who are in coffee, the one who is the best educated worked his way up from warehouse/fulfillment, to roaster, to middle management at one of the most highly acclaimed coffee companies in the world. (He has an undergrad and master's in music.)
Were his degrees "worth it?" Well, he got to shoot his shot at a high-risk/high-reward career path that he was very passionate about, I'm sure he learned a lot of highly transferable soft-skills and gained subtle social and cultural competencies from spending time in academia around the country, he was learning about coffee and making connections in that industry in different cities while he was a student, and now he still gigs professionally on the side while a pretty kickass career in the coffee biz unfolds in front of him.
He's not paying off his education as a musician, but that whole life experience, the soft skills, his social connections in the music world, being able to be active in his local freelance scene, and the fact that he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life wondering, "what if I had tried to make it in music?"... all invaluable.
If he were hypothetically my kid, I think I'd be quite happy with that outcome.
-
My 17 year is looking into this route! Two year associates degree at Colorado Mesa University in Construction Wiring. Get a bit of the college experience, take some English, Math, PE, elective classes, etc. to go along with the trade school classes. And he's hoping to play on their club hockey team. I think it sounds like a solid plan.
On Dispersion of Outcomes:
On Well Rounded Trade Schools
In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.
-
Since I finished my MA nobody, not even my first post-education job, asked what it was about or where I went. All they cared about was the MA on my CV, because that allowed them to put my CV in one pile rather than the other. By the time I moved on to other work that qualification was irrelevant compared to what I had done 'in real life'.
I could have gone to a cheapass community college and had the same outcomes, in effect. Where the quality school I attended for my undergrad was good was in the quality of instruction - I enjoyed the classes and found the work congenial, so did well at it. For complex relationship reasons I chose the wrong post-grad school, but in the end it did not matter. I got the work done, got the MA, and nobody gives a damn about what it was in or even what I worked on.
It took me some time to figure out that my aptitude was actually in self-employment/investment. And that was entirely self taught, though probably the skills I built while doing my degrees helped a lot in filtering out bullshit.
-
My 17 year is looking into this route! Two year associates degree at Colorado Mesa University in Construction Wiring. Get a bit of the college experience, take some English, Math, PE, elective classes, etc. to go along with the trade school classes. And he's hoping to play on their club hockey team. I think it sounds like a solid plan.
On Dispersion of Outcomes:
On Well Rounded Trade Schools
In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.
I teach at a community college in southern Colorado. Our AA in Automotive is structured in a similar way. It's 60 credits of classes specific to automotives. Then it's another 30 credits on the traditional GE for a liberal arts degree (Speech, Psychology, English 1, Math 1, etc...). This makes so much sense to me and I personally think is the future of trade school. My father did trade school, but didn't get the basics of a liberal arts degree. He was a high earner and struggled in life. He failed Algebra 1 in high school and made many poor financial decisions because he didn't understand the math behind it. I have cousins in the trades with similar paths. Add the basics of a liberal arts degree to a trade school and it's gold, IMO.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
-
Also: Engineering Technology, about halfway between trade school and a traditional engineering degree.
-
Also: Engineering Technology, about halfway between trade school and a traditional engineering degree.
I know people who have taken this route and it's a great option. The pay is still good, and it is way less stress.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
Its hard on the body BUT having worked around trades (construction management), some self care would go a long was in limiting the wear. We have mandatory stretching which helps but the amount of alcohol, energy drinks, and gas station food they consume doesn't help. Except electricians, they are the divas but are generally in good health. Roofers are the worst.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.
My mom worked in health care and had two work related injuries, so I absolutely believe that.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.
My mom worked in health care and had two work related injuries, so I absolutely believe that.
One of my BFFs had to retire from nursing at 40 due to severe cervical spine injuries, I had to retire from my healthcare profession due to severe cervical spine injuries. A lot of healthcare jobs are BRUTAL on your body.
-
My mom's back is pretty messed up from it. Her hips also took a beating. The pay was good, but the hours were long, and it took a toll on her body.
-
When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?
I think this is highly dependent on the trade as well as the work environment. Doing something like custom decorative wrought iron welding in a nice clean shop is vasty different from welding in a large industrial setting like a ship yard or an off shore oil platform where it's both physically hard as well as dangerous. So no "one size fits all" exists based just on the trade or job skills.
I worked as a enlisted machinery technician (MK) (https://www.cool.osd.mil/uscg/moc/index.html?moc=mk&tab=overview) in the Coast Guard from 18 to 30, most of it aboard ships and boats, and every skill I used (and there were a ton of various skills I learned and used) could be either very easy on the body or very very hard on it. I loved it and learned so many valuable skills (many like law enforcement, fire fighting, rescue swimming, environmental protection, boat/ship handling besides mechanical skills) I could make a ton of money on after I got out. I do have 2 degrees that were required for my civilian government job that I earned on the GI Bill at no cost to me but my many "skilled labor" skills would have been enough without ever going to college.
As for the OP I don't know if they are more concerned with their kid earning a living or a high.level of earning or want them to do something they like and have at least some desire to pursue.
-
I started my career in the trades. I first got my CNA license at 17 and worked in nursing homes as a nurse aid for 3 years. One of very few males in that field. I had a blast. So many great stories that I’ll always cherish. A few nightmares with some colleagues, however. It could be a bit hard on the body but less so for people that take care of themselves. Might not be as bad as sitting in a chair all day and becoming overweight from the sedentary lifestyle.
I eventually went to a welding trade school for 7 months, and while welding I got my associates degree in welding technology. I welded for a few years in a large industrial facility. Lots of hot work in the gulf coast heat. Sometimes welding in confined spaces or 100’ in the air. Much of the time spent in a shop, which is safer and a bit easier on the body. A lot more welding, though. Out in the field you may only spend a few hrs actually welding. In a shop it’s nearly all day. To add to it, very few 40 hr week jobs for the people that want high incomes. 56 hr weeks are pretty standard.
That set a great groundwork for my career to continue growing into management. I mentioned a bit about my current position, but when still working as a contractor I had several years earning $300k-$450k/yr. About as high as it gets for someone with my limited education in this field that isn’t self employed.
The biggest downside is the lack of good jobs in places I’d really want to live. I long to move into the Rocky Mountain or PNW regions, but my income is much much higher down south. I’ll be ready for my next downshift in a few years where I’ll take a sizable pay cut hopefully for something completely remote and we can move to our forever home.
-
I went to college for Information Systems back in the early 90's, but I knew more about the IT field that the teachers at the time. If you want to work for 20 years and then retire then you can become a police officer and make the same money after you retire as when you were working. If I just wanted to retire as soon as possible with a good income I should have done that or some other job like that that allows you to work a set number of years. The problem is that I wouldn't want to do that job. We spend so much of living life working that you have to have some passion or joy in doing it and a paycheck at least for me is not enough.
-
@spartana I largely agree with you. If you have no passion for what you do, then it will be pretty miserable. If I just wanted to chase the biggest paycheck, I wouldn't do what I do now. If you like what you do, then it helps along the way.
The journey is just as important as the destination.