<p>ACTUARY.........once you take all the factors into account</p>
<p>It’s a decent list but I think that “low stress” and “low physical demands” factored a bit too heavily and other factors were not given enough emphasis.</p>
<p>For example, historian at 5? The job outlook is terrible for this. I once read that more people are awarded history Ph.D.'s than there are historian job openings in a given year. Those with only B.A.'s and M.A’s are in deep trouble if looking for such a job.</p>
<p>Overall a decent list though.</p>
<p>“It’s a decent list but I think that “low stress” and “low physical demands” factored a bit too heavily and other factors were not given enough emphasis.”</p>
<p>Good point. I think that all these studies are heavily biased toward low physical demands jobs, simply because the people doing the studies are statistician/researcher types. Of course they consider a job good if you get to sit in an air conditioned office thinking all day- that’s why they do what they do. But they neglect to account for the fact that some people actually enjoy getting there hands dirty, working up a sweat, working outdoors, doing physical labor, etc. If plumbers and mechanics did the studies, I wonder what would be a top job…</p>
<p>P.S. I don’t mean they’re actively biased. I just think that the criteria they consider important reflects their career choice for themselves.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>Especially when they have their own job at #8 on their list of best jobs…</p>
<p>The more I look at the list the more fishy it gets. They have the hiring outlook for historians rated higher than the hiring outlook for accountants and paralegals and dead even with actuaries. </p>
<p>Really??? Since when did that happen? Everywhere else I look accountants, actuaries and paralegals are in high demand, not historians…</p>