Choice
I remember watching a documentary during the coverage of a tennis Grand Slam. The segment was discussing what it takes to become a top player and it was heavily implied that training to become one must start very early, around the age of 6 or 7. Parents would often move with their child to a new country solely to enroll him or her into one of the top tennis academies in the world. Starting to train any later than that would be considered too late. I remember it being discussed in a very matter-of-fact way as if this was common knowledge but it immediately stuck out to me. And although the minute details of that documentary now escape me, it has stayed in my memory because of the question I immediately asked myself: how is a child supposed to know, that early, what he wants to do for the rest of his life?
Choosing a career is an important decision indeed. Some have the luxury of choosing for themselves and are blessed with the conviction, resources, and luck to do what they always wanted to do. Some have the decision made for them and are forever condemned to a profession they do not like without even the wistful comfort of knowing what could have been. Most, however, are somewhere in the middle. While the nature vs nurture debate is interminable, it is hard to deny the influence of the environments we grew up in. What we want to do and what we ought to do are conditioned by the information available to us, or to our parents, guardians, teachers, distant relatives, friends, and other sundry influences.
Choosing a career is all well and good, but what does it mean really? There is no right or wrong answer. A career is a reliable means to earn money for some (probably most) people. For some it is a matter of duty; think of a scion of a military family that believes continuing the family legacy is a matter of honor. For others, it is an extension of who they are; think of a musician who makes music because he believes he exists to make music. I suppose the best way to think about it is that a career is a means to fulfilling a purpose but it is not the only way to do so. If your purpose is making money, getting a degree and a job is certainly one way but not the only one. If your purpose is to protect people, joining the armed forces is certainly one way but not the only one. But if your purpose is to do what you do … well, is there any other way?
Building Talent
For a variety of reasons, socioeconomic being the foremost, most people are not afforded the time to discover what they do best. And for those that are afforded the time, the discipline required to introspect is not easy. With the decline of hereditary work, normalization of the nuclear family, and the regimented nature of modern education, the onus of choosing a career falls on the individual more than it ever has before and is a ritual that must be done every generation. The transfer of knowledge, borne of experience, from previous generations happens, if at all, at the university, or at work, or from friends instead of from within the family. Economies that do not ensure the transfer of this knowledge are bound to regress or else become indebted to more competent ones.
It is rational to expect a group of people from similar socioeconomic backgrounds to arrive at similar conclusions after being presented the same data. If the data suggests that university education in a particular field of study consistently leads to greater economic reward, then that is what individuals from that group are most likely to pursue. As developed nations transitioned from manufacturing to services, incentives to pursue higher education also became more obvious. Apprenticeship gave way to the primacy of diplomas, documents that assured a minimum level of competence on a variety of subjects. While some professions thankfully still required more stringent examination of knowledge, medicine and law for example, most of the new entrants to the workforce had only a piece of paper to attest to their skills.
A more specialized economy is bound to diversify into needing many different kinds of work done. And thus, job titles have ballooned in number as a result of that diversification. The higher education production line has bravely attempted to keep up with this diversification by also offering degrees in various disciplines. But it is an impossible task for this system to offer customized training for every last job title. Indeed, higher education still seems to be structured as it has been for centuries, with subjects broadly classified into science, medicine, law, humanities, and finance. Further sub classifications in each of these categories do exist but they all share the same knowledge base, at least to begin with. Two people, one hoping to work on aircraft and the other on automobiles, may choose two different branches of engineering but they both start with the same basic concepts. Specialization happens either in higher education by way of advanced degrees or at their place of work if they’re lucky enough to be trained there.
The overlap between the basic knowledge acquired by both of these individuals means that they have certain transferable skills if they ever choose to transition to another branch of engineering entirely or even swap places. After all, the laws of aerodynamics don’t change when studying the flow of air over a car’s windshield or over an airplane wing. It only requires changes in perspective and values of variables. This is only the overlap between two branches of engineering. There is an overlap between different streams in science since the basic laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics don’t change. At a more fundamental level, most literate workers have a basic and shared understanding of arithmetic, science, geography, history, and (at least one) language.
This has all served to create a class of educated individuals that appear to have similar basic skills on paper, only ostentatiously differentiated by the letters on those pieces of paper and the reputation of the institutions printing them. In theory, they are all good enough to do basic tasks in any job like parsing and summarizing information, composing emails and other correspondence, following orders and adhering to processes and so on. As specializations are factored in, however, not all majors are created equal, at least not for advanced tasks. For example, STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) majors have an edge in also being eligible for professions that require a great deal of number crunching simply because of the range of mathematical wizardry they have been taught.
Inefficiencies, By The Numbers
In the US, the National Science Foundation reported that between 2013 and 2023, the STEM workforce grew by 26%, which is significantly faster than the 9% growth in the non-STEM workforce. Furthermore, in 2023, STEM graduates enjoyed higher median earnings of $76,000 per year compared to non-STEM graduates ($55,000) [1]. A reasonable inference from these numbers is that STEM graduates are in higher demand and that they earn more than their peers.
The proportion of STEM graduates to total graduates over time in the US, Canada, UK, Japan, and Korea shows some interesting patterns. Since 2014, the US and Canada are seeing an increasing proportion of STEM graduates, Japan and Korea are relatively flat, while the UK is seeing a rather sharp decline [2].
A 2023 study by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University reported the proportion of STEM graduates in certain countries as a proportion of the total graduates in those countries. They found that in 2020, 41% of China’s students graduating that year were in STEM fields. For Russia, that number was 37%. India was at 30% while Mexico was at 26% [3].
The question then becomes, are STEM graduates finding gainful employment in STEM fields? The US Census Bureau reported that in 2019, 37% of graduates aged 25-64 reported that they were STEM graduates. But only 14% reported working in STEM fields. This study also found that STEM graduates generally enjoyed higher earnings compared to their peers [4].
What these statistics suggest is that STEM education has become desirable even if those pursuing it do not ultimately, for whatever reason, land employment in that field. And a significant proportion of those graduates not working in the field they studied for shows that perhaps there simply aren’t enough STEM jobs to go around. Over supply of a commodity makes it cheaper and this begs the question whether companies in STEM can simply buy talent at more affordable rates than they otherwise would be able to. This is especially so as larger companies are increasingly monopolizing their hold over the talent pool.
Lackadaisicalism
It is human nature not to value things that are won too easily. And if replacements are plentiful and cheap, the value perception is even lower. STEM simply serves as an example in the context of this article to illustrate how workers are drifting across professions regardless of what they studied for or wished to do in life. Not everyone who studies music can become a composer. Not everyone who participates in the performing arts can become an actor. Not everyone who studies psychology can become a counselor. Eventually, most people are forced into confronting the reality of balancing their ambitions against the necessity of survival. If the means of survival and those ambitions stray too far from each other, it is worth wondering what impact the resulting lack of satisfaction has on productivity.
Working towards a certain ambition, no matter how high or low in the grand scheme of things, takes effort from every individual. Perhaps most develop a sense of entitlement to enjoying the fruits of those efforts. And when the fruits do not live up to expectations set either by the individual or his advisors, disgruntlement is bound to follow. Interest is the first casualty of disgruntlement. This is especially so for those who tied their identity to what they wanted to do instead of what material gains they hoped to get out of doing that specific thing. Does a person who always wanted to be a school teacher find happiness in being a receptionist? Does a budding actor find solace in waiting tables at a restaurant? Does someone who wanted to knit sweaters find satisfaction in serving burgers at a fast food joint’s drive thru?
I think we underestimate the feeling of insecurity that pervades a people when they were told that they could be whatever they wanted only to then have to do anything to survive. Dejection, anxiety, and hopelessness make for a potent mix of emotions and certainly not one that maximizes productivity or promotes growth, cultural or economic. I think it is no surprise that this is reflected in the lackadaisical approach that we see often towards products and services today. Computer operating systems are rife with bugs, household goods have been optimized into dull homogeneity, automobiles are morphing into boxes on wheels. Confidence in critical services gets shaken when we observe lawyers that don’t know the law, doctors that are glorified drug dispensers, elected representatives that are afraid to talk to their constituents. The masses of newly minted real estate agents and financial advisors that, after spending years in different professions, weakly assert their passion for their newly chosen ones and expect customers to believe them do little to shake the poor perception of services today.
It is inappropriate to mock those just trying to get by. In fact, their resilience is worthy of honor. But it is worth wondering whether the current labor market inefficiencies are leading some to abandon pride in their work. Is this entropy chipping away at the delicate system of goods production and services administration that shoulders the social order today?
References
[3] Oliss, B. et al. 2023. The Global Distribution of STEM Graduates: Which Countries Lead the Way?
[4] Day, J. and Martinez, A. 2021. Does Majoring in STEM Lead to a STEM Job After Graduation?