Hubbry Logo
Academic majorAcademic majorMain
Open search
Academic major
Community hub
Academic major
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Academic major
Academic major
Academic major
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An academic major is the academic discipline to which an undergraduate student formally commits. A student who successfully completes all courses required for the major qualifies for an undergraduate degree. The word major (also called concentration, particularly at private colleges) is also sometimes used administratively to refer to the academic discipline pursued by a graduate student or postgraduate student in a master's or doctoral program.

An academic major typically involves completion of a combination of required and elective courses in the chosen discipline. The latitude a student has in choosing courses varies from program to program.[1] An academic major is administered by select faculty in an academic department. A major administered by more than one academic department is called an interdisciplinary major. In some settings, students may be permitted to design their own major, subject to faculty approval.

In the United States, students are usually not required to choose their major discipline when first enrolling as an undergraduate. In addition, most colleges and universities require that all students take a general core curriculum in the liberal arts. Normally students are required to commit by the end of their second academic year at latest, and some schools even disallow students from declaring a major until this time. A student who declares two academic majors is said to have a double major. A coordinate major is an ancillary major designed to complement the primary one. A coordinate major requires fewer course credits to complete. Many colleges also allow students to declare a minor field, a secondary discipline in which they also take a substantial number of classes, but not so many as would be necessary to complete a major.

History

[edit]

The roots of the academic major as we now know it first surfaced in the 19th century as "alternative components of the undergraduate degree".[2] Before that, all students receiving an undergraduate degree would be required to study the same slate of courses geared at a comprehensive "liberal education".[2]

In 1825, the University of Virginia initiated an educational approach that would allow students to choose from an area of focus. Offering eight options (which included ancient languages, anatomy, medicine), other higher educational systems in Europe began to develop into a stricter specialization approach to studies after the American Civil War.[2]

In the United States, in the second half of the 19th century, concentrated foci at the undergraduate level began to prosper and popularize, but the familiar term "major" did not appear until 1877 in a Johns Hopkins University catalogue. The major generally required 2 years of study, while the minor required one.

From 1880 to 1910, Baccalaureate granting American institutions vastly embraced a free-elective system, where students were endowed with a greater freedom to explore intellectual curiosities.

The 1930s witnessed the appearance of first interdisciplinary major: American studies. Culture was the grounding concept and orchestrating principle for its courses.[2] 1960s to 1970s experienced a new tide of interdisciplinary majors and a relaxation of curriculum and graduation requirements. (Civil Rights Movement spawned Women's studies and Black Studies, for example.) [3] In the 1980s and 1990s, "interdisciplinary studies, multiculturalism, feminist pedagogy, and a renewed concern for the coherence and direction of the undergraduate program began to assail the Baccalaureate degree dominated by the academic major."[2]

Major's significance

[edit]

The academic major is considered a defining and dominant characteristic of the undergraduate degree. "The ascendancy of the disciplines in the late nineteenth century and their continuing dominance throughout the twentieth century have left an indelible imprint on the shape and direction of the academic major" and research affirms that the academic major is the strongest and clearest curricular link to gains in student learning.[2] While general education is considered to be the breadth component of an undergraduate education, the major is commonly deemed the depth aspect.[2] Choice of major has a significant impact on employment prospects and lifetime earnings.[4][5]

Discourse and disagreement

[edit]

Through its development, scholars, academics, and educators have disagreed on the purpose and nature of the undergraduate major. Generally, proponents of the major and departmental system "argue that they enable an academic community to foster the development, conservation and diffusion of knowledge." In contrast, critics "claim that they promote intellectual tribalism, where specialization receives favor over the mastery of multiple epistemologies, where broader values of liberal learning and of campus unity are lost, and where innovation is inhibited due to parochial opposition to new sub-specialties and research methods."[2]

Difference from academic concentration

[edit]

In many universities, an academic concentration is a focus within a specific academic major, that is a field of study within a specific academic major. For example, interdisciplinary programs in humanities or social sciences will require a student to pick a specific academic concentration as a focus within their academic major, such as an academic major in Interdisciplinary Humanities with an academic concentration in Film or an academic major in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences with an academic concentration in Geography. At several art schools and liberal arts colleges, an academic concentration serves a similar function to an academic minor at other universities, that is an academic discipline outside of the student's academic major in which they take a number of classes. At Brown University and Harvard University, however, the term "concentration" refers simply to the major field.

At the doctoral studies level, an academic major or major field refers to a student's primary focus within their degree program while a minor or minor field refers to their secondary focus. For example, a doctoral student studying history might pursue their degree in history with a major field in war and society and a minor field in postcolonial studies.

Impacted majors

[edit]

An impacted major is a major for which more students apply for than the school can accommodate, a classic example of demand exceeding supply. When that occurs, the major becomes "impacted" and so is susceptible to higher standards of admission.

For example, suppose that a school has minimum requirements are SATs of 1100 and a GPA of 3.0. If a person applies to an impacted major, the school can raise the minimum requirements as much as needed to weed out the students that it is unable to accommodate. Because of this, some students may opt to apply to a school as "Undeclared". If in the above example the school implements requirements of SATs of 1300 and a GPA of 3.4 for the impacted major, a student may find it better to apply as "Undeclared" if they meet only the minimum requirements. However, many universities, such as the University of California, Berkeley, may in turn present more difficult requirements (such as a GPA requirement in certain prerequisite classes) to enter an impacted major even once accepted to the university overall.[6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Academic major

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An academic major is the primary field of specialization chosen by undergraduate students in higher education systems, particularly , encompassing a structured sequence of courses in a specific that fulfills a significant portion—typically 30 to 50 percent—of the requirements for a . This system originated in the early nineteenth century amid shifts from rigid classical curricula to elective, discipline-based studies, with the pioneering formal majors in 1825 as alternatives to undifferentiated liberal arts programs. Students generally declare a major by their sophomore year following foundational general education courses, with requirements varying by institution but often mandating 40 to 60 credits in the chosen field, including core, elective, and sometimes capstone components. The choice shapes academic progression, access to advanced opportunities, and post-graduation paths, though international variations exist—such as the UK's honours degrees or continental Europe's broader tracks—rendering the "major" a distinctly American construct influential in global higher education. Empirical analyses reveal stark disparities in labor market outcomes by major, with and graduates achieving median lifetime earnings exceeding $3 million, compared to under $2 million for fields like fine arts or , underscoring causal links between specialized technical training and economic returns. Defining characteristics include flexibility for double majors or minors, yet controversies persist over opportunity costs: proponents of liberal arts emphasize transferable skills like , while data-driven critiques highlight risks in non-STEM areas amid stagnant demand, prompting debates on whether institutional emphases align with verifiable metrics rather than ideological preferences.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

An academic major constitutes the primary field of specialization in undergraduate higher education, wherein a formally commits to a structured program of study centered on a particular or interdisciplinary combination of disciplines, typically comprising a core set of required courses supplemented by electives. This focus requires completion of a minimum threshold of credits—often 30 to 50 semester hours—beyond general mandates, forming the substantive basis for conferring a . The designation of a major signifies a deliberate academic pathway designed to impart specialized knowledge, analytical skills, and practical competencies within the chosen domain, distinguishing it from ancillary pursuits such as minors or concentrations that entail fewer credits and less comprehensive requirements. Predominantly institutionalized in U.S. colleges and universities since the early , the major framework underscores a causal linkage between targeted and professional or graduate-level preparedness, with empirical data indicating that major-aligned curricula correlate with higher post-graduation employment rates in related fields.

Distinctions from Minors, Concentrations, and Other Structures

An academic major constitutes a student's primary area of specialization in undergraduate higher education, typically requiring 30 to 60 credit hours of centered on a specific , forming the core of the requirements. In contrast, a minor represents a secondary field of study, demanding fewer credits—often 15 to 29 hours—and serving as an optional complement to the major without altering the primary degree focus. This distinction ensures the major drives the majority of advanced and capstone experiences, while the minor allows breadth in a related or unrelated area, with completion noted on the transcript but not the in many institutions. Concentrations, also termed specializations or tracks, differ from both majors and minors by operating as sub-divisions within a major, enabling deeper focus on a niche aspect of the primary field; they generally comprise at least 30% of the major's requirements without constituting a separate degree pathway. For instance, a major might include a concentration in , dictating elective courses but remaining embedded in the overarching major structure, unlike a minor which stands independently across departments. This embedded nature means concentrations do not require additional declaration beyond the major and often do not appear separately on diplomas, emphasizing customization over standalone credentials. Other structures, such as emphases or certificates, further delineate from majors by prioritizing skill-specific or vocational training rather than broad disciplinary depth; certificates typically involve 9 to 18 credits in targeted competencies, achievable in one to two semesters, and may be stackable toward degrees but do not fulfill major obligations. Emphases function similarly to concentrations but with even narrower scope, often informal and not always transcripted, reflecting institutional variations where like "focus area" or "option" substitutes for . These distinctions arise from policies aimed at balancing specialization with flexibility, though credit thresholds and notational practices vary—e.g., some schools mandate minors for certain majors, while others treat concentrations as optional refinements.
StructurePrimary RoleTypical CreditsRelation to Major/Degree
MajorCore specialization30-60Defines the degree; primary focus
MinorSecondary, complementary study15-29Independent; optional, transcript-noted
ConcentrationSub-focus within major9-18 (subset)Embedded; customizes major electives
CertificateTargeted skills or vocational add-on9-18Standalone or supplementary; non-degree

Historical Origins and Evolution

Emergence in Early 20th-Century

The transition toward academic majors in U.S. higher education built upon the elective system introduced in the late , particularly under Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, who expanded course choices starting in 1869 to accommodate growing demands for practical and scientific training amid industrialization. By the early 20th century, this flexibility revealed limitations in ensuring depth of knowledge, prompting institutions to formalize specialization requirements. One early milestone occurred in 1885 when , at , implemented the concept of a "major subject," requiring students to focus a significant portion of their in a single discipline to foster expertise. This shift accelerated around 1900, as universities like Yale began introducing concentration requirements in 1901, mandating focused study within a field alongside broader distribution rules, while Cornell adopted similar distribution across knowledge areas in 1905. Harvard refined its approach by 1909 under President , establishing structured concentrations—its term for majors—that demanded at least half of upper-level courses in one area, with the History and Literature concentration dating to 1906 as an initial model. These changes were driven by surging enrollments, from 156,756 students in 1890 to 597,880 by 1920, which strained resources and highlighted the need for curricular organization to manage diversity in student interests and prepare graduates for specialized professions. Additionally, an oversupply of Ph.D.s from emerging American graduate programs in the elevated faculty expertise, enabling departments to advocate for deeper disciplinary focus through curriculum committees. By the and , major requirements became standard at leading institutions, marking a departure from the uniform classical curriculum toward a "concentration and distribution" model that balanced specialization with general . This U.S.-specific evolution reflected causal pressures from and scientific advancement, as disciplines fragmented—evidenced by the founding of 28 new learned societies between 1900 and 1919—necessitating targeted training in fields like , where public universities enrolled 66% of all U.S. students by 1930. Unlike rigid European systems, the American major emphasized student agency in declaration, typically by the junior year, though early adopters like and Yale enforced it sooner to align coursework with vocational outcomes.

Mid-20th-Century Standardization and Expansion

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the , catalyzed a profound expansion of higher education in the United States by providing veterans with tuition assistance, subsistence allowances, and low-interest loans for attendance. Between 1945 and 1956, over 8 million veterans utilized these benefits, more than doubling the number of degrees awarded by American colleges and universities from 1940 to 1950. This influx, representing a sharp rise in postsecondary enrollment from approximately 1.5 million students in 1940 to over 2.7 million by 1950, compelled institutions to scale up academic programs, including the proliferation of specialized majors to meet the demands of a more heterogeneous student body previously underrepresented in higher education. Universities responded by formalizing major requirements, often mandating 30 to 40 credit hours in a primary field alongside general education courses, to ensure structured pathways amid rapid growth. Standardization of the academic major accelerated in the 1950s as regional accrediting bodies, such as the Middle States Association established in , extended their influence to encompass consistency across institutions handling mass enrollment. This era saw the widespread adoption of tiered major structures—distinguishing foundational coursework from advanced electives—and the integration of majors into frameworks, reflecting a shift from elective-heavy systems to more prescriptive models suited to vocational preparation. Empirical data from the period indicate that by the mid-1950s, over 90% of U.S. four-year colleges required students to declare a major, up from sporadic implementation in the interwar years, driven by the need for efficient and labor market alignment. Expansion manifested in the diversification of offerings, with institutions adding majors in emerging fields like and to absorb the veteran cohort's practical inclinations, thereby elevating total conferrals by 150% from pre-war levels. The Soviet Union's launch of on October 4, 1957, further propelled expansion and standardization, particularly in STEM disciplines, by exposing perceived U.S. deficiencies in scientific manpower. In response, the of 1958 allocated $1 billion over seven years for low-interest student loans, graduate fellowships, and curriculum development in mathematics, science, and foreign languages, directly incentivizing enrollment in these majors. This federal intervention standardized STEM major curricula through funded reforms, such as the introduction of rigorous sequences emphasizing laboratory work and quantitative methods, and boosted the proportion of science and engineering degrees from 15% of total bachelor's awards in 1950 to over 20% by 1960. Concurrently, the generation's entry into in the late 1950s amplified demand, pushing enrollment to 3.6 million by 1960 and prompting further institutional proliferation, with the number of degree-granting colleges rising from 1,800 in 1940 to over 2,000 by decade's end. These developments entrenched the major as a cornerstone of American , balancing specialization with scalability.

Global Variations and Modern Adaptations

In the United States, emphasizes a broad liberal arts foundation alongside specialization in a major, typically requiring 120-130 credit hours over four years, including general education courses in humanities, sciences, and social sciences to foster interdisciplinary exposure before deep focus. In contrast, many European systems, harmonized under the 1999 , prioritize early specialization with three-year bachelor's degrees centered on a primary discipline, minimizing general education requirements and allocating 180 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits almost entirely to the chosen field for greater depth. This structure reflects historical influences, such as the UK's honors degrees focusing on single subjects from entry, differing from the U.S. model of delayed declaration allowing major switches in about 80% of students at some institutions. Variations extend to other regions, where Latin American universities often blend European specialization with U.S.-style breadth, featuring four-year licentiate degrees influenced by Spanish and colonial legacies, though enrollment in professional fields like dominates due to labor market demands. In Asia, systems vary widely: India's three-year bachelor's programs require early program selection via national entrance exams, emphasizing vocational alignment, while Japan's four-year degrees incorporate more general education akin to the U.S., with majors in fields like comprising over 20% of graduates. African higher , often modeled on British or French systems, features specialized three- to four-year degrees with limited flexibility, constrained by resource limitations and high STEM enrollment rates exceeding 40% in countries like to address developmental needs. Modern adaptations respond to and pressures, with interdisciplinary majors surging: U.S. institutions reported a 20% increase in such programs from 2010 to 2020, combining fields like with to equip students for complex job markets. Online majors have expanded post-2020, with platforms delivering flexible, skills-focused curricula; for instance, competency-based programs in and the U.S. allow credit for prior learning, reducing completion time by up to 30% and prioritizing demonstrable skills over seat time. In response to employer demands for transversal competencies, adaptations include work-integrated learning in majors, as seen in Australian and Canadian systems where 70% of undergraduates engage in internships tied to their specialization, enhancing causal links between and labor outcomes. These shifts, driven by technological disruption, challenge traditional major rigidity while preserving specialization's core rationale in building expertise.

Educational Purpose and Mechanics

Rationale for Specialization

Specialization in an academic major enables students to attain depth of expertise in a chosen , which is prerequisite for advanced , professional competence, or specialized labor market entry, as superficial breadth across multiple fields rarely confers mastery in any. This structure builds sequentially on prerequisite knowledge, allowing progression to complex applications, methodologies, and domain-specific problem-solving that generalist curricula cannot accommodate within typical degree timelines. For instance, in fields like or , majors require cumulative —often 30-50% of credits—culminating in capstone projects or theses that demonstrate and empirical application, fostering skills unattainable through dispersed study. The design reflects recognition that knowledge domains exhibit increasing complexity, where foundational concepts must precede integrative or innovative work; thus, majors partition curricula to prioritize causal mechanisms over rote memorization, aligning with faculty-led instruction in research-intensive institutions. Empirical analyses of educational systems show that concentrated specialization correlates with enhanced in the focal area, as students invest time in sustained focus rather than fragmented exposure, though this assumes alignment with aptitudes to mitigate mismatch risks. University policies, such as those standardizing major requirements post-1920s reforms, codified this to counter prior elective systems' inefficiencies, ensuring graduates possess verifiable proficiency signals for employers or graduate admissions. Critics from liberal arts traditions argue for greater breadth to cultivate versatile thinkers, but evidence from preparatory studies indicates depth yields superior outcomes in subsequent specialized pursuits, as partial knowledge hinders transferability to rigorous contexts. Majors thus serve a signaling function, certifying commitment and capability amid asymmetric information in hiring, while distribution requirements preserve minimal interdisciplinary exposure without diluting core focus. This balance addresses modern economies' demand for role-specific skills, where generalism suffices less than targeted acumen, per labor economics observations.

Curriculum Requirements and Flexibility

Curriculum requirements for an academic major in U.S. undergraduate programs typically include a set of foundational core courses, advanced disciplinary courses, and electives, often culminating in a capstone project, , or comprehensive exam. These elements ensure depth in the chosen field while allowing progression from basic to specialized knowledge. Total credits dedicated to the major generally range from 30 to 60 semester hours, comprising 25-50% of the 120 credits required for most bachelor's degrees. For example, the specifies a minimum of 36 credits in the major, with at least 24 at the upper-division level. Flexibility within these requirements differs by institution, discipline, and program design. STEM majors, such as or , tend to feature more prescriptive sequences due to prerequisites that build technical competencies cumulatively—e.g., before differential equations—necessitated by the causal dependencies in scientific and mathematical reasoning. and social sciences majors, by comparison, often provide broader elective options, enabling customization around subfields like or . Statistics programs exemplify variation, with requirements spanning 31 to 54 credits, including core probability courses and applied electives. Certain universities enhance flexibility through innovative structures. University's Open Curriculum, implemented since 1969, omits general education distribution requirements, allowing students to allocate more credits toward major-specific or exploratory coursework while satisfying departmental guidelines via advisor approval. Similarly, permits modifications to major requirements with faculty chair consent, fostering individualized programs. Such approaches contrast with standardized models at public institutions, where accreditation bodies like impose stricter outlines for professional fields to align with industry standards. Double majors or interdisciplinary options add layers of adaptability but require non-overlapping credits to maintain rigor, typically capping shared coursework at 10-20% across fields. Overall, while core mandates promote specialized expertise, elective provisions and institutional variances support adaptation to student interests, though empirical evidence links excessive flexibility to potential gaps in foundational skills.

Processes of Selection and Declaration

Factors Guiding Student Choices

Personal interests and aptitudes frequently emerge as primary drivers in students' major selections, with surveys of undergraduates indicating that enjoyment of and alignment with innate skills outweigh other considerations for a substantial portion of respondents. In an experimental study involving over 1,000 undergraduates, participants prioritized subject enjoyment and perceived ability when ranking major preferences, even when presented with salary differentials, suggesting that intrinsic factors exert a causal pull independent of pecuniary incentives. This aligns with observational from U.S. students, where self-reported passion for the field predicted major persistence more reliably than initial earnings projections. However, such self-reports may understate economic influences due to in academic surveys, as evidenced by randomized interventions showing salary information shifts choices toward higher-paying fields by 10-15%. Anticipated career prospects and earnings potential significantly shape decisions, particularly for students from lower-income backgrounds or those facing explicit labor market data. Analysis of administrative data from over 500,000 U.S. undergraduates reveals that exposure to early-career salary information via tools like the College Scorecard increases enrollment in high-earnings majors such as by up to 5 percentage points, with effects concentrated among transfers responsive to regional job demand. Longitudinal tracking from the shows that majors with median lifetime earnings exceeding $2.5 million—predominantly in STEM—attraction rates correlate with unemployment forecasts, where a 1% rise in projected job openings boosts applications by 2-3%. Conversely, students from higher-socioeconomic families, often with access to networks mitigating early risks, opt for majors like despite flatter earnings trajectories, as parental graduate degrees predict selection of fields with initial salaries 10-20% below average but 30% higher growth over a . Familial and social influences, including parental education and expectations, exert substantial effects, often channeling students toward majors mirroring family backgrounds or cultural norms. Data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond survey indicate that students whose parents hold degrees in a specific field—such as or —are 2-3 times more likely to declare that major, with this intergenerational transmission explaining up to 25% of variance in choices beyond individual aptitude. Same-gender parental modeling amplifies this, as daughters of female STEM professionals show 15% higher STEM enrollment rates, per panel studies controlling for ability scores. Peer networks and high school advising play secondary roles, with cluster-randomized trials demonstrating that peer exposure to a major via group discussions increases uptake by 8%, though these effects diminish in competitive environments prioritizing individual ROI. Institutional availability constrains options, as underrepresented majors at selective universities see 20-30% lower declaration rates due to curriculum gaps. Prior academic performance and early college experiences further guide selections, with high school GPA and introductory course grades serving as signals of fit. Students with GPAs above 3.5 disproportionately enter rigorous fields like or , where mismatch risks are higher, while those below 3.0 switch majors at rates exceeding 40% within two years, often toward less demanding options per transcript analyses from over 100 institutions. Gender norms persist empirically, with women comprising 70% of majors despite equal distributions, linked to societal expectations rather than innate differences, as twin studies attribute only 10-15% of variance to versus environmental cues. These patterns underscore causal pathways from pre-college signals to declarations, though academic sources may overemphasize equity interventions while underreporting merit-based sorting due to institutional incentives.

Switching Majors and Associated Costs

Approximately 33% of students enrolled in programs change their majors at least once within three years of initial postsecondary enrollment, based on a cohort starting in 2011-12. An additional 9% of these students switch more than once in the same timeframe. Rates vary by initial field, with 35% of STEM majors switching compared to 29% in non-STEM fields. These shifts often stem from evolving interests, academic performance mismatches, or career reevaluations, though institutional policies on declaration timing and credit transfer influence feasibility. Switching incurs temporal costs through prolonged time to degree, as new majors may require prerequisite courses or sequenced requirements not fulfilled in prior studies. Switches occurring before the sixth typically impose negligible delays, allowing alignment with standard four-year timelines. Later changes, however, frequently extend enrollment by one or more semesters to complete major-specific credits, contributing to the observed average time to of 4.4 years at research universities and 4.8 years at other institutions. Only 44% of first-time bachelor's recipients from the 2015-16 cohort completed within 48 months. Financial burdens arise directly from extra tuition and fees, which average $9,375 annually at public four-year institutions (in-state) and $35,852 at private nonprofits as of recent data. An added semester or year thus escalates out-of-pocket or debt obligations by 5,000−5,000-18,000 or more per term, excluding room, board, or supplies. Switches can also exhaust time-limited financial aid, such as four-year Pell Grants, forcing reliance on loans with interest accrual. Opportunity costs compound this, as delayed graduation defers workforce entry and initial earnings; median starting salaries for bachelor's holders approximate $50,000 annually, implying $25,000-$50,000 in forgone income per additional year. Non-monetary costs include potential grade point average declines from restarted sequences and administrative hurdles like approval processes or reevaluations, which vary by . Empirical analyses indicate that while early switching may enhance persistence and completion odds by better matching aptitude, late or multiple changes correlate with higher dropout risks and elevated loads without guaranteed compensatory benefits in long-term outcomes. mitigate some costs through advising and flexible core curricula, but systemic rigidities in major prerequisites persist as causal drivers of extended timelines.

Major Categories and Characteristics

STEM Disciplines

STEM disciplines refer to academic majors in , , , and , a categorization formalized by the (NSF) to encompass fields requiring substantial knowledge in these areas, including biological and physical sciences, computer and information sciences, disciplines, and and statistics. These majors prioritize empirical validation, mathematical rigor, and technical application over interpretive or normative frameworks, aligning curricula with observable phenomena and quantifiable outcomes rather than subjective constructs. In higher education, STEM programs typically demand proficiency in foundational quantitative tools, such as sequences and linear , as prerequisites for advanced coursework, ensuring students can model complex systems accurately. Core characteristics include intensive problem-solving oriented toward causal mechanisms, with science majors emphasizing experimental and through protocols—such as controlled testing in chemistry or field observations in —while technology and fields integrate applied , prototyping, and iterative testing to address engineering constraints like material properties and efficiency metrics. Mathematics majors focus on abstract proofs and theoretical structures, often requiring courses in and , whereas computer science curricula stress , data structures, and computational theory, frequently incorporating programming in languages like Python or C++ from the outset. These elements foster skills in logical deduction and , with programs often featuring capstone projects that simulate professional challenges, such as developing software for optimization problems or solutions to structural loads. Unlike other major categories, STEM disciplines exhibit lower tolerance for unsubstantiated claims due to their grounding in replicable evidence and mathematical consistency, which limits the influence of ideological priors in curriculum design; for instance, physics courses derive principles from Newtonian mechanics or quantum equations without deference to non-empirical viewpoints. Enrollment data from the NSF indicate that in 2021, STEM bachelor's degrees constituted about 20% of U.S. awards, with engineering and computer sciences showing the highest growth rates at over 10% annually since 2010, reflecting demand for verifiable expertise in technological advancement. Attrition rates remain elevated, averaging 40-50% in introductory courses like calculus or physics, attributable to the unyielding prerequisites of precision and perseverance rather than external factors.

Humanities and Social Sciences

Humanities majors encompass the study of human culture, thought, and creative expression, including disciplines such as literature, philosophy, history, languages, religion, and the arts. These fields emphasize qualitative methods, involving analytical interpretation, moral speculation, and critical evaluation of texts, artifacts, and ideas rather than empirical experimentation. Social sciences majors, by contrast, apply systematic inquiry to human society and behavior, covering areas like , , , , and . These disciplines often integrate scientific approaches, including quantitative , surveys, and observational studies, to examine patterns in social structures, institutions, economies, and interpersonal dynamics. While some subfields like rely heavily on mathematical modeling, others such as prioritize qualitative insights into group behaviors and cultural norms. Curricula in both categories typically feature intensive reading, writing, and discussion-based seminars, fostering skills in argumentation, ethical reasoning, and contextual analysis. Humanities programs may include core courses on foundational texts or "great questions" spanning , , and literature, with electives in specialized topics like or . Social sciences curricula often incorporate statistical methods, , and fieldwork, enabling students to test hypotheses about causal relationships in human affairs. Unlike STEM fields, these majors prioritize interpretive depth over technical specialization, developing adaptability and nuanced problem-solving applicable to diverse contexts. A notable characteristic of humanities and social sciences departments is their pronounced ideological imbalance, with faculty surveys indicating ratios as high as 12:1 favoring liberal over conservative viewpoints, particularly in social sciences where approximately 58% identify as liberal and only 5% as conservative. This skew, documented across multiple studies, stems from self-selection, hiring preferences, and cultural norms within academia, potentially influencing research priorities, peer review, and curriculum framing toward progressive interpretations of social phenomena while marginalizing dissenting perspectives. Such bias raises questions about the fields' commitment to viewpoint diversity and empirical neutrality, as evidenced by lower replication rates in ideologically charged social science research compared to more objective domains. In terms of scale, these majors represent a substantial portion of undergraduate degrees; for instance, in the 2021–22 academic year, U.S. institutions conferred 155,400 bachelor's degrees in social sciences and , alongside significant numbers in and other humanities-aligned fields, though enrollment has declined relative to professional majors amid concerns over direct employability. Graduates acquire transferable competencies like and communication, valued by employers for roles in , media, and , yet these fields often yield lower initial earnings than quantitative disciplines due to their emphasis on broad intellectual training over vocational skills.

Professional and Vocational Fields

Professional and vocational fields represent a category of academic majors oriented toward equipping students with specialized, applied knowledge and skills for direct entry into designated occupations or professions. These programs differ from more theoretical disciplines by emphasizing practical training, adherence to industry standards, and preparation for licensure or certification, often integrating experiential components like internships, apprenticeships, or clinical practice to bridge learning with workplace demands. In the United States, such majors typically culminate in bachelor's degrees, such as the or , and are designed to meet accreditation criteria from bodies like the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education or the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Common examples include , which requires coursework in , , and patient care alongside supervised clinical hours; , focusing on , , and classroom management with mandatory student teaching; business administration, covering , , and principles often with case studies and simulations; and fields like accounting or hospitality management, which prepare students for roles involving financial auditing or operational logistics. Vocational-oriented variants, such as those in or studies, prioritize technical proficiencies like medical coding or legal research, frequently aligning with associate-to-bachelor's pathways in systems. These majors attract students seeking defined career paths, with curricula structured around core competencies rather than broad electives to ensure graduates possess verifiable professional readiness. Characteristics of these fields include a high degree of standardization to comply with regulatory requirements, such as state licensing exams for teachers or nurses, which influences course sequencing and assessment methods favoring performance-based evaluations over theses. Programs often foster networks through affiliations with industry partners, enhancing but potentially limiting interdisciplinary exposure compared to or pure sciences. While effective for causal alignment between and job market entry—evidenced by structured outcomes like pass rates on exams—these majors can constrain adaptability if economic shifts devalue specific vocations, underscoring the importance of foundational skills like embedded within applied contexts.

Empirical Outcomes: Employment and Economics

Earnings Differentials by Major Type

STEM majors, encompassing fields such as , , and physical sciences, yield the highest annual among prime-age workers (ages 25-54), at $98,000, driven by high demand for specialized technical skills in industry and technology sectors. Recent projections for starting salaries among the Class of 2026 further highlight this advantage, with the NACE Winter 2026 Salary Survey reporting computer science majors at $81,535 (up 6.9% from the prior year), engineering overall at $81,198 (up 3.1%), petroleum engineering topping individual majors at $100,750, and math and sciences at $74,184; engineering subfields like aerospace, chemical, and electrical, along with computer science, consistently rank as top earners, with mid-career salaries often exceeding $120,000. In contrast, and majors average $58,000 to $73,000, reflecting broader applicability but lower scarcity value in labor markets dominated by quantitative demands. Professional and vocational fields, including and health professions, fall in between, with medians often exceeding $80,000 due to direct pathways to licensure and corporate roles. Lifetime earnings amplify these differentials: and majors achieve median totals around $3.8 million, compared to $2 million for majors, underscoring the compounding effects of early wage premiums and occupational stability. U.S. data from 2023 further illustrates category-specific gaps, with computer and mathematical science degrees earning medians above $90,000 annually for full-time workers, while social sciences and history hover near $65,000-$70,000, influenced partly by composition where men in lower-paying fields earn 10-20% more than women in the same categories.
Major CategoryMedian Annual Earnings (Prime-Age, 2023-2025 Data)Example High-Earning Subfield
STEM$98,000: $146,000
Business/Professional80,000−80,000-95,000 Professions: $90,000+
/Social Sciences58,000−58,000-73,000: $63,000 (women); $75,000+ (men)
$58,000General Education: $55,000-$68,000 by gender
These disparities persist after controlling for institution selectivity and demographics, attributable primarily to skill mismatches with employer needs rather than inherent student ability differences, as evidenced by lower returns for non-STEM graduates even at . Reports from sources like the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce emphasize that while all bachelor's degrees outperform high school diplomas by 70% in median earnings, field-specific choices explain up to 50% of variance in outcomes, cautioning against overreliance on generalist degrees in skill-polarized economies.

Underemployment and Long-Term ROI Analysis

Underemployment among college graduates refers to employment in positions that do not require a or utilize the skills acquired through major-specific coursework, often measured as working in jobs typically held by those with high school diplomas or less. A 2024 report by the Burning Glass Institute and Strada Education Foundation found that 52% of recent recipients were underemployed one year after graduation, with 45% remaining so a later, based on of over 2 million graduates from 2010 onward. This persistence indicates structural mismatches between academic and labor market demands, exacerbated by factors like obsolescence and employer preferences for over credentials. Underemployment rates vary significantly by major, with STEM and professional fields exhibiting lower incidences compared to humanities and social sciences. For instance, graduates in health professions such as experience underemployment rates differing by only about 1% from optimal employment levels, while majors like communications (45.8%) and (44%) show markedly higher rates shortly after graduation. Engineering and majors typically achieve underemployment below 37% within the first year, reflecting direct alignment with high-demand technical roles. In contrast, liberal arts graduates, though initially prone to underemployment, demonstrate higher mobility into college-level jobs within the first few years post-graduation, though many remain in non-degree-requiring roles long-term. Long-term return on investment (ROI) for academic majors assesses the net economic benefit of a degree, typically calculated as the of lifetime premium (over high school graduates) minus costs including tuition, fees, forgone during study, and opportunity costs, often discounted at rates like 4% to reflect . Empirical analyses, drawing from U.S. and administrative data, reveal a lifetime ROI of approximately $160,000 for bachelor's degrees overall, but with substantial dispersion by field; yields $949,000, $652,000, $619,000, and $549,000, while fine arts, , English, and often register low or negative returns due to subdued trajectories. These estimates incorporate underemployment risks by using actual distributions from completers, adjusted for non-completion probabilities around 40%. Internal rates of return (IRR), an alternative metric treating as an investment yielding annual returns, further highlight disparities: averages 14%, and social sciences 8-9%, with and below 5% in many cases, based on a 2024 study of 5.8 million using tax records and data. erodes ROI by compressing early-career , particularly in non-vocational majors where graduates frequently occupy roles with median wages 20-30% below degree-matched positions; however, high-ROI fields mitigate this through rapid skill utilization and wage growth tied to productivity gains. Aggregate lifetime for bachelor's holders exceed high school graduates by $900,000 for men and $630,000 for women, but major-specific choices amplify or diminish this premium, underscoring the causal link between curricular focus and economic outcomes.
Major CategoryExample MajorsMedian Lifetime ROI (USD)Typical Underemployment (1 Year Post-Grad)
High-ROI STEM, 652,000–949,000<37%
Professional, 549,000–619,000~1-10% variance from optimal
Low-ROI Humanities/Social SciencesFine Arts, , EnglishNegative to low (e.g., <100,000)40-46%
This table illustrates prototypical outcomes; actual ROI depends on institution, debt levels, and regional labor markets, with recent data indicating declining returns for oversupplied fields amid stagnant wage growth in non-technical sectors.

Criticisms, Debates, and Controversies

Risks of Over-Specialization

Over-specialization in an academic major, particularly when pursued early in undergraduate studies, can constrain career adaptability by locking individuals into narrow sets that may not transfer well across industries or withstand economic disruptions. Empirical analyses of labor reveal that graduates from highly specific majors face greater vulnerability to sector-specific shocks, such as technological obsolescence or demand fluctuations, leading to prolonged periods of or retraining needs. For example, during the 2014-2016 oil price collapse, unemployment rates for graduates surged to over 10%, far exceeding broader engineering fields, underscoring how niche expertise amplifies exposure to cyclical risks. Research in labor economics highlights that while specific majors yield short-term earnings premiums of 5-6% over general ones, they correlate with diminished long-term flexibility, including lower probabilities of promotion to managerial positions that interdisciplinary competencies. A study of college major specificity using U.S. data found that such narrow focuses reduce occupational mobility, as workers with specialized experience steeper earnings penalties—up to 20% losses—following involuntary displacements compared to generalists, who leverage transferable skills for quicker reemployment. This pattern persists because over-specialization often prioritizes depth over breadth, impeding the development of versatile problem-solving abilities essential in dynamic economies. Moreover, early specialization systems, as observed in comparative international studies, link to suboptimal early-career outcomes, including assignment to lower-wage industries due to mismatched local labor demands and reduced ability to pivot without significant additional . In contexts where students declare majors in the first year, graduates exhibit 10-15% lower initial wages and higher mismatch rates with optimal job sectors, as narrow fails to build the foundational adaptability needed for sustained amid rapid skill depreciation from and . These risks are compounded by institutional incentives in higher education that favor departmental silos over holistic curricula, potentially overlooking the causal link between breadth and resilience in volatile markets.

Ideological Biases in Curricula

Surveys of political affiliations reveal a pronounced left-leaning skew across academic disciplines, with the disparity most acute in and social sciences, where liberals outnumber conservatives by ratios exceeding 10:1 in some analyses. This homogeneity, documented in national surveys of over 1,600 professors, correlates with self-reported ideological identifications rather than alone, persisting even after controlling for institutional type and region. In contrast, STEM fields exhibit somewhat greater balance, though still tilting leftward, with overall faculty identifying as liberal or far-left comprising around 60% in recent Higher Education Research Institute data. Content analyses of syllabi provide direct evidence of this imbalance manifesting in curricula, particularly through the selective presentation of viewpoints on contentious issues. A 2025 study drawing from millions of syllabi in the Open Syllabus Project database found that professors overwhelmingly assign readings and frame discussions favoring left-wing interpretations of topics like , , and race, with conservative or dissenting perspectives appearing in fewer than 5% of cases across sampled courses. Similarly, a review of over 200 syllabi from major universities revealed that 90% of assigned texts and assignments emphasized progressive frameworks, such as or , while omitting or marginalizing empirical critiques from conservative scholars. These patterns hold in courses, where examinations of Open Syllabus data indicate a "monoculture" of liberal-leaning authors dominating reading lists, potentially limiting exposure to alternative causal analyses or data-driven counterarguments. Such curricular tendencies have measurable effects on student outcomes, with longitudinal studies showing that majors in and social sciences experience greater shifts toward compared to STEM peers, even after accounting for pre-enrollment attitudes. from British cohorts, for instance, estimate that and exposure increases support for progressive policies by 0.1-0.2 standard deviations, attributable in part to the ideological content of rather than socialization alone. Critics attribute this not to deliberate but to the filtering effects of and hiring, where conservative viewpoints face systemic underrepresentation, leading to curricula that privilege interpretive frameworks aligned with faculty consensus over balanced empirical scrutiny. While some reviews find limited direct evidence of biased grading or suppression, the predominance of one-sided source materials raises concerns about causal realism in teaching, as students encounter underexplored trade-offs in policy debates or historical interpretations. Efforts to quantify bias in professional fields yield mixed results, but social sciences curricula often integrate ideological priors into methodological training, such as prioritizing qualitative narratives over falsifiable hypotheses in areas like . Empirical models of suggest this extends to teaching, where theories flattering liberal self-conceptions—e.g., systemic oppression as primary causal driver—dominate syllabi at the expense of individual agency or market-based explanations. Recent faculty surveys indicate awareness of this issue, with only 20% believing a conservative colleague would "fit well" in their department, underscoring self-perpetuating dynamics that shape course content. Despite calls for viewpoint diversity, enrollment in ideologically uniform majors persists, potentially amplifying opportunity costs for students seeking rigorous, multiperspectival analysis.

Questioning Overall Value in Contemporary Economy

Critics argue that the conventional push for academic majors overlooks diminishing marginal returns in an economy increasingly driven by technological disruption and skill-specific demands, where many degrees fail to deliver commensurate economic benefits relative to their costs. A 2023 analysis by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP) examined over 53,000 degree programs and found that 23% of bachelor's degrees yield a negative net present value, factoring in tuition, fees, forgone earnings, and projected lifetime income; this equates to programs where graduates would have been financially better off entering the workforce directly after high school. Such variability underscores that while aggregate statistics show positive returns for college overall—estimated at a median 12.5% internal rate of return by Federal Reserve Bank of New York researchers in 2025—outcomes diverge sharply by major, institution, and completion time, with extended durations (e.g., five or six years) eroding returns to as low as 9%. Underemployment further amplifies these concerns, as a significant portion of degree holders occupy roles not requiring postsecondary , diluting the credential's signaling value in labor markets saturated with graduates. Data from the Strada of Work and Institute indicate that 52% of recent bachelor's recipients are one year post-graduation, dropping to but remaining at 44% after a , with and majors facing rates exceeding 50%. Recent graduates (ages 22-27) experienced unemployment rates of 9.3% in 2025, more than double the 3.7% for all bachelor's holders, per and labor analyses, reflecting mismatches between curricula and employer needs amid and AI advancements that prioritize practical competencies over generalist knowledge. Public skepticism has intensified, with Gallup polling in 2025 revealing only 35% of Americans view a four-year degree as "very important" for success—down from 75% in 2010—driven by escalating tuition (averaging 10,000−10,000-50,000 annually at public and private institutions) and average student surpassing $30,000 per borrower, per surveys. Although median weekly earnings for bachelor's holders reached $1,533 in 2024 versus $946 for high school graduates (), the college wage premium has stagnated or narrowed for younger cohorts since the 2000s, per , as high school completers in trades or vocational paths capture outsized gains without burdens. This prompts causal scrutiny: much of the premium may stem from selection effects—ambitious individuals pursuing degrees—rather than causal skill acquisition, a advanced in economic questioning education's productive versus functions.

Recent Developments and Alternatives

In the early , U.S. postsecondary institutions conferred approximately 2 million bachelor's degrees annually, with completions holding relatively steady from 1.96 million in 2019–20 to 2.04 million in 2021–22 despite disruptions from the . This stability masked divergent trends by major, as students increasingly favored fields aligned with labor market demands, such as computer and information sciences, which rose 11.7% from 97,100 degrees in 2019–20 to 108,500 in 2021–22. also grew 8.0% over the same period, reaching 129,600 degrees, reflecting sustained interest in amid mental health awareness post-pandemic. Conversely, humanities subfields experienced notable declines; for instance, degrees fell 12.1% from 38,000 in 2019–20 to 33,400 in 2021–22, while remained flat around 11,000–12,000 annually before a slight dip. Broader categories, encompassing , languages, and , saw their share of total bachelor's degrees drop to 12.5% in 2021–22 from 16.8% a decade earlier, with historical fields declining nearly 37% in conferrals over that span. Social sciences and similarly contracted 6.2% from 161,200 to 151,100 degrees between 2019–20 and 2021–22. Business remained the most conferred major, with 375,400 degrees in 2021–22, though it dipped 4.1% from its 2020–21 peak of 391,400 amid broader enrollment pressures. professions hovered around 260,000–268,000 annually, buoyed by healthcare workforce needs, while saw a modest 4.1% decline to 123,000. and visual/ degrees stayed largely stable at 89,000–90,000 bachelor's degrees each year, with 90,241 bachelor's degrees in visual and performing arts conferred in 2021–22: White students (51,413, 57%), Hispanic (14,402, 16%), Black (7,462, 8%), Asian (6,320, 7%), two or more races (4,469, 5%), nonresident (5,706, 6%), American Indian/Alaska Native (344, <1%), Pacific Islander (125, <1%). At the master's level, 16,517 degrees in visual and performing arts were conferred in 2019–20: White (8,312, 50%), nonresident alien (4,140, 25%), Hispanic (1,413, 9%), Black (1,179, 7%), Asian (835, 5%). These patterns persisted into 2023–24, with preliminary reports indicating continued growth in STEM-designated programs and a sharp drop in awards between 2021 and 2022.
Field of Study2019–20 (thousands)2020–21 (thousands)2021–22 (thousands)% Change (2019–20 to 2021–22)
Computer Sciences97.1104.9108.5+11.7%
120.0126.9129.6+8.0%
English Language/Literature38.035.833.4-12.1%
Social Sciences & 161.2160.9151.1-6.2%
387.9391.4375.4-3.2%
Overall undergraduate enrollment fell 8.4% from its peak to 19.3 million by fall 2024, with four-year institutions showing uneven recovery favoring vocational majors over traditional liberal arts. This shift correlates with economic factors, including rising tuition costs and scrutiny over degree returns, prompting students to prioritize majors with clearer pathways.

Rise of Non-Traditional Pathways

In response to escalating tuition costs, which reached an average of $41,950 annually for private four-year institutions in the 2023-2024 academic year, and exceeding $1.7 trillion nationwide, non-traditional pathways such as coding bootcamps, apprenticeships, and certifications have gained traction as alternatives to traditional majors. These options emphasize practical skills acquisition over theoretical , appealing to individuals seeking faster entry into high-demand fields like and trades amid employer surveys indicating a for demonstrable competencies. For instance, a 2023 survey found that 75% of hiring managers anticipate skills-based hiring dominating future recruitment, with nearly one in five job postings omitting degree requirements. Coding bootcamps exemplify this shift, with the global market valued at $2.1 billion in 2023 and projected to grow at a 30.3% through 2029, driven by demand for software developers. Enrollment in U.S. bootcamps surged post-2020, with verified outcomes from the Council on Integrity in Results Reporting (CIRR) showing member programs achieving rates of 80-90% within six months of graduation for roles in and , often at starting salaries comparable to entry-level bachelor's holders. Despite challenges like market saturation and AI disruptions prompting some closures, such as 2U's bootcamp shutdown in 2025, bootcamps remain viable for self-motivated learners, offering programs lasting 3-6 months at costs under $15,000 versus four-year degrees averaging $100,000 or more. Apprenticeships have similarly expanded, particularly in , healthcare, and , with U.S. Department of Labor data indicating over 600,000 active apprentices in 2023, a 50% increase since 2013. These earn-while-learn models yield high retention rates exceeding 80% upon completion and starting wages often matching or surpassing those of recent graduates in underemployment-prone fields, as evidenced by a 2025 survey showing apprentice hiring rising 8% year-over-year while graduate hiring fell by the same margin. Employers value apprenticeships for producing job-ready workers, with 85% of leaders in a 2024 viewing them as viable degree substitutes. Online certifications from platforms like and further democratize access, with Udacity reporting 84% of 2024 Nanodegree completers achieving positive career outcomes, including job changes or promotions, in tech domains. An estimated 21% of U.S. adults hold non-degree credentials, correlating with 6.5% premiums over high school equivalents, per 2025 labor analyses. This trend aligns with broader employer adoption of skills-based hiring, where 90% of companies report superior performance from skills-focused recruits over degree-reliant ones, per ADP's 2024 findings, reflecting a market response to college graduates' skills gaps noted in 85% of employer feedback. Post-pandemic surveys show 63% of young adults open to non-four-year options, up 7 points, underscoring causal links to economic pressures and demonstrated ROI in flexible, targeted training.

References

  1. https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents/college-planning-resources/choosing-a-college/how-to-choose-a-major.html
  2. https://advising.uw.edu/degree-overview/majors/
  3. https://catalog.ucsd.edu/undergraduate/degree-requirements/index.html
  4. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1726/Academic-Major.html
  5. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/major-payoff/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5198720/
  7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2015/06/19/liberal-arts-vs-stem-the-right-degrees-the-wrong-debate/
  8. https://provost.charlotte.edu/policies-procedures/academic-policies-and-procedures/definition-undergraduate-majors-minors/
  9. https://provost.illinois.edu/education-1/courses-programs/academic-program-definitions/
  10. https://www.sulross.edu/about/what-is-a-major-minor-or-concentration/
  11. https://policy.ku.edu/provost/academic-program-definitions
  12. https://www.gbc.edu/academics/differences-in-majors-minors-concentrations-and-certificates/
  13. https://bau.edu/blog/major-vs-minor/
  14. https://www.coloradotech.edu/blog/2025/september/college-degree-vs-major-vs-concentration-what-s-the-difference
  15. https://www.stjohns.edu/news-media/johnnies-blog/majors-minors-concentrations
  16. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/the_shaping_of_higher_education_the_formative_years_in_the_united_states_1890_to_1940.pdf
  17. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3773
  18. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/servicemens-readjustment-act
  19. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/postwar-era/a/the-gi-bill
  20. https://centreforpublicimpact.org/public-impact-fundamentals/the-us-gi-bill-the-new-deal-for-veterans/
  21. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/342012
  22. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-294
  23. https://www.msche.org/about-us/history/
  24. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
  25. https://wallyboston.com/higher-education-history/
  26. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Sputnik_Spurs_Passage_of_National_Defense_Education_Act.htm
  27. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/10/how-sputnik-changed-u-s-education/
  28. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/how-bachelors-degrees-in-the-us-and-europe-differ
  29. https://digitaldefynd.com/IQ/college-education-in-usa-vs-europe/
  30. https://beyondthestates.com/college-in-europe-vs-us/
  31. https://www.hoover.org/research/doing-it-wrong-and-doing-it-right-education-latin-america-and-asia
  32. https://potomac.edu/the-most-popular-degrees-in-us-and-worldwide/
  33. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/tertiaryeducation
  34. https://lpsonline.sas.upenn.edu/features/interdisciplinary-learning-future-higher-education
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02376-5
  36. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/A-World-of-Transformation-Moving-from-Degrees-to-Skills-Based-Alternative-Credentials.pdf
  37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1441978.pdf
  38. https://soraschools.com/blog/the-role-of-interdisciplinary-classes-in-modern-education
  39. https://www.nber.org/papers/w15943
  40. https://ww.sunyempire.edu/degree-planning-academic-review/evaluator-resources/assessing-learning/breadth-and-depth/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775725000871
  42. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00031224211056267
  43. https://www.academia.edu/59926029/Higher_Education_During_the_20th_Century_The_Birth_of_College_Majors
  44. https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-finds-students-benefit-depth-rather-breadth-high-school-science-courses
  45. https://catalog.uoregon.edu/admissiontograduation/bachelorrequirements/
  46. https://stat.indiana.edu/undergraduates/degrees/bs-degree.html
  47. https://www.american.edu/cas/mathstat/bs-stat.cfm
  48. https://college.brown.edu/design-your-education/explore-open-curriculum
  49. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/colleges-with-the-most-flexible-curriculum/
  50. https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2025/07/why-traditional-college-majors-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market/
  51. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr500.pdf
  52. https://edpolicy.umich.edu/sites/epi/files/uploads/02-2017-labor-market-major-choice.pdf
  53. https://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article/doi/10.1162/edfp_a_00448/127480/Family-Background-and-College-Major-Choice
  54. https://docs.iza.org/dp16099.pdf
  55. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30331
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176525003957
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9870762/
  58. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2021number2/new-approaches-understanding-choice-major
  59. https://arch.astate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=all-etd
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11595732/
  61. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018434/index.asp
  62. https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/how-late-is-too-late.pdf
  63. http://hechingerreport.org/switching-majors-is-adding-time-and-tuition-to-the-already-high-cost-of-college/
  64. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=569
  65. https://www.bestcolleges.com/student-finance/changing-majors-college-cost/
  66. https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/jcotr/article/download/4904/3376/29187
  67. https://ncses.nsf.gov/interest-areas/stem
  68. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf
  69. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243/talent-u-s-and-global-stem-education-and-labor-force
  70. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20245/stem-pathways-degree-attainment-and-training-of-workers-in-stem
  71. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/a-guide-to-stem-majors
  72. https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/stem-list.pdf
  73. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/explore-careers/majors/science-technology-engineering-math
  74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK368176/
  75. https://lpsonline.sas.upenn.edu/features/humanities-vs-social-science-exploring-dichotomy
  76. https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/humanities/what-skills-can-you-gain-by-studying-humanities
  77. https://uncf.org/the-latest/social-sciences-the-science-of-human-experience
  78. https://www.westmont.edu/social-science
  79. https://live-villanova-catalog.cleancatalog.io/humanities/humanities-major
  80. https://our.ric.edu/news-events/news/7-skills-gained-humanities
  81. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202005/political-biases-in-academia
  82. https://andrewledbetter.com/2018/03/06/yes-ideological-bias-in-academia-is-real-and-communication-scholars-must-help-solve-the-problem/
  83. https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoliticization-of-higher-ed/
  84. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_322.10.asp
  85. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_319.30.asp
  86. https://graduate.northeastern.edu/knowledge-hub/professional-degrees-vs-academic-graduate-degrees/
  87. https://potomac.edu/professional-degree-vs-academic-degree/
  88. https://potomac.edu/what-is-a-college-major-essential-insights-for-students/
  89. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/professional-degree-types
  90. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vocational-degree.asp
  91. https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/news/2022/06/types-of-degree-explained/
  92. https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/compensation/class-of-2026-salary-projections-are-promising
  93. https://www.tamus.edu/data-science/2023/10/01/the-effect-of-academic-major-and-occupation-on-lifetime-earnings/
  94. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/field-of-degree-earnings.html
  95. https://www.burningglassinstitute.org/research/underemployment
  96. https://www.strada.org/reports/talent-disrupted
  97. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/07/29/why-a-college-diploma-no-longer-guarantees-success
  98. https://www.ppic.org/blog/room-for-progress-in-college-graduates-transition-to-the-labor-market/
  99. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/aug/jobs-degrees-underemployed-college-graduates-have
  100. https://freopp.org/whitepapers/does-college-pay-off-a-comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis/
  101. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/march/study-of-5-8-million-americans-finds-that-a-college-degree-yield.html
  102. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html
  103. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2025/
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292120301215
  105. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00018392221143762
  106. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21655/w21655.pdf
  107. https://ctse.aei.org/partisan-professors/
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Political-identification-of-college-professors-by-field_tbl1_40823273
  109. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2023.2295479
  110. https://www.thecollegefix.com/large-scale-syllabi-study-finds-professors-only-teach-left-wing-side-of-controversial-issues/
  111. https://www.persuasion.community/p/we-analyzed-university-syllabi-theres
  112. https://www.campusreform.org/article/exclusive-survey-200-sociology-syllabi-reveals-liberal-bias-across-assignments-readings/18690
  113. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/out-of-balance
  114. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217241266029
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379422000312
  116. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/liberal-bias-in-the-college-classroom-a-review-of-the-evidence-or-lack-thereof/4015A571030269CF4D8F4031CE697CE3
  117. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pra2.1069?af=R
  118. https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/99-0/bias-fallacy
  119. https://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2020/04/Honeycutt-Jussim-2020-A-Model-of-Political-Bias-in-Social-Science-Research.pdf
  120. https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-survey-only-20-university-faculty-say-conservative-would-fit-well-their-department
  121. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewmayhew/2025/09/15/professors-politics-consensus-for-more-political-diversity-on-campus/
  122. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/is-college-still-worth-it/
  123. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/04/when-college-might-not-be-worth-it/
  124. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2025/10/10/new-college-grad-having-trouble-getting-a-job-its-not-you/
  125. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/aug/recent-college-grads-bear-brunt-labor-market-shifts
  126. https://news.gallup.com/poll/695003/perceived-importance-college-hits-new-low.aspx
  127. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/05/23/is-college-worth-it-2/
  128. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/median-weekly-earnings-946-for-workers-with-high-school-diploma-1533-for-bachelors-degree.htm
  129. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2025/what-happened-to-the-college-wage-premium
  130. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/experts-discuss-whether-college-is-still-worth-it/
  131. https://manhattan.institute/article/protecting-the-liberal-arts-and-humanities-in-american-higher-education
  132. https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/bachelors-degrees-humanities
  133. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_322.30.asp
  134. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_323.30.asp
  135. https://www.studentchoice.org/news/how-have-the-top-25-most-popular-college-majors-changed-over-time/
  136. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
  137. https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/
  138. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-enrollment-decline/
  139. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/alternative-education-pathways/
  140. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/linkedin-news_is-college-still-the-best-path-to-career-activity-7371977014137782272-mb9T
  141. https://www.aseonline.org/News-Events/ASE-News/EverythingPeople-This-Week/skills-over-degrees-the-rise-of-skills-based-hiring-in-a-changing-job-market
  142. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coding-bootcamp-market-to-grow-by-usd-3-98-billion-from-2025-2029--driven-by-demand-for-software-developers--it-professionals-report-on-ais-impact-on-market-trends---technavio-302376172.html
  143. https://www.cirr.org/schooldata
  144. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2025/01/09/changes-boot-camp-marks-signal-shifts-workforce
  145. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-growth-of-earn-and-learn-apprenticeship-degrees-expanding-americas-mobility-and-opportunity-structure/
  146. https://lineman.edu/an-equal-path-the-value-of-apprenticeships-in-america/
  147. https://www.newsbreak.com/the-independent-517119/4292170215122-graduate-hiring-falls-8-since-last-year-survey-finds
  148. https://www.udacity.com/career-outcomes
  149. https://spotlightonpoverty.org/spotlight-exclusives/college-isnt-the-only-option-the-benefits-of-alternative-educational-pathways/
  150. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cynthiapong/2024/12/26/90-of-companies-make-better-hires-based-on-skills-over-degrees/
  151. https://workplaceintelligence.com/college-graduate-skills-study/
  152. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/just-try-it-out-whats-behind-a-shift-away-from-4-year-college/2024/07
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.