<p>I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that kids should have access to real data about their colleges and majors. But it’s not easy at all to assemble, and even less easy to make it meaningful. And I think the idea that “half the Anthropology department work[s] at a car park” is a bizarre fantasy. That’s not reality at all.</p>
<p>One issue is that the appropriate comparison isn’t necessarily between being an English major and being an Engineering major, because the English major couldn’t graduate as an Engineering major to save her life, and vice versa. It’s between being an English major and not going to college at all, or getting some type of vocational certification, like word processing. Maybe for a Harvard English major with 800 math SATs it’s appropriate to look at what Engineering majors earn, but I’ll bet Harvard English majors don’t earn a lot less than Harvard Engineering majors over time, on average. That “on average” is a big issue, too, since riskier fields are, well, riskier – there’s a lot more variation in outcomes that simple measures like averages and medians don’t communicate well.</p>
<p>P.S. – Pizzagirl read my earlier comment right, but of course it was meant snarkily (and not seriously).</p>
<p>The bill is a good idea but will outrage many in the education industrial complex and many in politics who rely on big troupes of unemployable but thoroughly indoctrinated youth to help keep them in power.</p>
<p>Note also that both major and college can be relevant; a Harvard English major might have better job prospects than an English major at an unknown not-very-selective college, simply because of the awe power of the Harvard name and the elite finance and consulting recruiting activity there. On the other hand, Harvard engineering is not generally viewed as being as strong as engineering at many other schools, so unless the engineering major is really aiming at elite finance or consulting employment, s/he may choose some other school entirely.</p>
<p>“I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that kids should have access to real data about their colleges and majors. But it’s not easy at all to assemble, and even less easy to make it meaningful. And I think the idea that “half the Anthropology department work[s] at a car park” is a bizarre fantasy. That’s not reality at all.”</p>
<p>I am always stunned by the very linear STEM types who actually can’t look around and see the many other types of careers in this world. Frankly it’s ignorant and speaks to a limited mentality.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure I have never agreed with either senator or Argybargy in my life until now… but I would love to have this information now as D is comparing colleges in a given major. Regarding going across majors, I agree that there is some data out there now that is not college specific (you can obviously research what salary ranges are for different careers, and backtrack to likely majors from that). But the ability to compare outcomes from colleges is so much harder to do.</p>
<p>I was just discussing with D2 today why colleges give merit aid to incoming freshmen. But if you make a mistake and decide to transfer, you can forget about merit at most colleges. And why is this? Because colleges are measured publically on their INCOMING freshman class (specifically on test score ranges). The other statistics people look at is 6 year graduation rate and retention. But that is pretty much it on hard data where you can compare results. No one is measuring across colleges consistently on their results.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know how to calculate a standard deviation. But I state again- what new information does anyone gain here? Cardiologists make more than Pediatricians; and virtually all physicians make more than nursery school teachers.</p>
<p>Just don’t send so many kids to college. Doesn’t that eliminate the volume of loan debt? Establish less expensive vocational training- your kids and mine could do this and then plug in to the zillion jobs that don’t require exceptional specialty training. Or education. (As some poster used to advocate, they can get educated free at the library.) A receptionist opening for my state was listed as starting at 36k. To answer phones and take messages. </p>
<p>Seriously, people all over are worried about how much “big govt” tracks and snoops; how do you sell a notion that “if you’re not interested in what we think is valid, you’re not getting help from us?”</p>
<p>As it is, we have trouble encouraging kids to research. I’d guess one reason CC is popular is the need to ask, rather than discover answers. Kids on CC ask what a college mailing address is, if they need SAT2’s, they rate essays for each other, spread misinfo- and, poor dears can’t find this job info without a bill passed? </p>
<p>[Home</a> : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/ooh/]Home”>http://www.bls.gov/ooh/)
We were required to dig into this info, do various projects with it, when I was in middle school. No subscription required.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the irony here got me. I remember the time, early 70’s, when engineering majors couldn’t find a job to save their lives…just before the boom in the 80’s. And, I can see the value in many lower paying occupations- ministry, teaching, public service, arts. And, of course, I support the idea bright kids should be able to choose college- and smart enough to avoid crippling debt. But, the savvy to get a job, keep it and move up is not limited to certain majors and even the “good” majors can’t make up for a kid who doesn’t have the hunger to get out there.</p>
<p>The new information is that it’s broken down by college. Assume I have a kid who wants to major in English. He is admitted to Princeton. Assume my family doesn’t qualify for need based aid.</p>
<p>As an English major, will it make any difference in job prospects if my kid goes to Princeton or to SUNY Binghamton? How much of a difference will it make? </p>
<p>Assume I have a kid who wants to be a sports trainer. One college says that its students get great internships and this helps them get good jobs after graduation. This college will cost my family $12,000 more per year than a local program. Why shouldn’t I be able to compare starting salaries for the two?</p>
<p>There will be a gazillion excruciatingly complex arguments on both sides.</p>
<p>If a kid majors in accounting, we presume he wants a job in accounting- or close to that function. We don’t know if this will carry him to CFO level, someday. Lots of factors will affect that. Just the major- and today’s prospects- isn’t enough. Likewise, you can’t predict where a history or classics major will end up.</p>
<p>How many of us ended up doing exactly what we thought we would, on 12/31 of hs senior year?</p>
<p>Although I’d like to know average salaries by school and major, I think much of the salary difference between SUNY Binghamton and Princeton English majors is caused by the Princeton students being smarter and more accomplished on average before starting college, so looking at the raw salary differential would overstate “how much of a difference it will make”.</p>
<p>*"
The Parking Lot Movie follows a group of parking lot attendants who work at The Corner Parking Lot in Charlottesville, Virginia. They have to deal with drunken, rude, and cheap patrons, as well as vandals.</p>
<p>The film centers on the experience of the attendants, who are primarily students at the nearby University of Virginia, and mostly majoring in Liberal Arts subjects such as Philosophy or Anthropology.
"*</p>
<p>Calculating a standard deviation doesn’t tell anyone where they fit in. If the standard deviation is small, then maybe the statistics tell you something meaningful about how the major affects your prospects. If the standard deviation is large, all it tells you is what you should have known already: it’s not the major that is determining the outcomes.</p>
<p>For example, what do you do with the effect of pre-existing wealth? For example, I have a sneaking suspicion that Art History majors do just fine. Why? Because I haven’t met a lot of poor Art History majors. (Harvard graduates more Art History majors than UMass-Amherst, although the latter has three times Harvard’s students.) One of my college roommates was an Art History major. Three decades (and an MBA later), he lives in a $10+ million home with a kickass art collection, some of which he commissioned (and some of which is outright gifts from grateful artists he patronizes). He didn’t work his way up from the mail room at Sotheby’s; he developed commercial real estate at the right place/right time. I’m not sure what that means, but I can say with confidence (a) his Art History major didn’t hurt him, and (b) I don’t know that I would advise a penniless student at a public university to major in Art History based on this example.</p>
<p>But YOUR kid at Princeton is the question- not my kid. My kid majored in English at Princeton and is blogging for an NGO and earns 22K per year. Your kid will major in English and get a job with one of the top PR firms in strategic communications/media relations and will be earning 45K to start and 80K within three years. That’s got nothing to do with Princeton or majoring in English.</p>
<p>So again- duh! Some fields pay more than others. Some sub-fields (print journalism) don’t pay as well as others (corporate communications) even if the qualifications to get jobs in both are virtually identical at the entry level.</p>
<p>How does compiling this information change the actual information? A kid who majors in English and cares about preventing malaria in the developing world is likely (all things being equal) to earn less than a kid who majors in English and wants to help BP sponsor tourism in the Gulf of Mexico.</p>
<p>If you research pay scales of the bureau of labor , you will get statistics, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot when it comes to actual open jobs in the fields</p>
<p>People are looking for guarantees. There are none. There weren’t in previous generations, and there won’t be in future ones because the economy is not static. </p>
<p>What one person does with his history degree has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone else would do, as many have already pointed out. One history major will go to law school while another will teach and still another will open a business. What any of them will be making in five years really has little to do with their major, and may also have little to do with what college they attended. It may have a lot to do with the financial stability of the student’s family, and how much help they are willing to give to get them started, and also on the resourcefulness of the individual student.
Laying this all on institutional transparency is misguided. I have trouble imagining how any information coming out of this would be reliable or meaningful for students.</p>
<p>It is likely most useful to students considering majors which they believe (not necessarily correctly) have major-specific job opportunities. It might enlighten some students and parents who think, for example, that “all STEM majors have good major-specific job prospects” to notice that this is not generally true for biology and chemistry.</p>
<p>When the career survey information lists employers or job titles, it may also alert students that sometimes the major-specific job prospects are concentrated in particular industries or types of jobs (e.g. jobs in finance for math and statistics majors, or jobs in mining, oil, and gas for geology majors) – and if those industries and types of jobs are undesirable to the student, then the “good major-specific job prospects” may not apply to that student.</p>