Why Are Most Employable Majors Seemingly the Least Popular?

[Anonymous]

If more people majored in these fields, than it would be harder to get a job in them. Duh!

[Anonymous]

Supply Chain Management, College of Business, MSU!
Three D.C. area job offers before May 2011 graduation, yeah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If more people majored in these fields, than it would be harder to get a job in them. Duh!

+1

[Anonymous]

Not reading all the responses right now, but my first thought is that many of these majors are directly career-vocation oriented: nursing, engineering, what have you. I started college at 17 (October birthday) and had no idea what I wanted to do/be in life, or what to major in. I ended up taking all the classes I liked and double majored in politics and health. I think students who go to college unsure of what they want to do may be along a similar path and follow their interests without necessarily thinking in terms of career potential or life after 22.

FWIW, I have no regrets and am now a teacher.

[Anonymous]

Some of the reasoning behind the salaries is supply and demand. For the less popular disciplines, fewer students study it and then there are fewer graduates with that knowledge and skill set to meet the demand of the companies, businesses, etc that need those specialists and they pay more to get the better candidates from the smaller pool.

On the debate between the liberal arts vs the hard science/math disciplines, while there is an intrinsic value to both, I think that it is easier to teach much of the liberal arts disciplines after a university setting than to teach the math and science skills. So, when you have a college degree, if you are going into a field that will require you to write better than you currently do, improving those skills will take less time in preparation for a job than learning the math and or science skills to prepare for a job. Frequently when using applied mathematics or sciences, you are talking about layered learning. For example, engineering, you need backgrounds in various math studies (algebra, geometry, calculus) then basic sciences (physics) before you can get to the courses in fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, or structural physics. This is a generalization and there are similar arguments for more advanced liberal arts disciplines (e.g. writing, history, basic political science before getting into international politics, diplomacy, etc). But I think a greater portion of the math and science disciplines required the layered learning that is time consuming to learn.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention the fact that if you don't hit algebra track early enough, it become very difficult to catch up, especially once you have to start paying for each class you take....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they are usually harder.

Really? I was an English major and I distinctly recall helping the engineering/math/science/econ majors I met in my classes who couldn't write an essay about literature to save their lives. "Hard" is really defined by your own natural skills, and I think we can all agree that it takes all kinds to make the world go around. I have an advanced degree and am employed as a professional, by the way.

Yes please proof this and hold my calls

[Anonymous]

Yes, but how many of you would have ypur child explore some of these career paths while still in HS? For instance, my college bound DD is taking a pharmacy elective in FFX County and would be be able to certify as a Pharmacy Assistsnt. I think just getting the exposure is opening their minds. I think schools at all levels could do a much better job in getting all kids to think about career options- both those that require a degree and those that do not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the reasoning behind the salaries is supply and demand. For the less popular disciplines, fewer students study it and then there are fewer graduates with that knowledge and skill set to meet the demand of the companies, businesses, etc that need those specialists and they pay more to get the better candidates from the smaller pool.

On the debate between the liberal arts vs the hard science/math disciplines, while there is an intrinsic value to both, I think that it is easier to teach much of the liberal arts disciplines after a university setting than to teach the math and science skills. So, when you have a college degree, if you are going into a field that will require you to write better than you currently do, improving those skills will take less time in preparation for a job than learning the math and or science skills to prepare for a job. Frequently when using applied mathematics or sciences, you are talking about layered learning. For example, engineering, you need backgrounds in various math studies (algebra, geometry, calculus) then basic sciences (physics) before you can get to the courses in fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, or structural physics. This is a generalization and there are similar arguments for more advanced liberal arts disciplines (e.g. writing, history, basic political science before getting into international politics, diplomacy, etc). But I think a greater portion of the math and science disciplines required the layered learning that is time consuming to learn.

1) You are confusing the liberal arts with the humanities (and possibly the social sciences). The liberal arts typically include math and the hard sciences, but not applied or pre-professional majors. This is not to say that LACs don't offer majors like engineering (Swarthmore, for example, is a top LAC, but does offer an engineering major), but that they typically require their students to take classes in the humanities, social sciences, AND the hard sciences in order to graduate.

2) Math education in the US is terrible-- that's a huge reason why Americans find the sciences so difficult.. If we had better math in the elementary and high school years, we would see more majors in the hard sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Group hug!

Aww... Should I get the popcorn?

[Anonymous]

I'm telling ya' all, encourage the kiddos to go for the math/science degrees. They aren't for the super smart kids anymore. They are for the tenacious ones who persevere, even with really crappy grades. Believe me, lots of these new college grads out there with these degrees and jobs.

[Anonymous]

Lots of STEM graduates find jobs quicker right out of college and at higher pay than your typical English, History or Government major. STEM majors become well paid individual contributors fairly early on.

But. Look at earnings over time and look at the educational background of upper level management. They aren't the STEM folks. They are the people who know how to lead, how to think, how to write, how to influence others, how to think out of the box and how to bring knowledge from many disciplines together. They appreciate knowledge from many disciplines not just the narrow corner that is STEM. And that is not to say that STEM grads can't be all of these things too. This wide range just doesn't appear to be the strong suit of the STEM inclined though.

It takes all kinds of expertise. Some pays off in the short-term and some pays off in the long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because some people believe that your undergraduate education should not simply be pre-professional training. It should be about learning to think critically, write lucidly, and engage with ideas outside your comfort zone. Students should choose fields of study -- not sources of potential earnings -- that interest and excite them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they are usually harder.

Really? I was an English major and I distinctly recall helping the engineering/math/science/econ majors I met in my classes who couldn't write an essay about literature to save their lives. "Hard" is really defined by your own natural skills, and I think we can all agree that it takes all kinds to make the world go around. I have an advanced degree and am employed as a professional, by the way.

Yes please proof this and hold my calls

Too easy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of STEM graduates find jobs quicker right out of college and at higher pay than your typical English, History or Government major. STEM majors become well paid individual contributors fairly early on.

But. Look at earnings over time and look at the educational background of upper level management. They aren't the STEM folks. They are the people who know how to lead, how to think, how to write, how to influence others, how to think out of the box and how to bring knowledge from many disciplines together. They appreciate knowledge from many disciplines not just the narrow corner that is STEM. And that is not to say that STEM grads can't be all of these things too. This wide range just doesn't appear to be the strong suit of the STEM inclined though.

It takes all kinds of expertise. Some pays off in the short-term and some pays off in the long-term.

+1. This is why upper level management in STEM fields is often filled with white, born in the US and raised by non-immigrant/English speaking families managers. Their STEM degree grades might suck but they get up the ladder because of their other skills. The true techs, with low EQ or poor communication skills have a hard time rising to the upper ranks.