College Guide
Blog
In an update, of sorts, to the recent post about the influence of the Recession on current college graduates, Ezra Klein over at the Washington Post is letting us know that it’s actually even worse. Two charts explain it:
Leaving aside the salaries (not so surprising that engineering majors make more than education or humanities majors) it’s importantly to look pretty seriously at those light green bars. That represents people who went to college and are now employed in jobs that don’t require them to have gone to college. That’s 22 percent of employed people under age 25. They’re earning less than $16,000 a year on average. That’s depressing. Those are people who have jobs. There are a lot of college graduates out there who don’t have jobs and are not included in this chart.
As Klein puts it:
The implication is clear: If you’re going to college to get a job after college, you’re better off in a major that lends itself to an obvious job after college. Engineering, say, or teaching. A humanities or communications degree turns out to be a much tougher sell.
That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t major in the humanities, of course, but it’s important to be realistic about these things as the recession continues.
Facebook
Twitter
obee on May 21, 2011 9:17 AM:
Where are all these teaching jobs for new grads?
States are cutting jobs everywhere.
meep on May 22, 2011 7:48 AM:
Thing is, not all options are open to everyone. Most people cannot get an engineering degree -- they don't have enough preparation for it, will not work hard enough, don't understand the math, etc.
Pretty much anybody who has a minimal literacy level can get an "area studies" degree from somewhere. People who are wasting their time on "gazing into my own belly button" degrees probably didn't have the academic chops to take mechanical engineering, so let's not pretend that these are the choices being made.
The real choice being made can be between a do-nothing degree and not going to college in the first place. And the stats here aren't really making that comparison.
DWPittelli on May 22, 2011 8:27 AM:
meep,
I agree with most everything you say. It would be interesting to see what these Area Studies graduates would be doing or earning had they chosen not to go to college. Of course, without random assignment of such college-accepted students, we would still not really know the effects of going to college, as distinct from the ability to do so. So we can't quite get there.
But with earnings of $15,000 and $19,000 for those who did graduate with degrees in Area Studies, it would be hard to imagine that smart (i.e., college-accepted) high school graduates wouldn't be making similar money -- indeed, probably more money because they would have 4 or 5 more years of work experience, and certainly more net wealth, since they would not have had to pay for college or pay off college loans.
The one thing I would disagree with you on is the notion that the low-paid majors (humanities, and even area studies) are necessarily some sort of navel-gazing. That may be the case with many people who are majoring in their personal issues (Hispanics taking Chicano studies, gay people studying gender, etc.), but French Lit, Middle Eastern Studies / Arabic, East Asian Studies, etc. are probably just as hard as Engineering majors for most people with balanced intelligence. (I agree that some people are much better with verbal skills than with math, and that most math-heavy majors lead to better-paying jobs.)
snopercod on May 22, 2011 8:46 AM:
I had to laugh at the $35,548 starting salaries for new engineers. The year I graduated with a BSEE (1969), several of my classmates got hired at $9,000 per year. I can't say that was the U.S. average, but it seemed it was the going rate for entry-level engineering jobs in California. Running that number through the "inflation calculator" tells me that $9,000 in 1969 is equal to $55,154 in today's dollars. So engineers today start at less than 2/3 of what they did back then. But hey, tuition is twenty or more times higher than it was in '69 /sarc
Jonathan on May 22, 2011 9:13 AM:
I think the numbers are off... the "median" salary listed for engineers is somewhere at or below the average national salary. Engineers are not in the bottom half or at the 50% mark of pay scales nationwide. The engineering majors I know all started off making significantly more than $35k.
jim on May 22, 2011 9:21 AM:
I'm surprised at the low salaries for engineers - median $35K for fresh outs). Per here
http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp
starting salaries look to be in the 60K area. This makes me question all the numbers here.
Its also likely that the people with "out of field" work are the least capable. There will be exceptions, but the guy with an engineering degree working as a waiter probably wasn't a very good engineering student. I.e., the in-field vs. out-field difference may be a correlation that really represents of an A and B performer vs. D and F performer sort.
B Dubya on May 22, 2011 9:47 AM:
I am a 60 year old dinosaur who attended the University of the Navy (enlisted),major in nuclear submarine service. I matriculated after 13 years, as a Chief Petty Officer, and immediately entered the commercial nuclear power industry (1982).
There isn't a college in existence that could have taught me what I know. For some fields, a course that surveys the most influential Marxist authors of the American 20th century just doesn't contribute much value.
Now, if you are an engineering degree candidate, mechanical, electrical or EEE, and you would like to have a starting salary between 60-85K, then you really need to interview with a company that operates one or more commercial nuclear power plants. That is the going rate these days, as most of the plants are around 30 years old and the original class of plant engineering types are retiring (or going into consulting, which is almost the same thing except you get paid better).
Hey, somebody has to do it...
Jim on May 22, 2011 10:41 AM:
As a good guideline, any major whose title includes the word "studies" is to be avoided.
Matt on May 22, 2011 10:59 AM:
Engineering salaries are way low. I graduated in '92 at $36500 for a midwest company. My west coast employer that I worked for 5 years ago (huge SW company) was hiring top candidates out of school for over $100K. $80K for strong candidates was routine.
JJ on May 22, 2011 3:19 PM:
No way median salary for engineers can possibly be $35K. Starting salaries for engineers I know (and I'm an engineer) varied between 45K and 100K. Most are between 60 and 80K; civil engineers maybe between 50 and 60.
Maybe it's the "engineers" without degrees. I also have never heard of an engineering job that hired people under 25 without degrees.
JJ on May 22, 2011 3:21 PM:
The other thing is that unemployment for engineers (real ones) is ridiculously low - like 2 or 3%. However, most people are not capable of successfully completing an engineering degree; hence the low unemployment and high salaries.
Voyager on May 22, 2011 3:38 PM:
They may be mixing in the Engineering Technology courses, part time work, internships, or the actual taxed salary.
I know that while I was hired at around 60k yearly, since I started in July, my first year's taxable income was much closer to 35-40k
Guaman on May 22, 2011 3:58 PM:
Oh, I cry a river for those who cannot handle the math or are too lazy to do the work necessary to gain the basic skills necessary to become an engineer.
Seriously, society wants nice things like running water, cars, electricity, electronics, etc., and there is enough free market justice to make compensation for engineers commensurate with what they contribute. Engineers get more money than warm fuzzy majors and it is only right and proper that it is so. It actually should be an even greater differential than is currently the case.
If you want to make money - do something that furthers or creates what your fellow man wants, or to be recession proof, needs.
If you can't do the college try plumbing, electrician, mechanic, or medical services at a trade school.
The whining that comes from those who partied, socialized, and learned great but relatively irrelevant things on borrowed money makes me sick. Man up, womyn up or whatever, but easy choices and short cuts have ugly consequences.
An unapologetic, even arrogant, Engineer
ThomasW on May 22, 2011 5:38 PM:
I have to wonder where these numbers are coming from. The engineering average is well below what I've heard for starting engineering salaries. The teaching median is well below starting teaching salaries in any urban or suburban area I'm aware of. There are a large number of low paid teachers at private (especially parochial) schools, though they often have compensations like free housing. The non-degree education and health medians are also below minimum wage for full time work.
This leads me to the conclusion that either the survey is not accurate or, being 2009, it hit the bottom of the recession. But there is nothing here, or in the immediate links, to say where the numbers came from other than a professor at Northwestern University.
Washington Monthly on May 22, 2011 6:35 PM:
The source of this information is the Labor Department’s American Community Survey, as analyzed by Andrew Sum of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.
One important thing to remember here is that it's not starting salaries for engineers, teachers, etc. It's the starting salaries for everyone who MAJORED IN engineering, education, etc. Not everyone who majors in, say, engineering, ends up working as an engineer for his first job.
McGuire on May 24, 2011 11:46 AM:
There seems to be a natural limitation to how many people can major in science, engineering, and technical areas. But even if there weren't, supply and demand is pretty intractable. More engineering / technical majors --> depressed salaries.
CK on May 24, 2011 7:26 PM:
The suspect data is not the $35k for engineers, but the $55k that several commenters 'seem to remember'.
The $55k is from an Assoc. of Universities that has a strong interest in inflating the perceived returns from college. Their data is from surveys returned by graduates. Graduates who don't return the survey are excluded. No effort is made to correct the obvious bias: Proud-of-their-salary graduates are far more likely to return the survey than unemployed, underemployed, or simply average-paid grads.
Think about it. $55k for the median engineering grad? From all the schools? (MIT to Mississippi State)? Come on now.
Google 'scamblog' to see how the law schools run this same scam.
BT on May 25, 2011 4:17 PM:
I run a department at a big state university research lab (1000+ employees) in a relatively rural location. Our DEFAULT starting salary for engineers (we hire mostly engineers) fresh-out is currently $54k (exceptions are made for exceptional candidates, of course). Considering that this is (1) non-profit (2) grant-funded (3) university-affiliated work, there is no way that number exceeds the industry average for fresh-outs. The reported numbers are very, very low for engineers. Can't speak to the others.
M on June 04, 2011 3:46 PM:
The salary data above is for students who completed a major, not an average of starting salaries. Surveys show that the majority of science and engineering graduates don't work in their fields for any extended length of time. The number of positions is simply far lower than the number of graduates, allowing employers to pick people whose experience in internships is very similar to the specific projects they are hiring for. Many of my former classmates who were hired had to pass personality tests and "behavorial" interviews, designed to look for specific personality traits. Only a small portion of those who attended this screening level went on to the technical interviews, suggesting that the employers were looking for very specific personality traits in their future employees.
Those surveys are generally consistent with BLS data on the total number in the workforce versus total number of graduates. For example, a look at the BLS statistics show that the total number of electrical engineers in the US workforce is much lower than the total number of electrical engineering graduates over the past 30-35 year career timeframe.
M on June 04, 2011 4:00 PM:
My previous comment was for engineers. For teaching, a similar reason might explain why the salary listed above is lower than public school starting salaries.
When I was a substitute, I noticed that teaching positions in my community were relatively difficult to get as there were more applicants than positions. For example, out of work engineers often applied for math or science positions. Humanities majors applied for English or history positions.
I met many certified teachers also working as substitutes for $8 per hour without benefits. (They now pay $11 per hour.) Some "teachers" were classified by the school district as substitutes so they too could be paid only $8 per hour. Some people are desperate enough for a position that they won't complain - $8 per hour and work experience is better than nothing. The local teachers' union was happy enough with this arrangement because it meant fewer teachers to dilute their own salaries. (Substitutes weren't eligible for union membership and most teachers held tenure so they couldn't be demoted.) Keep in mind also that teachers typically only work 9-10 months per year, so those paid on an hourly basis will have lower salaries than would be normally projected from a 2000 hour work-year.