Unemployed College Majors: Engineering vs. English

[zeitgeist]

I decided to Nadine this phrase "unemployment liberal arts vs science" and this was the first article I hit on.

http://fearhonorinterest.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/college-majors-unemployment-wages/

on November 13, 2011 by barefooteconomist In trying to understand what drives the Occupy Wall Street protesters, certain commentators have resorted to stereotyping: casting them as unemployed youth with liberal arts degrees, disappointed that their degree in puppetry or medieval French didn’t pay off. According to this rhetoric, there’s plenty of demand for engineers and scientists, students are just too stupid or lazy to specialize in these fields. Setting aside the condescending tone, how true is this claim?

{snip}
Conclusion:

For policy makers, this might suggest that too many students do liberal arts at the expense of math and science. This makes perfect sense if risk-averse students prefer the relative certainty of getting a decently paid job to the risk of getting either a high paid job or nothing. More science grants and scholarships would certainly help students who hesitate to choose the riskier, more rewarding option.

Students choosing a major face a choice between what Nassim Taleb termed ‘mediocristan’, low risk & low returns, and ‘extremistan’, high risk & high returns on average. The decision of course depends on personal preference, as life is about more than having a job and a lot of money. But as economic foundations tremble and students who once though they had a guaranteed job find themselves in the street, perhaps it’s worth taking the risk to do something quantitative.

Anyone familiar with this site?  While interesting it wasn't quite what I was looking for.


The next up was this one:


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46267

Liberal arts vs. science majors
November 15, 2011 by Don Surber


Occupy Wall Street had the liberal arts majors camped out in tents — down by the river — protesting the idea of having to pay back their student loans.


So where are the science and business majors? They traded in their dorms for life in foreclosed McMansions out in California. They are living large, enjoying the Jacuzzi and vino as they work toward degrees for which there is a market after college — at annual starting salaries that in some cases are double what a liberal arts student can expect.


From CNBC: “The finances of subdivision life are compelling: the university estimates yearly on-campus room and board at $13,720 a year, compared with roughly $7,000 off-campus. Sprawl rats sharing a McMansion — with each getting a bedroom and often a private bath — pay $200 to $350 a month each, depending on the amenities.”


So these students have figured out how to cut their housing bills in half while greatly improving enhancing their lifestyles. And who are they? From the article: Heather Alarab, a management major. Jill Foster, applied math. Patricia Dugan, management. Gurbir Dhillon, molecular cell biology. Katilyn McIntire, human biology.

Glenn Reynolds said this may be a sign of the higher education bubble (kids leaving high-priced dorms) or housing bubble (kids getting cheap nice housing). But then he wrote: “Or maybe it’s just a sign that today’s students know a good opportunity when they see one.”

Well, the ones who are not studying liberal arts are.

To my readers, please clip and share this post with your children and grandchildren The world has plenty of pre-kindergarten teachers. What we need are molecular cell biologists. That’s why they are paid more when they graduate.

Unless of course you want your kids to live in tents.

Best comment from this one:

Jeremy says:
November 15, 2011 at 11:05 AM
I wouldn’t mind if my kids lived in tents, as long as their cloths said U.S.ARMY, or USMC that is.
Heck, I wouldn’t mind if some one said to my grand kids “Your momma wears combat boots” as long as she had the matching uniform to go with it.

 

[franksolich]

Good find, sir.

In fact, a great find.

<<has degree in liberal arts, but went into it knowing exactly what to expect from it.

[NHSparky]

I have yet to hear or see an Occutard claiming they majored in a hard science, engineering, math, computer science/information technology, business, or management.

Tell ya anything, hippies?

[franksolich]

I have yet to hear or see an Occutard claiming they majored in a hard science, engineering, math, computer science/information technology, business, or management.

Uh huh.

Bull's eye.  Right on target.

[TVDOC]

I have yet to hear or see an Occutard claiming they majored in a hard science, engineering, math, computer science/information technology, business, or management.

That's because they all have jobs........

There is an underlying factor that never enters these discussions..........majoring in liberal arts is easy (anyone with an IQ of 80 can struggle through)........leaving plenty of time to party.

Partying being the primary objective.

Science/Business majors.....not so much......

I will never understand how anyone who spends four (or more) years studying seventeenth century Russian literature, actually expects to make a living.

doc

[franksolich]

I will never understand how anyone who spends four (or more) years studying seventeenth century Russian literature, actually expects to make a living.

Some of us, though, never did expect that, and from day one we didn't expect it.

Me, I concentrated on hardware (the real hardware, not computer stuff), figuring that was where I had a future.

To put it bluntly, the first time around in college, I was just there because it was somewhere to be.

The second time around, to get a degree in accounting, I was older and more serious.

But yeah, a lot of liberal and fine arts graduates have woefully absurd expectations.  I knew knowledge of 19th-century British parliamentary politics wasn't worth a wooden nickel on the job market.....but I was surprised at how many others in the liberal arts at the time expected really good-paying jobs.

I don't regret that first degree, as I got a lot of personal satisfaction and gratification out of it, but I thank God I never had any expectations or hopes or dreams it'd make me affluent.

[TVDOC]

Some of us, though, never did expect that, and from day one we didn't expect it.

But yeah, a lot of liberal and fine arts graduates have woefully absurd expectations.  I knew knowledge of 19th-century British parliamentary politics wasn't worth a wooden nickel on the job market.....but I was surprised at how many others in the liberal arts at the time expected really good-paying jobs.

I don't regret that first degree, as I got a lot of personal satisfaction and gratification out of it, but I thank God I never had any expectations or hopes or dreams it'd make me affluent.

I suppose that's why I'm baffled....confounded........by all of these kids camping out in tents in urban parks, demanding that someone else pay off their student loan debt, because they suddenly woke up and discovered that their degrees were worthless?!?

Are not the parents involved??  I know that we WERE involved in guiding all three of our children in their choice of majors, for the obvious reasons, but not to diminish the fact that we were paying the bills.

You, on the other  hand, went back and embarked on a course of study that was practical........and you survive.

doc

[franksolich]

Are not the parents involved??  I know that we WERE involved in guiding all three of our children in their choice of majors, for the obvious reasons, but not to diminish the fact that we were paying the bills.

You, on the other  hand, went back and embarked on a course of study that was practical........and you survive.

My parents of course were gone by the time I entered college, or some several weeks after, but at various times other adults questioned my choice of majors (history of the British Empire and Commonwealth; I couldn't do American history because I already knew it).

Back when I was 18, 19, 20, 21 years old, I was working at a wholesale hardware distributor and making good money.  I was more interested in working than in college.  I was in college just because it was near, it was handy, it was convenient, no other reason.  Also family pressure.

And, of course, I was green in judgement.

But again, one thing I wasn't naive about; that such a degree would get me a good job, make me rich.

I was rather more counting on nails, nuts and bolts, tools, appliances, &c., &c., &c., to do that.

[TVDOC]

My parents of course were gone by the time I entered college, or some several weeks after, but at various times other adults questioned my choice of majors (history of the British Empire and Commonwealth; I couldn't do American history because I already knew it).

Back when I was 18, 19, 20, 21 years old, I was working at a wholesale hardware distributor and making good money.  I was more interested in working than in college.  I was in college just because it was near, it was handy, it was convenient, no other reason.  Also family pressure.

And, of course, I was green in judgement.

But again, one thing I wasn't naive about; that such a degree would get me a good job, make me rich.

I was rather more counting on nails, nuts and bolts, tools, appliances, &c., &c., &c., to do that.

I suppose that my college future was pretty much pre determined.  I excelled in math and science in HS, and although my father had passed by the time I was ready to enter college, and my mother couldn't afford (at the time) to finance my education, I was fortunate enough to test competitively and win a sponsorship in what was then called a "co-op" engineering program, whereby I went to classes for 12-week periods (called "sections") and worked in an industrial plant for 12-week periods.......these alternating work/study sections were year-round, with no summer breaks........however, they were designed so that my earnings at the plant covered my tuition, lodging, books, meals, etc. while at school.

It was arduous, due to the abridged academic year (six months total), as I was required to attend class pretty much 8 full hours each day, plus spent most of Saturdays in labs.  My "welcome to college" first semester freshman year consisted of 21 credit hours of classes.......there wasn't much leasure time.

If nothing else, I graduated with a work ethic.......and a lot of practical experience.  All of which served me well later.  And I did have a guaranteed job.

To be honest, my advanced degree work was far easier.

doc

[Celtic Rose]

I'll admit that my degree (History with a minor in French) did not make me instantly wealthy, but I was employable.  I graduated in December, and my mom mostly let me get through the holidays without too much pressure, but a week into December she told me to go to the Temp agency and get some sort of job.  I worked hard, and I had a good job for four and half years.  I'm pursuing a second degree now to pursue what I hope will be a more fulfilling and lucrative career, but I honestly believe that the path I've taken thus far has been the path that I was meant to take.

My first job I got out of college paid $9.50 an hour. I started as an HR assistant doing data entry, and worked my way up.  If I had stayed with that company, I would have eventually made a good living, but it wasn't what I wanted to do. 

[Wineslob]

.but I was surprised at how many others in the liberal arts at the time expected really good-paying jobs.

My question would have been...............what job? What did they expect to get, other than a public sector job?

[DumbAss Tanker]

I know people with English, History, and even Fine Arts degrees who are doing fine, and people with 'hard' science, technical, and law degrees who went nowhere.  You have to play to your strengths, but the outcomes have a whole lot more to do with the individual's drive and will than they do with any set curriculum. 

[Eupher]

I know people with English, History, and even Fine Arts degrees who are doing fine, and people with 'hard' science, technical, and law degrees who went nowhere.  You have to play to your strengths, but the outcomes have a whole lot more to do with the individual's drive and will than they do with any set curriculum. 

Bingo.

I didn't get my BA in Management until I was within 6 months of retirement from the Army because I was not going to have to ask someone how to supersize their fries when I did hang up the uniform.

That was enough to get me a bottom-of-the-rung gig in pharmaceutical QA and since that time - 17 years ago - I've been working steadily upwards and have some work done toward a graduate degree. I've had to move around a lot to do that (six different states in 13 years), but having to undergo a move and the related sale of our house was, in the end, worth it.

In the end, you have to go after and make your own opportunities. Camping out in a Manhattan park, wailing and weeping about Wall Street doesn't cut it, hippies. Instead of crying and whining about "the system", spend some time to work within it and you just might be able to move out of Mommy's basement.

[TVDOC]

I know people with English, History, and even Fine Arts degrees who are doing fine, and people with 'hard' science, technical, and law degrees who went nowhere.  You have to play to your strengths, but the outcomes have a whole lot more to do with the individuals drive and will than they do with any set curriculum. 

To an extent, I'd agree.......the definition of "fine" being the critical and subjective factor, and I'd add this:

http://www.studentsreview.com/salary_by_major.php3/

Which is a limited study, but nonetheless interesting, particularly when you consider the earnings ten years out from graduation.  In this study, arts majors may start on the low side of fine (relatively speaking), but their earnings growth is very limited compared to non-arts majors.  I'd conjecture that a good portion of that may be due to many of them ending up in some form of public service job, but when one compares those earnings to a good plumber, I'd still question the wisdom of their academic rationale.

I guess it's philosophical, and depends on a student's motivation for pursuing a higher education......is that motivation:

1.) Having a good time (getting drunk and laid....in no particular order)
2.) Keeping their parents happy, the money flowing, and treading water (avoiding commitment)
3.) Pursuing an interest (passion), regardless of how unmarketable that interest may be
4.) Preparing oneself for a profession (getting a job and supporting themselves)

As a postdoc university instructor, I've seen all four play out in all their collective glory.......the most successful combination I observed was when numbers 3 and 4 are merged, these are the people that end up with the "big bucks" after graduation.  I'd posit that OWS is a fair example of students that combine 1 and 2.

As a father of three college graduates (two with advanced degrees), and ten or more years from graduation all earning over 180k annually (and the oldest a hell of a lot more than that), I considered it MY responsibility to guide them into the major that came as close as possible to combining 3 and 4 above.  It worked well.

doc

[NHSparky]

I know people with English, History, and even Fine Arts degrees who are doing fine, and people with 'hard' science, technical, and law degrees who went nowhere.  You have to play to your strengths, but the outcomes have a whole lot more to do with the individual's drive and will than they do with any set curriculum. 

Very true, but the people in the two above mentioned categories are more the exception rather than the rule.  I know for a fact that the technical types have a lot stronger work ethic coming out of college which certainly works in their favor.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Very true, but the people in the two above mentioned categories are more the exception rather than the rule.  I know for a fact that the technical types have a lot stronger work ethic coming out of college which certainly works in their favor.

The big differerence between success and failure in the more technical curricula is the fact that there are a pretty fair number of people who can succeed in a bounded academic environment, even a very intellectually-demanding one, who are dismally, horrifyingly incapable of working in an actual organization with "Other humans" on things that have open-ended outcomes.

And no, Doc, I was not intending financial return to be the sole criterion of success, it's a convenient metric but it's just not the dominant concern for many that it is for some.  There are plenty of others who would rather just be doing something they enjoy as long as it pays the bills comfortably, while some feel a particular calling, and then again some are willing to trade either more family time, more locational stability, or more job security for a lower top-end.  There really isn't a one-size-fits-all measure.  Failure is a lot more obvious than success.   

[seahorse513]

IMHO, I think alot of people don't go into these higher degrees, is that they are afraid of failure..or something in their childhood put them off(me)...

Alot of times as well, is there might not be a market for it. or the market might be flooded. I think young people should research different careers and have a back up when they are approaching choosing careers...

Some people don't have ambition. What about stay at home moms whose husband is paid well enough, that she doesn't have to work, or stay at home moms who don't have a choice, because daycare eats up more than half their paycheck???


I was just thinking, i would like to be a military veteran advocate or mentor....how i would go about that, i am not sure....

[zeitgeist]

IMHO, I think alot of people don't go into these higher degrees, is that they are afraid of failure..or something in their childhood put them off(me)...

Alot of times as well, is there might not be a market for it. or the market might be flooded. I think young people should research different careers and have a back up when they are approaching choosing careers...

Some people don't have ambition. What about stay at home moms whose husband is paid well enough, that she doesn't have to work, or stay at home moms who don't have a choice, because daycare eats up more than half their paycheck???


I was just thinking, i would like to be a military veteran advocate or mentor....how i would go about that, i am not sure....

There are many opportunities beyond the college track.  I began college straight out of high school and was fortunate to run across one of the most brilliant counselors I have ever met. The whole story of my academic salvation would take too long to relate, suffice to say this counselor saw something in me worth saving from myself and knew just the right buttons to press to make it happen.

Good counselors can make a difference.  In many large colleges kids are left on their own in the name of academic freedom. Large numbers fail to pass that first test, freedom, and are sent home with their tails between their legs as failures.  I know of any number of folks who set out to become engineers only to fail when they couldn't handle the freedom of dorm life ( glug glug, party party), and later became teachers, bitter ones at that. 

I have also known a number of women who never went to college who became engineering technicians.  There are trade apprentice programs which provide a path to excellent earning potential.  Many times these are available in conjunction with vocational technical colleges.  Sadly many Voc Techs have fallen on hard times or have been converted to "associate degree diploma 'mills".  Maine is an excellent example;  the kids from northern vocs had actual trade knowledge, the kids from the southern ones could barely blow smoke out their a$$.



 

[seahorse513]

I look at it this way...One gets out of life what one puts into it...
Getting a higher education doesn't guarantee employment. One still has to do resumes, comb thru helpwanted ads, perhaps even go to a headhunter if need be...
Opportununities will knock on ones door, but not jobs..

One of the reasons we emmigrated to this country, was because the opportunities for my fathers business and educational background were much greater here. Would my father been more successful there?? perhaps, perhaps not...

That was a huge risk for all of us...He perservered however...and my mother was always very supportive..though divorced, they are still very good friends today...
Both parents have been excellent role models...

Not to change the subject, but what message will the future generation of present day occupiers recieve?? Not a very good one, when their parents camped out in tents,  and stomped their feet, when a minute percentage made alot more than they did.

[jtyangel]

That's because they all have jobs........

There is an underlying factor that never enters these discussions..........majoring in liberal arts is easy (anyone with an IQ of 80 can struggle through)........leaving plenty of time to party.

Partying being the primary objective.

Science/Business majors.....not so much......

I will never understand how anyone who spends four (or more) years studying seventeenth century Russian literature, actually expects to make a living.

doc

Not only does the material require more time to really get a hold of the ideas in it, but generally I've found those in the science/business area to be more interested in doing something more then 'getting by' too. Part may be out of necessity like I mentioned--you have to learn the material today to get the material tomorrow, but also I think there is more pride in doing more then just a mediocre job of what  they have committed to do. There seems to be a stronger work ethic in general which I think is what you were eluding to. That work ethic does not appear to be as strong in many liberal arts.

[TVDOC]

The big difference between success and failure in the more technical curricula is the fact that there are a pretty fair number of people who can succeed in a bounded academic environment, even a very intellectually-demanding one, who are dismally, horrifyingly incapable of working in an actual organization with "Other humans" on things that have open-ended outcomes.

And no, Doc, I was not intending financial return to be the sole criterion of success, it's a convenient metric but it's just not the dominant concern for many that it is for some.  There are plenty of others who would rather just be doing something they enjoy as long as it pays the bills comfortably, while some feel a particular calling, and then again some are willing to trade either more family time, more locational stability, or more job security for a lower top-end.  There really isn't a one-size-fits-all measure.  Failure is a lot more obvious than success.  

True.....however, in the technical fields there are still plenty of job opportunities for those who lack the temperament or inclination to function successfully in a group or corporate environment.  Let's face it.....regardless of how antisocial an individuals personality may be, if they have the skills and abilities to function brilliantly in highly specialized technical environments, some organization will "create" the necessary atmosphere to derive the benefit of those skills if the individual is really that smart.  I have created those environments myself in the past.

I believe (as you do) that students pursue higher education for a variety of reasons.......some of which have little to do with future employment.  That said, the question in my mind becomes whether the government should subsidize   (through grants, tuition assistance, interest almost-free loans, etc.) the educations of those individuals whose academic choices do not have any possibility of adding value to the economy in the future......if the government is going to become involved in such areas, it should be solely based on the national need for skills........not individual desires.  If the US has a shortage of physicians, engineers, chemists, et. al., those are where the aid should go.

Someone entering a university environment to pursue a "passion", as in my tongue-in-cheek example of 17th century Russian literature......that is fine......just don't expect any taxpayer assistance, you pay your own way.  You also abrogate your future opportunity to piss and moan that your degree has not equipped you to get a job and support yourself and family........such individuals wouldn't be able to whine about their student loans because they won't have any........they were "cash and carry" from the time they made their academic major choice.

doc

[seahorse513]

That said, the question in my mind becomes whether the government should subsidize   (through grants, tuition assistance, interest almost-free loans, etc.) the educations of those individuals whose academic choices do not have any possibility of adding value to the economy in the future......if the government is going to become involved in such areas, it should be solely based on the national need for skills........not individual desires.

 High 5 on that one Doc. That would be a great incentive and encourage more people to go into the sciences....

We need people in these fields to help bring about industry for the long haul.


I think people who are going to do their"passions" would be better off going to a small community college or take a day/night course. They are affordable and wouldn't cost the government and/or the student an arm and a leg.

[DumbAss Tanker]

That said, the question in my mind becomes whether the government should subsidize   (through grants, tuition assistance, interest almost-free loans, etc.) the educations of those individuals whose academic choices do not have any possibility of adding value to the economy in the future......if the government is going to become involved in such areas, it should be solely based on the national need for skills........not individual desires.  If the US has a shortage of physicians, engineers, chemists, et. al., those are where the aid should go.

It's a difficult question, given that there are plenty of people who have made great contributions to the world with non-technical educations.  On balance I do agree the priority of effort for assistance should go to the most-needed fields, of course in a few areas such as medicine there are some special additional subsidies and incentive programs now.  Maybe the real problem is that the aid and assistance is just TOO available. 

One of the basic problems with the liberal arts in the context of college curricula is that once they are established as full departments, they are like any other bureaucratic organism and fight for life themselves, at the expense of any competitors.  The administrators for several reasons have a tough time telling them they just aren't as important.  A big reason is that the administrators themselves tend to come heavily from one or another of them,  such as the Education or Public Administration, and so start from a rather low-ground position in even trying to check them.  I suspect also that having less quantitative demands, the graduation rates from the squishy programs, compared to the rates of highly-demanding technical curricula, tend to make the colleges and universities look better in attracting prospects.