<p>Fundamentally, I have a question I would like to have answered. My kid wants to major in Physics. Not sure what kind yet (experimental or theoretical, nor what subfield). Let us say she has the following college acceptances at widely varying price points due to merit aid:</p>
<p>U of Chicago
Mount Holyoke
Kenyon
Carleton
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Macalester
Lawrence</p>
<p>It certainly would not be the ONLY thing she would look at. But it would be fantastic to see a graphic for each college that showed: (1) what fields are the Physics majors from these colleges working in 5 years and 10 years after graduation? (2) What is the average salary for each for Physics majors 5 & 10 years after graduation? (3) If they went to or are in grad school, what is the average quality of the grad school (what tier, what ranking, whatever)? (4) What percentage of the pool did they actually successfully collect data from?</p>
<p>Sure, there would be a lot of wrestling with the data. Stuff like double majors would impact the data. But it would still be HUGE to see this type of outcome data on a consistent basis (like the Common Data Set) out of all colleges. We may be paying up to $250,000 a year for a product, and the data available now is just downright crappy. Schools talk up their success areas, and are silent on the rest. And given the amount of government money that goes into helping students get a college education, I would say that this is also a public policy issue, not just an issue for students and parents. (NOT to take this thread in a political direction!).</p>
<p>a. isnt this essentially how all of human history worked? There have been two generations on this planet who have said “the day I stop loving it is the day I quit” and I think the verdict is out on how successful that is going to be.</p>
<p>b. If you have $50K in loans to do What you Love that doesnt pay as well as you thought at 18yo, you may not be so happy with what you have left on after debt service. </p>
<hr>
<p>re: the data gathering requirements:</p>
<p>*
The bill calls on states to match up these data, measure student outcomes, and make them publicly available. For the first time, prospective consumers would have access to information on post-graduation average annual earnings, rates of remediation and graduation, and average debt accumulated. This information would be available down to the program and institution level, enabling students to compare outcomes for a single major across multiple colleges, or vice versa.</p>
<p>They make a decent point that students are ALREADY making these decisions to incur debt- whether based on football teams, cafeteria food, or marketing mailings. The question is on providing them factual data on which to make their decisions.</p>
<p>Providing the data and getting them to consider the data- are two different animals. Same kids who can’t check loan repayment scedules. </p>
<p>This is not “build it and they will come.”
This is not KIDS saying they explored the info out there and found it wasn’t sufficient, didn’t go far enough, should be re-formed.</p>
<p>And what happens? Kid is a mid-year senior, chose the “right” major- and can still sit there, dumbfounded, not knowing how to find jobs to apply for, not knowing how to win those jobs. Not having a good resume started, other than academics-? How does all this really work for the kid?</p>
<p>Jonri, do you really think it’s the data-gathering and the hordes of people who crunch the numbers who are responsible for more opportunities for women and minorities? Especially since in many companies this is a reactive/after the fact function vs. a decision-support tool? I don’t see hiring leaders or a CFO ask to see the numbers in order to decide who to hire or which vendor to use… the numbers are gathered and crunched as a butt-covering exercise after the fact. “See-- X % of our candidate pool last year was a Pacific Islander”.</p>
<p>I don’t object to transparency which you seem to think I do- it’s the mandated aspect of this bill which I believe will result (after millions spent) in presenting the obvious-- like I said, Cardiologists earn more than nursery school teachers, or graduates of a divinity school make less than computer scientists. Collective yawn, millions spent.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand some of the posters here who seem so worried about kids being in love with anthro or humanities fields that are iffy in terms of employment prospects. We raised our kids in an environment where love of scholarly endeavor in all fields was encouraged AND we also encouraged them to explore pathways and earnings and job markets for various fields. </p>
<p>This sense that one must find what one loves and only do what one loves strikes me as quite ridiculous.</p>
<p>I’ve had a kid who loved math and was so-so on lab science do a complete 180 midway thru undergrad and now works in biotech, having a great time, has lots of good prospects. At 18 he had absolutely know clue what he “loved” but had tons of certainty that he knew what he loved.</p>
<p>Younger one likes a number of fields, is weighing the cool factor of one more arcane direction with one she honestly enjoys that is quite marketable. Material rewards definitely enter her thinking. It’s a maturing process to sift thru these factors, consider them and then with as much clarity as possible stake out a direction.</p>
<p>Some kids are most happy being self-sufficient and economically secure. Art history while very cool is not going to give that to them any time very soon, at least. I don’t see how withholding the information that helps them grasp this is doing them a favor.</p>
<p>It’s irrelevant that my ancestors plowed the potato fields in Ireland or worked the farm in Russia or whatever. They didn’t have choices. I have more choices in America in 2013. I think my kids should consider the marketability of what they do (for example, my S wants to be a history major, and H and I have counseled him that he might want to double-major in history and economics), but to push him into engineering or something because it’s allegedly “employable”? Yuck. I work hard precisely so that my kids can have the choices and be self-actualized.</p>
<p>What if they already know this, though? I mean, really … do you think the theater majors who went to school with me (at a school with a very well known theater program) DIDN"T know the overwhelming odds against them becoming stars on Broadway or in Hollywood? If they decide they are fine with living a more modest lifestyle, what’s the big deal? I guess I just don’t have the fear with a capital F that some of you have.</p>
<p>^ I know a number of parents who seem to be very intent on shielding their kids from any sort of consideration of what it will take to earn a living after graduating. They are completely in the “I just want them to find their bliss” kind of mindset. Seriously. These are not particularly wealthy parents, btw. Whatever.</p>
<p>That said, I would not dictate to my kid that they must major in something practical and earn a living straight out of undergrad. That’s ridiculous, too. </p>
<p>Just put the info out there – as much as possible – encourage them to explore the available information and start thinking seriously from a well informed foundation.</p>
<p>The title of the figure is ‘Salary Increase by Major’, but it does give starting median salary. And it’s from Payscale, so I’m not sure how accurate it is, but overall, you can get some idea about starting salaries for a certain major.</p>
<p>It doesn’t give starting salaries for a particular institution, though. </p>
<p>And for those who are harping on the anthropology/art history major, median starting salary for that anthro major is not that different from that of the biology major.</p>
<p>So it’s not like there is NO information out there, or it’s hard to get to. And this is from business friendly WSJ.</p>
<p>Actually, there are parents pushing their kids to major in biology because of a mistaken belief that all STEM majors have good post-graduation prospects. Or students undecided between several majors that they like equally but have very different post-graduation prospects. It is these types of people that post-graduation statistics would be most helpful to in dispelling the common incorrect assumptions about which majors have good job prospects.</p>
<p>Very useful data indeed. I’d take data related to double majors, family background, etc, the more the better, without ID of course. No one thinks more data is less useful but hard to get. If I knew all the info, inside and out, I’d do a better trade on Wall Street. Everyone would or no one would. It seems some benefits from keeping others in the dark.</p>
<p>First off my impression is that people were generally happier in the past. And I think that it has always been the case that you can accept societal responsibility or try to slip away from them- whether through the Foreign Legion or an opium den. What has changed today is the reinforcement that you should be maximizing your enjoyment at every moment. At least in your worklife- the scales seem oddly out of balance in society (ok, the NYT) expects people to be whippet-thin stoics grimly grinding mile after mile of half marathons and eschewing anything that has been touched by animal fat or a drink greater than 16onz. It seems an oddly incongruous message of “no pain no gain” and self denial in every area but employment. What if having converted the into a high yield potato field and having 8 children working by your side is exactly the kind of thing that optimizes human happiness in the long run? </p>
<p>Further I’d note that the availability of data in no way precludes someone acting against their optimized monetary self-interest. Its just that they are now doing it with open eyes. There is noting about the task of organizing existing data into a helpful form that prevents someone from pursuing a study of French Literature. </p>
<p>“I work hard precisely so that my kids can have the choices and be self-actualized.”</p>
<p>Well thats interesting. But contains the seeds of its own problems. If you leave them so much they become trustafarian wastrels that isnt helpful. On the other hand if you give them a fruity career but they outlive your money, that could also be problematic. </p>
<p>You are darned if you do and darn if you dont as a parent.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to bash any particular major. I have friends married to mathematicians who say they went thru long periods of unemployment, which always astounded me.</p>
<p>Those stats in WSJ, of course, are reporting on the kids who actually landed a job. That is a very key statistic and hard to find. What percentage of kids actually go to work at a college entry position upon graduating?</p>
<p>Honestly, doesn’t Congress have anything better to do than this? Do we really need another law for this? Sorry if this is too political, but sheesh.</p>
<p>Next we’ll have a bureau to audit the data, then a division of the justice Department to prosecute violators. Well, at least there will be job gains.</p>
<p>^^^
I think according to the TOS we’re only supposed to comment on issues related to college or admissions. This law is related to admissions, that’s why I mentioned it. It is the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>But since you mention another law unrelated to either college admissions or the topic of this thread, yeah, that one too.</p>
<p>It’s easier to pass a law like this than to actually address the reasons why the cost of college seems to have outstripped the economic benefits of college for vast numbers of students. This law won’t change that, but legislators can pretend that it might, and therefore that they have taken bold action to address the problem.</p>
<p>Colleges don’t have anywhere near the data necessary to make this useful. It’s very difficult and expensive to collect. If you could match your graduation records with the IRS’ records, and use tax return information, that’s a different story.</p>
<p>This is true, but if the only available outcome data by major is income, people may focus on that. The universities could create softer outcome data simply by surveying students, and alumni, asking them if they enjoyed their classes and learned a lot from them, if their major helped them find rewarding (in the broader sense) work, if they choose the same major again, and other questions. Email makes it easy and inexpensive to conduct such surveys.</p>
<p>“Faculty self-governance” effectively means that any department can obstruct a change or a study it finds threatening. Some faculty do not want to make information on student outcomes available. This incuriosity about outcomes occurs at many levels. At our local high school the principal talked about the fraction of seniors who went to college (>90%) and what schools they attended. I asked him if he knew what fraction of students graduated from college. He was surprised by the question and had never thought to survey our high school graduates.</p>
<p>^ You know I disagree, JHS. I think this information would be very helpful to a lot of kids and their parents. And there’s also an accountability factor that is potentially very useful. Higher Education absorbs enormous amounts of our national funds. Why on Earth should they not be called upon to report on how their graduates do in terms of gaining employment, earning a living, etc. ?</p>
<p>I think if they respond with arrogance, as if “how dare we be made to justify ourselves in this way” it will not play well, to say the least.</p>