Which degrees give the best financial returns?(economist.com)
economist.com
Which degrees give the best financial returns?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/03/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/revengeofthenerds
56 comments
Thank you for the honesty. It is a touchy subject.
Whereas there are several examples of graduates or dropouts within humanities who did very well for themselves (most famously superstars as Zuckerberg, Jobs and PG) it's almost always outside the fields they studied.
PG didn't set up the most famous philosophical school, Zuckerberg didn't make the largest psychological experiment (or did he?).
Whereas there are several examples of graduates or dropouts within humanities who did very well for themselves (most famously superstars as Zuckerberg, Jobs and PG) it's almost always outside the fields they studied.
PG didn't set up the most famous philosophical school, Zuckerberg didn't make the largest psychological experiment (or did he?).
Well, most entertainers, writers, comedians, etc. tend to have a humanities background. But these people (like Patton Oswalt) are outliers; they are so ridiculously talented that they would've done with or without any degree.
The more time I spend in humanities, the more I realize that this is a field only for the exceptionally talented or the exceptionally hard working.
I'm neither of these things. I just happened to grind away and had a strong analytical mind.
This also means that if you get an application from a humanities grad who has 'made it' within or outside the field, you should take notice - it's likely that this grad worked far harder/smarter than a STEM major to get where he is.
The more time I spend in humanities, the more I realize that this is a field only for the exceptionally talented or the exceptionally hard working.
I'm neither of these things. I just happened to grind away and had a strong analytical mind.
This also means that if you get an application from a humanities grad who has 'made it' within or outside the field, you should take notice - it's likely that this grad worked far harder/smarter than a STEM major to get where he is.
One of the comments to the article makes the very valid point no control for sex is done, and Math/CompSci/Engineering degrees are much more male dominated.
Could this also be expanded to location? Salaries in high cost locations tend to be higher. Salaries, over 1 or 20 years, are not the same thing as take-home net of living and property costs. Are Math/CompSci/Engineering employment paths located in higher cost locations? I don't know, but they could be.
Could this also be expanded to location? Salaries in high cost locations tend to be higher. Salaries, over 1 or 20 years, are not the same thing as take-home net of living and property costs. Are Math/CompSci/Engineering employment paths located in higher cost locations? I don't know, but they could be.
One huge factor that this study apparently left out is that more prestigious universities can generally offer much better financial aid, and hence offer a much better ROI for middle and low income students.
MIT and Podunk U might have the same effect on your salary, but if MIT is charging you only $5,000 a year (including room & board), it's going to be an order of magnitude better ROI.
MIT and Podunk U might have the same effect on your salary, but if MIT is charging you only $5,000 a year (including room & board), it's going to be an order of magnitude better ROI.
It seems that in America, there can be no education for education's sake; post-secondary pursuit of knowledge has been so monetized that 18-year-olds are expected to see into the future and determine the earning prospects over their 50-year-career. If your interests are in less paying fields you are the target of constant derision.
These articles and charts change nothing. They merely allow the prized few whose talents and interests line up with the capitalist zeitgeist to pat themselves on the back and shun all those little people who dared to pursue their own genuine interest with their own life and their own money.
These articles and charts change nothing. They merely allow the prized few whose talents and interests line up with the capitalist zeitgeist to pat themselves on the back and shun all those little people who dared to pursue their own genuine interest with their own life and their own money.
In the US, we can't go to university for $500 a year, like in some European countries. Or like our parents did a generation ago.
You've got to come up with the scratch somehow to pay for the education, and that comes in, on average, somewhere north of $20k per year. Most people take out student loans, and graduate with the equivalent of a medium mortgage-worth of debt out of the gate. If you get a degree in some squishy field, you're taking the risk that you're going to sentence yourself to a decade or more of near-poverty because of the combination of loan debt and low salary/lack of occupation in that field, or you have to double-down and go to grad school, racking up more years of debt. Then you might find that you haven't bought yourself much advantage with the two or three years and $75k you spent.
It's always your decision what to do. Fiscal prudence shouldn't be a target of derision either. You can always go pursue your passions on your own time after you put food on the table.
You've got to come up with the scratch somehow to pay for the education, and that comes in, on average, somewhere north of $20k per year. Most people take out student loans, and graduate with the equivalent of a medium mortgage-worth of debt out of the gate. If you get a degree in some squishy field, you're taking the risk that you're going to sentence yourself to a decade or more of near-poverty because of the combination of loan debt and low salary/lack of occupation in that field, or you have to double-down and go to grad school, racking up more years of debt. Then you might find that you haven't bought yourself much advantage with the two or three years and $75k you spent.
It's always your decision what to do. Fiscal prudence shouldn't be a target of derision either. You can always go pursue your passions on your own time after you put food on the table.
>In the US, we can't go to university for $500 a year, like in some European countries. Or like our parents did a generation ago.
Since we agree it need not be this way (for it hasn't always been), it's prudent to ask why we choose to enrich the few at the cost of the many.
The derision is not towards the fiscally prudent, but towards the stewards that have squandered the nation's intellectual birthright in favor of social Darwinism.
It's sheer opportunism on the part of money lenders upheld by the old guard of "Protestant work ethic." A perfect storm of exploitation in which we should refuse to participate.
Since we agree it need not be this way (for it hasn't always been), it's prudent to ask why we choose to enrich the few at the cost of the many.
The derision is not towards the fiscally prudent, but towards the stewards that have squandered the nation's intellectual birthright in favor of social Darwinism.
It's sheer opportunism on the part of money lenders upheld by the old guard of "Protestant work ethic." A perfect storm of exploitation in which we should refuse to participate.
None of what you said actually enables anyone to make accurate, or even rational, forecasts of which educations will be the most profitable 50 years into the future. Even 20-30 is fairly difficult.
You may not be able to pick the best horse in the race, but you probably shouldn't bet your life's savings on the three-legged, spavined goat.
It's not just America, in Japan the country is attempting to eliminate humanities and social science programs entirely [1].
1. http://monitor.icef.com/2015/09/japanese-government-asks-uni...
1. http://monitor.icef.com/2015/09/japanese-government-asks-uni...
This is only because the current government is populated by reactionary conservatives who are making many such foolish propositions. I hardly think this qualifies as a legitimate reason. Besides, they will clearly fail, as the current backlash in academic is proving.
This is just like Gingrich era Congress's incessant attempts to cutoff funding for the NEH, NEA, etc. Political posturing that will eventually blow over when people realize the blowhards are just full of hot air.
This is just like Gingrich era Congress's incessant attempts to cutoff funding for the NEH, NEA, etc. Political posturing that will eventually blow over when people realize the blowhards are just full of hot air.
That which gives the highest financial return is unrelated to the degree. Political connections and charisma is what makes you the most financially successful.
Look at Carly Fiorina - sucks at running a business, but she's rich because she's connected and talks a lot. Same with a lot of CEOs and politicians.
It's why many people go to big name schools like Harvard. Not because it's a good school, there are many good schools, but because of the political connections one may make. If you live in Utah and plan to stay there, and you want political connections, you go to BYU, not Harvard, even if you qualify for a full ride at Harvard.
Speaking of which, there is definitely something in the water when it comes to BYU and political funny-business. And it ain't ethics.
Look at Carly Fiorina - sucks at running a business, but she's rich because she's connected and talks a lot. Same with a lot of CEOs and politicians.
It's why many people go to big name schools like Harvard. Not because it's a good school, there are many good schools, but because of the political connections one may make. If you live in Utah and plan to stay there, and you want political connections, you go to BYU, not Harvard, even if you qualify for a full ride at Harvard.
Speaking of which, there is definitely something in the water when it comes to BYU and political funny-business. And it ain't ethics.
BYU does produce some really good CS grads though :)
No argument with the premise or results. That said, if I were to advise a 16 yo self, I would include consideration for skilled trades. A plumber/electrician/hvac specialist with decent business/accounting/bookkeeping skills can pretty much write their own ticket past apprenticeship.
I don't think anyone who can cut it as a top maths/eng graduate should consider a trade. It's a gross misuse of their skills and will definitely lead to lower returns over their lifetime.
Skilled trades are a great option for a mediocre student with no real interests, but it's not really an ideal alternative to tech.
Skilled trades are a great option for a mediocre student with no real interests, but it's not really an ideal alternative to tech.
I've seen plenty of talented devs slinging shitty enterprise crud apps or building Facebook for hamsters. The average dev does ok until he hits 40, unless you embed in the right enterprise.
A smart, ambitious person in a skilled trade (or even not so skilled) can can make a lot of money and have rewarding work. My neighbor prints money as running an excavation & dumptruck business. He uses the cash to buy property and find his wife's fledgling business.
Every time a building burns, floods, etc in my city, he has a 1/5 chance of making about $75k at 80% margin. And that is a tiny part of the business.
A smart, ambitious person in a skilled trade (or even not so skilled) can can make a lot of money and have rewarding work. My neighbor prints money as running an excavation & dumptruck business. He uses the cash to buy property and find his wife's fledgling business.
Every time a building burns, floods, etc in my city, he has a 1/5 chance of making about $75k at 80% margin. And that is a tiny part of the business.
A smart, ambitious developer will make an order of magnitude more than a smart, ambitious tradesperson over their lifetime.
Work at Google for 10 years and you'll have plenty of money to buy any property you want.
It's not like this is something we have to debate. The average developer easily makes more than the average plumber, with a lot more potential for upside. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Developer/S...
[2] http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Plumber/Hourly_Rate
Work at Google for 10 years and you'll have plenty of money to buy any property you want.
It's not like this is something we have to debate. The average developer easily makes more than the average plumber, with a lot more potential for upside. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Developer/S...
[2] http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Plumber/Hourly_Rate
The problem with those statistics is that they don't account for location. Software developers may indeed make more salary than the average plumber, but to do so they're mostly required to live in a tech hub, with a high cost of living. I would hypothesize that to maintain a comparable standard of living (i.e. housing, food, etc) to plumbers their average disposable income would actually be lower.
Quite right. I posted the below grafs in a discussion a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761048) and it seems relevant again.
The median home value in Palo Alto is $2.5M per Zillow; in neighboring Menlo Park with comparable schools it's $2M. If you cross I-280 for larger lot sizes (and generally, though not always, more house square footage) you'll see the median home value in Portola Valley is $3.8M. If you don't like those figures, you can look at Trulia's, which says the median sales price for Palo Alto is $2.5M and the mean listing price is $3M.
Note these are generally not luxurious properties at those prices. Many are small postwar ranchers or Eichlers (beautiful but a pain to update) that have not been renovated in decades. Some houses have negative value because they're teardowns; you'd buy the property for the land.
After taking into account housing costs and California's aggressively progressive tax regime, you may find that $250K salary does not go as far as you like. You may make 2x-3x as much--but your cost for comparable housing may be 10x-15x as high and your tax burden will be more oppressive as well.
The median home value in Palo Alto is $2.5M per Zillow; in neighboring Menlo Park with comparable schools it's $2M. If you cross I-280 for larger lot sizes (and generally, though not always, more house square footage) you'll see the median home value in Portola Valley is $3.8M. If you don't like those figures, you can look at Trulia's, which says the median sales price for Palo Alto is $2.5M and the mean listing price is $3M.
Note these are generally not luxurious properties at those prices. Many are small postwar ranchers or Eichlers (beautiful but a pain to update) that have not been renovated in decades. Some houses have negative value because they're teardowns; you'd buy the property for the land.
After taking into account housing costs and California's aggressively progressive tax regime, you may find that $250K salary does not go as far as you like. You may make 2x-3x as much--but your cost for comparable housing may be 10x-15x as high and your tax burden will be more oppressive as well.
Yes, home prices are insane but it's not going to wipe out all your gains. I worked a programmer in NYC and could still easily save 50% of my after-tax income.
Not to mention that as a programmer you have the option of working remotely (for a healthy 6-figure salary) for whatever low-cost place you like.
Not to mention that as a programmer you have the option of working remotely (for a healthy 6-figure salary) for whatever low-cost place you like.
Im sure you could save 50% of your after tax income, but I'm incredibly skeptical that you could do so while maintaining the same standard of living as the average plumber.
Regarding programmers doing remote work they are the exception, and probably account for 1-5% of all developers I would guess. Regardless, they are definitely not representative of the average developer - which is what we were discussing.
Regarding programmers doing remote work they are the exception, and probably account for 1-5% of all developers I would guess. Regardless, they are definitely not representative of the average developer - which is what we were discussing.
You're using industry wide figures. Making $200k in SFO isn't very meaningful. And to achieve top outcomes in IT, you need to live in SFO, BOston or NYC.
You can build a $5M plumbing/electrical/etc business in any location and live a much better quality of life.
You can build a $5M plumbing/electrical/etc business in any location and live a much better quality of life.
> You can build a $5M plumbing/electrical/etc business in any location and live a much better quality of life.
If the average outcome for plumbers is owning $5M businesses, it's amazing how that doesn't show up in any statistics I've seen.
Both of my parents work in the trades. People on Hacker News glamorize it far too much. It's much more frequently a case of intermittent employment and low wages—even when you do own your own business (as both of them have at various times).
If the average outcome for plumbers is owning $5M businesses, it's amazing how that doesn't show up in any statistics I've seen.
Both of my parents work in the trades. People on Hacker News glamorize it far too much. It's much more frequently a case of intermittent employment and low wages—even when you do own your own business (as both of them have at various times).
I think you are probably wrong, I've met quite a few trades people who pursue their intellectual interests outside of work and without the encumbrance of having to make a living from them.
You say "maths/eng graduate" - are you sure you didn't mean to say "programmer"?
It's an important distinction. Computer programming is just about the only white-collar job left on Earth that still has a healthy demand relative to the supply so you can get a decently paid job where you aren't abused all that much, so if you have an aptitude for it, by all means go that route (whether via college or not, is a separate question).
But what's the job market like these days for mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers? I get the impression it's bad enough that if you put the same ingenuity and effort into a blue-collar trade you'd get better returns.
It's an important distinction. Computer programming is just about the only white-collar job left on Earth that still has a healthy demand relative to the supply so you can get a decently paid job where you aren't abused all that much, so if you have an aptitude for it, by all means go that route (whether via college or not, is a separate question).
But what's the job market like these days for mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers? I get the impression it's bad enough that if you put the same ingenuity and effort into a blue-collar trade you'd get better returns.
I used to think that too (as a comp sci guy). But the old adage is true "A students work for B students, who work for the owners - C Students". What I've found in life is that the smartest make intellectual advances, but rarely take life risks due to over-rationalization.
"A students work for B students, who work for the owners - C Students".
The problem with this adage is the numbers game. A students may be rare and C students plentiful, but owners are rare too. So while some C students may become owners, most will be far less successful.
The problem with this adage is the numbers game. A students may be rare and C students plentiful, but owners are rare too. So while some C students may become owners, most will be far less successful.
I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not much of an academic type myself. I was talking about careers: you're going to make a lot more money and have much more impact as a developer/software guy than as a tradesman.
I don't know of (m)any software developers working for plumbers.
I'm not much of an academic type myself. I was talking about careers: you're going to make a lot more money and have much more impact as a developer/software guy than as a tradesman.
I don't know of (m)any software developers working for plumbers.
There's some other considerations that might come into play there:
Do you take great satisfaction and pleasure in working with your hands and working on concrete projects?
Do you want to live someplace outside the big-money tech bubbles?
Maybe you don't care about impacting the world - you just want to make a nice living and hang out with your family.
I'm sure there's others.
Do you take great satisfaction and pleasure in working with your hands and working on concrete projects?
Do you want to live someplace outside the big-money tech bubbles?
Maybe you don't care about impacting the world - you just want to make a nice living and hang out with your family.
I'm sure there's others.
I'm not saying that everyone should be a developer. Plenty of people are well-suited to a skilled trade if that's what they enjoy.
What I was arguing against is this idea that someone becoming a plumber is the economically superior option.
What I was arguing against is this idea that someone becoming a plumber is the economically superior option.
Pure snobbery when you consider the actual day-to-day work of a typical CS graduate. Oh look another intranet, another shopping cart, another way to show people ads. A new Javascript framework to learn, woohoo! Who says being a plumber or an electrician isn't more intellectually satisfying than that?
On the developer side I have seen studies showing those with less college actually make more than those with the most college education. Good programmers are self taught. It is in their blood. Getting a masters degree in computer science doesn't guarantee you are a good developer. It isn't a requirement or necessary like some other careers. It's meaningless compared to on the job experience.
At my last startup, the first 3 developers, including myself, all lacked a college degree. We kicked butt and knocked it out of the park.
At my last startup, the first 3 developers, including myself, all lacked a college degree. We kicked butt and knocked it out of the park.
If your sample size is your coworkers, there's a giant selection bias.
You're ignoring the countless developers who didn't graduate from college but also can't get a good job. I know plenty of them and they're basically stuck on a treadmill of making crappy WordPress sites.
While it's true that great developers will probably do well degree or no degree, it's definitely a boon for average developers.
Also consider that even for good developers the additional offers which might come from a degree can drive up their salary. Even if you have no intention of working in finance, a $300k offer from Goldman (which generally requires a degree) can help to empower your negotiations elsewhere.
You're ignoring the countless developers who didn't graduate from college but also can't get a good job. I know plenty of them and they're basically stuck on a treadmill of making crappy WordPress sites.
While it's true that great developers will probably do well degree or no degree, it's definitely a boon for average developers.
Also consider that even for good developers the additional offers which might come from a degree can drive up their salary. Even if you have no intention of working in finance, a $300k offer from Goldman (which generally requires a degree) can help to empower your negotiations elsewhere.
I agree with you that the OP has selection bias, but I'd like to pick a nit in your example. Goldman Sachs does not generally require a degree for developers, which means that it's not a suitable example for your argument. A better argument would be some Fortune 500 company that offers high salaries with a hard rule on credentials.
Goldman's careers portal certainly makes it annoying to try and apply without one (but you can!), and of course their job ads mention it as a qualification, but I can tell you from personal experience they don't require a degree. Google also lists a degree as a qualification for their engineering roles; they don't care either.
Like almost every other credential in the software industry, a degree is mostly useful for getting to the actual interview as a blind, poorly networked applicant. But if you're being invited to interview, or you contact a hiring manager directly - no, they don't care.
While we're on the topic, I'll throw this in since a lot of the HN crowd seems to be unaware - if we are comparing salaries to financial companies primarily based in New York, you can make $300k at any large tech company like Google or Facebook once you're at T5 or higher in New York. While finance companies can greatly inflate developer salaries beyond tech companies, $300k is not the floor at which you'd make that comparison.
That comparison is made in the seven figure salary range. The roles in that range are out of reach for general engineers at Google et al because they deal in specialized trading disciplines, which means they are still not comparable.
This leads me to the next note - all the large tech companies are pretty much explicitly ambivalent about degrees, even for landing an interview as a lowly, unconnected candidate.
Goldman's careers portal certainly makes it annoying to try and apply without one (but you can!), and of course their job ads mention it as a qualification, but I can tell you from personal experience they don't require a degree. Google also lists a degree as a qualification for their engineering roles; they don't care either.
Like almost every other credential in the software industry, a degree is mostly useful for getting to the actual interview as a blind, poorly networked applicant. But if you're being invited to interview, or you contact a hiring manager directly - no, they don't care.
While we're on the topic, I'll throw this in since a lot of the HN crowd seems to be unaware - if we are comparing salaries to financial companies primarily based in New York, you can make $300k at any large tech company like Google or Facebook once you're at T5 or higher in New York. While finance companies can greatly inflate developer salaries beyond tech companies, $300k is not the floor at which you'd make that comparison.
That comparison is made in the seven figure salary range. The roles in that range are out of reach for general engineers at Google et al because they deal in specialized trading disciplines, which means they are still not comparable.
This leads me to the next note - all the large tech companies are pretty much explicitly ambivalent about degrees, even for landing an interview as a lowly, unconnected candidate.
That's an awful long nit to pick. Goldman was just a random example, I wasn't trying to make a comment about their specific hiring policies.
My point, which I still believe holds, is that in general the market rate for credentialed developers is higher than for non-credentialed ones.
Obviously this isn't true in all cases and certainly not at the highest levels, but the fact is that having a degree can only increase the supply of jobs available to you. It's not going to be a negative for your earning potential, especially when you consider that the average developer is not working at either Google or Goldman.
My point, which I still believe holds, is that in general the market rate for credentialed developers is higher than for non-credentialed ones.
Obviously this isn't true in all cases and certainly not at the highest levels, but the fact is that having a degree can only increase the supply of jobs available to you. It's not going to be a negative for your earning potential, especially when you consider that the average developer is not working at either Google or Goldman.
Your point still stands, and I definitely agree with you. A degree is generally a good investment that should only be skipped with caution, sufficient drive and personal affinity for programming.
I just wanted to go off on a tangent because I don't think it's common knowledge that the large finance companies will hire uncredentialed devs.
I just wanted to go off on a tangent because I don't think it's common knowledge that the large finance companies will hire uncredentialed devs.
> I just wanted to go off on a tangent because I don't think it's common knowledge that the large finance companies will hire uncredentialed devs.
Fair point. I've actually never seen any evidence that they do (not that I've looked closely) and am surprised.
Do you have to have prior industry experience in a particular niche to get in without a credential? (Ex. low latency expertise.)
Fair point. I've actually never seen any evidence that they do (not that I've looked closely) and am surprised.
Do you have to have prior industry experience in a particular niche to get in without a credential? (Ex. low latency expertise.)
About what percentage of their engineers are T5 or higher?
I don't have numbers offhand, but T5 at Google is senior. Google has a soft "up or out" mentality in reviews, which means that all engineers are eventually expected to reach T5. If they don't within 3-5 years, it starts to reflect negatively on them in subsequent reviews.
Note that you're probably only getting the aforementioned salary at T5 in one of the coastal metropolitan areas, like New York or Silicon Valley. So if your actual question was, "How many Google engineers make $300k or more?" I'd say not as many, but still probably more than at Goldman.
Note that you're probably only getting the aforementioned salary at T5 in one of the coastal metropolitan areas, like New York or Silicon Valley. So if your actual question was, "How many Google engineers make $300k or more?" I'd say not as many, but still probably more than at Goldman.
Big banks such as Goldman Sachs are very corrupted. I heard several stories about unqualified elite kids got hired for no reasons. In financial industry, one does not even need to be skillful to make a lot of money.
Example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-j-p-morgan-emails-a-tale-of-c...
Example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-j-p-morgan-emails-a-tale-of-c...
This is survivorship bias in action. If you compared all university-educated developers to all self-taught developers, you might have a valid comparison. If you only compare startup-employed university-educated developers to their self-taught brethren, you run into selection bias issues.
For one thing, you are discarding all unemployed self-taught programmers (who may be very motivated, but not very good). Another issue is that university-educated programmers have various other characteristics (such as greater conformism) that reduce the likelihood they will want to work at a startup, or be successful in that environment. Self-taught developers who get hired to 'good' startups are also likely to have achievements that made their resume more appealing to the interviewer than a university degree; this means the self-taught developers who get hired are probably more accomplished.
For one thing, you are discarding all unemployed self-taught programmers (who may be very motivated, but not very good). Another issue is that university-educated programmers have various other characteristics (such as greater conformism) that reduce the likelihood they will want to work at a startup, or be successful in that environment. Self-taught developers who get hired to 'good' startups are also likely to have achievements that made their resume more appealing to the interviewer than a university degree; this means the self-taught developers who get hired are probably more accomplished.
I think you need to compare people who have an offer to study and refuse it to those who have an offer and accept. I'd be surprised if the difference in this case was large for developers.
I would not be surprised if there was a large difference between those two groups. The people who refuse to study are likely to be non-conformists and/or have another plan (such as a job offer due to extraordinary previous work).
Depends upon where you want to work. If you want to work for smaller or startups, I would imagine you could get away with less college education if you have the background and skills, but for fortune 500 enterprise type gigs, the paper is still often required to even be considered.
I have a good friend who has been a developer at various hedge funds and financial institutions for a while now, and his applications were highly focused on credentials across his educational career. They wanted everything from his SAT and GRE scores to his transcript and grades from his masters.
Good to hear that engineering is less dependent on institutional prestige. As someone who doesn't attend a name-brand university, I hope to be evaluated more for my skills than for the school I went to.
Just find some way to get yourself into the "in network." That can be attending a prestigious university, but you can also get it from the right internships or hackathon connections.
I didn't attend a traditionally top-ranked university, but it turns out that the majority of my useful connections did.
I didn't attend a traditionally top-ranked university, but it turns out that the majority of my useful connections did.
It may make your first offer harder. Some companies are way more likely to put a booth at the career fair of MIT compared to Foo State. After that meh.. some people care about schools, many do not.
I would imagine that the social network one builds in college can help later on, too, if only for internal referrals. I would be interested to see what percentage of Google employees attended Stanford vs. other schools vs. started professionally programming without a college degree.
[deleted]
It's problematic looking at salaries college students vs. non-college students, as if the single choice of going to school or not makes the difference, and getting the degree assures the good pay. Too many recent graduates know better.
Obviously college students would make more than non-college. Just for the fact that supply and demand in the job market - less people will go further in their education and so the college grad, masters, PhD is going to be less supply.
Looking at salary as a return on investment of tuition however, that is shoddy. The very smart person will make more money (if they decide that is important to them), but not because they went to college - other personal characteristics will determine that.
Obviously college students would make more than non-college. Just for the fact that supply and demand in the job market - less people will go further in their education and so the college grad, masters, PhD is going to be less supply.
Looking at salary as a return on investment of tuition however, that is shoddy. The very smart person will make more money (if they decide that is important to them), but not because they went to college - other personal characteristics will determine that.
Regardless of major, to move past a certain level, some knowledge of business fundamentals is necessary. Things like accounting, marketing, sales, management, finance, etc.
That list is missing 'no degree'.
Which degrees give the best societal return? yay capitalism
Fortunately, I've had an entrepreneurial spirit and freelanced my way through college and through extensive self-study, built up a career in marketing.
But my college mates who weren't as entrepreneurial, or didn't have as much business sense are suffering. They're working mostly dead end jobs or grinding away at the bottom end of academia. It's not pretty.
I would caution anyone going for a humanities degree to think long and hard about their decision. If you're not entrepreneurial, can't hustle, and don't pick up secondary skills (marketing, coding, sales, etc.), you're going to have a hard, hard time.