College Degree Regrets

[robcat2075]

WaPo has an article on...

The most-regretted (and lowest-paying) college majors (of 2021)

Article includes a chart of how various majors fared.


I'm not shocked that nearly half the arts majors have regrets but I'm surprised that more than a quarter of the STEM majors (the least-regretted majors) do also.

"Um, I didn't know math was going to be required."

Classic liberal arts degrees don't fare well.

But there's a bright side. My alma mater has been promoting the fact that only 20% of its graduates find work in their major field as proof of how flexible a liberal arts degree is.

[CharlieB]

Wow !
That's not good.
The fact that such a high percentage of our work force is unhappy with their situation is a sad commentary on the state of our country.

[Bach5G]

I agree with CB. Lots of regrets about education and career choice. Sad, unfulfilling life?

[Matt K]

At some point, we're going to have to square the circle that is that 1) students (largely) expect attending university to be vocational preparation and 2) universities aren't vocational prep. I recall a few years ago a set of open letters where a recent graduate was lamenting the former and a professor was refuting using the latter point, but I can't seem to recall enough keywords to find said letters.

The fact that such a high percentage of our work force is unhappy with their situation is a sad commentary on the state of our country.

Possibly, but being in my lower 30s, I think that my generation was largely heavily overpromised of exactly what an education would provide for you. At a certain point, it probably was a near certainty that you would have a reasonably comfortable life when 7% of the population had a degree, but now that almost half (37.5%) of the population has them.... it's hardly even a differentiator.

[BGuttman]

The problem as I see it is that there are few outlets for artists. This includes all of the performing and fine arts. We don't use a lot of musicians, but schools still pump out bushels of high quality performers into an area of little employment. Competition for the few positions is FIERCE. Only the top few percent can make a go of it.

Other degrees have "cheapened" as well. That shiny science degree only qualifies you to be a lab technician at $15 per hour (which used to be a nice wage 20 years ago but nowadays can barely cover living expenses in many parts of the US.

I think the solution to the problem is to make the jobs that a degree qualifies you for pay better so you can earn enough to pay off the loans. Also, we need to make majors with little opportunity be a lot rarer so the supply fits the demand.

[robcat2075]

The Federal Reserve paper notes that having a college degree is still a major indicator for higher income.

However, I suspect that nearly all careers are over-promoted as to their fulfillment factor. I imagine many STEM majors are hoping to be designing the next probe to Mars or discovering new subatomic particles but their first job ends up being something like stress-testing the a new container for the McSalad.

Even if the job pays well, there is some remorse about roads not taken.

My brother got his masters in Chemistry but his first job where such a degree was needed was inspecting orange juice for the Florida Department of Agriculture.

My memories of Thanksgiving dinners in those years is him complaining about his job.

Probably the only career I've never seen over-promoted is accounting. I'm sure it really is as exciting as it looks.

[spencercarran]

I'm surprised that more than a quarter of the STEM majors (the least-regretted majors) do also.

As your story about your brother illustrates, there are plenty of regrets to be had among those who pursued graduate education in STEM. Many of the conventional career pathways are shockingly bleak.

[greenbean]

I think it has always been this way. Very few History majors find work as Historians; yet they find themselves productively employed in other fields. I would take a guess that 3/4 of college grads work on non-major fields. Turns out that is okay.

[timothy42b]

As I have retired and gotten old and crotchety, I think I see two ideas here that are problems.

College = high paying job.
High paying job = fulfillment.

or, College = fullfilling job.
Fullfilling job = pay if you do it right.

I'm using fulfillment for a catch all term for happiness, subjective absence of misery, contentment and satisfaction with your life, or whatever term you use.

Possibly we should put a little more emphasis on making our life satisfying, decoupled from college or career?

[MTbassbone]

I have personnel experience with this topic. I initially started college as a music education major, but after some early field experience decided music education was not for me. I ended up with a BM in performance, and eventually got my MM in performance as well. When I graduated my goal was to take a short break (1-2 years), find a place to put down some roots with my now wife, and start working on my DMA. I got an office job, and was fortunate to be able to pay my expenses (including my student loan debt). At the end of the second year I sat down with the professor at the school where I wanted to work on a DMA. After that meeting I realized I was done with school. My job was reasonably fulfilling and I had great benefits. I considered myself fortunate to have found work outside of my "major" that ticked most of the boxes. Interestingly enough one of the reasons I was hired for my first office job was the HR representative had hired musicians before and felt they were great employees because they had heightened analytical skills. Early on I switched to a different position in a different office, and I have stayed in that office in various capacities now for more than 14 years.

Very few History majors find work as Historians; yet they find themselves productively employed in other fields. I would take a guess that 3/4 of college grads work on non-major fields. Turns out that is okay.

Greenbeen is absolutely right about this being ok. My coworkers over the years have included people with degrees in: English, history, math, business, medicine, and many more. The biggest issue is whether you learn the work and be a good coworker. The notion that an 18-23 year old person has a high probability of knowing what they want to do for the rest of their life is likely low. Do some people have it figured out early on? Sure, but I would imagine most individuals diverge from their original plan by quite a bit.

Do I have regrets? Sometimes I wonder what might have been if I chose some other field, but I have no idea what that would have been. However, those regrets have waned over the years as my own priorities have changed, and honestly I would imagine people of all disciplines have similar thoughts at times.

I have had a few colleagues in music which created an alternative path for themselves in college. For example: Major in business etc and minor in music. Then auditioned for MM programs willing to accept someone with a BS rather than a BM. I have known this to work for two people, and they were very successful in music. I knew of another person who grew up in a family who worked in the trades, and they picked up the trade then freelanced when necessary.

Another path is to go into arts administration. I have two colleagues who now work in administration for a major symphony orchestra.

A few years ago I read an article which argued college diplomas will eventually become a relic, and most disciples will be treated more like a trade. For better or worse I could see this happening.

At the end of the day a degree from an accredited institution will be better than no degree.

[robcat2075]

My contention is that, aside from pay, job satisfaction is about the people you work with.

The dream job is not a dream if the people you work with are unpleasant. Incompetents, finger-pointers, office-politickers, slackers, postals, over-sharers, credit-grabbers, weepers, evangelists... the more your job involves interactions with your co-workers the more they are a factor in your job satisfaction.

My dad had a PhD in chemistry and had a very good career at 3M with it but i never once heard any talk of how great it was to be a chemist. His dinner-time conversation was almost always about his exasperation with something one of his co-workers had done. "One confounded thing after another!"

And yet he couldn't understand why I didn't yearn to be a chemist also.

[timothy42b]

My contention is that, aside from pay, job satisfaction is about the people you work with.

Probably so for most. Unless you're the one that drives the rest nuts!

Should we really talk about job satisfaction, or should it be life satisfaction?

This reminded me of one of the Carlos Casteneda books, which we all read back in the 70s when we were a bit less critical. So this is from those memories, but the American grad student studying the brujo's ways of power showed pity for the poverty of the local people. The brujo corrected him saying their poverty was not relevant to whether or not they could learn to "see." Something the student was failing to do. I've paraphrased heavily out of necessity. Do kids even read that stuff now?

[Bach5G]

Well, Castaneda etc was fiction.

Research supported that a particular level of income, about $75k/yr, related to happiness. Increased income didn’t make that much of a difference.

Except new research suggests otherwise:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2016976118

[harrisonreed]

At some point, we're going to have to square the circle that is that 1) students (largely) expect attending university to be vocational preparation and 2) universities aren't vocational prep. I recall a few years ago a set of open letters where a recent graduate was lamenting the former and a professor was refuting using the latter point, but I can't seem to recall enough keywords to find said letters.

The fact that such a high percentage of our work force is unhappy with their situation is a sad commentary on the state of our country.

Possibly, but being in my lower 30s, I think that my generation was largely heavily overpromised of exactly what an education would provide for you. At a certain point, it probably was a near certainty that you would have a reasonably comfortable life when 7% of the population had a degree, but now that almost half (37.5%) of the population has them.... it's hardly even a differentiator.

I agree with this! School was sold to me as "school = good job". What a load of crock.

In reality, school gave me no job skills in my chosen field. I learned a bit about critical thinking, and how to play the trombone (which was not my major area of focus).

Americans would be better off and happier if vocational schools were sold as good education and respectable. "Smart kids go to vocational school" or something, rather than dropouts.

[robcat2075]

The fact that such a high percentage of our work force is unhappy with their situation is a sad commentary on the state of our country.

I wonder if this level of unhappiness is all that new. A lot of people used to have grindingly unpleasant jobs and desperate finances in old-time America.

I recall a factoid about how a third of the immigrants in the decades around 1900 eventually gave up and went back whence they came.

Maybe a lot of native born would have done that... if they had had anywhere to go back to!

[Burgerbob]

Now, I won't say that I don't have a problem with the way college is set up at the moment. But...

I think people have a pretty serious misconception about school. Yes, things like preparing your taxes are not taught in high schools generally, but the skills you need to figure that out and actually do it are all taught. We are meant to be more complete people than simply a collection of our skills, after all.

College is the same way to a point. I don't think anyone agrees that there should be literally tens of thousands of trombone jobs open and available every year for those college graduates. Instead, some of them will go on to succeed in music, and many others will find other avenues for their careers (insert tired pizza delivery joke here).

The simple fact of the matter is that people with college degrees earn much, much more than their colleagues without, including those who went to vocational schools.

And those college degree jobs, by and large, won't destroy your body and just pay better and have better benefits.

The problem isn't so much with the degrees themselves (though I think there are issues to be addressed), but the way they are perceived by the public (and apparently, by many on here).

In the course of a trombone performance degree, I learned MANY things, not just how to play good Bb scales. I learned how to research, how to communicate like a professional, how to be on time, how to work with others towards a common goal, how to lead, how to listen... the list goes on. (the problem is when that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, of course).

Is the fact that your degree largely isn't going to lead to a job in that field communicated to 18-year-olds? Not really, no, but getting anything through an 18-year-old head is hard enough as it is.

[OneTon]

The simple fact of the matter is that people with college degrees earn much, much more than their colleagues without, including those who went to vocational schools.

And those college degree jobs, by and large, won't destroy your body and just pay better and have better benefits.

That is not a fact. It is at best an assumption. If the four years the student is not in the workforce or fully engaged in the workforce is coupled with debt accrued for the degree, the ROI is better for a skilled worker. Many college graduates net less benefits than their blue collar peers. Starting pay is dismal for public school teachers. If they hang in there the pay eventually does get better.

Particularly on both coasts, prior to WWII, high school graduates with the means sought undergraduate liberal arts degrees with the expectation that they would join the workforce afterwards. If they went into business for themselves or were in the family business, or joined some larger venture, they did as well or better than their non degreed peers, and were and still are promoted more often. After WWII many GI were motivated by the Great Depression, and being four years behind in joining the workforce and starting a family, to use GI Bill benefits to acquire science, technology, education, or business degrees as opposed to liberal arts degrees.

It is worth noting that prior to WWII, students completing the eighth grade could balance a checkbook, accomplish simple book keeping, and write a coherent paragraph. We now have students entering college and university capable of doing none of the above.

Between 1970 and 1985, colleges and universities were allowed (or perhaps encouraged) to increase tuitions fourfold. Government grants were made available to bridge the gap. Once the grant money evaporated, the government made acquisition of debt a secondary education norm. This situation continues to lead to career dissatisfaction and for liberal arts graduates and dropouts bitter disappointment. The ROI for liberal arts degrees is on life support. Even the ROI for STEM degrees cannot compete when compared to apprentice or skilled labor training. The unintended consequences of allowing secondary education costs to balloon and the subsequent subsidization of those costs with personal debt have created a nightmare worthy of the “Twilight Zone.”

The cited article criticizes Obama for encouraging college students in a commencement address to seek STEM degrees presumably to ensure that the US remains competitive in the world economy and at the same time implying that liberal arts degrees are a bridge to nowhere. Unfortunately Obama’s speech amounted to sticking his finger in the dike of a much bigger problem, stewing in a pot full of other, big problems.

If the US is to remain competitive in the world economy, we must change not only what we teach but how we teach it and how we pay for it. This does not mean to continue to diminish liberal arts as a viable component of higher education.

[Matt K]

It's also a correlation, not inherently causal. Take someone who can get through college and give them on-the-job training, and I suspect a large number of them would be just as fine if not ahead of someone with a degree. Even the more vocationally inclined degrees (like some of the STEM programs) have a ton of fluff in a lot of universities here.

But the way it's currently set up, many companies know that people will pay to train themselves and filter themselves out, so they don't offer true "entry" level positions. Only positions that require someone to have pre-sorted themselves as a good candidate first. This precludes, of course, fields where you have occupational licensing. By definition, people in those fields with degrees must make more than those who don't. It would be impossible for that to not be the case. (Such as doctors with the most training vs. nurses vs. technicians, etc.)

That isn't to say that it's a bad thing that there is fluff. I had a required class that was basically "don't go binge drinking up frat row". And you weren't allowed to start some of the major specific stuff until you finished the generic coursework. Generic meaning you can "choose your own adventure" and pick from a lab science, a civics class, etc. Regardless of the merits of requiring psychology101 and sociology 101 for all graduates to make you a more well rounded individual, that seems completely backwards to me.

Only the most privileged attend college exclusively to become a more well-rounded individual. Everyone else has at least a majority desire to be gainfully employed largely as a result of their time in the university. It would seem to me that 1) coursework should be reversed so that only the actual pre-requisites for a degree are required for acceptance (such as calculus for computer science and engineering, biologies for pre-med, etc.) - having students go straight into their major course work and 2) a stronger emphasis placed on students to do internships during the latter part of their time combined with the coursework that then makes them generally well rounded, but less relevant for work experience.

Most of the types of "well rounded" classes are, frankly, just cash cows for universities at this point anyway. If they are done in person, they are done in 400 person lecture halls. Students pay a hefty sum to have access to the coursework textbook, which gives them an online interface that they must use to access their homework, which is typically ~50% of the grade, with the remaining 50% for attendance and a mid-term and final exam. Cutting out the in-person requirement for these would allow for more remote job placement, get students into the field, possibly earning income, and gaining valuable experience and also giving them the exact same general studies curriculum.

A lot of times, those internships are essentially really long interviews for candidates and often lead to the intern getting hired at the same company for a same or similar role. In this model, that would give a much smoother transition into professional life and potentially taper off the university learning and increase the time on-the-job over say 3 or 4 years so that the student doesn't have to cram everything into awkward semester or trimester schedules and has sufficient capital to pay for the general credits without going into severe debt, perhaps even on the dime of the employer.

[hyperbolica]

I had a false start as a musician before I changed direction and went into engineering. I think kids need to tune out activists who try to push certain genders or races into certain jobs to satisfy their own sense of something. You have to do what interests you, but you also have to get an honest look at what you'll wind up doing.

I wasn't mature enough at 20 years old to make big decisions. Nor did I know enough about the world around me. Parents need to be more actively involved in directing kids, along with employment counselors. Internships could easily replace college for a lot of people, and judging from what teachers teach in schools these days, I would not trust my mind to a college under any circumstances.

And employers... So much is romanticized or sheer fantasy. Kis think they are gonna start at the top of the scale, and employers think everyone will be under 35 and will work for nothing.

To me the biggest problem is that public companies try to satisfy shareholders and don't think employees matter that much. That's why I'll never work for a publicly traded company again. Employees are just an expense. It's this part of the system that gets ignored, but it's the biggest part of the problems in employment. Employees should be part owners. It solves a lot of problems.

[robcat2075]

Rising cost of college...

When I enrolled at the University of North Texas in 1983 it had a tuition of $4 per credit plus around $100 of fees.

Today it appears to be about $300 per credit, plus a couple thousand in fees. Ouch.

[BGuttman]

When I was going to school we had just suffered a major embarrassment. The "Godless Commies" had launched a satellite into space and we couldn't. It also meant that they had a device that could just as easily hurl a nuclear weapon to the US without having to be fairly close. The US Gummint sponsored all kinds of university activities as well as encouraging us to go out for STEM programs. There were all kinds of grants to study fields related to the arms race. With the advent of Reaganism all that disappeared.

As to on-the-job training, it's somewhat hit-or-miss. I worked with people who were called "engineers" who had come up through the ranks. They were absolute masters at solving problems they had seen before, but couldn't handle ones they hadn't. They didn't have the fundamental knowledge to work out the solution to a new problem. Also, OJT tends to compartmentalize you into a particular job and you couldn't spread out to do something else if needed. Employers tended also to assume since you never worked in "their" industry you couldn't learn. I found this very frustrating since I felt that a different industry simply used other facets of my knowledge. Sure, making tires is different from making adhesive tape, but once you learn how the materials function you can learn to make either. It may be a month or two of learning the new system -- provided you can understand the basics of the industry.

I can also understand how kids today get into the boxes they find themselves in. When you are 18 and just finishing High School, what do you have experience with? Mostly academic subjects with little practical application, sports, and artistic pursuits that are fun. Unless your family has some kind of business you can work in for practical experience, most kids can only get "dead end" jobs working in fast food or shagging carts for the local grocery store. And guidance counselors got cut as school budgets got tighter so there was nobody to try to find something that might keep them interested. So a kid who was better than average in Band decides he wants to study music as a major. He gets student loans to cover the cost of the degree and then comes out and discovers that the market for his skills is pretty tight. And with a music degree, you don't have the fundamentals for most jobs in the private market. So now you need either more training or you go to work in a job you could have done before you spent 4 years in college. One route involves more cost and the other won't provide enough money to pay back the huge loan debt. Quite a dilemma.

[OneTon]

I have run across a hand full of non degreed in house engineers that could compete with and often outperform degreed problem solvers. One major manufacturer attempted to bring rocket design engineers in on their super sonic transport proposal effort. The rocket scientists never did grasp the difference in design requirements for a one cycle life and 50,000 to 100,000 flight cycles vehicle. In house engineers were often very limited in mobility and becoming rarer. Some people have more adaptability than others. Generalizations get slippery. As a root cause, increasing productivity decreases employee requirements which has a simultaneous impact on product demand. The world economy is reaching a turning point that will have to be faced one way or another.

[timothy42b]

If someone needs an accountant, they can get a spreadsheet done remotely from anywhere in the world. Your job can be outsourced to a third world country where someone may actually be both cheaper and smarter than you.

If someone needs a plumber, they have to find someone who can come to their house. Your job is safe even if you're mediocre, and in demand if you're competent. I think we've made a mistake in setting a low priority on trade education.

[OneTon]

When Japan first started importing cars in 1957 according to Wikipedia, US wages far exceeded Japan wages. Today that disparity is far narrower or non existent. The corporate culture that throws people at problems may still exist. Manufacturing costs are closer to being on a par. The same thing appears to be happening in China as wages and quality improve. In a world economy wages and manufacturing costs tend to average out over time. It is no small irony that it seems like the majority of plumbing supplies come from China. Many of the parts are junk and provide job security for local plumbers.

[Burgerbob]

. I think kids need to tune out activists who try to push certain genders or races into certain jobs to satisfy their own sense of something.

What the...? Get out of here with this.

[Burgerbob]

It is worth noting that prior to WWII, students completing the eighth grade could balance a checkbook, accomplish simple book keeping, and write a coherent paragraph. We now have students entering college and university capable of doing none of the above.

Source? This sounds pretty made up to me.

Again, the average college degree job, whatever it is, is not going to destroy your body like construction, plumbing, car repair, etc. This isn't to say that we don't absolutely need those jobs and workers in droves, but it's a big drive for people to not do them.

[hyperbolica]

. I think kids need to tune out activists who try to push certain genders or races into certain jobs to satisfy their own sense of something.

What the...? Get out of here with this.

No. You should do what you want to do. Not what someone else's overactive and misplaced conscience says you should do. Guilting people into doing something is the reason people hate what they do - they're fulfilling someone else's dreams. I'm an engineer, when I was in school there were few female engineering students. The answer is not to push women into engineering, it's just to allow them to make their own decisions. Pushing quotas is trying to solve prejudice with prejudice. That has never worked, and it just makes the situation worse. The goal is freedom, not heavy handed imposed 50-50 distribution.

[Matt K]

I disagree but from a completely different perspective. The fact of the matter is we have a huge demand for people in STEM. If men are already going to go into those fields, it makes sense to incentivize women to also join those fields because then your net amount of STEM graduates increases. That may or may not increase satisfaction though. But it's better to remove whatever roadblocks exist for the women who are at least ambivalent about becoming engineers and scientists than it is not to as it's easier to get into other fields from there, but difficult to go the other direction.

[hyperbolica]

I disagree but from a completely different perspective. The fact of the matter is we have a huge demand for people in STEM. If men are already going to go into those fields, it makes sense to incentivize women to also join those fields because then your net amount of STEM graduates increases. That may or may not increase satisfaction though. But it's better to remove whatever roadblocks exist for the women who are at least ambivalent about becoming engineers and scientists than it is not to as it's easier to get into other fields from there, but difficult to go the other direction.

I know what you're trying to do, but from results point of view, specifically targeting women is misguided and inefficient. You should incentivize everyone without regard for identity rather than targeting a group where you know you're going to get a low return. Incentives that include everyone are more likely to fill the gaps. And they are less discriminatory, which it seems should be a goal as well. Is anyone trying to recruit male interior decorators? It's ok if groups of people avoid certain types of work, as long as no one is actively being discouraged, and everyone has the opportunity.

When I was in the Navy I took the ASVAB test, don't know if it's still a thing or not, but it was very helpful. Essentially found where your interests lined up with your abilities. It never asked me about sex or race as those are irrelevant to interests and abilities. Math, spatial reasoning, problem solving were my skills, and I like building and designing stuff. I was miserable as a musician, but I've been very happy as an engineer. Music is a great hobby for me, just not a way to make a living. Some people find engineering dull and uninteresting. They should have taken that test instead of trying to appease some activists conscience.

[Burgerbob]

What the...? Get out of here with this.

No. You should do what you want to do. Not what someone else's overactive and misplaced conscience says you should do. Guilting people into doing something is the reason people hate what they do - they're fulfilling someone else's dreams. I'm an engineer, when I was in school there were few female engineering students. The answer is not to push women into engineering, it's just to allow them to make their own decisions. Pushing quotas is trying to solve prejudice with prejudice. That has never worked, and it just makes the situation worse. The goal is freedom, not heavy handed imposed 50-50 distribution.

You have a massive misunderstanding of this issue, which isn't surprising. In any case, please leave it out of the discussion.

[bubblelord]

I disagree but from a completely different perspective. The fact of the matter is we have a huge demand for people in STEM. If men are already going to go into those fields, it makes sense to incentivize women to also join those fields because then your net amount of STEM graduates increases. That may or may not increase satisfaction though. But it's better to remove whatever roadblocks exist for the women who are at least ambivalent about becoming engineers and scientists than it is not to as it's easier to get into other fields from there, but difficult to go the other direction.

I know what you're trying to do, but from results point of view, specifically targeting women is misguided and inefficient. You should incentivize everyone without regard for identity rather than targeting a group where you know you're going to get a low return. Incentives that include everyone are more likely to fill the gaps. And they are less discriminatory, which it seems should be a goal as well. Is anyone trying to recruit male interior decorators? It's ok if groups of people avoid certain types of work, as long as no one is actively being discouraged, and everyone has the opportunity.

When I was in the Navy I took the ASVAB test, don't know if it's still a thing or not, but it was very helpful. Essentially found where your interests lined up with your abilities. It never asked me about sex or race as those are irrelevant to interests and abilities. Math, spatial reasoning, problem solving were my skills, and I like building and designing stuff. I was miserable as a musician, but I've been very happy as an engineer. Music is a great hobby for me, just not a way to make a living. Some people find engineering dull and uninteresting. They should have taken that test instead of trying to appease some activists conscience.

The strawmanning is getting old.

[Matt K]

People (probably?) aren't looking for gender specific interior decorators. But if there was an extremely high demand for interior decorators and it was female dominated (I'm presuming it is now? I have no frame of reference) then yes, providing scholarships targeted at males would be a good idea IMO. It is, indeed, less efficient by definition. But you get more engineers, etc.

STEM degrees are also a lot easier to teach in a hybrid or remote environment, so I would hope that in the future universities will stop having quotas at all for those types of majors and instead cutoff based on perceived or, better yet, measured aptitude.

That all said, I don't think it's misguided to think that pushing people towards STEM fields will help what the OPs article indicated. It's often boring, uninspring, and mentally laborious work. I happen to love it, but I've known a lot of apathetic people in my field. Increasing aggregate levels of happiness is going to be well beyond my paygrade.

[spencercarran]

The simple fact of the matter is that people with college degrees earn much, much more than their colleagues without, including those who went to vocational schools.

And those college degree jobs, by and large, won't destroy your body and just pay better and have better benefits.

That is not a fact. It is at best an assumption.

No, that really is a fact. Unless you're going to argue that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cooking the books.

[hyperbolica]

That is not a fact. It is at best an assumption.

No, that really is a fact. Unless you're going to argue that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cooking the books.

Music professor with a doctorate: ~$96k https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ ... sic-salary
My brother with no degree working at a media company: $150k

You know what you can do with your statistics.

[Burgerbob]

No, that really is a fact. Unless you're going to argue that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cooking the books.

Music professor with a doctorate: ~$96k https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ ... sic-salary
My brother with no degree working at a media company: $150k

You know what you can do with your statistics.

Please, please stop posting in this thread.

[hyperbolica]

Music professor with a doctorate: ~$96k https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ ... sic-salary
My brother with no degree working at a media company: $150k

You know what you can do with your statistics.

Please, please stop posting in this thread.

Lighten up, Francis. And stop letting the tv think for you.

[Burgerbob]

Lighten up, Francis. And stop letting the tv think for you.

This coming from Fox News Talking Points himself- please.

[hyperbolica]

Lighten up, Francis. And stop letting the tv think for you.

This coming from Fox News Talking Points himself- please.

Sorry, I don't watch Fox News. Mostly CBS. Still don't let them think for me.

I could have asked what your student loan to income ratio is, or if how your job treats your body for a cushy college educated job, but that would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

[Burgerbob]

This coming from Fox News Talking Points himself- please.

Sorry, I don't watch Fox News. Mostly CBS. Still don't let them think for me.

I could have asked what your student loan to income ratio is, or if how your job treats your body for a cushy college educated job, but that would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

Yes, because my personal experience doesn't matter- the statistics do.

[hyperbolica]

Sorry, I don't watch Fox News. Mostly CBS. Still don't let them think for me.

I could have asked what your student loan to income ratio is, or if how your job treats your body for a cushy college educated job, but that would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

Yes, because my personal experience doesn't matter- the statistics do.

Statistics lie, dude. They never consider context. They say whatever you tell them to. The old saying goes "lies, damned lies, and statistics"...

[Burgerbob]

Jesus christ. Guess I'm done here.

[hyperbolica]

Just to be statistically clear so there's no regret...

Clipboard01.jpg

Doesn't sound like bitterness at all

[robcat2075]

There's a Bureau of Labor Statistic that says women are poor recruits for STEM fields?

Or that they only do it because they have been guilted into it?

(it's not clear which was being asserted)

[harrisonreed]

It is worth noting that prior to WWII, students completing the eighth grade could balance a checkbook, accomplish simple book keeping, and write a coherent paragraph. We now have students entering college and university capable of doing none of the above.

Source? This sounds pretty made up to me.

Again, the average college degree job, whatever it is, is not going to destroy your body like construction, plumbing, car repair, etc. This isn't to say that we don't absolutely need those jobs and workers in droves, but it's a big drive for people to not do them.

Prior to WWII the "Book Keeper" was that era's "Trapper keeper", in other words, a backpack. Perfect for training future conscripts how to ruck march in the coming global war.

It took a genius and college degree to realize that the trapper keeper, which also goes into the book keeper, was a way to skim even more profit out of parents, and add even more weight to the training ruck sacks.

[timothy42b]

It is worth noting that prior to WWII, students completing the eighth grade could balance a checkbook, accomplish simple book keeping, and write a coherent paragraph. We now have students entering college and university capable of doing none of the above.

Source? This sounds pretty made up to me.

It might be true, but be an artifact of a truncated distribution. Not everyone made it all the way through 8th grade. In 1940 about 24% of young people had high school diplomas, 11% of the older cohort.

[timothy42b]

I think every young person pondering these decisions ought to read:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=shop+class+as+soul+craft

Shop Class as Soul Craft, an Inquiry into the Value of Work, by Matthew Crawford.

[GabrielRice]

Who was asked? At what point in their lives? I was pretty worried about my choices when I first got out of school, but at this point I have no regrets at all.

I will always assert that college has value no matter what you study, and that correlation with what field you end up working in is almost totally irrelevant.

[WilliamLang]

One of the biggest things I see on any job oriented posts on this board is a gigantic lack of actually talking to other people, especially younger people who are currently in school or about to go into school. There's so much "what I did" or "how it was" and very little interacting with the current reality of other people's lives.

The people I know and agree with the most on this board do interact with current students and younger professionals on a regular basis.

Also, to the original point, it's not surprising that people are unhappy in America, because, honestly, the country is pretty broken and largely anti-human. I love the potential here, but the results have been lacking at best.

And to Robcat's original bright side, that liberal arts education make you a more flexible employee, I have to admit that a belief of mine is that any school or program that teaches you to think, not just do, will give you the best odds to succeed at any field. But after teaching at around 150-200 schools from Pre-K to DMA level, I've found them to be rare. It usually comes down to individual teachers rather than a full top down program with good leadership.

[OneTon]

I think every young person pondering these decisions ought to read:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=shop+class+as+soul+craft

Shop Class as Soul Craft, an Inquiry into the Value of Work, by Matthew Crawford.

Thanks Timothy. I will pick up a copy when I return Saturday and read it.

[timothy42b]

One of the biggest things I see on any job oriented posts on this board is a gigantic lack of actually talking to other people, especially younger people who are currently in school or about to go into school. There's so much "what I did" or "how it was" and very little interacting with the current reality of other people's lives.

When I was still working, we got a rare influx of several young engineers at the same time. For various reasons having any new young people didn't happen often. I set up monthly mentorship meetings, to give them an immediate peer group and help to assimilate them, but also to offer what guidance I and other successful long term staff could. However, we talked a good bit about the fact that what worked for me and my age group could not work for them, and they had to be creative with their path. The workplace had changed so much over my 30 years.

And to Robcat's original bright side, that liberal arts education make you a more flexible employee, I have to admit that a belief of mine is that any school or program that teaches you to think, not just do, will give you the best odds to succeed at any field. But after teaching at around 150-200 schools from Pre-K to DMA level, I've found them to be rare. It usually comes down to individual teachers rather than a full top down program with good leadership.

It's also worth reading Epstein's Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, which makes the case that flexibility is more valuable than a set of specific skills in the modern workplace. He has an interesting separation of "wild" problems that require creativity and tame ones that can be cookbook.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalist ... 4676&psc=1

I reference Amazon but most of the books I read are from the local library.