Old (2019) NYT article—“In the salary race, Engineering majors sprint, but English majors endure”

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/business/liberal-arts-stem-salaries.html

College is not trade school! What you make starting out isn’t very relevant. Think long-term.

[Anonymous]

A must-read for all parents and students, especially the parents who come popping off on DCUM denigrating humanities majors and going on about ROIs to their "investments".

For those prone to popping off without reading, the article is based on a detailed NBER working paper, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25065 using data and rigorous econometric analysis, which can always be critiqued and even refuted on methodological grounds, but not with anecdotes and opinions. The paper will probably be further peer reviewed and published in a serious academic journal soon.

"The conventional wisdom is that computer science and engineering majors have better employment prospects and higher earnings than their peers who choose liberal arts. This is true for the first job, but the long-term story is more complicated. The advantage for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) majors fades steadily after their first jobs, and by age 40 the earnings of people who majored in fields like social science or history have caught up.
This happens for two reasons. First, many of the latest technical skills that are in high demand today become obsolete when technology progresses. Older workers must learn these new skills on the fly, while younger workers may have learned them in school. Skill obsolescence and increased competition from younger graduates work together to lower the earnings advantage for STEM degree-holders as they age.
Second, although liberal arts majors start slow, they gradually catch up to their peers in STEM fields. This is by design. A liberal arts education fosters valuable “soft skills” like problem-solving, critical thinking and adaptability. Such skills are hard to quantify, and they don’t create clean pathways to high-paying first jobs. But they have long-run value in a wide variety of careers."

I haven't read the paper thoroughly so not sure if they have looked at whether the "catch up" happens because non-STEM majors are more likely to go into certain graduate courses that produce a steeper income trajectory. Also, whether the much higher immediate salaries for STEM graduates act as disincentive to go to grad school relative to non-STEM graduates with lower starting salaries, or delay going to grad school, both of which can add up to a salary "penalty" as people grow older.

Intuitively speaking, the obsolescence of relatively narrow technical skills, no matter how advanced they are, is a very real thing. And this doesn't mean that STEM graduates can't acquire the soft, adaptable skills. It's more that those skills might be on the average lacking because of the nature of their college education (maybe to some extent) and more likely because they could not develop those skills in the coding jobs they got right after college.

Bottom line. College is to acquire education, not a trade. Building an educated child is not like building a business, so forget the ROI. In the long run, your child is more likely to thrive if they study what they are most excited about in college (including STEM), and develop well-rounded, critical-thinking skills that are transferable to different (and unpredictably evolving) fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A must-read for all parents and students, especially the parents who come popping off on DCUM denigrating humanities majors and going on about ROIs to their "investments".

For those prone to popping off without reading, the article is based on a detailed NBER working paper, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25065 using data and rigorous econometric analysis, which can always be critiqued and even refuted on methodological grounds, but not with anecdotes and opinions. The paper will probably be further peer reviewed and published in a serious academic journal soon.

"The conventional wisdom is that computer science and engineering majors have better employment prospects and higher earnings than their peers who choose liberal arts. This is true for the first job, but the long-term story is more complicated. The advantage for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) majors fades steadily after their first jobs, and by age 40 the earnings of people who majored in fields like social science or history have caught up.
This happens for two reasons. First, many of the latest technical skills that are in high demand today become obsolete when technology progresses. Older workers must learn these new skills on the fly, while younger workers may have learned them in school. Skill obsolescence and increased competition from younger graduates work together to lower the earnings advantage for STEM degree-holders as they age.
Second, although liberal arts majors start slow, they gradually catch up to their peers in STEM fields. This is by design. A liberal arts education fosters valuable “soft skills” like problem-solving, critical thinking and adaptability. Such skills are hard to quantify, and they don’t create clean pathways to high-paying first jobs. But they have long-run value in a wide variety of careers."

I haven't read the paper thoroughly so not sure if they have looked at whether the "catch up" happens because non-STEM majors are more likely to go into certain graduate courses that produce a steeper income trajectory. Also, whether the much higher immediate salaries for STEM graduates act as disincentive to go to grad school relative to non-STEM graduates with lower starting salaries, or delay going to grad school, both of which can add up to a salary "penalty" as people grow older.

Intuitively speaking, the obsolescence of relatively narrow technical skills, no matter how advanced they are, is a very real thing. And this doesn't mean that STEM graduates can't acquire the soft, adaptable skills. It's more that those skills might be on the average lacking because of the nature of their college education (maybe to some extent) and more likely because they could not develop those skills in the coding jobs they got right after college.

Bottom line. College is to acquire education, not a trade. Building an educated child is not like building a business, so forget the ROI. In the long run, your child is more likely to thrive if they study what they are most excited about in college (including STEM), and develop well-rounded, critical-thinking skills that are transferable to different (and unpredictably evolving) fields.

Well said and true enough.

I think CS is pushed a lot by immigrant families who have experienced poverty and want an educational “sure bet.” Though the technical skills may atrophy, these kids make big bucks right out of school - I.e. they start fast.

Also, I haven’t read the article, but a lot of liberal arts grads continue to professional school, which is their real moneymaker. That said, I like this balance of degrees better than a technical one-and-done.

[Anonymous]

Engineering and English are both low paying careers, so I'm not that surprised that English can catch up by the time someone is 40. What you want to do is make a pile of money right out of the gate, so that you can retire and life the rich life by 40 -- not continue working!!!

[Anonymous]

I don't know. My Dh majored in English and is earning over half a million + in the tv and film industry as are several of our contemporaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Engineering and English are both low paying careers, so I'm not that surprised that English can catch up by the time someone is 40. What you want to do is make a pile of money right out of the gate, so that you can retire and life the rich life by 40 -- not continue working!!!

Its the very rare person that can retire at 40.

[Anonymous]

To the OP: thanks so much for posting the link to this article. Looks like a very interesting piece that I will be sure to read with my morning coffee tomorrow . Thoughtful of you to pass this food for thought along to the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. My Dh majored in English and is earning over half a million + in the tv and film industry as are several of our contemporaries.

It must be hard to be an exec in that space right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engineering and English are both low paying careers, so I'm not that surprised that English can catch up by the time someone is 40. What you want to do is make a pile of money right out of the gate, so that you can retire and life the rich life by 40 -- not continue working!!!

Its the very rare person that can retire at 40.

And I don’t think that many people actually, truly want to—not fully retire. I know far too many people who have retired and it doesn’t “stick.” They’re either miserable and bored, or they give in to the desire to work and do consulting, volunteer work, part-time jobs. I know an extremely wealthy woman who retired at 40 but—now in her 50s—works in a gift shop making minimum wage because she just has to be out of the house.

[Anonymous]

I’m an English major. Very content at 40 to be making $150K in a communications field, writing a lot, leaving every day at 4. My work is wonderful, and it never comes home with me. I’m sure I could be making a lot more money, but I value peace of mind and meaningful work a lot more. I’m happy!

[Anonymous]

Pay compression is real. That high paying entry job looks less appealing if you’re only making 10% more 5 years later.

Per a compensation consulting firm: “The survey found salary compression to be most common in IT and engineering/science jobs, where technology and in-demand skill sets change rapidly. More than 60 percent of companies indicated compression occurs because those positions that require “hot skills” force the company to raise starting salaries to attract the right talent.”

[Anonymous]

Think of our modern visual media and the relevance of people who major in Art History and how that applies the same way English does in the OP's article.

It is very relevant and yet so many people don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m an English major. Very content at 40 to be making $150K in a communications field, writing a lot, leaving every day at 4. My work is wonderful, and it never comes home with me. I’m sure I could be making a lot more money, but I value peace of mind and meaningful work a lot more. I’m happy!

What type of comms do you do? Thats a great salary. I’m 46 and work in nonprofit comms, making only $126k currently though I have made as much as $146k at an association. I majored in polisci.

[Anonymous]

A pre-ChatGPT article. Cute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an English major. Very content at 40 to be making $150K in a communications field, writing a lot, leaving every day at 4. My work is wonderful, and it never comes home with me. I’m sure I could be making a lot more money, but I value peace of mind and meaningful work a lot more. I’m happy!

What type of comms do you do? Thats a great salary. I’m 46 and work in nonprofit comms, making only $126k currently though I have made as much as $146k at an association. I majored in polisci.

Higher ed