×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Analyzes Recent Grads' Unemployment By Major

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the underwater-basket-weaving-still-going-strong dept.

Education 314

Hugh Pickens writes "A new report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce called 'Hard Times: College Majors, Unemployment and Earnings: Not All College Degrees Are Created Equal' analyzes unemployment by major. It shows that not enough students — and their families who are also taking on student loans — are asking what their college major is worth in the workforce. 'Too many students aren't sure what job they could get after four, five or even six years of studying a certain major and racking up education loans,' writes Singletary. 'Many aren't getting on-the-job training while they are in school or during their semester or summer breaks. As a result, questions about employment opportunities or what type of job they have the skills to attain are met with blank stares or the typical, "I don't know."' The reports found that the unemployment rate for recent graduates is highest in architecture (13.9 percent) because of the collapse of the construction and home-building industry and not surprisingly, unemployment rates are generally higher in non-technical majors (PDF), such as the arts (11.1 percent), humanities and liberal arts (9.4 percent), social science (8.9 percent) and law and public policy (8.1 percent)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

314 comments

Happy 2012 from the Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774090)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

as gomer would say (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774104)

surprise, surprise, surprise!

meh.. college (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774130)

Assholes who take credit for your skills and your life is financially fucked for years.

There are easier ways to life like a bum.

education is only useful for jobs (5, Insightful)

liamevo (1358257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774136)

Anyone else sick of encountering this kind of thinking?

Re:education is only useful for jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774156)

Welcome to neoliberalism.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774232)

And people think neoconservatives are greedy. Neoliberals believe that the serfs should work and not be allowed to advance their station. Be educated enough to do your job, but not enough that you think of lofty goals!

Re:education is only useful for jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774508)

Take your gibberish to Yahoo News Comments where it will be welcome.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774448)

Not really. It's the consequence of having more educated people and the increasingly sophisticated world we live in. It used to be that one didn't have to finish high school to get a decent job, these days those pickings are quite scarce.

I know, let's show those liberals who's boss by never improving ourselves or the world around us in any way, that'll really show them.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774170)

Yes. I'm also really sick of the student loans crap. I worked my way through college, and busted my butt for a couple of tuition-only scholarships.
I didn't borrow a cent, and people who think work starts after graduation definitely shouldn't.

So, when did you go to school. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774290)

Yes. I'm also really sick of the student loans crap. I worked my way through college, and busted my butt for a couple of tuition-only scholarships.
I didn't borrow a cent, and people who think work starts after graduation definitely shouldn't.

That's highly commedabel and shows your hard working can-do attitude. And you went to school in the 80s or before?

Unfortunately, to do what you were able to do cannot be done in 2012. It would take someone many years to do and if they're going for a techical degree where credits are only good for 5 years, you wouldn't be able to do it by working your through college - as soon as you had enough for tuition, you'd be retaking Chemistry, physics, and any other engineering class.

In this day and age, if you want to get through college in 4 -5 years, you need loans or rich parents - and that going to a cheap state school.

Re:So, when did you go to school. (3, Informative)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774394)

Unfortunately, to do what you were able to do cannot be done in 2012. It would take someone many years to do and if they're going for a techical degree where credits are only good for 5 years, you wouldn't be able to do it by working your through college - as soon as you had enough for tuition, you'd be retaking Chemistry, physics, and any other engineering class.

Uh. I worked through college and paid for it in cold hard cash, without a penny from loans or my parents, and I graduated last December. With my Master's. I graduated only a semester "late" because my advisor didn't want me to take 18 hours my senior undergrad year, so it took me altogether six years, but I came out with a 4.0.

So yes, it is quite possible, I did it. That's not to say that there isn't a problem with the cost of college tuition, and that I didn't do my fair share of grumbling about the tuition/fee increases that came nearly every year I was there (including an extra $250 a semester because my school decided it needed a football team and an extra $700 a semester when mean plans were suddenly made mandatory to pay for a new dining hall), but it's an overbroad generalization to say "nobody can pay for college without rich parents or student loans." Yes, you can. You can even do it on minimum wage, if you're willing to work overtime and save up before you get there.

The cost of college is a problem, and it's only going to get worse, but let's not exaggerate.

No, you can't (5, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774576)

to get your master earning 45 to 60k/yr then your bachelor's at $13k/yr. A 60 hour work week at $7.25/hr (current federal min wage) is $20,880 GROSS. If you don't have kids you pay about 12% of that in taxes just to state & fed, to say nothing of sales tax (Phoenix AZ taxes food you know).

You also probably had a supervisor happy to be supportive because he/she is looking forward to getting someone with a Masters Degree w/o having to engage HR. Oh, and my local University's science & engineering curriculum specifically states you should not be working even part time while trying to pass them. Try taking compilers or operating systems while working 60 hours a week. Yes, people do it. Rare geniuses for whom this stuff comes naturally. A certain percentage of the population is fully energized after a 4 hour sleep. These people have a natural edge. Maybe you're one of them. But if that's the case you're where you are today because of good fortune, dumb luck and the roll of the die. The other option is you went to a diploma mill that doesn't teach anything. I've got a few of those at my job. It's weird. Ask 'em what they learned and they can't tell you...

This is something I just can't get the right wing (who are the ones that bring this argument up the most) to get: The lives of People who make minimum wage are a never ending wave of problems. Life is different when you can't just fix stuff when it breaks, buy ice cream for your kid when they get hurt. You end up trying to make up for the lack of money with time and effort. If you're one of those rare people whose genetics makes it easy for you, well then bully for you. If you went to a diploma mill then all that happened is you got fleeced (wait till you get out of school with that 'Masters' degree. You think HR departments don't know a diploma mill when they see one :) ). It's like those stories about people cutting back and paying off $200k of debt in just a few years. They always neglect to tell you that the family that did it had $70 or $80 k/year coming in. You can only cut back so much before life becomes impossible. I don't care what Will Buckley's telling you...

Re:So, when did you go to school. (5, Interesting)

exploder (196936) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774562)

In this day and age, if you want to get through college in 4 -5 years, you need loans or rich parents - and that going to a cheap state school.

Not necessarily. I was getting paid pretty well as a code monkey in the late 90s/early 00s, but without a degree I knew my prospects were limited (and I just didn't want to do it anymore, either). I swallowed my pride and moved back in with my (not rich) parents and spent two years at the local CC taking gen-ed classes. With Pell grants and, after the first year, a merit-based SMART grant, I was able to afford books, tuition, a modest contribution to the household, and some spending money, without borrowing a dime. (I had not saved money during my previous employment--not something to be proud of, but relevant to my anecdote.)

I did borrow some after I transferred to the flagship state university to finish my BS, but we're talking maybe $10k over two years. I had a work-study position that didn't quite make ends meet, but essentially I was paid to sit behind a counter and spent 90% of that time studying. I made the choice to take on that debt rather than find a part-time job, but if it had been important to me not to borrow anything, I know I could have made that work.

From 2005 to present, I've done a BS, MS, and am about two years from a PhD, borrowing a total of $10k (the graduate work was all funded, including a stipend). I did get (crucial!) support from my parents when I was getting started, but it was room and board, not a huge wad of cash. I had to be willing to do my first years at the CC (since my parents don't live near a university), and I had to get my BS from an in-state public university (luckily mine was pretty good). And I am fortunate to be in a STEM field, which let me get that SMART grant and good funding for my graduate work.

Having said this, I feel like I need to add that I am 100% for student loans and especially grants. I'm just pointing out that if you're willing to work and compromise a bit, it's by no means impossible to get a degree (or several) without burying yourself in debt.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774318)

I'd go out on a limb and guess that you are either older than 40 or you went to a fairly "cheap" school. I'm not implying your school was a bad one. I'm just saying the tuition must have been abnormally low.
  I would also like to point out, due to their nature, scholarships are limited to a few. You worked hard and got a scholarship, no doubt edging someone else out. What are they going to do for tuition?

Re:education is only useful for jobs (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774360)

I did the exact same thing and went to the University of Michigan. You can go full time and work full time. A lot of young adults that dont have mommy or daddy pay their way do it every day. I had ZERO social life in school as I was either working,studying, or attending class or lab. My only friends that I spent any time with were room mates, once a week I would have about an hour to sit down and have a beer or two before bed.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774494)

Wow! Worked full time AND went to school full time?

How's that degree in Comunications working out for you?

When I was in school, I had 15+ credit hours plus at least 40+ hours/week of homework. I was physically incapable of working during the semester.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (2, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774542)

So you missed out on arguably the most important function of college: networking.

It doesn't matter what you know as much as who you know, always been the case and will remain the case.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774376)

Keep in mind there is a finite amount of money out there for scholarships. Even if every student tried what you did, there is a realistic large percentage of students who don't receive the money because more talented individuals applying for the scholarships, such as yourself, receive the money instead.

This is similar to the argument where people say "why don't the poor kids just go to the library to use the internet for help on homework?". The main problem lies with the fact that the library also has a finite number of internet accessible computers, so it is not realistic for EVERY poor child to use such a suggestion. This indicates a systemic problem.

You are right that work should start as soon as the money is needed, even while at school. However, it's also difficult to do both and it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be capable of doing well in school AND working as long as needed to cover tuition costs.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (4, Interesting)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774184)

It's not that people think it's only good for a job. It's that you need to have some expectation of getting a return on the investment in order to justify what the education costs. Basically people can't afford to learn things.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774288)

Learning is free. Being taught is what costs money.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (4, Informative)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774340)

Learning is only free in that you might not have to pay for it, but there are opportunity costs -- the value of what you could've done, but did not do because you were learning.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774198)

If you are rich enough to use it in furtherance of your hobbies, then by all means do so.

The problem is that schools SELL education and are not in the business of telling students that a particular major is a stupid choice if you want food, clothing, and shelter after graduation.

Once you have money, you have the power to pursue other interests. If you don't have money, you are, generally speaking, "fucked", and it's not out of line to remind potential education consumers of that.

MANY young people entering college have heads full of feathers and won't figure this out on their own.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774428)

I'm glad to live in a country where higher education is free (and of good quality).

Re:education is only useful for jobs (3, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774564)

They are definately not places to go to take some courses out of curiosity. If you want to take some courses out of interest you have to go through all kinds of bullshit. I wanted to take some courses on data forensics at a local Jr College. Because they were not available as continuing education courses, they wanted me to transfer to the school. I didn't want to go through a transfer process to take a few courses so I told them no. As a result they wanted me to take placement tests. They also said I would have to take standard courses for the associates degree, english, math. etc... before being able to get INTO the classes.

"Hi. Prior education? Yes. I received my ___ in ___ at ___ in 19__. And um huh? No I don't want to transfer to your shitty little Jr. College, that wasn't even built when I graduated, as a freshmen. I just want to take those 3 classes. Test what? Take 101 & 102 what and what?"

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774570)

None of the schools I visited tried to sell me on the idea that going there was going to increase my income. They instead tried to sell me on things like their departments and unique facilities, the school's accomplishments, and future plans. The only time I ever encounter that kind of "college == more money" thing is in ads for tech schools, and perhaps through the insinuation of some of the more conservative colleges about their strong alumni networks.
 
As for "once you have money, you have the power to pursue other interests", I think that's a very inaccurate assessment. I went with that sort of attitude and spent most of my twenties devoted to a software job that I liked but wasn't passionate about, and lately I've tried to use my savings to create something new and unique. And I'm starting to run low on cash. Meanwhile, most of my friends took completely impractical majors and are now doing exactly what they want -- some went directly through to a PhD program; while others chose risky jobs that -- given how many of them this happened to -- seemingly inevitably paid off; while others took what they learned and did something completely unrelated -- e.g., went back to school to become and engineer, or started a lucrative bar, but never once thought their earlier education was a waste. Thing is, in the end I spent at least as much of my time spinning my wheels while making money as they did during their time taking risks, and now most of them are as close as any of us can be to being able to pursue their interests as a profession indefinitely, while I'm wholly reliant on my upcoming product both finishing and making enough money to get me by.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774208)

Education in America is way too expensive for many people to pursue it for its own sake. That is very sad, but it is also very true.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774382)

And there's no good reason for that. Studying literature is a matter of reading books and discussing them, and the cost of producing a book has gone down over time. Textbooks are notoriously overpriced. Some fields require more expensive equipment -- but in general, that equipment has become cheaper to produce, or at worst has stayed at the same price. College instructors aren't particularly well paid.

So where's all the money going?

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774482)

It's largely because the government has demanded that colleges behave more like businesses and colleges themselves assume that students have better access to financial aid than they really do. I remember being unable to find a job when I was in college because I would have had to either buy a car or be on financial aid to get one. The coursework I was taking dictated that I had to be on campus in the middle of the night sometimes and bus service was non-existent late at night or early in the morning.

The jobs on campus were pretty much just workstudy jobs and the few non-workstudy jobs were hard to find, assuming one could manage to get hired over the tons of other applicants.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774210)

Yes, however many people take out large loans in order to get an education thinking they will get better jobs afterwards. It is important to remind people that college is not a trade school, which is what most of Americans consider it to be. So in that sense, stories like these are good in that it may discourage people really not interested in a education from wasting time and money at a university when they really should be doing something else.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774248)

Exactly. College education is vocational training. College education makes you understand life better. It makes you more interesting company and a more attractive spouse for an educated mate. It also helps you explain the world to your offspring. College education can also act as a form of antidote against all kinds of hocus pocus (creationism, horoscopes, homeopathy, the Laffer curve etc etc).

Re:education is only useful for jobs (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774270)

I would say so, except that our system, has made vocational schooling a joke, where lazy dump people who can pass college go.
Most people who go to school is because they need an advantage in the market. I was programming professionally while I was in high school, but I went to college because I knew the system wouldn't allow me to advance without a college degree. Then later I got to the point where work wouldn't respect my business decision so I got an MBA to force a degree of respect.
It would be great if people who went to collage for a real education, however for most people it a licences to get paid more then minimum wage.
If you want college to be for the pure education and learning, we need respectable vocational training for many professional activities.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774310)

Meh. 5 years ago, in certain social settings, people treated me like a plebe and tuned me out just because I didn't have a degree. Now, there's nothing I love more than seeing college grads having to take jobs as those chumps twirling those arrow-shaped signs on street corners.

I ain't got no damn degree, and I have a solid history of decent-paying high-tech jobs with plenty of security and opportunity. I don't make an engineer's salary, but I make more than enough to be comfortable and pursue my hobbies.

  I've said over and over again here that you can train tech-level employees to do most engineering work. If I were in charge of hiring, I'd take a look at past accomplishments and testing rather than hiring some out-of-touch bedwetting asshole who thinks they're royalty just because mommy and daddy paid tens of thousands of dollars for them to slave through mindless tedium. Calculus 3, differential equations, and thermodynamics just to draw parts? Really? My experience, intelligence, and work ethic will beat your piece of paper anyday. Here, hand your degree over to me, so that I may wipe my ass with it later. Now get the hell out.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774356)

Nice trolling.

What the article really ought to have included was a comparison to those that didn't get a degree at all. Except for humanities/liberal arts and arts all of those rates are below the unemployment rate. For an even more useful view it would be nice to know what it looks like including all the people without jobs, not just the ones that haven't yet given up hope as I'm guessing folks with degrees are less likely to have given up.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774312)

Well, formal education sort of is. If you wanted to pursue a subject for only fun you could do that yourself, informally, at cost. However, the point of education, in this century, is too prepare people for the work place. The certificate is a uniform (pretty loose one though) metric for employers to see that you have the knowledge of a subject you claim to have, at a specific level (highschool, BS, MS, PhD). The education system basically saves every employer from having to test you when you apply for a job. The problem here is that kids turn up to university because they are told that the need to get a degree to get a job. They are not really counseled on what degrees will lead to what opportunities. Therefore, they get to pick what they like to do. Sorry, I'm not a believer of the adage "do what you love", unless what you love is a salable skill, or you've made enough money to not worry if you get paid pathetically for it. However, I'm also not a fan of kids being told that they all need to be medical doctors or entrepreneurs so they can be wealthy. Personally, I feel a good starting point to aim for is get the bills paid and have a little spending cash, higher education or not. Once they get to that point things can get financially better if they care to put further effort in.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (2)

Beeftopia (1846720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774420)

They are not really counseled on what degrees will lead to what opportunities. Therefore, they get to pick what they like to do. Sorry, I'm not a believer of the adage "do what you love", unless what you love is a salable skill, or you've made enough money to not worry if you get paid pathetically for it.

The goal of the college is to grow and bring more revenue in, despite being labeled "non-profit." A college's desire for money is never satiated, just like any profit-making enterprise.

So, this is why colleges try to have full enrollment in all of their departments, from basket-weaving and women's studies to computer science and civil engineering. It's for their own organizational purposes, not some selfless desire to help the student.
 

Not being vocational doesn't mean it's for `fun' (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774432)

I, for one, would like to see more of the voting public exposed to collegiate level political theory, comparative religion, and science.

Jim Collison (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774684)

Jim Collison

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1969179&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=5lSS&locale=en_US&srchid=5e9b0d96-e6f2-4bff-983e-2e8430f65ec0-0&srchindex=6&srchtotal=37&goback=.fps_PBCK_jIM+COLLISON+_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*2_*1_Y_*1_*1_*1_false_1_R_*1_*51_*1_*51_true_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_name_link [linkedin.com]

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20111206/NEWS07/111209935 [businessinsurance.com]

"Employers should not fear the EEOC warning. In fact, employers should use it to focus their attention on identifying the actual essential qualifications needed to perform a job...and how to assess whether or not a candidate has these qualifications. Because education has been so dumb-downed in the last 50 years, a high school graduation diploma or a high school equivalency certification simply is not evidence that an individual possesses the essential qualifications to perform a job. The same is true for many if not most post high school degrees. Check out the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses" by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. Also check out the new Skills Gap research report from A.C.T. showing that just having a diploma or certificate is no evidence an applicant possesses the foundational skills of reading for information, locating information, and applied math needed for almost every job today. Jim Collison, President, Employers of America, Inc."

Re:education is only useful for jobs (4, Interesting)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774316)

I am.

I am also tired of a model of social organization that cannot cope with the implications of exponentially growing productivity. I am becoming increasingly convinced that most paid labor amounts to busywork.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774392)

What is your line of reasoning for "most paid labor amounts to busywork?"

Re:education is only useful for jobs (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774334)

Certified education is only useful for jobs. If your interested in education purely for education's sake, it can be done far more cheaply outside of a degree program.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774342)

Formal education is the only education that has any value....

Anyone else sick of encountering this kind of thinking?

Experience is worth FAR MORE than education. Yet I see a lot of jobs with a BS/BA degree requirement that have zero need for such a thing. For example Advertising sales position, WTF does that need a BS for?

Luckily I dont have to deal with it, but I rarely see a new grad with a nice shiny new CS degree that can actually do the job.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774674)

Sounds like someone didn't get their MBA.

Nyaahhhh

The problem is borrowing for a leisure activity. (4, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774614)

What you are missing is that the value of your education is revealed when you are trying to sell your labor or products of it. So the value of your education is only what other people are voluntarily willing to pay for it. This doesn't mean you shouldn't study French Poetry. But it would be a bad investment to pay alot of money to do it when you could find places on the internet to learn and discuss it for free. This is something many people do for leisure.

Many people in today's Pop culture confuse leisure and labor because there are some exceptional artists and athletes that are able to make considerable amounts of money doing what is in essence a leisure activity. Playing the guitar and singing is something most people do for fun. But if you are exceptional at it some people will pay money to watch you have fun. The same with sports. Most people play for fun. There are a few that are so good at it others will pay to watch them play a game.

Borrowing money is only reasonable if you are building your productive capacity. Borrowing money is smart if you are building a factory, buying capital equipment, or learning a marketable skill. Borrowing money to learn a leisure activity is not a smart use of your time or money. So where you are confused is you should only borrow money to learn a job skill. But once you have that skill and are earning a higher income you can use that money to learn a leisure activity. Borrowing money to learn a leisure activity leaves you with no way of every paying back your loan.

Re:education is only useful for jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774770)

Yes, I really got tired of people who asked me what I wanted to do with my degree immediately after asking what my major was. I attended a liberal-arts college to get an engineering degree, which at first seemed like I was making a bad move. After taking humanities courses, I realized that college was the best time I had to really learn about things that _aren't_ specific to my career. I don't think I've lost anything important in not focusing on engineering every semester; in fact, I think I can better appreciate and understand the people and cultures that make engineering more than just technical problem-solving.

Degrees are about worthless (2, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774148)

All they do is get you past HR filters. Most people who are good at their jobs also do them as a hobby or have a genuine interest. Although it doesn't help either when you have $100k in loans and employers offer you $12/hr jobs.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774216)

Not disagreeing, but life really sucks if you can't get past the HR filters.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774224)

A degree is a useful tool in the HR file. It is often used for grooming on the management fast track. Great for all sorts of perks. It's like traveling first class.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (5, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774258)

err.

Sure, in IT.

You try to get a job in applied materials or life sciences or education.

Just try explaining to the nice HR person you like hanging around a lot of prepubescent boys as a "hobby."

Re:Degrees are about worthless (1)

qzjul (944600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774456)

Agreed; and engineering? Good luck doing that on your own as a hobby. Half of the point (or more?) of an engineering degree is to teach you a process and how to work in teams.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774348)

But getting past the HR filters are in fact the most important part of getting a job in the first place. Fuck experience. That's just for nogotiating a salary in the last minute. Some companies these days think you can learn on the job depending on the industry. Some even prefer you do it their way only. Taking on massive debt is required just to get a living wage. For most, it's purely survival.

I got a well paying job now but plan on going back to college. I'm looking to upgrade my HR access badge. That's it. Pay now or pay later.

In some countries like Kenya, you need something of a masters just to clean toilets. It's that competitive. Getting a degree these days is a required scam for most.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (1)

tchuladdiass (174342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774450)

Well, that is only if you are going in through the front door. All the jobs I've gotten were through the back door, either personal reference or hungry recruiters. It probably doesn't hurt that I'm in an area with a wide range of opportunities and industries, but you'd be surprised at what you can accomplish by just keeping your ears open, talking to the right person, and saying the right things (you do have to have a certain amount of interpersonal skills, enough to read the other person's body language so you can adjust your message towards what they are looking for).

Re:Degrees are about worthless (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774526)

Taking on massive debt is required just to get a living wage.

Extremely ignorant. The problem with most Americans is that they wont let go of luxuries, even for just a few years, because somehow we raised a generation of fuck-offs that think that they are automatically entitled, that they automatically deserve.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774368)

A degree can be useful to provide basic process skills and techniques in problem solving. While technical training and the like can provide targeted skills for immediate employment, however those skills may not long be in demand. For instance, it is one thing to know how use MS Office, it is another to have general skills in office applications and the ability to write an effective memo or technical report. It is one thing to complete simple assigned tasks with supervision, it is another thing to have advanced time management and organizational skills so one can plan and complete complex projects with minimal supervision.

In any case, the linked article did not limit itself to degrees. The evidence seemed to suggest that have a experience before graduation was important. That was the way it was during my time of graduating when the economy was not in great shape. Most people I know who got jobs had significant related experience prior to graduation, some paid, some volunteer. And I don't think we expected anyone to give us a job, at least not for a lifetime. Many of us created situation in which we were valuable, and if that value lapsed we created new situation in which we were valuable. This level of expectations, in which employers or the government was required to employ us simply because we existed, was not so much emphasized.

I don't want to come off as lecturing, but the current language in the presidential campaign seems particularly counter productive. Everyone is taking about a few select job creators being in control of out lives, which is not really the case. We can all be in control of our futures, at least to some extent. We don't have to wait for some Ayn Rand savior to give us a sense of worth. We can do it for ourselves, through work, through education, through creating of products. And that is products, not just taking a bit off the top in transactions.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (5, Interesting)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774474)

Here are two true stories.

I worked as a support contractor on a NASA center. A friend of mine was a PhD Chemist on the same contract and NASA wanted to hire him. They wrote a job description for what they needed which he was qualified for. He submitted his resume through the USAJOBS.gov website but didn't get through the HR filter. They actually didn't get any qualified applicants but it took 6 months to put the ad back up and by then they lost funding.

I saw a NASA job that was right up my alley and I knew the people who would be reviewing the resumes that got through the filter. I put my resume in and under the "other information" I copied and pasted the WHOLE job listing. I got through the HR filter and got the interview. The person I knew looked at my resume which included the copied and pasted job listing under "other information". When I interviewed he asked me about it and said it was a pretty clever way of bypassing the filter. I got the job.

Re:Degrees are about worthless (2)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774620)

I keep hearing that, but all of the half-assed "hobbyist" code I have had to clean up in the past begs to differ. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have enough passion for what they do to learn how to do it as well or better than someone who studied it in school, but I really doubt that would describe "most people". Maybe I just lack the will power, but I wouldn't be half as good at what I do if I wasn't forced to learn it in college.

For Comp Sci degrees are useful ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774624)

The "HR filter" does have a rational idea behind it. The college degree does demonstrate one important thing. That the holder can *finish* a long, sometimes boring and somewhat bureaucratic process. Many people can start a "project", only some of them can finish a "project".

In computer science the university program does offer valuable training. While it is possible to be self taught in these topics very few individuals will actually do so. People who are self taught tend to only study those topic they are interested in. They tend to have obvious gaps in their knowledge compared to the university trained. I only know one self taught person who had the discipline, initiative and ability to read and understand university level textbooks on the full range of topics covered in a university program.

I would agree that some levels of debt seem insane and make it hard to justify the university education but to be honest the problem seems somewhat exaggerated. If one goes to a state university and works part time when class is in session and full time in the summer one can still graduate debt free or with minimal debt. IIRC the average tuition+boarding cost for a 4-year school is US$13K per year. Even without working at all the debt would be about half what you cite.

Not relevant (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774150)

Job opportunities are not relevant: by the time you get your degree the market will have changed anyway. Just study whatever you're interested in.

Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774192)

One thing to point out is that there is a certain stigma in an educational setting that go against 'real-world' applications. Speaking from experience, the computer science program which I went through focused purely on the academic aspects of programming - graph theory, sorting, developing text based games - and left the students to their own devices in terms of source code management, standards, and conventions. Or better yet, teachers would have their own standards that the students had to live by. I complained to the computer science director regarding the lack of real world application to what was being taught on numerous occasions but was constantly told I did not know what I was talking about. Mind you, I had a full time development job right out of highschool and was an active contributer to a number of open source projects all through highschool. Due to differences, or lack of them listening, I transfered to another school for business and make a whole heck of a lot more than my counter parts that stayed in the program.

What would be an interesting report would be how many graduates hold a job in the field which their degree is in? I suspect that the above presented number is skewed by people working at fast food or small stores trying to get by...

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774528)

Speaking from experience, the computer science program which I went through focused purely on the academic aspects of programming - graph theory, sorting, developing text based games

Which is appropriate. You're practicing mental agility and expanding your grey matter.

and left the students to their own devices in terms of source code management, standards, and conventions.

This is technical training. While a topics course might be appropriate with respect to these areas, these are the sorts of "skills" that ebb and flow. Remember that education != technical training.

not easy to forecast the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774206)

Besides disagreeing with the approach of the author.
I think it completely misses the point that what is true today will not always be true tomorrow, actually hordes of (clueless) people running towarda a major will easily saturate that major.

A friend of mine with a major in Chinese said that during her first class around 15 years ago the teacher told them that there was no job opportunity for such a degree except than for the 2 or 3 of them that would have gained a professorship, 5 years later commercial relationships between Italy and china boomed and she got a definitely good working position.

I believe that while it is difficult to know know which major will be useful in 5-30 years it is a safe bet to assume that in order to get a rewarding living one needs to be really good at what it does and excellence comes from passion, so following natural inclination may be a much safer bet (an inspired writer for example earns much more that a lousy programmer)

Luca

Re:not easy to forecast the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774234)

Well, what do you expect from an education major?

No Solution (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774220)

I think the reason nobody knows what major will cause them to get a good job is because no major will cause them to get a good job. That thing about going to college to get a good job, that's over. At least in the United States.

Re:No Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774386)

The more and more people who get college degrees the less and less valuable degrees will become.

Re:No Solution (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774588)

Sad but true. The jobs have to exist regardless of education. It isn't like someone with a B.S. doesn't have the skills to cram & test for certifications in different fields.

The value of college doesn't lie in employment (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774236)

The value of a college education should not lie in the career opportunities it opens up for the graduates.

Sometimes it is the case that career opportunities is the only value offered by schools. Many colleges are little more than trade schools that replace apprenticeships with four years of studies. Some schools are so bad that they don't even amount to that.

But it seems to me that if one wants to learn a trade (even if that trade is a white collar one like computer programming) then apprenticeships have far more value in learning the requisite skills. Unfortunately, many HR departments do not see things that way.

The real value of a college education should lie in seeking education for its own sake. Not everyone needs to go to college to be well educated. But some people, perhaps most people, learn better in that sort of environment. Moreover, a well designed college program will stretch a student beyond what he or she would normally be attracted to in his or her studies and expose that student to ideas that he or she would not normally encounter. That sort of thing is difficult, but not impossible, for an autodidact to encounter.

subsidies (1, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774242)

no surprise that you'll see that gov't subsidised so called 'education' industry has the lowest unemployment rates there.

Of-course this will cost the economy dearly, as all these gov't subsidised education loans are going to cause the same exact effect as gov't subsidised housing loans and other debt (bonds) had.

Re:subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774424)

Honestly, just because you never went to college doesn't give you the right to badmouth the universities. Perhaps if you'd have given them a chance you wouldn't be saying stupid things like this.

Re:subsidies (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774524)

AC - honestly, because you have nothing between the two floppy ears does not mean I did not go to college.

So does this mean? (1)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774250)

Does this mean that the degree's are worthless enough now to the point in which that I'm better off just trying to build a portfolio instead of going to school- say if I wanted to be a programmer? Or would I need both the degree and the portfolio experience?

Re:So does this mean? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774652)

No to the portfolio only. Two yes' for both. Three yes' for both in addition to certifications. Even if your degree is in something like psychology; experience working on studies while in school, and participating in studies while in school, is mandatory. The problem is economic opportunities. There are more people than jobs and few to no growth industries.

Re:So does this mean? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774696)

Does this mean that the degree's are worthless enough now to the point in which that I'm better off just trying to build a portfolio instead of going to school- say if I wanted to be a programmer? Or would I need both the degree and the portfolio experience?

I'm thinking you could snag some low-hanging fruit with a remedial English composition course at your local CC.

Rocket Science (4, Insightful)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774254)

Study what interests you and inspires passion. If nothing inspires passion in you then you had better gain some type of technical skill. Everyone in my college is either pursuing a "business administration" degree or "computer technology." It is getting ridiculous. Business administration should be something you study along the way in any degree program. The demand for technical people is so high in the IT industry that most people following that degree path will likely get jobs, regardless of their skills. The amount of engineering students is microscopic in comparison to the rest. I haven't met anyone yet who is studying engineering to become a systems developer, it is a lonely path. During labs I spend most of my time tutoring people.

Re:Rocket Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774322)

I studied engineering to become a systems developer. Not that you have met me, though (I assume). Granted I do go to an engineering school so I see a lot of engineers.

I tried geting into engineering school. 2 stewped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774390)

I tried getting into engineering school because everyone knows it's the surest way to a conforable middle class life (Med school for a guarantted entry into upper classes).

I couldn't get in. Did average on Math SATs and I didn't have Calculus in High School. Tried the back way: take the chem, physics, pre-calc, calc in college to transfer. No deal.

All of us are born with our own talents and hard work can only get yo so far - I worked myself to the point of being physically ill trying to get the grades to get into engineering school - and this was "just" a state school.

I can't do it - or at least it takes me a very long time to grasp the material; too long to get it in the semester alloted and they only allow you to retake a class so many times.

Many kids are smart enough to know their limits and what they're capabilites are. For some reason a small minority who go to school to party and major in Communications or whatever ball players major in, give everyone else a bad name.

Everyone knows that being a Doctor or Engineer are the only ways now for a typical middle class kid to as well as his parents: everything else and you'll do worse.

Re:Rocket Science (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774716)

The demand for technical people is so high in the IT industry that most people following that degree path will likely get jobs, regardless of their skills.

If your in the U.S. can you narrow it down and provide a citation please. Last I looked people hiring were only hiring to bring wages down or outsourcing.

Narrow education is the new stupid (5, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774260)

I see the results of "engineering-only" education every day. I see co-workers utterly lacking critical thinking skills or any curiosity, passively accepting whatever the mainstream media or the software vendors tell them, and who get insanely defensive when you poke holes in the wet toilet paper of their core political/cultural/technical/economic/religious beliefs. I see walking, living proof every day that technical competence != global intelligence.

Some of this is neurological, of course. I work in the software industry, an area filled with more than its share of mildly autistic souls. The rest, however, could have had their worldview drastically enhanced with a couple of courses in comparative cultural anthropology, a few philosophy courses discussing epistemology and some critical studies of human history, just as the liberal arts crew would benefit hugely from some significant study of math, physics and engineering.

Re:Narrow education is the new stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774426)


"I see the results of "engineering-only" education every day. I see co-workers utterly lacking critical thinking... I see walking, living proof every day that technical competence != global intelligence ..."

Well, if this is true for you, it must be true the whole world over. [rolls eyes].

Jeez, perhaps your colleagues are not the only ones who need a course in critical thinking...

Seldom in a hurry, never need to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774262)

Job credentials aren't the only reason students go to college [youtube.com].

Not surprising (5, Insightful)

bmajik (96670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774274)

Having everyone go to college hasn't made Americans smarter.

It has made universities dumber.

Even though I had been coding since 5th grade, I didn't know what I wanted to go to university for until late into highschool, when ultimately it occured to me that I may as well get the paper that says I can do what I already enjoyed doing.

My dad called some larger IT and software employers' recruiting departments and asked what sort of degrees they screen for, and more importantly, what degree-issuing institutions they look for.

Their answer was, roughly, if you have a CS degree, it doesn't matter where its from (unless its from MIT :))

So I went through the Barrrons College guide and made a list of schools that had CS and separate compE programs; i ranked them by cost and by SAT score of average incoming class. I restricted my search to schools that were ranked above ... 50th or 100th? place in "engineering", however arbitrary that is.

Then I went and talked to those schools, got a rough idea of which ones would give me what kinds of academic scholarships, and then chose a subset of state universities to apply to.

Part of this process is being honest about yourself. I beleive that technically, I met all of the admission requirements to get into Caltech. I noted howeer, that their average incoming freshman had SAT and ACT scores around 5 to 10% higher than where I had tested. Additionally, tuition at that time was around $30k/year.

I figured that there was little sense in struggling to get into the bottom half of the Caltech freshman class, only to pay a six figure sum and to have to work my ass off just to keep my head above water and hopefully graduate. Certainly I expect I would have had a more rigorous experience, and networked with higher caliber professors and students, and perhaps had a better pick of employers for internships and eventual employment.

But honestly, while I have _some_ smarts and _some_ drive, there are obviously people who have more of _both_, and I see little reason to compete with them if I don't have to :)

I was accepted to UIUC (then a top 5 CS school), but they knew they were a competitive program and they offered me no financial incentives to attend.

Ultimately, I went to the University of Nebraska, which offered me a full ride, allowed me to coast in non-interesting courses, and allowed me plenty of 1:1 time with professors who were interesting. The more mid-pack freshman class allowed me to differentiate myself easily from my peers in areas where I excelled.

I left school with a good GPA, plenty of knowledge that I didn't have when I started, and a full time offer at a software company you may have heard of. And no student debt.

The point of this is that if we're not equipping American kids to do even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis; if they have no idea why they are _going_ to a university... well, they probably have no business going, and it is abhorrent that US taxpayers are paying for them to go.

I am romantically in favor of the idea of the mysty eyed dreamer going to school for indian tribal botany or some other esoteric pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. That's actually probably closer to the original idea of the university. But that experience is something he or she needs to pay for privately -- asking me to help is ridiculous. Making it national policy and funding it at the federal level is suicidal.

The debt-treadmill of university is insidious. Making it easy to get the money to go means more people are going, and in response to the rising costs that are a natural consequence of more demand, the Feds loan out more money. And so the cycle continues, and we have more and more entrants with less and less ability to pay who have no idea what they are going to do once their 4-6 years of partying are over and they need to start paying off the debt they accured.

Re:Not surprising (2)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774468)

I am romantically in favor of the idea of the mysty eyed dreamer going to school for indian tribal botany or some other esoteric pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Here's the thing that bothers me: the academic subjects that do not directly correspond to vocational skills shouldn't require much in the way of resources to teach or study. Liberal arts students basically need access to a library or a museum, and to meet each other and discuss ideas. That shouldn't be expensive, but I paid far more to study literature at a university than I did to study more practical skills in IT at community college.

Re:Not surprising (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774472)

Even though I had been coding since 5th grade, I didn't know what I wanted to go to university for until late into highschool, when ultimately it occured to me that I may as well get the paper that says I can do what I already enjoyed doing.

Stop right there. People like me and you have conservative path to moderate success, which is a good thing for the bulk of the population to do. But based on the sentence I quoted, have you ever stopped to think how lucky you are to be born with an interest and talent that also happens to be one of the more reliable ways to make a living? Seriously... imagine if the biggest sector of the US economy was ballet. Would your rational process translated into success for you as a ballet dancer? Or might you struggle?

Re:Not surprising (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774672)

Sure. Every day I am thankful that I have a good memory, that I am pretty clever, that I had a dad who was involved, and that he was a kick ass dad.

That said, I know plenty of people who didn't have involved parents, and/or didn't have natural ability or inclination to learning, etc.

They are still able to make a reliable living because they can do something that is of value to others. That's the same reason that I have a job -- somebody who is either more talented than I or works harder than I (or both, usually) is willing to pay me to do the things I can do for him. He wants to do that because of comparative advantage.

It's difficult for me to imagine ballet becoming the largest sector of the economy, as it does not feed, clothe, protect, or house humans. It is very high up on the hierarchy of needs; a society where ballet consumed the majority of resources would be the hypothetical "post scarcity" society, which for a variety of esoteric reasons I postulate cannot exist :)

That said, in such a world where my natural talents are not inclined torward ballet, my rational and analytical facilities can still be made to serve others in productive ways: building sets, scheduling the movements of equipment, projecting attendance and financial concerns; choosing venus of the appriate sizes, _building_ venues of the appropriate sizes; helping people who are aesthetically inclined translate their ideas into workable, physically possible manifestations..

I'm not suggesting that everyone get a job in IT. I'm suggesting that people who don't plan on being self sufficient hermits think about how they are going to serve others and make the lives of others better. I don't get paid to show up; I get paid to contribute my talents and effort to the problems my employer thinks will be profitable to solve.

The stark reality of life is that there are two choices: be completely self sufficient by the power of your mind and your efforts, or figure out how to serve someone else well enough that they pay you enough to carve out a life for yourself.

I have a hard time beleiving that 25% of Americans (which I hear is something like the "real" unemployment figure) are of no use to anybody. I have an easy time beleiving that the intersection of what employers are willing to pay and what the unemployed are willing to work for are kept apart in many cases by a mix of unrealistic expectations (on both sides) and by the tremendous impediments to hiring and firing created by bad governance.

If there are people taking on a six figure debt in their early 20s, and they have no idea how that debt will either make them self sufficient or help them offer considerable value to others, their entire life until that point has been overshadowed by this singular failure of imagination/comprehension/whatever.

What's a college summer break? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774286)

Every summer while I was in undergrad, I was taking classes for my degree, working my ass off to pay my tuition and other bills, or both. I'm baffled by the students who feel entitled to spring break in some exotic location and summer break to do nothing of any value. Not once during my undergrad years was I more than 600 miles from school with the exception of a conference my employer sent me to for undergraduate research I was working on.

Re:What's a college summer break? (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774370)

My response growing up to "MTV spring break" epsidoes was always, "I sure wish I could get into the (hypothetical) pants of those girls like everyone else must be doing, but I hope all of this is a total fabrication. We can't honestly have so many bacchanalian dimwits who find this enjoyable and a worthwhile expenditure of their time and of other peoples money, can we?"

I had software and IT internships all 4 years I was in school. I wanted the experience and resume bling. That was some of my most interesting work, in retrospect.

Re:What's a college summer break? (2)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774492)

As I recall, "spring break" was the period between when your term papers were assigned, and when they were due. I spent them in the library. I didn't have time or money to see my family, much less take a vacation anywhere. And I didn't know anyone for whom that wasn't true.

Well duh. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774304)

The only reason why I see medical and education with low unemployment is that the colleges have a strong working relationships with these organizations and a professor recommendation will get you far. Other majors colleges do little or less to keep professional ties with people who hire from these majors.
Engineering and tech is higher mostly because there is demmand for anyone with some real math training. Most of the highest unemployed majors treat math like one of those silly thing you never needed anyway, and is there to turture children.

Welcome to "Capability Tax" (3, Insightful)

Elf Sternberg (13087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774332)

An old idea, floated in the 19th century by highly conservative economists, the capability tax was the idea that people should be taxed based upon what they were capable of earning, rather than what they earned. The idea was to discourage smart people from going into art, the humanities, liberal arts, and so forth, and encourage them to go into meaningful, productive fields, where their capabilities would be put to full use. Whether or not you enjoyed the work was irrelevant, and only liberals cared about that.

The paper is basically encouraging us to think in these term, to ask students to go into fields they may well hate, because that's where they have to go to (1) get a decent education, and (2) make enough to pay off their ultimate student loans.

Meh. (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774438)

1. if you're in the Arts, you are in the Arts because YOU LOVE WHAT YOU DO - money has nothing to do with it.
2. If you want to make a good wage ASAP, then don't bother with university - get a job as a plumber or an electrician or one of those guys who repairs elevators. They make stupid amounts of money. IS the work intellectually challenging? No, but that's not the question.
3. If you want to really prepare for the future, just look at the splits. A classic example is energy vs. demand vs. technology. Most people heat their homes with oil or gas. Both are limited resources and both are "not good" for the world when burned. So, preparing houses for a world without oil or gas is a REALLY GOOD IDEA and if you make a business that can do a package on a home (insulation/windows retro/geothermal heating + solar electric on roof) at a reasonable price, You Will Make A Lot Of Money and be helping preapre society for the post-carbon future. Get in to it NOW while the field is sparse. When it heats up, clean up.
4. The split between the living and the dead. The boomers are set to go into die off mode. Mortuary services will explode over the next 10 - 20 years (esp. if the USA never implements national health - poor old folks will die off right quick without medicare). Start a funeral home. Print money.

If you're looking to be a slave to some giant machine - those jobs will become fewer and farther between. In the next world, you're on your own. You will need to INVENT your future. If you don't have the brains to suss that out, then don't bother with university.

The sorted list (4, Informative)

Beeftopia (1846720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774522)

Journalism has a lower unemployment rate than engineering? Wow.

1) Sorted by Unemployment rate, lowest to highest:

Major -- Unemployment Rate -- Starting Salary
Education -- 5.4 -- 33000
Health -- 5.4 -- 43000
Agricultural and Nat. Res -- 7 -- 32000
Comm. and Journalism -- 7.3 -- 33000
Business -- 7.4 -- 39000
Engineering -- 7.5 -- 55000
Science - life/physical -- 7.7 -- 32000
Law and Public Policy -- 8.1 -- 34000
Computers and Math. -- 8.2 -- 46000
Recreation -- 8.3 -- 30000
Social Science -- 8.9 -- 37000
Humanities and Liberal Arts -- 9.4 -- 31000>
Arts -- 11.1 -- 30000

2) Sorted by starting salary, lowest to highest:

Major -- Unemployment Rate -- Starting Salary
Recreation -- 8.3 -- 30000
Arts -- 11.1 -- 30000
Humanities and Liberal Arts -- 9.4 -- 31000
Agricultural and Nat. Res -- 7 -- 32000
Science - life/physical -- 7.7 -- 32000
Education -- 5.4 -- 33000
Comm. And Journalism -- 7.3 -- 33000
Law and Public Policy -- 8.1 -- 34000
Social Science -- 8.9 -- 37000
Business -- 7.4 -- 39000
Health -- 5.4 -- 43000
Computers and Math. -- 8.2 -- 46000
Engineering -- 7.5 -- 55000

Re:The sorted list (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774628)

Journalism has a lower unemployment rate than engineering? Wow.

What happened to the 'story at eleven' meme?

Look at the list from the point of view of ease of outsourcing and it will start to make sense. Education, health, agriculture, natural resources and journalism are all thing you have to do on location. Engineering, computers and math can be done anywhere. And they command higher salaries, so the motivation to seek cheaper labor is higher.

University != Technical College (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774546)

Why the hell does everyone + dog think university should be about getting trained for a job? The whole bloody idea of university to to better yourself through education. The problem is with the disconnect between the cultural sales pitch and the reality of university. If you want training for a job either start at the bottom or GO AND GET SOME JOB SPECIFIC TRAINING.

IT needs apprenticeship / tech schools CS is notIT (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774550)

In the tech field you have alot of learn on your own people and ALOT Stuff that is hands on that you can't get in a class room (tech schools are better). community colleges also some times offer the same classes that tech schools do but they do max at 2 years. But community / tech schools are good for continuing education skill in IT. continuing education for IT should not be BA , PHD , MA that is a poor fit for IT and that is what happens when you try to jam into the old college system.

community colleges / tech schools offer BETTER CLASS times for people who are working.

CS is to much on the high level and lacks at lot of lower level skills. And CS comes with the full college load of fluff and filler classes. Also it lacks the focus on big areas that a tech school can fill 2 years with.

Now IT needs some kind of a apprenticeship system to give people real skills and to have them learn how things work. Now I think a 1.5-3 year system with on going continuing education will be a good fit for IT and let CS be about the higher level stuff + open a road for some to do the lower level tech stuff + real work and then move on to the higher level stuff.

college is to long and dragged out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774610)

college is to long and dragged out and you have 4 years be push out to 5 with all the filler and other BS.

Missing from the list.. (1)

wormout (2558092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774720)

Why doesn't it show the unemployment rate and graduate income of maths/economics/medicine majors? Can someone point me to the mythical land where engineering majors have the highest likely income, as this article seems to be suggesting.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...