Colleges removing useless majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

[Anonymous]

I remember when I was getting my doctorate at Cornell about 15 years ago (BEFORE the financial crisis, even), there was a huge town hall of humanities professors giving career advice to undergraduate students. The English professor on the panel defended English as a valuable field but also explicitly told students, "It's a terrible idea to major solely in a humanities subject like English. At least double major in another field where there are jobs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

Google is your friend. Payscale maintains a list of midcareer salaries by major (spoiler alert, humanities are terrible):

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

Google is your friend. Payscale maintains a list of midcareer salaries by major (spoiler alert, humanities are terrible):

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

But that's not the question. The question is whether STEM majors get laid off more than others and have more unstable careers that require advanced degrees to sustain them.

It's something the Chronicle of Higher Education recently wrote about

https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-do-big-tech-layoffs-mean-for-stem-programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

Again, the question isn't whether the people who are still in those fields are making decent salaries mid-career or five years out (which is really short, by the way - there are tons of people laid off at 28 like the guy in this story: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-01-24/in-the-wake-of-massive-layoffs-tech-workers-reconsider-their-future). The question is whether an undergrad STEM degree sustains high wages (since once you start including grad degrees, then many lawyers would swamp those salaries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

Google is your friend. Payscale maintains a list of midcareer salaries by major (spoiler alert, humanities are terrible):

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

But that's not the question. The question is whether STEM majors get laid off more than others and have more unstable careers that require advanced degrees to sustain them.

It's something the Chronicle of Higher Education recently wrote about

https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-do-big-tech-layoffs-mean-for-stem-programs

Nothing new.
We have seen these corrections - dot com bubble, subprime, etc.

Tech is still the best field to get in for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

Again, the question isn't whether the people who are still in those fields are making decent salaries mid-career or five years out (which is really short, by the way - there are tons of people laid off at 28 like the guy in this story: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-01-24/in-the-wake-of-massive-layoffs-tech-workers-reconsider-their-future). The question is whether an undergrad STEM degree sustains high wages (since once you start including grad degrees, then many lawyers would swamp those salaries).

It sounds like you've made up a scenario in your head to help you feel better, and that's fine. Multiple data sources indicate STEM far out-earns humanities. Even if every single STEM major achieved their midcareer earnings with multiple masters degrees, their lifetime earnings would still be higher than humanities' majors. And are you seriously suggesting humanities majors don't get grad degrees? looooool. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to sleep cozy at night

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the plural of anecdotes is not data

The original statement, by Raymond Wolfinger, was "the plural of anecdote is data," as I learned using my liberal arts research abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College is becoming a modern-day vocational school.

Thanks goodness.

+1.. plenty cheap easy ways to learn apart from spending tens of thousands on college. Want to learn humanities, join a book club, take classes for hobby. Read the newspaper, novel. Get a degree in STEM, make some money and use that for your hobbies and personal development - take theater classes, writing classes for adults, whatever your heart desires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

Again, the question isn't whether the people who are still in those fields are making decent salaries mid-career or five years out (which is really short, by the way - there are tons of people laid off at 28 like the guy in this story: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-01-24/in-the-wake-of-massive-layoffs-tech-workers-reconsider-their-future). The question is whether an undergrad STEM degree sustains high wages (since once you start including grad degrees, then many lawyers would swamp those salaries).

It sounds like you've made up a scenario in your head to help you feel better, and that's fine. Multiple data sources indicate STEM far out-earns humanities. Even if every single STEM major achieved their midcareer earnings with multiple masters degrees, their lifetime earnings would still be higher than humanities' majors. And are you seriously suggesting humanities majors don't get grad degrees? looooool. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to sleep cozy at night

Not made up, as those stories I linked have shown. Lots of tech people have gotten laid off. Many engineers obsolete after 20 years, including electrical engineers from MIT etc (Motorola laid off a ton of engineers years ago). And I'm definitely not "creating a scenario" to support the humanities. I was just questioning whether an undergrad degree in STEM sustains you long term, which no one has answered because I guess there isn't data on that. There is certainly lots of evidence of tech layoffs and engineering layoffs. There is also evidence of yesterday's tech majors becoming obsolete today (see the Chronicle article). My guess is certain STEM majors have more staying power and are less likely to get undercut by fresh, cheap, new graduates than others (see https://www.fastcompany.com/90820386/types-tech-workers-most-likely-laid-off). The idea that it's a golden ticket seems overplayed, but I can understand why parents would be mostly focused on the short-term, because after that it's really on your kid (and because it helps pay off debt faster).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

Again, the question isn't whether the people who are still in those fields are making decent salaries mid-career or five years out (which is really short, by the way - there are tons of people laid off at 28 like the guy in this story: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-01-24/in-the-wake-of-massive-layoffs-tech-workers-reconsider-their-future). The question is whether an undergrad STEM degree sustains high wages (since once you start including grad degrees, then many lawyers would swamp those salaries).

LOL. I don't think you will agree with any list unless it fits your narrative.

English majors get laid off, too.

STEM grads don't need a graduate degree to earn good money, but English majors do. That's a bad ROI. You want to compare apples to oranges because it doesn't fit your narrative, even though the data is right there in front of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

There's a study for 5 years out of college.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/the-best-and-worst-paying-college-majors-five-years-after-graduation.html

All engineering and CS.

The top 10 majors earning the most five years from graduation are all related to engineering — except for computer science, which ranks fifth out of all majors.

Bottom half:

The bottom 10 majors after five years are mostly liberal arts degrees, and they all pay less than $40,000 in wages right after college. In some cases, the lower-ranked majors pay almost less than half of what the best-paying majors earn.

Eng. Language is on the list.

Again, the question isn't whether the people who are still in those fields are making decent salaries mid-career or five years out (which is really short, by the way - there are tons of people laid off at 28 like the guy in this story: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-01-24/in-the-wake-of-massive-layoffs-tech-workers-reconsider-their-future). The question is whether an undergrad STEM degree sustains high wages (since once you start including grad degrees, then many lawyers would swamp those salaries).

It sounds like you've made up a scenario in your head to help you feel better, and that's fine. Multiple data sources indicate STEM far out-earns humanities. Even if every single STEM major achieved their midcareer earnings with multiple masters degrees, their lifetime earnings would still be higher than humanities' majors. And are you seriously suggesting humanities majors don't get grad degrees? looooool. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to sleep cozy at night

Not made up, as those stories I linked have shown. Lots of tech people have gotten laid off. Many engineers obsolete after 20 years, including electrical engineers from MIT etc (Motorola laid off a ton of engineers years ago). And I'm definitely not "creating a scenario" to support the humanities. I was just questioning whether an undergrad degree in STEM sustains you long term, which no one has answered because I guess there isn't data on that. There is certainly lots of evidence of tech layoffs and engineering layoffs. There is also evidence of yesterday's tech majors becoming obsolete today (see the Chronicle article). My guess is certain STEM majors have more staying power and are less likely to get undercut by fresh, cheap, new graduates than others (see https://www.fastcompany.com/90820386/types-tech-workers-most-likely-laid-off). The idea that it's a golden ticket seems overplayed, but I can understand why parents would be mostly focused on the short-term, because after that it's really on your kid (and because it helps pay off debt faster).

So, what you are saying is that STEM majors need to keep up with tech to be relevant but don't require a masters degree, but English majors need a graduate degree to get paid decently.

There is also evidence that English majors are in the bottom rung of the payscale, unless you spend a fortune on getting a law degree or something.

How many STEM majors have huge loans vs English majors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT a hidden overhead cost for STEM majors is the constant certifications that they have to keep obtaining once they graduate. It's similar in effort to a masters degree, but just a different format.

The companies normally pay for the certifications.
However it's the actual effort to be up to date with the fast changing technologies and industry.

But it pays well, unlike undergrad English degrees. The ROI for an undergrad STEM degree is *much* better than for an English degree.

I'm sure that's the case for the first job out of college, but has anyone got a link handy for long-term prospects? I know the plural of anecdotes is not data, but I personally know a number of STEM majors from my day (admittedly awhile back) who basically topped out in level after about 12-15 years and were laid off by 20 years if they hadn't gone back and gotten an MBA or other advanced degree that allowed them to do something else of value in their company (and even a few of those who did that didn't last because they lacked the soft skills necessary to be a manager). Turns out that it's much cheaper to hire the new engineers and computer software kids coming out of school than keep giving raises to the experienced ones, especially since their experience working with out-of-date technology doesn't give them such a huge advantage.

Google is your friend. Payscale maintains a list of midcareer salaries by major (spoiler alert, humanities are terrible):

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

But that's not the question. The question is whether STEM majors get laid off more than others and have more unstable careers that require advanced degrees to sustain them.

It's something the Chronicle of Higher Education recently wrote about

https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-do-big-tech-layoffs-mean-for-stem-programs

Nothing new.
We have seen these corrections - dot com bubble, subprime, etc.

Tech is still the best field to get in for the foreseeable future.

Unless you are hiring for a job that requires non tech skills. then what good is a tech person?

[Anonymous]

This is all evidence that we are in late-stage Rome in the US. Was great while it lasted!