What college majors are worth it?

[Log]

...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."

[seemsright]

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

[twinstudy]

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).

[Radagast]

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.

[Radagast]

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.

[wageslave23]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[Smokystache]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Laura33]

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"?

[LaineyAZ]

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.

[Villanelle]

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. 

[twinstudy]

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.

[Radagast]

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.

[Laura33]

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.

[Radagast]

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).

[GuitarStv]

"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.

[sonofsven]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[Metalcat]

"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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[roomtempmayo]

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.

[Laura33]

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.

[GuitarStv]

"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

[Smokystache]

...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")

[Radagast]

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.

[MMMarbleheader]

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.

[Radagast]

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?

[MMMarbleheader]

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.

[roomtempmayo]

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.

[Metalcat]

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??

[Metalcat]

"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

[roomtempmayo]

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.

[MMMarbleheader]

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.

[Radagast]

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.

[Radagast]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[roomtempmayo]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[clarkfan1979]

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.

[twinstudy]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[MMMarbleheader]

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?

[Metalcat]

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.

[erp]

...
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

[use2betrix]

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.

[clarkfan1979]

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.

[Laura33]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.