第二港湾, 华人休闲之家

 找回密码
 注册帐号
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友
查看: 498|回复: 2

精致的利己主义者和常青藤的绵羊 (作者: 万维钢) zt

[复制链接]
发表于 2015-8-5 20:51:57 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

本文来源:南方周末


在美国名校读本科是一种怎样的体验?如果你认为,相对于中国学生苦逼的应试教育,美国名校的素质教育非常快乐,培养出的学生更优秀,那你就完全错了。




现在很多忧国忧民的老派人物已经对中国的大学,包括一流名校,有点不敢抱太大希望了。中国大学给人的印象是不但学术创新能力不行,就连社会责任感也不行,用钱理群的话说,培养出来的学生都是“精致的利己主义者”。那么礼失求诸野,美国大学又如何呢?常青藤名校学生,是否都是德才兼备,文能安邦武能定国,充满英雄主义和冒险精神的人中之龙凤?在美国名校读本科——而不是一般中国留学生读的、以搞科研发论文为目标的研究生——是一种怎样的体验?


像这样的问题光问哈佛女孩刘亦婷不行,最好再找个懂行的本地人问问,比如曾在耶鲁教过十年书的威廉·德雷谢维奇(William Deresiewicz)。他去年出了一本书,叫做《优秀的绵羊》(Excellent Sheep)。这个称号并不比“精致的利己主义者”好听。


显然这是一本批评美国名校教育的书,不过这本书并不只是图个吐槽的痛快,它讲述了一点名校的运行机制。此书没提中国,可是我想如果把中美两国名校教育放在一起比较一下,将是非常有意思的事情。作为中国读者,如果你不怎么了解美国教育,读完这本书可能会惊异于中美大学的巨大差异;如果你已经有所了解美国教育,读完可能会惊异于中美大学有巨大的相似性。


也许我们还可以思考一下,现代大学到底是干什么用的。


1
好得像绵羊一样的学生
为说话方便,我们虚构两个学生:清华大学的小明和耶鲁大学的Joe。能入选各自国家的顶级名校,两人显然都是出类拔萃的精英。人们相信他们都是未来社会栋梁,甚至有可能成为各自国家的领导人。


然而在此时此刻,小明的形象距离领导人还相差很远。他来自中国某个边远地区,身体谈不上健壮,戴个眼镜,社会经验相当有限,也不怎么善于言谈,除了成绩好外,简直一无所长。刻薄的人可能会说小明有点读书读傻了,是高考的受害者。


但小明其实是高考的受益者。他是自己家族,甚至可以说是家乡的骄傲。为了得到这位全省状元,清华招生组曾把小明请到北京陪吃陪玩,美其名曰“参观校园”,直到看着他填报了志愿才算放心,简直是球星的待遇。


Joe的父亲是某大公司CEO,母亲在家做全职主妇。由于父母都是耶鲁毕业生,Joe上耶鲁不过是遵循了家族传统而已。美国大学录取并不只看分数,非常讲究综合素质。跟小明相比,Joe可谓多才多艺。他高中时就跟同学搞过乐队,能写能弹能唱,从小就精通游泳、网球和冰球,而且入选校队参加比赛。Joe的组织能力很强,是高中学生会副主席,而且很有爱心,经常去社区医院帮助残疾人做康复运动。


要论解决刁钻古怪的高考数学题,Joe肯定不如小明——但是Joe的学习成绩并不差。Joe从高二开始就选修了几门大学先修课程(叫做“AP”,advanced placement),还没上大学已经具备微积分和宏观经济学的知识,这都是小明高考范围以外的内容。


跟很多名校一样,耶鲁甚至允许Joe高中毕业后先玩一年再入学,一方面休息休息,一方面趁着年轻看看世界。Joe并没有浪费这一年时间。在欧洲游历了半年之后,他在父亲帮助下前往非洲,以志愿者身份在盖茨基金会工作了几个月,任务是帮助赞比亚减少艾滋病毒感染。


小明深知自己的一切荣誉都来自分数。只有过硬的分数才能让他拿到奖学金、出国留学、找份好工作。为此,小明在清华的学习策略跟高中并无区别,那就是一定要门门功课都拿优等。


Joe的大学生活就比小明丰富多了。他是多个学生组织的成员,每逢假期就去做志愿者或者去大公司实习,有相当专业的体育运动,而且经常跟老师和同学们交流读书心得!


所以中美大学教育的确是非常不同。可是如果你据此认为,相对于小明苦逼的应试教育,Joe正在经历的素质教育非常快乐,或者你认为Joe是比小明更优秀的人才,那你就完全错了。其实,Joe和小明是非常相似的一类人。


Joe为什么要参加那么多课外活动?因为这些活动是美国学生评价体系的重要组成部分,像考试分数一样重要。跟小明刷GPA(平均学分绩点)一样,Joe刷课外活动的经验值也只不过是完成各种考核指标而已。每天忙得焦头烂额的Joe,对这些事情并没有真正的热情。比一心只想着考试的小明更苦的是,Joe还必须顾及自己在师生中的日常形象,他需要知道别人经常谈论的书都说了什么——所以他用只读开头、结尾和书评的方式,假装读过很多本书。至于能从一本书中真正学到什么,Joe根本没时间在乎。


如果说小明是个精致的利己主义者,其实Joe也是。上世纪六七十年代和更早时候的大学生,的确都很有社会责任感,非常关心国家大事,甚至愿意为了社会活动而牺牲学业。可能因为各行业收入差距越来越大,也可能因为大学学费越来越贵,现在的大学生竞争非常激烈,根本没时间管自己生活以外的事情。除了拿经验值走人,他们并不打算对任何事物做特别深入的了解。清华的学生还有闲情逸致搞个女生节向师妹师姐致意,而耶鲁这种水平的顶尖美国大学中,学生经常忙得没时间谈恋爱。


Joe和小明的内心都非常脆弱。一路过关斩将进入名校,他们从小就是取悦老师和家长的高手。别人对他们有什么期待,他们就做什么,而且一定能做好。层层过关的选拔制度,确保这些学生都是习惯性的成功者,他们从未遇到挫折——所以他们特别害怕失败。进入大学,他们的思想经常走极端,做事成功了就认为自己无比了不起,一旦失败就认为自己简直一无是处。Joe曾经真诚地认为如果考不进耶鲁,他就与一个屠宰场工人无异。


面对无数跟自己一样聪明一样勤奋的人,他们的情绪经常波动,充满焦虑。他们选课非常小心谨慎,专门挑自己擅长的选,根本不敢选那些有可能证明自己不行的课程。


人们印象中的名校应该不拘一格降人才,每个学生都根据自己的个性选择不同的道路,百花齐放。然而事实是,在追求安全不敢冒险的氛围下,学生们互相模仿,生怕跟别人不一样。小明一入学就在最短的时间内跟师兄们学会了自己学校的切口和校园BBS上的专用语。什么时候考托福、哪个老师的课不容易拿分、考研找工作的各种手续、就连办出国打预防针总共会被扎几次,BBS上都有详细的“攻略”。小明对这些进身之道门儿清,遇到与攻略稍有差异的,都要上网仔细询问,不敢越雷池半步。小明的师兄梁植在清华拿了三个学位而没找到毕业后该去干什么工作的攻略,习惯性地在一个电视访谈节目向评委请教,结果遭到了老校友高晓松的怒斥(参见《长沙晚报》报道《清华学霸谈迷茫引高晓松怒批》)。


高晓松说:“你不去问自己能为改变这个社会做些什么,却问我们你该找什么工作,你觉得愧不愧对清华十多年的教育?”


高晓松大概也会看不起Joe。刚入学时,Joe们被告知耶鲁是个特别讲究多样性的大学,他们这些来自五湖四海、不同种族、身怀多项技能的青年才俊将来的发展有无限的可能。那么这些拥有得天独厚的学习条件的精英学生,是否会有很多人去研究古生物学,很多人致力于机器人技术,很多人苦学政治一心救国,很多人毕业后去了乌干达扶贫呢?


当然不是。学生们慢慢发现真正值得选择的职业只有两个:金融和咨询。有统计发现,2014年70%的哈佛学生把简历投到了华尔街的金融公司和麦卡锡等咨询公司,而在金融危机之前的2007年,更有50%的哈佛学生直接去了华尔街工作。对比之下,选择政府和政治相关工作的只有3.5%。


金融和咨询,这两种职业的共同点是工资很高,写在简历里好看,而且不管你之前学的是什么专业都可以干。事实上这些公司也不在乎你学了什么,他们只要求你出身名校聪明能干。


别人怎么要求,他们就怎么反应。不敢冒险,互相模仿。一群一群的都往同样的方向走。这不就是绵羊吗?


2
假贵族和真贵族
既然是绵羊,那就好办了。中国学生也许不擅长当超级英雄,当个绵羊还是非常擅长的。你只要使用“虎妈”式的训练法,甭管钢琴还是大提琴,你要什么经验值我就给你什么经验值,不就行了吗?如果清华大学入学有音乐要求,我们完全可以想见,小明一定会熟练掌握小提琴。如果说中国教育的特点是分数至上,现在美国教育不也是讲credentialism(编者注:文凭主义)吗?美国名校难道不应该迅速被华人学生占领吗?


没有。近日有报道,美国华裔学生Michael Wang,2230分的SAT成绩(超过99%的考生),4.67的GPA,全班第二,13门AP课程,而且还“参加了国家的英语演讲和辩论比赛、数学竞赛、会弹钢琴,在2008年奥巴马总统就职典礼上参加合唱团的合唱”,在2013年申请了7所常青藤大学和斯坦福大学,结果被除了宾夕法尼亚大学之外的所有学校拒绝。


这又是什么道理?华人,乃至整个亚裔群体,哪怕是成绩再好,文体项目再多,你要求的我都会,还是经常被常青藤大学挡在门外。很多人认为这是针对亚裔的种族歧视。最近有人联合起来要起诉哈佛大学录取不公平,他们的官方网站就叫“哈佛不公平”。


但是读过《优秀的绵羊》我们就会明白,这些整天立志“爬藤”的亚裔学生,根本没搞明白藤校是怎么回事儿。


稍微具备一点百科知识的人都知道,所谓常青藤盟校,最早是一个大学体育赛事联盟。可是如果你认为这些大学当初组织起来搞体育赛事,是为了促进美国青年的体育运动,就大错特错了。常青藤的本质,是美国上层社会子弟上大学的地方。


19世纪末,随着铁路把全国变成一个统一的经济体,白人盎格鲁-撒克逊新教徒(WASP)中的新贵不断涌现,他们需要一些精英大学来让自己的子弟互相认识和建立联系。这些大学录取要求会希腊语和拉丁文,这都是公立高中根本不教的内容,这样平民子弟就被自动排除在外。


所以精英大学本来就是精英阶层自己玩的东西,是确保他们保持统治地位的手段。自己花钱赞助名校,让自己的孩子在这些大学里上学,然后到自己公司接管领导职位,这件事外人几乎无法指责。哈佛是个私立大学,本来就没义务跟普通人讲“公平”。


当时“有资格上”哈佛的学生进哈佛相当容易,录取根本就不看重学习成绩。事实上一直到1950年,哈佛每10个录取名额只有13个人申请,而耶鲁的录取率也高达46%,跟今天百里挑一甚至千里挑一的局面根本不可同日而语。


相对于学习成绩,学校更重视学生的品格养成,搞很多体育和课外活动,以人为本。也许那时候的美国名校,才是我们心目中的理想大学,是真正的素质教育。


然而精英们很快意识到这么搞不行。一方面新的社会势力不断涌现,一味把人排除在外,对统治阶层自己是不利的。另一方面这些“贵族”子弟的学业的确不够好。


于是在1910年代,一些大学开始率先取消希腊文拉丁文考试,给公立高中的毕业生机会。然而这样一来,一个立即的结果就是犹太学生比例突然增加。精英一看,这也不行,赶紧又修改录取标准,增加了推荐信、校友面试、体育和“领导力”等要求。这才有了后来常青藤这个“体育”联盟。


类似这样的改革反复拉锯。到1960年代曾经一度只看分数录取,于是当时在校生的平均身高都为此降低了半英寸。最后妥协的结果就是今天这个样子,既重视考试成绩,也要求体育等“素质”。


而到了这个时候,这些所谓素质教育的本质就已经不是真正为了培养品格,而是为了确保精英子弟的录取比例。并非所有“素质”都有助于你被名校录取,你需要的是有贵族气质的、而且必须是美式传统精英阶层的素质。这就是为什么你不应该练吉他而应该练大提琴,不应该练武术而应该练击剑;你需要在面试时表现出良好教养,最好持有名人的推荐信;你光参加过学生社团还不够,还必须曾经是某个社团的领袖;你参加社区服务决不能像奥运志愿者那样一副三生有幸的表情,而应该使用亲切屈尊的姿态。


一句话,这些事儿普通人家的孩子很难做到。如果你不是贵族,所有这些素质教育的要求,都是逼着你假装贵族。


美国名校通常都有对低收入家庭孩子减免学费的政策,比如哈佛规定家庭年收入在6万美元以下的学生全部免费,18万美元以下则最多只需交家庭年收入的10%。这是非常慷慨的政策,要知道如果你的家庭收入是18万美元,你已经比94%的美国家庭富有。但哈佛能用上这个减免政策的学生,只有40%——大部分哈佛家长的收入超过18万美元。我看到另一个数据,在斯坦福大学,接近一半的学生家庭年收入超过30万美元(这相当于美国前1.5%),只有15%的学生家庭年收入不到6万美元(相当于美国后56%,一半以上)——这意味着前者家庭孩子进入斯坦福大学的可能性约为后者的124倍。


上大学花多少钱根本不重要,上大学之前花了多少钱,才是真正重要的。有人统计,就连SAT成绩都跟家庭收入正相关。而获得贵族素质的最有效办法是进私立高中。哈佛、耶鲁和普林斯顿这三所大学,其录取新生中的22%,来自美国100所高中,这相当于全国高中总数的0.3%——这100所高中之中,只有6所不是私立的。


也就是说,如果你生在一个普通家庭,你什么素质都还没比就已经输在起跑线上了。但即便如此,仍然有人不服,再难也要进藤校。那么在众多“假贵族”的冲击下,现在藤校录取是个什么水平的竞争呢?


《优秀的绵羊》透露了一点耶鲁大学的真实录取标准。如果你在某一方面有特别突出的成就——一般小打小闹的奖项没用,必须是英特尔科学奖这样的全国性大奖——你肯定能被录取。如果没有,那你就得“全面发展”——对耶鲁来说,这意味着7到8门AP课程和9到10项课外活动——即便如此也不能保证录取,还得看推荐信和家庭情况。至于亚裔津津乐道的SAT考试成绩,没有太大意义。


我觉得考清华似乎还比这个容易一点。这就是为什么有志于名校的美国高中生其实比中国高考生辛苦得多。


但耶鲁还有第三个录取渠道。凡巨额捐款者的孩子,一定可以被录取。


3
名校到底是干什么用的?
这样说来,美国私立名校从来就不是为全体国民服务,而是为上层阶层服务的机构。名校之所以时常做出一些“公平”的努力,比如减免学费,优先录取少数族裔(不包括亚裔),仅仅是出于两个原因:第一,要为精英阶层补充新鲜血液,这样系统才能保持稳定;第二,只有“公平”,才能保住自己作为非营利机构的免税资格。


既然是为精英阶层服务,那肯定要严格要求精心培育,把大学生培养成真正的未来领袖吧?德雷谢维奇却告诉我们,现在名校其实并不重视学生教育。


中国科大有一年新生入学,校方搞了个家长会,校领导居然说,科大在北京录取分数线低,你们北京来的要好好努力才能跟上同学!像这样的事根本不可能在耶鲁发生。学生们明明是靠家庭特权进来的,学校对他们却只有赞美,而且在各种场合不停地夸,学生们以为自己能力以外的因素等于零。这导致名校学生对上不了精英大学的、普通人的事根本不感兴趣,更谈不上了解国家现实。他们没有真正的自信,但是个个自负。


既然都是精英,那必须得好好对待。如果你在普通大学有抄袭行为,或者错过一次期末考试,你可能会有很大的麻烦;而在耶鲁,这些都不是大问题。截止日期可以推迟,不来上课不会被扣分,你永远都有第二次机会。据德雷谢维奇在耶鲁亲眼所见,哪怕你遭遇最大的学业失败,哪怕你抄袭,哪怕你威胁同学的人身安全,你都不会被开除。


一方面,名校学生平时课外活动实在太忙;一方面,教授们指望学生给自己留个好评,现在名校的成绩标准也越来越宽松。1950年,美国公立和私立大学学生的平均GPA都是2.5;而到了2007年,公立大学的平均GPA是3.01,私立大学则是3.30,特别难进的私立大学?3.43。到底哪国的大学更“严进宽出”?中国的还是美国的?


但这组GPA贬值的数据也告诉我们,过去的美国大学比现在严格得多。事实上,在两个罗斯福总统上大学的那个年代的这些名校,虽然摆明了就是让贵族子弟上的,其教学反而比现在要严格得多。老贵族非常讲究无私、荣誉、勇气和坚韧这样的品质。那时候当学校说要培养服务社会精神和领导力这些东西的时候,他们是玩真的。今日新贵充斥的大学,简直是在折射美国精英阶层的堕落。


如果名校不关心教育,那么它们关心什么呢?是声望,更确切地说,是资金。


《美国新闻与世界报道》每年推出的全美大学排名,并不仅仅是给学生家长看的。大学能获得多少捐款,甚至能申请到多少银行贷款,都与这个排名息息相关。为什么在真正的入学要求越来越高的情况下,名校还鼓励更多人申请?是为了刷低录取率。录取率是大学排名计算中非常重要的一项,越低越好。为什么大学把学生视为顾客,不敢严格要求?因为毕业率也是排名标准之一,而且是越高越好。


在现代大学里,教授的最重要任务是搞科研而不是搞教学,因为好的研究成果不但能提升学校声望,还能带来更多科研拨款。在这方面,中美大学并无不同,讲课好的教授并不受校方重视。但大学最重视的还不是基础科研,而是能直接带来利润的应用科研——德雷谢维奇说,名校在这方面的贪婪和短视程度,连与之合作的公司都看不过去了。


校友捐赠,是名校的一项重要收入来源,哈佛正是凭借几百亿美元的校友捐赠基金成为世界最富大学。我们前面说过,哈佛大部分学生去了华尔街和咨询公司,其实这正是大学希望你从事的工作。


我最近看到两条新闻正好说明这一点。一个是在2008年美国次贷危机中大肆做空获利的对冲基金总裁约翰·保尔森,给哈佛大学工程与应用科学学院捐4亿美元,为史上最高校友捐款,哈佛直接把学院命名为约翰·保尔森工程和应用科学学院。另一个更有意思,黑石集团的苏世民(Steve Schwarzman)向耶鲁大学捐款1.5亿美元,哈佛为此非常后悔,因为此君当初曾经申请了哈佛而没有被录取——所以有人在《纽约时报》发表文章说,哈佛应该用大数据的思维更科学地分析一下哪些高中生将来可能成为亿万富翁,可别再犯这样的错误了。


学生职业服务办公室对律师、医生、金融和咨询以外的工作根本不感兴趣。你将来想当个教授或者社会活动家?学校未必以你为荣。大学最希望你好好赚钱,将来给母校捐款。


为什么出生在美国的Michael Wang上不了藤校,而一所中国高中——南京外国语学校——却有多名学生被藤校录取?这可能恰恰是藤校布局未来校友捐款的策略——新兴经济体国家的精英学生未来有更大的赚钱潜力,对藤校来说,“金砖五国”的高中生比西欧国家的更有吸引力。


总而言之,美国名校找到了一种很好的商业模式。在这个模式里最重要的东西是排名、科研、录取和校友捐款,教学根本不在此列。


而鉴于中国名牌大学——尽管没有一所是私立的——一直把美国名校当做榜样,甚至还可能把这些事实上的问题当成优点去学习,我们有理由相信中国大学的未来也是如此。


有位清华教授程曜,出于对学校种种不满,竟曾经以绝食抗争(《南方人物周刊》2012年10月29日)。德雷谢维奇的愤怒可能还没到这么极端。他认为大学应该培养学生的人生观价值观和真正的思考能力,推崇博雅教育,甚至号召学生不要去名校。


但如果小明和Joe跑来问我,我不知道应该给他们什么建议。也许大学根本就不是教人生观价值观和思考能力的地方。也许你应该自己学那些东西,也许你根本就没必要学。德雷谢维奇说,他有好几个学生最终决定放弃华尔街工作,宁可拿低薪为理想而活,我想小明未必需要这样的建议。


但我的确觉得这个世界哪怕分工再细,专业化程度再高,也不太可能完全靠绵羊来运行。


何况绵羊的生活其实并不怎么愉快。




 楼主| 发表于 2015-8-19 12:51:00 | 显示全部楼层
Major Decisions: What Graduates Earn Over Their Lifetimes
IntroductionThere is ongoing debate in policy circles, the media, and around kitchen tables about the value of a college degree. Given the investments of time and money involved, some skeptics—and likely some students and their families—are asking if the returns to college are really worth the costs. Do college graduates tend to earn more than non-college graduates? The answer is yes. It is well-documented that on average college graduates earn more than those with less education, and our analysis presented here confirms this.  What is less understood is how earnings vary across college majors.
As a new school year gets underway, The Hamilton Project presents this economic analysis—with an accompanying interactive feature—that explores career earnings by college major. Drawing upon data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, we examine earnings for approximately 80 majors, focusing on both annual earnings for each year of the career and cumulative lifetime earnings. The new interactive feature allows you to compare career earnings among bachelor’s degree graduates for all 80 majors along with earnings for workers with less education.
The analysis yields the following key conclusions:
First, a college degree—in any major—is important for advancing one’s earnings potential.
  • Median earnings of bachelor’s degree graduates are higher than median earnings of high school graduates for all 80 majors studied. This is true at career entry, mid-career, and end of career.
  • Median earnings of bachelor’s degree graduates are at least as high as median earnings for associate degree holders—again, throughout the career—for 76 out of 80 majors; the exceptions are early childhood education, elementary education, home economics, and social work.
  • Looking at cumulative earnings over the entire career, the typical bachelor’s degree graduate worker earns $1.19 million, which is twice what the typical high school graduate earns, and $335,000 more than what the typical associate degree graduate earns.
  • As usual, there are exceptions to the rule: even the highest-earning majors contain some graduates who have lower career earnings than some workers with less than a bachelor’s degree. Notably, the top tenth of high school graduates out-earn the bottom tenth of college graduates in every major.
Second, lifetime earnings vary tremendously by major.
  • For the median bachelor’s graduate, cumulative lifetime earnings across majors range from just under $800,000 to just over $2 million.
  • Majors that emphasize quantitative skills tend to have graduates with the highest lifetime earnings. The highest-earning majors are those in engineering fields, computer science, operations and logistics, physics, economics, and finance.
  • Majors that train students to work with children or provide counseling services tend to have graduates with the lowest earnings. The lowest-earning majors are early childhood education, family sciences (home economics), theology, fine arts, social work, and elementary education.
  • There is also substantial variation in earnings within majors. Cumulative earnings double—or even triple—when moving from the bottom quarter to the top quarter of earners in a given major. These increases are larger for lower-earning majors.
We emphasize that there are some nuanced—but crucially important—issues to consider when interpreting these figures. First, earnings differences across majors are driven by many factors and do not necessarily reflect a wage premium for that particular major. The estimates cannot distinguish why graduates in certain majors earn more than those in others. For example, perhaps individuals who select into particularly difficult majors have skills that they would bring to the workforce even if they had chosen another major. (See Appendix 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue, including caveats about interpreting these differences as causally related to choice of major.)  Second, future earnings are not the only factor in choosing a major: personal enjoyment, engaging in meaningful work, and filling a social need should all also enter into a student’s decision-making.
The purpose in presenting these earnings estimates is to provide students, parents, policymakers, and researchers with information for which there is great interest and—until now—little availability. We hope the estimates will be a springboard for discussion regarding educational investments, financial aid, career choices, and social opportunity.
A separate technical appendix describes the data and our methodology in more detail. Finally, appendix tables 1 and 2 provide detailed earnings at different career points for each of the 80 majors studied.
A Look at Annual Earnings Over the Career by Degree and MajorUsing data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, we have calculated annual median earnings from career start to retirement for 80 majors among workers with exactly a bachelor’s degree. To be clear, the earnings presented here are based on individuals who complete a bachelor’s degree in a particular major and do not go on to earn an advanced or professional degree. Certain majors might have more individuals who pursue additional degrees; this is not something that we attempt to account for in this analysis, but readers can do so through the new Hamilton Project interactive.
It is also important to note that these earnings profiles are not limited to full-time workers and include part-time workers and those who experience unemployment throughout the year [1].  As The Hamilton Project and others have noted, the risks of unemployment and underemployment are higher for those with less education, and they also differ by college major among bachelor’s degree holders.
In figure 1 below, each of the thin gray lines shows the earnings trajectory of a different major, highlighting the tremendous variation in earnings across majors. A few majors, particularly engineering, crest $100,000 at career peak, while others, including fine arts, social work, and a few education fields, barely break $40,000. For comparison, the solid black line shows the median earnings profile of all bachelor’s degree workers put together, and the purple, dark green, and light green lines show the respective profiles of workers with an associate degree, some college without a degree, and just a high school diploma.
Figure 1: Median Annual Earnings Over the Career, by Education Level and College Major

The data confirm that individuals with higher levels of education have higher earnings throughout their career. Indeed, the earnings profile of bachelor’s degree graduates is completely above that of associate degree graduates, with the typical bachelor’s graduate earning just above $60,000 at career peak, about $20,000 more per year than an associate degree graduate. In turn, the median earnings of associate degree graduates is completely above that of high school graduates, although the earnings differences between these groups are smaller than those between bachelor’s degree graduates and associate degree graduates.
Strikingly, the earnings profile for every major lies above the profile for high school graduates over the first 40 career years. Even in the lowest-earning major, early childhood education, the median bachelor’s graduate earns more at every point during the career than does the median high school graduate. Across the vast majority of majors—though not all—bachelor’s graduates will usually earn more throughout their careers than workers with only an associate degree.
Lifetime Earnings By Major Over the entire working life, the typical college graduate will earn $1.19 million in today’s dollars [2].  This is more than twice as much as the lifetime earnings of a typical high school graduate ($580,000), and $335,000 more than that of a typical associate degree graduate. Figure 2 shows median lifetime earnings for select majors, including those with the highest earnings, those with the lowest earnings, and those that are among the most common. As can be seen in the figure, lifetime earnings vary widely across majors. Over the entire career, the highest-earning majors will earn about two-and-a-half times what the lowest-earning majors will earn, a range from over $2 million for some engineering majors to about $800,000 for early childhood education.
Figure 2: Median Lifetime Earnings for Select Majors (In Millions of Dollars)

(Click hereto see a chart with all 80 majors)
Despite the size of this spread, the typical graduate in every college major will out-earn the typical high school graduate by at least $200,000 over the career. In a previous analysis, The Hamilton Project estimated that the total cost of getting a bachelor’s degree averages $102,000. (This estimate includes the direct costs of tuition and fees, room and board, and course materials, as well as the opportunity costs of lost wages while enrolled.) Even if this amount were subtracted from career earnings, it would still be the case that median net lifetime earnings in every major would exceed those of the median high school graduate.
Lifetime Earnings Differences Within Major Of course, median earnings convey what the graduate in the middle of the earnings distribution can expect, and half of graduates will earn more and half will earn less. In fact, the variation of lifetime earnings within any given major is at least as large as the variation across majors. For all majors combined, lifetime earnings at the 25th percentile—the level at which one-quarter of graduates earn less—are $720,000, but they are $1.82 million at the 75th percentile—the level at which three-quarters of graduates earn less. This is an increase of 154 percent—almost precisely the relative spread at the median from the lowest-earning to the highest-earning major shown in Figure 2.
In general, majors that are associated with low earnings have larger relative spreads between earnings at the 25th and 75th percentiles than majors associated with high earnings. Loosely put, this means that graduates in nursing or engineering fields who have high earnings for their major do somewhat better than the graduates who have low earnings in that major, but that art history graduates who have high earnings for their major do much, much better than low-earning art history graduates.
To give a fuller illustration of the range of lifetime earnings, Figure 3 plots (nearly) the entire distribution of lifetime earnings for every major and the three sub-baccalaureate education levels. The horizontal axis shows the relative point in the earnings distribution, from near the bottom at the 5th percentile to near the top at the 95th percentile, and the vertical axis shows lifetime earnings. For example, the thick black line shows that median (50th percentile) earnings over the career for all bachelor’s graduates are $1.19 million, the same as in Figure 2, but it also shows that earnings range from just a few hundred thousand dollars at the bottom to over $3 million at the top. As in Figure 1, each of the thin gray lines shows earnings for a different major. It is quite apparent that earnings differences across majors grow larger—or fan out—higher up in the earnings distributions. For instance, at the 10th percentile the difference in lifetime earnings between the highest-earning major and the lowest-earning one is about $500,000; at the 90th percentile, this difference is over $3.5 million.
Figure 3: Lifetime Earnings Distributions, by College Major


It is also the case that even the highest-earning majors contain some graduates who will be out-earned by at least a few graduates from every other major. Even more strikingly, the highest-earning 10 percent of high school graduates out-earn the bottom tenth of graduates in every single major. If one takes a closer look, however, the data reveal that a graduate at the 90th percentile of the lowest-earning major (the bottom-most gray line) earns about $1.30 million, barely more than the $1.26 million earned by the 90th percentile high school graduate. Both, however, earn substantially more than the $800,000 of the graduate at the 10th percentile of the highest-earning major.
ConclusionAs college students begin another year of classes, few of them have good knowledge of what their earnings for their chosen field of study are likely to be. The good news is that no matter what their major, they are likely to earn more over their careers than those with less education. College degrees may not be a guarantee of higher income, but they come closer than just about any other investment one can make.


Importantly, the higher earnings associated with obtaining a bachelor’s degree, even in low-earning fields in the humanities and education, stand up when accounting for the risks of unemployment and underemployment.  The earnings presented here incorporate the weak labor market during and after the Great Recession and include all workers, not just those with full-time jobs. Even college graduates who begin their careers in a recession with a relatively low-earning major will still earn more over their lifetimes than individuals with just a high school diploma. To further explore career earnings by major, visit The Hamilton Project’s interactive analysis, where the user can choose different majors and education levels, and compare earnings.
All of this being said, future earnings should not be the only factor that students weigh when determining what it is they want to study. It is, however, a significant factor, particularly as student debt burdens grow larger. To further promote thinking around this issue, The Hamilton Project will soon be releasing the second and third parts of this series on major decisions and lifetime earnings. The second part will explore earnings growth over the career, and the third will include an interactive calculator that shows the share of earnings—for each of the 80 majors studied here—that are needed to repay student debt in early career. Our goal is to provide additional information that can help consumers—students and their families—make the best decisions regarding their higher-education investments.

[1] The interactive feature allows users to choose whether they want to view earnings among all workers or only those working full-time and year-round. It also allows the choice of whether to include or exclude workers with advanced degrees.
[2] All cumulative earnings are calculated using a 3 percent annual discount rate. This converts earnings into a “present value,” the amount that if invested today at a 3 percent annual rate of return would yield the same total value as lifetime earnings.

发表于 2015-8-19 13:03:32 | 显示全部楼层
他妈的狗屁不通。

我青蛙大学出来的高才生秒杀常青藤二代。虎肉就是其中的佼佼者,一周60小时,拳打老将脚踢猫论,这才是美利坚的栋梁。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册帐号

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|第二港湾

GMT-5, 2024-11-7 02:34 , Processed in 0.020617 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表