Majors

An article in today’s Prince describes a University study on the relationship between a student’s social class and his major. The Committee on Background and Opportunity released statistics that 30% of lower-class students believed that “expected financial prospects” was a “significant factor” in choosing a major, compared to 12% of self-identifying upper-class students. “Finding a job” was a significant factor for almost a third of low-class students but only 22% of upper-class students. The implication was that the University–run Major Choices initiative started in 2004 has not succeeded in convincing students that they can find a fulfilling job regardless of their major. Maybe the issue does not begin with lower-class versus upper-class students. Maybe the issue has deeper roots to begin with.
While it is true that exceptional students can find jobs in any industry they wish, exceptional students are just that: the exception. The fact is that some majors lead to specific jobs. The reason that “toolshed” was defined by the Prince as a synonym for the Woodrow Wilson School in the “common terms” list that all freshmen received before school is that so many Woody Woo graduates have an easy time going into i-banking and consulting that the School has built a pre-professional reputation. Irrespective of whether this reputation is deserved, the fact that this reputation exists was also a major reason behind the Robertson lawsuit, which accused the Woodrow Wilson School for graduating too many seniors into lucrative private industry jobs instead of public service. Similarly, ORFE is also seen as another pre-professional major because of the percentage of students who go to Wall Street (definitely not as much starting from this year, haha). Reputations are not founded on air, and that these reputations exist and have perpetuated until today serve as a reminder that yes, if you are looking for a certain job after graduation, you have a better chance at obtaining those jobs through certain departments.
I remember students telling me during Prefrosh weekend that employers want to hire students who learn how to think, and that any Princeton education teaches one to think. This idea, although true in circumstances, is not categorically true. In fact, very few companies besides from consulting firms advertised as welcoming “all majors” on the website of the Princeton job fair that took place last Friday. It is not as if companies seek only science and engineering majors; humanities majors are also explicitly sought after by companies that came to the job fair. The point is that the explicit advertising of specific majors by companies, regardless of what those majors are, suggests that companies care about one’s major. Otherwise companies would not bother listing the majors for which they are looking.
Furthermore, this issue would be less contentious at other schools that do not have Princeton’s reputation. The message of Major Choices—that students should pick majors based on interest—is too broad; Major Choices should emphasize that Princeton students are lucky to consider this choice. The method by which students during Prefrosh tried to convince me to attend Princeton is important. I paraphrased their arguments, but what they kept emphasizing was the fact that Princeton classes teach one how to think, that all Princeton majors achieve this goal, and that employers would understand the nuances of a Princeton education. They were predicating their arguments upon the Princeton name, just as other famous schools probably do the same with their name. Insofar as some companies and industries do recruit on campus, the benefit of an Ivy-League name becomes important. Although students at other schools are just as bright and are just as flexible going into the real world regardless of what their majors were, those students are at a disadvantage because they do not have an easy exposure to a variety of companies that recruit on campus. These companies do not give those exploring students the benefit of the doubt of a “Princeton” education, even though they received just as good of an education. The result is that these students would end up choosing majors to facilitate their job search. So Major Choice’s message is deceptive in that it implies that all students can choose their majors based on academic passion and graduate with a job at Goldman Sachs, whereas in reality not all students are as lucky as we are.
But let us focus on the students who do choose to major in their academic passion and graduate with a high-paying job on Wall Street. The question is, even if this can be done, should it be done? It seems to me that someone who has an academic passion in a particular subject should not give it up after graduation simply to make as much money as possible. From the condescending silences that surround me whenever I tell someone that I am a prospective ORFE major, I get the feeling that they believe I am taking the low road and, therefore, that they are taking the high road. But if those students patronize me for caring too much about a job, then they would be hypocrites if they graduated from the high road of Princeton only to take a job for practical benefit. If those students were really the better people, then they should not lose dream of their academic passion—the same academic passion that they so thoroughly defended during their time at Princeton—after graduation and do exactly what they criticize me for doing. Maybe we have more in common after all.
I realize this was more a haphazard exploring of thoughts than an actual blog post. I also realize that my points were assertions and not statistics, so feel free to disagree with every point that I have made.

Source: Benner, Kate and Erbe, Anastasia. “Study Finds Social Class, Majors Link.” Daily Princetonian, Page 1. October 7, 2008.