Forbes: The Most Lucrative College Majors

Parents Forum
81

<p>Nothing in life is guaranteed. Take a look at the current Medicare reimbursement crisis and you'll find that many doctors have financial problems too.</p>

<p>You will probably find that you have to make more tradeoffs as you assume responsibilities. You may want to take an exciting job in another city but you may have family responsibilities in the area that keep you in a job that is not as exciting or that pays as well. Or you might have to make some work sacrifices when your kids are in school or you have a sick relative. In many cases, it's easier to deal with sacrifices if you know that there's something better when a situation is resolved.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
I would say those that settle into a major in the middle of their college major may well be the ones who will graduate with that major

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In that this statement is made in the context of engineering graduates, I feel compelled to point out that it is extremely difficult to "switch" to an engineering major partway through college.</p>

83

<p>
[quote]
Caution is in order here, IMO. A relative of mine is a civil engineer in a pretty large firm. His salary in 1987 was about $50K. His salary in 2007 was about $110K. No bonuses ever, one lay-off (he eventually got rehired with a pay cut) and perhaps another to come. I'm talking big city, not Podunk.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm a civil engineer with a pretty large firm, in Houston. I got a bonus today. My salary is very liveable. The only people at my firm who ever get laid off are the ones who the company wants out anyhow, and only during big economic downturns. The market for civil engineering is holding up okay in many markets. I just don't see it being a bad field if you're a good employee and you work hard at your job.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can stagnate very easily in engineering if you aren't opportunisitic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course you have to be opportunistic. You have to make good use of what's given to you in any field. If you allow your skills to stagnate, and if you don't keep ahead of the curve on new developments and use them to your advantage, then it'll hurt your career. I think that's true of most competitive careers, though. I'm not sure why this puts engineering at a particular disadvantage.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There have been lots of foreign-born and trained engineers
in his field too. I think they drag down the salary levels.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is rather an unfair statement. The foreign-born and trained engineers in my field don't drag down the salary levels, from what I've seen. They've rather adopted the American lifestyle and are enjoying the same sorts of salaries that we all have. They have a good sense of what the market will pay them, and they're certainly not dummies. They negotiate fair salaries and are compensated equivalently to domestic engineers. The market just won't pay engineers as much as they will doctors and lawyers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A couple of weeks ago CNBC did a report on the need for more engineers in the US and a caller (or e-mailer) pointed out that she left the field because of the salary issue

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You don't (or rather, you shouldn't) enter the field of engineering to become a millionaire. I'm not sure that any of us has that sort of false perception when we enter the workforce. Yes, it's a little difficult to see my friends from high school graduating with their medical and law degrees and walk into six-figure incomes. I know that if I'd gone to med school or law school instead of engineering school, I'd be making that sort of money, too. That kind of money is difficult to walk away from, but I'm doing what I like, and I think that's a lot more important at the end of the day. It doesn't hurt that, all things considered, I'm very well-compensated. Not by IBanking standards, but by normal, American standards, I'm doing very well.</p>

<p>Don't go into engineering for the money. Go into engineering because it's what you want to do every day.</p>

84

<p>Your salary in Houston would be pretty nice. SoCal, meh...</p>

85

<p>^^^ That came out wrong. I meant that as a good thing. Houston is a great place to live specifically for that reason.</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
In that this statement is made in the context of engineering graduates, I feel compelled to point out that it is extremely difficult to "switch" to an engineering major partway through college.

[/quote]

Why not? If you've been loading up on the advanced physics, linear, matrix and manifold algebra and all sorts of theoretical math out of your own interest ... then all you have to do is request an internal transfer with all your science courses, right?</p>

<p>I myself am not sure if I want to do engineering yet, but I've always had a passion for scientific rigour. It's more like I have a set of courses I want to pursue and just what major do I categorise them under?</p>

<p>(And engineering schools probably don't accept custom majors, do they?)</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Your salary in Houston would be pretty nice. SoCal, meh...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, that's almost entirely why I moved away from Los Angeles last year, so I'd wholeheartedly agree with you!!</p>

<p>It was liveable in Los Angeles, but by comparison, I'm bankin' it now.</p>

88

<p>"Why not? If you've been loading up on the advanced physics, linear, matrix and manifold algebra and all sorts of theoretical math out of your own interest ... then all you have to do is request an internal transfer with all your science courses, right?"</p>

<p>I think that the number of people in this category is rather small. My son likes to study this sort of thing on his own too but he's an oddball.</p>

89

<p>Really? I got the impression that since "everybody" is going into engineering, or at least is considering it, it was the norm to take these courses. From all those chances threads you got the impression that unless you won the International Math Olympiad or something, nothing was exceptional.</p>

90

<p>We produce about 70,000 engineers a year. Perhaps everyone is going into it but not many are coming out of it with a degree. I agree that doing graduate level work makes it easier to get through undergrad but I still think the percentage of people going in with what you're talking about is very small. If you have numbers that say otherwise, I'm all ears.</p>

91

<p>Given the small engineering and hard science enrollment at UVa I doubt you will feel the majority of students share these interests. There are lots more future lawyers, bankers, and liberal arts majors.</p>

92

<p>You seem to be implying that those fields are mutually exclusive. ;) After all, finance and economics employs lots of abstract math too, and economics is used so often in evolutionary biology. And of course, I need to improve my grasp of calculus, linear algebra and statistics to digest [url=<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/96/14/8028.pdf%5Dthis"&gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/96/14/8028.pdf]this&lt;/a> particular PNAS article<a href="on%20the%20development%20of%20a%20model%20for%20the%20evolution%20of%20protolanguage">/url</a> I want to finally understand.</p>

<p>And of course, there's engineering law, and the more you move over to the law side, the more you move into the realm of political science and philosophy. But then again, you have courses here that intersect with engineering and the hard sciences too. </p>

<p>The same framework used to model a population's Evolutionary Stable Strategies, the development of proto-multicellular communities from initially unicellular organisms (whether as an evolutionary event or a regularly-reoccurring event within a single life cycle), or other symbiotic relationships, etc. can be carried over to political theory and the social contract. </p>

<p>The same mathematical principles used to measure shear and stress imposed on an object can be extended to measure what the effects particular evolutionary pressures have upon a population, and from there it is not difficult to use the same principles for the social sciences. After all, the core principle of the Austrian School of Economics -- methodological individualism -- almost immediately begs for engineering-level math to use for analysis.</p>

<p>And as it has been mentioned in this thread, graduating with an engineering major does not mean you will become an engineer, so that 70,000 figure is probably a severe underestimate. </p>

<p>So I would assume that switching to an engineering major is quite plausible. Which thus leads to my conundrum -- I don't know what fields I want to commit myself to yet, especially as I imagine medicine, engineering, finance and law (along with the social sciences) depend on a common set of math and science courses, and you can tailor the specialised science courses towards your particular custom/interdisciplinary major.</p>

<p>As I see it, a lot of it deals not so much with the rigour of the courses as how "ivory tower" (how distant from tangible reality) the disciplines are. Engineering is the least ivory-tower-ish, which is why I imagine they make the highest entering salaries, discounting professional degrees -- they need less experience and "hard concrete training" to make their knowledge highly relevant to the job. Whereas, if you major in political theory, I'd imagine that a few years of on-the-job training are needed in order to start fully capitalising on that knowledge.</p>

<p>For me, I did not initially think of engineering and medicine, because the social perceptions society has given me for those fields are that of dullness. But I have started considering them (and how to incorporate them into my desired pursuits) because I also need elements of pragmatism in my qualifications -- I don't want to become another typical academic lecturer who spends his life stuck in the ivory tower. But at the same time, I don't want to be stuck in a practice or be stuck vetting design plans. So of course, until I know what each field fully entails, loading up on coursework that can be incorporated into each of these disciplines seems the way to go.</p>

93

<p>"And as it has been mentioned in this thread, graduating with an engineering major does not mean you will become an engineer, so that 70,000 figure is probably a severe underestimate."</p>

<p>Do you think that it would be easier to get counts of engineering graduates from colleges and universities or get counts of engineering graduates at companies all over the world hiring engineering graduates at US schools?</p>

<p>Interesting paper.</p>

<p>Most US engineering programs start off with Calc I and Calc II in four year programs and Precalc in five year programs. If most freshman undergrads haven't had calc I and II or even precal, then how would you expect them to have the higher-level math classes that you're talking about? There are students that have that material down and there are probably many on CC that do so. But go into your local state U with an engineering program and ask how what percentage of students graduates with an engineering degree in four years. They might not want to tell you for fear of embarassment.</p>

94

<p>Engineering math and science courses are often more rigorous (or at least different) than non-engineering math and science courses. I know at many schools they have an engineering math series and non-engineering math series as well as engineering physics series and non-engineering physics track.</p>

<p>Thus, if you were initially an econ major and took non-engineering Calculus I/II/III, linear algebra, and differential equations, you'd have to retake those 4 courses (the engineering versions) in order to switch over to engineering. Same for physics.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
Do you think that it would be easier to get counts of engineering graduates from colleges and universities or get counts of engineering graduates at companies all over the world hiring engineering graduates at US schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh can you give me the source again ... I thought there were various easy ways to measure both (income tax statistics?). </p>

<p>
[quote]
There are students that have that material down and there are probably many on CC that do so. But go into your local state U with an engineering program and ask how what percentage of students graduates with an engineering degree in four years. They might not want to tell you for fear of embarassment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But this thread is directed at the CC demographic I suppose. And as far as graduation rates for CC students go, and given the high number of students who switch majors when they decide what they would really want to do, I would assume that what you are actually going to graduate with is better observed by what you plan to have a major in your 3rd year, not your first year.</p>

<p>[aside]Also, is the only "interesting paper" thing you can say about that paper, or its field? :p I find the approach very exciting ... I hope to draw upon it in the future. Most work with computational linguistics has not been unlike a grown-up version of fitting a regression line to existing data and using that to extrapolate predictions. But working ground-up with evolutionary biology may ultimately provide us means of not just having machines accurately process human language, but various other communication systems as well. In the future, biolinguistics will have widespread implications ranging from grammar pedagogy for students attempting to learn a language, to greater success at deciphering cell signals. I quite suspect that the same "chaotic communication " principles [governed by math] that tell embryonic cells to give you ten fingers and not twelve are the same [perhaps by convergent evolution] principles for human universal grammar, or for how immigrant children in colonial environments create a unified creole from the various collection of substrata and superstrata languages present, despite individually disparate influences. Communication/linguistic engineering, now there's a thought; after all, the particular effects of a polypeptide sequence depends not just on the eventual quartenary structure of the unified protein it will be incorporated into, but on interactions with other proteins. As far as trying to produce "designer proteins" goes, it's not hard to see the feedback issues that this can cause, and it spells one thing: chaos! But we have weapons to help us analyse this chaotic soup -- the existing tools linguistics and the social sciences have pioneered to analyse how unified effects of a group may emerge from the disparate signals individual elements give to each other.[/aside]</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know at many schools they have an engineering math series and non-engineering math series as well as engineering physics series and non-engineering physics track.</p>

<p>Thus, if you were initially an econ major and took non-engineering Calculus I/II/III, linear algebra, and differential equations, you'd have to retake those 4 courses (the engineering versions) in order to switch over to engineering. Same for physics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><em>sigh</em> </p>

<p>I had forgotten about that.</p>

<p>I guess I'll have to go over to my school's specific subforum later and ask. But it also strikes me that this paradigm would be rather inefficient and problematic even for students who started out with engineering at the very beginning. For example, you have students who transfer to an engineering track from other schools, or the guaranteed-transfer program that some flagship schools have in partnership with state community college systems. Couldn't you also just take a placement test, or submit various theses or papers demonstrating your proficiency in applying math to engineering problems?</p>

<p>I know that the fourth (3rd? I have no idea what the difference is) tier school I dual-enrolled in, the calculus and linear algebra classes I was in had both econs and engineering students in them. Of course, I'm talking about a local university here, but surely there must be something in place for cross-compatability? If you're publishing papers on Riemannian manifolds and nth-dimensional packing problems surely they won't make you take Calculus I again?!</p>

<p>I suppose I will have to create a thread for my own specific situation later. But as far as students constantly switching between very dedicated tracks goes (medicine, law, engineering, etc.), I thought that was pretty common.</p>

96

<p>You can't "do" history with just a BA. You need at least a masters to be doing research or museum work.</p>

97

<p>"Oh can you give me the source again ... I thought there were various
easy ways to measure both (income tax statistics?)."</p>

<p>Have you ever filled out an income tax return? They ask you for your
occupation on the back of your 1040. They only get a return if you
file one which you might not do if you're unemployed, don't earn
enough to file in the tax year or you go to graduate school. It's
just a text field that you fill in. So you could put in your job
title. An EE grad could work in software engineering so using the
occupation to determine the degree would result in mapping problems.</p>

<p>I don't have the statistics handy. I did a week ago on either this
or another thread where the number was useful.</p>

<p>"But this thread is directed at the CC demographic I suppose."</p>

<p>The CC demographic is rather wide. There are a lot of high achievers
here but there are also parents looking for information on college
for kids with various abilities. And not every high achiever has
their strengths in math and science. In reality, the thread was
directed at CC parents and there are a wide range of abilities,
overall slanted to those with stronger kids, but a wide range
nonetheless.</p>

<p>"And as far as graduation rates for CC students go, and given the high
number of students who switch majors when they decide what they would
really want to do, I would assume that what you are actually going to
graduate with is better observed by what you plan to have a major in
your 3rd year, not your first year."</p>

<p>As others have noted, there is less flexibility in engineering and
related fields.</p>

<p>"Also, is the only "interesting paper" thing you can say about that
paper, or its field?"</p>

<p>I thought that it was a novel use of mathematics. I was expecting
something more along the lines of language theory. I'm not that
interested in spoken languages - my interests lie in several other
areas.</p>

<p>"I guess I'll have to go over to my school's specific subforum later
and ask. But it also strikes me that this paradigm would be rather
inefficient and problematic even for students who started out with
engineering at the very beginning. For example, you have students who
transfer to an engineering track from other schools, or the
guaranteed-transfer program that some flagship schools have in
partnership with state community college systems. Couldn't you also
just take a placement test, or submit various theses or papers
demonstrating your proficiency in applying math to engineering
problems?"</p>

<p>At one of the local community colleges, they too have calculus
sequences like calculus, calculus for scientists and engineers,
calculus for business. I've seen calculus for economics majors at a
University. It may be perfectly valid for them to spend more time on
their particular applications. You could also have an honors class
that focuses on theory over applications which could be inappropriate
for an engineering student.</p>

<p>Some Community Colleges have different science classes - classes
for majors and classes for non-majors.</p>

<p>"I know that the fourth (3rd? I have no idea what the difference is)
tier school I dual-enrolled in, the calculus and linear algebra
classes I was in had both econs and engineering students in them. Of
course, I'm talking about a local university here, but surely there
must be something in place for cross-compatability? If you're
publishing papers on Riemannian manifolds and nth-dimensional packing
problems surely they won't make you take Calculus I again?!"</p>

<p>That may work out in your university but I would guess that the
departments involved have worked something out. If the econ profs
noticed a problem or the engineering departments noticed problems,
then they would have contacted the math department about their
offerings.</p>

<p>Other universities may want a more tailored approach by departments
that require mathematics courses. In my son's school, the discrete
structures course for EE majors is one semester while it is two
semesters for CS majors as more material is covered.</p>

<p>Transfer credits can be a problem between community colleges and
universities. And sometimes you do have to take something over or
take a test.</p>

<p>"I suppose I will have to create a thread for my own specific situation
later. But as far as students constantly switching between very
dedicated tracks goes (medicine, law, engineering, etc.), I thought
that was pretty common."</p>

<p>I think that it's pretty common for students to switch out of engineering.</p>

98

<p>
[quote]
I thought that it was a novel use of mathematics. I was expecting
something more along the lines of language theory. I'm not that
interested in spoken languages - my interests lie in several other
areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Logical languages, perhaps?</p>

<p>Spoken languages are fascinating on their own, but then you have the fact that there is a whole biological faculty for universal grammar to explore, because processing and acquiring spoken languages is what the "universal grammar" module is meant for. A vast field for neuroscientists and information scientists to explore. Whereas you have to consciously realise syntax errors for logical languages -- a misplaced semicolon in a C# source won't jar your ears. :p </p>

<p>Chomsky I think, has had both a negative and positive effect on linguistics. His rejection of evolutionary theory (not so much as the theory itself but its applications for linguistics) however has been detrimental. To me, combining math and language theory should be standard, not "novel". ;) </p>

<p>
[quote]
And sometimes you do have to take something over or
take a test.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wouldn't mind taking placement tests (and of course, I have to take my own batch now, as an incoming freshman). Just not spending five years, or worse, six years , as an undergraduate. </p>

<p>Is it possible to have an engineering-influenced major and then maybe commit to engineering in the form of graduate or professional school?</p>

99

<p>"Logical languages, perhaps?"</p>

<p>Computer language theory.</p>

<p>"Spoken languages are fascinating on their own"</p>

<p>I am quite poor with spoken languages outside of english and spanish. I've known enough people with extraordinary gifts with spoken languages to know that I'm not one of them.</p>

<p>"Is it possible to have an engineering-influenced major and then maybe commit to engineering in the form of graduate or professional school?"</p>

<p>I haven't run into anyone like this.</p>

100

<p>:( </p>

<p>I can't remember where I asked this CC, but I was told I didn't have to have an undergraduate major in an engineering discipline to eventually go into engineering as part of graduate and postgraduate studies. I didn't know exactly how this worked so I was unsure.</p>

<p>I wonder if I'll get to speak to a career advisor at graduation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Computer language theory.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, that's quite related to formal language theory. You might have heard of Lojban, a constructed language designed to be parsable by both computers and humans.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am quite poor with spoken languages outside of english and spanish. I've known enough people with extraordinary gifts with spoken languages to know that I'm not one of them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That was my old impression of linguistics a few years ago: intensive studies for gifted polyglots who spent all their days adding to their immense vocabulary. </p>

<p>I discovered the real face of linguistics quite by accident, when I asked my sophomore English teacher what the biological difference between the sounds of /g/ and /k/ was. I was attempting to relearn Chinese, my spoken fluency in French wasn't that good and was simply attempting to learn theory (and some things as a side curiosity) that would make language acquisition easier. Now Mandarin has a consonant which is represented by pinyin "g" that sounded to me like a cross between English /g/ and /k/, so I was just attempting to find what defined each of the three consonants. In fact this whole foray resulted from my sentiment that I was rather poor in my natural talent for acquiring languages and hoped to learn techniques to improve my deficiency. </p>

<p>Now, my English teacher said that it sounded like they were pronounced in different parts of the mouth -- which is what I initially thought, and I thought that Mandarin /g/ was pronounced midway. Sometime later I found that the truth in a really technical fashion: /g/ and /k/ in English have the same "place of articulation" (that is, the tongue makes contact with the velum) but have different "manners of articulation". English /g/ is voiced but unaspirated plosive consonant, while English /k/ is an unvoiced but aspirated plosive consonant. Why does Mandarin "g" sound like a cross of both sounds? Because it is a plosive consonant (toss in a definition about airstream turbulence, obstruction and various fluid dynamics principles here), articulated at the velum, just like English /g/ and /k/, but it happens to be unvoiced and aspirated, blending elements of both.</p>

<p>So this is a long-winded explanation of my first exposure to linguistics (through the field of phonetics). As you can see the scientific and technical precision used to pin down concepts about language my English teacher couldn't fascinated me. It was great. I didn't need natural talent in spoken language acquisition.</p>

<p>Later, the issues concerning "Singlish" (a creole I spoke in my birth country) and how children can spontaneously synthesise new languages from the dispararate motley collection of language influences of their parents fascinated me, precisely because I thought I wasn't good at acquiring spoken language.</p>

<p>In time, I realised the the relationship of natural language talent to studying linguistics was a bit like not having a fear of heights to studying civil engineering (or even just plain engineering). That is, it's nice and still useful for the field, but not critical. Chomsky has said that you only need one language to study linguistics -- and Chomsky rarely illustrates his arguments using examples outside of English. There are some clear applications for linguistics even if the whole world only spoke one language, because computers' grasp of human language is still quite primitive, and getting computers to master human grammar would have tremendous benefits. That on top of the other implications linguistics will have for cellular and evolutionary biology.</p>