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.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marissy
I started a thread earlier this year about being a biology major and so forth. After researching the career prospects for the major, I decided to ditch it and try for something else. This is because I kept reading how it is hard to find a job with just a bio bachelors, I didn't want to take the academic route with the degree, and after some soul searching I don't think I want to take the researcher route with it either. I don't like the idea of having to beg for grant money all the time, being 32 and starting my first real job at $38, 000 a year, etc. I don't know if this is 100% true, but it is what I read.
I decided that maybe getting a Ba/Bs in Economics and a minor in biology may be good. I have always been interested in business, social science, and science. This is why I have been thinking that this combo may be the best bet for me. (for the business part, I would take some business classes on the side for my benefit) After making this decision, I feel much more happier and enthusiastic about returning to university next fall to complete this than I was with just a bio degree track. I feel as I am dying on the inside since I have to wait 8 more months to start.
What do you think? Is this a solid plan?
Unless you want to be a doctor, nurse, geologist or engineer (and probably some other things I'm forgetting) - what you study doesn't matter. What matters is what kind of GPA you have in college. Believe it or not, selecting your college major does not pre-determine your life's path nor what sort of income you will have. IMO, if you can be a better student by studying something that interests you, that's worth pursuing. You'll have a much easier time finding a job with a 3.5 GPA in biology that you will with a 3.1 GPA in Economics.
If you do not have a clear and imperative career path selected, study what interests you in college. You'll be better off in the long run. Also, if you select a "trade" course of study rather than a liberal arts course of study you will find it easier to navigate through really tough times.
I decided that maybe getting a Ba/Bs in Economics and a minor in biology may be good. I have always been interested in business, social science, and science. This is why I have been thinking that this combo may be the best bet for me. (for the business part, I would take some business classes on the side for my benefit) After making this decision, I feel much more happier and enthusiastic about returning to university next fall to complete this than I was with just a bio degree track. I feel as I am dying on the inside since I have to wait 8 more months to start.
What do you think? Is this a solid plan?
Try looking into healthcare economics. A lot of people I used to work with were into the pharmaceutical industry, hospitals, and healthcare, which was all pretty interesting. In terms of how useful an econ degree is, it really depends on what you want to do with it and probably where you are geographically. I went the government route, and haven't looked back yet. I also have several friends working for consulting firms who are very happy career-wise. Others went to banks, insurance companies, or law firms. So far it's been a good field for me, and I've never had issues with getting or keeping a job.
In undergrad, try and do as much empirical or analytical work as you can (math courses, econometrics, your own empirical studies, etc), as this is often what can help you get hired somewhere. The business courses are also a good idea. Grad school is common, but I wouldn't even think about a PhD until you've worked a bit and know you definitely want it. As for a Master's degree, if you do want or need one, go part-time. From what I've seen of others in the field, if you go full-time you aren't really any better off than if you just worked those 2 years. Also, I was told by some higher-ups that if you have a full-time master's degree in economics, they wonder why you didn't do the full PhD (failed out? couldn't handle it? lazy?), which was something I didn't realize. It's also a decent degree to get into other graduate programs, like an MBA or law school.
Right there are many reasons, hence why kids from worker class families are better off pursuing careers that can be obtained easily with a standard public school education. The career path you are suggesting, though possible, will be much harder to obtain than for a kid from a working class family than one from an higher class family. That is the reality, but you are free to pretend otherwise because you "know some people".
Right there are many reasons, hence why kids from worker class families are better off pursuing careers that can be obtained easily with a standard public school education. The career path you are suggesting, though possible, will be much harder to obtain than for a kid from a working class family than one from an higher class family. That is the reality, but you are free to pretend otherwise because you "know some people".
Of course it is harder if the kid is from a working class family. I never said it wasn't. Nobody said it was easy. It is harder but certainly not impossible. If the kid wants it badly enough, he will get there. Even for wealthy children, it's not easy. The curriculum of private grammar and high schools are much more rigorous than that of public schools.
The reasons I listed had to do with misconceptions about the cost of an elite education and the fact that many of these working families don't know that many of the elite private grammar / high schools give scholarships and financial aid.
Economic factors influence SAT scores and GPAs more than any other reasons.
No. Intelligence and hard work influence SAT scores and GPAs more than any other reasons.
In general, the poor smart kid who studies, does his homework, and performs well on tests will outscore and outrank the rich kid who watches TV all the time and never goes to school.
No. Intelligence and hard work influence SAT scores and GPAs more than any other reasons.
In general, the poor smart kid who studies, does his homework, and performs well on tests will outscore and outrank the rich kid who watches TV all the time and never goes to school.
You're generalizing hard workers from non-hard workers. These are relative terms. One can ask, what qualifies as a hard worker? What qualifies as intelligence? How many hours of studying a day? It can't be quantified.
The surrounding area where I live has arguably the best schools, both private and public, in the the country.
If you were to evaluate the disparities between districts based on median salary earnings, you would see an increase in SAT and SOL scores across the board at wealthy districts.
Of course it is harder if the kid is from a working class family. I never said it wasn't. Nobody said it was easy. It is harder but certainly not impossible. If the kid wants it badly enough, he will get there.
Its also possible to drop out of high school move to Hollywood and become a big star. Its not a question of what is possible, but rather what is plausible. The idea that if you want something bad enough you will get there is naive at best...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst
The reasons I listed had to do with misconceptions about the cost of an elite education and the fact that many of these working families don't know that many of the elite private grammar...
Yes, and the "reasons" you listed were in no sense exhaustive. There are numerous issues here, the misconceptions you are pointing out are relatively mirror issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst
No. Intelligence and hard work influence SAT scores and GPAs more than any other reasons.
C'mon...seriously? You think you are negating what they are saying? Intelligence is the intermediate variable, the "economic factors" are not the direct cause of differences in SAT/GPAs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst
In general, the poor smart kid who studies, does his homework, and performs well on tests will outscore and outrank the rich kid who watches TV all the time and never goes to school.
Really? Do you have any data that actually shows this?
Based on my gf's experience as a teacher in an inner-city HS, it seems that SES plays a significant role. If these kids have a rocky home life (stress, poor nutrition, safety, etc), there isn't much of an environment to study, let alone do well post-studying.
Regarding bio-degrees and lab certification. It's required in hospitals and medical labs (like Mayo ML), but it's not the case across the board. There are plenty of non-hospital labs out there...in MA at least. One of the lab heads in my dept only has a BS in one of the sciences. She's probably a unique case, but that's darn impressive. As with any career path, it's highly dependent on how hard an individual is willing to work. If you only want to be a tech with minimal responsibility, you'll probably only fetch 50-60k/yr. But, if you want to bust your rump and go into research, the pay is much higher and advanced degrees isn't always necessary. OTOH, it will fetch more money to start.
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.
