It’s called “Worthless” and it’s a must read for all incoming college students. Outlines very well the value of certain majors and their place in society: http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-Aaron-Clarey-ebook/dp/B006N0THIM
I admit upfront that I haven’t bought the book because I don’t want to give this guy any money, and normally I don’t like criticizing books I haven’t read. But I can criticize the excerpts I have read, and surmise that if the rest of the book dispenses advice that is in-line with that then it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Number one, I find it ironic that a person who partially makes a living as a writer calls an English degree worthless.
Number two
“You are about to make a decision that will affect your future more significantly than any other decision you have made thus far. It will determine how much money you make, what kind of standard of living you will enjoy, how healthy you will be, how healthy your children will be, and what you will do with the majority of your adult time.”
This is sensationalism designed to get people to read the book and take his edicts seriously, of course, but sensationalism doesn’t have to be right. It’s actually kind of sad that an economist is committing this kind of error, because it’s the ecological fallacy on the greatest scale.
Majors do not determine how much money you make. Jobs, and careers, determine how much money you make. And yes, of course, some majors are more likely to net you some jobs and some levels of income than other majors. But number one, they don’t map neatly and perfectly, and number two, part of that is due to desire. People who major in psychology or social work know what they’re getting into and may have less of a desire for high-paying jobs than computer science or engineering majors. That’s not to say that a psychology major who learns enough statistics and computer programming can’t go into data science and make bank (and, in fact, I know some psychology majors who have done just that). It also doesn’t mean that an engineering major can’t go work for a nonprofit and make less money.
The ecological fallacy is when a person takes aggregate-level averages and applies them to individual decisions. AKA, if computer science majors make on average more money, then I should make more money if I major in computer science than I would if I majored in English. The problem is - maybe you will, maybe you won’t, but averages can’t tell you that. They can only tell you what has happened, not what will happen.
Secondly, he talks as if people only have one career in their entire lifetime and never change, not once, from what they choose at 17. To be frank, that’s poppycock. It’s estimated that people have on average 7 careers during their lifetime. Some people will have one and some people will have 10, but most people do change careers as their interests and experience and desires evolve over time. Just because you choose to major in art history or sociology in college doesn’t mean you are doomed to live your entire life near the poverty line (and conversely, a major in computer science or engineering won’t protect you from an economic downturn or a change in demand).
Thirdly - he’s an economist so this must have occurred to him at some point - if everyone majors in computer science or engineering, supply will soar, demand will fall and salaries will take a nosedive. SO not everyone can go into that career, duh.
Some cherry-picked excerpts from social science majors who are out of work can heighten fear, but I bet if I looked for them I could find some out-of-work computer science, math, accounting, and engineering majors. The American Community Survey and Bureau of Labor Statistics says so (and in fact, the unemployment rate in CS is about the same as that of psychology or sociology - and the unemployment rate in economics is higher). We know nothing about these people’s professional experiences, their skills, or the kinds of jobs they are applying for.
Still, I’m not denying that a software developer or a petroleum engineer is likely to be offered a higher salary than an English teacher or a bioethicist. Of course, yes, that’s the case. But here’s where we get into the other part of this: Worth means more than just money.
This probably belies Clarey and my training - he’s an economist, and so money is the most important factor in evaluating a career; I’m a psychologist by training, and so it’s not. Sure, you could probably major in engineering, become an engineer, and make $$$. But if you hate physics and what you really want to do is teach fourth graders, you’re going to be picking up a paycheck miserable every day. And the one thing Clarey says that is true is that you will be working every day for 8+ hours for 30-40 years of your life. Do you want to slog through such a great proportion of your life doing something you hate just so you can…what?
I’m not saying that passion should rule your choices (I’ve argued against that here). I’m saying selecting a combination of pragmatic skills/knowledge and something you like should be the choice you make. Trying to encourage everyone to select a very narrow range of majors is foolishness in the long-term, because in 20 years we’ll have lots of engineers and computer scientists but no one who can negotiate nuclear arsenals with Iran and North Korea, write the documentation for the cool stuff those techies make, market the stuff to the masses. Or - you know - actually teach children arithmetic and basic science so that they can become software developers one day.
Also, it’s clear that he’s never stepped foot in a classroom or taught anyone else, since he claims that being a teacher requires no intelligence or skill and that anyone could do it. (Besides, I don’t think that accounting, management, economics or computer science is inherently harder than sociology, philosophy, English or history.)
It’s ironic he wrote that statement, then you read his bio and find out:
It doesn’t look like he’s spending most of his adult time doing what he studied in college anymore. Based on his biography, other book titles, and style of writing, he comes across as a man with narcissistic tendencies who doesn’t seem to believe that his own advice pertains to him. The quote, “Work sucks, life is short, and it was not meant to be spent in a cube suffering the idiots of corporate America,” suggests that a choice of major (or career) should in fact be based partly on what brings meaning to your life. This would mean that your feelings do count for something - a point he tries to refute in the first few pages of his book. This leads me to believe he’ll write anything for money, and doesn’t actually believe what he’s selling.
I think the book would be more appropriate if it framed the idea of “worth” around how much one should invest for each major, including time, effort, and money, rather than telling someone to avoid any particular major altogether. Gone are the days of thinking that English majors can only write, and artists can’t be innovative business people.
The only common ground I can find from what I’ve read is that I do wish adults (parents, teachers, etc.) would be more honest with students. I’m not just talking about how much money a student can make if he majors in elementary education - the honesty needs to address a student’s natural talents for the career they’re pursuing. I’ve seen senior English majors aspiring to be journalists, novelists, and even English teachers, who could not write proper sentences or clearly express their views in an essay. I’ve seen graduates with degrees in graphic design who have less than impressive portfolios and who can’t find steady work. They lack a natural talent in their given fields, and the departments were essentially too nice (though it really was an injustice to the student) to stop them from progressing in the major. How a school can grant a degree to a student who can’t demonstrate the basic skills required in their field is beyond me.
We’ve discussed this before - students with low GPAs who suddenly think they’ll get 4.0’s their last two years of college, or students who struggle in 100- and 200-level foundation courses in their field but they want to continue on to study it in grad school. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances and a student can turn it around. But oftentimes the student is trying to pursue something that just isn’t their strength, and it’s okay to be honest with them and explore other options. Or at the very least try to work out a back-up plan.
In these cases, the honesty isn’t about the salary a major can lead to. But it is about reality. It’s about saving time, effort, and tuition dollars, as well as future heartbreak, by helping a student find a common ground between their talents and the lifestyle they want to live. Sure, we don’t expect students to enter college with advanced knowledge or skill in their field, but it doesn’t take too long to notice if they’re struggling, spending hours on something that others pick up on easily, and not producing quality work to be expected at their stage in the major. That’s when we need to step in and speak up. I’d like to see a book about that, written for parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and for the student.
Not everyone can be whatever they want to be. But they can be happy and financially stable in a field that suits both their interests and abilities. And those fields don’t always need to be in STEM. A modest individual may think that 40k/year is comfortable, especially if they don’t want kids and/or have a financially comfortable spouse. It’s all relative to our worldview and (realistic) expectations.
YES. I know many aspiring artists and musicians whose work is just mediocre, or maybe a bit above-average but they don’t put in the kind of work and hours necessary to improve their craft and market their art. And I know LOTS of students who want to write (something) for a living but cannot write well. It pains me.
I don’t want college to turn into something purely vocational, but at the same time I think college should involve more guided exploration of personal and professional interests. Students shouldn’t wait until senior year to do career inventories - there should be some seminars or sessions early on, like freshman or sophomore year, that help students select a major and brainstorm career areas. Those should be matched up to talents and achievements and tracked throughout the college progression. A student who is consistently earning Cs or below in their major should probably be encouraged to change to something else.
Furthermore, I wish there was more discussion of the fact that there are lots of careers that lead to decent middle class salaries (in the $50K to $75K+ range) that aren’t STEM careers, AND that you change your career and interest so much throughout life.