Okay, I see what you’re saying. I never used the word humble, and @shawbridge only mentioned “a little humbler” in relation to the entitlement issues a few of us were commenting on.
What you are describing I would call poise and confidence, which most would consider good qualities in a job applicant.
I’ve seen that too. Or kids thinking they’ll be making a ton of money right out of college…sure, SOME graduates do make a lot of money right out of college, but most don’t. In most cases you make more money as you gain experience and move along in your career. Also, grads need to stop comparing themselves to others and to what they see on Instagram. You don’t know people’s backstories…
Not quite safeties. About 35% of the class went to a T20. I would chalk that up to lack of exposure / awareness of the peer group. The top kids in the class were more exposed to their peers in other schools through competitive summer camps, and gave the issue some thought etc.
I agree, @lettiriggi. @neela1, by “a little humbler,” I did not mean meek. My favorite hires are people to whom I can explain the big context of what they are working on and give them a project and they figure things out and exceed expectations consistently. They have to have a lot of confidence.
What I was trying to rule out were the folks who believe that they should be promoted immediately or leading engagements within six months without proving themselves and those who think they know everything.
That is different than poise or confidence.
I think that autonomy can be a key factor for many people in determining long term career happiness. Both myself and my spouse work for ourselves and enjoy what we do, so I’ll be interested to see how much that environment influences our kids’ career choices.
Confidence is key as is the ability to want to learn. The arrogance side arises when people are narrow in their thinking and don’t want to learn more (or anything) other than the paradigm they believe to be true. It’s a pretty common thing, IMO esp in graduates from top schools. They stop learning before they know much.
It’s pretty rare to find someone who can hold two opinions and be open to learning more especially in younger students. These folks are valuable because they see both sides.
Arrogance doesn’t factor in because they see both sides and they are always learning. This is a common trait in some fields ( consulting is one). People who are open-minded, want to learn and open to others opinions are very desirable. I have also rarely found that they are arrogant as they respect others. The arrogant ones don’t respect other people because they “know it all” and aren’t open to new concepts.
I had dinner last night with the now retired CEO of one of my clients. We served on a board for years before we began working for the client. Great exec – smart, driven, a pleasure to work with. The ex-CEO is very glad to have retired because of the craziness of being the CEO of a big company but still wants to work on projects the problem-solving is so much fun. We may be able to work together on a new engagement I have and definitely on my major pro bono project, so more problem-solving on the horizon, just no CEO job.
Such an interesting discussion (particularly since I have a kid w/strong artistic interests who - as of now - is keeping it as a hobby and focusing on a more business-related career).
Gladwell seems great at popularizing and legitimizing questionable theories (see “broken windows theory” contributing to over-policing in NYC).
So my oldest returned from a 4 day conference for her scholarship last night. The scholarship is aimed at low and moderate income students. It was a jam-packed weekend of seminars, workshops, and hands-on exercise apparently, including guidance about jobs in general (help learning how to network, find mentors, get internships, and summer jobs). There were also sessions on budgeting, financial wellness, mental health, combating imposter syndrome, time management, and connecting with helpful resources/offices at your college before you actually need them. I actually think that was a brilliant idea, which I would not have thought ahead to advise. Overall, she had a great time, and made some good connections with peers and adults. In general, she was excited and so upbeat when I picked her up at the airport.
But getting to the point of this thread, she told me that in all of the extensive sessions and presentations on the job market, humanities degrees got almost no attention. Humanities were mentioned in a slide or two out of the dozens of other slides in the presentations. My daughter’s main fields of interest (history and literature) were never mentioned by name, presumably just lumped into the dreaded humanities and low starting salaries slide. I forgot to ask her whether any presenters brought up careers in the arts. My guess is no since she said the advice focused almost exclusively on high paying fields like computer science, engineering, finance, and banking as well as preparing for pre-professional careers and the corporate world.
It makes me a little sad, but her experience at the conference certainly seems to support the idea that low income students get a lot of pressure to choose lucrative fields. The focus on salary also seems a little ironic from a foundation whose mission is to combat poverty, disease, and inequity and promote global growth, health and gender equality. At very least, you’d think they would be talking about careers in fields like public health, urban planning, environmental justice or community activism alongside the more lucrative ones. Anyway, she is still happy and grateful for the scholarship, but when she was talking to me about the weekend, I was definitely thinking about this CC conversation.
My daughter recently pulled out of a graduate program (before it actually began) which would have come with a high starting salary, in order to apply to a different graduate program…with a lower starting salary.
I have no problem with this move because I know that it is a better fit for her, and the academic subject matter is exactly what she wants.
It’s not always about money.
Actually, I would hope that an organization focused on low income students and combating poverty would, in fact, highlight high-demand, high-income careers to help lift students out of poverty. But hey, who knows…
Sorry, to clarify, the foundation does serve communities in the US, but its main focus is on global poverty, disease and inequity. This particular scholarship is open to low and moderate income U.S. students, which is a much wider group than students living below the U.S. poverty line though certainly some recipients do. Nor do I think that all the recipients of this scholarship are seeking an education solely for the purposes of being “lifted out of poverty.” Or I suppose some are. But the selection process demanded the students talk about ways that they wish to serve the broader community and hope to contribute to social and economic change for their others not themselves.
Well, it sounds like a great conference. And as a former low income college student who lived on scholarship money and dreams in my early years, I would have really used that information when I was a student. The topics all seem to hit the bullseye.
On another note, I think you should tell your daughter that the humanities are a great route. And they don’t necessarily need to be low paying either. But, I think the focus on STEM was put in place for that conference because many low SES students need to focus on gaining enough ground and having a solid foundation. If they can’t pay for graduate school on their own, they might seek a route that defers a bit to a higher paying job over one they like a little more. That can and will change over time. But they need to get stability before going into a field with more risk. They’ll get there. But they don’t have the safety net of a parent paying tuition. And many can’t rely on living with parents either.
I work in the arts, and there are a mix of people from various economic backgrounds. That being said, those who come from lower SES groups seem to have taken a more circuitous route. We’re all in the same place. But some may have done something else first.
When I graduated from undergrad, I took the highest paying job available. I knew I wanted to have options and that savings would be something I’d need. I don’t regret it. The money gave me enough to go do my own thing, something other kids had right out of the gate.
I think your daughter should write a short and to the point e-mail stating that she loved the conference and hopes to see a break out session on the humanities. I’d cite the % of humanities and ask that the sessions be the same % for the conference.
I am not sure why somebody used an eye roll.
She’s giving up a profession with a higher salary, and switching to something she really loves…at a salary that is good, but not quite as high.
Isn’t that the topic we are discussing? What is the problem?
If you go back and review this thread, this particular poster only uses the eye rolling emoji. Maybe it’s the only emoji on the poster’s emoji board? 
Otherwise, I’m sure this poster would be far more supportive of someone seeking a better fit for their career and happiness in life.
And I’m sure I’ll get an eye rolling emoji for this post too. 
Yes, I thought the list of topics was terrific as well. I think the sponsors are doing a great job thinking about ways to set up the students for success in college and beyond. College can be so overwhelming and many (most?) of the recipients are first generation college students. There was lots of team-building too, apparently so she made a couple of friends.
Plus, when she got home, she thanked me! Direct quote, “I am so glad that you convinced me to apply for this scholarship. Other than, you know, giving birth to me and clothing and feeding me all those years, encouraging me to put in the application is the best thing that you have ever done for me.” 
While I was tempted to itemize the millions of things that I have spent the last 18 years doing for her (starting with changing her diapers and ending with picking her up at the airport at nearly midnight last night), I bit my tongue. Instead of rolling my eyes, I just said that she was welcome. On a more serious note, it was gratifying to hear that she learned a lot and found attending the conference exciting especially since she was nervous about going in the first place (we live on the east coast and the conference was in California).
Most low income students do not attend this type of multi-day conference scholarship event. I’d expect low income kids generally receive less career guidance than higher income students.
I reviewed the major distribution between Pell and non-Pell at UC and didn’t see large differences, so long as I controlled for first gen and race. First gen appears to have a much more notable correlation with major than does Pell/income, among UC students. Gender and race appear to have more notable correlations that both first gen and Pell/income. At UC first gen kids appear more likely to major in non-econ social sciences + pre-med bio. Not first-gen kids appear more likely to major in CS, econ, physics, and be undeclared. These differences remained quite large after controlling for gender and race. More so than any other group, being an International student appears correlated with lucrative majors at UC.
I realize that there are many additional factors that influence major selection beyond demographics, particularly at selective colleges that do not have open major admission, like UCs. I think of this as more of a correlation than a primary driver.
UC Major Distribution: More Common First Gen Majors
Sociology – 9% first gen vs 3% not first gen
Anthropology – 2.3% first gen vs 1.2% not first gen
Psychology – 13% first gen vs 7% not first gen
Biological Sciences – 11% first gen vs 7% not first genUC Major Distribution: Less Common First Gen Majors
Computer Science – 9% first gen vs 23% not first gen
Economics – 5% first gen vs 9% not first gen
Physics – 1.8% first gen vs 3.0% not first gen
Undeclared – 2.4% first gen vs 3.3% not first gen
UC Major Differences by Race, not First Gen: Computer Science
International – 28% major in CS
Asian – 28% major in CS
White – 14% major in CS
Hispanic – 9% major in CS
Black – 9% major in CSUC Major Differences by Race, not First Gen: Economics
International – 19% major in Econ
White – 10% major in Econ
Asian – 7% major in Econ
Hispanic – 7% major in Econ
Black – 6% major in EconUC Major Differences by Race, not First Gen: Sociology
Black – 12% major in Sociology
Hispanic – 5% major in Sociology
White – 4% major in Sociology
Asian – <2% major in Sociology
International – <2% major in Sociology
I wonder if this is due to the pressure put on kids to do better than their parents? (Maybe it’s just my dad, but he’s always saying that to me and I wonder what’s wrong with just doing as well as him?)
If you are a first gen student, getting the degree is doing better than your parents. If your parents have degrees you have to get better, more lucrative degrees.
Is it ever enough?
Its a standard that is often discussed: will this generation do better than their parents?
86% of first year Boomers did better economically than their parents did. But that had fallen to 56% for the last year of the Boomers, and was a little over 50% for those born in the early 1980s. In addition, 68% of Americans recently said that today’s children will be financially worse off than their parents.
The pessimistic perception of financial future opportunities is probably a driver for both a more competitive focus and a more pre-professional focus. Perhaps that may be even more so for the upper middle class, where the kids have much more space for downward mobility than upward mobility.