Performing and visual arts are prime examples. Some would argue that tying talent to paid job may compromise aesthetic freedom.
Most composers are not going to make a living with music, at least for many years. They tend to go into academia but jobs are in short supply and COVID has affected the field. Of course a few get large orchestral commissions or residencies, and some go into film or video game scoring, but not many make it into that either.
However there is no reason why an artist, composer, actor or visual artist who majored in that field and got a BA, BM or BFA (or masters’s, or doctorate) can’t go on to perfectly fine jobs in or out of their artistic field, and professional schools if desired.
I didn’t worry about undergrad major at all. The thing is, some people have notable talent in areas that are not particularly lucrative.
I will repeat that it is key to get some internship, volunteer or work experiences that build other skills, whether event management, curating, outreach to students, fundraising, website management, donor relations etc.
I mentioned this before but again I find it interesting that service (community service, non-profits) has not been discussed much in this thread. The title is about pay. I was raised to think about helpful careers and was college age around 1970 when that kind of focus was in vogue. I think there are many reasons for the focus on pay. Humans have not changed. Cost of living, cost of housing, cost of college, debt level have changed and so have aspirations to match.
This, times a thousand. My family is middle class and many of the ideas surrounding college/major decisions on this website are, quite frankly, alienating.
A lot of people don’t have a “passion”. Or they don’t develop one until later in life. Does one really need a “passion”?
As mentioned upthread, I started out in a career which was really not a good fit for me and which I was very unhappy doing. I returned to school, became a CPA and spent decades in corporate accounting/finance and really enjoyed it. Yes, I liked working and I liked my accounting jobs. But was/it it my “passion”? I would not say so. H was the kid who took all of his toys apart to see how they worked, has a talent in math - no surprise he had a very good career as an engineer. But I don’t think it was his “passion”. He enjoyed his work, but it was not all consuming.
The kids you say don’t put serious time into finding a passion? Perhaps they don’t have that luxury. There are kids who attend schools that do not offer much other than the basics (as opposed to my S’s HS in which a child could find a “passion” for Astronomy or the Russian language, etc). Every child does not attend school in a wealthy district. And lots of kids may not find a passion in music or dance if their family does not have the financial resources to provide that. There are students who rush home from school to help the family with childcare or who work 40 hours a week and don’t have the time to stay after school and find their “passion” in debate club or a sports team. It’s not that these kids are thinking only of money, it’s for many the opportunities for finding a “passion” just are not there.
People that I play American mahjong with at the senior center have kids in their 40s, so they have graduated from college for a while, their kids are doing well, working in tech companies with just degrees from the UCs like political science, and communication. They are both in California with lots of tech companies. Conversations with them certainly brings new perspective.
Note that this means that the cost of entry (education and credentialing) to some professions had increased, so that:
Switching to some professions is more difficult and expensive, making doing so less affordable.
Educational debt burden in some high pay professions like medicine or law can be like “golden handcuffs” that can prevent changing out of the profession if one finds it unsatisfying.
The above increases the pressure to make the “correct” career choice the first time, even though many people at age 17-20 do not know what is the “correct” choice for them. It also means that riskier choices may be less attractive to those who cannot afford switching to another profession later.
We are probably not even middle class but I still believe kids can explore in college, major in what they really are interested in, and still have a good outcome.
I understand that this thread can feel alienating. Another alienating factor is that many posters have healthy kids. I have one with extensive medical issues and one with bipolar 1 with psychotic features. The former has done well, but for the latter kid I don’t care what degree or major. Twelve years after high school they may get a BA in December and I am impressed with them and grateful for their achievement. Discussing engineering versus philosophy isn’t relevant for everyone. And not every kid can support themselves, period. I pay more for my kid per month than for myself. Someone said I should cut the strings. They don’t understand.
Maybe not playing basketball but how about basketball/sport adjacent jobs? Basketball coach, player manager, franchise marketing manager, college or high school coach, phys ed teacher, city recreation program manager etc.
Regarding credential creep and advanced degrees… many schools offer fast track programs where a student earns a BS and MS in five years. We looked at grad school acceptances for both CMU and CWRU MechEs, and the vast majority of students at both schools stayed at their undergrad for their masters. Schools offer dual degree programs too. I knew a gal at UIUC who was getting her JD and Masters in Accounting at the same time (she was a glutton for punishment). Programs like these can fast track education credentials and reduce time out of the workforce.
Here again I can’t imagine a choice that can’t lead to other choices. Or that one can’t try again. Unless there’s illness one can always try something else. Might take a while.
The bigger point I’d make is, youth is on their side. They have energy, passion and interest. That can cut through a lot. And if they don’t end up staying in that career at least they tried.
Let me give you an example, I had a successful business in 2001. I had created a product line and it was selling very well. Most of my clients were in NYC (many in the Wall Street area). My business went off a cliff post 9/11.
We have a dear friend who has a slight mean/sarcastic streak. He was saying some not so nice things about my venture and its imminent failure. Suddenly, it popped into my head, what has this guy ever done? I said to him, “Well when I die I know that I tried it all. If I failed that’s ok, but I took a chance and that’s more than you have ever done.” I went on to start several other successful businesses. I used the knowledge from this business. And my spouse always tells me that the business didn’t fail, the economy did.
If someone doesn’t try, lets their parents stop their dreams or are content with “good enough” what happens later? I would never tell my kids to be “good enough” I would guide them into best choices given their wishes.
But they most likely don’t have money, unless they are fortunate enough to have family money that can help them pivot to something else if their first try fails. The higher cost of entry of many professions these days compared to a generation ago means less flexibility in the labor market.
Well, I can speak directly to this having grown up very poor. Money or lack of it doesn’t dictate someone’s life story. Family money is often tied to family desires ( ask anyone who works in a family business).
Everyone’s path is different, if you don’t try something you cannot possibly succeed at it. The cost of entry to the marketplace has always been high. Ask me how I know? I worked for many years at $3.35 an hour.
People who grow up without often will work harder than people who have grown up with lots of resources. The idea that you are born into an economic spot and must remain there because it’s difficult to move is all about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
And a couple of decades ago, there were many people working in manufacturing who were tied to an area. Much easier today to move, work online and a whole bunch of other factors. Of course you could always try finding a “good enough” job nearby.
Kids should seek degrees that pay enough to live their lives and offer the best life for them.
My experience differs. At my daughter’s high school graduation, the cum laude graduates (top 10% of the graduating class at a high-performing, UMC public school in California) had their majors and colleges uploaded on the screen. Almost all of the students expressed an interest in either a STEM or business/finance major — the (very few) humanities and arts majors came from extremely wealthy families.
Ditto. Well, I do consider my family middle-class. However, it seems that the FAFSA and the colleges to which my daughter applied don’t agree. But despite my “low income,” I would not steer my kids away from their interests out of fear that they won’t get a high-paying job after college. I have a lot of faith that whatever my kids choose to study, they will be able to get a job that they find interesting and offers enough salary so that they can be self-sufficient. And worst case scenario, they get a job that they find boring, but it offers them enough salary to be self-sufficient. I think scenario #1 is more likely, but scenario #2 is not a terrible outcome until they find something that they like better. Either way, they get to study what they want.
Fair enough. I find lots of threads on this forum a bit alienating due to SES factors, race, identity, and perhaps lifestyle issues. Still I actually think this one was been quite interesting. I have liked hearing very different perspectives than mine. Just because I find it surprising that a parent would ban certain majors or career pursuits based on salary prospects doesn’t mean that I have to take those parents’ choices as an indictment of my own values or how I’ve raised my kids. I assume that they just have a really different perspective (or really different kids) than I do. But I could just as easily say that contrary to the above sentiment, many of the upper-middle class and wealthy people that I know in real life are more concerned about their children’s job prospects and majors than the middle and lower income people whom I know. The exception being parents who are immigrants, most of whom are at least somewhat more focused on practical jobs whether the family is rich, middle-class or poor.
I feel the same way. Also, we chose colleges that were affordable and I think that’s essential no matter what the kid is studying.
That is true! I see many wealthy parents who are very concerned about what their kids major in. Most of the parents I know of who choose their child’s major for them are wealthy or upper middle class or immigrants. The lower income parents I know, are glad their kids (my private school has a program for low income high achieving kids) are going to college and achieving…but their kids are very smart and motivated and usually go into majors that lead to high paying jobs, but the parents let the kids lead.
Also, its a good idea for kids to major in something that they can do well in. What good is majoring in engineering (not throwing shade on engineering, just using it as an example) if you’re just going to scrape by with C’s or have to keep retaking classes because you fail them? Better to major in something where you can do well and not have to scrape by…
That’s not necessarily fast tracking though. There are plenty of 1 year MS degrees. The advantages of combined BS/MS degrees are that they save having to go through the headache of another round of applications (and applications to graduate schools can be far more gruelling than applying to undergrad) and that admission to the MS is guaranteed. The downside is if you would rather do your MS at a different school from your undergrad (either because of program fit or because of wanting to work with a specific researcher).