What college majors are worth it?

[GuitarStv]

Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day.  In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts

These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.

[Metalcat]

Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day.  In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts

These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.

Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.

[Laura33]

So if you have enough encounters of rigid framework, black-and-white thinking from someone who basically insists that you're a fucking idiot, and justifies it via their engineering knowledge...yeah, it's easy to think it's an engineering thing, when it could be more of an autism thing.

I know I don't need to say this to you, but I don't think All Engineers Are . . . .  I couldn't do my job without the many excellent engineers I have worked closely with (it's so much easier when I can trust them to get the technical details right and they can trust me to frame all of that up within the overall risk/cost business decisionmaking framework).  And, you know, I am married to one, and have managed to remain so for over 25 years now.  ;-)  So I was very careful to note in my initial comments that I'm not implying that all engineers are any specific way (although I do stand by my initial comment that as a rule, our lawyers are better writers, because that is a learned skill that requires training and practice, which we have to a much greater degree). 

I just get really fucking pissed at comments suggesting that engineers are always logical and rational and thus right, whereas liberal arts majors have no connection to reality because they don't use the same clearly-defined objective decisionmaking matrix. 

[Metalcat]

So if you have enough encounters of rigid framework, black-and-white thinking from someone who basically insists that you're a fucking idiot, and justifies it via their engineering knowledge...yeah, it's easy to think it's an engineering thing, when it could be more of an autism thing.

I know I don't need to say this to you, but I don't think All Engineers Are . . . .  I couldn't do my job without the many excellent engineers I have worked closely with (it's so much easier when I can trust them to get the technical details right and they can trust me to frame all of that up within the overall risk/cost business decisionmaking framework).  And, you know, I am married to one, and have managed to remain so for over 25 years now.  ;-)  So I was very careful to note in my initial comments that I'm not implying that all engineers are any specific way (although I do stand by my initial comment that as a rule, our lawyers are better writers, because that is a learned skill that requires training and practice, which we have to a much greater degree). 

I just get really fucking pissed at comments suggesting that engineers are always logical and rational and thus right, whereas liberal arts majors have no connection to reality because they don't use the same clearly-defined objective decisionmaking matrix.

Lol, no worries, I didn't for a second think you were implying that. I was more making a comment on how generalizations about engineers can come about.

[GuitarStv]

Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day.  In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts

These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.

Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.

Charming AND cute!  Careful lady, I'm a married man . . .

[Psychstache]

I think to me it all boils down to how much the degree costs and what you can do with it.

For example, I could stomach taking out 50k in debt for an engineering degree that has a good chance to have a respectable ROI.

However, if it's a liberal arts degree, it's not a hard no, but if you need a bunch of debt for it and the path to getting and ROI on it is risky then it's probably not worth it.

Most STEM degrees are pretty good, and the liberal arts degrees can be good if you get them for an affordable price.

I have a friend with a master's in feminist literature who makes a fortune writing copy for the oil and gas sector.

As I said in my reply before, if the young adult has the ability to be successful with a STEM or professional degree, they have the ability to be successful with pretty much any degree.

A friend of mine has a degree in English with an emphasis in Poetry. She does data analysis and statistical modelling of statewide data for her entire company.

[Metalcat]

Counterpoint - engineers deal with an astonishing number of absolute fucking idiots every day.  In my career I cannot count the number of times I've had someone ask me to draw seven strictly perpendicular red lines using transparent and green ink.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&ab_channel=LaurisBeinerts

These types of regular interactions can negatively colour and shape how engineers communicate with those around us.

Cute that you think dealing with absolute idiocy is a particularly engineering problem.

Charming AND cute!  Careful lady, I'm a married man . . .

Lol!

[Freedomin5]

When you focus on a high-pay career, the first question you need to answer is what do you mean by that?  Do you mean highest pay right out of college?  That's pretty simple:  some version of engineering (just not civil, environmental, or mechanical -- civil is historically the lowest-paid, and the other two aren't far behind). 

Highest pay straight out of college would be in quant, not engineering IMO.

The highest paying professions imo are quant, investment banking/private equity, surgery, psychiatry, anaesthetics and biglaw.

No, those are not "right out of college" jobs.  Those are "right out of an advanced degree" job.  I was distinguishing between jobs you can get with a BA/BS and jobs that need significant years of further training/education. 

Hmm, my understanding is that you can get into quant or investment banking just with extremely good marks in a competitive undergraduate degree (4 years) - you don't need a master's or graduate degree to get in. To me that is best bang for buck. The downside is that it's not easy to get in.

Not sure about quant -- I was assuming advanced math degree for that.  You're right about IB; there's just a very limited number of colleges the top firms recruit at, and it's still very much an old-boys' club (a/k/a classic barriers to entry).  But I think you're also eventually going to need an MBA.

The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.

[twinstudy]

Don't disagree, but how many of them went to a top 10 LAC like Williams or Amherst?

I have no clue, but if they are largely from elite schools, that would support my whole position that networking and mentorship are critical to a lot of career success because that's the main advantage of elite schools.

If I lived in the US, I would never send a kid to an expensive school without fully equipping them with top notch networking skills.

I disagree with this. The main advantage of going to an elite school is being part of a strong cohort. The standard of coursework will likely be higher (because the cohort is smarter), and graduating with strong marks from an elite school gives you much better cred with the most exclusive graduate employers (e.g. biglaw, IB, quant, etc) than graduating with equally strong marks from any other school. You also have more chance of getting a post-grad scholarship or offers overseas if you want to do that.

Networking is important, but a lot of it also relates to the cohort effect mentioned above. If your mates are all really smart, capable kids, you are going to pick up a lot of things you wouldn't elsewhere.

I agree that if you're not particularly smart, then networking is more important than whatever academic stuff you do at school.

[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.

Not sure about quant -- I was assuming advanced math degree for that.  You're right about IB; there's just a very limited number of colleges the top firms recruit at, and it's still very much an old-boys' club (a/k/a classic barriers to entry).  But I think you're also eventually going to need an MBA.

The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.

I agree with your general point, but the starting salary in IB/biglaw is much more than $100k. And in any event the starting salary isn't important - it's the ability to quickly make it to $350k+ within a few years of starting that differentiates it from other professional jobs - and the pay continues to ramp up after that. True that it's not an easy job and it's not a 9-5 gig.

[ScreamingHeadGuy]

Meanwhile the OP checked-out about 100 posts ago. 

😂

[AuspiciousEight]

Meanwhile the OP checked-out about 100 posts ago. 

😂

This is pretty much how every thread goes.

Someone starts a thread with a question or observation,.a lot of people weigh in, then some people who enjoy debating will debate about the specifics and minor details until the end of time.

Sometimes the most useful information actually comes out in these debates about seemingly minor details long after the OP has checked out.

[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.

I disagree with this. The main advantage of going to an elite school is being part of a strong cohort. The standard of coursework will likely be higher (because the cohort is smarter), and graduating with strong marks from an elite school gives you much better cred with the most exclusive graduate employers (e.g. biglaw, IB, quant, etc) than graduating with equally strong marks from any other school. You also have more chance of getting a post-grad scholarship or offers overseas if you want to do that.

Networking is important, but a lot of it also relates to the cohort effect mentioned above. If your mates are all really smart, capable kids, you are going to pick up a lot of things you wouldn't elsewhere.

I agree that if you're not particularly smart, then networking is more important than whatever academic stuff you do at school.

Graduating from "Big Name School" and capitalizing off of that reputation and having cohort effects *is* part of networking.

A huge part of networking is to raise your own profile through the people and institutions you connect yourself with.

People don't just hire from elite schools because the education is objectively better, it's also because of the culture, mentorship, and connections within those schools.

I think you don't disagree with me, I think you just have a different definition of networking.

To better explain, I'll give personal examples.

My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.

My school was more elite though. Why? Because the caliber of faculty we had access to for mentorship was insane. So while it made minimal difference as to how they taught the exact same material, it made a huge difference as to what we could learn from them outside of classes, and the value of their reference letters for getting into highly competitive specialty programs.

That's all networking. Networking = leveraging connections.

My second professional degree was at an online program where most of the instructors were in the US. Again, as an accredited program, the caliber of education had to essentially be equal to all equivalent programs across the country, and the quality of the actual coursework was top notch. But the networking value was gobshite.

I didn't bother connecting with the faculty for mentorship because they aren't even in my country, nor did I bother much connecting with my classmates since I would never speak to most of them again, so there was no point. Instead, I sought all of my mentorship and peer connection outside of the program. I connected with professional associations instead and built a rich, supportive peer and mentor community in parallel to my school program.

Quality of actual coursework is one thing, but it's not the main thing that gives elite graduates their advantages professionally, it's largely the ability to leverage the connections/associations of elite programs that matters.

By definition, your alma mater will always be part of your network that you can leverage. The more value that network has, the more leverage it provides.

[twinstudy]

Graduating from "Big Name School" and capitalizing off of that reputation and having cohort effects *is* part of networking.

A huge part of networking is to raise your own profile through the people and institutions you connect yourself with.

People don't just hire from elite schools because the education is objectively better, it's also because of the culture, mentorship, and connections within those schools.

I think you don't disagree with me, I think you just have a different definition of networking.

Yes, after you've explained your definition of networking, I agree that's one of the main benefits of going to a good school.

Quality of actual coursework is one thing, but it's not the main thing that gives elite graduates their advantages professionally, it's largely the ability to leverage the connections/associations of elite programs that matters.

Yeah - the quality of coursework reflects the quality of the cohort, and it's more the latter than the former that gives the cohort its strength.

[41_swish]

If you aren't good at networking a lot of the alure of a "good school" can go out the window.

I work with guys who went to Standford, CAL, and Ivy league schools. Nobody really cares where they went to school if they suck at their job. Going to a prestige school is good but doesn't guarantee anything. It can shuffle the deck in your favor but does guarantee anything.

If you are racking up the debt just to go to a prestige school the juice usually isn't worth the squeeze. If scholarships or you parents can make it make sense it usually is worth it.

[Laura33]

My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.

OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now.  I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc.  But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning.  Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling.  And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.

My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering).  The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes.  She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well. 

My DS chose a small engineering-focused school.  All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes.  Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD.  Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know.  DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there).  To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer. 

I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD.  Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do.  But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.

Oh, just saw the post about the cohort:  I don't think that explains the difference here.  Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses.  I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude.  It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.

[Metalcat]

My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.

OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now.  I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc.  But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning.  Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling.  And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.

My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering).  The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes.  She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well. 

My DS chose a small engineering-focused school.  All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes.  Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD.  Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know.  DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there).  To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer. 

I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD.  Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do.  But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.

Oh, just saw the post about the cohort:  I don't think that explains the difference here.  Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses.  I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude.  It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.

Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.

I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.

I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.

I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.

Hopefully that clears things up.

[JupiterGreen]

...My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.

If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible

+1

"Follow your aptitude" is a little less catchy than "follow your passion," but definitely rings true. I am a lot less passionate about classical music than a lot of musicians who are making a lot less money than me. But I was talented and I enjoyed being exceptional at something, so I kept working hard enough to be a big fish while moving up to bigger and bigger ponds.

I was also drawn to it less because of inherent "passion" but because of lifestyle factors. I met professional orchestra musicians and learned that they made decent enough incomes to enjoy a reasonable middle class lifestyle while only working for a few hours a day. I was drawn to it, in a very real sense, out of laziness, and a very similar attitude to what motivates FIRE. I saw, "oh, in this career I can frontload a ton of work in the practice room to high school and undergrad, and then I get to work less for the rest of my life."

A lot of classical musicians will try to dissuade kids from pursuing it, because they know how big of a risk it is, how many people fail, and how many of even the people who succeed end up jaded and disgruntled. They always say, "don't follow this career path unless you cannot imagine yourself doing anything else." I just sure as shit knew I couldn't imagine myself spending 40 hours a week sitting in an office. If I were born 10 years later and got to see as a teenager what was about to happen with remote work, I likely would have chosen something much more "sensible."

You know I never really thought about it, but my path and motivations were similar. I also cannot do 40 hr/week in an office (I do sometimes work more than 40 hours seasonally but it's not tied to an office), I still really think 40 hr/wk in a cubicle is insane. I really like your perspective, thanks. A fraction of what I do is "sensible" sort of, and I have capitalized on it (and still could go deeper in that area for higher pay). My current work comes with great benefits, is flexible, and never dull, I love it. But it's not sensible or super high paying but I happily exchanged that for good lifestyle and would do it again if I had the chance.

[Laura33]

Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.

I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.

I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.

I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Hmmmm, thanks for posting such a rational response that I no longer have any reason/justification for avoiding my work.  Sigh.  You're letting me down here, @Metalcat. . . .  ;-)

[JupiterGreen]

My first professional degree is from a world class university with a ton of cache. But I'm in Canada, and accredited programs all have to be essentially equal in quality of education for these programs. There can't actually be one school graduating students with better education than the others. So we all come out essentially equal.

OK, I'm going to respond to this one particular point with an off-topic tangent, just because I don't feel like focusing on my work right now.  I agree with everything else about the power of networking, including who you're working with, effects of a recognized school, etc.  But I also believe there is -- or at least can be -- a significant difference in learning.  Accreditation requirements are the floor, not the ceiling.  And there can be significant differences in the depth of understanding, too.

My DD went to an excellent school (liberal arts + engineering).  The basic math/science classes were standard freshman lecture hall classes.  She learned the stuff, studied hard, did very well. 

My DS chose a small engineering-focused school.  All of his classes are small; even the largest are around the size of his HS classes.  Last semester, he was complaining that one of his classes was HARD.  Because the professor would teach the individual principles/equations/etc., and lecture a lot about the why and what -- and then the tests would be on more complex principles that they hadn't yet learned, and the kids had to reason out the approach/answer based on what they did know.  DS worried he hadn't done as well as he hoped on the final, because one problem he just blanked on (that frustrating thing where you know you know it but can't recall under pressure), so he wrote down "I forgot the calculus way, so I did it the physics way," and then solved the problem differently than he thought he was supposed to (which got him about 90% of the way there).  To no one's surprise but his own, he got almost full marks for that answer. 

I strongly suspect DS is going to walk away with a much deeper understanding of his area of study than DD.  Which is fine, as DD is not as intensely tech-focused as DS, and they both learned/are learning to the level they need(ed) to for what they each want to do.  But DS' school -- which definitely has a stronger reputation as an engineering school in particular -- will I suspect also provide an objectively better education in the areas in which it specializes, even though both schools are accredited and turn out highly-qualified engineers.

Oh, just saw the post about the cohort:  I don't think that explains the difference here.  Both my kids are equally smart, just in different ways, with different strengths and weaknesses.  I'm pretty sure you could put the engineering cohort from both schools against each other and have comparable levels of intelligence and aptitude.  It's just that DS' school is smaller and intensely focused, which is going to allow those kids to go deeper into their chosen subject, whereas DD's is part of a larger liberal arts college, which is going to allow those kids to learn a wider variety of subjects.

Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.

I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.

I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.

I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.

Hopefully that clears things up.

I believe this is very discipline specific. For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties). 

[roomtempmayo]

...My own experience is with two "don't ever get those degrees!" degrees and I am surrounded by others in the same category, all very successful high achieving people. What it takes is: be exceptional. If it is a competitive field, you just have to be better than most of the people or specialize. If you're willing to do that you can work in any field even the competitive ones. I did not take on too much debt though so as many have mentioned, that may be the key.

If someone has no aptitude it pointless to get a STEM degree. And there are a lot of business majors these days, the US is awash with these, the newly minted graduates can't get jobs unless they specialize/know someone. There is some wisdom in "follow your passion" because people tend to have passion for things they also have aptitude for. To the OP it sounds like aptitude falls in the STEM majors for your child, but it won't be for everyone. And thank goodness for that, imagine a world without writers, plumbers, engineers, musicians and bakers etc...it would be terrible

+1

"Follow your aptitude" is a little less catchy than "follow your passion," but definitely rings true.

For sure.  I see students all the time who are floundering because they're getting pressure from parents to try and do something outside of their aptitude and preparation. 

I'm resisting the urge to rage a bit at the parenting outcomes I see.  In sum, I think lots of parents engage in magical thinking about where their kid is heading while also failing to do any of the prep work when the kid is at home that would have either enabled them to go that route or revealed that they don't have the aptitude for that route.  Like the kid is just going to float through a mediocre public high school curriculum and college is going to do the rest.  That's not how it works.

[Scandium]

The other thing about entry-level IB is that you're working 100 hrs/week, so your $100K starting salary works out to a very low per-hour rate. I have several university classmates who went into IB. The classmates who went into IB were the most aggressive and cutthroat in the class, and the general consensus is that many burn out within 5 years because of the stress. So you really have to have the aptitude and personality for the field if you want to survive in your IB career for longer than 5 years.

I agree with your general point, but the starting salary in IB/biglaw is much more than $100k. And in any event the starting salary isn't important - it's the ability to quickly make it to $350k+ within a few years of starting that differentiates it from other professional jobs - and the pay continues to ramp up after that. True that it's not an easy job and it's not a 9-5 gig.

Yeah I'd be pissed if I got only $100k starting in IB!
With my state school MSc in engineering I got a 70k starting salary, in 2009! That's almost exactly 100k adjusted for inflation. To be an ahole wall street bro they'd better get $300k starting salary! And of course the bonuses can quickly bump you to 500k+..

[Metalcat]

Remember, I'm in Canada and I'm talking about *my* particular programs. After years in my previous profession and my current experience as a new grad, I can firmly state that no one has ever cared what school we graduated from. It's literally barely even talked about.

I couldn't tell you where most of my colleagues have graduated from. It's never discussed beyond the new grad phase.

I don't doubt that it's different in the US or that it's different for law, which is extremely different from clinical work. And I'm very aware that my lawyer friends all know where their colleagues went to school. So clearly it matters.

I shared my *personal* example to make a point about networking, not to make a universal claim about programs all being equal.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Hmmmm, thanks for posting such a rational response that I no longer have any reason/justification for avoiding my work.  Sigh.  You're letting me down here, @Metalcat. . . .  ;-)

I know, I'm such a dick sometimes.

[classicrando]

I believe this is very discipline specific. For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties).

I have no idea where my doctor or dentist went to school, as I selected both of those based on the convenience of the office locations and appointment availability.  I just had a discussion with the scheduler at my doctor's office and she told me that the doc I've seen in the past doesn't have any availability until April.  I said that I'm just coming in for an annual checkup and that I assume any of the medical professionals in the building can handle that, so schedule me with whoever has the earliest afternoon appointment available.  Still couldn't get in until early March though.  -__-

[Radagast]

On Dispersion of Outcomes:
A reason why many don't consider liberal arts a good degree is the dispersion of outcomes. Yes, there are a large number of highly successful liberal arts majors out there. Let's say that every year 1 million students graduate with liberal arts degrees, and 100k with engineering degrees. 100k of the liberal arts majors go on to higher powered and higher earning careers than the average engineer. You could then say that there are far more liberal arts degree holders who earn more than the median engineer than there are engineers, and have plenty of anecdotes. You could also say that the median engineer earns more than 90% of the liberal arts degrees. However many of the common college major recommendations aren't because of their upper end potential, they are because of constrained lower end outcomes.

I see several posters attempting to associate the successful liberal arts degree holders with the typical graduate, or even worse with all students entering their freshman year declaring a liberal arts degree. And that's not a great association because there are big differences between those groups. In essence if you are going to recommend or pursue a liberal arts degree, you should know in advance the person is going achieve an outcome in the top quartile of all graduates. Or perhaps take some discrete steps to ensure that outcome, which Metalcat seems to be suggesting.

Even so, it's probably harder than you think to predict who will be in the top quartile. It's like picking will be in the final four or sweet sixteen before the NCAA tournament begins (try if you never have). Even the seeming best candidate can go out in the first round, while apparent mediocrities often linger. It's a whole lot easier to pick them after the tournament is over. To provide my own anecdote, I have a friend who has an English degree including some graduate work from Berkeley, but got bored of it and wandered the world a bit before moving in with his parent in a trailer in the far middle of nowhere in a more inland state. He fumbled around a bit before getting a teaching license in nearly as middle of nowhere in the state, and then took a job as a high school English teacher in one of the most hard-up schools in a nearby middle sized city. I'm sure he'll be successful as a teacher, and his students are lucky to have him. But he's obviously highly intelligent and deep thinking, and having seen the process I don't have the impression this was an outcome he hoped for at the start. And my impression, backed by some data, is that several people have an outcome more like this for every Laura33, and you may/probably will not know in advance which you are. (For more anecdote, the guy's wife has an engineering degree, but her real passion is beauty, so she opened her own independent beauty salon which ballooned to around a dozen employees within a year or two, before she decided it took too much time to deal with and sold it).

If you don't have a high degree of confidence and list of discrete steps you can take to guarantee an outcome in the top 25%, it might be worth looking into a more disciplined field of study.

On Critical Thinking
I confess, I don't actually know what critical thinking is. I'm fairly certain it's a meaningless word liberal arts majors made up to describe themselves, similar in concept to No True Scotsman. Fortunately, I have a piece of paper from an accredited institution that says I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Political Science, so I know that even if I don't know what critical thinking is I must possess this mystical ability. By the power of critical thinking vested in me, I assess that, to the extent I possess any, I learned a heck of a lot more of it from my engineering degree. I further assess this is a typical outcome, and all or nearly all students who graduated simultaneously with both would have a similar conclusion. Sure it has its limitations, but the type of critical thinking taught by an engineering degree has a far more powerful impact on your ability to affect the material world, and also a far more powerful impact on your mind.

On Well Rounded Trade Schools
Another myth is that only humanities majors are well rounded. Now to be sure I am 100% in agreement that engineering doesn't teach as much of the liberal arts and humanities (another confession I don't think I know the difference between those) as I think it should. To demonstrate, I spent an entire extra year in school earning a BA because I didn't think I was getting enough out of my engineering degree. But pretty much any university will ensure its graduates are well rounded. Engineers regularly complain that they think non-engineering courses are a waste of time, but universities and colleges of engineering hold firm, insisting that they are universities not trade schools. My strong opinion when I graduated was that is was really wrong that only engineers could take engineering classes. I felt it would do a heck of a lot of good if liberal arts majors could take statics or even be required to pass it in some cases. I think statics should also be offered for philosophy and psychology credit, because those two majors could really benefit from the insights and methods of thinking. Statics isn't that useful in itself, but it's real name should be "introduction to thinking like an engineer."

In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.

So a lot of the most successful people in the world are building those careers off of an arts education. But they aren't getting the skills to do so from their undergrad courses, they have to cultivate those skills the same way the STEM background CEOs have to. Somewhere along the way, they need to learn how to succeed in business, and really good mentorship is key to that at every step of the game, for everyone.

See, if you said "The real power of a liberal arts degree is that it allows you to coast through school with plenty of free time to work on the truly powerful life skills of making friends and learning how to network. This is especially true at elite universities where the most intelligent people in the world have little better to do than befriend and learn to interact with the children of the richest and most powerful people in the world before they all move on to bigger and more important things," then I would totally agree.

I've been using engineering and liberal arts as examples because I have degrees in both. There  are plenty of others out there of course, but I have less personal insight into them.

[Log]

...For instance if you are going into k-12 teaching, go to an accredited state school because nobody is going to care you went to Stanford and you'll never make your investment back in pay (unless someone else pays your bill). I suspect the opposite is true for other disciplines, maybe law and healthcare? My dentist went to Tufts which is not an Ivy but it has a very good reputation for their dental program and that is why I chose my dentist (along with his professional development specialties)...

I'll nitpick just to say, the Stanford-educated K12 teacher is far more likely than their colleagues from worse colleges to have opportunities to work in districts with better pay, and to move up the admin track to principal/super-intendant. That can be a pretty damn good career track. I know a guy who's comfortably retired in Santa Barbara off his public school teaching->admin career. I'd say Santa Barbara is a strong contender for genuine "paradise on Earth" (with housing costs to match), so I'd say any career path that allows one to spend their career and retirement there is a smashing success story.

In almost any career path, there are ways to set oneself apart to earn more, and going to a great school (or at least being able to get in to a great school) is at least highly correlated with being able to do that.

---

As an example that seemingly has very little to do with college or education at all, I have a few friends and some family who work in the coffee business, and their success at moving up the ranks within the world of coffee is very correlated with their education. None of them have any "business" education, but of the people I know who are in coffee, the one who is the best educated worked his way up from warehouse/fulfillment, to roaster, to middle management at one of the most highly acclaimed coffee companies in the world. (He has an undergrad and master's in music.)

Were his degrees "worth it?" Well, he got to shoot his shot at a high-risk/high-reward career path that he was very passionate about, I'm sure he learned a lot of highly transferable soft-skills and gained subtle social and cultural competencies from spending time in academia around the country, he was learning about coffee and making connections in that industry in different cities while he was a student, and now he still gigs professionally on the side while a pretty kickass career in the coffee biz unfolds in front of him.

He's not paying off his education as a musician, but that whole life experience, the soft skills, his social connections in the music world, being able to be active in his local freelance scene, and the fact that he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life wondering, "what if I had tried to make it in music?"... all invaluable.

If he were hypothetically my kid, I think I'd be quite happy with that outcome.

[SEAK]

My 17 year is looking into this route! Two year associates degree at Colorado Mesa University in Construction Wiring. Get a bit of the college experience, take some English, Math, PE, elective classes, etc. to go along with the trade school classes. And he's hoping to play on their club hockey team. I think it sounds like a solid plan.

On Dispersion of Outcomes:

On Well Rounded Trade Schools

In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.

[rocketpj]

Since I finished my MA nobody, not even my first post-education job, asked what it was about or where I went.  All they cared about was the MA on my CV, because that allowed them to put my CV in one pile rather than the other.  By the time I moved on to other work that qualification was irrelevant compared to what I had done 'in real life'.

I could have gone to a cheapass community college and had the same outcomes, in effect.  Where the quality school I attended for my undergrad was good was in the quality of instruction - I enjoyed the classes and found the work congenial, so did well at it.  For complex relationship reasons I chose the wrong post-grad school, but in the end it did not matter.  I got the work done, got the MA, and nobody gives a damn about what it was in or even what I worked on.

It took me some time to figure out that my aptitude was actually in self-employment/investment.  And that was entirely self taught, though probably the skills I built while doing my degrees helped a lot in filtering out bullshit.

[clarkfan1979]

My 17 year is looking into this route! Two year associates degree at Colorado Mesa University in Construction Wiring. Get a bit of the college experience, take some English, Math, PE, elective classes, etc. to go along with the trade school classes. And he's hoping to play on their club hockey team. I think it sounds like a solid plan.

On Dispersion of Outcomes:

On Well Rounded Trade Schools

In fact even trade schools pride themselves on well rounded candidates. As it happens my dad was the VP of a community college and responsible for much of the curriculum. An Associate's Degree in Welding from there requires 6 credits in English, 3 in math, 3 in science, 6 in social science, and 3 in humanities/fine arts. Incidentally my childhood friend graduated from this program and was making over $100k within a few years, so maybe an AA in welding should go to the list of well rounded high paying degrees to be recommended.

I teach at a community college in southern Colorado. Our AA in Automotive is structured in a similar way. It's 60 credits of classes specific to automotives. Then it's another 30 credits on the traditional GE for a liberal arts degree (Speech, Psychology, English 1, Math 1, etc...). This makes so much sense to me and I personally think is the future of trade school. My father did trade school, but didn't get the basics of a liberal arts degree. He was a high earner and struggled in life. He failed Algebra 1 in high school and made many poor financial decisions because he didn't understand the math behind it. I have cousins in the trades with similar paths. Add the basics of a liberal arts degree to a trade school and it's gold, IMO.

[41_swish]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

[Just Joe]

Also: Engineering Technology, about halfway between trade school and a traditional engineering degree.

[41_swish]

Also: Engineering Technology, about halfway between trade school and a traditional engineering degree.

I know people who have taken this route and it's a great option. The pay is still good, and it is way less stress.

[MMMarbleheader]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

Its hard on the body BUT having worked around trades (construction management), some self care would go a long was in limiting the wear. We have mandatory stretching which helps but the amount of alcohol, energy drinks, and gas station food they consume doesn't help. Except electricians, they are the divas but are generally in good health. Roofers are the worst.

[Morning Glory]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.

[41_swish]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.

My mom worked in health care and had two work related injuries, so I absolutely believe that.

[Metalcat]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

IIRC nurses and nursing assistants have more work related injuries than any of the building trades. Our government used to have a website where they tracked all that stuff and you can look it up. They've probably taken it down along with all the other ones.

My mom worked in health care and had two work related injuries, so I absolutely believe that.

One of my BFFs had to retire from nursing at 40 due to severe cervical spine injuries, I had to retire from my healthcare profession due to severe cervical spine injuries. A lot of healthcare jobs are BRUTAL on your body.

[41_swish]

My mom's back is pretty messed up from it. Her hips also took a beating. The pay was good, but the hours were long, and it took a toll on her body.

[spartana]

When it comes to trades, how hard are they on your body? I am genuinely interested. Or are they only hard on our bodies because the American and Canadian lifestyle is so sedentary?

  I think this is highly dependent on the trade as well as the work environment. Doing something like custom decorative wrought iron welding in a nice clean shop is vasty different from welding in a large industrial setting like a ship yard or an off shore oil platform where it's both physically hard as well as dangerous. So no "one size fits all" exists based just on the trade or job skills.

I worked as a enlisted machinery technician (MK) (https://www.cool.osd.mil/uscg/moc/index.html?moc=mk&tab=overview)  in the Coast Guard from 18 to 30, most of it aboard ships and boats, and every skill I used (and there were a ton of various skills I learned and used) could be either very easy on the body or very very hard on it. I loved it and learned so many valuable skills (many like law enforcement, fire fighting, rescue swimming, environmental protection, boat/ship handling besides mechanical skills) I could make a ton of money on after I got out. I do have 2 degrees that were required for my civilian government job that I earned on the GI Bill at no cost to me but my many "skilled labor" skills would have been enough without ever going to college.

As for the OP I don't know if they are more concerned with their kid earning a living or a high.level of earning or want them to do something they like and have at least some desire to pursue.

[use2betrix]

I started my career in the trades. I first got my CNA license at 17 and worked in nursing homes as a nurse aid for 3 years. One of very few males in that field. I had a blast. So many great stories that I’ll always cherish. A few nightmares with some colleagues, however. It could be a bit hard on the body but less so for people that take care of themselves. Might not be as bad as sitting in a chair all day and becoming overweight from the sedentary lifestyle.

I eventually went to a welding trade school for 7 months, and while welding I got my associates degree in welding technology. I welded for a few years in a large industrial facility. Lots of hot work in the gulf coast heat. Sometimes welding in confined spaces or 100’ in the air. Much of the time spent in a shop, which is safer and a bit easier on the body. A lot more welding, though. Out in the field you may only spend a few hrs actually welding. In a shop it’s nearly all day. To add to it, very few 40 hr week jobs for the people that want high incomes. 56 hr weeks are pretty standard.

That set a great groundwork for my career to continue growing into management. I mentioned a bit about my current position, but when still working as a contractor I had several years earning $300k-$450k/yr. About as high as it gets for someone with my limited education in this field that isn’t self employed.

The biggest downside is the lack of good jobs in places I’d really want to live. I long to move into the Rocky Mountain or PNW regions, but my income is much much higher down south. I’ll be ready for my next downshift in a few years where I’ll take a sizable pay cut hopefully for something completely remote and we can move to our forever home.

[surpasspro]

I went to college for Information Systems back in the early 90's, but I knew more about the IT field that the teachers at the time.  If you want to work for 20 years and then retire then you can become a police officer and make the same money after you retire as when you were working.  If I just wanted to retire as soon as possible with a good income I should have done that or some other job like that that allows you to work a set number of years.  The problem is that I wouldn't want to do that job.  We spend so much of living life working that you have to have some passion or joy in doing it and a paycheck at least for me is not enough. 

[41_swish]

@spartana I largely agree with you. If you have no passion for what you do, then it will be pretty miserable. If I just wanted to chase the biggest paycheck, I wouldn't do what I do now. If you like what you do, then it helps along the way.

The journey is just as important as the destination.