OMG! I Can't Believe I Majored in the Wrong Field!

[AuntShecky]

Do you lie awake in worry that you've spent 4 or more years of your life accumulating student loans in pursuit of an college degree that might ultimately prove to be "useless"? At last there is a way to defend your choice of majoring in the Humanities in this article by
an esteemed New York Times columnist. David Brooks defends studying the Humanities as a way of taming something he calls "The Shaggy Beast."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Your thoughts?

[Virgil]

I went through all of college unable to really make up my mind which of the two to major in: mechanical engineering or English Lit. I wound up doing both, but thank God I got my degree in engineering. I really enjoy the work and I doubt I would enjoy doing whatever I would have with a humanities degree. Brooks can advocate the humanities all he wants, and I certainly advocate it too as a side thing, but if you really want a decent job (and face it that's priority number one) major in something that will help you in the long run. Love of a humanities subject is fine and dandy, but if you really love it you will explore it on your own after college. Most people don't, so like most youthful love, it's transient.

[kasie]

Well, you can always teach with an English degree......;)

I was once 'head-hunted' by a friend who wanted me for his then fledgling computer department: when I protested that I was no good at Maths, he replied, 'Leave that bit to me: I want someone good with words who can think of different ways of saying things.' I declined at the time but I often wonder where my life might have gone if I'd got into computing in those early days.

And I got my last job as 'Office Manager' in a precision engineering company because the boss said I knew 'where the full stops went' and left me to all the written dealings with customers, suppliers, legal issues, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, etc, etc.

[OrphanPip]

I got around the student loans problem by being born in a socialist province where my university was paid for by taxes.

Edit: Anyway, I have a degree in a basic research science, which is practically just as useless as the humanities. I can't even teach molecular biology to teenagers because they aren't able to understand it! Frustrating.

[Paulclem]

We're under the hammer here in the UK too. I have an English/ Religion combined Arts degree and a Post grad teaching certificate, but if they cut the public sector as they say they will, I could lose my job.

I have decided to begin a maths AS level this year - the qualification structure here is 16 year olds do GCSEs and then progress to AS and A Level to gain entry requirements for University.

My reasoning is that I could then teach both Maths and English, and make myself more flexible. The truth of the matter is though that I would still value my Humanities qualificatons as they go across both my interests and work - unless of course I end up really liking the maths.

I also think I would have a slight advantage in maths as my instincts as a teacher is to seek and present context and build meaning with real examples. I'm not sure that goes on as much as it should in maths.

[andave_ya]

Excellent, excellent, excellent post!

I'm 19, and am an unabashed, proud literature major at Patrick Henry College in Virginia. After I get my BA, I hope to work up through a Ph.D, and after that in whatever strikes my fancy - history, philosophy, music, library science, psychology, maybe even a science area like astronomy because I want to understand humanity.

The humanities need some champions. Dr. Nancy Pearcey, Christian author, activist, and scholar came and gave a talk at my school earlier this year. She quoted Todd Gitlin, who said that while the Right marched on the White House, the Left marched on the English department. Their strategy worked - recent generations have been duly propagandized. In the English course I took at the junior college we read socialist philosophers. Very interesting, but no word about the classics whatsoever. That hurt :S.

Yes, I'm young and idealistic, but honestly? I think I've been called to the humanities and even if I don't do much - I gotta do SOMETHING. People are dying without even hearing of famous authors we all know about.

Yeah, I get passionate about this :D.

[lalalauren]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I tell people I am/was an English major and they immediately say, "Oh so you want to teach?" ...grrrrr. I hate that assumption that an English major is only good for teaching. I landed myself a job in proposal development before I even graduated college and I know plenty of people with successful non-teaching careers that were English majors. The key to making an English major useful is learning how to tailor the skills you learn/use in literature/writing to other fields. Good writing/communication and critical thinking skills are not only applicable to a variety of other careers but in demand!

[Virgil]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I tell people I am/was an English major and they immediately say, "Oh so you want to teach?" ...grrrrr. I hate that assumption that an English major is only good for teaching. I landed myself a job in proposal development before I even graduated college and I know plenty of people with successful non-teaching careers that were English majors. The key to making an English major useful is learning how to tailor the skills you learn/use in literature/writing to other fields. Good writing/communication and critical thinking skills are not only applicable to a variety of other careers but in demand!
Yes, this is true, but it's usually an after thought. Most people who major in the humanities do for some idealistic purpose. They sort of look down at earning a living. Wait until they're out in the real world and need a job. Then tell who looks down at who. Yes, one can teach, and certainly that's a respectful career, but most people who go into the humanities don't want to teach and ultimately don't like teaching. If you like teaching, then the humanities are for you. And let me say this, there is a glut of PhDs in the humanities. It's come to the point where there aren't enough universities to provide jobs for all those PhDs.

[Lokasenna]

I don't know what it is like over in the States, but here in Britain a humanities degree is pretty transferable. I know plenty of people who have followed up their BA with a law-conversion degree. Rather than studying Law for three years,they instead get to study something they love for three years, and then have a one year course to catch up. In terms of the time spent, it really is no different than taking a gap year.

Furthermore, there are employment opportunities beyond teaching for humanities graduates - the civil service is a major employer, and managerial jobs usually respect a good humanities degree.

That said, I'm avoiding it all by doing a Ph.D...

[Wilde woman]

Love of a humanities subject is fine and dandy, but if you really love it you will explore it on your own after college. Most people don't, so like most youthful love, it's transient.

No, the problem is that society has not found a way to make the humanities profitable or practical. Unless one is a highly talented musician, artist, or writer...or goes and dedicates 5-7 years of one's life getting a PhD, it's quite difficult to make a living. If we can find a way to make the humanities practical, you might see a spike in the number of people majoring in them.


One of my biggest pet peeves is when I tell people I am/was an English major and they immediately say, "Oh so you want to teach?" ...grrrrr. I hate that assumption that an English major is only good for teaching.

While this is true, if you want to pursue literature beyond the undergraduate level, teaching is almost unavoidable. But it is not a bad skill to pick up; I've found my teaching experiences very valuable.


Most people who major in the humanities do for some idealistic purpose. They sort of look down at earning a living.

No offense, Virgil, but many non-humanities majors also do what they do for idealistic purposes as well. Just because one wants to stay in academia and do research for a living does not mean they "look down at earning a living". Are teachers or professors not earning their pay? Having done some teaching, I absolutely hate it when someone implies that teaching is an "easy" job or that somehow teachers are not contributing to society.

[Virgil]

I don't know what it is like over in the States, but here in Britain a humanities degree is pretty transferable. I know plenty of people who have followed up their BA with a law-conversion degree. Rather than studying Law for three years,they instead get to study something they love for three years, and then have a one year course to catch up. In terms of the time spent, it really is no different than taking a gap year.

Furthermore, there are employment opportunities beyond teaching for humanities graduates - the civil service is a major employer, and managerial jobs usually respect a good humanities degree.

That said, I'm avoiding it all by doing a Ph.D...
That's true here as well, but one has to go on to something else like law, and companies hire all sorts of college graduates for things that they did not major in. Good thinking and writing skills are a positive. It's just that humanities majors think they the only ones with good thinking skills.


No, the problem is that society has not found a way to make the humanities profitable or practical. Unless one is a highly talented musician, artist, or writer...or goes and dedicates 5-7 years of one's life getting a PhD, it's quite difficult to make a living. If we can find a way to make the humanities practical, you might see a spike in the number of people majoring in them.

The problem is not that society hasn't found a way to make humanities practical, it's because humanities don't make a product, don't manage a business, don't account and tabulate either data or money. The humanites in and of themselves are not practical because they are inherently not practical. Sorry that's the ugly truth. I'm not against the humanities. Hey I love them too, or I wouldn't be on lit net and I wouldn't have a masters in English Lit. B ut students should be told the ugly truth because their entire future depends on it.


No offense, Virgil, but many non-humanities majors also do what they do for idealistic purposes as well. Just because one wants to stay in academia and do research for a living does not mean they "look down at earning a living". Are teachers or professors not earning their pay? Having done some teaching, I absolutely hate it when someone implies that teaching is an "easy" job or that somehow teachers are not contributing to society.
Sure all young people approach higher education idealistically, but the engineering schools would be a quarter of what they are if engineering did not promise a good job. And as to accounting and business, they would be one tenth of what they are if they did not promise a good job.

I never said teachers don't work hard or contribute to society. In fact I said that teaching was essentially the only avenue for a humanities degree to directly apply, and many people who go into teaching get disillusioned real fast. Teaching the same class over and over for over twenty years to kids who aren't all that interested in being there does not make for a fun job. It's one thing to love English lit, it's another to teach it to a bunch of wild teenagers who are only interested in sports, the opposite sex, and make up. What I'm saying is that the idealism for the humanities doesn't last outside of college.

[Paulclem]

While this is true, if you want to pursue literature beyond the undergraduate level, teaching is almost unavoidable. But it is not a bad skill to pick up; I've found my teaching experiences very valuable.



.

The assumption that Humanities leads to teaching is incorrect in that teaching involves a whole set of skills that are transferrable and of a different nature to a subject.

It's true that people do assume that's what you will do - My wife was constantly asked if she was going into teaching whilst doing a history degree.
We can all think of teachers who were rubbish though they knew their subject.

A friend of mine pointed out once that teaching involves assessment, evaluation, planning, delivery, assessment... etc and this cycle is appropriate to lots of industrial processes and systems.

[JBI]

It's not about which field. The new trend of humanities in the next fifty years will be interdisciplinary shifts. It's the product of a globalization and a breaking down of area studies. Well, at least that is the trend here.

Besides something like Classics, English, and the like, the move is to a new sort of understanding.

So, for instance, I study East Asian Studies; half of us study politics, half study "humanities" subjects, but the interdisciplinary approach gives both perspectives, so students end up being versed in both discourses; the understanding is completely different.

Compare that to my English education; for the most part, it is restricted. Socio-Political things are talked about as footnotes, and the focus is on literature; I read a great many things, but honestly, as a practical education, it no longer encourages as much creativity or insight as one may think.

It is the same reason that causes the demise of English, History, and philosophy. They cease to have much ground. It's also these disciplines that churn out the most graduate students at the fastest rates. In 9 years of post-secondary education you get a "specialist" without much time for actual practical application in between. That's another problem.

As it is though, really it makes no difference. The shift is on where you go to Grad School now that is getting all the "great jobs" than rather on what sort of bachelor degree you get. There is just hyper-education inflation.


The truth is, a pure stream in English, history or the classics is completely worthless besides technical skills. If you have a double though, options open. I would not have chosen English again if I could go back.

I would probably have focused my education on East Asia much closer, doing both Chinese and Japanese studies, then would put a couple of minors in French and probably Italian. Would've still learned how to write the essays, as that is standard in almost every discipline, but would have picked up a stronger grounding in the languages, and had a greater exposure.

I would still be a humanist, as humanities are what interest me, but would have more fun, meet a lot more interesting people, and be better suited for whatever I do.

It makes no difference anyway though; I think I will be successful regardless of field, and will end up in graduate school anyway, so the general statistics are rather irrelevant. It's just English that is scary, since at the end, the general feeling is either, Teacher, Editor, or Law School, or nothing.

[Virgil]

It's not about which field. The new trend of humanities in the next fifty years will be interdisciplinary shifts. It's the product of a globalization and a breaking down of area studies. Well, at least that is the trend here.

That was supposed to be the trend when I started college back in 1979. What's that 31 years ago? They've been saying that for decades. Maybe one day it will be true. In fact they even had an experimental liberal arts curriculumn that was interdisciplinary in that year. And then it fell apart. Professors wanted their own departments. :D I bet the desire went back even before 1979.

[JBI]

That was supposed to be the trend when I started college back in 1979. What's that 31 years ago? They've been saying that for decades. Maybe one day it will be true. In fact they even had an experimental liberal arts curriculumn that was interdisciplinary in that year. And then it fell apart. Professors wanted their own departments. :D I bet the desire went back even before 1979.

Grad school more or less has already headed there in the major research institutions, and maybe not a breaking down of disciplines, but certainly far more connection. The doubt Major will be the norm, not the exception, I am sure.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I still recall the day as graduating senior's in high school, we announced our career intentions to the under classman. "Aeronautical engineerg" or "architecture" I boldly proclaimed. I started out in engineering but soon realized there was no outlet for my creative side. Besides, pocket protectors and slide rules were not my thing-sorry Virgil.
Architecture proved to be a perfect balance of both technical skills, liberal arts and in some respects; humanities. Fortunately I have been able to maintaine steady employement in the field of Architecture.

Guess what? the degree didn't mean squat!
What I am about to say will sound cliche, but in this day employers are so desperate for anyone with a solid work ethic, integrity, honesty and the one trait that will certainly carry you far in a carreer and life, is a positive attitude!

Over the years, I have practically reached the conclusion that your degree or experience, doesn't matter. I will teach you the "nuts and bolts" of the job, if only in return you provide me with the aforementioned qualities.
Many employers are thrilled that you simply graduated, even if you are forced to seek employment in a field unrelated to your degree.

Gilliatt

[Virgil]

I still recall the day as graduating senior's in high school, we announced our career intentions to the under classman. "Aeronautical engineerg" or "architecture" I boldly proclaimed. I started out in engineering but soon realized there was no outlet for my creative side. Besides, pocket protectors and slide rules were not my thing-sorry Virgil.

You just don't know real engineering. Engineering as taught in college is not real engineering. The best engineers are extremely creative. :wink5:


Architecture proved to be a perfect balance of both technical skills, liberal arts and in some respects; humanities. Fortunately I have been able to maintaine steady employement in the field of Architecture.
Architecture is not a humanities, and I would classify architecture as practical in the real world.


Guess what? the degree didn't mean squat!
What I am about to say will sound cliche, but in this day employers are so desperate for anyone with a solid work ethic, integrity, honesty and the one trait that will certainly carry you far in a carreer and life, is a positive attitude!
There's some truth to that, but there is also overstatement. We don't hire non-engineering degreed people as engineers. I doubt architectural firms hire non-architectual degreed people, I know you have to have an accounting degree for any major accounting firms, you can't be a doctor without a medical degree, or a pharmcist without an appropriate degree, or a medical technician of any sort without that background.


Over the years, I have practically reached the conclusion that your degree or experience, doesn't matter. I will teach you the "nuts and bolts" of the job, if only in return you provide me with the aforementioned qualities.
Many employers are thrilled that you simply graduated, even if you are forced to seek employment in a field unrelated to your degree.
Work ethic is extremely important, absolutely. That's what one has to assess in an interview. but to get into the interview, one must have the appropriate accreditation. That said, it's beyond an english major to just start doing engineering, or chemistry, or pharmacy, or medical lab work.

I know I've been harsh on humanity majors in this thread. I will say that a person with a liberal arts degree can do well in the business world. You may not start out in the perfect job, but what Gilliat says is true, a good work ethic and a willingness to learn and perform will get you far. Hey, my wife did very well in the business world without a college degree at all. But don't think you'll be reading Joyce or Shakespeare and critiquing lit for work, or applying something completely useless like philosophy to a job. That's the idealism I'm referring to.

[qimissung]

I thought it was a good editorial, I read it earlier today. I plan to share it with my students as a good agument on the validty of taking English seriously.

[OrphanPip]

You should always work hard in school, just because it displays that you have a reasonable work ethic and at least can follow basic directions.

[qimissung]

Yes, theoretically. Hardly any of my students ever like to read....or think, for that matter. :)

[JBI]

You should always work hard in school, just because it displays that you have a reasonable work ethic and at least can follow basic directions.

American grades are significantly higher as they do not have an enforced bell-curve, the way Canadian institutions do. As such, everyone there is able to get the A if they work hard, whereas only 25% of people are allowed to get over 80 in any given course, for instance, at The University of Toronto.

As such, people generally feel defeated or exhausted by the end, whereas Americans, according to one of my professors who was at U of Cal Berkley, feel like they own the world, with their straight A averages for doing nothing.

What does that mean? Well, essentially it means if you are forking over figures in the tends of thousands for education, you are buying something, and work ethics don't have anything to do with it - the job market is also different, as grades mean something else.

We must keep in mind that education in Canada and the US are very different; the standardized tests that govern university admissions are non-existent here, and the huge fees are significantly lower (essentially nothing in Quebec) - likewise, getting out is far more difficult here then there, but getting in is very easy. It really culls the grad school admissions significantly in Canada, whereas from what I understand, with half a brain and a big enough wallet anyone can grab a Ph. D. in the US if they do the work.

Much of Europe is even more different from my understanding; in France, they have a high school exit exam which culls the flock significantly, and then an education system where only people who are great in their field go into it. It directs education a lot more, so that people who study liberal arts generally a cream of the crop specialists when they get in, and those who continue to get Ph. D.s generally are fantastic intellects (getting kicked out quickly is heard of, whereas it is much harder to get dismissed midway in North America). That really changes the education too.


It's actually rather great the freedom afforded North American students. Without such directed majors, a liberal arts degree grants lots of room to explore ones interests, and also change. That is untrue of more rigid systems, where even in high school a major focus is already decided.

This does however lead to people not ending up in spots that befit their interests in the long run; too many English majors, to the point where the education itself gets compromised. In truth, English has come to the point where it is crumbling from within, especially American literature which is destroyed by the wrong people cloning the wrong bunch of students, who apply theory rather than think for themselves - English (British) literature at least has the redeeming fact that serious people about it need to have a lot more exposure (to read renaissance works, for instance, French and Latin, and probably Italian seem to become requirements as you keep going, this leads to more creativity).

Really, I cannot see the humanities as being "relevant" in our new vocational-based desire for education. Humanities should have its relevance, but also shouldn't be too big; let the business people do business, the science people do science, and make humanities more challenging, so the standard increases, fewer people work with more professors, and instead of being a dumping ground for anyone who didn't want to do anything else, let it be a discipline where only people with specific interest in the discipline apply.

Harder humanities subjects are already like that; East Asian Studies for me, for instance, is 20-30 people or less classes, all capable professors, and a strong backing in drilling language and cultural education. English on the other hand is 100 people lectures where half the people don't show up, and half the professors just aren't interesting (most are, but one in particular right now is just so incredibly tedious applying the exact same interpretation to 6 books in a row). Eventually things will right themselves though. The real abandonment was in the cheapening of some fields of the humanities, rather than in the "uselessness" or "lack of interest" in the humanities anyway.

[papayahed]

American grades are significantly higher as they do not have an enforced bell-curve, the way Canadian institutions do. As such, everyone there is able to get the A if they work hard, whereas only 25% of people are allowed to get over 80 in any given course, for instance, at The University of Toronto.

As such, people generally feel defeated or exhausted by the end, whereas Americans, according to one of my professors who was at U of Cal Berkley, feel like they own the world, with their straight A averages for doing nothing.


doing nothing? :lol::lol::rofl: I think you're having trouble seeing around that chip on your shoulder.

[AuntShecky]

There are a multitude of excellent comments on this thread, so rather than reiterate or second the ones which I tend to agree with, I'll just add a couple remarks if I may:

One of the early replies -- I believe it was by Kasie -- said "Well, you could always teach." In a way that's true, if one is fortunate enough to get a position in a private school which doesn't require "state certification." You may have heard the urban legend (which is nonetheless true) about
Einstein. He had the greatest mind of the twentieth century, but if he had applied for job teaching high school physics at a public secondary school in New York State he wouldn't have been hired. (He had no teaching license, which requires among other things, a bunch of education courses.) As far as high school English teachers go, many of them may "major" in English, but they have to take so many courses dealing with the tricks of the trade, that means there are some literature courses that they just don't have the time to take and learn.


I have sympathy for the member named lalalauren who says in her reply that she really sees red when people automatically ask, "So, do you want to teach?" Way, way back in the Jurassic Era when I was in school, I got variations on that same question: "English? What are you going to do with that?" I don't want to tell you how old I am, exactly, but when I was a "pre-teen" (we didn't even use that term much back then) I casually mentioned to a friend of my older brother that I was thinking about attending college some day, and he said,"What do you need to go to college for? You're a girl!"

I forgot to look up David Brooks's bio to see what he majored in. I'm guessing maybe political science. That, as well as history or English would help prepare one for a career as a journalist. Certainly a humanities course would be better than majoring in "journalism."

What bothers me is reading about reporters and columnists who didn't major in English or ancillary courses in the humanities, that some business or math major gets a job because his uncle plays golf with the managing editor or something. Reading our local newspaper is a revelation: the local writers get their facts wrong more than yer ol' Auntie, and few, if any of them, know how to use the apostrophe properly or the difference between nominative and objective pronouns. Not that the finer points of punctuation or grammar ever put any money in one's pocket, but it's good to have a minimal understanding of how our language works-- especially when it works well.

And finally, college grads who chose literature or some other so-called "useless" liberal arts discipline undoubtedly earn less money and certainly less respect from society--at least American society. First of all, there is a long, long
tradition of anti-intellectualism in my country. Physicists, chemists, computer programmers are brainy, but they're not the first professionals we immediately think of when somebody mentions "intellectual." Secondly--and this is far more prevalent than the anti-intellectualism--and that's the de facto adversarial relationship between Art and Commerce. The latter nearly always wins, with the high value so many established American citizens place on the Almighty Dollar. When you're at a party, and somebody asks you, "What do you do?" they don't really give a rat's behind about it. What they're really asking you is "How much $ do you make?"

[Shalot]

If no one studies English, Philosophy, Creative Writing etc, then who will keep the professors employed? English Majors are brave souls (or desperate - courage and desperation are often one in the same - I can't remember where I picked that phrase up). English Majors in America still have to find jobs to pay off their student loans and then when they finally do land a job, they have to prove that they aren't stupid and majored in English because they couldn't do anything else. If you major in English, you will probably have to get a degree in something else, but usually you pick up analytical skills in the course of your studies and that will help you. If nothing else, you can at least construct a decent sentence in most cases. I can't say the same for some of my acquaintences and coworkers.

[kasie]

..... As far as high school English teachers go, many of them may "major" in English, but they have to take so many courses dealing with the tricks of the trade......

That's true in UK too, AuntS - my comment was meant to be a little wry but does any degree fit one for immediate employment? Is any degree meant to do that? Most degrees surely give one a) personal education and maybe b) the foundation knowledge on which to build a career - I'm thinking law or engineering here, for example. Most first post-university jobs are apprenticeship jobs, aren't they? That's where the tricks of the trade are learned, not in college, unless it is a job-specific course, such as combined Education-subject degrees aimed at turning out teachers or maybe the new nursing degrees that are available now in UK.

Personally, I've always been in favour of 'gap years', just for the possibility of finding out what is out there in the world beyond school and immediate family experience: subsequent education may well then be tailored to employment needs. There are other ways of following one's first love if that love makes you unemployable: there's at least one Forum member who took up English studies after acquiring his career qualifications - who can I be thinking of? I knew a guy in Uni who was being sponsored by his Government but was allowed to study only a subject useful to his developing nation - he was reading Law but we used to have lunch together every week on the days of my main English lectures so that he could listen to my recounting the details of what I had heard that day and read my notes because he would have much preferred to have been reading Eng Lit. - second-hand education!

[JBI]

doing nothing? :lol::lol::rofl: I think you're having trouble seeing around that chip on your shoulder.

It's a different standard. If everyone is able to get an A, it is naturally easier. If only 25% of people are able to get over 80, and enough people work without sleeping, it is clearly much more difficult to stay afloat. The bellcurve makes this a lot more challenging, as to get an A in Canada you need to be probably top 15% all the time, matched with enough people with similar intentions.


If no one studies English, Philosophy, Creative Writing etc, then who will keep the professors employed? English Majors are brave souls (or desperate - courage and desperation are often one in the same - I can't remember where I picked that phrase up). English Majors in America still have to find jobs to pay off their student loans and then when they finally do land a job, they have to prove that they aren't stupid and majored in English because they couldn't do anything else. If you major in English, you will probably have to get a degree in something else, but usually you pick up analytical skills in the course of your studies and that will help you. If nothing else, you can at least construct a decent sentence in most cases. I can't say the same for some of my acquaintences and coworkers.

The trend, from what I hear, is to just increase class size, and tuition, not to increase employment. I believe the scholar Elaine Showalter has written at length on it now. When my professors were in the same classes, they had 20-25 students to a class. Now it is 80-100, or sometimes more. The faculty is about the same size, just the amount of TAs that get paid to do the slave work is higher.

[qimissung]

Well, able to get an A and actually getting one are two different things in reality.

[papayahed]

Well, able to get an A and actually getting one are two different things in reality.



Exactly.

[Scheherazade]

I have taken 5-6 aptitute tests over the years and they all come up with the same two results for me:

1. Teacher/tutor (+80%)

2. Counsellor (+70%)


Interestingly, I had already chosen to be a teacher when I took these tests and I really love my job even though I know that I will never get rich doing what I do... But I am OK with that.

If being rich was one of my priorities, I am sure the test results would have suggested something else anyway. :)

[sixsmith]

Not only did I major in the wrong field, I did so 3 or 4 times. A very confused and debt ridden individual.


American grades are significantly higher as they do not have an enforced bell-curve, the way Canadian institutions do. As such, everyone there is able to get the A if they work hard, whereas only 25% of people are allowed to get over 80 in any given course, for instance, at The University of Toronto.

As such, people generally feel defeated or exhausted by the end, whereas Americans, according to one of my professors who was at U of Cal Berkley, feel like they own the world, with their straight A averages for doing nothing

I agree. In my opinion and experience, the amount of high marks that are awarded in American universities (or perhaps some American universities) and the quality of work for which they are awarded borders on the absurd.