I expect the correlation has more to do with requirements/expectations for career paths associated with a higher salary that generalist vs non-generalist or elite vs non-elite undergrad college.
For example, surgeons often have a high salary. I wouldn’t call surgeons generalists, yet undergrad major has little impact on medical school admission or admission to surgical specialty, aside from overlap with pre-med course requirements. Silicon Valley software engineers also often have a high salary. Unlike surgeons, undergrad major is critical for becoming a software engineer, as the employer expects the applicant to be knowledgeable about computer science, and will typically test that CS knowledge during the interview. An employer is unlikely to hire an English major with little CS knowledge for a software engineering position. Many/most state that they require applicants to have a CS type degree in the job posting.
Higher salary positions typically expect the applicant to have something that is unique and in demand that will increase chances of being successful on the job, which contributes to why the position pays a high salary. This “something” is often a combination of relevant work experience and relevant skills/knowledge learned in college or grad school.
In many higher salary generalist positions that “something” can be a wealth of work experience. This includes certain types of managers and CEOs. When deciding among candidates for a new manager or CEO, few employers focus on undergrad major, and there may be a good variety of different undergrad majors among candidates for a particular position. Obviously a new grad is unlikely to have this wealth of work experience and be applicable for such positions.
Another unique “something” that may lead to higher salaries is an in demand skillset that does not particularly depend on knowledge learned in college classes or college majors. This could include some types of sales positions or other positions that depend on interpersonal skillsets, as well as things like pro athletes.
Yes, I did. And you generously helped me out with your expertise on OT by pointing out it now requires a master’s degree, making further references to that comparison unhelpful. What you didn’t do is address the point I added that many lower to mid-tier LACs offer those career-oriented majors, which is probably all we needed to put your original point to bed an hour ago.
That’s fair, given that that’s pretty much how I reacted to your imprecise speculation, without evidence, concerning why people prefer highly-selective LACs to non-LACs. Don’t forget what you originally posited:
Yes, many do, for research positions (which I didn’t specify) requiring that level of education. And, many don’t for research and other positions that don’t. There are a lot of Life Sciences companies in Seattle; and I’ve worked at a couple as counsel, and represented others before going in-house. You’re just wrong here. Kids with biology (and math, biochemistry, physics and other non-professional STEM degrees) are hired by them and healthcare startups all the time for levels of work commensurate with their education. They get many of the same jobs that kids who majored in Public Health (more jobby degree) are seeking. Your response amounts to moving the goal posts. Nowhere did I say or imply that they hired BAs to do work that requires PhD-level research.
I wouldn’t call a surgeon a generalist either. A surgeon, a lawyer, an academician, etc. is someone who chooses to specialize (i.e. to “major”) later in her/his education (in a professional school or graduate school). I used the term “major” in a broader sense.
The ability to attend a residential 4-year college - let alone the ability to shop around for “fit” etc - is still a luxury for many families. For most kids the number one criteria for choosing college is cost – not whether the school is a SLAC, less selective LAC, large, small, public or private. As a result, in many places kids commute to their local option or choose their state school (whether that be the flagship or one of the directional state choices). And for these same students it is critical to choose a major that will result in future employment. This reality often seems overlooked here on CC where most of the air is given to “elite” schools and “1%” students (a term I find strangely ironic).
Great interpersonal skills are, most likely, primarily genetic. If you possess those skills, you can certainly be successful as a generalist. Wall Street banks, for example, often refer to themselves (at least internally) as in the distribution (i.e. sales) business (distribution of financial products/services, etc). There’re technical people at those banks, but many are really in the business of establishing/maintaining/growing relationships with clients. A sucessful Wall Street banker may or may not have sales/marketing in her/his official job description, but s/he most likely appears, at least to her/his average clients, to be highly knowledgeable, very articulate, well-mannered, pleasant to be with, and even empathetic. S/he isn’t your average used-car saleman/woman. That’s one of the primary reasons these banks look to certain elite schools for such candidates because these schools admit a higher proportion of such students as a result of their admission criteria.
A lot of comments here defending the top 10%, but I interpreted Stewart’s words as an indictment of everyone. The focus on the 10% is merely clickbait.
Stewart talks about “a culture that tends to lead people into the 9.9 percent”, and “the extent to which the other 90 percent end up buying into this value system.”
So instead of endorsing a popular political position to soak the rich, be explains that the buy-in from the 90 percent is maintaining this modern-day aristocracy:
“…when the ideology starts to spread, it effectively removes the basis for that conflict…”
For education, this speaks directly to the “professional credentialing game…to carve out high rents…” We are aware of how acceptance to Elite U and alumni associations is somewhat of a lottery, turning away many qualified candidates. So any activity that further favors the lottery winners is fundamentally discriminatory, much like saying “we don’t hire black people.” Unless, of course, Elite U is offering a truly unique education experience and that the lottery losers just go on to flounder at Crap U.
I found the Atlantic article that Stewart wrote a few years back, along the same themes, more thought provoking than the Vox article. He is upfront about his background in the article. The Birth of the New American Aristocracy - The Atlantic Haven’t read the book cited in the OP’s original post, but I am guessing the Atlantic article is the Reader’s Digest version.
The University of Puget Sound offers majors & minors in business, major in computer science, major in occupational therapy, and a major physical therapy. Business is either the most popular or second most popular major at the school.(Most popular for males & second most popular for females.)
The University of Puget Sound also offers at least 3 masters degree programs.
The University of Puget Sound is located in an economically vibrant & healthy metropolitan area.
Not sure that this school is properly categorized as an LAC; it might be better described as a hybrid.
They also used to have a law school, then “sold” it to Seattle University, which was controversial.
When they did, they emphasized their desire to stay true to their roots and focus as an undergraduate institution, and many UPS Loggers, which I’d include all of the many family members, colleagues and friends who attended, see themselves that way. If you were to visit, you’d walk away the clear impression of a LAC. Take my word for it or we can reprise the thread from the other day.
How would you verify that? Today you could I guess google who built the bridge and check out the credentials and plan accordingly. I don’t disagree with this, I always like to point out that one of the reasons engineering is weed-out is that you don’t want people failing mechanics to build bridges. BTW, most bridges are built by civil engineers that work for state or local governments.
Civils who build bridges are professional engineers, certified by a standardized exam. I can’t imagine there is a bridge built in the United States that wasn’t built without a PE signing off on the plans.
By the way, if you are interested in the history of engineering certification, I would recommend reading up on the Boston Molasses Disaster of 1919. Dark Tide by Stephen Puleo would be a good start.
Basically, a giant molasses tank was designed by an accountant instead of an engineer. It failed, killing 21 people and engulfing the North End in a great big sticky mess.
I just finished reading the Atlantic piece and I’m scratching my head. It doesn’t appear that we’ve read the same article. The one I read isn’t entitled, “The Problem With America’s Semi-Rich”; the one I read was entitled, “The Birth of the New American Aristocracy” - a slightly different level of tone-deafness, but an important one.
Only a relatively small portion of it describes the day-to-day habits of the putative 9.9% group. People are free to substitute their own versions of it.
Most of the article, by far the greater portion of it, is a historical exigesis of the role the educated middle-class has played in propping up aristocratic regimes - from Ancient Greece to the American south. It’s a not entirely unfamiliar economic analysis (it’s a traditional underpinning of Marxism, for example.) The author is saying that it still plays that role in American society today and yes, - uses his own family history to illustrate his points.
It’s an interesting read, though not one designed to compete with the golden nuggets supplied by CC stalwarts. It’s most trenchant points probably can’t even be discussed in this thread because it would - unfortunately - involve a deep-dive into the politics of the past few years.
I read the one titled “Problem with America’s Semi-Rich” which lines up with the title of this thread. If I was supposed to read a different article, that wasn’t made clear (at least not to me though from the responses in the thread it doesn’t appear I am the only one who read the wrong article).
In terms of political discussions here, that is really a mixed bag. Certain discussions happen and are allowed to continue while others don’t/can’t. Maybe there is a secret password that is needed. LOL
Oh, now I see. The title of this thread is taken from an interview with the Atlantic piece’s author that appeared in Vox. Coincidentally, the by-line of both pieces share the same last name.
Um, both pieces are interesting. Obviously, the Vox piece seems designed to get more internet clicks as it appears to be attacking the members of the “9.9%” (which btw, includes most of us who inhabit the CC universe.) I don’t think that’s the focus of the underlying article.
Not sure that most people here are in 9.9% group. If I had to guess, I would say not. But don’t know that for sure. Though there are times when that is a lot less clear (just like you can get the impression sometimes that 1/2 the people on here have kids going to T20 schools – which definitely is not the case).
