A reader alerted me to a 1/14/09 article in Forbes, The Great College Hoax.
As steadily as ivy creeps up the walls of its well-groomed campuses, the education industrial complex has cultivated the image of college as a sure-fire path to a life of social and economic privilege.
Joel Kellum says he's living proof that the claim is a lie. A 40-year-old Los Angeles resident, Kellum did everything he was supposed to do to get ahead in life. He worked hard as a high schooler, got into the University of Virginia and graduated with a bachelor's degree in history.
Accepted into the California Western School of Law...
A TTT law school. Nothing destroys one's financial future like a TTT law school.
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to alert me to this article.
The student loan industry should be abolished. Congress should just stop guaranteeing student loans and return to student loan borrowers the right that all other borrowers have: the right to discharge the loans in bankruptcy and get a fresh start.
"Congress should just stop guaranteeing student loans and return to student loan borrowers the right that all other borrowers have: the right to discharge the loans in bankruptcy and get a fresh start."
I don't think student loans should be allowed to be discharged immediately after graduation. There needs to be a period -- 7 years or 10 years -- before they can be discharged. Otherwise, everyone would just go through bankruptcy upon graduation.
The real problem with universities is financial aid. Universities ask to see your financial records when dispensing financial aid. So the answer to the question, "How much is the tuitiion?" is "How much you got?"
There's really no other segment in society that operates this way. A house doesn't become more expensive if you make more money. Cars cost the same to everyone. Airlines don't ask you how much you make before selling you a ticket (although they try to get business travelers to pay more by making tickets more expensive if you don't stay over on a Saturday night and that type of thing).
The whole university situation is just a big mess. Financial aid, student loans, etc. means that no one is really shopping on price, at least at the elite private schools. Obama's plan to throw more money at universities won't make university educations cheaper.
Posted by: GMR | February 05, 2009 at 01:13 AM
The great hoax about college is not with regards to one's unpredictable economic future. Rather, it's the entire notion that a college education provides job skills. Most see college as a means to acquire job skills. Yet, this is complete garbage. Even the occupations that one most readily assumes require a college education (i.e. engineering) do not.
Take engineering for example. Now, if someone is building a bridge, I want a PhD engineer there. But for the vast majority of engineers working in industry, their esoteric, theoretical college education can not be applied. One of my professors told me junior year: "If you go become an engineer and use anything you learned past freshmen year, it'll be a miracle."
What needs to change is the demands of the job market. Basically, employers use a college degree as a proxy for intelligence, maturity, and work ethic. While this may not be entirely inaccurate, it's surely inefficient and, with the rising cost of elite schools, not pragmatic financially.
Posted by: Ivy Leaguer | February 05, 2009 at 01:48 AM
I recently posted a couple of stories like this on my blog. The below one is a John Stossel report. It has text, and video.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6654468&page=1
And the one below is from the NYT. It's about a 34 year-old college grad who is also seriously in debt. (You'll have to click on "video" on the right.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/business/01student.html?_r=1#
Posted by: Kirk | February 05, 2009 at 01:57 AM
It later says that he got a "six-figure" job. That's hard to believe but if it's true, then he's one of the LUCKY ones. With just a prior degree in History, he must have been in the top 5% of his class to pull that salary.
Posted by: gymquiz | February 05, 2009 at 02:04 AM
A suggestion for american colleges from third world experience: most colleges shouldn´t do research neither should be residential neither should have sports teams.
If you observe well, a professional sports team is not absolutely required for education except an amateur team for sports-related majors. It is only an absorber of money.
Research is good, but it should be done only at institutions that can attend wealthy people. Universities should be divided in research and teaching institutions and teaching only institutions. Research expenses make tuition too expensive.
Outside the US, most higher education is divided in state-run universities that do research and are the top, some elite privates and cheap teaching-only colleges serving people that can´t afford high tuition (usually with elastic demand, so prices don´t hike a lot).
When people perceive that college costs keep increasing beyond incomes, that indebtedness can´t increase forever faster than incomes, one day people have to get real.
A conjecture: does anyone here imagine that, on the next 10 or 20 years, coolege attendance is going down?
People can´t stay forever paying for something whose price hikes faster than incomes. If people´s incomes don´t change and the price of something increases 20% every year is not sustainable.
Posted by: Bruno Brazil | February 05, 2009 at 07:52 AM
Note, however, that the man profiled in the article, as well as his now-ex wife, each landed "six figure" jobs after graduating from California Western. They owe all sort of student loans, but at least they got well-paying jobs.
As for student loan reform, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water and get rid of all of them, it would make more sense to make loan availability and/or terms dependent upon one's chosen course of study. Want to major in electrical engineering? Here's all the loans you want, low interest and easy repayment terms too. Want to study liberal arts? You're on your own, buster. Of course administering these sort of restrictions would be complicated, what with the changing marketability of various fields and with people switching majors, but clearly the present situation is untenable.
Posted by: Peter | February 05, 2009 at 09:23 AM
The decision of a young woman to go to law school is very similar to her decision to spend her 20's pursuing alphas.
In both cases the young woman can select the safe stable route or she can enter a tournament and either come out way ahead or way behind.
Let's say that you are a woman who is in college. You have B++ looks and B++ IQ. If you go down a path to become a registered nurse, you are very very likely to at the age of 25 be making $40 an hour. Over the course of the rest of your life, you are likely to be able to earn $40 an hour and work as many or as few hours as you want. In other words, being a registered nurse allows you the flexibility to work 60 hours a week when you want the extra income and work 20 hours a week when you only want to work part time.
On the other hand, if you go to law school you have a shot (a small shot) at winding up with a job that pays you multiples of what you would earn as a RN. But most likely you wind up making much less (or being pushed out of the labor market completely, given the massive over supply of lawyers)
So the decision to go the law school route is a decision to enter a tournament.
Similarly, if you carefully avoid dating "alphas" and spend all your time hanging around with stable, dependable "betas" you have a very good chance of marrying a stable dependable man of similar IQ and similar looks who also makes $40 an hour.
In most of the USA, a young woman and a young beta both married at 25 both making $40 an hour (if both work full time that is $160k a year of gross income) are solidly in the upper middle class. More importantly, they can save enough of their income that they can stay in the upper middle class for life.
This is a safe, stable route for a young woman. This is the route that her "grandmother" would urge her to go down
However, we all know there is peer pressure that influences the young woman to instead pursue alphas and "PUAs" and as a result she is likely to ignore the betas. She enters the tournament to snag an alpha. Most likely she will reach 30 unmarried and bitter. But by entering the tournament she has a chance (small chance) of snagging an alpha.
My point is that the media highlights the female winners of the tournaments. Peer pressure pushes young women to enter these tournaments. The decision to enter the tournament to land an alpha and pass up the betas is just as irrational as the decision to enter the tournament for a big high paying law job and ignore the safer registered nurse route.
Usually the safe stable route is better than the "tournament" route
Posted by: realist | February 05, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Hey! You got a shout out at The Corner. You'd be on the way to respectability if you got rid of the Palin Trutherism.
Posted by: Turambar | February 05, 2009 at 10:28 AM
realist -
Of course the "tournament" vs. "safe stable" choice applies to men too, at least in occupational terms, though the safe choice for a man is more likely to be engineering. What men don't have is an equivalent to the women's choice between accepting a Beta or holding out for an Alpha. Despite what Roissy and his crew say, I believe that Alphas are born, not made, so there's no choice as to being an Alpha or not.
Posted by: Peter | February 05, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Posted by: realist | February 05, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Ok realist, that is the truth. But, unfortunately, not everyone likes nursing. Anatomy and other health-related procedures are boring and agonizing for those who are not anatomy-freaks.
Why is that difficult to simply understand that not less than 10% of the people should have degrees?
Posted by: Bruno Brazil | February 05, 2009 at 12:02 PM
"What men don't have is an equivalent to the women's choice between accepting a Beta or holding out for an Alpha."
sure they do. if a man holds out on marriage to focus on starting a business, and he happens to hit it big, he'll be in a much better position to leverage the sexual market and snag a better looking wife than what he could have gotten before his success. it's in a man's interest to hold off on committing to women for as long as possible.
the same dynamic applies to men who learn game.
"Despite what Roissy and his crew say, I believe that Alphas are born, not made,"
i don't necessarily disagree if you change your sentence to read "naturals are born, not made", but even that is not entirely correct. naturals are just men who got an early start learning how to push women's attraction buttons, so by the time they hit their stride in their 20s they seem more natural than late bloomers to the game.
as for the theoretical genetic basis of alphaness, it's most likely an interplay between heritable alpha traits and environmental triggers. Game in fact proves that a man not born with the conventional suite of alpha attributes -- like height or looks -- can learn to mimic alpha behavior and improve his lot with women.
Posted by: roissy | February 05, 2009 at 01:35 PM
Peter - I respect very much what you are saying - thanks - however I would say that engineering is not the safest career choice for a man. Many engineering jobs are being outsourced to india and china. Let me put forth the following theory - there are certain jobs that just have to be done on site - they can't be outsourced to another country. These jobs are the safest. I would put at the top of that list certain medical specialties - so for example, if you are a man with the IQ and other things needed to become a surgeon, and you are looking for something very safe, I would urge you to become a surgeon. I just don't see substantial numbers of surgery jobs being outsourced. And if you are trained as a surgeon and willing to move anywhere in the USA where there is a job, you are almost certain to make more than $200 thousand a year in today's dollars. So again if you have the IQ and you want an absolute iron clad guarantee of not making less than 200k i would say go the surgeon route.
Where this all breaks down is, what should a man who doesn't have the IQ to be a surgeon do? What other professions are totally safe - no risk of outsourcing, no risk of your skills becoming obsolete,
If i am giving advice to a 17 year old who lacks the IQ to be a surgeon, what fields should i tell him to consider that offer the utmost in safety and security?
I have a theory that for a young man with an IQ of around 100 I should tell him to learn to be a master auto mechanic since no matter how bad a recession is a skilled auto mechanic can always get a job - if someone else on this board can suggest a safer career for the young man with 100 IQ please let me know
But that still leaves open the issue of the young men whose IQs are too high to be auto mechanic and too low to be a surgeon - what should i steer those young men in to ?
Posted by: Realist - responding to Peter | February 05, 2009 at 01:39 PM
What if one goes to Widener University School of Law (I'm assuming a 3T law school), graduates Cum Laude, and is a member of the law review and the law journal? What are their job prospects?
I mean, what exactly is the problem w/ law school? Is it finding a job, any job in law? Or finding a job that pays a salary which will allow you to pay back your loans while having some disposable income?
Posted by: black | February 05, 2009 at 02:33 PM
I mean, what exactly is the problem w/ law school? Is it finding a job, any job in law? Or finding a job that pays a salary which will allow you to pay back your loans while having some disposable income?
The student loan default rate for law school graduates is around 15 to 20 percent. If you're in default after five years from graduating, your in a dead end track and that money is not going to be paid back.
Posted by: gymquiz | February 05, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Ivy Leaguer, One of my professors told me junior year: "If you go become an engineer and use anything you learned past freshmen year, it'll be a miracle."
I find that highly debateable. Take chemical engineering. Fluid dynamics, organic chemistry, mass transport, etc. - none of these are taught in the freshman year. Petroleum engineering without O-chem? I doubt it.
Posted by: K T Cat | February 05, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Ivy Leager wrote, "The great hoax about college is not with regards to one's unpredictable economic future. Rather, it's the entire notion that a college education provides job skills. Most see college as a means to acquire job skills. Yet, this is complete garbage."
Well said, this dead-on correct. Colleges and universities have become the de facto gatekeepers of employment in this country, and therefore exercise enormous control over who gets to work where, and for what money.
Back in the old days, having any sort of college degree used to assure being employed in a decent-paying job of some kind. Now, in our globalized economy, when blue- and white-collar workers are treated as disposable commodities, workers are expected to be willing to change careers several or more times in a typical career. OK, fine, except that our system as currently structured, restricts mobility between fields, and very often requires retraining at a college, university or trade school before switching fields. Add to that the proliferation of credentialing associated with many fields, and a would-be career changer is looking at a sizeable outlay to retrain, perhaps an unaffordable one.
The end result of the system is that human capital - talented people - are not free to move within the job market to where their skills are most needed. Instead, they are recycled back into the university system before being allowed to proceed.
As if that wasn't enough, many college degrees are of little or no use in securing employment in today's marketplace, but the universities do not tell you that. The student, often lacking in life experience, and knowldege of the real-world marketplace, may very well trust his faculty and advisors that gainful employment awaits him, only to find out after the fact that it does not.
The current system of higher education in this country results in little for many students, other than to prolong their adolescence into their young adult years. That's great if you sell beer, but not for you in the long run.
The current system is a rip-off of monumental proportions, and serves no one's interests save those of the (to paraphrase Eisenhower) government-educational-political complex.
We'd do well to reform our system to distinguish between vocational training, and the few careers which require extensive university-level education. More apprenticeships, and more on-the-job training are a start. How about allowing bright, motivated people to test out of college entirely, by passing achievement tests in various subjects?
Posted by: Pete | February 05, 2009 at 04:24 PM
"In most of the USA, a young woman and a young beta both married at 25 both making $40 an hour (if both work full time that is $160k a year of gross income) are solidly in the upper middle class."
Not upper middle class, but perhaps a shot at middle class. I think of upper middle class families as earning 100k+ in investment interest alone. While there is certainly the upper-middle-class-professional (doctor, lawyer, banker), I'd say that most have the option of not working.
Posted by: capitalkid | February 05, 2009 at 04:39 PM
The part in the article about Sallie Mae is spot on. Sallie Mae is a sleaze-ball organization all the way through. I had a student loan with them that I paid off 3 years after graduation. When I sent in a monthly payment, they would deliberately credit the payment to the outstanding a few days late in order to get the finance charge for the following month. When I went to pay off the balance sooner by making a payment over the phone, the customer service created all sorts of hassle so that I could not make the payment by phone.
This was in the early 90's. I'm sure its much worse today. Sallie Mae is a sleazy, abusive organization. I would avoid them like the plague.
Posted by: kurt9 | February 05, 2009 at 05:01 PM
"How about allowing bright, motivated people to test out of college entirely, by passing achievement tests in various subjects?"
It is a great idea. But the guild/monopoly system that is higher ed will never allow it. And there will be cries of Raysism! Not hard to imagine why...
Posted by: | February 05, 2009 at 05:06 PM
OK - but what profession should a young person go in to in order to be assured a middle class lifestyle and no layoffs no matter what
Posted by: Kim | February 05, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Gymquiz
"The student loan default rate for law school graduates is around 15 to 20 percent. If you're in default after five years from graduating, your in a dead end track and that money is not going to be paid back."
Cite?
In IL they report you to to ARDC if you're in default. Only 8 people were reported last year.
Posted by: | February 05, 2009 at 05:52 PM
"I would put at the top of that list certain medical specialties - so for example, if you are a man with the IQ and other things needed to become a surgeon, and you are looking for something very safe, I would urge you to become a surgeon. I just don't see substantial numbers of surgery jobs being outsourced."
A man who has the IQ to be a surgeon also has the IQ to attend a T14 and get biglaw (when, that is, we're not in a once in a lifetime economic situation). That is also a fairly safe route, and the payout begins after 3 years of opportunity cost rather than 9. Also, ex ante, from the start of law school at a T14 or the start of med school the likelihood of winning the tournament, becoming a Biglaw drone or a surgeon, respectively, is better at the law school.
I think you're right though that for people with IQ > 130 medicine is the route, and law is also a decent route assuming T14 admission. For those with 130 > IQ > 115 pharmacy is definitely the route to take. $110K for life is a good life.
Posted by: Kurto | February 05, 2009 at 05:57 PM
To realist:
For a young man too smart to be an auto mechanic but also too dumb to be a surgeon/doctor, maybe an option is to get accounting degree.
I think HS suggested this. It is hard to imagine that all accounting would be outsourced (although some will most likely be). In the end, though, most jobs are not 100% safe of being outsourced, so making decisions on this factor alone is hard to do.
As for engineering, the IT related stuff is getting outsourced to some extent, but the rate of outsourcing is being overblown. Plus, there is more to engineering than just the IT related. There is chemical, structural, civil, mechanical, biomedical, etc...
In my opinion, the main problem with engineering is that when the economy takes a dive or is weak, there isn't much of a demand for engineers since there isn't as much of a need for people who design stuff (which is essentially what engineers do). So, if the economy says sluggish or has slow growth for the next few years, then the demand for engineers will be very weak as well.
I guess the only truly "safe" fields that are both somewhat recession proof and hard to outsource are jobs in government or healthcare. Now that is depressing.
Posted by: A modest reply to realist... | February 05, 2009 at 05:59 PM
kurto
ok here is the theory on the table
IQ >130 : medical school
130 > IQ > 115 : pharmacy school
95 > IQ > 115 : auto mechanic
all jobs that won't be outsourced
Posted by: stu | February 05, 2009 at 07:29 PM
"I guess the only truly "safe" fields that are both somewhat recession proof and hard to outsource are jobs in government or healthcare. Now that is depressing. "
Don't forget Wal-Mart or fast food. Now that is even more depressing.
Posted by: zzz | February 05, 2009 at 08:35 PM
*auto mechanic*
Unless one doesn't have any problems with being a "white nigger" or prole, it would be best to aim for any white collar position possible in order to keep some degree of social prestiege.
*hard to outsource are jobs in government*
New York City, the bastion of government employment has been under a hiring freeze for nearly a year and a half*, and thousands of employees are slated to be laid off if the bailout doesn't come, or if tax revenues don't magically increase. Government is not even the employer of last resort for the marginal employees of the blue and white collar world, and once budget cuts become deeper, I'd fear for anybody in a non-profit that relies on significant government funding.
If anything, this recession may make the case for either better (read: European style) unemployment benefits or some type of wage insurance programme that essentially makes up the amount lost by switching to another lower paying job...
*Said freeze has prevented me for applying for low-ranking, so-so $25K paying government jobs...
Posted by: David Alexander | February 06, 2009 at 02:46 AM
*For a young man too smart to be an auto mechanic but also too dumb to be a surgeon/doctor, maybe an option is to get accounting degree.*
Oddly, I probably fall under that category, and I've never been interested in the idea of becoming an accountant, hence the failed attempt at a political science degree and desire for government work where I can go hide in a corner and be left alone. Mind you, I have an old friend who went that route, and she's not in accounting, and soon she may attempt for her CPA.
*the main problem with engineering*
As I've stated, the main problem is that engineering schools have garnered a reputation for being places filled with boring FOB Asian and dirty Eastern European students, nerdy whites, few attractive females, uncool professors with awful accents who have no care for their students, and difficult and demanding curriculum that don't allow for a social life. In other words, why become an engineering major when you can take a business related field and make decent money? Why go take math and science classes that you're unprepared for when you can take liberal arts classes and spout off "facts" to look smart?
*civil*
As a failed engineering student and the son of an trained (and accredited) non-practicing civil engineer, I must add that people have no idea about civil engineering. Most tend to presume that design work of an engineer is handled either by urban planners, architects, surveyors, or contractors.
*Universities ask to see your financial records when dispensing financial aid.*
In the current system, the goes indirectly to the school via the students which creates an inefficient system that requires revealing financial records, and creates incentives to game the system by the middle and upper class to look poor. Instead, schools should just simply receive their funding directly from the government based on their size and enrollment needs to keep tuition low for all students. One price for everybody with low-interest loans available from the government for those who choose to fund their schooling via that method, and tax credits for students and parents for tuition if necessary.
Posted by: David Alexander | February 06, 2009 at 03:08 AM
A modest replier wrote:
"In my opinion, the main problem with engineering is that when the economy takes a dive or is weak, there isn't much of a demand for engineers since there isn't as much of a need for people who design stuff (which is essentially what engineers do). So, if the economy says sluggish or has slow growth for the next few years, then the demand for engineers will be very weak as well. "
--
I don't agree with this. While the demand for engineers can go down, the supply of engineers really can't go up very much. Only a few people like math and physics enough to go into engineering, and there is only one country that can seriously threaten America's dominance in engineering (China).
David Alexander wrote:
"As I've stated, the main problem is that engineering schools have garnered a reputation for being places filled with boring FOB Asian and dirty Eastern European students, nerdy whites, few attractive females, uncool professors with awful accents who have no care for their students, and difficult and demanding curriculum that don't allow for a social life. In other words, why become an engineering major when you can take a business related field and make decent money? Why go take math and science classes that you're unprepared for when you can take liberal arts classes and spout off "facts" to look smart?"
Fair enough. But that's why they make good money.
Posted by: Alex | February 06, 2009 at 11:29 AM
"Oddly, I probably fall under that category, and I've never been interested in the idea of becoming an accountant, hence the failed attempt at a political science degree and desire for government work where I can go hide in a corner and be left alone."
If you have an IQ good enough to be an accountant (IQ > 115) you are crazy to get a liberal arts degree instead of going into accounting or maybe finance.
The money is far better in accounting/finance than anything you could hope to get from a Polisci degree from a non top tier university.
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | February 06, 2009 at 12:31 PM
*If you have an IQ good enough to be an accountant (IQ > 115) you are crazy to get a liberal arts degree instead of going into accounting or maybe finance.*
My PSAT & SAT scores were 1010, 1060, 1180. My Math SAT II score was sub 500, and my English and Bio SAT II scores barely cracked 500. The only respectable point is the American History SAT II score of 800 and the sub par 4 on it's matching AP exam. I'd argue that my IQ is below 115 and possibly below 100, so something like accounting is not only out of the question due to the boring material involved (another reason I fled engineering), but also due to the lack of intellectual capability.
Posted by: David Alexander | February 06, 2009 at 03:49 PM
David--
You whine too much, but your writing clearly reflects a better-than-average intelligence.
Posted by: sestamibi | February 06, 2009 at 05:07 PM
I fully concur with the premise of this post and its predecessors elsewhere.
Now that the end of my career is in sight, I can look back at the wreckage and conclude (as I did long ago) that the biggest mistake I ever made was going to college (at a then still-prestigious unit of CUNY, and it was free tuition back then), graduating with a degree in math (not something more fluffy) and then compounding it by adding an MA from a Big Ten school. Prior to that I went to a specialized NYC high schol (like HS) and graduated in the top third of my class, which supposedly demonstrated some degree of talent.
I have spent my career in a rather esoteric specialty with few participants and even fewer jobs. I very much regret spending as long in it as I did--not because those in this line are not necessary. They are, and I know some who are very good, but I was never among them and I have long been keenly aware of that.
I am not one of those "macho snobs" who puts down any kind of work that doesn't involve driving a truck or working with one's hands. The lawyer who prepares your house purchase documents, the mortgage officer who arranges the loan, and those in my specialty are all needed, as demonstrated by the marketplace. I just think we don't need as many of them as we have, and we need to do a better job of weeding out the mediocrities.
And we sure as hell don't need legions of graduates from Podunk State and other diploma mills in such subjects as "critical queer studies" with swelled heads because they have degrees and unbelievably unrealistic expectations that can never be met.
See also http://www.bluecollarandproudofit.com
Posted by: sestamibi | February 06, 2009 at 05:33 PM
Posted by: David Alexander | February 06, 2009 at 03:49 PM
You should probably take an IQ test and then try to figure out a career path where you can make the most for your intelligence level. Gottfredson I think has a list of occupations by average IQ.
Do you think you could eke out a degree in finance, or at least business administration?
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | February 06, 2009 at 05:37 PM
"In IL they report you to to ARDC if you're in default. Only 8 people were reported last year."
The Access Group, the largest private lender to law-school students, expects the 1992 class's default rate to hit 20% by Dec 1996, and its insurance carriers threaten to drop coverage for 20 schools. Median indebtedness for the 2/3 of 1995 graduates who borrowed money was $40,300, with the average at some schools projected to hit $95,000 by 1998. Schools have begun aggressively educating students about their loans.
The The National Law Journal, 1996
Law students rank near the top in default risk.
Puget Sound Business Journal 2004
I guess I shouldn't have written law school "graduates" as there are probably a number of dropouts in the default category. In regards to the ARDC (Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee), that's only measuring graduates who are becoming licensed and feel it practical to continue being licensed if only for a few more years.
Nearly 44,000 law students nationwide will graduate next year with an average of about $73,000 in loan debt, according to numbers from the American Bar Association.
National Law Journal, October 2008
Out of 44,000 law graduates a year, six to eight thousand defaults sounds right to me.
Posted by: gymquiz | February 06, 2009 at 05:50 PM
I don't see how engineering could be such a great field. Most of the engineering disciplines are in highly regulated fields where innovation is limited and a few big firms dominate producing similar products with evolutionary changes. Chemical engineering? Government practically runs this business. I would bet there are more lawyers employed in chemical engineering than chemical engineers. Material science? What material is so valuable that you can't wait for the patent to run out? Civil? Building codes, nimby's, environmental regulations...again, more lawyers.
Electrical is largely outsourced. Probably mechanical is a good stable engieering field.
This is why software engineering, and its loss, is so chilling. The software industry is not regulated. Innovation, as a result, is explosive. Lots of growth results. When you lose that...you lose a great deal.
Posted by: Truth | February 06, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Half Sigma,
Most people go to law school because having a J.D. is considered to be rather prestigious, even a ttt law school. Money is secondary.
Posted by: Scott | February 07, 2009 at 09:51 AM
"The only respectable point is the American History SAT II score of 800 and the sub par 4 on it's matching AP exam."
How is a 4 on the AP U.S. history exam "sub-par"? It is not like you scored a 2.
Posted by: DAJ | February 07, 2009 at 01:02 PM
"I have spent my career in a rather esoteric specialty with few participants and even fewer jobs. I very much regret spending as long in it as I did--not because those in this line are not necessary. They are, and I know some who are very good, but I was never among them and I have long been keenly aware of that."
I've spent the past 15 years working in a very esoteric corner of the financial publishing industry. There's my department of about 25 people, a similar number at a competitor in the Chicago area, and basically that's it. In a way, being part of such an exclusive "club" is good.
Posted by: Peter | February 07, 2009 at 01:49 PM