<p>I’m talking about working in a field relevant to the major. E.g, being a biology professor.
You are also implying that if the people who work in walmart had picked a major like economics they wouldn’t be working there. You can’t prove it either way but I disagree.</p>
<p>sschoe2 is right.</p>
<p>The demand for science majors is just not good in the U.S. You can’t expect to become a biology professor unless if you go to an elite school and network extremely well.</p>
<p>The vast majority have much greater difficulty finding jobs than CS majors or business majors.</p>
<p>I might second, or third, the geo-sciences recommendation. More specifically, if you have good math/analytical skills, go after geophysics. Very very high demand for jobs, very lucrative starting salaries, and a skill set that could be marketed the world over, if you’re not stuck on living in the US all of your life.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with getting a degree just because it has better prospects. If someone loves Art History and wants to be a curator, or something, then why should they get a computer science degree? If someone loves biology, why should they not get a degree in it? This is why so many people hate work; because they chose to be in a job they didn’t enjoy.</p>
<p>Working your dream job to make ends meet was a 1st world, higher class luxury that was propped by a phony, debt based economy. In the rest of the world, reality dictates that life isn’t always so rosy. More often you must LEARN to love what you do, not do what you love. </p>
<p>Hence the many art and communications majors who wait tables for a living…</p>
<p>Just because you can’t get your dream job, doesn’t mean it can’t be related to what you loved to begin with. If you can’t find the specific job you want with an art degree, learn how to do graphic design on computers, which is much more in demand. If you love biology, but are worried about a job, be a biostatistician, or some other related degree that has better prospects. I’m not saying that you should power through whatever you love, even if there are no prospects, but you shouldn’t just go into economics or something, like some people were suggesting. Find a related job field with better chances. Plus, if you get a bio degree and go do something similar, but one day bio jobs boom again, you’ve got a bio degree.</p>
<p>Crimson, becoming a Art Curator is no easy task. First off, you MUST have a Ph.D to even be considered, and that route will be expensive as there really isn’t any graduate funding for the Arts. Second of all, the number of Curator jobs is very limited. And when you have a roof over ahead and a family to feed and support, you can’t go chasing after dreams. If someone who loves art, goes into a business related degree, they can learn the business side of things. And once they have a stable, decent paying job in Economics, Finance, software engineering, etc. then they can always go back to school and take a degree in the Arts if they have the money to waste.</p>
<p>
Any reputable PhD program in art history will be fully funded. One would be a fool to go to grad school in the humanities without funding.</p>
<p>
Oh, I don’t know. The opposite is actually true in many cases. Many graduate students in competitive or less-than-practical fields like medieval studies or philosophy are married with husbands or wives making enough money to support them. Why NOT go for that degree and job in academia you want?</p>
<p>If you’re not married or with a spouse making lots of money, well, you probably shouldn’t be having kids yet anyway.</p>
<p>
Or you could try for what you actually want to do. Sure, not everyone succeeds - but if you’re highly motivated, publish a lot, and go to a top school, you at least have a decent shot at getting a job somewhere. </p>
<p>What’s the worst that could happen? You “lose” a few years of your life getting paid to study something you love and wind up in another field like the ones you mention. </p>
<p>
This I do agree with. I’ve often recommended an art history/business double major for those interested in museum work. Crunching numbers and paperwork is at least as important as art historical knowledge at the end of the day, and it’s good to have a safety plan.</p>
<p>There is a fine line between practicality and defeatism. Having a backup plan is extremely practical and a must for anyone interested in competitive field. Assuming you won’t get a job so there’s no point in even trying is defeatist and rather unproductive.</p>
<p>"I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with getting a degree just because it has better prospects. If someone loves Art History and wants to be a curator, or something, then why should they get a computer science degree? If someone loves biology, why should they not get a degree in it? This is why so many people hate work; because they chose to be in a job they didn’t enjoy. "</p>
<p>Because if you love art history so much, you can learn about art history by reading it on your own at the library (for free!). You would probably learn more than the Art History degree will ever teach you anyways, since like most liberal arts degrees, Art History classes are probably taught by egoistic jerks who require you to agree with their points of view. </p>
<p>And plus, have you seen the trash that’s in art museums these days?</p>
<p>You don’t need a college degree to learn stuff. We live in the information age; anything you want to know about is at the tip of our fingertips (literally!). A college degree is EVIDENCE that you have the knowledge. And why do we need this evidence? For employment. Hence, if a college degree doesn’t give you employment, it is useless.</p>
<p>How much enjoyment are you going to get from a degree being unemployed or working at Walmart?</p>
<p>The right degree now a days is the difference between living in a roach infested ghetto apartment in abject poverty and having a decent middle class lifestyle.</p>
<p>Annoyinggirl, you could probably learn Computer Programming or Economics on your own as easily as you can learn Art History through self-study. However, in our society a potential employer will demand to see a credential, such as a degree in a certain major from an accredited college or university, before they will even consider determining how much you actually know about something. Anything you teach yourself at a Library has no economic value no matter how much you learned and accomplished in the subject you are.</p>
<p>You totally missed my point. You just don’t get it. </p>
<p>"Anything you teach yourself at a Library has no economic value no matter how much you learned and accomplished in the subject you are. " </p>
<p>And neither does a $50k+ Art History degree.</p>
<p>You know job prospects in the Sciences are grim when someone with an username “scientificmind” discourages people from majoring in it.</p>
<p>“Any reputable PhD program in art history will be fully funded. One would be a fool to go to grad school in the humanities without funding.” </p>
<p>Really? I’ve heard about most science PhD programs being fully funded, never art history. In fact, never anything liberal arts. </p>
<p>Yes, indeed. One would be a fool to go to grad school in the humanities without funding, just like it would be to get an undergrad degree in the humanities without funding, yet thousands do it every year. Why? Because the youth of America have been lied to. They have been lied that as long as they get a college degree in whatever, they will earn a good living. They were also told to follow their passions, whatever they may be, and no matter if their passions can offer any employable skills to society.</p>
<p>If you pursue a degree without considering the prospects of said degree landing you meaningful employment, you’re probably a young naive fool who still thinks anyone gives a rat’s ass how bold, devoted and anti-establishment you are. </p>
<p>No one cares if you got your degree in art history, anthropology or Chicano studies. What they care about is whether you went through an excellent program and developed good connections with influential people, and exhibited a skill set that is applicable to providing solid service in a particular in-demand capacity. You’re more likely to fall into this category if you pursue something like engineering, because chances are all the in-demand positions in Chicano studies are already taken by Cesar Chavez’ nephew since like 1985. And he probably isn’t going anywhere for a while.</p>
<p>If you still pursue a degree for the sole purpose of your own enrichment, good luck to you and hopefully you eventually fill that niche in our in-demand driven society that’s always been your calling. If you don’t and rather end up as a second shift alternate supervisor at Walmart, at least don’t pretend no one told you so.</p>
<p>There are no “booms” in the “bio job” market. There is no bio job market.
A “biostatistician” (whatever that is) is just a statistician. There should be no reason to need a biology degree for a job like that. You would instead need a math degree or a heavy math concentration. You could probably even get enough math in some business programs to get a job as a “biostatistician.” If that didn’t work out you would still have a much more marketable degree than biology. </p>
<p>Years ago, just having a college degree in almost any major was worthwhile and opened doors. That is no longer the case. You must choose carefully.</p>
<p>I majored in biology and have regretted it ever since.</p>
<p>While a few of the sciences such as Computer Science and Geology can lead to a good job with just a BS, the vast majority of undergraduate science degrees are really only valuable if they lead to admission to graduate or professional school. Only a small fraction of Biology graduates get into medical school, which is probably the only way of earning a good living with a BS in Biology.</p>
<p>Since I like biochemistry, would getting a degree in biochemical engineering be a good idea? Like would it be profitable?</p>
<p>The only great career option for biochemistry is med or pharm school. Biochemical engineering would be better than biochemistry but it is not one of the better engineering majors.</p>
<p>Ordinarily, I’m not in favor of excessive government regulation, but sometimes I think that each college should have to give all freshmen a mandatory 1-credit hour course covering the mathematics of borrowing money, a survey of who’s hiring which majors, and some numbers on the starting salaries of the school’s graduates, broken down by degree. Each student should be tested on this material and be required to repeat the course until he makes an A.</p>
<p>Obviously there would be an uproar, but so what? </p>
<p>One doesn’t necessarily need to major in bio, chemistry or biochemistry to get into med school, so to a large extent those degrees are useless. With some degrees the problem is not only that one can’t use them to find work in that field, but that the degrees don’t help with finding a decent job (much less a career) in any other field. An employer can look at a business school graduate and imagine how that person could fit into his company, but someone from the humanities and sciences, not so much.</p>