<p>
</p>
<p>If the major is a field like Physics or biology – it probably means that their graduates are NOT getting into good grad schools/med school and/or getting jobs in the field. If you can compare across schools and see the results, then you can see if it is “the major” or “the school”. I’d like to know the statistics on this before spending my money, not after.</p>
<p>There’s truth to that^^ I’m somewhat surprised that more people don’t seem to understand that starting salaries are pretty tightly bracketed so it really doesn’t matter much where you went to college, you’ll still get paid the same or darn close to the same depending on which new hire is the better negotiator. After 5 years in the workforce salary has very little to do with where one attended college and after ten years even less. Just simple generalization but a person’s financial health has as much to do with who they marry (or don’t marry) or how good they are at scaling the corporate ladder or if they inherit or their spouse inherits money or if they work in a family business. I don’t understand (but maybe because I’m not a STEM person) why anyone thinks you can quantify very much (at least any better than all the data that currently exists.)</p>
<p>For instance, Intparent was asking about physics…here’s a bunch of data</p>
<p>[Education</a> and Employment Data - American Institute of Physics](<a href=“http://www.aip.org/statistics/]Education”>Statistical Research Center | American Institute of Physics)</p>
<p>Here’s some data from NACE (which I talk about but is subscription - although these ranges on this chart were very accurate, and would look alittle different today, but not a whole lot).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/fall09a.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/fall09a.pdf</a></p>
<p>Intparent, I usually think of physics as a major meant to prepare specifically for a math-sci career or at least related to that education. Humanities, not so much so. So, agree with you about STEM. Same could apply for most or all of the pre-professional majors.</p>
<p>Yes, I have picked through that Physics data pretty carefully already. Only a few of the links are actually by college, though. I do see that Physics majors tend to do very well on the MCAT. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the General Social Survey, women’s reported happiness has declined over the last few decades, dragging down average happiness:</p>
<p>[The</a> Paradox of Declining Female Happiness](<a href=“http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//WomensHappiness.pdf]The”>http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//WomensHappiness.pdf)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Happiness depends on outcomes relatives to expectations. I think life is better for both American men and women in 2006 than 1972, but people expect more. I’ve seen studies finding that a person’s happiness returns to its baseline level one year after traumatic events such as becoming paralyzed, but of course it is better not to be paralyzed.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, that is really interesting stuff.</p>
<p>I noticed back in the 80s every time we went to the movies the average people characters all had absolutely gorgeous homes, gorgeous cars, gorgeous clothes and lived in gorgeous places. I started to feel really dissatisfied with my life! And then I realized it was going to the movies or watching TV shows that was making me feel that way. Seriously.</p>
<p>Expectations are so tricky.</p>
<p>Quote:
If a high percentage end up working outside their major, WHAT does that tell you about the program?
If the major is a field like Physics or biology – it probably means that their graduates are NOT getting into good grad schools/med school and/or getting jobs in the field. If you can compare across schools and see the results, then you can see if it is “the major” or “the school”. I’d like to know the statistics on this before spending my money, not after. </p>
<p>In the parent- I don’t think the facts support your hypothesis. Again- anecdotes- which for some reason you all hate right now- one of my kids went to MIT. Many of his classmates are physics and biology majors; many of them are not working specifically in physics or biology – and although you could argue that there are universities with significantly better physics and bio departments, you’d be hard pressed to argue that MIT physics grads don’t fare at least as well as other colleges grads when it comes to grad school or physics related employment.</p>
<p>However- MIT has a strong start-up and hacking culture. Many strong students (across all departments) end up outside of their field, in a completely different discipline- but working at start ups. Not all of these will become Fortune 500 companies of course; some will fail on an epic scale (one of our son’s friend is on his third start up- but he’s made money at the previous two).</p>
<p>But again- the data you seem to think is going to spit out “Johnny should go this school and not that school” is probably going to indicate exactly the opposite. And the two MIT bio majors per year who end up teaching HS bio will be the focus of the stats. And not the 50 bio majors who end up working at a Venture Capital fund (evaluating medical device companies- but they’ll show up as working in the finance sector, not bio) or at a technology start up. (again, they’ll show up as having left the bio field.)</p>
<p>Again- what are these statistics going to allow you to do? Figure out that if Johnny is insistent on studying bio you identify ahead of time the most lucrative place for him to do it? The fallacy of trying to parse “the major vs the school” is that-- much as none of you want to hear it before (or after) you’ve shelled out a quarter of a million dollars- is “neither of these”. It’s the student. Always has been.</p>
<p>If you’ve raised a barn-burner of a kid who eats and breathes and sleeps his or her discipline, than if he or she can’t make a living at it, he or she will be just as much of a go-getter doing something else. If you’ve raised a kid who needs stuff spoon fed, who has never read a book that wasn’t assigned in class, go ahead and try and predict how you can micromanage him/her into becoming a ravishing intellect based on some spurious statistics. But it can’t be done.</p>
<p>I don’t think you need longitudinal data on the college or department your kid is looking at. If your kid wants to study (or thinks she wants to study) accounting and the career services website shows zero “big 4” firms recruiting on campus, then I don’t need to pay a team of data collectors to analyze the data. The market has already assessed the accounting program. You can stand on one foot and explain to me that the college’s accounting students are so fabulous that they can make more money as day traders, or that they are so public service minded that they go off to teach math on an Indian reservation, and end up having fantastic professional opportunities. Terrific!</p>
<p>But the “gold standard” for accounting majors is actually becoming certified. And if a very small number of kids on the CPA track land jobs with national accounting firms (and therefore the big firms don’t bother to recruit there) that is a more meaningful “anecdote” than any of the statistics you think are lurking underneath the firewall at these colleges.</p>
<p>Etc. Back to cardiologists making more than nursery school teachers and other shocking news from the employment front.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or the kid isn’t working in a narrow field of study. What would the field for physics be? Maybe he’s selling scientific instruments, or writing a column or blog about science… My oldest had a double major - English and Business…I can assure you that he was working 6 months out of college and I can assure you that his job has zip zero zilch to do with writing poetry or short stories or reading great literature. He majored in English because he “loves” reading and writing. </p>
<p>Data isn’t the end all be all and sometimes you need to look at data with a jaundiced eye. I highly doubt data would tell you to pick for example Carlton over Macalester.</p>
<p>Crossposted with blossom who did a much more indepth response.</p>
<p>Blossom, sure some kids do a field of study, then work in another direction. No one is suggesting that is a bad thing. At least I hope they aren’t! Mine did economics with premed and works in biotech and will do a doctorate in life sciences or MD or both. It’s fine.</p>
<p>But I completely understand intparent. I have parent friends who have kids who passionately want to be real players in the world of academic math or physics and this does seem to be an area in which the undergrad institution plays a huge role. Professors from the more respected department are better able to help placing such students in the graduate programs where they will have a shot at making an impact in the field. It’s very alient to me. I don’t have kids that are that “pure” in their scholarship, but I understand it pretty well because of my friends.</p>
<p>In any case, why withhold this information? Seriously, why not make it available. Perhaps there are “elite” schools skating by on reputation but not launching their grads well. Perhaps some overlooked gems are doing a fantastic job. Inquiring minds want to know.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Us are resistant to measuring outcomes. My U assesses ‘customer satisfaction’ for each course. In addition, our English department does a pre-test and a post-test to measure how well our first year composition program is doing. And then all FYE course are measured in terms of the NSSE. And then my department also does an assessment of seniors in the major when they take their capstone course. My U also gives out information on 4 and 6 year graduation rates, net price by income level, average debt, etc.</p>
<p>One reason for my own reluctance is that it suggests that the only worth my department/field has to do with how much its graduates earn. I know, I know, it’s not exactly saying that, but since a lot of what my department/field does and a lot of what it contributes is ‘unquantifiable’, this information tends to become a proxy for most or all of the worth of the department or field. When I see comments likes this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it makes me think that, yes, the value of a particular department or field is simply based on salaries of graduates.</p>
<p>Here’s something to think about:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are limits to the application of the ‘business’ metaphor to education. The business metaphor does help understand some aspects, but not all. Again, I don’t want my field to be defined simply by these kinds of numbers.</p>
<p>And, the potential quality of the actual education can be more indicated by the actual classes offered, their breadth and depth, the (I know, I’m a broken record on this) specific interests of the profs, their own ed backgrounds and current active research and involvement with peers. You go for the power situation, whatever it seems the kid’s interests and sub-interests are. You account for some left field thing the kid may decide to transfer into. You look at cores reqs or gen eds. Internship/research opps. All of that- not just how much recent grads are earning, in what arena, now, and 5/10 years out. You look at co-programs, tales of particular students the school touts-- that physics major now working on solar in a 3rd world country, for an ngo, what offering like this your kid could attach to.</p>
<p>Since this look-see takes time, the time to do it is before settling on where apps go.</p>
<p>"But I completely understand intparent. I have parent friends who have kids who passionately want to be real players in the world of academic math or physics and this does seem to be an area in which the undergrad institution plays a huge role. Professors from the more respected department are better able to help placing such students in the graduate programs where they will have a shot at making an impact in the field. It’s very alient to me. I don’t have kids that are that “pure” in their scholarship, but I understand it pretty well because of my friends.</p>
<p>In any case, why withhold this information? Seriously, why not make it available. Perhaps there are “elite” schools skating by on reputation but not launching their grads well. Perhaps some overlooked gems are doing a fantastic job. Inquiring minds want to know."</p>
<p>And inquiring minds can’t find out where the powerhouse academics went to college? This is absurd. Which elite school is skating by on reputation but not launching their grads well INTO ACADEMIA? When academic reputation is the linchpin of how grad programs assess incoming grad students? When professors recommendations are so determinate of where their undergrads end up as PhD candidates (much more significant a decision factor than GRE’s or GPA’s.)</p>
<p>This further confounds my confusion. </p>
<p>But every time a parent on CC points out that not every college is the same as every other, and that a kid who studies Art History at Williams or Political Science at Yale or Math at Princeton might well have better opportunities in academia (not in industry, and not in a corporate career, but in grad school leading to a doctorate) than a kid who studies Art History at U Mass or Poli Sci at Wheaton or Math at Farleigh Dickinson, we get excoriated for being elitist snobs who have no right passing judgement.</p>
<p>Which is it? All colleges are the same (Anna’s dad, are you on vacation or something/) or colleges in fact have meaningful differences in the depth of opportunity and preparation they afford their undergrads???</p>
<p>so confused.</p>
<p>^ Wow, it’s flattering to be quoted at such length.</p>
<p>Do we even disagree? I think not. I think educational institutions differ a lot. I think students (and their parents) differ a lot in what they want from education institutions. I think more information beyond the beloved USNews would be helpful.</p>
<p>Sewhappy- is there even one institution in America that isn’t transparent about the undergrad schools which their professors and current doctoral students attended?</p>
<p>This is why we disagree-- I don’t see the value in mandating that colleges hire yet more people to cut and paste information which is so readily available to anyone with an internet connection?</p>
<p>You don’t figure out the quality of the profs and their potential networking for your kid by looking at other kids’ stats.</p>
<p>This is like the misconception that, if you want pre-med, you should choose UG based on the % of students they got into med school- first, you need to understand what it takes, at that school, to get to that point where you didn’t get weeded, did get the grades, did well on the MCAT and got the backing of your dept and commmittee. Not that Johnny got into HMS and Sally got into Penn med.</p>
<p>Blossom,</p>
<p>Here’s what I think we mean: colleges tend to publish very PR-ish and very non-specific data on how their graduates actually fare after graduation. For example, our state U (Rutgers) offers stats on who they admit and then some vague stuff on notable alumni and then cite a 2008 Smartmoney article on how their graduates earn.</p>
<p>Are you seriously suggesting this is sufficient “data” for a student and her parents to make a considered decision on where to spend $100,000 or more and the next four years of life? Come on.</p>
<p>[Facts</a> & Figures | Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey](<a href=“http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures]Facts”>http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures)</p>
<p>I really don’t care whether they do this or not but if they do, I wouldn’t believe the statistics published. For that reason, it seems like a waste of time and money. How would these schools even find people after graduation to collect the data?</p>
<p>Rutgers is a good example of how misleading this sort of study could be. Many of its depts and programs are outstanding. Not all of its students are- many, many complaints about the admissions standards. Certainly, I can cite some of the top competitive programs- and those depts will still have kids looking for the simple magic of a degree. </p>
<p>So, then what? X% went on to fame and fortune? The others left their field and found “whatever?” How do you interpret those stats? Really. Is Rutgers - or any large public- the wrong choice because some kids don’t transform?</p>
<p>No, you have to dig deeper- look at what your smart kid gets for your money.</p>
<p>Huge waste of time and money.</p>
<p>I’d just be curious what percentage of Rutgers kids get a job, or accepted into a graduate program or a fellowship upon graduation. Department specific info can come later.</p>
<p>Some of you seem to think this is the Manhattan Project being proposed.</p>