Let’s face it. A Murray State “engineering” student wasn’t going to study Classics at Harvard. A Harvard Classics major wasn’t going to study “engineering” at Murray State. Neither is appropriate for the other. Students should do what interest them and what they are good at. It’s not all about post-graduation salaries.
8 Likes
A real straw man’s argument. Because- y’know- kids have to choose between Murray State and Harvard in the real world…
Would have been a stronger argument to posit Engineering at UIUC vs. Physics at Harvard; at least that’s a plausible scenario even though Harvard’s yield and cross-admit data suggests that it’s not typical.
Some of you are ignoring the reality that tracking first year salary is at best a rough/not terribly accurate way to look at career earnings. I had colleagues in my first corporate job with business degrees, STEM degrees, etc. When it comes time to promote (and on, and on, and onward in one’s career) leadership doesn’t sit around and say “Oh Joey here has a STEM degree, for sure he’s the guy with potential. Suzy studied Comparative Lit- what the heck?”
No. Performance and Potential.
6 Likes
Yes! I think what these numbers don’t take into account are the personal qualities that help people get ahead (or not). My view is that over the long term those things trump your major and, in many cases, what school you attended.
3 Likes
In addition we run into the causation vs correlation issue when we look across majors and even more so when we look across majors for different schools.
Why do econ majors at Harvard have a $1.9mm ROI based on the FreOpp study (linking again because thread is so long) Is College Worth It? A Comprehensive Return on Investment Analysis | by Preston Cooper | FREOPP.org vs Engineering Science at $1.3mm. It is not because the study of economics imparts some high value specialized and monetizable skill like engineering, it is because a high proportion of Harvard students pursuing an Econ major are also shooting for a career in finance, consulting or law. If we look at the Yale Classics major data from @Data10 post #100, 28% of those working found jobs in finance and consulting. You can study Classics and take enough courses that involve quantitative analysis if you are Classics major who wants to go into finance or consulting, but a far larger number of Classics majors have no interest in those fields, that is why so many go on to grad schools or Academia.
Now to go back to the Murray State hypothetical, I think it is fair to say that you could pursue a Classics major at Harvard and have a decent chance of getting a high paying job in finance/consulting if you took the right courses outside of Classics and had a high enough GPA. Not so the Murray State (or choose most state flagships) Classics major. The non Harvard Classics major may in fact be more intelligent and hardworking, but the career placement opportunities coming out of college for a humanities type are just not as good.
1 Like
I agree with this. First, I believe an undergraduate engineering degree is in many ways as focused as many Masters programs. After your first two years of essentially science courses to prepare you for your engineering courses, most of your hours are spent on very specific and frankly advanced engineering courses. The last two academic years of my oldest Ds Chemical Engineering program was easily as challenging as my younger Ds 3 year DPT program and nearly as focused. She was able to take a couple of electives but there wasn’t much room in her schedule. For an engineering major I would suggest doing a coop rather than a Masters program. Most companies seem to prefer experience to a specific specialty. The exception to this might some kind of bio medical engineering where a Masters degree is preferred.
I know some engineering Phds. On the whole the ones I know are researchers, work for the government or their subcontractors and enjoy their work. They make more money than some other engineers but only marginally more given their years of experience.
Why do these degrees pay off. Because they are challenging and require a person with a certain focus, academic strengths and desire. Usually people who are paid the best are doing jobs that others either can’t or prefer not to do. Those jobs that are popular usually don’t pay as well unless the person is exceptional at what they are doing. I believe that is why there are so many students with humanities or social science degrees that don’t make much money. There are lots of them, the degrees typically are not deemed as challenging as say engineering and while there are plenty of positions there are also lots of graduates. A lot of students study biology with the idea of going to med school. It’s more challenging than some other degrees and med schools requires the best grades. Usually no more than a third are successful. It means that there are a lot of biology majors for the jobs that require that degree. Paying whatever you have to pay for a college degree does not guarantee you a job only a credential. It’s the student that has to sell themselves to the potential employer.
I disagree. Lots of jobs that don’t pay well also require focus, strengths and desire. The difference is that some jobs make a lot of money for shareholders and CEOs. FAANG make a fortune, which is why they can pay their employees big salaries. In contrast, places hiring devoted PhD archeologists don’t make fortunes. Some fields are just more about profit than others. Job satisfaction or salary amount by field of study has nothing to do with the focus, strength or desire of its workers. It is self-selecting, though - focused people who prioritize income will enter fields that similarly prioritize income.
Eta: within a field is a different story. The more skilled and focused employees should be paid more if it is a meritocracy and merit is rewarded with money.
4 Likes
Compensation is subject to the law of supply and demand. No employer is going to pay you significantly more than what is necessary. The supply of qualified candidates is more constrained in a field that is more challenging, However, there is also the demand side. The demand is greater in a sector (or subsector) that generates more profit (so it needs to hire more people). There are fields of study on college campuses that are more (and some significantly more) challenging than engineering, but they may have less demand, resulting in lower compensation.
2 Likes
Yeah but what did those 60% major in. And I’m embellishing to show a point. Very few in life go to Harvard or similar.
1 Like
And I did say in the end that “one should pursue what they enjoy’.” And that while money was important it’s not the only consideration.
I noted that. I’m an example of that. I, for example, am not made for engineering. I’d have failed out first semester.
But I summarized with an answer to the question which is an engineering student had an easier and more lucrative path than I did although I got into sales and became the exception and made more $ and may continue to do so.
Btw when I got my mba, who got hired first ? The engineering undergrad / MBAs all got hired before those of us with humanitie or social science and MBAs.
Glad to breathe life into the thread 
1 Like
I graduated from Business School in the middle of a recession- and had offers (with “only” a Classics degree) before ANY of the engineers. I don’t think your experience speaks to all MBA’s at all times.
The main difference between me and the engineers in B-school was that I worked my %^& off, and they coasted. Finance is a lot easier than engineering- so they phoned it in. Accounting is a LOT easier than engineering- so they phoned it in. They did enough to get by in group projects.
Meanwhile, the humanities majors and the performing arts majors and the social science majors were there blowing the cover off the ball. Who is a professor going to pick for a plum consulting assignment with a group of faculty members- the engineers who coast or the students giving it their all?
Hard work means something. And being hungry means something. I wasn’t in B-school to get my ticket punched- I had to study. The engineers were there because their bosses told them to go get an MBA, and by the way- the company will pay for it.
I had loans to pay off. Did not have the luxury of coasting.
3 Likes
An interesting article about this very topic and one I’ve seen play out among my own friend group.
2 Likes
I think our collective antiquated experience (we all sound like contemporaries of one another) has very little relevance to today. I also don’t think any individual element dictates financial outcome or happiness. I think the following factors all contribute to a different extent dependent on each individual…
1- Choosing a lucrative or tech specific area of expertise has become more important as the economy and world have evolved. Having tangible and measurable skills matters.
2- The individual!!! If you work hard, take advantage of opportunities, determination, intelligence, etc all matters.
3- Prestige or access helps. All things being equal familiarity of a school or it’s associated selectivity and access to alumni and resources matter.
4- Luck matters.
You don’t necessarily need any or all of the aforementioned but they all matter and aside from some anecdotal cases most people who achieve financial success in todays highly competitive world have some combo in my experience. To debate the preeminence of one is to underestimate the value of all and the leverage of all when effectively combined.
6 Likes
At my school and I graduated in ‘98 (full time mba) and perhaps it’s where I was…Arizona State but you had the Intels, HPs, and others coming plus a lot of supply chain at ASU and engineering is often recruited for that role so you may be right.
My concentration, marketing, definitely lagged in getting offers….especially the non engineers.
And yes I agree hard work above all matters. I’m still busting tail 12 hours plus a day 6 days a week.
I’m glad the CC is here for me as an outlet
Oh and @Catcherinthetoast i agree with the message you just posted….the very first sentence and #1 especially.
My kid who graduates next year….will what he’s learned not be current in 5-10 years. It’s likely.
But do the universities keep up or is it the workplace, that if progressive, will keep him current.
2 Likes
Most things will not be “current” after 5-10 years. That’s why many take active measures to remain up to date in their fields. Physicians, lawyers, and yes, even those in tech fields take active measures to remain current. Many don’t and are happy to continue in their position, but those that wish to exist at the leading-edge have to continue learning.
1 Like
I agree with your comments here. My high school kiddos have chosen fields neither of their parents have any experience in, but where their interests and talents align.
So many of the English majors at Harvard get heavily involved in specific extracurricular activities which many times lead to their career paths. My son was an English major who lived and breathed the Harvard lampoon. He is now a writer at SNL.
10 Likes
No they generally aren’t. However, they are more likely to belong to the SEC that allows them to access jobs that make a lot of money. The theoretical Murray State English graduate doesn’t have friends and family working for top financial institutions and publishing houses. Without the connections, you are highly unlikely to get those jobs. Less because hiring is based on those connection, but rather because of internships.
If you parents are wealthy and work in finance, you will be more likely to get an internship in a major financial institution. Yes, you will need to interview and do a good job, but those connections will get you a foot in the door. Something like “hi, I’m Sam Smith, a sophomore at Murray State, what are the opportunities for internships?” which will invariable be to an administrative assistant, will get a response of “thank you for inquiring we do not have any openings at the moment, but keep your eyes on ours website, and check for any positions which are advertised”.
On the other hand “Hi, I’m Chad Smythe, and my father, Greg Smith, spoke with you about how I am looking for an internship” which will be at least to the secretary of whatever high positioned person is his father’s friend, will get the response “OK, I remember than you were mentioned. Let me connect you with my secretary, and they will set up an interview for you. Don’t forget to send your resume over”.
So Chad, with a couple of internships at top financial institutions, is much more likely to be hired than Sam. In the vast majority of cases, Chad is pretty well qualified for the position. However, because Sam lacks the connections that Chad has, he is never really in the running.
To go back to the original point if the thread. Here is a crazy idea - what if having an education in something a person loves does NOT have a dollar tag?
What the heck is wrong with simply LEARNING?
Many people here assume that their personal values are universal. Not everybody measures their success in life based on what they own.
This article and the subsequent discussion has all been under the assumption that the more money a person makes after finishing their degree, the “better” that degree happens to be. Yes - going into debt for a degree which will not pay back the debt is a monumentally dumb idea. But otherwise?
As the discussion of PhDs illuminates, many of the most academically talented people in the USA (and the world) are taking a serious pay cut to do what they love. My wife’s PhD students are all making substantially more money than she is (none went into academia).
In fact, for almost every field (including English), people with PhDs make more money outside of academia than they do in academia.
Teachers have some of the lowest salaries for people with an undergraduate degree, including people who have general degrees. Almost every teacher could make more money doing something else.
People are discussing “return on investment” for degrees, and ignoring all type of return which are not financial.
7 Likes
Because for most people, four years of college is too long of an investment to NOT result in a high paying job or a grad school admission. Even if they go to college on a full ride, most American college students can’t afford to have a BA in the humanities. Unless they happen to be independently wealthy. We forget on CC that most kids don’t have parents who’ll pay for grad school for them or help them out on their downpayment.
3 Likes
A PhD costs nothing, unless a person is doing it wrong. Reputable PhD programs cost nothing for the students, and in fact, the students are financially supported throughout their PhD.
In a reputable PhD program, any accepted student has their tuition paid by the accepting department, and has five years of stipend assured.
Neither my wife nor I have parents who could afford anything. Yet we finished two PhDs, and had a kid while doing so.
3 Likes
Bloomington- do you have insurance? You probably do. Other than the actuaries, very few people in the insurance companies you use have STEM degrees. Yes, there are minimum wage jobs in the insurance industry- just like in every other huge corporation. But there are people who manage marketing departments, claims departments, sales departments, facilities and real estate, procurement, human resources, etc- and a significant percentage of these people, who earn a comfortable living- have BA’s. Psych, English, French literature, political science, all these disciplines you ignore- and that’s what they have.
Have you ever gone to a movie? I bet you have. Not talking about the producers and the actors. But talking about EVERYONE else employed by a large, global entertainment conglomerate. They ALSO have marketing and real estate and procurement and human resources- and yes, those people ALSO earn a nice living, and those people ALSO typically have degrees in the humanities.
Do you own sneakers? You probably do. Those companies have even MORE opportunities for managerial roles-- their supply chains are complicated and global. They have people in leadership roles who work on sustainability issues, people in leadership roles who work with overseas suppliers to insure that 8 years olds are not working in the factories making their shoes. They have people developing contacts with “hot” talent in the athletic and musical world, and people in Social Media writing snappy posts to highlight whatever fabulous party launched a new shoes. And the people who plan those parties. And the people who work with retailers on displaying and marketing the shoes.
You must live in a very bleak world if you never have exposure to the millions of people who studied humanities and work in advertising, retailing, real estate, etc.
Call your insurance agent. Mine studied psychology as an undergrad. A lot of uber successful business development and marketing people study psychology or sociology. And very few of them are independently wealthy because those aren’t fields rich kids go into…
10 Likes