Law requiring publishing of salary info for colleges by major
The article uses an example of a kid who majored in poli-sci from a no-name school, who (amazingly) is unemployed. Would a bill like this make a difference?
The article uses an example of a kid who majored in poli-sci from a no-name school, who (amazingly) is unemployed. Would a bill like this make a difference?
+92 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 23 | 3s | |
+57 | How to sound more eloquent? | 26 | 1d | |
+40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 2d | |
+35 | Interviews Are So Fake | 23 | 5s | |
+33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 10h | |
+29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 4h | |
+26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 5d | |
+22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
+21 | What's going on at Columbia? | 16 | 24m | |
+20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d |
Career Resources
This data is already out there, on sites like this. Kids make what might seem in retrospect bad decisions because they're kids, not for lack of data or advice.
It is always the Poli sci, education, sociology, biology, etc. kids who are in articles about student loan debt and being unemployed... I attribute it to their personality and focus.
A person studying finance in school is obviously interested in gaining knowledge about MONEY and quantifying pretty much anything quantifiable so when they look at colleges cost, tuition, aid, and placement stats are key in determining if a school is worth the "investment". This is why 99.9% of MBA programs have placement PDFs they put out each year because that is the key statistical factor driving applications for incoming students.
Compare this to Education or Biology... Look at schools for undergrad and masters and you will find less programs touting their placements and in some cases no information about placement at all.
But to go back to the kids going into school... If a kid goes to school clueless about the impact their student loans will have on their life i am willing to put money down that 100 times out of 100 that they will NOT be a finance major.
Out of everyone I know drowning in debt and crying themselves to sleep at night... 0 are finance majors
I am not saying wanting to be a teacher is bad, but I am saying it means you shouldn't be going to UPenn without scholarships so you can go teach at some po-dunk high school and make 45k a year to try paying down your student loans. I went to a po-dunk school that is absurdly expensive considering 99% of the programs are poop, yet people still go 100k into debt for a Bachelor's in education.
First day of class, the profs gave us salary info. Only because it's the highest paying major at my school (econ). I don't think art history profs would do this though, lol.
SirTrades... honestly, if they were 'smart' enough to get into college, you would think they would do research on how much they would be paid coming out, then reassess the cost/benefit of their major. For those who don't take the time to research their future career simply do not deserve a job IMO.
Most of the people I know who go to college (and the are smart enough to get into very good colleges), do not make any sort of cost-benefit analysis past the cursory "is this a good school and can I afford it and see myself there for 4 years." Further, a good number of HS seniors have no clue what they want to do. Most people figure it out in college or change their minds in college.
With that said, I still think it is a good idea. It will help the few that know what they're looking for out of HS (and overzealous, gunner parents) and maybe more kids will begin to analyze their college choice further if the information is more readily available.
Exactly!!!! It isn't the college's fault, though I do agree it would be beneficial to students to have the information readily available to them should they have the foresight to think about that before delving into debt
Isn't everyone smart enough to get into college?
When I was 18 and considering college I barely took into account what my salary would look like upon graduation. I wasn't even close to having a major picked out at that point. Not everyone is thinking about their first analyst gig upon exiting the womb.
Edit: Just realized LHDan basically said exactly this.
Haha I am not saying people graduate high school wanting to be a banker... But I am saying people should go into school or at least contemplate the idea of.... "How do I want to live my life? Do I want a Mercedes or a Volvo? Do I want to live in the Palisades or Burbank?" Not saying that people need to go into college at 18 knowing what they want to do, but they should be realistic and not put themselves in a hole by burying themselves in 100k in debt only to realize... "SHIT! I only make 45k a year"
I think there are a lot of different aspects that need to be addressed. However, while I certainly think the more transparency the better, I have serious doubts that the data produced would be all that helpful.
(1) Not everyone goes to school with the goal of achieving a massive ROI. Many political science majors, English majors, etc. enter school knowing they will not make much money thereafter (others, however, are rudely awakened when they end up unemployed at graduation (and then they decide to go to law school)). Taking this into account, a journalist for example could be a free lancer making $0 or a New York Times writer making $70k. This would not be a useful comparison, and it would be hard to break them apart in order for the data to be truly useful. On top of this, schools may feel pressure to get their salary data up, and then could begin denying admission to students seeking altruistic yet low paying paths in favor of the Gordon Gekkos.
(2) I doubt that this data would be extremely useful. Unlike B-school where the schools break down students by industry, undergrads (due to the larger population thereof) can and do enter many different fields and subsets thereof. Plus, there is the even bigger issue of assuring an adequate number of students report, so as to prevent a self-selection bias.
(3) What ever happened to the value of learning on a stand alone basis. And frankly, if you can't figure out that Middle Tennessee State University isn't going to get you a job on Wall Street, you have bigger problems.
I wonder what the long term effects this might have to the student loan market. It smells like sub prime all over again. Thankfully, student loans haven't been used to create CDOs to the same extent as mortgages.
Sub prime: Give silly amounts of cash to people who don't have the means to meet the obligations. Everyone knew deep down inside that it was most likely a too good to be true scenario, but the stuff did not hit the fan until it became public knowledge that the loans were in fact toxic.
Student Loan: Give silly amounts of cash to people who don't have the means to meet the obligations. Everyone knows deep down inside that lending someone $50k a year to learn music theory is probably not the best idea, but the stuff will not hit the fan until it becomes public knowledge that it is in fact toxic to loan $200k to someone with a net worth of an xbox and an iphone who's chances for meaningful employment are slim.
The real question is: How can we trade on this? I'm looking at you trades.
Since I'm also a graduate from a non-target university with a degree in poly-sci, I can attest to you that this bill will do no good. Trust me, alot of people I went to college with (myself included) never considered the future prospects outside of college. Hell, I started out as in aerospace engineering, then aero with a minor in poly-sci, to a full fledged poly-sci major with a minor in Japan studies. Why? Because it was alot easier than aerospace engineering, and I didn't have to exert much effort while I was going through classes. There was always a running joke in the poly-sci department: People who get poly-sci degrees end up doing one of two things when they graduate; they either become poly-sci teachers, or they get a better degree. Of course, being a naive, bright-eyed college student, I thought it really was a joke. Then I graduated May 2008.
Within 4 months the economy went from "meh" to "what the f&%k?!?", and I was stuck with one of the most useless degrees in the world. I applied literally for at least 60 different jobs, none of which I was qualified for but I thought I could get anyway. I finally got a job working for the a tax collection agency for the state I live in now. I though, "eh, it's close enough to poly-sci" and so I went to work, still bright-eyed and bushy tailed. Three years later, I was about to kill myself or kill my co-workers because I hated the job so much. There's nothing like showing up to work, every day, to a job that you really have no passion for to open your eyes to things. Granted, I was making more than most of my fellow graduates (most of whom jumped to graduate degrees in 2009 because of the economy), but it still sucked ass. Finally, after alot of soul searching and quite a bit of motivation to get out of my job, I decided to get a degree in finance.
If I could go back to when I was still in high school, I would slap myself silly for even considering to get a poly-sci degree (actually, I would have slapped myself silly for not going to Wharton instead of the non-target state school, so as not to be too far away from my parents at the time). Personally, I think only real world experience is going to wake up the majority of college graduates to how things really are. 98% of the people I'm in classes with now act the same way I did the first time I was in college. Yet, no matter how much I try to convince them how shitty of a time I had after graduating, they think it'll be different from them. The hing that keeps me going is knowing that I'll get into a job I actually like and get paid well for after I graduate while most of my peers won't even take recruiting seriously.
That, and I love berating the "liberal arts" majors I see around campus every chance I get. Being in the mindset of getting the most out of your college experience is the most important thing to not fall into the trap the I did or a lot of others do. No amount of counseling or information is going to help with that.
I demand social justice for all majors.
Why is the government so concerned with decisions individuals make? How about the government focused on doing correctly the simple, basic shit it IS supposed to do before trying to save people from themselves.
How about this. End student loans or par them back greatly. That way people wont be able to get $100K in debt and this whole conversation will become moot.
Govt creates a problem then looks for more govt to solve a problem (but really just creates a bigger problem).l
How about this (closer to a European model, but without the higher education subsidies):
Save on primary/secondary education -End elementary school at 10 years old (K-4) -End middle school at 13 years old (5-7) -End high school 17 years old (8-11)
Save on college education -Junior college only: 1 semester, generalist; 3 semesters, applied to chosen career path OR -College:1 year generalist (get an idea of different subjects at a higher level, could be done at a junior college), 2-3 years applied career training. -Graduate schools would work pretty much the same, though ideally JDs would drop down to a required 2 years with the 3rd year coming in the form of on-the-job-training. Legal education is obnoxious in this country. Also, more advanced 1-year degrees
This takes out 1 year grade school education (cutting costs by 1/13). It also takes out 1 year of college (decreasing cost by 25%) in many cases. Other notes: -Engineering, math/sciences, pre-med (maybe others?) are going to probably need 4 years of study -Liberal arts do not need 4 years of study. Earn an english/philosophy/history/etc degree in 75% of the time. You can go become a teacher at the grade school level after that. If you want to teach at a higher level, you go get a master's -Business sure as shit does not need 4 years of study. I'd say even three years is pushing it for a lot of areas. Of course, a quant might spend 4 years in undergrad
That's all I can think of. Don't hurt me too bad
Cap government assisted student loans at 40k, make them contingent upon attending a public school, and require the students to maintain a 2.5 overall GPA.
Problem solved. The government should not be assisting private educational institutions.
So you were lucky enough to be rich?
I'm from a middle class background, took on a bunch of debt and got some grants. Is that literally all you took from that post?
One problem now is that everyone thinks that "going to college" will solve all of their problems. Many of the people that go to college now would have gone to a trade school 50 years ago. Possibly, full disclosure would help to shut down a lot of the marginal schools....particularly those that are private and give you no better prospects than the lowest ranked public universities. Getting a random college degree from a no-name college with a useless major isn't helping too many people, particularly when it costs a lot of money. We need to stop pretending that college is useful or productive for everyone.
If prospective students see that if they attend X college with Y degree and they have worse prospects than the kid who attends trade school, maybe that would change the minds of some. I have my doubts that it would be effective though, because people still attend third tier law schools in droves with no better prospects than other college grads, but with a ton more debt.
This is particularly an issue with for-profit schools, that are often more expensive versions of their community college counterparts. The US Department of Ed is already considering gainful employment requirements in order for these institutions to receive Title IV funding. Graduate placement, salary, and debt load upon graduation will all be taken into account. Already in place are cohort default rate maximums and something called 90-10 requirements (basically no more than 90% of a schools funding can be from Title IV - a lot of for profits have difficulty meeting this, which, if you think about it,is absolutely absurd). I think there will be a push to extend a lot of these requirements to non-profits, but those schools don't have the infrastructure in place to track a lot of these metrics and it will take a lot of time.
'To continue reading, subscribe now'!
I don’t think you should shit on the political science people. I went to one of the best programs in America in a poli-sci field. I spoke 5 languages without an accent. I had amazing grades and great internships. My university’s job statistics were quite impressive and they made it seem like upon our graduation, almost all of us would find jobs. Those statistics were COMPLETELY made up. Pretty much everyone went to graduate school to avoid the inevitable (those who didn’t have daddy find them a job that is). When I graduated, I realized I was competing for the same mediocre job with thousands of desperate overqualified people in DC who probably also had amazing grades, impressive internships, went to a highly-ranked program etc. Even if I had found a decent offer, I was not going to go into such a volatile field without having future security. So, that’s when I decided to study for the GMAT and learn something that is “valuable.” I did really well and got accepted to a great program…so things are looking ok.
Anyways, I think the bigger problem is education in America period.
First of all, many students don’t have the proper foundation from the k-12 years to be able to actually make something of themselves once they get to college. I was learning Calculus at 16 and it was one of my favorite classes in high school, but if you ask some random educated person on the street what 1000% of 300 is (basic math), they will probably have no clue. Compare this to Japanese, Korean, Finnish, Polish students and you’ll see a huge discrepancy.
Second of all, universities should not be charging $55k/year for a music major and the same price for a chemical engineering major, no matter if it’s Harvard or Arizona State. And sure you could say, well he shouldn’t have been dumb enough to think that being a music major would pay off, but COME ON, are we all supposed to study finance/engineering/biology? Jesus can you imagine what that world would look like?
I’m just really annoyed at our entire system of education. I almost considered moving to Finland just to be able to study for free at one point (yes certain universities let foreign students study for free and will even pay for a semester of your study abroad).
Uninteresting Job + High Salary = Interesting Job + Low Salary?
I guess the answer depends on whether you are Type A or Type B, but hopefully the majority of the people on this forum actually enjoy financial markets, consulting, or transactions.
I honestly think that the whole educational system in the U.S. is a big fucking joke. Basically everyone from my high school went to college, even the ones who couldn't spell their names correctly. The basic problem is that there are way too may colleges, and not enough jobs for all graduates. It's all supply vs demand.
I know plenty kids who graduated from Ivies working bullshit retail jobs or are still unemployed, 2-3 years out of school, living under their parents' basement. I was shocked when I went to buy my MacBook Air in NYC Apple store, the guy helping me buy the macbook was my former classmate at my Ivy undergrad.
In Econ 101 we learn that high quantity of supply brings down the level of prices. Not so with American education. Even though there are like 5000 colleges in this country alone, many colleges have the gut to ask for 50k a year tuition for their laughable degree. The big problem is that no undergrad degree really carries the enough value to justify that high of price tag. Not even Harvard. I mean, look at how many god damn colleges and college grads are in this country, and you really think any college can demand 50k a year, and for what job prospects?
Bottom line is that people should do more research on ROI, when choosing a college, major, grad school, etc. If you incur 100k debt for a poly sci degree from a random state U, don't tell anyone that you weren't warned. That's what Google is for.
Great just what we need, MORE government intervention in the tragically broken education system. How much will "enforcement" cost?
Not only will the universities have another statistic to lie about, but now they will have the government's stamp of approval.
The U.S. is finished.
I thought college majors don't matter...you can still do investment banking or management consulting without an Economics or Finance degree, no?
You're absolutely right.
I believe that 8 out of the top 10 colleges don't offer an undergraduate business degrees. I assume a comparable ratio in the top 20. I would argue that the quality or more specifically the "perceived quality aka brand name" of your school matters more than the specific degree you earn. If you were interviewing an art history major from a top school and a finance major from Bodunk university, who would you hire?
The law may help people select the schools they want to attend. I'm willing to bet money that on average a political science major from a top school makes a lot more than a finance major from a second/third tier. FYI - I majored in political science from a top state school and am working in investment banking.
Let me offer a different perspective on the issue of education. I am a high school student from Europe, more specifically The Netherlands. In The Netherlands, education is public and heavily subsidized, causing higher education to be effectively free. Furthermore, in The Netherlands, as well as most other European nations, students specialize from day 1 into their studies (e.g. Applied Physics, Econometrics, Dentistry, Law) and obtain their Bachelor degree in 3 years. This, however, is only possible for those students that have in high school obtained the highest degree possible, which approximately 20% of students obtain.
In primary school students are assessed, and when they go to high school they are divided in broadly 3 groups of students, based on their academic capability. The best 20-30% of students then go to high school for 3 years before they have to choose a specialization. They can choose to go into the beta fields (physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology) or the gamma fields (economics, history, social science). Of course combinations between the two are possible.
After a total of 6 years (3 of which unspecialised), students go to university. Students are free to choose which university they will attend, and universities are not allowed to select students based on merit. The only requirement for studying at a university are that one has obtained the highest degree possible in high school (though a lot of courses do require that one has taken certain courses in high school, e.g. you should have taken physics and (advanced) mathematics to study Applied Physics).
The system in the Netherlands focuses mainly on subjects, and not on which university a student may attend. This causes students to actively think about what they want to do later on in life and whether that career path is easily accessible and financially rewarding. (The biggest Bachelor's programmes in The Netherlands are Law, Business Administration and Economics)
P.S.: I am currently a high school senior, and not a native speaker of English. Please forgive me for any linguistic mistakes I've made.
Voluptatem qui quos voluptatum minima distinctio. Voluptate nostrum possimus aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aut quisquam repudiandae esse voluptas saepe velit. Eveniet saepe cupiditate asperiores nemo vitae. Iste eum sunt sequi eum hic.
Aliquid occaecati repellat repellendus ab neque. Omnis qui in qui ea. Rerum omnis maxime quisquam repellat blanditiis eum.