<p>According to the USNews, Stanford places first on law and then comes Harvard</p>
<p>The Grinnell student paper recently had a piece asking for more job realted type classes as they were sick of having to move home or join the Peace Corps after school. I think many LAC grads have a tough time but it is kept very quiet. Yes I know those at top 10 LAC's do get recruited but that's usually only the cream of the crop for jobs you really have to enjoy (100 hr weeks etc).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford places first on law and then comes Harvard
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's because Stanford rejects more people than Harvard does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think any degree from Harvard is marketable. No average person reads a resume and says something like, "A bachelor's in Portuguese literature? Everybody knows Yale is better for Portuguese literature! REJECTION!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL. That is probably the funniest post I've read in quite a long time on CC. Thank you for the much needed comic relief...</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky we have to be reasonable in comparing similar majors, for instance ug economics-business at high prestige colleges vs state unis, or "lower prestige colleges"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly my point. Hence, it's really the major that counts the most. Prestige of school is secondary. </p>
<p>Hence, I would say that the 5 most marketable degrees out there will be 5 kinds of engineering/CS degrees. For example, MIT EECS, Stanford CS, Berkeley EECS, CMU ECE, UIUC CS. Or maybe MIT ChemE, Stanford ChemE, Berkeley ChemE, Caltech ChemE, Minnesota ChemE. Or some other permutation of 5 engineering/CS degrees.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>that list is way science / math biased. now, they are all exceptional degrees with no questions with regards to marketability, but if majors were truly the significant determining factor of success, the world would be run by engineering majors.</p>
<p>but that's not the case.</p>
<p>for example, a government major at Harvard or a history major at Yale or an economics major at Chicago is just as likely to possess the necessary critical thinking skills to excel at 90% of jobs open to undergrads (with the 10% exception for extremely technical related jobs).</p>
<p>as for all the data regarding salary levels - i think you are confusing the "absolute" number that people are earning and then automatically assuming that those people in the highest category (engineers) are the most marketable. In other words, in order to make such a claim, you'd have to have EVERY SINGLE GRADUATE apply for the SAME JOBS and then tally who got the most jobs at the end of the day. Maybe then you could conclude the one with the most job offers was the most marketable. I'm not convinced that in such a hypothetical case that the engineers would automatically slam dunk all other majors and walk away with the most job offers in every single case at any given college.</p>
<p>the other problem with this analysis: it's like judging a marathon after the first 5 miles - where the engineers begin with a head start (i.e. slightly higher starting salaries which has more to do with supply/demand and scarcity of value but that's another discussion) - but the POINT is - it's really the LAST 5-10 miles (i.e. when people are at the height of their respective careers / earnings power - whether it be an executive at a Corporation, Investment Bank, Consulting Firm, Law Firm, etc.) - which is much, much further down the road than just the first 5-6 years out of undergrad (not to mention most of these individuals who are destined to lead will also go back to grad school to augment their education - engineers as well - to be sure - but the point is - you can't make definitive conclusions merely by analyzing the early years). </p>
<p>Now I'm not saying that the engineers ALL level off - but having observed successful leaders (in a variety of industries), one thing is very clear: after a certain level, it's interpersonal skills (not pure technical skills / smarts) that matter most.</p>
<p>Being able to project confidence, being able to manage teams, being able to think out of the box, being able to gain trust with senior management, being able to win business / land accounts / secure a mandate, being able to play office politics, being able to position / "sell" yourself vs. your competition etc. - these are all "softer" skills which really matter in the long run. Of course you can't be a complete idiot - but that is a given if you have made it to a position to be promoted to a very senior / executive level position. In other words, all qualities, skills, traits that are IMPOSSIBLE to measure or test for.</p>
<p>basically, the race doesn't always go to the ones with sheer brain power - history has proven that - (again, if it that were the case, the world would be run by MIT / Caltech graduates).</p>
<p>the best of best usually possess a good measure of BOTH smarts AND people skills.</p>
<p>since we're talking about marketable degrees, could someone answer a question for me? is an economics major from jhu 'marketable'? i know everyone talks about jhu bme or ir, but can an econ major from jhu secure a job easily(ibank, fed gov, whatever) or are they pushed into grad school? a friend told me that jhu doesn't get a lot of attention from companies because a) its small, b) it has no professional business school to attract recruiters on campus, c) a large chunk goes on to grad school so companies are less interested in a small pool.</p>
<p>thanks.</p>
<p>Most marketable degree from a mediocre college: PhD in philosophy from U of Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>A Wharton MBA is marketable.</p>
<p>I guess I answered my question. Looks like JHU degrees are not that marketable.... if you're not trying to get into grad school. Average salary around 37k? Say it isn't so! Seems like I have a better future going to my state school.</p>
<p>Don't know much, but in my opinion any type of business degree from Harvard or Wharton seem the most marketable to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
as for all the data regarding salary levels - i think you are confusing the "absolute" number that people are earning and then automatically assuming that those people in the highest category (engineers) are the most marketable. In other words, in order to make such a claim, you'd have to have EVERY SINGLE GRADUATE apply for the SAME JOBS and then tally who got the most jobs at the end of the day. Maybe then you could conclude the one with the most job offers was the most marketable. I'm not convinced that in such a hypothetical case that the engineers would automatically slam dunk all other majors and walk away with the most job offers in every single case at any given college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, no, I don't have to assume that at all. I simply have to assume that the free market will adjust accordingly.</p>
<p>After all, you have to ask yourself, why do enginering students get paid so well to start? Is it because the engineering companies are stupid? That they just want to throw away money on engineers? I don't think so. I believe it comes down to simple supply and demand. Engineering companies have figured out that the high starting salaries to the engineers are what needs to be paid in order to get people to work for them as engineers. Nothing more, nothing less. </p>
<p>
[quote]
that list is way science / math biased. now, they are all exceptional degrees with no questions with regards to marketability, but if majors were truly the significant determining factor of success, the world would be run by engineering majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually think that has been shown. For example, of the 43 Presidents of the United States, I believe 4 have been engineers (Hoover, Eisenhower, Grant, Taylor, Carter), maybe more. That is a fantastic number when you consider that, first of all, engineering degrees only make up 5% of the total bachelor's degrees received in the US, and 2nd of all, engineering wasn't even offered as a college subject in the US until the 1800's, which obviously excludes many of the early Presidents. George Washington would probably have been an engineer if engineering was actually available during his time (as it was, he was actually a surveyor, which is somewhat akin to Civil Engineering of today).</p>
<p>
[quote]
for example, a government major at Harvard or a history major at Yale or an economics major at Chicago is just as likely to possess the necessary critical thinking skills to excel at 90% of jobs open to undergrads (with the 10% exception for extremely technical related jobs).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But then that just begs the question of, if they have these skills (of which I agree that they do), then why don't companies pay them more to start? Are these companies being stupid? </p>
<p>
[quote]
the other problem with this analysis: it's like judging a marathon after the first 5 miles - where the engineers begin with a head start (i.e. slightly higher starting salaries which has more to do with supply/demand and scarcity of value but that's another discussion) - but the POINT is - it's really the LAST 5-10 miles (i.e. when people are at the height of their respective careers / earnings power - whether it be an executive at a Corporation, Investment Bank, Consulting Firm, Law Firm, etc.) - which is much, much further down the road than just the first 5-6 years out of undergrad (not to mention most of these individuals who are destined to lead will also go back to grad school to augment their education - engineers as well - to be sure - but the point is - you can't make definitive conclusions merely by analyzing the early years).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But even here, who says that engineers don't do well? Who says that engineers don't have these skills? As I'm sure you know, plenty of engineering students, especially from the elite engineering schools, head off to consulting or banking. Something like 20-35% of all of the elite MBA schools are populated by people with engineering undergrad degrees, and at a place like MITSloan, it's more like 40%. If engineers don't have interpersonal skills, then why are these top MBA programs admitting so many engineers? Are these schools being stupid?</p>
<p>Look, my point is that when it comes to JUST the bachelor's degree, engineers and CS students do very well. When you start introducing graduate degrees, I agree that engineers don't do so well, but that presumes that engineers don't get graduate degrees. Like I said, plenty of engineers go on to get graduate degrees, most notably MBA's, but also law and medicine. </p>
<p>Hence, what I am saying is that for those people who just get bachelor's degrees and no graduate degrees, on average, the engineers are doing pretty well for themselves. I would say certainly more so than the Harvard arts student (who doesn't get a graduate degree).</p>
<p>Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) - Oxford</p>
<p>You'd be amazed at how marketable a math degree is. I heard a statistic somewhere that more CEO's were math majors than any other major. Just keep that in mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, you have to ask yourself, why do enginering students get paid so well to start? Is it because the engineering companies are stupid? That they just want to throw away money on engineers? I don't think so. I believe it comes down to simple supply and demand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that this wasn't the case, which is precisely what I mentioned in my original post (i.e. my reference to supply/demand and scarcity of value).</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, of the 43 Presidents of the United States, I believe 4 have been engineers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What would be more interesting is to see what current Fortune 100 (or Fortune 50) CEOs hold engineering degrees (I have no idea what the percentage is - but my guess is that it would be reasonably "in line" with the percentage of graduates). Further, where did you get the statistic for 5%? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems low.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But then that just begs the question of, if they have these skills (of which I agree that they do), then why don't companies pay them more to start? Are these companies being stupid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, as you and I have agreed, this is a simple matter of supply / demand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But even here, who says that engineers don't do well?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Never said that they didn't.</p>
<p>In sum, your points are all well taken. And I fully agree that if you compare a "garden variety" bachelors of arts vs. an engineer - the engineering degree is more marketable.</p>
<p>But when taken in the context of 1) the larger, long run picture (including graduate degrees) coupled with 2) the importance of "people skills" vs. "technical skills" as you climb the corporate ladder - the engineering "advantage" / "gap" closes over time to a point where it's almost marginal.</p>
<p>Lastly, the main point of contention I had was with your list that had the Top 5 most marketable degrees ALL engineering degrees - nothing is absolute in life.</p>
<p>1.Finance/ECON/ACCOUNTING:</p>
<p>Ivies, duke, chicago, NU, UVa, michigan, berkeley, stanford, GTown, etc.</p>
<p>2.Engineering:</p>
<p>Mit/Stanford/Cal/michigan/UIUC/Cal Tech/GTech/Cornell....etc</p>
<ol>
<li>Government/International relations, great for law school</li>
</ol>
<p>Top 25 schools in general...........</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Pre-med
JHU, harvard, rice, emory, WashU...etc</p></li>
<li><p>any degree from a prestigious university
:)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Does the degree matter for most people once they get out of college? Isn't it more that they have a degree rather than what it is in? I mean it shouldn't be wayy off from what you want to do, but does it have to be exact?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, where did you get the statistic for 5%? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Was pretty shocking to me when I first saw it to. But check the official statistics compiled by the Department of Education.</p>
<p>According to this, in 2001-2002, there were about 59,000 bachelor's engineering degrees conferred by US schools. However, the total number of bachelor's degrees conferred in that same time period was 1.29 million. Hence, that's 4.5%. </p>
<p>Even if you want to count those people earning bachelor's degrees in "engineering-related technologies" (which I think you should not do), that only adds another 14.5k people, for a total of 5.7% of the total number of bachelor's degrees conferred.</p>
<p>Any way you cut it, the number of people in America earning bachelor's degrees in engineering is a very small percentage of the total. Hence, it is no wonder that you don't see too many engineers in the top ranks of business or politics, as there are just very few engineers period. </p>
<p>Here are some other rather shocking statistics:</p>
<p>"Last year, 46 percent of Chinese students graduated with engineering degrees. In the US, that number was 5 percent.</p>
<p>Europe graduates three times as many engineering students as the US, Asia five times as many</p>
<p>Less than two percent of U.S. high school graduates will earn an engineering degree.</p>
<p>In 2001, almost 60 percent of those receiving Ph.D.s in Electrical Engineering were foreign born</p>
<p>Among the more than 1.1 million seniors in the class of 2002 who took the ACT Assessment college entrance exam, fewer than 6 percent planned to study engineering, down from 9 percent in 1992</p>
<p>In the US, more students are getting degrees in parks and recreation than in electrical engineering."</p>
<p>
[quote]
But when taken in the context of 1) the larger, long run picture (including graduate degrees) coupled with 2) the importance of "people skills" vs. "technical skills" as you climb the corporate ladder - the engineering "advantage" / "gap" closes over time to a point where it's almost marginal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that people skills aren't important. However, again, I would question the notion of whether engineers are truly lacking in people skills. Like I said, seems to me that a disproportionately high number of engineers can get themselves elected to become President of the United States. I would think that if there is any field in the world that really needs people skills, it's politics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, the main point of contention I had was with your list that had the Top 5 most marketable degrees ALL engineering degrees - nothing is absolute in life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well look. I stand by what I said. The question was, what are the 5 most marketable degrees in the world, which I took to mean the 5 most marketable bachelor's degrees. I think it's hard to argue that these wouldn't be 5 kinds of engineering degrees. After all, with an engineering degree, you can pursue almost any of the lucrative career paths that are available to liberal arts grads. For example, you can go to B-school. You can go to law school. You can go to med-school. You can work as an investment banker or a management consultant. But in addition to all of that, you can also simply work as an engineer, something a liberal arts student cannot do </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am clearly not saying that EVERY engineering degree is more marketable than EVERY liberal arts degree. However, I think that an elite engineering degree (i.e. from a place like MIT, Stanford, or Caltech) is probably more marketable than an elite liberal arts degree. Like I said, there aren't that many things that somebody with an elite liberal arts degree can do that somebody with an elite engineering degree cannot do.</p>
<p>missouri journalism</p>