Slightly off topic, but I think STEM is a bs acronym. It's really TE. No one who uses it is seriously suggesting that people go into Chem, Bio, Environmental Science, Neuroscience, all fields which pay comparable to LA degrees, and even pure math is suspect. People who say 'STEM' want the cloud of prestige that comes with those fields while simultaneously degrading them by holding up initial earnings as the only valid metric.

You didn't support STEM, you support pre professional majors. But that doesn't sound as nice, does it?

believe it or not companies are not eager for young hires fresh off of school to take proprietary code / content and put it into a third party's information hoover.

From WSJ today:

The AI factor

Companies are also expecting grads to come in knowing how to use AI in their work, said Mohammad Soltanieh-ha, a clinical assistant professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. In class, for example, his programming students learn how to use AI to find what’s wrong with their codes as opposed to spending half a day figuring it out on their own, he said.

“It’s not that the AI is taking their jobs,” said Soltanieh-ha of entry-level workers. “It’s somebody that knows how AI is working—that’s who is going to take their job.”

AI is starting to supplant some types of traditional entry-level work. Axiologic Solutions, a government technology contractor near Washington, D.C., is deploying AI to take on tasks that new graduates previously did in its human-resources department. An AI tool can send emails and training videos to new hires. A chatbot can answer many of the questions a new hire might have.

When two people recently left the HR department, they didn’t need to be replaced, said Michael Chavira, the company’s managing partner and co-founder. Anyone he does hire needs to have experience using AI, since he’s thinking about using it in other business areas too, such as accounting.

“AI right now is making those entry-level positions—I don’t want to say obsolete—but they’re changing them,” Chavira said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I majored in Political Science at a SLAC. I then got an MBA and make 7 figures.

Both my DCs went to liberal arts schools (although one to the liberal arts school of a major university). One is a consultant, the other is in marketing. Both make 6 figures. One of them started in a relatively low paying job out of college but that only lasted about 18 months before significant increases.

Bolded is key. Why do LA majors keep ignoring this part?

They're not. The central debate here is whether earning a high income is a marathon or a sprint. Liberal Arts majors know full well that they are running a marathon. The STEM folks seem to prioritize the sprint.

Except the topic of this thread is what do LA majors do with just an undergraduate degree. PP basically skipped over what they did between undergrad and MBA and basically said they go get an MBA and then start earning.

I worked for 2 years before my MBA in a DC entry level job (Capitol Hill). Lived in a group house and had a fun 2 years. Originally thought I would go to law school but switched directions. In the grand scheme of things the 2 years of low paid work, followed by 2 years of grad school paid off financially but I also love what I do. I did go to a top MBA program so that also helped.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You clearly lack the critical thinking skills that are taught in the liberal arts.

You need to choose a central tendency. You said "averages." I agree median is a better measure. However, you're treating them as they're interchangeable. Which they're usually not. As my Bezos example gives. Sometimes, it might even be appropriate to use the mode to measure, you know?

DP.

Median and mean are extremely similar, but median is generally harder to obtain. Ignoring mean is a low quality rebuttal.

Jeff Bezos's $10B/yr only moves the mean annual income (100M US workers) $100/year.

Yes, event the government includes the Bezos of the world when calculating median income of a US worker.

Is that true? I would assume they only count W2 income. I bet Jeff Bezos like many ultra wealthy people only pays himself a $1 in W2 salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many things you can do in this world that aren’t engineering. My background fits your description and I work in marketing. I make around $350k. Entry level is about $60k.

Sharp analytical thinkers and storytellers will be needed, even in an AI-driven world.

ESPECIALLY in an AI-driven world. AI is going to replace the coders, not the creatives.

uh no. I have seen AI create art (amazing btw), and write stuff. If AI can code, it can write some marketing blurb.

AI currently regurgitates writing instead of creating original ideas in writing.

I guess we will see if humans want to watch movies and shows created by AI. Only time will tell.

Here is a quote from a Wisconsin Philosophy Professor:

ChatGPT has many of my university colleagues shaking in their Birkenstocks. This artificial-intelligence tool excels at producing grammatical and even insightful essays — just what we’re hoping to see from our undergraduates. How good is it, really? A friend asked ChatGPT to write an essay about “multiple realization.” This is an important topic in the course I teach on the philosophy of mind, having to do with the possibility that minds might be constructed in ways other than our own brains. The essay ran shorter than the assigned word count, but I would have given it an A grade. Apparently ChatGPT is good enough to create an A-level paper on a topic that’s hardly mainstream.

Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Computer Science are all liberal arts majors.

Commenters aren't distinguishing between majoring in one of those arts, majority in humanities vs STEM, majority in one of the liberal arts vs a preprofessional degree, and majoring in general liberal arts without any area of focus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You clearly lack the critical thinking skills that are taught in the liberal arts.

You need to choose a central tendency. You said "averages." I agree median is a better measure. However, you're treating them as they're interchangeable. Which they're usually not. As my Bezos example gives. Sometimes, it might even be appropriate to use the mode to measure, you know?

DP.

Median and mean are extremely similar, but median is generally harder to obtain. Ignoring mean is a low quality rebuttal.

Jeff Bezos's $10B/yr only moves the mean annual income (100M US workers) $100/year.

Yes, event the government includes the Bezos of the world when calculating median income of a US worker.

Anonymous wrote:There's a huge backlash against AI art and writing. The average joe who isn't detail-oriented might be fooled, but most educated people can spot the issues.

If you claim AI art is good and AI writing is good, you're one of the average joes. Sorry!

Good thing most people aren't educated!

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of jobs don't require any college education, even high paying ones. In Europe, law students and medical students don't have to waste their time and money doing an undergrad degree program.

Many high level jobs require a certain acculturation to a certain way of communicating.
And many require a diploma as an IQ/work ethic filter.

Yes but if a company is seeking to hire for a specific role, and there are people who majored for that role, then the company will more than likely hire that person who majored in that role than not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

A liberal arts major would know to inform you that you cannot, in fact, go by the "averages" since averages are skewed.

If you, me, and Sally Lee are in a room with Jeff Bezos, we have an average income in the billions. But one of us is not like the others.

This is a silly argument. Ok, you have to go by a statistically significant average or look at statistically significant median incomes.

Didn't think I had to make that clear, but I guess I do.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You clearly lack the critical thinking skills that are taught in the liberal arts.

You need to choose a central tendency. You said "averages." I agree median is a better measure. However, you're treating them as they're interchangeable. Which they're usually not. As my Bezos example gives. Sometimes, it might even be appropriate to use the mode to measure, you know?

DP.

Median and mean are extremely similar, but median is generally harder to obtain. Ignoring mean is a low quality rebuttal.

Jeff Bezos's $10B/yr only moves the mean annual income (100M US workers) $100/year.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a civil servant.

did you take out loans? Did you get your loans paid off by taxpayers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many things you can do in this world that aren’t engineering. My background fits your description and I work in marketing. I make around $350k. Entry level is about $60k.

Sharp analytical thinkers and storytellers will be needed, even in an AI-driven world.

ESPECIALLY in an AI-driven world. AI is going to replace the coders, not the creatives.

uh no. I have seen AI create art (amazing btw), and write stuff. If AI can code, it can write some marketing blurb.

AI currently regurgitates writing instead of creating original ideas in writing.

I guess we will see if humans want to watch movies and shows created by AI. Only time will tell.

How many original ideas are there in a Harlequin Romance or one of the throwaway thriller/mystery writers? That is what people purchase in large numbers.

Does anyone care if AI creates thousands of fake fans for a scene at a sporting event, vs. a human coding in the computer-generated fans?

All these comments about AI are completely analogous to what people said about the Internet. Nobody will use it because it's so slow when you connect over a phone line...nobody will purchase furniture or a car or any big ticket item over the Internet...etc.

Get a liberal arts degree and take out a loan, work for government or non profit, and get your loan paid off by taxpayers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody has an anecdote, but you can only go based on the averages.

I would hazard nearly all the folks suggesting you pursue liberal arts have a certain caliber of school in mind. I doubt even you would suggest studying English at Frostburg State.

So, I don't know the cut-off...but I think it's only a select group of schools that any PP really believes you should pursue a liberal arts degree with zero expectation of graduate school.

As far as I know, there are zero liberal arts majors actually founding the AI companies that everyone discusses above. Go look at the Bios of OpenAI, Anthropic and others. The vast majority of the staffs have STEM/Math/Physics backgrounds.

For that matter, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Sergei, Larry Page...none have liberal arts backgrounds.

That doesn't mean they don't value great communicators and critical thinkers. Perhaps the ideal graduate has a dual CS/Liberal Arts degree.

Show me the averages. Not the averages for Pell kids, the averages.

Go through the Payscale list as that is probably all you can do to look at overall averages. It's probably more instructive to look at how colleges that don't offer liberal arts degrees perform as while a Williams ranks well, you have no idea if someone actually studied engineering or other STEM at Williams or not.

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors

Schools like Harvey Mudd, Babson, Stevens, CalTech, etc. perform very well...there are relatively few SLACs in the Top 50.

This looks at both starting salaries, but the rankings are based on salaries 10 years out.