@ThankYouforHelp That’s theoretically true and probably was actually true 20 or 30 years ago. Today, especially for highly competitive universities, students are weeded out during high school. There are those cases where universities admit students for their “potential” or where they have improved dramatically during high school, but in most cases highly competitive universities cite “competitive pressures” for their inability to exercise more flexibility of the kind you are alluding to.
I’m not sure at what point in the thread “good future” became defined as “first job out of college.” Can we just posit that no one stays in their first job out of college for very long?
The Economist had a graphic that illustrates the differences in rates of return between Engineering/Computer Science/Math graduates and Humanities/Arts graduates compared to selectivity of school.
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21646220-it-depends-what-you-study-not-where
The E/CS/M grads mostly had higher rates of return than the H/A graduates, and the selectivity of the school did not impact the rate of return much. On the other hand, the rates of return by H/A graduates
varied significantly based on the selectivity of the school, which supports my hypothesis that strong students can be successful in the humanities and arts at strong institutions, but that weak students attending weak institutions should avoid those fields.
That was a generation ago. Much, much more recently, a friends son was a CS graduate from school not known for CS received offers from Google/Facebook in the six figure range, with $250,000 in stock options that vested in three years. He turned those down for a better offer.
Zinhead- the typical student majoring in history etc. at a twice directional state U is doing so because his or her state requires a subject major in order to get a teaching certificate (whether at a Master’s level or just with a BA). So the English major wants to teach HS English; History is necessary for Social Studies, etc. It is somewhat circular to argue that students at these colleges should avoid these fields-- some states REQUIRE content majors (and not just being an Ed major) in order to get certified. Hence the enormous growth of Phys Ed programs at the college level- another “unintended consequence” of the teacher licensing process. I’ve got a cousin who wants to become a HS teacher and is ending up with a triple major (not the original plan by any means) because she was told that the Phys Ed major in addition to her subject, and her Ed courses, is going to make her much more employable-- especially in a district which pays extra to “regular” teachers who can coach a team in addition to classroom time. To me- it seems like the teachers in this state now graduate with three watered down majors instead of one comprehensive major- but I don’t make Ed policy.
@blossom -
Which is why I included the caveat “unless they go into education” in post #34 when discussing this subject. Your cousin is making a smart choice regarding degrees if she wants to go into education. In our district, teachers get between $3,000 to $5,000 in extra salary for sponsoring a club during the year. If they can be a coach, they can get between $5,000 to $10,000 for coaching a sport for one season. A couple of the teachers in our district coach a spring and a fall sport, and pocket close to $20,000 a year in addition to their teaching salaries. It is a pretty good deal if you can set yourself up for it.
I would modify your hypothesis a bit. I don’t think the take away is that weaker students should avoid those fields at “weak” or non-selective institutions, but that they shouldn’t overspend for the degree. It’s far better for these students to earn a history degree from an affordable directional public school, than overspend for the same degree at a non-selective private school.
S graduated with Poly Sci major/History minor from Nescac school. Was accepted into exec management training program at Fortune 200 company. Stayed 1 1/2 years and now is at a tech start-up. After 6 months has already been promoted into another job with, naturally, a salary increase.
As of now he has no plans to get a graduate degree.
All my son’s college friends are working or in grad school. None are living in their parents basements.
Nescac schools include Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut College, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams which are some of the most selective in the country. The only reason they should be living in their parents basements is by choice not necessity.
Where are all of these houses with fully functional basements? Are they unfurnished dungeons meant to punish?
I have to believe that nearly all of the kids who move home return to their old rooms, yet the acceptable slang (intentionally or unintentionally meant to demean students who move home) has them all in the basement?
It’s also interesting that all of the math is done based on earnings, yet personal satisfaction / happiness are always included in the graduation speeches? If they’re happy in the basement versus miserable in a 350 sq. ft. apartment in NY working 90 hours a week for a firm who is going to replace them with robots before they get far enough to benefit from the change…who’s more likely to be satisfied with their choices in 20 years?
Final thought…you can’t get an admin job in NY now without a degree. You have to major in something, and for many a degree is table stakes. As @Gator88NE says, if that’s the goal, achieve it as cheaply as possible.
However, high school seniors should be cautious about assuming that there will be no industry downturns that can affect their intended career directions. Remember that those who graduated into the 2001-2003 computing bust entered college in 1997-1999 when computing was booming.
A more recent example was the popularity of petroleum engineering among entering college students in 2011-2013. But their job and career prospects as they graduated in 2015-2017 look much worse than they looked when they went into college.
Another more recent example was the crash of 2008 severely limiting the job and career prospects of those graduating in civil engineering and architecture.
@ucbalumnus - “past results are no guarantee of future performance”.
Your point is correct, and returns to a lot of the discussion on this and the parent thread about the value of LAC skills versus rote knowledge.
^ So stay flexible and be ready to change, if necessary, is my takeaway there.
I have a young friend who is pursuing a masters in aerospace engineering but is doing a double with mechanical…just in case.
Or perhaps look at other options. We know someone who completed an ultrasound technician certification as part of a two year AA at a community college. She makes more than an entry-level teacher salary, and has the option of finishing her four degree in the future if she wants to. She also gets to wear scrubs for work.
Non-rote thinking skills can be learned and practiced in non-LAC schools, and non-liberal-arts majors. Engineering and CS do demand strong non-rote thinking skills for one to be effective at them.
True, but you’re not suggesting parody with LAC’s (as a generalization…like everything else here)?
You can learn computers and engineering as an apprentice or online, but you wouldn’t suggest those as alternatives to a top 30 school…would you?
“Where are all of these houses with fully functional basements? Are they unfurnished dungeons meant to punish?”
My house. If S had to live that is where he wouid be. It’s finished, has a bedroom and a family room w/tv. He slept down there when he came home on breaks/summers because it gave him more privacy. 
LACs as a parody?
If you meant parity, I do not take the viewpoint common on these forums that LACs are automatically better (nor are they automatically worse).
You left out that most people in engineering and computing graduated from non-top-30 schools – do you mean to imply that non-top-30 schools are unworthy of any consideration here?
In any case, there are subjects (including CS and some other liberal arts subjects as well as business) which are possible to effectively self-study by someone with high ability and motivation in the subject. Of course, most students benefit from going to school to study them, since the school provides curricular structure, instructors to help the student learn, evaluation of the student’s work, and a credential at the end. Engineering, some sciences, and health professions are more difficult to self-study, due to the need for labs and equipment that are realistically only available in a formal school environment.
Curious if that information is related to this study:
http://lifehacker.com/going-to-an-elite-college-means-higher-salaries-only-fo-1758293489
Why then do students continue to pile into fields where the payout is less? This insightful article has the answer:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-more-americans-dont-major-in-the-math-and-science/
It seems to me that students do not select their majors, as much as their majors select them.
Yes @Canuckguy , you and @Zinhead are basically citing the same study. When controlled for race, SES. and SAT scores, STEM degree holders have about the same chances for career success. This is not exactly news.