The survey was of those on a job search website, so I would expect participants’ graduation dates varied widely. I would assume that certain categories tied, so that both English and French majors are in the highest category of regret. The point seems to be that many looking for jobs regret their majors in certain subjects, and find it difficult to obtain adequate employment.
This thread is really about how a student should choose his/her major(s). The general advice I gave to my S and others who seek my counsel are roughly along the following lines:
- Pursue what interest you. You won't do well in fields you aren't interested in.
- Find what you're good at. You need some comparative advantages in what you do.
- You need to look over a longer horizon. What's popular today may not last. You need to be prepared for disruptions in areas of your specialty. Everyone needs to reinvent oneself at least from time to time, if not constantly, especially in a technology-driven world. You need more than specialized skills to accomplish this.
- We parents should only play an advisory role. You can bounce ideas off us but we won't make decisions for you. You don't have to take our advice but you need to be able to make good, hopefully convincing, argument for your decision.
In addition to the general advice, we also offered our S advice on specific majors and specializations within majors, but they’re probably too specific for this thread.
^I think it’s also a caution to expand your opportunities for employment and for growth in the job by making sure your skills aren’t limited to those most associated with your major.
If you’re an English major make sure you know how to work with stats and basic computer programs. If you’re an engineer, take a writing class beyond the major’s technical writing course.
An engineering firm may be specifically looking for candidate who can clearly explain the team’s work to clients or the public. Someone hiring an English major to write the company newsletter may also want them to be able to update the website or design and conduct surveys. As people upthread commented, in the long run the most successful employees will be those with a broad range of skills and the demonstrated flexibility to master areas outside their wheelhouse.
The first group seems to be a combo of majors many students swap into after they couldn’t necessarily do the latter group. Then too, there are probably several in the 60% who didn’t make it into Med School and those told to go to Law School even though it wasn’t their passion. Almost anyone neurotypical academically can “crank out” these majors even if it’s not their innate ability. I hate to admit it, but many of our lower academic students are often counselled to go into teaching, communications, or social sciences.
The second group seems to mostly graduate those with the savviness/talent to stick with it. Those who don’t have it often switch out - hence a natural culling of sorts. There’s very little culling in the first - maybe some switching, but often switching into another of those majors.
I wonder what the comparison would be among those with equal talent/love for their majors vs graduates who got there by pondering, “well I suppose I could do this.”
I see the gamut of good (or bad) people skills across all job types TBH. Those at the top aren’t immune. It’s often talked about how many are promoted because those lower didn’t want them - Peter Principle, etc. There are good and not-so-good bosses the same as all levels of workers.
Of course, a big part of that is we’re all human and no human is perfect nor do we all value the same things in jobs or otherwise.
Thus perhaps the increasing trend towards schools offering more interdisciplinary majors and collaborations between traditional faculties. One of the specialized programs offered at the school DS19 attends is an integrated sciences program that teaches the main sciences in an integrated project based manner. The projects require knowledge from various science fields and while the students in the group are free to focus on one particular field, they have to work collaboratively with the other “specialists” in the group. They are then required to present their finalized projects to the rest of the class. First year course work covers the introductory material of various sciences, social sciences, and maths. After first year the integrated projects continue but students are then able to choose an area of concentration to specialize in. The school also offers a cross-disciplinary Arts & Sciences program that works along similar lines and I think both are a fantastic idea. The only downside is that they are extremely limited entry. DS19 applied to the iSci program but unfortunately was not accepted (their loss 
).
A variety of skills beyond your major will definitely improve your post college satisfaction, because it will help you fit better in whichever position you land. Regarding disappointment in the major due to lack of job opportunities, this may be an issue related to unrealistic expectations in the young job seekers. Some degrees have a pretty clear job descriptions and path while others need to accept positions that kind of sort of match their education and a better pay may require contract work, travel, relocation, job retraining etc. They need to be flexible. It replicates somewhat the college application process : you aim for Columbia and graduate from Pace.
I believe our country was at its best when our society supported higher education. When higher education was affordable, there wasn’t a lot of concern about picking a major that was marketable. Students mostly followed their interests and strengths, and our economy was able to employ most of them post graduation regardless of major. A college degree was a ticket to success and when people get to do what they like and what they are good at, we all benefit. We lived through an amazing era of innovation and advancement across multiple disciplines.
Now unfortunately, when undergraduate education can cost a $120k up to a quarter of a million dollars, when loans become a necessity, and when employment opportunity is unknown, parents and students become more nervous about their choice of schools, and the choice of majors. People want a ROI, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing given the cost.
I agree with INJParent post 401 and tried to put the decision in my kids hands. I believe everyone needs to find a balance their family is comfortable with. I didn’t want to limit my kids choices. I value education for education sake and I wanted them to have the same luxury I had to explore and to make my own choices. But, because of the costs, I drew some lines. We told our kids we had two requirements: We expected them to 1) do their best and 2) pursue a rigorous course of study, just like they did in high school. Additionally because I didn’t feel they were rigorous majors, I nixed (maybe unjustifiably so) “studies” majors (general, ethnic, religious, gender, environmental, film -all of them). I felt if those subjects were their passions, they could study them in a tougher major (e.g., environmental science rather than environmental studies). But I’m sure there are many successful studies grads out there; that was just where my personal concern regarding ROI resulted in eliminating some options.
Like many, I get weary of the CC debate between big university or small LAC, and STEM vs anything else. It’s undergrad and students can get a great education at a lot of different schools and they can achieve success with a lot of different majors. I believe what’s most important is how seriously they take their academics and how well they take advantage of opportunities that will help them post grad. There’s a lot of focus on CC around extracurriculars like sports, clubs, band, Greek life and study abroad. Those can all be great experiences, but depending on the job they want, they aren’t always the most helpful activities when launching a career. A double major or minor, an internship, or undergraduate research might be a better use of time and more marketable. Every family will have different priorities and beliefs, but it’s wise to consider life beyond college early and often. Students are building their resume all through college.
And, I just have to say, soft skills aren’t exclusively a “LA skill set”. Soft skills include:
1 – Communication
2 – Teamwork
3 – Adaptability
4 – Problem-Solving
5 – Creativity
6 – Work Ethic
7 – Interpersonal Skulls
8 – Time Management
Many of these skills are naturally built into STEM programs.
I think the “inconvenient truth” here is that if you choose one of the “less employable” majors, and you are NOT coming from an one of the elite schools, you most likely are going to face underemployment, at least for your first few years post-grad. I am not considering the many people who choose to go to grad school in this broad generalization, by the way.
Are you an English major from Columbia? Great! You can very well get a gig (or at least interviews) at a place like McKinsey or Goldman Sachs, or maybe spend some time in the Peace Corps or Teach For America before beginning your public service career.
Are you an English major from Montclair State? Cool - but you may have be an admin assistant for this marketing agency before you break into their talent acquisition team in HR.
The statistics seem to back this up.
I used this calculator (https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-college-graduates-make-the-most-11574267424) for English majors at Columbia vs. Montclair State:
Columbia University English Majors
Average Debt After Graduation: $21,000
Average Earnings 1 Year After Graduation: $41,500
Montclair State English Majors
Average Debt After Graduation: $22,250
Average Earnings 1 Year After Graduation: $27,400
Please note that these stats only include students who have received federal aid, if I understand correctly. So students coming from background too wealthy for that, or international students, are excluded.
Another way of thinking about those days is that back then the signaling value of a degree was much greater (“this person is smart and hardworking”) because far fewer kids got a degree.
Now that degrees are far more common, the same signaling requires attendance at a top school, taking a “rigorous” major (of whatever kind), getting a high GPA and/or going to grad school. If you have most or all of those then your degree is still a “ticket to success”, albeit a far more expensive one.
So then, my question is : why even go to Montclair ? It does not make economic sense. I mean, would one borrow 200.000 $ for a house that is valued at 100.000 ? That is economic suicide ( unicorns all over ). The problem with some majors disappointment is also fueled by a ballooning of diluted majors from diluted colleges. Colleges may promise you the world, because for them it is a business but employers are not stupid. I mean, you can’t have only the convenient half of the capitalism, you have to deal with the painful half as well : it is called demand.
One person’s economic suicide is another’s conspicuous consumption. Plenty of people borrow money to put in a swimming pool or new kitchen knowing that they are spending $200K but it’s only going to increase the value of their house by $100K.
The economic suicide part is when you are living beyond your means, in terms of buying a house or attending a college you can’t afford. Plenty of people convince themselves that their house price/career prospects will increase enough that their bet will pay off. And in a strong economy it might do. But not in a recession. As Warren Buffett said “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”
Chances are that most who go to Montclair (average SAT 990 - 1170, only 2% each higher in math/verbal) had no chance of getting into Columbia (average SAT 1450 - 1560, 89% >700 in math, 81% > 700 in Verbal).
I suspect the 2-4% with similar scores probably did quite well and possibly went there to get the free or low cost education. Could they have done better at Columbia? Who knows, and at what cost?
The middle ground group at Montclair is likely debating between a college degree and direct entry into the work force (retail, food service, and factory being common around here - none of which pay a lot esp that first year). If they are the more academic type, they prefer the degree. If they are the more hands on types then their peers likely chose trades or factory work, etc. Some will have gone to the military.
None of these are a bad path. I’ve seen kids like all sorts of niches in life and it takes all niches filled to give us a nice place to live in.
ps Montclair also doesn’t cost 200K - not even at full sticker price from OOS (and there are probably few of those).
He, 200.000 was just a random number. A lot of these degrees and colleges are just fool’s gold.
I previously posted stats for all Ivy League colleges using the same CollegeScorecard database in post #398, on the previous page. Ivy League English majors had a median earnings of $36k vs $27k for all colleges. The key difference appeared to be public colleges vs private colleges, rather than elite vs non-elite. T50 privates had a median of $34k – roughly the same as Ivy League, while T50 publics had a median of $28k – roughly the same as all colleges (most students attend public colleges). Perhaps public/private differences correlate with portion of English majors who are targeting certain fields, such as portion in public (for example teaching at public secondary schools) vs working at private for-profit companies.
In any case, English major earnings were low for both types of colleges, and both had very few English majors working for McKinsey or Goldman Sachs or similar. For example, I previously linked the Cornell list of post-graduate positions. Only 4% of English majors worked in finance, and those few English majors working in finance were often at companies like American Express and Citi, rather than McKinsey and Goldman Sachs. The median earnings for students at less selective colleges was notably higher than the median earnings for English majors at Ivies, even though the English majors at Ivies almost certainly excel in measures of student quality, such as test scores.
Thanks for that - very interesting insight. To be fair, elite public universities for humanities/social science majors are few and far between - and all but three of them are almost always unforgiving to OOS underprivileged students when it comes to tuition (exceptions being UVA, UNC-Chapel Hill, and Michigan). Please note I am not including Service Academies in this discussion.
That makes things really bad for most people coming from modest backgrounds, but interested in the “less employable” majors.
I guess I can modify my previous point to this:
The “inconvenient truth” here is that if you are not already coming from a privileged background, and choose one of the “less employable” majors, and you are NOT coming from an one of the elite schools, then you most likely are going to face underemployment, at least for your first few years post-grad.
A few random comments on posts above:
- Employers can measure STEM graduates more objectively than they can with humanity graduates. As a result, when they hire humanity graduates, they substantially rely on the colleges to do the selections for them (even though those selections were carried out four or more years ago). Humanity majors from elite schools enjoy this advantage.
- Effective networking also plays a bigger role for humanity majors for the same reason. Public universities, with a few exceptions, tend to have fewer resources and weaker networks than top privates.
- Employability depends substantially on supply and demand, even for STEM majors. With more college graduates today than ever, the supply-and-demand imbalance is in favor of the employers, except in a few areas. The imbalance isn't static either and graduates need skills to be able to adapt.
Dang, dude.
I hope you can, upon reflection, realize how utterly insulting such a claim is.
So social sciences and such are for those without savviness and/or talent, those who bombed out of other majors, a natural culling?! Agree with @dfbdfb that @Creekland’s post is more than a bit much and nothing more than her own conjecture.
4% isn’t surprising as I’m sure many, many english majors aren’t seeking out jobs in big corporations. However, this is more goal post moving. So American Express and Citi aren’t deemed to be good enough? Inferior to McKinsey and GS? They represent very solid jobs. Are we now judging on whether liberal arts majors can get into what some deem to be top tier firms?
That’s not particularly surprising, any more than it would be if it turned out only a small percentage of math major were working in advertising or public relations. Few English majors are pursuing jobs in finance.