What the 1% majored in

[Hygro]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/what-the-1-majored-in_n_1215839.html#s621225&title=History

This is what I've been trying to tell people. Most of these majors are liberal arts, most are not engineering or other narrowly focused things. The main exceptions are the biology-related majors. Why would I, as someone who wants to do big things and perhaps as a consequence make big money, study engineering when I could study how the world works from many perspectives?

 

[luiz]

It seems that in the other year petroleum engineering got ghe to spot. Now they're saying med school followed by economics. Makes sense.

 

[GoodGame]

Hard to relate the degree focus to the wealth status if you don't include other contributing factors, such as the fraction that are trust-fund babies/lotto winners.

Also are you certain any of those with liberal arts majors did not make money on start-ups?

And also, tech start-ups are a very risky way to make one's fortunes, but occasionally having stock options in one as a bright techie is ticket to wealth, which I'd bet explains some of the biology-majors in the ranks of the "1%".


I have no clue how zoology = ticket to the 1%, unless in those cases the choice of degree was irrelevant to wealth status.

 

[Quackers]

I think all those biology majors later become doctors as I cant see medicine on that list.

 

[GoodGame]

I think all those biology majors later become doctors as I cant see medicine on that list.

pre-med was on the list, but biology is an ok ticket to med-school. I'd bet some of the biology majors went on to PhD's and got stock options in biotechnology companies that they worked for.

Actually the whole list has a lot of ok tickets to med school: chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't this taking the whole "1%" thing a bit literally? It's not actually a number of sociological significance, it's just a rhetorical construction. So I'm not entirely sure what this is meant to prove.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

That's got to be undergrad degrees, which aren't always the best indicators of what someone's career path may be. For example, of the two doctors I know (well, final year med-students) one studied history and the other english. My dentist (student) friend was a psych undergrad major. And my recently graduated lawyer buddy was a polysci major.
It's dangerous to imply that a degree in Art History (no. 9) actually provides a solid 5.9% chance of becoming a top income earner.
Also, you have to wonder how many of these people are second/third generation bussinesspeople who could study whatever they wanted in university because they had a guaranteed job at their family business anyway.

 

[Hygro]

It seems that in the other year petroleum engineering got ghe to spot. Now they're saying med school followed by economics. Makes sense.

No, read closer, petroleum engineering got the spot for averaged highest paying major. These are the majors of the very wealthy. There's a key difference. The list of highest paying majors by average had 9 or so engineering majors, math, physics, and economics (in last). Those running the show and making the most money will hire and reward those they will use to build their wealth--engineers etc. But those engineers are almost always ultimately serving the pursuits of others.

 

[RobAnybody]

I'm not sure how valid this is. For instance, Steve Jobs dropped out after one semester. His major was irrelevant. Mark Zuckerberg studied Psychology & Computer Science but dropped out. He still had a Major, though.

Did you know that Geology Majors at UNC-Chapel Hill average something like $300,000 per year after college? Does that sound weird? It should, because Michael Jordan was a Geology Major.

I mean, I get the point, sure, but outliers with tremendous salaries throw this kind of "study" off. And, even clicking on the NYT full story, they don't acknowledge that fact. They don't take it into account, near as I can tell, so it's hard to take any sort of meaning from such stats, if they don't toss out the outliers.

 

[_random_]

Isn't this taking the whole "1%" thing a bit literally? It's not actually a number of sociological significance, it's just a rhetorical construction. So I'm not entirely sure what this is meant to prove.

I think it's a response to the frequent "Those occupiers wouldn't be so poor if they majored in something practical rather than those damn liberal arts degrees." criticisms.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think it's a response to the frequent "Those occupiers wouldn't be so poor if they majored in something practical rather than those damn liberal arts degrees." criticisms.

Hm, I guess that makes sense.

 

[illram]

These are the 1% of liberal arts majors.

 

[kochman]

Let's not forget the entertainment industry, specifically Hollywood...

 

[Syterion]

Yes, but very very few of them actually used their liberal arts degree to attain their wealth. Apples to oranges that it was just a stepping stone to their law, medicine, or business degree.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

These fields are entirely unrelated to each other and so the only correlation I can gain from this survey is that there is no correlation at all.

 

[asbestos]

I think it's a response to the frequent "Those occupiers wouldn't be so poor if they majored in something practical rather than those damn liberal arts degrees." criticisms.

Those occupiers wouldn't be so poor if they majored in something practical rather like those liberal arts degrees.

 

[kochman]

The occupiers...
Uh...
Man...
They're basically just seething with jealousy because what they offer isn't really valued, mainly.

Don't get me wrong, I think that our system is seriously flawed... but what are they really doing to change it? What exactly are they protesting? Wealth? If you get rich, not at the expense of others, are you not ok in doing so?

I just don't get what their central message is supposed to be...

 

[Dumanios]

What exactly kind of point is this news post trying to prove? That a lot of the 1% is artistically inclined?

 

[kochman]

The Huffington Post is about as significant as Foxnews... every so often, they hit on something...

This isn't one of those times.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I wonder about the biology ones. They're in drug companies, aren't they?