With student debt piling up and worthless degrees, college seems like the biggest scam for most people. (engineers, salaries)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$49,000 (out-of-state tuition, room and board, books, fees) per year for four years at a top-tier public university adds up, even with scholarships.
why pick the extreme example, and most states have at least one or two very good public universities so why would anyone in their right mind pay out of state tuition.
My daughter in law has a journalism degree, she works for Stanford University and makes more than most people with STEM degrees.
Exactly. My daughter degreed in History, then earned a full ride with a stipend to a very good masters program. Of course, she busted her butt as an undergrad to present at conferences, won an undergraduate research grant, did everything that was asked by her professors, and pursued independent studies.
It's less about the major and more about your willingness to work.
My daugher in law has a journalism degree, she works for Stanford University and makes more than most people with STEM degrees.
Was it the degree in and of itself? Or was it innate talents, combined with degree-related skills, and whatever bit of luck (right time, right place, connections) that may have been involved?
And which STEM degree? Were those STEM holders poorly qualified for their jobs i.e. barely passed their STEM classes from the bottom ranked school, thus relegated to poor job opportunities providing lower pay?
Were these STEM holders restricted to certain markets that limited their ability for career growth? Or perhaps the STEM holder made career choices that resulted in the poorer salaries. Maybe market changed on them, and they found their degrees less in demand unless updated, and the pay for their field experienced downward pressure due to forces outside their control?
"STEM degrees" is such a broad, nebulous term when used in this context.
Personal anecdotes trying to support such a broad and poorly defined assertion is what can lead many students to make ill-suited personal decisions - with the corresponding poor outcomes. Otherwise to the uniformed potential student, this statement could be interpreted as: Just go get a journalism degree (what kind, where, and just the degree itself, or internships and other job-related experiences) and you too, can expect to work for institutions such as Stanford and make more than those in STEM!
Then you wonder why there are so many entitled degree holders, chest deep in debt, many unable to realistically pay it all off, or maybe even planning on doing so in hopes of some sort of eventual bail out.
Was it the degree in and of itself? Or was it innate talents, combined with degree-related skills, and whatever bit of luck (right time, right place, connections) that may have been involved?
And which STEM degree? Were those STEM holders poorly qualified for their jobs i.e. barely passed their STEM classes from the bottom ranked school, thus relegated to poor job opportunities providing lower pay?
Were these STEM holders restricted to certain markets that limited their ability for career growth? Or perhaps the STEM holder made career choices that resulted in the poorer salaries. Maybe market changed on them, and they found their degrees less in demand unless updated, and the pay for their field experienced downward pressure due to forces outside their control?
"STEM degrees" is such a broad, nebulous term when used in this context.
Personal anecdotes trying to support such a broad and poorly defined assertion is what can lead many students to make ill-suited personal decisions - with the corresponding poor outcomes. Otherwise to the uniformed potential student, this statement could be interpreted as: Just go get a journalism degree (what kind, where, and just the degree itself, or internships and other job-related experiences) and you too, can expect to work for institutions such as Stanford and make more than those in STEM!
Then you wonder why there are so many entitled degree holders, chest deep in debt, many unable to realistically pay it all off, or maybe even planning on doing so in hopes of some sort of eventual bail out.
I believe it was appropriately addressed in the context of this thread, and how potential students with high stakes in choosing their career path should approach their decision making.
Was it the degree in and of itself? Or was it innate talents, combined with degree-related skills, and whatever bit of luck (right time, right place, connections) that may have been involved?
And which STEM degree? Were those STEM holders poorly qualified for their jobs i.e. barely passed their STEM classes from the bottom ranked school, thus relegated to poor job opportunities providing lower pay?
Were these STEM holders restricted to certain markets that limited their ability for career growth? Or perhaps the STEM holder made career choices that resulted in the poorer salaries. Maybe market changed on them, and they found their degrees less in demand unless updated, and the pay for their field experienced downward pressure due to forces outside their control?
"STEM degrees" is such a broad, nebulous term when used in this context.
Personal anecdotes trying to support such a broad and poorly defined assertion is what can lead many students to make ill-suited personal decisions - with the corresponding poor outcomes. Otherwise to the uniformed potential student, this statement could be interpreted as: Just go get a journalism degree (what kind, where, and just the degree itself, or internships and other job-related experiences) and you too, can expect to work for institutions such as Stanford and make more than those in STEM!
Then you wonder why there are so many entitled degree holders, chest deep in debt, many unable to realistically pay it all off, or maybe even planning on doing so in hopes of some sort of eventual bail out.
This is kind of nonsequitur on your part because 2sleepy didn't make that assertion.
In truth, the entire idea driving this thread is a ridiculous one. For some reason, there is a school of thought that anything but a career-driven major will lead to a lifetime of working as a barista or some other such silliness. In truth, nothing is further from the truth.
As the research and articles I linked to points out, a person who is reasonably diligent in his or her career will do better than one who is not, regardless of major.
For example, the 50th percentile of journalism majors outearn the 50th percentile of people majoring in architecture, computer networking, health services, agriculture, or environmental sciences. Yet would you dissuade anyone from majoring in those disciplines?
In truth, I have to wonder at what drives people to worry about this question in the first place. My guess? Deep insecurity would be a decided one. When I majored in English thirty-five years ago (In a down economy, I might add), a lot of people made these same statements to me. Never mind that I loved the curriculum. Never mind that I worked my way through college in a job related to my major. Today, I do quite well for myself and am relishing the prospect of early retirement.
Why? Because the skills I sharpened in my "worthless major" wound up being highly valuable to my employers and my eventual clients.
None of that, by the way, is to talk about me. My life experience is instead representative of what research shows: Namely that it is less about your degree and more about how vigorously you pursue opportunities.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 11-07-2017 at 10:36 AM..
I will admit I did not read all of the posts in this thread. I'm going by the title, and general sentiment. Am not basing my thoughts on any "STEM is the only worthwhile degree" agenda. Was providing my input only to the posts I specifically quoted.
As for "worthless", that will need to be defined by each person based on their personal criteria.
Apparently I've been locked into an obsession of sorts with the topic of students making poor career decisions, and its negative consequences for both the students and society at large. LOL.
This is kind of nonsequitur on your part because 2sleepy didn't make that assertion.
In truth, the entire idea driving this thread is a ridiculous one. For some reason, there is a school of thought that anything but a career-driven major will lead to a lifetime of working as a barista or some other such silliness. In truth, nothing is further from the truth.
As the research and articles I linked to points out, a person who is reasonably diligent in his or her career will do better than one who is not, regardless of major.
For example, the 50th percentile of journalism majors outearn the 50th percentile of people majoring in architecture, computer networking, health services, agriculture, or environmental sciences. Yet would you dissuade anyone from majoring in those disciplines?
In truth, I have to wonder at what drives people to worry about this question in the first place. My guess? Deep insecurity would be a decided one. When I majored in English thirty-five years ago (In a down economy, I might add), a lot of people made these same statements to me. Never mind that I loved the curriculum. Never mind that I worked my way through college in a job related to my major. Today, I do quite well for myself and am relishing the prospect of early retirement.
Why? Because the skills I sharpened in my "worthless major" wound up being highly valuable to my employers and my eventual clients.
None of that, by the way, is to talk about me. My life experience is instead representative of what research shows: Namely that it is less about your degree and more about how vigorously you pursue opportunities.
If so, then as with any marketed product, it should provide the consumer (students) with a clear description of what it is they are buying. If it makes certain claims about the product, then it needs to clarify what those claims are and the conditions under which the claims work, in order to not mislead the consumer. Similar to those tiny prints at the bottom of product disclaimers.
They're called college catalogs, are typically hundreds of pages long, which will explain in considerable detail every degree plan they have, what classes are required, elective, etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
