Uni choices: what you like vs what pays the rent. What would you tell a teenager?

[CForCake]

A younger relative will choose her A level subjects next year and wants to talk about university choices to me and my partner at a family event in a few weeks.

I am curious about comparing views and experiences on how other people have framed the matter of studying what you like vs what pays the rent.

My view is that (almost) any decision can be the right one if it is an informed decision.

So don't study business law or banking thinking you will get the most meaningful, creative, impactful jobs making the world a better place, but at the same time don't study gender or media studies thinking that you will get a high-paying job.

From previous conversations, this girl like STEM subjects and liked the idea of becoming a teacher.
My issue with that is that she may not appreciate that 1 or 2 generations ago a couple with two teacher jobs could buy a flat and raise a family in London, while that has become impossible now, without financial help from the family (which she won't get). She always said she's frugal and doesn't care about money, but there is not wanting a Ferrari and there is not being able to afford rent and childcare. It's easy to say you don't care about money when you don't work and everything is paid for by your parents.

If she brings up teaching again, I would mention that she needs to appreciate that being a teacher is financially very challenging in London, and might mean relocating somewhere else with a cheaper cost of living.

At the same time, I would never tell her to consider banking or law or tech just because of the money.

So what is a reasonable balance?

But it sounds like this niece is passionate about STEM.

When so many mums demonstrate prejudice against the idea of girls enjoying STEM subjects, it's not surprising that so many girls end up being steered away from them.

As myself, my husband and all the working adults in my family work or have worked in IT or engineering, we didn't steer DD away from studying STEM. We did support her in following her passion.

I think the advice to OPs niece should focus on the next steps of her education and helping her have a positive and successful time at university, as a springboard into a successful career.

What has where they’ll live in the future got to do with what they study at 18???

and yes, science may be more employable but that’s their passion.

FWIW, my siblings studied English & Drama and French & Philosophy - because they loved and were passionate about these subjects. If my DC was interested in less employable subjects/areas, they would have had the same encouragement. Uni isn’t just about getting job prospects. It’s an opportunity to delve into areas of interest. Job worries can come later

And before you ask, for context, I’m not well off. I cannot offer financial support to my DC. Working class family. Saved £10 per week from the day DC born to be able to help with uni or if they’d wanted, travel /car/ small lump sum to do with as they please. They’ve worked from age 16 so they had money to go on holiday with friends, festivals and all their ‘extras’ which I couldn’t fund.

IMO young people are put under far too much pressure from too an early an age about work, jobs, prospects. They’re told that they need to get into the right senior school. They must get excellent grades at 16 and 18 or their lives are over. They must go to uni or they won’t get a job. They must get an excellent degree in an employable subject or their life is over

it’s all BS, IMO. They need time to grow into young adults . Time to discover what they love and makes them happy. Time to study, if they wish, and delve into their passions

just a different perspective. Opinions were asked for and I gave mine. I don’t understand why you feel it necessary to rubbish that or make it negative or, annoyingly and rudely - question the veracity of my comment.

@MadMadaMim Where young people want to live has nothing to do with decisions on degrees? It absolutely does. Whether dc afford to live in London for a specific area of work is a huge decision. You are very fortunate and rich if subjects are simply for pleasure and employment doesn’t matter. Most of us cannot afford this. Dc cannot afford to do less employable subjects for fun with no strategy. English and Philosophy are now low in employability, and have lower numbers doing the subjects. There’s a reason for this - employability. Employers think these are fun degrees for personal enjoyment. Of course there are transferable skills but these degrees are not viewed as they were 30 years ago. Far from it.

Absolutely not rich. Not even well off. I haven't been on holiday for over 10 yrs. My car is 18 years old. I don't have a washing machine. I do not have an oven. I've lived in my house for 23 years and it has the same kitchen and bathroom I bought it with and even then, they were at least 10 - 20 yrs old. I am very much nowhere near rich of any kind.

And nowhere did I say subjects are for fun or that there was no strategy. Read what people say rather than our your skewed slant on things.

You're very out of touch. Philosophy was and remains a highly regarded degree and, at good unis, is one of the hardest courses to get a place on. I don't know what employers you've dealt with but if they're so narrow minded that they don't see the value in certain areas of study, then maybe they're not great employers anyway.

Employers do not view these subjects as fun degrees. They see them for what they are. Challenging subjects that require a high level and mastery of critical thinking, analysis, independent thinking, logic and soooo many other skills.

Again - different views and outlook. Totally unnecessary to be snipey and dismissive and make completely incorrect assumptions.

For those who are interested, the ifs found the attached affected earnings. Men in particular are mentioned in terms of poor returns if they study certain subjects. The thread was about such issues - degree vs earnings.

On Philosophy: there was a study in the US about how well the graduates of various fields do in certain tests.

Philosophers made a big song and dance about how studying philosophy makes people better thinkers. The truth is much more nuanced - that is, in fact, a bs summary.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/studying-philosophy-does-make-people-better-thinkers/45A7DE8F37BE4698265BD54490109D4A

Philosophy graduates did very well in verbal tests but were average on quantitative tests.

Although philosophy majors are unremarkable when it comes to the GRE Quantitative (placing 30th out of 57), they rank first on the GRE Verbal, first on the LSAT, first on the Habits of Mind scale, and sixth on the Pluralistic Orientation scale

I'm not gonna get into a flame war on which subject is harder easier etc.
And of course that is a US study so there will be differences vs the UK.

I simply note that many graduate programs tend to subject candidates to all kinds of online tests, as a way to filter from a wide pool of initial applicants.
This study suggests that philosophers get mediocre score on the quantitative part but high score in the verbal part. Every company will have a different mix of the two, with some focusing only or mostly on the quantitative part.

Another point I would make is this: some students struggle to understand the difference between the theoretical rigour of certain university subjects and the messy imperfection of the real world. It's been a while since I was involved in graduate recruitment, but I remember seeing this with some (not all) graduates in theoretical maths (never with engineering): they were more interested in the method to get to a result than to the result itself, and were horrified at the idea that, in a business context, sometimes getting a 95% correct answer in one day is better than getting a 99.99% correct answer in a week. To them it was heresy. Not all were like this, of course, but I remember a few.
I can't remember if I ever interviewed a philosopher but it may apply to them, too

I studied phi at uni. I never understand people's descriptions of it and the benefits and how it suits ppl who like to argue their point. As far as I am concerned it was like Eng lit or history, only with longer words and more white men. Much study of “authorities” and frankly not a lot of discussion of the Big Issues. Maybe it has changed.

I find certain topics of philosophy fascinating (eg philosophy of science), and others the worst kind of mental masturbation possible.

I suspect there is much more bad philosophy than bad science.

@CForCake DH increasingly found, when employing engineers, they also had no commercial awareness and needed a week when 2 days was normal! Too much maths and not enough engineering nous!

I think many subjects allow for different points of view. Strong essay subjects should provide strong verbal scores but some dc are not confident whatever subject they have studied and don’t engage well with others. Those who don’t have maths A level would not normally be top 10% at maths in tests. However they don’t want those jobs presumably.

I once remember interviewing a PhD for a role which didn't require it. When we asked her what she would do in a real life scenario, she said that she couldn't answer because she didn't have all the data. But, love, in real life you never do.
Too much education can be a bad thing, if you don't know how to apply it to the real world.

@CForCake she gave you a logical answer - it just wasn't the one you wanted. Instead, she could have told you what data she'd need, how she'd go about getting it, and how she would mitigate if she couldn't get it. That was her mistake, and its unlikely to be related to her choice of degree/PhD. She may have been on the autistic spectrum and/or simply not well practised at interviews.

There is too much stereo-typing going on in this thread.

@rubbishd The problem is though, that if other candidates do think about the question more deeply and say what info they might need, they are more suitable for the job. Sometimes grads and more highly educated people can be blinkered and not see the broader picture.

DH found far too often that grads could not identify the engineering issue they were meant to be solving. Universities tell them the issue (often in great detail) but in real life the engineer needs to have the skills to evaluate what the issue is. Then use the “maths” skills to solve it. Unfortunately not understanding engineering principles in real life coupled with insufficient practical know how and commercial awareness is a barrier to employment. DH had a consulting Engineering practice where clients needed solutions but you cannot provide them if you don’t know what the issue is. Interview tests exposed this and gave DH great cause for concern. Obviously some grads were great.

Yes, I agree, but what I disagree with is that anyone can tar all engineering grads, or philosophy grads, or PhDs with one brush and conclude that their degree choice was at the root of their poor interview performance. That's just yet another form of prejudice, and not one that is protected by legislation. (Obviously if subject knowledge is a requirement for the role then that is different).

@rubbishd
No. It's not about what I would have wanted, but about what the job required.

The job she chose to apply for required making decisions in conditions of uncertainty, when you don't have all the data you would like to have.

Multiple answers were possible. Saying you don't know and can't do it is not an answer.

If you are unable or unwilling to do this, you cannot do the job.

Some needs or conditions can be accommodated so as to allow people with special needs to do the job. But not everything is a special need. If you are uncomfortable with the very nature of the job, look for a different job.
There are plenty of jobs which would be unsuitable for my personality. I know and look for jobs accordingly. I don't expect the world to change for me.

Do you disagree?

Should we hire those who hate public speaking to speak in public? Those who hate travelling as travelling salespeople?

@rubbishd i wasn't painting everyone with the same brush.

All I did was say that I noticed that SOME highly qualified graduates fail to see the difference between theory and practice and this hurts their employability. If anything, I was giving advice on how to avoid a potential pitfall I have seen. Where are the generalisations? I haven't made any.

I don't think it's "prejudice" to make judgments/predictions about people based on the choices they've made over the course of their lives, and the type of training they've been immersed in as a result of those choices.

Several of my friends and colleagues have PhDs... several have studied philosophy... several have studied engineering. They're all interesting people but I do think, at an aggregate level, the "stereotypes" are directionally correct.

I can often directly see in my own professional life the way my own degrees actively shape my thinking and how I approach problems, using specific analytical techniques etc. I don't think this is a bad thing! I got something for all that money I spent!

No, I don't disagree, but you have misinterpreted me. I made it clear I don't doubt that you made the correct hiring decision on this occasion, but that I do doubt you can use the experience to make sweeping statements about people with similar academic backgrounds, as implied by your.post.

@rubbishd Obviously you cannot say the grads are all the same and many engineering grads have good job prospects. Philosophy is a bigger problem as evidenced by earnings.

We do need to understand though, that with the huge expansion of grads, employers really must sort out the ones who meet their needs. You cannot assume they are all brilliant or useless. You have to devise tests to check them out. Decades ago, no one bothered much. It was accepted the degree holder could do the job and the employer just wanted best fit for the organisation. Employment is expensive so everyone is trying to eliminate mistakes.

I did say “some grads were great”. That was recognition of the fact that some are! Not tarring with the same brush at all.

@rubbishd what sweeping statements would I have made? I said that too much education can be a problem if you cannot apply it to the real world.
I didn't generalise anything. I didn't say that all graduates in a certain field are like that, nor that all PhDs are like that.

I also reported a scientific study on the results of various graduates in certain tests. That's a scientific study, not a generalisation. And it can be used to infer that philosophy graduates are likely to do well in verbal tests but get mediocres results in quantitative tests. So likely to be at a disadvantage vs Stem graduates if applying for jobs that use quantitative tests as initial screening. All pretty factual and documented.

@OhDear111 you make an excellent point about too many grads and the need for tests to filter them out.
Also, I'd add that not every grad realises that professional success tends to require a combination of domain knowledge, intelligence, emotional intelligence, people skills, etc. Someone who scores in the top 15% on a standardised test may well do better than someone in the top 1% if the former has more emotional intelligence, people skills, big picture skills etc. Not a generalisation, just an observation.

DH found far too often that grads could not identify the engineering issue they were meant to be solving. Universities tell them the issue (often in great detail) but in real life the engineer needs to have the skills to evaluate what the issue is. Then use the “maths” skills to solve it. Unfortunately not understanding engineering principles in real life coupled with insufficient practical know how and commercial awareness is a barrier to employment. DH had a consulting Engineering practice where clients needed solutions but you cannot provide them if you don’t know what the issue is. Interview tests exposed this and gave DH great cause for concern. Obviously some grads were great.

I think my DH would agree with this. He's a CE who also assesses engineers for their chartership on behalf of the ICE. He sometimes despairs of the written reports that he is given to read, so many are full of meaningless, non grammatical crap and the candidates seem to struggle to string together sentences in the interview (not all I hasten to add but a significant portion of them).

On the other hand he has graduates of a few years who do not even seem to understand that you don't start the work without having a decent contract in place, they seem to have no concept of how business works.

When he employs a new graduate he checks their CV and covering letter for spelling mistakes and grammar, any mistake and it's straight in the bin because experience has taught him that sloppiness creates problems at some point.

I do think that AI will eventually take over a lot of the engineering design work, DH has said his company are starting to think about this already although at the moment it's not good enough. But as you say OhDear, you need people who will know what to ask AI to do.

I don't know anything about Philosophy but some humanities like Psychology, Sociology and Linguistics also incorporate science and maths. My DD (linguistics + MFL) needs to learn scientific methodology, statistics, the biology and biochemistry of learning language and speech (apparently a fair few linguistics graduates go into SALT) computing and programming (including for AI) plus some psychology. The humanities are no longer just about writing endless essays, they provide graduates who can express themselves well AND think logically and scientifically.

But on MN I get the impression that only those with maths degrees will get well paid jobs, in the real world I'd be amazed if there are the jobs available for all these maths graduates. I'm a science graduate (graduated over 30 years ago) and bought the lie that a science degree would lead to a great career. It was bollocks, when I graduated there were hardy any jobs around and so I did a PhD and saw that research was an insecure badly paid job where you spent your life scrabbling around for research grants. Today as an academic you have the added stress that your Uni is trying to shed jobs.

So after all that rant, I think you may as well study what you love, grab every opportunity that comes along including work, experience, all of it and accept that even then getting a good job will need determination and resilience (and a degree of luck).

I agree with @FunnysInLaJardin.

You are basing the two teachers salaries will not equate to a middle class lifestyle on an assumption of living in London. There is the rest of the UK where it is perfectly doable. Or indeed options overseas.

My other thought is also this generation will not enter a job/profession and stay with it. We said to DS choose the subject you like most and take it from there. He graduated this summer in a STEM subject and has secured a grad job in industry. I am convinced this was due to working the summer holidays so he had other skills outside of grades. That is also a first hand introduction to how little some jobs pay.

I am consistent in my advice. Assuming you don’t have a huge trust fund and are not marrying a wealthy man.

Doing something you love but has poor prospects for salary will result in a life of constant worry about paying bills, fixing the car, being unable to afford holidays you covet. See ALL the threads on here of people struggling even without the cost of living.

I think it’s really important to study a degree with the best salary prospects your intelligence can manage as long as you like the subject, you don’t have to love it.

For the thing/s you love, you can still enjoy that as part of your hobbies and day to day fun.

My DC have been told this. Up to them if they choose to follow it or not.

And to avoid jobs in the public sector.

@EwwSprouts I am so fed up with people misunderstanding. I never assumed she must live in London. She was brought up in London. All her extended family is in London. Bringing up that a certain salary can afford you a better lifestyle in other parts of the country than in London doesn't mean assuming she must remain in London. It means painting a more complete picture so she can make a more informed decision. That's all. I have said it a gazillion times.

@Jamesblonde2 yes, I agree with you. It's all about informed decisions.

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees yes, most STEM graduates do not earn bucket loads. I wonder if those who earn the most are those who work in certain parts of finance and who used their degree as a signal to get in (I studied physics, I'm smart, hire me, even if you don't need a physicist)

I wonder if those who earn the most are those who work in certain parts of finance and who used their degree as a signal to get in (I studied physics, I'm smart, hire me, even if you don't need a physicist)

I'm a cynic and I think it's still a lot about who you know or where you live. If you live in London and your family know people in finance you're more likely to be able to get (and afford) an unpaid internship which would give you a huge leg up. I know this doesn't apply to everyone but I think finance companies are looking for faces that fit.

On a smaller level, a few years ago my DH got my nephew a summer job at his company's head office in the south whilst he was doing his geology degree. He could live at home for free so made a decent chunk of money. When he got his first graduate job the company said it was as a direct result of the reference from the summer job.