<p>Warning: the stupid Washington Post has an ad before the slideshow (really? I could actually understand wanting to earn revenue on real journalism but this "article" probably took about five minutes to write. Literally find a list of UE by majors, organize it, find some photos and then write what the UE rate for that major is. But I digress)</p>
<p>Which</a> majors have the highest unemployment rates? - The Washington Post</p>
<p>My jaw dropped when I read that.</p>
<p>“Engineering” does include civil engineering, which has done poorly in recent years for obvious reasons (that are the same as why architecture has done poorly).</p>
<p>But note that only the four highest had unemployment rates higher than the overall unemployment rate, despite being relatively new entrants into the labor market. Believable? Maybe, given the disparity in unemployment between those with bachelor’s degrees and those who do not, but that is counterbalanced by new entrants often having a hard time finding their first jobs.</p>
<p>Then again, there is also the effect of how selective recent graduates are in looking for jobs.</p>
<p>
I’ve never heard of a major in “computers” (and ‘Computer Science’ isn’t a major in ‘computers’).</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with a major in “health,” either. The whole “article” is symtomatic of the declining standards of “journalism.” Does anyone read this stuff before it is put out there? I guess all the copy editors have been let go.</p>
<p>I hate the increasing use of photos you have to click through on media websites. I notice our local paper even swipes the same ideas found in major US newspapers, only with their own local ‘lists’ and photos. Always terrible. And why not just give us the damn list on one page!</p>
<p>I have a feeling this way they get more ‘hits’ when they then translate to advertisers as reflecting more ‘readers’ or some such nonsense. </p>
<p>On the issue of UE for engineers…if it’s accurate, it could be engineers actually hold out for an actual engineering job (whereas the other majors are waiting tables, or going to grad school). I think any discussion of employment for different majors needs to account for whether the employment is more than minimum wage or at least requires a degree in the first place.</p>
<p>Here’s the original study, which lists income along with unemployment rates: [Georgetown</a> Center on Education and the Workforce](<a href=“http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.pdf]Georgetown”>http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Unemployment.Final.pdf)</p>
<p>starbright is has a good point: psychology majors might have slightly lower early career unemployment rates, but the early career salaries of engineers are twice as high.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, b@r!um. The WashPo headline and article is meant to attract readers to sell advertising. Unemployment for engineers > common grads is a “man bites dog” storyline. Reviewing the actual data, there are few surprises.
<p>The report doesn’t provide enough data to decide how they calculated employed, unemployed, and linked major to job. If a J-school grad is writing marketing releases for a pharma, or an art major is working as a therapist or teacher, they’re employed, but not for the city daily or museum they expected when they chose the major. If either person needed 2 years to land their job, they’re still a recent graduate, as is the engineer who needed the 3 months of last summer to find something. They’re counted the same.</p>
<p>The 1st paragraph on page 4 and the last one on page 6 of the report are the most meaninfgul, and if that were the crux of the Post’s story, it would be “dog bites man” and we’d say, “so?”</p>
<p>That’s because Starbucks is hiring. The prefer chatty liberal arts types.</p>
<p>I was going to say that maybe it’s because the comm and psych grads are more flexible and willing to take a job not directly in their career trajectory…but maybe that’s not snarky enough for this thread? ;)</p>
<p>ETA: thanks b@rlum for the link. Very interesting!</p>