In my observation, career trajectories are not an elephant, I see them discussed often here. The elephant that seems rarely discussed (to me anyway) is the question of what is the actual purpose of an individual college or a university? And what is the relationship between that purpose and the vocational aspirations of its undergraduates? The answer to those questions could potentially lead to a wider set of conversations about admissions issues like test scores, application essays, holistic admissions, qualifications and preparation. In other words, if we know the mission of a particular school and work backwards from there, then it is easier to think about which students will be selected to contribute to that mission (as opposed to just thinking about how the institution will help the student).
Given the forum is often used by students and parents as a place to discuss college admissions, outcomes and returns of investment, it doesn’t surprise me that there is so much focus on careers. I get it. But at the same time, it has struck me as odd that o I keep reading threads that judge a college based on its alumni salaries. To be fair, I’ve only been reading CC consistently for the last six months or so, but I rarely see threads that talk about the role of higher education institution in furthering knowledge for its own sake or other missions that a school might have. It seems strange and maybe elephant-like because before I started reading CC so much, I thought that the central purpose (or at least one of the most important goals) of a university was to expand knowledge in various departments and disciplines.
Do most posters consider the main purpose of colleges is to train undergraduates so that they can get the best job upon graduation? I guess that I always thought of the career thing as a nice side benefit for students but not as the central purpose or a principle around which most colleges are organized. I assumed the reason universities try to attract strong students is to create an intellectually stimulating environment for other reasons. An intellectually curious environment helps attract and nurture vibrant students, accomplished professors, centers of study/innovation/research, labs, consortiums and so forth. Emerging from that mix is the advancement of knowledge whether it be in a field like biomedical engineering or one like Renaissance Studies or 18th century Nordic literature or Physics or Public Health or Public Policy or whatever.
Will my kids personally care about all of those random fields when they choose a college? Probably not. Nevertheless, I think they will care about the overall intellectual environment and vibrancy of the academic life at their college. So far, they have gravitated towards campuses where they believe are full of people who are energetic and excited about learning/contributing to knowledge even if it is in fields they will never touch personally. Thus, I think measuring whether an institution is good solely based on its graduates’ careers seems shortsighted. Shouldn’t a college’s strength also be judged on whether its departments and research centers produce original knowledge not (only) based on the starting salaries of its graduates? If college is only about return to investment then 75% of departments wouldn’t exist and I think that would be a societal loss because knowledge is important for its own sake.
There are some colleges and unis that do not prioritize development of new knowledge.
I feel like you’re interested in top 100 R1 research unis.
Teaching young people how to think and learn, or, be prepared for certain careers requiring literacy and logic, communication, or application of specialized knowledge in accounting, education, STEM, allied health fields, is the mission of many other types of colleges.
I think that you are right that plenty of colleges prioritize teaching young people to think and learn, but the majority of my friends who teach at liberal arts colleges are also advancing their fields. They aren’t just teaching, they are also researching and publishing or producing their own creative work even as they mentor young people. However, that might just reflect the places where my friends teach.
In any case, my suggestion is that that if we want to judge the strength of an institution then considering the its individual mission (whatever that mission may be) offers at least as much insight into its strength as the starting salaries or career trajectories of its graduates. I am not saying that those “return on investment” factors don’t matter at all because clearly they matter to a lot of families for good reason. Nevertheless, institutional success with “teaching how to think and learn” is a bigger lens to use than median salary alone.
“Most”? I don’t have data to validate or refute that. But certainly, “many”.
Learning for the sake of learning is a sweet concept, but it’s a luxury most students cannot afford.
For many students, getting a high paying job is a driving factor in selecting certain schools.
Also to make themselves a highly desirable and prestigious destination for future strong students. The university wants their graduates to go on to lucrative careers so they can be future benefactors.
Many of the schools on this list focus both on career readiness and discipline advancements. I’d argue that most schools, including LACs, want to produce productive members of society.
Also agree with @DadOfJerseyGirl that most families can’t dismiss the ROI.
I think you are agreeing with me as well since I said several times that ROI is clearly very important to families for good reasons. I just don’t think career trajectories are the elephant in the room on CC. I was surprised by the other thread because elephant in the room implies that an issue is ignored or mostly undiscussed. I think career concerns are talked about quite often here and elsewhere as the best way to judge the strength of an institution. However, my perception about the frequency of that discussion may just reflect the particular threads that I keep browsing.
Nevertheless, I might be just being selfish here. Probably because ROI doesn’t interest me much at all (literally the topic never came up when my D22 was applying to colleges though I imagine it might be for at least one of her siblings), I am trying to suggest other factors worth considering when one selects a college. And I remain interested in understanding why an admissions office might admit or reject a student beyond the hope that the student will eventually be rich or donate $$$.
The educational environment students choose can impact their general intellectual development. In terms of the study excerpted here, liberal arts colleges appear to have supported their students’ cognitive development beyond that available through less focused institutions:
(Pascarella, Wong, Trolian and Blaich. Higher Education. 2013.)
What annoys me about the ROI threads is that the posters typically use bad data (self-reported “how much money I make five years our of undergrad” AND ignores important inputs like non-cash comp (stock options, company paid retirement) AND conflates the five or six year (or whatever near term earning power) with the long term.
Someone who went straight to med school is at the beginning of their residency; someone out of law school who is a federal clerk is earning a fraction of what he or she will earn when they leave government service and go to the private sector, etc.
These ROI calculations are probably the most useful for people who don’t have friends or family members in these elite type jobs, and yet the data is terrible for these types of jobs.
What is a nurse earning five years out of undergrad? That’s a knowable number, and is not likely to be impacted by lucrative stock options which muddy the data. But to read the CC threads which encourage the Direct Admissions BSN programs because of their “fantastic” ROI, you’d believe that over a career, a nurse makes more money than a dermatologist (yes, a nurse will make more money 5 years after undergrad than a dermatologist is making five years out) which is objectively incorrect.
But hardly the elephant in the room- I agree with that. We perseverate about this endlessly on CC!
In a perfect world, we would all be able to take four years (at least!) out of reality and read great books and learn from great professors. It was the original idea behind most college education, 200 years ago rich gentlemen didn’t go to Harvard or Oxford to learn how to be investment bankers
The vast majority of students are paying out the nose and taking on debt so they can improve their financial situation in the longer run. That may not be ideal for “learning to think” or delving deeply into obscure subjects, but it is the reality for all but the very privileged or very driven.
I think financial ROI calculations that use the standard assumption college name is a primary driver of earnings are not going to be useful or accurate under any circumstances. For example, comparing the average salary of grads at college A to grads at college B has little correlation with what the expected salary is for a particular student choosing between college A and college B, or which college has the better ROI for that student.
Instead the earnings for that student will depend on things like what major he chooses, what career field he chooses, what types of companies within that field he chooses, what location he chooses to work, ability/performance/motivations of that student, personal/family connections, etc . Differences in these types of factors need to be controlled for to determine if the college name has any significant influence.
The denominator of the ROI calculation (cost) is also highly variable and does not lend itself well to averages. At many colleges, the majority of students do not pay sticker price.
This often make estimating ROI of college name an exercise in futility. What can be more useful are considering typical earnings and outcomes for different majors and career paths, and considering which colleges may best help support desired outcomes for particular students.
Yes, I am also interested in this topic because I think it could explain some of the frustration that I keep reading here about admissions. If someone thinks the central purpose of an institution of higher learning is career preparation and that the best measure to judge success is wealth of graduates (or ROI) then it might explain why some think the students with the highest grades & scores should be admitted regardless of their intended field of study. If it is all about salary, why would admissions office admit someone interested in Renaissance Studies especially if most students with 1600s on their SATs want to go into investment banking and computer science?**
One poster in an earlier thread said that their child was allowed study any field as long as it did not include “studies” in its name. It seems to me that if that is how most families feel, perhaps more colleges and universities should let some departments die a natural death from lack of students rather than deliberately seeking to admit students with a wide variety of interests. To me that seems like a loss because I think even the most obscure academic field should be studied. I truly believe in the importance of continuing to advance all fields. On the other hand if studying those obscure subjects leads inevitably to low-paying jobs then perhaps the only students who have the luxury to study those fields will be the very privileged. In that case, the retention of those departments may also contradict the mission of any school that values socioeconomic diversity.
On second thought, rereading my posts, I do notice that I am conflating a few topics. Maybe who a university might want to admit to its graduate departments vs. who it might want to admit to its undergraduate programs vs. who a college might want to admit is going to be very different even when there is mission overlap (and especially in cases where the missions diverge). Still I feel like it is all connected even if I am having a hard time articulating why.
**just to clarify, I have no idea if most students with 1600s on their SATs want to go into investment banking and computer science. For all I know that is nonsense, but reading the threads on CC, one could certainly get that impression!
I’d be extremely surprised, if it was “most” students. However, there is a correlation. Such paths tend to be overrepresented at colleges with higher average SAT scores. Some specific numbers are below. There is clear pattern. The 2 most popular majors at highly selective private colleges are usually CS and economics, which are associated with banking and CS, like you listed. This is an extremely different distribution than occurs across all colleges, with the 2 most common majors in US being nursing and business.
However, while CS and econ are usually the most popular majors, the majority of students usually major in something else. For example, at Harvard the (154 + 131)/1292 = 22% of students major in econ + CS. The other 78% major in something else. According to the senior survey, among the 67% joining workforce, 34% work in finance or tech after graduation. The other 66% say they will work in other fields.
Most popular majors at 10 colleges with highest average SAT/ACT scores in 2021
1 . MIT – CS (far larger than #2), EECS
2. Olin – Limiting major offerings
3. Harvey Mudd – CS + Math, CS
4. Harvard – Economics, CS
5. Chicago – -Economics (far larger than #2), CS
6. Rice – CS (far larger than #2), Economics
7. Vanderbilt – ??? unclear fed reporting
8. Northwestern – Economics (far larger than #2), CS
9. Columbia – CS, Economics
10. Yale – Economics, CS
Most popular bachelor’s degree fields at all colleges in US (NCES)
1 . Nursing
2. Business
…
13. Computer Science
…
17. Economics
The two 1600 SAT students I know both are in academia. Both brilliant and doing cutting edge research in their fields. Both got their education at state flagships.
If you look at average SAT score by intended major then by far the highest score is in “math and statistics” followed by “physical sciences” majors. Engineering and computer science are some way behind, presumably reflecting the self-selecting nature of the relatively small number of students choosing to do (non-professionally oriented) math and physics, compared to the number of less talented students seeing engineering and CS as a direct route to a good job.
As someone who’s been around on CC longer than most of the high school posters have been alive, I’ll chime in and say that this didn’t use to be the case. Years ago there were many more students interested in philosophy, journalism, creative writing, anthropology, marine biology, etc. The noticeable decline in the diversity of academic interests is one reason I post on CC far less often than I used to.
I knew from day 1 that I wanted to get a PhD – I now teach and research in a rather esoteric discipline – but I attended a university that was strongly pre-professional, with most students aiming for careers in business, medicine, or law. I have no complaints about the academics, and my professors were phenomenal, but there’s no doubt my alma mater could do more to foster a sense of intellectual curiosity on campus. Many students were so focused on maintaining a high GPA that they were hesitant (or entirely unwilling) to step outside their comfort zone and explore new areas of study.
Has employment or professional school become more competitive than it used to be, or is it being perceived as having become more competitive than it used to be?
^
It has more to do with differences between colleges than a general trend over time, I think. I earned my PhD and later taught for a couple of years at a UC, and many of my students came to office hours stressed out and worried about maintaining their grades for grad/professional school. (You’d think a B+ was a failing grade!)
I now teach at a less selective public university in the northeast, and my students are less high-strung and GPA obsessed, though unfortunately also less motivated.
