Most to least valuable college majors

[alpha12]

The Most Valuable College Majors For 2021 | Bankrate

Engineering majors continue to have high salaries and a low unemployment rate.

www.bankrate.com

Pharmacy number 12.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WorthlessOxygen]

This is referring to a BS in pharmacy though? Methodology states that it's referring to bachelor's programs.

 

[mentos]

This is referring to a BS in pharmacy though? Methodology states that it's referring to bachelor's programs.

This list is weird, it does seem like it's BS degrees only - so why include pharmacy? It should be pre-pharmacy then. Is "#14 Health and Medical Preparatory Programs" premed?

This list is garbage. LoL @ #21 computer science, #32 information systems. With those two fields, you can get good jobs in good work conditions whenever you want in desirable areas, without the crippling debt. With pharmacy, good luck finding a job within 3 hours of a desirable area. And forget about good working conditions for 70% of pharmacy jobs.

LoL @ #35 nursing who make more than some pharmacists with a two year degree.

#113 Pre-law is a legit rank, that's about where pre-pharmacy should be.

Lists like these are the reason why pharmacy schools stay in business.

 

[confettiflyer]

Lol, in 2021, you’d think people would have realized by now that you can major in something completely unrelated…and still take the necessary prerequisites for any professional school, right?

Just another click bait list for the internet ad revenue.

 

[WorthlessOxygen]

This list is weird, it does seem like it's BS degrees only - so why include pharmacy? It should be pre-pharmacy then.

You can get a BS in pharmacy still. I was under the impression that it was basically only used to apply to pharmacy school but with only ~50% going on to get an advanced degree maybe it's more useful than I thought?

 

[confettiflyer]

You can get a BS in pharmacy still. I was under the impression that it was basically only used to apply to pharmacy school but with only ~50% going on to get an advanced degree maybe it's more useful than I thought?

I usually see BS/BA in pharmaceutical sciences or pharmaceutical chemistry offered, it’s effectively a chemistry degree with additional life/biological science, chemical engineering, and physiology course requirements attached.

 

[lord999]

Major mistakes: Actuary is not on this list (should be Top 5). Arch Engineering is not a major in most schools. Architects and Structural Engineers are usually distinct.

 

[CarpetTable45]

Major mistakes: Actuary is not on this list (should be Top 5). Arch Engineering is not a major in most schools. Architects and Structural Engineers are usually distinct.

Actuary is not a good major, since it restricts you for no reason. A physics/comp sci/math/chem/elec engineering/comp engineering/chem engineering or some other major requiring rigorous calculations is better. Any one can then jump on the train of exams that actuaries need to take. An actuary specific degree is just a shortcut to studying for the first few preliminary exams, but anyone who has taken rigorous courses in college would be able to study for them by themselves.

I know 2 college acquaintances who went the actuary route (not via an actuary degree) about 15 years ago in NYC area, and both got fellow credential, but they seemed to hit an earning ceiling that the people that went into finance and especially tech did not. I would say they did pay, especially since no one knows the future, but my engineering/math/physics major friends in finance and tech got a much, much better ROI if you include all the time spent studying for actuarial exams.

In general though, I would say college credentials’ economic value is mostly correlated with how well it signals that you are likelier to be capable of more than your competition. So in that sense any major from a top tier school is better than almost all majors from an easy to get into school, and rigorous majors that are known to have less subjectivity and more objectivity are probably better (as in requiring use of hard sciences). This is reflected in the fewer numbers of people with those degrees and the legions of business/psych majors.

 

[PharmtoCS]

Pharmacy only has an unemployment rate of 2.4%? Does that category include those who are driving for Uber instead of working as a pharmacist?

 

[lord999]

Actuary is not a good major, since it restricts you for no reason. A physics/comp sci/math/chem/elec engineering/comp engineering/chem engineering or some other major requiring rigorous calculations is better. Any one can then jump on the train of exams that actuaries need to take. An actuary specific degree is just a shortcut to studying for the first few preliminary exams, but anyone who has taken rigorous courses in college would be able to study for them by themselves.

I know 2 college acquaintances who went the actuary route (not via an actuary degree) about 15 years ago in NYC area, and both got fellow credential, but they seemed to hit an earning ceiling that the people that went into finance and especially tech did not. I would say they did pay, especially since no one knows the future, but my engineering/math/physics major friends in finance and tech got a much, much better ROI if you include all the time spent studying for actuarial exams.

In general though, I would say college credentials’ economic value is mostly correlated with how well it signals that you are likelier to be capable of more than your competition. So in that sense any major from a top tier school is better than almost all majors from an easy to get into school, and rigorous majors that are known to have less subjectivity and more objectivity are probably better (as in requiring use of hard sciences). This is reflected in the fewer numbers of people with those degrees and the legions of business/psych majors.

I don't think so in terms of degree. I'd be curious having passed them myself (as a pharmacist) how often that occurs. For SOA, the number of non-math, non-engineering mathematics passing in my year was 27/135. Quite a number of the actuaries went into FE themselves, and I know that is one of the few majors certain quants will hire from. You actually have to have some proven ability with stochastic calculus to be hired in finance.

Actuaries are like pharmacists in the sense that their salaries are tightly banded, but are quite high relative to other science majors. The ones you mentioned above, particularly CSci are far more variable, and for pure math or physics, I don't know of many who have gotten decent careers within field (sure they can jump to CSci or FE) at the BS level.

What study? I took my SOA's right after pharmacy school (without the official classes) and that was the tradition that you passed within a year of your undergraduate. Same with PE before they made it a graduate school.

But for all 160ish of us who are dual pharmacists/actuaries, sure, we're banded, but the salary premium ($190k to roughly $240k, is current baseline EVEN in Civil Service as you are immediately placed in the SL/ST band for pay irrespective of your nominal GS rank). It's just that rare a cross-skill. My pharmacy degree is a worse ROI than the SOA.

 

[walgreen123]

LOL, architecture #1. I have a bachelor and master in Architecture. My starting salary was 38,000 after graduation and got laid off twice during 2008 depression. And the architecture board exam has 9 subjects. You have to work as an intern-unlicensed whatever three years before you can even take the exam, and it then takes another 3-5 years to take the 9 exams. Believe me, pharmacy is not great, but much better than architecture.

 

[mentos]

LOL, architecture #1. I have a bachelor and master in Architecture. My starting salary was 38,000 after graduation and got laid off twice during 2008 depression. And the architecture board exam has 9 subjects. You have to work as an intern-unlicensed whatever three years before you can even take the exam, and it then takes another 3-5 years to take the 9 exams. Believe me, pharmacy is not great, but much better than architecture.

The writers of the article don't know the difference between architecture and structural engineering.

 

[DH1987]

They are ranking this only on "unemployment rate" and salary, with no regard for how much schooling and debt. But those guys could be flipping burgers for all we know. Also I do not see physicians or dentists anywhere, why is this?

 

[CarpetTable45]

I don't think so in terms of degree. I'd be curious having passed them myself (as a pharmacist) how often that occurs. For SOA, the number of non-math, non-engineering mathematics passing in my year was 27/135. Quite a number of the actuaries went into FE themselves, and I know that is one of the few majors certain quants will hire from. You actually have to have some proven ability with stochastic calculus to be hired in finance.

My experience from the mid 2000s in NYC was that almost all prospective actuaries I met were not actuary majors, but rather math/physics/engineering with a decent amount of others. The first few exams are pretty easy if you are half decent at math. However, I have never heard of a person with an actuary degree being hired by a quant firm. Back then, you either needed to come out of a top tier school or have a hard science degree and some projects showing proficiency in programming, at the bachelor level, and a Masters or PhD preferred for higher level.

Actually, I remember there being a specific effort by the SOA to create a credential that would signal to the finance community that actuaries possessed and were capable of the skills the quant and other finance firms were looking for, since becoming a trader was very in vogue in the mid 2000s. However, I just don't think that SOA had a selective enough filter for their credential, and it was pretty lacking in programming skills.

Actuaries are like pharmacists in the sense that their salaries are tightly banded, but are quite high relative to other science majors. The ones you mentioned above, particularly CSci are far more variable, and for pure math or physics, I don't know of many who have gotten decent careers within field (sure they can jump to CSci or FE) at the BS level.

I assume that if the group of candidates who are smart and disciplined enough to grind through all the SOA/CAS exams would do similarly well grinding through leetcode and programming and have a decent chance landing a job at a FAANG or similar. My perception of an actuarial bachelor's degree is that it's a degree that helps people get through the preliminary actuarial exams, but not exactly difficult compared to any math/physics/statistics/comp sci/engineering degree. That is where my conclusion of having a broader based degree would be more beneficial. Maybe things have changed, back in mid 2000s, I was under the impression employers preferred people with a couple exams, but they valued experience more than just coming out of college having passed 4 exams compared to everyone else's 2 exams.

What study? I took my SOA's right after pharmacy school (without the official classes) and that was the tradition that you passed within a year of your undergraduate. Same with PE before they made it a graduate school.

I think it takes most fellows of SOA/CAS years to pass all the exams. The quickest I ever read about many years ago was someone that did them all in 3 or 4 years, but I am not sure we are talking about the same thing since it definitely was not possible to take all the exams in one year (there were at least 4 to become an associate actuary, and then at least 4 more to become a fellow, given roughly every 6 months). I do not know what you mean by the PE acronym here.

But for all 160ish of us who are dual pharmacists/actuaries, sure, we're banded, but the salary premium ($190k to roughly $240k, is current baseline EVEN in Civil Service as you are immediately placed in the SL/ST band for pay irrespective of your nominal GS rank). It's just that rare a cross-skill. My pharmacy degree is a worse ROI than the SOA.

Are you a fellow of the SOA/CAS? If so, that's very impressive to be both a pharmacist and a fellow. I can understand a PharmD having a worse ROI than using the same time and effort to become a fellow. But I would need more convincing to believe a bachelors in actuarial science is worth much more than a broader hard science/engineering bachelors. At least 15 years ago it was definitely seen as pigeonholing yourself for no reason assuming you had the capacity to self study for the first few exams.

 

[lord999]

My experience from the mid 2000s in NYC was that almost all prospective actuaries I met were not actuary majors, but rather math/physics/engineering with a decent amount of others. The first few exams are pretty easy if you are half decent at math. However, I have never heard of a person with an actuary degree being hired by a quant firm. Back then, you either needed to come out of a top tier school or have a hard science degree and some projects showing proficiency in programming, at the bachelor level, and a Masters or PhD preferred for higher level.

Actually, I remember there being a specific effort by the SOA to create a credential that would signal to the finance community that actuaries possessed and were capable of the skills the quant and other finance firms were looking for, since becoming a trader was very in vogue in the mid 2000s. However, I just don't think that SOA had a selective enough filter for their credential, and it was pretty lacking in programming skills.



I assume that if the group of candidates who are smart and disciplined enough to grind through all the SOA/CAS exams would do similarly well grinding through leetcode and programming and have a decent chance landing a job at a FAANG or similar. My perception of an actuarial bachelor's degree is that it's a degree that helps people get through the preliminary actuarial exams, but not exactly difficult compared to any math/physics/statistics/comp sci/engineering degree. That is where my conclusion of having a broader based degree would be more beneficial. Maybe things have changed, back in mid 2000s, I was under the impression employers preferred people with a couple exams, but they valued experience more than just coming out of college having passed 4 exams compared to everyone else's 2 exams.



I think it takes most fellows of SOA/CAS years to pass all the exams. The quickest I ever read about many years ago was someone that did them all in 3 or 4 years, but I am not sure we are talking about the same thing since it definitely was not possible to take all the exams in one year (there were at least 4 to become an associate actuary, and then at least 4 more to become a fellow, given roughly every 6 months). I do not know what you mean by the PE acronym here.


Are you a fellow of the SOA/CAS? If so, that's very impressive to be both a pharmacist and a fellow. I can understand a PharmD having a worse ROI than using the same time and effort to become a fellow. But I would need more convincing to believe a bachelors in actuarial science is worth much more than a broader hard science/engineering bachelors. At least 15 years ago it was definitely seen as pigeonholing yourself for no reason assuming you had the capacity to self study for the first few exams.

Yes I am, those rules changed around 2010. They exchanged a low pass rate for a longer sequence. The pass rate is much higher now for a longer supervised practice. Pharmacy already has the required field hours to take finals for Life Insurance.

 

[Rouelle]

I would also consider mechanical engineering and petroleum engineering to both be ranked too high on this list. Petroleum was solid 30-40 years ago, but has weakened dramatically over the last few decades. Mechanical is hard to break into as a new grad. I actually know a couple of pharmacists with undergrad degrees in mech engineering who went to pharmacy school because they couldn’t find a job as engineers.

 

[StockPharmD2020]

Yes I am, those rules changed around 2010. They exchanged a low pass rate for a longer sequence. The pass rate is much higher now for a longer supervised practice. Pharmacy already has the required field hours to take finals for Life Insurance.

Wait so anyone can take exams to become an actuary? Do you actually use your pharmacy degree at all?