Both of our kids are still in HS, with ODD entering 11th grade this fall. We’ve had discussions with her about what the goal is. Told her that we can pay for the equivalent of 4 yr of an in state college education and at the end of that 4 yr, she needs to have some sort of bachelor’s degree AND have the ability to support herself with some sort of gainful employment when it’s all over and done with.
What she chooses, of course, in terms of a major is entirely up to her.
Certainly, it is possible. Not everyone who likes playing basketball is good enough to play in the NBA. Or, for a more academic example, not everyone who wants to be a physician can get into medical school.
I guess it traces back to the UK educational ethos I grew up with where at least at top universities you are strongly encouraged to do the subject you are best at academically (that’s pretty much the only way you’ll get admitted) and with exception of medicine and law not worry about how it fits into a job.
Of my three kids only S18 already thinks about his career in a long term strategic sense similar to how I approached it. He does put pressure on himself to overachieve (for example he’s never had anything but an A or A+ in middle school, high school or college) and has been quite disappointed when things didn’t quite work out (in things like prestigious scholarship competitions). On the other hand he’s created many fantastic opportunities for himself too.
I’m not worried at all about his future, and I actually think it’s quite unusual to have a strong vision about your future path at age 21. It remains to be seen if his brother and sister want to come up with a long term career plan like that, but I didn’t plan anything until a couple of years after college. The one thing I did know was that I wasn’t talented enough at math to pursue that as a career.
Well most of them will be doing better than that G Tech CS Prof. But I also know a few PhDs in ML with many years of experience out in the real world, and they are certainly not making that. But they are probably getting other compensation as you say.
The GTech prof was talking about his students who went to industry. Not his own salary.
Separately, I talked to my son after I posted here. He said it really depends on the university, the type of AI, and the firm doing the hiring. If you come out of a top place, specialize in deep learning or NLP (recently), and are going to a firm that cares about AI (Google, FB, but less so with Amazon), and if the firm is interested in particular in that technology at that time, then he has heard 400-500. This is not out of the realm of possibility because at a place like Google, you start at L3, and get to L5 in 4-5 years. A PhD is 5-6 years. Google will credit you with 80% of the time spent outside the firm if it is in an area that they care about. And Google L5 is a wide band (Google L5 Software Engineer Salary | $313K-$438K+ | Levels.fyi).
400-500 may still feel high, he said, but Research salaries could be flatter after you join, relative salaries of SWEs who are in traditional engineering.
It also really depends on the candidate.
Talent is relative. Every kid is more talented in something(s) than in others. That talent should also be measured relative to those of others in the field. S/he needs to bring something that employers and others value in order to have a chance to be well compensated.
I think my answer to the original question is indirectly, yes. Although we have never asked them to take any particular path, they have always been made aware that there are some areas are highly unlikely to provide them with a living. I think most of the parents here have probably had similar influences. Anyway, when they eventually graduate they will very likely have debt that they will have to pay off. They understand that is reality.
The link shows the number of new grads that reported starting at L5 is 0, suggesting extremely few PhDs start at this level, if any. It is certainly possible for a Google CS PhD could be promoted to L5 quickly and start at the high end of the L5 range after promotion, but there are also many other far more likely possible outcomes for CS PhDs. Rather than focus on the highest possible compensation, I think it is more relevant to focus on typical compensation. CMU provides some good stats at Post-Graduation Outcomes - Career & Professional Development Center - Student Affairs - Carnegie Mellon University . A comparison of CS median and average stats by degree level is below for the years 2018-21:
Reported Stating Salary for CMU CS Majors
BS in CS – Average = $119k, Median = $117k
MS in CS – Average = $128k, Median = $125k
PhD in CS – Average = $124k, Median = $128k
Many with PhDs pursue careers in academia, which pulls the average down and relates to why PhDs overall do not show a bump over masters. Many at all degree levels work in lower cost of living areas than Silicon Valley, which also pulls down the average down. If I restrict to just Silicon Valley to better control for these factors, then the numbers are as follows.
Reported Stating Salary for CMU CS Majors who work in Silicon Valley
BS in CS – Average = $120k
MS in CS – Average = $131k
PhD in CS – Average = $164k (small sample)
While total compensation includes more than base salary, I don’t think $400k is a realistic expectation. I don’t doubt that it could theoretically happen, but that’s not what a new grad should expect to happen, if they are considering whether it is financially worthwhile to pursue a PhD instead of pursuing employment with BS/MS. However, students who pursue PhDs usually have other primary reasons for choosing that route than trying to maximize long term earnings.
The next few years will be telling. Hiring is strong in some areas but in other areas hiring is slowing while pay is increasing to bolster retention. Students graduating in next few years may be in for a tough time. I hope not, but …………….
My personal anecdote… Last time I checked, many biotechs were anxious to hire entry level lab folks with bio or chem degrees. All 2021 grads we know got hired quickly after graduation.
Employability of any given degree comes and goes… but plumbers seem to be in demand no matter what. ‘Cause when it hits the proverbial fan… 
you gotta stop freaking and call (you know… that co that gets you out of the crappy situation).
I’m so glad D2 didn’t graduate in a recession as D1 did.
My kids call that funemployed!
What do they pay?
My biology major daughter was offered several research assistant jobs (genetics, orthopedics, and urology) at major universities/teaching hospitals. The pay was not high ($55,000-60,000) but it was enough to live with roommates and included benefits. I never discouraged her from the degree and I believe it served her well.
It is my opinion that biology majors are not in it for the immediate financial reward. The major is often a stepping stone to some type of graduate degree, and many of these students truly love the subject matter.
In order of importance, I want mine to be (1) Good human beings, (2) able to support themselves enough not to have to rely on others (3) working in an area that is productive and somehow gives back to their community, (4) able to the find jobs that that feel personally fulfilling and allow them to enjoy going to work every day (or more realistically most days). (5) make enough money to avoid being in debt.
A somewhat distant (6) have a job that pays them enough for some luxuries. That would be great, but that is kind of up to them. They have to decide what sorts of luxuries are important to them. Their definition of luxury may be different than mine.
I can’t really imagine pushing them to any particular field. I want them to be practical, but I don’t think they need to focus on salary right out of college. There are so many important careers out there that can make a real difference that it is hard for me to imagine limiting my kids to only focus on high paying careers. I mean, we wouldn’t have teachers or psychotherapists or museum curators or librarians or journalists or urban planners if college students only thought about pursuing that majors that immediately lead to high salaries post-graduation. I think it is OK if it takes them awhile as long as they are self-sufficient and enjoy their work.
Actually to be honest, unlike most of the posters, if I were going to push (which I won’t), I would probably push towards the humanities and social sciences. Or maybe some research field in the pure sciences or arts.
As corny as it sounds, as I read this conversation, I kept on thinking of one of my favorite places to visit, the Smithsonian. I worry that if all college students only focus on getting a high paying job straight out of college, places like that wouldn’t exist (or they wouldn’t be free to enter) and the world would be worse for it. But engineering and computer science are great too. We wouldn’t have the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum without them! 
Short answer is no.
Ds1 got an excellent liberal arts education and a degree in poli sci. He’s since gotten a master’s in a field related to his career (not poli sci). He seems pretty happy and set financially, though it helped that he married well. lol
Ds2 would drive a lot of you nuts. Double majored in govt and music from a top-tier college and currently is on tour with a major artist. Short-term work, but how many people can say they did a cross-country stadium tour? That’s what your 20s are for. To support one college summer internship, he took a second job as a dishwasher (we didn’t support him financially at all; he likes being self-sufficient). He’s worked as a barback at a fancy restaurant. He’s investing in himself right now and doesn’t ask us for money, has an enviable credit score. He might get tired of being an aspiring artist at some point, but he would always kick himself if he didn’t try, you know? We support that, and, no, we aren’t rolling in dough.
This does assume that the kid has elite potential (i.e. sufficient talent and passion) in something that will take them to the top of their class and top of a professional field.
Would your preferences and advice for them be any different if they appeared to be merely good, but without elite potential?
Depending on location, resume (skills), and the “fatness” of the company, $70k to $100k. Definitely not comparable with $400k for a AI PhD.
Perhaps someone should tell seniors in MCB, chemistry, and chemical biology at UCB, since pay levels of those graduating in those majors appear to be substantially lower than that:
https://career.berkeley.edu/survey/survey (select in the major dropdown).
There’s no reason just to apply this in elite fields. You could be top of your class as a firefighter or police officer or plumber. I know someone who is big in self-storage, someone else who is great in pest control and another who is very successful in custom cupcakes (in these cases they’ve set up their own businesses and run them successfully).
I think the problem is if a) your talent and your passion don’t align or b) you can’t figure out how to monetize them. And of course at 18 (or 22 for that matter) you may not have figured out what you are either most talented or most passionate about.