<p>“More valued” by whom? A) Most prospective employers are going to look at how well you earned your university’s degree (grades, awards), how difficult that was to do (difficulty of program), and your courses/major/training (relevancy to potential job).<br>
B) Friends and acquaintances will judge you on whatever preconceived notions they have, often based on limited knowledge. C) Colleagues may use both. </p>
<p>The first matters in your career; achieve your best in all three areas. The latter two matter only if you let them; soon your actions and successes will speak louder than your background anyway.</p>
<p>After reading through this thread it is obvious that hmom5 has a hidden agenda. It is clear that hmom5 has something against engineering. My response is that people on this forum should stick to talking about things they know about. Clearly, hmom5 knows nothing about engineering. The statements about how most engineers don’t design things and the salary tops out very soon are absurd. These arguments are baseless and misleading to people reading this thread.</p>
<p>I have a BS in mechanical engineering and I can tell you that many engineers do design things and that engineering salaries are some of the highest starting, mid-career, and end of career for undergraduate holders. This is fact. The statistics are out there to prove this. Contrary to what you claim, business majors are not making more than engineers.</p>
<p>I’m tired of always hearing that a heart surgeon or an investment banker makes more than an engineer. People use this argument to try to justify what a horrible career engineering is. The heart surgeon has many years of medical school and residency and the investment banker is certainly not the norm. The fact is that on average, an engineer earns more than any other undergraduate major. Like it or not, an engineering degree has high earning potential. Finally, engineering is not considered to be a trade in the context you are referring to.</p>
<p>In the future, hmom5, I suggest you stick to things you are familiar with or at least base your rhetoric on facts and not biased, unsubstantial opinion.</p>
<p>In fairness, most universities, no matter how highly ranked, produce mostly grads in liberal arts and biology (which is actually another liberal art) and relatively few engineering or CS grads. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or a financier. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I can certainly think of many liberal arts students who weren’t even taught to think: they were simply using the liberal arts as an excuse for an easy major that allowed plenty of time for goofing off and partying. And, no, none of them became rich by a long shot.</p>
<p>"In the United States of America, anyone with math and science aptitude is incented to become a medical practicioner "</p>
<p>??? how much math aptitude is required to be a medical practitioner??</p>
<p>Lots of math, physical science & engineering types of my acquaintance have no particular interest or affinity for medical fields. </p>
<p>Everything called “science” is not all the same. The kind of “science” most closely related to medical fields- biology, organic chemistry- is pretty light on math, and big on memorization. The physicist types I know are all about math stuff, and hate to memorize anything. they want to memorize nothing, and derive it all from first principles.They are not necessarily any better at memorizing lots of stuff than lots of people studying in other fields are. Plus, not all of them are into healing their fellow man & easing their pain, etc. Lots probably don’t like blood.</p>
<p>In other words, yes money is a powerful incentive but many, many people interested in various sciences & engineering would not be more highly likely than lots of others to be torn away from their fields for the medical professions. Some would though, of course. Hopefully, mostly the ones who actually fit that path.</p>
<p>Why do we value name more than college major?</p>
<p>Well, I can’t speak for everyone. However, I’ll venture to say that some people value the school’s “name” more than the major because of the way college rankings work. We can compare school to school in terms of admit rates, SAT scores, overall peer assessments, etc. However, there is virtually no reliable ranking of individual undergraduate departments, let alone any reliable way to compare Princeton classics majors with Purdue physics majors as potential employees in specific careers. We can, however, compare the average earnings of Ivy League liberal arts graduates with the average earnings of engineering school graduates. Ivy League graduates and top engineering school graduates both tend to be among the most highly paid at mid-career, according to payscale.com data ([Top</a> US Colleges ? Graduate Salary Statistics](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp]Top”>http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp))</p>
<p>I find it interesting that engineering majors tend to have higher median starting pay, but lower median mid-career pay, compared to top liberal arts graduates. Possible reason? Liberal arts graduates may be better prepared for top leadership positions.</p>
<p>The fact is that engineers do not have lower median mid career salaries than liberal arts majors. There is absolutely no data to support this. Yes, some liberal arts majors make a lot of money but if you are going to generalize like this your statement is completely wrong. The average engineer makes significantly more than the average liberal arts major. This is fact not opinion. Liberal arts graduates better prepared for leadership positions? Many people with engineering degress become CEOs, executives, and managers. </p>
<p>As I told hmom5 above, lets not try to pass biased assumptions off as fact.</p>
I’m sorry, I had not. I’ve read it now, though. I do not see any sources there to substantiate your assertions.
Please re-read what I said:
I was simply making an observation about a pattern that appears to occur at the top of the payscale.com table I cited (but I should have repeated “according to payscale.com data” at the end of that last sentence to clarify.) Examples:</p>
<p>SCHOOL … MEDIAN STARTING …MEDIAN MID-CAREER
Dartmouth College …$58,200 …$129,000
MIT (Engineering)…$71,100 …$126,000
Harvard … $60,000 …$126,000
Harvey Mudd (Engineering)…$71,000 …$125,000</p>
<p>These are small differences and should not be taken to contradict the first part of my post: Ivy League graduates and top engineering school graduates both tend to be among the most highly paid at mid-career, according to payscale.com data</p>
<p>Now, if you have better sources (or have compiled some averages) to show that the little pattern I see does not hold up more generally, by all means please cite them. My point was not to disparage the earning potential of engineering majors. I think the point most appropriate to this thread is that, if Engineering is held to be the sine qua non of value in a college major, then there is data to suggest that graduating with a liberal arts degree from a prestigious school does seem to deliver a comparable earnings pay-off. So on those grounds alone, it’s not completely irrational to value a school’s reputation (with the caveat that we’re talking about correlations, not necessarily causation.) The mid-career salaries for the top 4 Engineering majors ($102-109K in the table noimagination cites) are all below the mid-career salaries for the top 24 colleges ($110-129K for a mix of Ivy/liberal arts and engineering schools in the table I cited).</p>
<p>Sure, if you go to Penn. What if you don’t go to Penn, or similar top-caliber school? Let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of students in this country do not attend top schools. </p>
<p>I think there is little question that the average engineer makes more than the average liberal arts student, aggregated across the country. Heck, the average engineer probably makes more money to start than does the average experienced liberal arts student. While engineering salaries do top out quickly, frankly, the same can be said for most jobs that liberal arts grads get, for let’s face it, most of them will end up taking unremarkable jobs with mediocre career prospects. I can certainly think of a host of people from my old high school who earned liberal arts degrees at the local state school and have conceded that, for the rest of their life, they probably will never make more in one year than the average 21-year old starting engineer will make today. </p>
<p>The problem with engineering is consigned only to the very top end, where I have agreed - and indeed written many a post regarding - that the very best engineering students don’t really get paid what they’re worth. The engineering payscale is socialist: a top graduate from a top engineering school won’t get paid much more than a mediocre graduate from a low-end school, and therefore one could say that the worst engineers are being subsidized by the best ones. While that obviously does no favors for the top engineering students - who have responded by flocking to consulting and finance - it’s a killer deal for the lower-quality students. Let’s face it: if you were a mediocre student in high school who can gain admission only to a low-ranked college, then earning an engineering degree and locking in a $60k year starting salary upon graduation is a fantastic deal. Honestly, what else were you going to do? You were never going to get a high-end offer in investment banking or consulting because you’re not attending one of the target Ivy-ish recruitment schools. You have to work with the opportunities that are available before you, not the opportunities you wish were available.</p>
<p>Yeah, but they certainly also make more than the average liberal arts grad. Granted, perhaps not more than an Ivy liberal arts grad, but the vast majority of liberal arts grad did not go to an Ivy.</p>
<p>To answer the OP’s question, I would argue that it is because most people do not end up pursuing their specific major for their career. Granted, they may use some general concepts, but the specific education that comprises the major will not be used. Let’s face it - most psychology majors do not become professional psychologists. Most history majors do not become professional historians. Most poli-sci majors do not become professional political scientists. </p>
<p>Even if you do leverage your major into a specific job, that’s not to say that that will remain true. The average American changes careers - not jobs, mind you, but entire careers - 3 times in his lifetime. Hence, it is highly likely that at some point in your life, you will find yourself in a job that has little to do with your college major. </p>
<p>Heck, just think about what we all learned in high school, which obviously represents a level of education more basic than college. Practically none of us, as part of our jobs, actually deconstructs Shakespeare, or writes papers on the Spanish-American War, or swirls chemicals in beakers. Hence one could reasonably ask why we even bothered. The same could be said for any college major - whether liberal arts, engineering, or whatever - as most of any curricula you study will remain unused.</p>
<p>I’m afraid I can’t agree with that: an engineering curricula is also supposed to teach you how to think, particularly in a highly deductive and logical style. Now, granted, whether a specific engineering curricula actually teaches you how to think may be debatable - but so is any particular liberal arts curricula. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe that the average engineer is any less capable of thinking than is the average liberal arts grad, and in fact, the contrary is probably true. Let’s face it, liberal arts majors tend to be easier than engineering majors (which is why scholarship football and basketball players rarely major in engineering), and you can get passing grades without learning anything at all. Engineering, if nothing else, at least forces you to develop a strong and disciplined work ethic.</p>
<p>You don’t have to go to an Ivy League college to earn a good living with a liberal arts degree. Take Loyola College of Maryland, a very decent but not especially prestigious liberal arts school. The average Loyola grad makes very nearly the same ($97,300) as the average mechanical engineer ($98,300) at mid-career. Average Bates, Holy Cross, Dickinson, and Lafayette College liberal arts graduates all earn more than the average mechanical engineer at mid-career.</p>
<p>All of the schools you mentioned are still excellent schools. But like I said, most schools are not excellent schools. There are thousands upon thousands of schools out there, the vast majority of them being unremarkable. </p>
<p>For example, what if the best school I could get into is Montana State University? I should probably get an engineering degree. After all, what else am I going to do? In 2007, the average Montana State engineering grad made $50k to start, which is almost as much as Payscale states is the midcareer median salary of Montana State grads in 2009. (Note, I find Payscale’s methodology to be highly dodgy, but since let’s use it anyway).</p>
<p>Lest you think that Montana State is some sort of marginal outlying datapoint, I would point out that Montana State has more undergrads than does Bates, Middlebury, and Loyola College of Maryland combined. If anything, it is actually those 3 liberal arts schools that are the true outliers. Let’s be honest, most US college students end up going to nondescript and unremarkable large state colleges.</p>
<p>Sakky and I are talking about different populations of students. I’m thinking especially of kids with good (not perfect) grades and SAT scores, who are well-represented on College Confidential. Should they (or their parents) focus more on the school or on the major? If you are not interested in engineering or pre-med, and maybe aren’t too likely to get into a top 20 school, then are your prospects bleak for a rewarding career? No. Liberal arts graduates can and do get excellent jobs, jobs that over time often pay more than engineering jobs. This kind of education has other rewards as well. But to get the most out of it, you have to work hard. Ideally, the program will include lots of guided discussion, graded writing assignments and projects. Ideally, the school will offer small classes, good facilities, well-paid faculty, and a selective admissions policy. Such a place does tend to have a good reputation (if not a household name) among people familiar with colleges. </p>
<p>What about schools with less than ideal conditions (big classes, poor facilities, low-paid faculty)? Students at these schools - or schools somewhere in between - are not necessarily there because they couldn’t get in anywhere else. Sakky may be right that, strictly in terms of earnings potential, a hard-working student at such a place has better prospects in engineering (or nursing or vet science) than in history or english. Sounds logical, though I don’t know that good data exists to compare earnings by major among the best students at average schools. At those schools, maybe engineering attracts a larger share of the best students than liberal arts, so it is the characteristics of the students not the major per se that best accounts for different outcomes. If you are lazy and unfocused, you’re as unlikely to get very far with engineering as anything else.</p>
<p>tk21769, the data you refer to says graduates. So Harvard graduates implies that it includes MBAs, JDs, and MDs. It does not indicate liberal arts graduates only. I wouldn’t consider a Harvard business grad to be a liberal arts major. Also, some of the Ivy League schools have engineering (like Princeton). Your entire argument is based on the idea that the top maybe 0.1 percent of liberal arts graduates have higher mid career salaries than engineers (coming from the very best schools). I won’t say that this isn’t the case.</p>
<p>As Sakky stated, this is not reality. To make a fair comparison we must look at the majors not the schools. So if we compare the majority of engineers to the majority of liberal arts majors, the salaries won’t be close. I have nothing against liberal arts majors but lets not lose sight of the facts.</p>
<p>You sight a school like Loyola. Loyola graduates could include business and finance graduates. I don’t think we should consider MBAs to be liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>Data to back this up? Look at the link that noimagination posted.</p>
<p>tk21769 you are right that liberal arts graduates can get excellent jobs. No one will argue with that. And I agree that if you are lazy you won’t get far in any career. I just think your statement that liberal arts graduates are better prepared for leadership is not accurate and you are trying to use the salary statistics of the very best liberal arts graduates to compare the professions as a whole.</p>
<p>ME76, if you are referring to the payscale.com data I’ve cited, it excludes alumni with post-graduate degrees (law, medicine, etc.) So when I wrote that the mid-career salaries for the top 4 Engineering majors are all below the mid-career salaries for payscale’s top 24 colleges, I’m referring to graduates of those colleges who have terminal B.A. degrees. If payscale included all liberal arts graduates who go on to earn law and other professional degrees, presumably the average earnings of the top N colleges would be even greater than the average earnings of engineering grads. The value of N would be greater.</p>
<p>Some of the Ivies do offer engineering degrees; some traditional liberal arts colleges do offer business majors. I believe a large majority of graduates from the schools I’m talking about are liberal arts majors, though the payscale data does not separate these groups perfectly.
I’m speaking from long experience in a technical field as well as from what the admittedly limited data suggests. Technical knowledge usually is not the most important or the the most highly rewarded element of leadership skill at the top (though it is becoming more important than it used to be.) Communication skills, people skills, vision, creativity, and an ability to consider difficult, multi-faceted problems from different perspectives all become important as you move up the career ladder. It’s not factual knowledge of history or biology but the experience of working through hard problems in small discussion groups, written reports and research projects that seems to give liberally educated people an edge. Though I don’t see why the best engineering training couldn’t accomplish the same effects.</p>