1911 Beta

I wish I had gone into my PhD for English to be quite honest.


Part of what makes great civilizations great is culture and higher level thinking.

greg wolf spotting/>

I wouldn't take much stock in this. Many of the "1 percent" are a part of what you might call the patrician class - they don't work... Think Mitt Romney rich.

If you want to make money and be successful study engineering (including computer science), actuarial science, accounting, medicine, or law. You might not make it to the one percent but you'll essentially be guaranteed at minimum a low 6-figure income (inflation adjusted) by the time you hit 40.

Edit: I'm sure there are other great things to study too, just avoid going into debt for a liberal arts degree!!

Khoi wrote:I'm Asian. Guess what route I went.

Physical Education.

I'm Asian. Guess what route I went.

Rob wrote:I doubt the ability of this survey to say anything about what majors are most viable.

Reality is, most people in the 1% were born and raised in the 1%. Their major had nothing to do with it. And a lot of them probably got to do whatever they wanted in college, majoring in their own personal interests, regardless of career prospects that accompanied the chosen majors.

Just my speculative 2 cents.

Rob wrote:I doubt the ability of this survey to say anything about what majors are most viable.

Reality is, most people in the 1% were born and raised in the 1%. Their major had nothing to do with it. And a lot of them probably got to do whatever they wanted in college, majoring in their own personal interests, regardless of career prospects that accompanied the chosen majors.

Just my speculative 2 cents.

I doubt the ability of this survey to say anything about what majors are most viable.

Reality is, most people in the 1% were born and raised in the 1%. Their major had nothing to do with it. And a lot of them probably got to do whatever they wanted in college, majoring in their own personal interests, regardless of career prospects that accompanied the chosen majors.

Just my speculative 2 cents.

EDIT: Just for a piece of anecdotal evidence: the school I'm at is chock full of trust fund babies, rich as fuck. And most of them majored in humanities or business. They're going to stay in the 1% too, because their parents will look after them as long as it takes and were able to pay for an expensive as hell graduate degree.

Why did these people major in business and humanities? A bunch of reasons I'm sure, but there has to be a significant number that valued a business degree as a way to follow in their parents' footsteps, or demonstrate, for their parents' approbation, a value for practical career opportunities. Then there have to be a significant number who majored in the humanities because they weren't thinking about career opportunities AT ALL. They're rich as hell. They wanted to major in things that interested them. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. They are who they were raised to be.

Contrast that with people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whose parents push and push them to major in things like engineering and sciences, fields that are associated with money but, more importantly, carry prestige and upward social mobility.

Of course, lots of rich parents push their kids to follow in their footsteps, when the parents got their money through careers such as medicine, engineering, etc. But I think families that are truly wealthy, across generations, tend to relax their career standards once entitled dispositions set in, and take business/financial careers more often than science/engineering careers. OR they'll just major in whatever gets them to their parents' business the quickest, in anticipation of inheriting it or taking a major position in it.

So... that's just, like, my opinion, man. I think rich kids tend to major in business and humanities disproportionately. I have zero evidence to back that up, other than my own experiences.

Lol, no I didn't misunderstand. Read what I wrote again. I was saying if the study was for the highest average salary limited by the most advanced agree a person has then engineers would make up the majority of the top majors for BS/BA only. And yes if an engineer creates a new technology then the company usually owns it.

Rob wrote:I didn't read your post, but I assume "don't major in English" was the moral of the story.

Fuck I wish I could slap some sense into my 18 year old self.

Quite the opposite for this particular study.

Of people who make it to the top 1% if income earners, majoring in English was in the top 5 as far as proportion. Of course, the average English major probably has a low median salary.

And I wouldn't exactly call it a problem with the study just a poorly worded question from the academic adviser. A better question, assuming he is using the information for his advisees, would be to ask for the top average salaries by highest educational degree achieved . That way undergraduates who go on to get advanced degrees don't skew the data. In this case I think you would find a lot of engineering professions (chem, bio, mechanical, electrical, nuclear) are in the top 10 with just a BS.

I think you might be misunderstanding. If this was a list for the average population, engineering would certainly be dominating. This study is looking at the undergraduate degree that people in the top 1% income bracket studied. That's what's so surprising to me. At the 1% level, engineers don't fare well, but majors like English and history do. The finance centered and political centered ones aren't really shocking.

Maybe it's because engineers work for companies who go on to reap the rewards of their findings, rather than they themselves getting it. I'm almost certain that there's a law that if you discover or create something while under a companies employment, they own it.

I didn't read your post, but I assume "don't major in English" was the moral of the story.

Fuck I wish I could slap some sense into my 18 year old self.

Sears wrote:broken link

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-ear ... 26283.html

And I wouldn't exactly call it a problem with the study just a poorly worded question from the academic adviser. A better question, assuming he is using the information for his advisees, would be to ask for the top average salaries by highest educational degree achieved . That way undergraduates who go on to get advanced degrees don't skew the data. In this case I think you would find a lot of engineering professions (chem, bio, mechanical, electrical, nuclear) are in the top 10 with just a BS.

The only one of the listed degrees that threw me off was the Art History & Criticism. At least my field is top 20 regardless (Chemical Engineering).

broken fixed link

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-ear ... 26283.html

You'll have to excuse the Yahoo staff, who apparently don't understand how to create charts. The heading is moved to the side, and for some odd reason they sorted by the first column, rather than the second one....

Biology actually seems to be the highest at 6.6%, which I'm assuming is its link to medical.
Economics, Finance, and Accounting represent nearly 13% and 3 of the top 6.
Political science/Government, History, and English majors fared well.

I notice a glaring lack of engineers. I'm assuming that's because they actually create things of real value instead of shifting money around or "playing the game". So, we'll have to assume that they're all just living under the bridges they designed.

So basically, know how money works, have leadership ability, and good communication skills.

I did notice a few problems right off the bat with the study...so take it for what it's worth.

1. It's only undergraduate. Many of these people may have went on to get MBA's, JD's, or whatever.
2. It doesn't really compare to people NOT in the 1% so we don't know if their degree choices are different in a statistically significant ways compared to the majors the other people picked.
3. Were they born in the top 1% and just stayed there because of starting capital or connections?
4. Did they make their money in entertainment-music, sports, whatever?
5. I remember reading a study several years ago. College generally has more "value" to people who aren't great. Your average person sees much larger improvements in their ability going to a state school or otherwise. Someone who is already naturally gifted enough to get into a top school is most likely going to end up successful no matter where they go--the top school doesn't add much value to them. Top schools get the top talent and send them out....they don't take mediocre people and make them great--generally. It's pretty common for the best of the best to never have bothered with college at all.