Should you major in a field you consider evil? Slate advice

[financeguy]

This immediately made me think of a documentary about the Pentagon Papers case when Daniel Ellsberg's trial for leaking documents related to the "unwinnable" aspect of the Vietnam war. When jury selection occurred, the the defense wanted to avoid one group: older men. While younger men and all women would have likely respected the idealism of Ellsberg, those who had been in the workplace and had to make personal compromises in their own lives would presumably resent those who would not do so.

Another way to view this is that the people who had to "make something work" in the world (keep a job and pay bills rather than just run their mouth) are forced to recognize that life is not a series of referendum where one gets to simply choose "yes" for the "good" things and no to the bad but a more complex series of trade offs.

The "no non-profit" aspect is telling. Like most on a moral soap box, they want to maintain their principles only until it cuts into their own bottom line. Look at polling support for the looters. There is some correlation to aspects you would expect to affect how they are perceived (level of education, political affiliation) but the real metric of how likely someone is to support rioters is "are they in MY neighborhood."

[apl68]

The "no non-profit" aspect is telling. Like most on a moral soap box, they want to maintain their principles only until it cuts into their own bottom line. Look at polling support for the looters. There is some correlation to aspects you would expect to affect how they are perceived (level of education, political affiliation) but the real metric of how likely someone is to support rioters is "are they in MY neighborhood."

I wonder what it is that the student finds objectionable about nonprofits.  An assumption that they don't pay well?  An assumption that they're boring places to work?  "Nonprofit" can cover an awfully wide range of things.

[Caracal]

The "no non-profit" aspect is telling. Like most on a moral soap box, they want to maintain their principles only until it cuts into their own bottom line. Look at polling support for the looters. There is some correlation to aspects you would expect to affect how they are perceived (level of education, political affiliation) but the real metric of how likely someone is to support rioters is "are they in MY neighborhood."

I wonder what it is that the student finds objectionable about nonprofits.  An assumption that they don't pay well?  An assumption that they're boring places to work?  "Nonprofit" can cover an awfully wide range of things.

Probably the money. Obviously, this person is thinking in very broad generalizations. I'm not quite sure why some want to read that as hypocrisy or self righteousness. The basic problem is real enough. The student wants to do something she thinks she is good at, enjoys, can provide a comfortable living and doesn't make her feel crummy. Those aren't absurd goals. What's missing is nuance. Like a lot of college students she seems to be thinking in very oppositional terms and framing the decision as between the research major and advertising and then seeing that choice as one that will dictate everything about her life.

[marshwiggle]

The "no non-profit" aspect is telling. Like most on a moral soap box, they want to maintain their principles only until it cuts into their own bottom line. Look at polling support for the looters. There is some correlation to aspects you would expect to affect how they are perceived (level of education, political affiliation) but the real metric of how likely someone is to support rioters is "are they in MY neighborhood."

I wonder what it is that the student finds objectionable about nonprofits.  An assumption that they don't pay well?  An assumption that they're boring places to work?  "Nonprofit" can cover an awfully wide range of things.

Probably the money. Obviously, this person is thinking in very broad generalizations. I'm not quite sure why some want to read that as hypocrisy or self righteousness. The basic problem is real enough. The student wants to do something she thinks she is good at, enjoys, can provide a comfortable living and doesn't make her feel crummy. Those aren't absurd goals. What's missing is nuance. Like a lot of college students she seems to be thinking in very oppositional terms and framing the decision as between the research major and advertising and then seeing that choice as one that will dictate everything about her life.

That's the point I was trying to make, and it seemed from the article that there was no attempt to enlighten the student in that regard. Advertising may be a bad choice for that student, but anything is likely to be a disappointment for someone going in with that overly simplistic worldview.

[apl68]

The "no non-profit" aspect is telling. Like most on a moral soap box, they want to maintain their principles only until it cuts into their own bottom line. Look at polling support for the looters. There is some correlation to aspects you would expect to affect how they are perceived (level of education, political affiliation) but the real metric of how likely someone is to support rioters is "are they in MY neighborhood."

I wonder what it is that the student finds objectionable about nonprofits.  An assumption that they don't pay well?  An assumption that they're boring places to work?  "Nonprofit" can cover an awfully wide range of things.

Probably the money. Obviously, this person is thinking in very broad generalizations. I'm not quite sure why some want to read that as hypocrisy or self righteousness. The basic problem is real enough. The student wants to do something she thinks she is good at, enjoys, can provide a comfortable living and doesn't make her feel crummy. Those aren't absurd goals. What's missing is nuance. Like a lot of college students she seems to be thinking in very oppositional terms and framing the decision as between the research major and advertising and then seeing that choice as one that will dictate everything about her life.

That's the point I was trying to make, and it seemed from the article that there was no attempt to enlighten the student in that regard. Advertising may be a bad choice for that student, but anything is likely to be a disappointment for someone going in with that overly simplistic worldview.

I think we're all in agreement that the student has a lot to learn about the world of work.  There does seem to be a strong sense among traditional-age college students that they have to decide on just the "right" major, or they'll end up broke, or unhappy, or bored for the rest of their lives.  They feel like their entire futures are riding on their choice of major.  You can't blame them for being afraid to make that choice.  It's no wonder so few students feel free any more to just get a good education and see where that takes them.  It says a lot about the pressures they're under now.

[Caracal]

That's the point I was trying to make, and it seemed from the article that there was no attempt to enlighten the student in that regard. Advertising may be a bad choice for that student, but anything is likely to be a disappointment for someone going in with that overly simplistic worldview.
[/quote]

I think we're all in agreement that the student has a lot to learn about the world of work.  There does seem to be a strong sense among traditional-age college students that they have to decide on just the "right" major, or they'll end up broke, or unhappy, or bored for the rest of their lives.  They feel like their entire futures are riding on their choice of major.  You can't blame them for being afraid to make that choice.  It's no wonder so few students feel free any more to just get a good education and see where that takes them.  It says a lot about the pressures they're under now.
[/quote]

I thought Lavery was making that point indirectly.

When I have conversations with students considering grad school, I make sure they know all of the reasons why it might be a bad idea, but I also always point out that if they feel conflicted, they can always just put off the decision. They often haven't even thought of this as a possibility. If you're thinking of everything as a decision tree, the idea that you might just put off choosing a long term path doesn't even occur. I suspect it leads to lots of bad decisions. If you think of your choices as:
1. Embark now on boring, but practical career, or
2. Take risk on grad school

grad school often seems like the only choice with a path to professional fulfillment. If you open up the possibility that you'll just go and find some job, which might or might not be part of a long term career path and doesn't close off grad school in the future, it is much more likely someone is going to make a good choice for themselves.

[polly_mer]

It's no wonder so few students feel free any more to just get a good education and see where that takes them. 

Students focusing only on a good education means many institutions would be out of business.

[darkstarrynight]

I think we're all in agreement that the student has a lot to learn about the world of work.  There does seem to be a strong sense among traditional-age college students that they have to decide on just the "right" major, or they'll end up broke, or unhappy, or bored for the rest of their lives.  They feel like their entire futures are riding on their choice of major.  You can't blame them for being afraid to make that choice.  It's no wonder so few students feel free any more to just get a good education and see where that takes them.  It says a lot about the pressures they're under now.

I agree with apl68 - there is this weird obsession with major leading to career. As a former tour guide and career counselor, I have told many students that a major does not define them. I used to say on my tours, "You can major in Art History and go to medical school!" Heck, it is true - just take the prerequisites for pre-med students along the way. No one in my immediate family pursued a career related to our majors. That does not mean we did not gain valuable knowledge and skills from the undergraduate major we chose. I suppose I am intrigued by this conversation because I have a degree in...you guessed it...advertising. I had no intention of ever working in advertising. I did though gain valuable skills in crisis communication, working in teams, exercising creativity, presenting to audiences, and collaborating with real companies on projects.

Now I have graduate students panicking over different "strands" of our masters program, a set of three courses. I keep telling them "three classes do not define you" and "strands do not appear on your transcript" so they should just take the courses that interest them. I would rather have students invested in their learning than worrying about a strand they choose that does not have to be listed on a resume. I certainly do not think having an advertising degree has held me back from a career in higher education. My masters degree was in a completely different field than advertising, and my doctorate is also in a completely different field than both of the previous degrees. The "traditional college experience" for students who are still 18-22 may be more exploratory. I do think there are some exceptions (e.g., engineering majors tend to pursue engineering careers, accounting majors likely pursue accounting careers, education majors likely pursue teaching careers). I have a hard time when a student comes to me and says, "I want to major in business so I can make a lot of money." When I worked in career services, students studying management complained about entry level salaries and asked why they were not able to apply directly for management positions with no work experience..."but I majored in management so I should be a manager!" Sigh.

[Caracal]

I agree with apl68 - there is this weird obsession with major leading to career. As a former tour guide and career counselor, I have told many students that a major does not define them. I used to say on my tours, "You can major in Art History and go to medical school!" Heck, it is true - just take the prerequisites for pre-med students along the way. No one in my immediate family pursued a career related to our majors. That does not mean we did not gain valuable knowledge and skills from the undergraduate major we chose. I suppose I am intrigued by this conversation because I have a degree in...you guessed it...advertising. I had no intention of ever working in advertising. I did though gain valuable skills in crisis communication, working in teams, exercising creativity, presenting to audiences, and collaborating with real companies on projects.

Now I have graduate students panicking over different "strands" of our masters program, a set of three courses. I keep telling them "three classes do not define you" and "strands do not appear on your transcript" so they should just take the courses that interest them. I would rather have students invested in their learning than worrying about a strand they choose that does not have to be listed on a resume. I certainly do not think having an advertising degree has held me back from a career in higher education. My masters degree was in a completely different field than advertising, and my doctorate is also in a completely different field than both of the previous degrees. The "traditional college experience" for students who are still 18-22 may be more exploratory. I do think there are some exceptions (e.g., engineering majors tend to pursue engineering careers, accounting majors likely pursue accounting careers, education majors likely pursue teaching careers). I have a hard time when a student comes to me and says, "I want to major in business so I can make a lot of money." When I worked in career services, students studying management complained about entry level salaries and asked why they were not able to apply directly for management positions with no work experience..."but I majored in management so I should be a manager!" Sigh.

Schools have really played into these ideas. I'm sure internships are important in terms of giving students the kind of actual experience and networks that might result in them getting a job in a field. However, you can risk communicating to students that there is a straight line path from major to career and it is important to get on that line.

I sometimes mention to students worrying about major and minor choices that I didn't even have a minor. They always seem profoundly disturbed by this idea. I took lots of English classes and could have minored in it, but I would have had to take one intro poetry course. I realized that there was zero chance I would do anything where it would help me to have a minor in English, so I might as well skip the poetry class and take something that seemed interesting.

[apl68]

Now I have graduate students panicking over different "strands" of our masters program, a set of three courses. I keep telling them "three classes do not define you" and "strands do not appear on your transcript" so they should just take the courses that interest them. I would rather have students invested in their learning than worrying about a strand they choose that does not have to be listed on a resume. I certainly do not think having an advertising degree has held me back from a career in higher education. My masters degree was in a completely different field than advertising, and my doctorate is also in a completely different field than both of the previous degrees. The "traditional college experience" for students who are still 18-22 may be more exploratory. I do think there are some exceptions (e.g., engineering majors tend to pursue engineering careers, accounting majors likely pursue accounting careers, education majors likely pursue teaching careers). I have a hard time when a student comes to me and says, "I want to major in business so I can make a lot of money." When I worked in career services, students studying management complained about entry level salaries and asked why they were not able to apply directly for management positions with no work experience..."but I majored in management so I should be a manager!" Sigh.

I understand the fear that choosing the wrong educational path can end up ruining one's life, because I spent a number of years fearing that I had done just that.  I've since come to understand that my mistake wasn't majoring in the wrong thing as an undergrad, it was going for a PhD with the idea of having a career in academia.  As an undergrad I majored in something I was really interested in, and was motivated to work hard at my education.  That education has been of real benefit to me (My grad education has too, but it's still hard not to feel that it cost me more years of my life than it was really worth). 

With hindsight, I'm inclined to encourage undergrads to major in something they're truly interested in, with the understanding that it doesn't have to be something that will determine their future careers.  That's one reason why it's so distressing to see the galloping decline in liberal arts majors.  There must surely be many students who would thrive in a liberal arts major, get a good education, and go on to find something worth doing to make a living, who are instead forcing themselves into fields they don't want to study because conventional wisdom keeps telling them that majoring in the liberal arts is economic suicide.  They're losing a lot of what they could get out of college, and enjoying the experience much less.  And they may even be hurting their long-term prospects by forcing themselves into a mold that's not suited to them.

All that said, "majoring in what you're truly interested in" can be tough advice to follow, if what you're truly interested in is one of those fields that nearly everybody nowadays wrongly supposes will end up making you unemployable and useless.  Had I not been the beneficiary of a scholarship that made it unnecessary for me to borrow tens of thousands of dollars for college, and lived a few years before the notion that the liberal arts were a total waste of time really set in, I doubt I'd have had the confidence to do a liberal arts major.

[darkstarrynight]

apl68 - fair enough. Education is an investment, and many students do not see a connection between investing in something that they find interesting without a career outcome, and a return on that investment.

[apl68]

apl68 - fair enough. Education is an investment, and many students do not see a connection between investing in something that they find interesting without a career outcome, and a return on that investment.

It's hard to see such a connection when you're young and don't yet know much about the wider world of work.  Before the Plague set in, we had a couple of local high school seniors attend each of our weekly Rotary Club meetings.  In the course of a school year approximately the top half of the students in terms of grades would come through.  Probably pretty much all of our local students who were anything like prepared to undertake a college education.  They had a chance to introduce themselves, say what clubs they belonged to, and say what they planned to study and what they planned to do. 

The overwhelming majority of them planned to head into the same half dozen or so occupations.  Probably at least a third of them had ambitions to be nurses.  Based on what I've seen on the Fora about nursing students, I wonder just how many of them are able to follow through on that.  There are also quite a few aspiring engineers and IT people, some pharmacists, the occasional forester (we're a logging region), and now and then somebody who wants to go all the way and be a doctor. 

The variety of aspirational fields is so small that I get the distinct impression that our local students aren't very aware of anything else.  Besides school teaching--and until last year I'm not sure we had ever heard a student say that he or she wanted to teach.  There's apparently widespread agreement that the last thing anybody could ever want to be is a teacher. 

Most youths just seem to have a limited awareness of possibilities for potential careers.  In an earlier era, when college didn't require mortgaging one's future, and there seemed to be plenty of careers out there for all, students felt like they could study what they wanted and then figure out what they wanted to do with their lives.  Now there's a sense that to stand any chance at all of making it in this world you need to start planning your career while you're still in high school.  And high school students don't have a whole lot of knowledge to go on in making their plans.  So we see so many students shunning anything adventurous and going for the same handful of vocational majors.  It's sad to see them going into higher education with such an impoverished sense of the possibilities, but if I were in their shoes I can see feeling that way.

Even sadder is that these are the academic top half of our youths.  So many of the rest don't seem able to envision any sort of future for themselves at all.  Half the girls go to the local beauty school to learn to style hair, only to find that it's a hopelessly overcrowded field.  A few guys go into a skilled vocational field.  The rest either take minimum-wage jobs of one kind or another when they can find them, or join the growing ranks of the idle with no visible means of support.

[spork]

^ Describes my high school cohort to a T. And I was in high school in the early 1980s.

[jerseyjay]

In terms of the situation apl68 describes--which like Spork, describes my own high school experience, several decades ago--I think that there is an element of class and generation at play. That is, first generation students and students from working-class and lower-middle-class backgrounds (which tend to overlap) tend to have a focus on getting a job.

Students from the upper middle and professional classes, and those whose parents have college degrees (again, the two groups overlap) are more likely to major in things that do not have immediate career goals. The latter are also more likely to go to more elite schools in which the liberal arts are more popular.

Of course, a student with a Harvard BA in history or English will probably have less to worry about career wise than a student from a state teachers college with the same degree. I have met premed and prelaw students from elite schools who major in non-related stuff, because, again, somebody with a good GPA from Yale is probably competitive for law or medical school, even with a comparative literature degree.

I guess what I am saying is that people whose parents went to university and/or are professionals are more likely to be aware of the variety of jobs available to people with college degrees, and also less worried about their immediate prospects. The fact that many university graduates, especially from less prestigious schools, struggle to find decent jobs and pay off their loans, reinforces the focus on jobs.

When I taught in Latin America, there is a different approach than in the U.S. On one hand, there is a stronger identification between major and career (in fact, the word for major is carrera) and somebody who studies a particular profession (medicine, architecture, law) will probably be referred to by that even if he--and traditionally it is men--never practices that profession.

On the other hand, university graduates are so few and good professional jobs are fewer, that a university graduate may never be able to find a job in his or her profession but will still have added social prestige just by having a university graduate. Hence what major one chooses is both more and less important than in the United States.

[Anon1787]

Dear student:

Will you forswear anything that smacks of advertising in your cover letter and résumé/CV when applying for jobs?