I’ve known a lot of people with “soft” degrees who got jobs, made money, etc. Yeah, those English majors weren’t hired for their knowledge of Shakespeare, but because they had a good general knowledge of a lot of useful stuff.
And then there were those who hard a hard time getting a job as a barista at Starbucks regardless of degree.
What I think explains the difference is that in the softer fields attract a few more “aimless” people. Those with little ambition and sort of drift along. Those types don’t do well post-college.
It’s the old correlation is not causation thing. I don’t see how a study such as this can possibly weed out the self-selection component that leads to poor success later in life.
Yup. Symbolic Logic was the course that broke me. I could either dedicate every waking moment of the next semester trying to understand what was going on, or I could do well in all of my classes. I think I made it two weeks.
I switched my major to Spanish, and I am SO glad I did. That opened so many doors for me.
These points must be underscored. There is a selection bias of these lists -
If you are accepted into a chemical engineering or a pharmacology program, dang if you even know that is what you want to do, you are probably a focused and (in at least some particular subset of intelligence) intelligent person. The odds are pretty high.
If you are in a liberal arts program ending up in sociology or such you may be very intelligent and focused … or you may not be. There will be a fairly large number of lesser lights in there among the very bright ones. The bright ones will likely do well in life. The lesser lights maybe not so much so.
Lists like this inform to some degree who chooses each degree path. But the question they claim to be the answer to is: given a certain person who is bright enough that they can get into any of those programs, which path will lead to greater economic success? And it informs little, if at all, about that.
I am a biased source but I see my kids as bright and willing to apply themselves. I have no problem with the Fine Arts/Psychology dual degree for the oldest, the Anthro/Soc for number two, and whatever Liberal Arts degree number three decides (applying for college now). Number four has a few years … And if one was not so bright or unwilling to apply him/herself, applying to chem engineering would not help.
Who knew that having degrees in Applied Math, Computer Science, and a minor in Geography would translate into being a successful business owner of Day Programs for Developmentally Disabled adults?
My partner is currently a Project Manager, making just shy of six figures, and a former English major. If I hadn’t futzed around for years getting my useless Ph.D in musicology before climbing the corporate ladder, I probably would be right about there salary-wise too.
Drama is in fact an extremely useful thing to major in if you want to have a career in theatre or film. Especially if you go to a school in a large media market.
I really don’t understand lists like these. Perhaps stage managers don’t make as much as doctors. But what if you don’t want to be a doctor?
My theory is that it’s sour grapes by people who work “a paycheck’s a paycheck” jobs, who justify their choices by telling themselves that the money is the only thing that matters. It’s easier to handle a job that is not particularly self-actualizing by deciding that people who do work jobs they enjoy are “losers.”
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with “a paycheck’s a paycheck” jobs. But different people have different motivations.
