Fewer Americans are making more than their parents did—especially if they grew up in the middle class also contains a chart of intergenerational mobility by both year and parental income percentile.
| Kid’s birth year | Lowest parental income percentile where <50% of kids did better financially |
|---|---|
| 1940 | >99th |
| 1950 | 97th |
| 1960 | 85th |
| 1970 | 79th |
| 1980 | 33rd |
An alternative point of view would be that imposter syndrome causes first gen students to be intimidated by the more rigorous majors and not to attempt them in the first place. Another possible explanation is that the admission boost given to first gen students causes them to be less well prepared to tackle the more rigorous majors so they are more likely to drop these in favor of “easier” majors. It would be helpful to understand what percentage chose particular majors upon admission and compare it to how many graduated in those subjects.
Numbers for UC are below I chose fall 2017-20 to lessen effects of COVID and remote classes. Both first gen and non-first gen kids often switch out of biology major (pre-med) and switch in to more lucrative majors like CS, econ, and engineering. The drop out rate for bio seems relatively similar in both first gen and non-first gen groups. The difference more related to the portion switching in to more lucrative majors, such as CS + econ. 10% of first gen kids switched in to CS+econ compared to 25% of non-first gen kids. Or said differently, undeclared first gen kids are less likely to choose CS, econ, engineering and similar more lucrative fields at UC.
There was also a significant difference in majors upon entering. Psychology and sociology were among the 5 most common freshmen majors for first gen, but not for non-first gen. CS + econ were among the 5 most common freshmen majors for non-first gen, but not for first gen. The combination results in far more CS+econ majors among non-first gen than first gen. This discrepancy still remains after controlling for race, but was somewhat smaller. For example, 12% of White first gen seniors majored in CS+econ compared to 24% of White not first gen.
Most common first gen majors as 2017 freshmen:
1 . Undeclared – 39%
2. Biological Sciences – 15%
3. Psychology – 7%
4. Biology – 6.5%
5. Sociology – 4%Most common first gen majors as 2018 sophomores:
1 . Undeclared – 34%
2. Biological Sciences – 13%
3. Psychology – 7%
4. Biology – 7%
5. Sociology – 5%Most common first gen majors as 2019 juniors:
1 . Undeclared – 14%
2. Biological Sciences – 12%
3. Psychology – 10%
4. Sociology – 9%
5. Political Science – 8%Most common first gen majors as 2020 seniors:
1 . Psychology – 12%
2. Biological Sciences – 11%
2. Sociology – 10%
3. Computer Science – 9%
4. Political Science – 8%
Most common NOT first gen majors as 2017 freshmen:
1 . Undeclared – 51%
2. Biological Sciences – 10%
3. Biology – 5%
4. Economics – 4%
5. Computer Science – 3%Most common NOT first gen majors as 2018 sophomores:
1 . Undeclared – 46%
2. Biological Sciences – 9%
3. Computer Science – 7%
4. Biology – 5%
5. Economics – 4%Most common NOT first gen majors as 2019 juniors:
1 . Undeclared – 23%
2. Computer Science – 14%
3. Biological Sciences – 8%
4. Economics – 6.5%
5. Psychology – 6%Most common NOT first gen majors as 2020 seniors:
1 . Computer Science – 22%
2. Economics – 10%
3. Psychology – 7%
4. Biological Sciences – 7%
5. Mech Engineering-- 6%
We know several kids at top schools whose goal is to come back home and become teachers or social workers to help improve the community.
The kids can suffer from imposter syndrome no matter the major, specially if they hear others say that they were accepted under lower standards.
Why would people use an eye roll about this? Not everything in life is about money? Don’t see why that is a problem…
I do believe it’s not always about the higher salary. I guess some don’t agree?
Truth be told, my daughter should have gone into the field she’s planning on going into (it’s always been her interest) instead of the first field. Last night I asked her why she didn’t go into this field from the beginning, and she told me that Covid threw her for a loop. She felt the degree (the one she just dropped) would provide more job security and she thought at the time she would enjoy it. Turns out she has no interest in the classes.
Its all good!
I paused also. Sometimes people just don’t think about the messages they are relaying. I used to use the upside down smile as I thought it was pretty benign but apparently it bothers many people.
My husband’s family has that motto, do a little better than we did. They weren’t as interested so much in the
$ $ category as the overall lifestyle achieved and doing a bit more. So yes, college was the first box, owning a business the second and so on. IMO, getting lucrative degrees, is a newer phenomenon, last 20 years or so. It used to be that you could have a classics degree and be a CEO. Now that liberal arts degrees have been overshadowed/over emphasized in favor of STEM degrees, I think many people go the STEM route.
I know that wasn’t the path in the late 80’s and early 90’s at the Ivies. There was more of a split by interest with students going into every field and knowing they would succeed. (Here again, based more on the college name than the degree at an undergrad level). I’ve had input on hiring people at really good salaries with degrees in English lit, Celtic studies and all the rest as well as STEM related. But that was a few decades ago. Now one usually has to have a degree to match the field.
Also, the demographics of the country have shifted so there is a likelihood that first gen students come from countries which emphasize STEM over liberal arts. In some nations, no one would attend university for Liberal Arts, it’s practically unheard of. Many nations which were formerly very poor have emphasized STEM for the growth of their country. The parents focus on STEM because they see it as a path to economic stability and legitmacy. Sadly, some families don’t believe a liberal arts degree is even valid. My '22 has two friends whose parents are pushing them down a particular path that suits their cultural beliefs even though the kids don’t want to do STEM. It happens all the time. You can even read disparaging comments about “useless degrees” or read into some comments where the obvious bias is the writer think that STEM kids are smarter/more successful/whatever.
I find this notation confusing.
Liberal Arts does not mean non-STEM. Wikipedia lists the following majors as Liberal Arts. Note that they define Liberal Arts as including science, math, economics, and computer science. Many STEM fields fall within Liberal Arts. However, Liberal Arts does not include engineering, nursing, business, and similar vocationally focused fields.
Liberal Arts Major List: Wikipedia
- Life sciences (biology, ecology, neuroscience)
- Physical science (physics, astronomy, chemistry, physical geography)
- Logic, mathematics, statistics, computer science
- Philosophy
- History
- Social science (anthropology, economics, human geography, linguistics, political science, jurisprudence, psychology, and sociology)
- Creative arts (fine arts, music, performing arts, literature)
A list of the majors the majors the USDHS includes as STEM are is at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/stem-list.pdf . This list includes Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It also includes economics, ecology, archeology, etc. STEM is not synonymous with lucrative degrees. Some of the most common STEM majors are some of the ones with especially low average starting salaries with only a bachelors. An example is biology, Biology is the the most common STEM major, yet median starting salaries with only a bachelor’s are usually quite low.
Regarding being a CEO, it is possible to be a CEO with any degree. However, one could not expect to be a CEO with a classics degree in the past, just as one could not expect to be a CEO with a business/econ degree. While being a CEO is possible with any degree, few people became a CEO, regardless of undergraduate degree. There are many routes to become a CEO, but they usually emphasize either a long history of related business experience or founding a successful company. One difference in more recent decades is the Internet can dramatically reduce startup costs. Anyone who knows how to program and can pay $10/month hosting can start a website, which has the potential to become a successful company. A classics major could start a website just as a CS major could, but the classics major would likely require either self learning or paying someone else to do coding.
The paper at https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=744 found the following majors had the highest probability of becoming a S&P 500 CEO in 2004, using a regression analysis with controls for grad year and other variables. The usual expectations like econ/business and engineering did well, but history was also in the top 5. I am certainly not saying that history majors (or students from any major) have a good chance of being a S&P 500 CEO… just that the CEOs have a good variety of different undergraduate majors.
1 . Economics
2. Engineering
3. Business
4. Political Science
5. History
Some good points. I guess I am not that surprised that econ, history and politics science have a representation in the top 5 as they deal with seeing multiple perspectives and big picture processes. Not surprising that business and engineering are represented.
Yes, liberal arts can and does include many STEM subjects. But one can hardly simplify all of the subjects into simple divisions.
The point remains that many parents, not only first gen parents often push kids in a particular direction. And I think many feel there are good majors and not so good majors however they are labelled (STEM, liberal arts, combo, or other)
Well, the data shows the college majors for S&P CEOs in 2004, meaning they were born around 1947 and graduated college in 1968 or so, thus attaining the average age of 57 at the time of the survey in 2004. TBH that is so different from present times that I do not think it has much relevance to the class of 2024. Those men are now 75 years old. Different world.
I don’t think majors of large company CEOs has much relevance to anything a 2024 or other year grad should expect due to being an extreme outlier. A student should not expect to be a CEO of a large company. However, there is nothing to suggest that everything is different now and you can’t be a CEO unless you have a specific undergraduate major. There are some correlations, such as tech CEOs tend to major in tech, but there are also many exceptions. Specific examples for the youngest Fortune 500 CEOs in 2022 are below. The youngest Fortune 500 CEOs show a good variety of different majors.
Zuckerberg – No degree, dropped out
Armstrong – Econ + Computer Science
Reffkin – Econ + History
Garcia – Management Science & Engineering
London – History + Literature
Singh – Industrial Engineering
Taylor – Computer Science
El-Khoury – Electrical Engineering
Meloy – Finance
At one point, a college degree was more of a differentiator than it is today. It showed some smarts. And discipline and determination. Didn’t matter the degree/major. That is less true today. Particularly as you move down the food chain in terms of colleges. Go to top colleges and degree/major will matter less. Go to directional state U and it matters more. Though there are always exceptions.
Not a poly sci major among the bunch. And 3 in engineering, 2 in computer science, of the 8 with degrees. The rest in econ/finance, with just 1 in a traditional history/literature liberal arts.
“Politics is more difficult than physics.” – Einstein
As a general rule, the more relevant experience the candidate has, the more influential that experience becomes and less influential what the candidate did in undergrad becomes. When selecting/hiring a CEO, the focus is unlikely to be on undergrad major.
As an example, Apple is the largest company on the S&P 500. Tim Cook was selected primarily based on his long experience of being an upper level executive at Apple who was involved in many major successes within the company, as well being a close and trusted friend/colleague to Steve Jobs. I expect Tim’s undergraduate major (Industrial Engineering) had little direct influence on the decision. The major was more likely to have an indirect influence based on the path to gain the desired experience and connections within Apple.
After college, Tim was initial hired in a technical position at IBM. His tech degree was likely influential for this first job. While at IBM, he obtained an MBA and rose up the ranks in to an executive leadership position. It was not until after Tim had many years of executive leadership in tech that he was hired to be upper level executive at Apple. And it wasn’t until many years at Apple that he was selected as CEO. By that point, I expect undergraduate degree had little influence, but the tech degree was probably helpful for the initial trajectory that led to Apple. I expect a similar statement could about many more recent grads.
In fields where first jobs typical don’t require tech degrees, CEOs are far less likely to have undergrad tech majors. For example, the CEOs of Goldman Sachs majored in Political Science. He initially worked in selling paper and junk bonds, leadership positions in finance, hired by Goldman Sachs, and rising through the ranks within GS with many successes. By the time he was selected as CEO, his undergrad major in Political Science probably had little influence. That wasn’t the focus of the selection, and I expect it will continue to not be the focus in future CEO selections.
Agreed. But GS isnt exactly hiring your typical excellent poly sci major today for entry level positions that will lead to a trajectory to become CEO. Maybe, if a student is from a T5, and can show substantial quantitative skills in addition to his/her polysci major, they might have a chance of getting an entry level IB analyst job at GS. But those students are competing against econ majors and Wharton kids, and superdays are brutal now-a comprehensive understanding of financials better be evident by spring of one’s sophomore year when the cuts are made( they just finished, and the interview questions are very sophisticated financial analysis). Some kids will pick up that level of detail on their own. Very few do so.
Actually most kids pick it up through self study. Wharton kids do not get most of the IB positions and it’s one of the only target schools that offers a business degree. For a bright kid, it’s not rocket science to learn with all of the IB prep guides available.
It certainly can be done, and at T5 targets, even polysci majors get the message that they need to prep appropriately. But not necessarily at other colleges.
I was a polysci major myself back in the stone age, and have fond memories of it. But I think we are doing a disservice to most college kids when we wrongly expect that many of the best corporate jobs for young grads will be open to all majors. At the most popular employers, over a million resumes a year are received, and optical scanners pick out certain majors and key words from those resumes to find the 10% to interview to obtain the 1% to hire. No doubt it was quite different when humans had to apply to each employer carefully, and were reviewed individually, but like the common app, the ease of online applications changed everything
For IB recruiting, students who are competitive for these jobs know they can’t send an online app into the void. That’s where networking comes in. Those at lower ranked schools who don’t do their homework might not understand this new recruiting landscape, but then those kids probably aren’t a good fit for IB anyway. This goes for most competitive jobs at this point.