Should Colleges Break Down How Much Money Students Make For Each Major? (msn.com) 233
The Boston Globe published some thoughts from a professor of political science at Fordham University:
A bipartisan group of senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are backing a bill called the College Transparency Act. It would require public and private colleges around the country to report how many students enroll, transfer, drop out, and complete various programs. Then that information would be combined with inputs from other federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, so that the "labor market outcomes" of former students could be tracked.
In other words, the act would create a system that publicizes how much money students make, on average, after going through particular colleges, programs, and majors. According to Senator Whitehouse, "Choosing a college is a big decision, and yet too often families can't get the information to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the costs and benefits of attending different schools." The purpose of the College Transparency Act is to allow people to make these comparisons. Its other sponsors are Republicans Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Tim Scott of South Carolina.
Unfortunately, the College Transparency Act could reshape how students, families, policymakers, and the public view the purposes of higher education.
To be sure, privileged students will still be able to pursue their academic passions, but many students will be channeled into paths with a higher payoff upon graduation. Many students who might want to explore geography, philosophy, or the fine arts will be advised to stay away from such majors that do not appear lucrative... The system would publicize only some outputs of college — especially how much money students make — and not, for instance, surveys of graduates' satisfaction. This would have the effect of nudging students and families into viewing college as being primarily about making money...
If students learn to read complex texts and write research papers, practice public speaking, find a mentor, and make friends, then they often do well after college regardless of major.
In other words, the act would create a system that publicizes how much money students make, on average, after going through particular colleges, programs, and majors. According to Senator Whitehouse, "Choosing a college is a big decision, and yet too often families can't get the information to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the costs and benefits of attending different schools." The purpose of the College Transparency Act is to allow people to make these comparisons. Its other sponsors are Republicans Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Tim Scott of South Carolina.
Unfortunately, the College Transparency Act could reshape how students, families, policymakers, and the public view the purposes of higher education.
To be sure, privileged students will still be able to pursue their academic passions, but many students will be channeled into paths with a higher payoff upon graduation. Many students who might want to explore geography, philosophy, or the fine arts will be advised to stay away from such majors that do not appear lucrative... The system would publicize only some outputs of college — especially how much money students make — and not, for instance, surveys of graduates' satisfaction. This would have the effect of nudging students and families into viewing college as being primarily about making money...
If students learn to read complex texts and write research papers, practice public speaking, find a mentor, and make friends, then they often do well after college regardless of major.
will working at Starbucks show projected tips and (Score:4, Funny)
will working at Starbucks show projected tips and not the real pay?
Re: will working at Starbucks show projected tips (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you calculate the salary of a very smart graduate lawyer versus the salary of a not so smart graduate lawyer, add in parentage because of course no industry is more nepotistic than the legal industry, upwards of 50% are nothing but idiot spawn and the other 50% are the smart lawyers top of the class from not legal families, they do the actual work. The nepotistic spawn just turn up to court make a few prepared statements and otherwise shut the fuck up.
How about smart engineers versus those who barel
Re: will working at Starbucks show projected tips (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Up Please (Score:2)
Mod up please (I don't have any points)
One of the purposes of calculating an average is to determine what the poster above is going on about. I imagine they should have learned how to do this in elementary school.
Re: (Score:3)
A more realistic number would be median pay.
A full histogram would be even better. Lawyers were used as an example in this thread, and it is well known as a field with a bimodal salary distribution curve [biglawinvestor.com]. Each year's graduating class has about 70-80% of the lawyers making an average of $60k per year after obtaining their law degree. But 20-30% of the top earners average around $180k per year, bringing the average way up (around 90-95k). But even the median pay becomes closer to $75-80k, which still gives a false picture to the average lawyer who is m
Re: will working at Starbucks show projected tips (Score:5, Informative)
As a lawyer, I've never actually encountered one of these "nepotistic spawn" that you refer to. I'm sure they exist in the world, but "upwards of 50%" is an absurd made up figure.
You're doing it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to college because of the paycheque at the end of the process, you're doing it wrong, and are going to be miserable. I've seen way too many people go into STEM fields who have zero aptitude for it, and find no joy in it. They usually leave pretty quickly, and wind up doing something completely unrelated.
Some of us are born to be Engineers, many more are not. The focus of your college education should be to figure out what you should be doing, and/or if that even includes a college education.
Don't follow your passion! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to college because of the paycheque at the end of the process, you're doing it wrong, and are going to be miserable. I've seen way too many people go into STEM fields who have zero aptitude for it, and find no joy in it. They usually leave pretty quickly, and wind up doing something completely unrelated.
Some of us are born to be Engineers, many more are not. The focus of your college education should be to figure out what you should be doing, and/or if that even includes a college education.
Don't follow your passion... This same logic, not sure when it originated, is why we have so many comparative literature majors. Some majors need to either go away or make the admissions criteria so difficult, few would ever do them. Art History and Classics (yes, that was a major at my university) come to mind. English Literature is another one. We have too many literature students. How about upping the admission criteria so those with a true passion could actually find a job and misguided dummies wouldn't stumble into because they were really good in their high school English classes.
I was fucking awesome at art class. I was encouraged by peers and even a teacher or 2 to major it in. It was, by far, my best subject and I won a few regional contests. However, had I gone that route, I would have to have taught or lived in extreme poverty because I am a shit salesman and very few people can make a living as a professional artist. I loved painting, but even then I was grown up enough to realize my life would be happier having a steady paycheck. 17yo me was a fucking idiot and shouldn't be planning major life decisions, generall. Finally, I was a product of my backwards rural education system...the one that emphasized English Literature, for example, because it's cheap to teach...vs hard science or study of any other art form.
Historically, higher education was more a means of ensuring the children of the wealthy had interesting things to talk about at parties than preparing people to earn a living. As the middle class expanded, the role expanded, but no a liberal arts education is really quite pointless in this day and age. We need highly intelligent individuals who are capable of providing skills needed to earn a living...not debt-burdened students with useless masters' degrees eeking it out in retail or serving coffee at starbucks. We need to de-emphasize pointless majors and put more emphasis on ones that could lead to a job. Sure, if you're the daughter of a billionaire, study art history, comparative literature, or whatever your passion, it doesn't matter...but for the rest of us, a college degree needs to be an investment into becoming more employable.
Only follow your passion if it leads to a job where you can pay your bills. Otherwise...sorry, passion is for the evening, work a real job like the rest of us.
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:5, Insightful)
This same logic, not sure when it originated, is why we have so many comparative literature majors.
This logic is why so many students think that universities are trade schools rather than institutes of higher learning and research.
The fact is that there are very few careers where university education gives you the training you to perform a job competently. Programming is a case in point. There is no degree at any reputable institution that I am aware of called "Bachelor of Programming". Being an effective, competent programmer requires an apprenticeship phase at one or more entry-level positions.
And joke all you want, but people with a general education in the humanities don't typically go on to be responsible for financial crashes, privacy-destroying adware, or cryptocurrency ponzi scams. I would be willing to bet money that nobody with a comparative literature degree was behind Theranos or Juicero.
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:4, Insightful)
This logic is why so many students think that universities are trade schools rather than institutes of higher learning and research
Higher learning happens when you pick up and read a book you aren't required to pick up. It happens when you delve into a project you don't have to delve in. It has nothing to do with colleges and universities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Higher learning happens when you pick up and read a book you aren't required to pick up.
That would take the word institution out of the title. If you weren't "required" then it wouldn't be an institution of higher learning.
Re: (Score:3)
And joke all you want, but people with a general education in the humanities don't typically go on to be responsible for financial crashes, privacy-destroying adware, or cryptocurrency ponzi scams. I would be willing to bet money that nobody with a comparative literature degree was behind Theranos or Juicero.
If minimal impact on the world is what you believe is best, then uneducated rice farmers have the ideal profession. Their lives matter to the world even less than a humanities major.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a wise man once said, your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. Trade schools generally don't teach this in any kind of consistent manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1, Funny
By the way, also amusing that your .sig namechecks one of the more famous recent examples of someone without a general education who thought he could draw conclusions about a complex topic that he had no expertise in.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, also amusing that your .sig namechecks one of the more famous recent examples of someone without a general education who thought he could draw conclusions about a complex topic that he had no expertise in.
Interesting, I've thought that James Damore has a master degree in biology (from Harvard). And that looks related to the things he wrote about; unless you are a far left/right ideologue who objects evolution. And regarding his opinions vs. science, it looks like different scientists have different opinions [wikipedia.org], as it is expected about such an issue.
PS I do not argue about the content of his memo. I only object your comment about a person.
Well, something on topic: US universities waste huge amounts of money on a
Lots of people didn't commit crimes. (Score:5, Interesting)
And joke all you want, but people with a general education in the humanities don't typically go on to be responsible for financial crashes, privacy-destroying adware, or cryptocurrency ponzi scams. I would be willing to bet money that nobody with a comparative literature degree was behind Theranos or Juicero.
...neither did the guy begging for spare change outside the South Station subway stop...neither did I. I'm also not a serial killer. Do I get a cookie for that? Few people commit crimes, relative to the general population. Most software engineers with a computer science degree weren't even loosely involved with any sort of crime or scandal. I think what you're missing is I don't hate humanities majors. I just don't want stupid people majoring in it because it's an easy A...and it fucking is.
...same for any other major that has no job prospect besides teaching, like Art History. I don't think the classes should be eliminated, but we should be discouraging people from getting degrees in majors with no future, especially advanced degrees.
My university had a 200-level Art History class. I love art history. I read every book I could find at every library that would let me borrow a book...and sometimes just drove hours to go to library and read inside. It was a passion of mine. I got a D on my final paper in class. Why? The professor thought I stole it because it was too good!!! Am I a good writer?...ehr...look at my profile on slashdot...not particularly...however, she was so used to so many idiots writing papers she assumed that because she got one with coherent complete sentences, correct grammar, no misspellings, and a deep understanding of the subject, it had to have been cheating...a 5 min conversation, she changed my grade immediately and we laughed about it. However, that wasn't my only experience like that. I had hard classes in math, science, and computer science and buffered my GPA by taking Womens' Studies classes as well. Why? They're an easy fucking A. You go in, don't act like an asshole, and just write a coherent paper about the material and you've bested all the moron who would take anything beyond a 100-level class in womens' studies. I believe in the cause even...I just know that people who obsess over identity tend to be pretty dumb, particularly at the university I attended...I don't think I was good at the subject, but I got high A's all the way to the 400 level because they were graded on the curve with morons. The teachers loved me, not only because I was the only male after the 200 level, but I was also the only one who read the whole book, did the homework they assigned, and came prepared to each lecture...because not doing so would make you flunk a real class. I showed them the respect you would have to show someone in chemistry, physics, or computer science and they really appreciated it.
Why am I expressing this? The idiots I went to school with shouldn't be diluting the field. If you want to major in Womens' Studies, how about you actually be smarter than the average college student and capable of writing well?
It just props up these departments and fools students, many of which have a blue collar background, like I did, whose parents don't know enough about the college system to know that those majors are only for rich heirs...not for someone who wants to earn a living. The universities are taking advantage of dumb kids and I would personally love to see them deterred from that. Devote those resources to useful majors instead. Don't allow tons of students to get PhDs in useless subjects and leave them up shit's creek without a paddle when they can't find any employment afterwards.
Re:Lots of people didn't commit crimes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps not most, but it's undeniable that large privacy-destroying adware vendors, such as Facebook and Google, seem to hire a lot of people.
I know people who worked for companies that went under, and the data they collected was sold off to pay creditors.
And you'll pardon me if I don't get into specifics, but this is also personal for me. I once worked for a reputable organisation who made software which had multiple uses, and I didn't discovered years afterwards that at least one of our customers was using it for purposes that... well, let's just say that you wouldn't approve either.
Consider yourself lucky if none of this has ever happened to you.
Having said that, I don't disagree with you about the ridiculous state of the kind of institution that you attended. It doesn't comport with my experience, but I almost certain live in a different country than you do. I still maintain that there are a large number of careers out there for which there is no specific degree, and never will be. A general higher education in whatever will maintain your interest is the best way to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand you have likely benefitted immensely from the communication and logical thinking skills you developed in liberal arts classes. Some of the tech heads I interreact with both on Slashdot or at work clearly either never went to college (and so were never able to benefit from the GE classes) or were the type of duds in those classes that you talk about because they cant make a fully rational argument on anything to save their lives.
This is exactly why many employers value a college degree over
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:4, Funny)
people with a general education in the humanities don't typically go on to be responsible for financial crashes, privacy-destroying adware, or cryptocurrency ponzi scams
Well, lessee how some people with general education in humanities do then...
Let's take, for example, Adolf Hitler [wikipedia.org]. He did not like science or technology. He wanted to be an artist, and he applied to the Academy of Fine Arts [wikipedia.org] in Vienna. I have to agree though, he did NOT create any cryptocurrency Ponzi scams, so you have a point here.
For another random example, how about Mao Zedong [wikipedia.org]? He studied to become a teacher of history (which he was, for a period after graduation); while in university, he joined the Philosophy and Journalism Societies. But no participation in adware is known, so you have another point here!
Let's see another student of humanities then: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin [wikipedia.org]. He studied at the Orthodox Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis, so no evil STEM education for him either. And again, he was not involved in either cryptocurrency or adware. Your point still stands!
Well, your argument appears proven! Obviously the world's greatest suffering was brought by the evil scientists and their dastardly Bitcoin!
Re: (Score:2)
Of your three examples, two made it into post-secondary education, and only one graduated. Mao Zedong dropped out of at least five other schools before getting into teacher training college. I will grant you that one example.
But of course I am not referring to mass murder, but to lesser evils that are the result of obliviousness rather than malice. Most programmer types who work for Facebook probably believe they are doing the world a favour by selling their users to the highest bidder.
Re: Don't follow your passion! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This logic is why so many students think that universities are trade schools rather than institutes of higher learning and research.
I totally disagree. The reason so many students think that universities are trade schools is because of HR departments around the world. Under the Requirements section of the vast, vast majority of higher paying jobs: "Minimum education: Bachelor of Science." There you have it: the reason for the popularity of a University education.
It's only recently (the last five or six years) that "or equivalent experience" has appeared at the end of that line item. The ONLY reason I got my CIS degree over 20 years ago
Re: (Score:2)
This same logic, not sure when it originated, is why we have so many comparative literature majors.
This logic is why so many students think that universities are trade schools rather than institutes of higher learning and research.
Could it be the advertising campaigns of these 'institutes of higher learning', mayhaps ???
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic that this "survey" of salaries will be privacy-destroying activity by essentially the US government if it goes through. No one but me has right to my salary and IRS information.
I'm not running for president, thank you very much, my tax return should not be sold or lent to third parties.
I only pay taxes because there's a gun to my head. I only fill out a tax return because there's a gun to my head. Yeah, lets go ahead and make that process MORE painful and invasive.
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:5, Interesting)
And joke all you want, but people with a general education in the humanities don't typically go on to be responsible for financial crashes, privacy-destroying adware, or cryptocurrency ponzi scams.
LOL, you really didn't do your research before making this statement.
Let's look at some big players in the run up to the financial crisis
1) Lloyd Blankfein - Goldman Sachs - History
2) Joseph Cassano - AIG - Political Science
3) Vikram Pandit - Citgroup - Electrical Engineering
4) John Thain - Merrill Lynch - Electrical Engineering
5) Richard Fuld - Lehman Brothers - Bachelors of Arts degree (couldn't find more specifics)
6) Henry Paulson - Goldman Sachs - English
7) John Mack - Morgan Stanley - History
8) Jamie Dimon - JP Morgan - Psychology
9) Bernie Madoff - Ponzi Scheme - Political Science (not a banker, but you did mention ponzi schemes)
I'm sure if I spent more time looking I could find some guys with finance degrees, but most of these guys have liberal arts degrees in the humanities. There is simply nothing about a well rounded education that helps make someone more moral.
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't follow your passion! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't follow your passion...
Otherwise, we would be all working in the porn industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 4.5% of homeless people have college degrees (source: just googled it), and you can bet most of them have mental illness causing it. Comparative literature majors are clearly paying their bills. If they don't choose to be a good consumer by having a thousand unnecessary bills, that's not your concern.
Re: (Score:2)
but no a liberal arts education is really quite pointless in this day and age. We need highly intelligent individuals who are capable of providing skills needed to earn a living...not debt-burdened students with useless masters' degrees eeking it out in retail or serving coffee at starbucks.
An EXPENSIVE liberal arts education is quite pointless for getting a job in the liberal arts. But a liberal arts education gives important perspective. Slashdot nerds are a prime example of what happens when people only take technical education for jobs. They can only think of people as numbers and machines, and repeat the same tired old slogans as arguments instead of thinking about each problem on its merits.
Aptitude (Score:2)
I go back and forth on this. One of my wife's friends got a degree in English Literature. In absolute terms, not a useful degree in terms of directly translatable job skills. However, she did end up getting a good job working for a law office. The position didn't require a law degree, but did require a degree of some type. I could see use for the requirement. The job, while covering legal concepts that could be taught, required significant language skills, organizational skills and, most importantly, requir
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most people need real career counseling throughout their lives. Not to chase the hottest, or most lucrative career at that point, nor to force change— but to help people find opportunities that work for them now. Something without the stigma of unemployment or recovery from failure, but that helps people find things that make them happy and work for them.
Too many people stick with the wrong job for too long.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to college because of the paycheque at the end of the process, you're doing it wrong, and are going to be miserable.
Going to strongly disagree if you live in America, this isn’t true anymore. The cost of education is pushing people toward lower levels of education and income because they pay better long run. Yes, if you pick a career ONLY because of very high pay, but you hate the work and work environment then yes, you can be rich and miserable. But college is a business decision and you need to treat it as a business plan.
EVEN worse than your example is when you go to college for something you would like to pursue like art but without thinking of the debt you cannot discharge with bankruptcy and can be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced degrees at the better schools. It’s far worse than even 10 years ago which was even worse than 10 years before that, so today you need to balance the long term gain with what you can earn now without formal education and massive debt and can still stomach or be satisfied with. I’ve personally seen a several people saddle up with 50,60, even 100k of student debt for a field they can’t work in because it’s very competitive or they didn’t finish their masters making the bachelors worthless, then wind up working a job that didn’t need the degree anyway, but now they can’t afford a nice house or a middle class lifestyle and struggle with basic finances because their life was ruined trying to do something they liked. They aren’t happy either because contrary to false wisdom, you need financial security to stand a reasonable chance at happiness.
The costs of education and what employers are demanding is reaching levels that are destroying this nations future, pushing young people away from education and towards lower paying positions which will ultimately mean bad things for the US economy as compared with the rest of the educated world
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
their life was ruined trying to do something they liked. They aren’t happy either because contrary to false wisdom, you need financial security to stand a reasonable chance at happiness
This is a great takeaway here. If you aren't secure, it infects the rest of your life with unhappiness and doubt.
I work somewhere that I make good money at so I can finance the rest of my life securely. I like my job, but I'd rather do something else... except I enjoy the financial security I have. It makes the rest of my life less stressful. Thus I can enjoy my time off even more. I wouldn't trade the financial security I have for a chance at greater work happiness. My happiness overall is much better served working in my profession, treating it seriously, not actively suffering at work, but knowing that my life is about more than that.
My advice is to find something you like to do, and pays well enough to build the life you want to live the rest of the time. Family, security, hell join a band if that's what you want to do the rest of the time. If you make your life about your work, you'll be even more miserable in the end when you find it doesn't mean as much as everything else in your life could have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You're doing it wrong (Score:3)
That is stupidly naive and boneheaded bad advice given the reality of the world. Telling people to follow their passion is bad advice. Reality dictates sometimes you have to do things you hate doing in order to be in a position where you can do things you like. It may work for some, but in general all decisions must take into account realities. Fact is many people are simply not in the situation where they can make a decent living doing what they like. They should instead pursue it as a hobby until they sec
Re: You're doing it wrong (Score:3)
You're loving it wrong (Score:2)
If you're going to college because of the paycheque at the end of the process, you're doing it wrong, and are going to be miserable.
As opposed to those who do it for the "love" and either exploited by those who don't see the value of their work, or made objects of fun on social websites as "those basket weavers". Long as everything in this world "costs something" paychecks will be important. Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend otherwise, or lie to others and chide them because they realize "love" doesn't pay anything, not even if you're writing greeting cards.
Re: (Score:3)
I have also seen people who are so technical minded, but also present themselves so badly, that they will not be listened too and/or miss a lot of the formal education, where they have interesting gaps in their knowledge.
Sometime even if the person is all book learned, they are easier to work with, because the technical stuff can be just put as instructions to follow. Vs gaps in theory that take a long time to get into their heads.
practice public speaking (Score:5, Interesting)
See, colleges used to have Rhetoric and Oratory as required courses for graduation.
But that's "old fashioned" so it can't be part of postmodern Academia.
One could consult the list of required courses at most universities and decide for himself just which two (it's not hard to find two) could be jettisoned so that every graduate from that University would be a competent speaker.
Or at LEAST not so painfully awkward that they work in abusive jobs, won't ever ask for a raise, and then never have any money to donate the Annual Campaign. Even outside of Computer Science.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the transition from tallow candles to electric illumination like?
Rhetoric and oratory were dropped (Score:3)
because US culture resents the articulate.
Students did not ask for them to return because speaking intimidates the weak so they prefer to avoid learning how.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not teach people to be extroverts while you're at it?
Since when was being good at publicly speaking or not being socially awkward in any way a graduation requirement? Some of the best engineers I've ever met have been socially awkward introverts who you don't want to invite to any party or office social club.
Maybe rather than trying to mold people to fit society we should adjust society to promote people who are good at what they do rather than sociable extroverts who are good at blowing smoke up their
Re: (Score:2)
You aren’t kidding. I was going to make a joke about meeting the first slashdot poster to cross the century mark. What was it like being in class with president Woodrow Wilson?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Ol' Bifocals Billy and his 50 year old anecdotes!
LOL
FYI, a side effect of our cataract surgery is we don't need bifocals anymore.
Yes definitely (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people are going into certain fields thinking they would be able to pay off their massive loans. I am talking about majors like history and even some science majors, whatâ(TM)s the median salary in that? Probably not great for most people. I am sure they are some who get lucky and become the president of the Smithsonian museum, but how many presidents of the Smithsonian museum are there? Therefore, definitely at least at a minimum it should be a requirement before you take a federal loan that you must acknowledge the predicted median earnings for that field and how much of your likely salary will be going to pay the loan relative to the rent and cost of living of the place your job is likely to be. For example if your job entails working in the city your mortgage (if you can get one) or rent will be crazy. Before you invest in a mutual fund, how come they send you a prospectus telling you the past returns of that fund? Yet something as critical as choosing a college and a major, the university provides no such information. It is criminal to trick college kids into investing so much into majors that are not lucrative because so many people are going into it. It creates an unnecessary disparity.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the right answer. Borrowers are well dissociated from the *real* costs of student loans because of our deferment system. It sounds grand at first, but it's hard for a family who might be sending their first child to college on loans to understand what $50K in debt on a $50K entry level salary really means (and heaven forbid your child drop out after a couple years. Never mind those going into masters or doctorate programs).
It all seems "obvious" if you and your family have experienced this before
Re: (Score:2)
How do you predict earnings in a field? The fantastic thing about listing incomes before you start your degree is that they are hardly an indication of what will happen 5 years down the line. Just ask all those IT and computer science people flipping burgers after their dream of $150000/y graduate jobs vanished with the dot com bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone think that?
Because they don't understand compound interest and supply/demand.
Volunteering information and free education (Score:2)
Here, salaries are not a big secret, everyone volunteers their info. Most people work on unionized wages, and those of us who don't, still volunteer our paycheck to various statistical data.
This is beneficial both for me who give it, and for the businesses who want to attract qualified employees. I get to understand if I am being paid top level salary or not, and the company I work for get to understand how much a top level employee costs.
Additionally, here, education is paid via taxes (as it is in most of
Where are they going to get that information? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and... (Score:2)
Break it down by how much they make that doesn't come from subsequent grant funding. Can't have the snake eating itself, you know.
Truth in labeling (Score:2)
Would the college be very upfront and tell all the parents and students, " College education is not primarily about making money. ? Why do they subtly accentuate how much more college grad makes without mentioning which majors make more money? It is high time we teach the high school students the origin of the term Liberal Arts" [wikipedia.org]. It is "arts" for "liberated men", liberated from having to earn a living. Men of independent means, scions of business houses, aristocrats etc. From day 1, the liberal arts degre
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of study like that already. I am not sure how much better the information we would get from that study would be.
I tell all the students who show up to my office hours that high income does not come with a degree, but with practical skills. And the degree will help on that path, but that it is only a component and not the whole story.
I am not sure how many people actually get "tricked" by colleges.
Re: (Score:2)
Would the college be very upfront and tell all the parents and students, " College education is not primarily about making money. ?
I am sure people already know that.
I can't imagine that anyone goes to major in Ancient Greek (a friend of mine) and expects to make a lot of money
I assume they just don't stop to think about how they plan to pay off college loans.
Factor in Parent's Income (Score:5, Interesting)
If they do this, they better factor in the income of the parents of children entering the program. It is well documented that parental income is a huge factor in their children's income. If the government doesn't factor this in when publishing their figures, universities will have an even greater incentive to admit students from wealthier families. A liberal arts degree in the hands of a child with an upper middle class background is far more likely to lead to the board room than a liberal arts degree given to a child raised in poverty. Colleges who do a better job of educating students from a wide range of backgrounds should "score" better than universities who only admit the best and brightest / wealthiest.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't earn good money unless you get a good degree. You won't be able to afford to get a good degree unless you've got the money. This perpetuates a privileged elite, who can afford what it takes to stay rich.
It is of course in the interests of the existing privileged elite to maintain this system, and keep everybody else in their place.
Re:Factor in Parent's Income (Score:5, Informative)
Plumbers. They make bank!
Most services appear to be making an enormous hourly rate, if you divide the fee on the invoice by the hours spent doing the actual work. What this calculation fails to account for is travel to and from the work, running a van, doing the accounts, and all the other stuff you don't see while the tradesman is at his work. I have known a few plumbers, and they never struck me as particularly prosperous,
there is no information... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This philosophy is one of the key reasons for the gender pay gap. Many more women choose careers and lives based on satisfying such emotional needs, where men more often crave fiscal gain or achievement and work longer hours at more stressful positions. It's often true even for married couples in the same field.
Yes...and (Score:5, Insightful)
people should give it appropriate consideration when picking what to study and where. And so should parents and other adults who have the attention of kids about to make these decisions.
That opinion piece's assertion that knowing about financial outcomes will lead to focusing only on financial outcomes at the expense of giving up an opportunity for intellectual growth is a strawman put up by a humanities professor worried about losing influence over young minds who currently have less information put in front of them than they otherwise would.
First of all, whether we like to admit it or not, spending 100k on a course of study with no economic prospects is a luxury for those of independent means and always has been. For the children of Joe Sixpack, *borrowing* that amount at several percent interest is the reality.
If you're borrowing money, there had better be a payoff. No one will give you a loan to spend on bullshit. And if anyone does, it's capped at a few thousand and has a nearly 20% rate. It's called a credit card.
Second of all, majoring in something remunerative does not preclude intellectual growth. Sometimes the field of study entails intellectual growth itself (think mathematics, or a pure science, the study of which necessarily requires disciplining one's mind). The rest of the time, any credible university will require breadth in order to earn a BA or even a BS.
I used to think this was a nonsense requirement that just got in the way of getting my engineering and mathematics coursework. I did it, but grudgingly: I took the minimum number of classes that checked the maximum number of boxes. And where there was a requirement to take a 200 level class instead of a 100 level class, I took something as mathy as I could find: philosophy.
I thought I was being clever. Turns out the guys in the smoke filled back room at my university were more clever. I liked that 200 level philosophy class and I liked most of my 100 level classes too. I learned something about the human condition from most of them. And as I've gotten older, I've come to appreciate this fact and have begun to empathize with the retirees I saw coming in for some of those classes.
So yes: gainful employment should be a consideration. In fact it should be a requirement. Society has not benefited from a whole generation of college students going into debt to follow their passions with no thought to fiscal prudence. But that consideration does not remove the possibility of growth and exploration.
The idea that adults ought not have easy access to the information needed to make intellignet decisions for themselves is horribly paternalistic and very much antithetical to the idea of universities education free citizens.
The motivation behind such a desire to restrict information is the exact same phenomenon that saw Western news censored behind the iron curtain. And it's just as shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're borrowing money, there had better be a payoff.
So basically your summary is we shouldn't educate anyone who can't earn a lot of money. Got it. I hope your mother will take care of you when you can't find any more nurses to look after you when you get sick. You're just lucky your teachers are completely underqualified in the USA. In much of the world teaching requires a masters degree in the field of practice which in the USA would lead to eternal debt given how poorly they get paid.
Sometimes the field of study entails intellectual growth itself (think mathematics, or a pure science, the study of which necessarily requires disciplining one's mind). The rest of the time, any credible university will require breadth in order to earn a BA or even a BS.
Horseshit. People getting a degree contingent on adding filler to the si
Re: Yes...and (Score:2)
People do not work for free, neither in the US nor in other countries with supposedly more enlightened systems. That includes university instructors.
At the macro level, universities that produce graduates with fewer marketable skills per amount spent training those students are more of a drain on society than universities that match skills with talent with economic prospects.
The only difference between the wild west here and the socialist utopia there is who bears that cost. Here, students who made poor and
Don't follow your dreams into poverty (Score:5, Insightful)
Going in debt for something you could enjoy as a hobby instead if you make money is absurd. The few who do it well don't represent the many who will always be drones, and it's far better to be a prosperous drone with hobbies you enjoy than a poor drone with no future.
Life is about money because money gives choices you will not have without it. If you don't have money your life sucks, and that suck will increase with age. There is no (practical) model where poverty beats prosperity all else being equal.
Re:Don't follow your dreams into poverty (Score:4, Insightful)
That has go to be the saddest post I've read in a long time. There's just so much in there:
- The concept of going into debt for education.
- The idea of doing something to make money instead of something you enjoy.
- The idea that life is about money because money gives you choice while at the same time acknowledging that to get said money you're not doing something that makes you happy.
- The idea that life sucks just because you don't have money.
I guess that must be life in the land of opportunity. In the rest of the world we do what we have a passion for and are happy as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Whenever I hear somebody saying "don't follow your passion", I imagine a bitter person, having made certain choices that have led them to a life they don't quite enjoy (no passions), and they have to convince themselves that it all makes sense and they did what's right, so they can live with it. Fear of admitting failure (in terms of life fulfillment), and fear of change (that comes with age). Drones are the empty husks that work just for money, not the non-wealthy.
This is long overdue (Score:2)
I have a friend with a masters in English. She's currently homesteading in Georgia and trying to make ends meet by proofreading people's work for a fee. I've known a bachelor of science who worked at a gas station...a bachelor of history at a TGI Fridays. If we think we need people with these types of degrees, we should PAY for people with these types of degrees. In the meantime, we need to be honest with some of these people and tell them "If you major in this, you might end up worse off than had you not g
Re: (Score:2)
Those are great anecdotes. But that's all they are. I know someone with a Masters in English, works as a translator at the UN. I know someone with a bachelor of science who works in a lab doing something blood related. I know someone with a bachelor of history who is paid well enough doing research at a respected French university.
I also know people with masters in engineering who are at home cranking out babies living off a meager income generated by her husband. I know doctors who got well paying jobs str
No (Score:2)
Two reasons.
College is not job training and never was. You go to post-secondary education because you're interested, because you're academically inclined.
College students are adults who should be able to figure this out themselves. If they don't know by now they've been sold a bill of goods more fool them.
...laura
Re: No (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that was back in the day when the only people who went didn't have to worry about finding gainful employment after and who didn't have to worry about paying. The two had related causes.
The first round or two of egalitarian education, which still only captured less than 1/4 of the population enabled the smart but poor to play the part of the patrician and hold attitudes exactly like yours. This thinking flatters the nerds and the geeks who didn't much care for the mediocrity of high school and found a higher caliber of thinking at university.
But it just doesn't scale. Not necessarily because people are stupid, but because we need bar tenders and plumbers and carpenters and welders. And telling those people to go to college as "we" have been results in a bad collision between promises and reality.
No, because they can't tell the future (Score:2)
This is dumb. Colleges can't tell the future any better than anyone else. What undergraduate schools *should* do is be honest about job prospects and actively encourage students away from liberal arts degrees unless the student intends to continue their studies into graduate school.
Let the market decide (Score:2, Insightful)
If a student wants to take on a loan for a low paying/low demand major, the lender should charge a higher interest rate, and charge a much lower interest rate for high paying/high demand majors.
Go look up the Gov't stats on degrees awarded (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the remaining degrees, those are your humanities degrees. Most of them end up converting to teachers certs in a few years, and they go on to be the ones who's job it is to teach your kids critical thinking (which contrary to popular belief can be taught, but you can't teach it with math, you need fuzzy subjects like English & History).
The number of Basket Weaving Feminists is vanishingly small.
Bottom line, there are very, very few worthless degrees.
Stories like this are meant to make you think about how there are all these "useless" degrees. They're put our by rich folks who are tired of paying for public schools and would like that money to be theirs instead of yours.
Anyway, whenever you read these stories you need to take 'em with a block of salt. They're anti-education propaganda.
Re: Go look up the Gov't stats on degrees awarded (Score:2)
There are few truly worthless disciplines, but that does not mean that all lines of work can absorb an unbounded number of practitioners or that all universities do an equally good job at impartung the skills, be they hard, soft, or peer-reinforced, that are necessary to do that work.
A "business" degree ftom Wharton or Harvard comes with all sorts of perks that make easier to plug into a well-paying job than does a "business" degree from Honest Bob's Technically Accredited Business College.
Re: (Score:2)
crotch fruit^X^Xkids.
You owe me a new keyboard because you just made me spit red wine all over it.
Also, red wine through the nose hurts like a mofo.
That is not actually possible (Score:2)
Over the course of a human life, markets can change dramatically and projections can be dead wrong. Also, if all the greedy morons rush into the fields with the highest projected salaries, those salaries will crash.
You really should select your majors according to what you want to do. There are few things more miserable than working in a field you do not like. Sure, maybe do not select some that are completely not in demand, but that is about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are few things more miserable than working in a field you do not like.
May I suggest that you haven't seen much of the world if you think this? Death from warfare, as a solder or as a victim, is one. Starvation, especially starvation for your children, is another, and this still happens around the world. Being trapped by poverty in your parent's basement is another, though not as extreme. Losing a spouse, especially your spouse and children, because you cannot support your family is another.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are few things more miserable than working in a field you do not like.
May I suggest that you haven't seen much of the world if you think this? Death from warfare, as a solder or as a victim, is one. Starvation, especially starvation for your children, is another, and this still happens around the world. Being trapped by poverty in your parent's basement is another, though not as extreme. Losing a spouse, especially your spouse and children, because you cannot support your family is another.
I have. Including touring a war-zone at the invitation of a survivor. Just Yugoslavia, but impressive enough.
I was obviously referring to things under your control and to the typical situation in the west. As to supporting a family, do not found one before you are sure you can support it. Seriously.
Also remember you will typically spend more conscious time for your job than with your family.
Re: (Score:2)
> I was obviously referring to things under your control and to the typical situation in the west.
Then do, please, qualify the claim that there are "few things more miserable in a field you don't like". Many people, _many_ people, take jobs they do not like for their family, for income, or to help others. Being fulfilled by your work is a goal, but has never been the only goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Many people, _many_ people, take jobs they do not like for their family, for income, or to help others. Being fulfilled by your work is a goal, but has never been the only goal.
Many, many people are miserable a lot of their time. That is a failure, not a goal.
Yanno (Score:2)
Perhaps an eighteen year old fresh out of high school who knows exactly nothing about nothing in how the world
works isn't the best candidate to be making decisions that will impact them financially for the rest of their life.
Some are capable of making the right decisions and putting in the effort to make it pay off in the end, but the vast
majority are not. The latter are preyed upon heavily by Colleges and Student Loans.
Initially, a trade skill or the military would probably be a better route for many. M
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, ... the military would probably be a better route for many. Mature a bit, get an idea of what you
REALLY want to do for a career and, when you're ready, make the decision if College is right for you or not.
I totally agree that joining the military to get some maturity while at the same time earning the benefit of the GI Bill is a good way for many (but not all) young folks to go to college while accruing ZERO student loan burdens. After someone has served for three years they receive the benefit of 100% tuition paid for at an in-state college among other benefits. You also have the added benefit of having some of your technical training recognized by many college accrediting agencies. Many service member le
Re: (Score:3)
If you think that doesnt factor into hiring decisions, and with high probability also positively impact who you are going to be in 20 years, then you grok neither people in general nor yourself in the specific.
Stop enabling - do your own legwork (Score:2)
What if students did this themselves? Nothing is guaranteed anyway. It's not that hard to search for current levels of pay for a given degree field.
Re: (Score:2)
No Downside (Score:2)
There is no downside to this, and if it includes possibility of getting in your field, lots of majors will disappear. For example, the pay for history majors in their field is pretty high, but most history majors dont go into their field (academia) because there is just not enough work for everyone.
Now that I think about it, this will never happen because too many left majors will disappear.
In America (Score:2)
If you're born poor, your ass dies poor [pewtrusts.org].
OF COURSE NOT! (Score:2)
That'd chase people out of all the low-paying, but lucrative nothing-degree programs!
Then they'd have to LIE about how much these majors bring in (but actually don't)!
Data is available (Score:2)
I had no trouble finding this sort of data when I was in school in the 70s and 80s or when I went back to grad school in the 90s. It's all readily available.
I take great exception to the concept that there is a role for government here.
A great idea! (Score:2)
We have to tell the Great Nagus!
Ferengon will rejoice!
Misleading headline (Score:2)
It would require public and private colleges around the country to report how many students enroll, transfer, drop out, and complete various programs.
Many colleges use a bait & switch technique to lure students into what appear to be lucrative programs, but don't tell them how many actually complete the degree.
college is not vocational training (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> They had to change bed pans and wipe asses to make their money.
It paid off in 2020 though... think of all the TikTok videos.
Re: (Score:2)
So you got your top 10 for something like Computer Science, top 10 for Mechanical Engineering, top 10 for Electrical Engineering, top 10 for Mathematics, Physics...
That told me how popular graduates from the various institutions were among those who actually hire them in the field they graduated in and pay them money.
Sure, if you're going for a 4 year degree or something like that
Re: (Score:3)
No, the problem is that we've decided as a society that if you don't get a college degree, you'll wind up doing "one of *those* jobs no one wants" so you must go get a college degree or you've "given up". And we need to send everyone off to get *A* college degree to prove that we haven't "given up". The trouble is, not everyone will benefit from getting any old degree yet we've constructed an entire social system that snickers at anyone without a degree as if they're some kind of failure. It's been good for