<p>You offer that datum as a debunking of the unemployment rate of ‘useless’ majors. It isnt. </p>
<p>Oh one person is making good money at it? All the difference in the world- by all means sink your money and four years of your life into it. </p>
<p>I am not signed on to the idea of ‘useless’ but most people are going to college to prepare for their future and picking something like law and architecture probably have a negative return on the money and time. Society sends a message go to college, “get your education”, blah blah prestige and comfortable life in Park Slope. If someone was buying a car the least we’d advise them is to kick the tires and check under the hood. By the time you have your BS or BA its like buying four cars and by then its too late to figure out if there was any pay off to that massive investment. Society should send a more cautious message so that student are more analytical in what they are purchasing with their money.</p>
<p>A couple of counter examples dont disprove the trend.</p>
<p>People who aren’t interested in nursing but study nursing in college to make mom and dad happy usually end up as terrible (or unemployed) nurses. Ditto for all the other “practical” fields that are out there. Nursing is a competitive field where I live (several hospitals have closed and consolidated in the region) so the uninspired nurse is unlikely to monetize his or her investment in nursing school when even the strong performers have trouble landing a job. My neighbor has 20+ years experience, all in hospital based settings, and is taking shift work now because the contracts were thrown out when their hospital was acquired.</p>
<p>My point is that one’s definition of a “practical major” is highly suspect to time, place, and circumstance. At my last medical procedure I was informed that the radiologist was reading my results from his office in… Mumbai. Who’d have thought that radiology was a field subject to outsourcing? Who knew?</p>
<p>What exactly defines a practical major? The CEO of my last company (public corporation with 50 billion plus in revenue) was a Renaissance Studies major. He’d fall down laughing if you suggested that his major was worthless- said the lessons it taught him were more valuable than every accounting or operations research course he took in business school.</p>
<p>Argbargy, I was not attempting to debunk anything about the unemployment rate of people in these fields. I have not challenged that data. I’m challenging your insulting suggestion that employers should see these majors as a “red flag” indicating “the lack of practicality of the applicant for anything other than foaming milk.” Let me say it again: That is offensive. I am not the only person making decent money having studied one of these useless fields and certainly not the only one who has demonstrated abilities beyond a facility for serving coffee.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the Daily Beast slideshow, there are plenty of people who graduated with one of these so-called “useless majors” who have marketable skills, even if the data suggest they may not have the easiest time finding jobs. Lest we forget, the current U.S. unemployment rate is not what we’d like it to be. If we accept the *Daily Beast *data, there are only two of these “useless” fields where the unemployment rate for experienced grads is above the national rate. FWIW, I would be interested in a slideshow sharing data on the fields where grads’ prospects are especially good. </p>
<p>I think people should choose their majors with an eye toward the employment market. At the same time, I do not think one’s investment in an education needs to have a monetary pay off. I do not see the pursuit of education as having all that much to do with purchasing a car, and I question the imaginative powers of people who do.</p>
<p>Yes, but someone here just wants to continue his or her argument, get us all riled up. No proofs, just putdowns. Say whatever it takes. Occasionally point or repoint to some conservative media. Claims abs is just one success out of a wasteland. Will say the same for Blossom’s CEO. And then circle back. “Negative returns.” “Check under the hood.” Imagine the impact on kids.</p>
<p>I did not send my kids to college with the sole purpose of preparing them for a job. </p>
<p>Hmm, an 84% employment rate for Lib and Info Science majors?</p>
<p>Fogg and Harringtons Chart 2 indicates the cost of being a humanities/liberal arts major may not be as high as Bruni claims. While the chart shows that about one third of humanities/liberal arts majors were mal-employed, about 30% of business/management majors were similarly mal-employed, and (is the glass half full or half empty here?) about 18% of engineering and math and computer science graduates were mal-employed.</p>
<p>I never get tired of it, Roman. I run a large recruiting department for a large multinational corporation; I am a volunteer “job coach” as a result to dozens of neighbors and family friends and acquaintances. I talk to college juniors and seniors who sit sullenly in my kitchen explaining why they can’t get an interview in the field carefully chosen by mom and dad to be “marketable”. I talk to those parents who can’t believe that Roger or Susie can’t find a job in “Business Management”. I tell them there is no such thing as “Business Management”-- there is the consumer products industry, there is metals/mining, there is the automotive industry, there is asset management. There is accounting and finance and human resources and marketing. And if Roger or Susie have finished four years of a “Business Management” degree and are not interested in a single industry or function- well, too bad Roger or Susie didn’t major in Classics or European History or Comp lit… where perhaps there would be enough skill and passion and competence to actually get a job requiring a college degree.</p>
<p>So I see the other side- the unemployed side of all these vocationally oriented majors and the kids who get pushed into them. Don’t think that JP Morgan is out trolling for an indifferent finance major or that Procter & Gamble is desperate to hire your “I majored in marketing because it had the fewest requirements in the business department” kid. Not happening.</p>
<p>Yes, if you have a malleable 18 year old who gets excited about balance sheets and ROI and exchange rates you may have a future banker sitting at your kitchen table. But telling a kid with no interest in business that he or she can’t pursue urban planning or political science in college is madness to me.</p>
<p>What ever happened to the idea that different majors’ job and career prospects should not be the only reason for choosing a major, but they should be taken into consideration so that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>A student considering several majors that s/he likes equally may want to use job and career prospects as a tiebreaker. For example, a student undecided between chemistry and chemical engineering may note that the latter usually has better job and career prospects, although economic and industry cycles matter.</p></li>
<li><p>A student who knows beforehand that his/her major has generally poor job and career prospects can plan his/her internship and post-graduation job search strategy accordingly, rather than graduate unprepared into the unemployment line.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Choosing a major only for job and career prospects when one does not actually like the subject tends to lead to not being all that good at it (in school or on the job), while ignoring the job and career implications of major choice could result in unpleasant surprises at graduation, which students with student loan debt and without a “wealthy parent safety net” may have a hard time handling.</p>
<p>ucb, when I was in my very-obscure-at-the-time grad program, people asked me what I’d do with it- and I always had an answer, based on that field. </p>
<p>For several reasons, I ended up in a different arena- a tech industry, a perfect fit for my skills and perspective. The interest in my college major and grad program? Never left me, still color my interests and understanding. My academic field was for me. The skills appplied. I suspect this fits many, many people.</p>
<p>Is the market different today? Not sure if it’s the market or the mechanics of getting a job. Plus the expectation kids have of walking into something lucrative, paying their dues and enjoying perks at the same time.</p>
<p>adding: I don’t even hear the expression about paying one’s dues anymore, among kids.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that a few of the listed majors require work samples before a company will even think to interview a candidate. Things like Architecture, Graphic Design, Fine Arts, or Journalism are fairly easy for common mortals to determine who is ‘good’ and who ‘scraped by’. Even a non-musically trained ear can tell the good violin from the ‘wakes up the neighborhood’ in a hurry.</p>
<p>If your typical Comp Sci major had to submit code samples or the typical Physics major had to fill a few blackboards with how the universe did its big bang during an interview, hiring in these disciplines would be a lot different.</p>
<p>Writing samples are common hiring tools in my field (law). People with four additional years of practice writing papers are at a distinct advantage in becoming strong legal writers. We get quite a few 1Ls who were quant majors but took lots of writing-intensive courses too. That kind does not tend to end up among the unemployed.</p>
<p>From time to time I post this article when this topic comes up. There is little correlation between college major and eventual occupation. There are some other common myths or misconceptions about college education also exposed in the article, which is a speech given by UChicago occupational sociologist Andrew Abbott.</p>
<p>This thread has gotten way too long for me to catch up on this morning before I head to school, but yes, I was specifically talking about those choosing to MAJOR in the arts (or English/History, etc), not those who choose to participate in them. Participation in almost any club/organization at school correlates with the higher ranked students. But those with a passion for the arts or a love of history or whatever (to the point of truly wanting to major in it) are those who tend to not be as STEM talented. I seriously suspect it has to do with brain organization (physical, not mental). So, to just tell those students they ought to go STEM instead of ______ will not necessarily work and could deprive our society of many of the perks most of us enjoy. </p>
<p>I love theater myself and was in school plays, etc, but there’s no way I was ever wired to major in it. My brain is set up for math/science. Even if things were reversed and theater majors were “in” I’d have made a lousy one compared to those with real talent and passion. One can only “learn” so much, then talent takes over for those who have it.</p>
<p>Switching subjects… are too many going to college? Maybe, but I doubt it and I doubt much will change with more and more employers requiring a degree (any degree) for jobs that really don’t need it. Students heading toward those jobs should major in whatever they like as those subjects will be the easiest for them. Those who like the trades should aim for them even though those are overpopulated in our area… (I realize they aren’t in other areas.)</p>
<p>One does best when they are in their niche. Period.</p>
<p>Actually, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were jobs for organic chemists, I interviewed at several pharmaceutical companies where part of the process felt like an oral exam: the interviewee had to perform retrosynthetic analyses (or had to draw reaction mechanisms) while standing at a white board in front of the interviewing committee…</p>
<p>From the interesting U Chicago magazine article mentioned in #76:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, as I think it is, it weakens the case for government subsidies of higher education on economic grounds. If fewer people went to college, employers would still need smart workers, but they would use means other than a BA credential to find them. They could identify smart people the same way college admissions officers do. A problem with this proposal is that employers’ hiring practices change slowly, and for some period of time smart kids who could not attend college for financial reasons would be shut out of certain jobs. OTOH, government subsidized need-based aid increases college access less than a static analysis indicates, since such subsidies encourage colleges to raise spending and prices.</p>
<p>When the worm was applying for jobs, he would spend 5 or more hours being interviewed and tested. Even though he was a CS major, one place focused on his writing skills, how he was a winner in national contest back in HS. I got the impression some companies had their choice of applicants, and put the candidates through the hoops. For the record, he was only one from his college to get some interviews, but never became the bride (groom?).</p>
<p>To get an admission to better grad schools, one had to attend interview weekends. </p>
<p>In terms of useless majors, philosophy is often mentioned. One of the worm’s friends majored in physics at MIT, and is now studying philosophy at a top U. He could get a job in a think tank, and be quite satisfied. The point is that he is happy with what he is doing and will likely succeed. He was also accepted to grad school in physics, but went with his passion.</p>