Nothing Says “Follow Your Heart” Like A Degree in Business
Blunt Object points to, and Tod and Jason comment on, Alex Tabarrok’s post with regard to new college graduates choosing fluffy liberal arts majors rather than tough STEM majors. The problem is that his graphs are grossly misleading. Whether he was choosing the majors he did to illustrate a point or he was cherry-picking data to make it seem like everybody and their brother is getting a worthless degree, I do not know. But when he asks “If students aren’t studying science, technology, engineering and math, what are they studying?” he is being obtuse when he suggests it’s visual arts rather than the overwhelmingly obvious answer: business. He leaves it out entirely, leaving one with the impression that the data he points to is representative of something more than it is. Here is a crude pie chart of the study areas he’s showing divided by “good” majors (blue) and “bad” majors (purple):
A less selective data set would be to look at the top ten areas of study overall. As it happens, I recently read an article on business colleges that listed just that. Below is a crude pie chart with a huge beige slice. The beige slice represents degrees in business, health professions, and education.
I would personally consider these to be “good” degrees in that they are either likely to be required (health, education) or they are sold on the basis of economic benefit (business) rather than frivolity. It really changes the perspective, to me. People don’t major in business for the fun of it. Maybe they should major in something else, but that’s different than what Tabarrok is suggesting.
Business is not only #1, but it’s twice as large as #2 (History and Social Sciences, which I took the liberty in putting in the “bad majors” category).
This isn’t to say that the tidbit about visual and performing arts and its astonishing growth isn’t interesting, but it’s not necessarily indicative of the shift.
Now, the one thing I cannot find is data on whether business majors have expanded the way that visual and performing arts majors have. I’d welcome the data if someone else wants to track it down, but I would be willing to bet it has. As more and more people cite economic advancement as their reason for getting a degree, “business” comes to mind. It’s also the case that business, as the Chronicle of Higher Ed degree points out, is a profit center for universities and often requires less work on the part of the student.
A little anecdata to tie some of these things together. My college roommate started off as a physics major. He ended up as a business major. In fact, most of the people I knew in college who started with a hard science major ended up doing something else. Because… well… some people aren’t made to be STEM majors! Not because they are lazy (though sometimes student-life balance inadvertently plays a role), but because there are some things that are difficult enough that if you don’t love it, you won’t make it. I got by on an industrial technology degree that was part business and part tech on the strength of the former and stellar grades in my liberal arts classes.
There’s a reason that we called engineering “pre-business” at my alma mater.Report
My undergrad CS class had an epidemic of transfers to Film Studies after the first year. Joke was on them: the Film Studies survey courses were “watch a bunch of movies and write some bullshit about them”, while the Film Studies curriculum was if anything more abstractly technical than computing science.Report
Good catch!
I find it a bit unsettling that of the four most popular majors (by the Chronicle statistics), three of ’em (business, education, and “health”) are above the median in degree participation and graduate earnings in Catherine Rampell’s statistics. I’m inclined to be charitable and suggest that Tabarrok focused on STEM majors in order to tie them into the subsequent point of “STEM produces structural innovation, therefore it’s not so bad that we subsidize it”, but I agree with Tabarrok on a lot of issues so I’m likely to be biased. Maybe the kids are all right after all?Report
My bigger complaint comes from the other direction: Making non-STEM majors look as trivial and self-gratifying as possible. I can understand the focus on STEM, but at the very least it needed context that wasn’t there (and context, without which, painted a distorted picture).Report
Definitely a good post. I had wondered about the lack of attention to business, but hadn’t formalized my thoughts nearly so well and clearly as you did here.
Also curious, Tabarrok’s own degree program is not in STEM. I wonder how he rates an economics degree?
Minor quibble–most of the health professions involve an undergrad degree in Bio or Chem (or at least ExSci, which often involves a substantial amount of science), so I’m unsure whether you should really separate those out. But that doesn’t detract from your point at all.Report
Doctors certainly get undergraduate degrees in related sciences, but I was under the impression that most non-doctor medical professionals have degrees in their specific fields–nursing, pharmacy, etc.Report
Alan, some, I’m sure, but not all. I’m no expert on this, to be sure, but my college’s Health Studies Institute director and I are friends, and she encourages students she advises to consider a wide range of health related fields, and most of those students are beginning by going for a degree in biology. Some of those will ultimately go to nursing school, into physical therapy grad programs, etc. I suppose it depends on the specific field and perhaps in the case of nursing what level you’re ultimately shooting fore.Report
That was my impression as well, Alan. Dr. Wife’s undergrad degrees are in biochem (yay!) and psychology (boo!). But when it comes to a lot of medical professionals, including medical assistants and medical staff specialists (billing, etc.), I think it comes under the health rubric. And those folks seem to outnumber actual doctors and pharmacists (who, like docs, tend to go scientific I think).Report
Economics is an odd duck. On the one hand it’s a asocial science, but on the other hand you learn a lot of applied math in an economics degree.Report
I’m going to repeat the same point I just made on Jason’s, but more quickly: the majors Tabarrok points to aren’t liberal arts/humanities programs. They’re social sciences/performing arts/pre-professional programs. Which is to say, they’re all kind of the latter: at least in my experience, the social sciences tend to be pre-law/pre-business; performing arts majors recognize that they probably won’t be Broadway stars and are hoping to either use their other major for their career, or use the technical skills they’ve picked up to find work in the backstage area; and journalism/communication are very much pre-professional programs.
So, like, I’m sorry that we’re not all engineers. But then a B.S. in Engineering would be pretty worthless and guarantee that one doesn’t know Latin.Report
(Note that, while being aggravated, I’ve avoided raising the whole matter of question-begging about the value of the humanities. I’m learning! I promise!)Report
I do think there’s a shift in attitude about employment. With the abrogation of the unwritten contract behind the American Dream more people are trying to find their bliss. The days when you could put in 40 at the grind and have your hobbies and weekends are gone. Now it’s put in 50 or 60 (or more) and work at home and be connected 24/7. Work/Life balance is a joke in the US and kids know it. They know if they aren’t doing what they love they’re not going to ever get to do it, so they take a shot. And yes, a lot of them miss.
The real question is “How do we make more kids love STEM?” It could start with better education, less rote learning and teaching to the tests and more experimentation and “playful thought” and soft skills that are necessary for growth in those fields. But that’s counter to what all the business folks want. They want more hard skills, more rote learning, more automatons.
It could start with actually celebrating people in those fields instead of ignoring them in favor of athletes and celebutants. It’s hard to make brains interesting though, and given that the only way our country knows how to keep score is by cash it would take a drastic shift in compensation. Imagine if the guys who built things actually made as much as the guys who sell them. Or got bonus structures like them. There are some Silicon Valley places where that’s true and they’re beating away brains with sticks. Woz will still never be as famous as Steve was, though. Nor will Atkinson or Kawasaki or even Ive. And who even knows who folks like Ritchie, Knuth, and Feynman are anymore?
Kids used to want to be astronauts. Now they want to be reality stars. <shrug>Report
You say kids used to want to astronauts, and I agree. But where does that put me? When I entered kindergarten I wanted to be the guy that painted rocket-ships.
Maybe not a substantive addition to the discussion, but hopefully a humorous one.Report
When I started high school I knew, deep down in my heart of hearts, that I wanted to make video games. I wanted to be a rock-star nerd like John Romero, long hair and groupies and all. I taught myself C++ and studied hard, got into a computing science programme, started reading research papers on graphics hardware and real-time rendering techniques.
Then Daikatana happened.
Okay, grad school it is then….Report
*blink* *blink* are you saying you… actually liked Daikatana? Or that it taught you the folly of video game development? Confuzzled, over.Report
I played the multiplayer demo a little bit. It had some neat movement mechanics but otherwise didn’t stack up against CPMA.
Mostly I dropped the idea of diving into game development when I realized just how crappy game-studio working conditions could get, especially for people fresh out of school (see also ea_spouse). My post above was mostly just an excuse to poke fun at John Romero.Report
I know someone who worked with him. It is always a good time to make fun of John Romero. (have you played Thief/System Shock?)Report
I was more of a competitive/arena FPS guy. When Unreal 3 sucked and the pro gaming scene switched almost entirely to Counter-Strike I switched to racing sims.Report
Good point Will.
I wonder if there are two sorts of business majors. The first sort being professional oriented in how they teach a specific set of skills like accounting, finance, logistics, and then the more liberal-artsy-ish type business admins.
Of course, I don’t know much about business or the curriculumns, but from my limited personal interactions with people in those fields at school, it often seemed like there were one group of determined, I’m-getting-this-kind-of-job people, and another group of “I’m getting a degree in “business,” people.
This dichotamy might mirror loosely the divide in arts and sciences departments between STEM and Social Sciences fields.Report
I suspect there are two kinds. And while I am speculating, I would also suspect that the latter group has probably grown in proportion to the former group. Back when I was applying, Colleges of Business had a pretty good reputation for being tough. I wasn’t even sure if I could get into my alma mater’s (which had a particularly good problem, to be fair) before deciding I didn’t want to. But now it seems like it’s being pitched to the everyman who doesn’t know what he wants to do.Report
Dude – This post was a most awesome catch! And the graphs are killer. Well done.Report
Before I was a philosophy major, I was a chemistry major.
Organic, yo.Report
Just wanted to say, the graphs were awesome. I’d support a law requiring the Congressional Research Service to use the same format.Report
Thanks. I figure, if you can’t make the graphs look good, make them look whimsical.Report
My appreciation for these graphs was even able to overpower my intense hatred of pie charts.Report