大学什么专业最赚钱？

你的专业是什么？

你喜欢你的专业吗？

你当时为什么选择了这个专业？

你知道大学里最赚钱的专业是什么吗？

别急，关于大学里的那些事儿，小普慢慢告诉你：

Few investments pay off better than a good college degree. But not all degrees are equal. An engineering major will probably earn more than a philosophy major. It’s also a bigger investment.

几乎没有什么投资的回报可以比得上一个好大学的学位。但并不是所有的学位都是平等的。工程专业毕业的薪酬可能远比哲学专业高，但不可否认，它也需要很大的投资。

A new paper estimates how much it costs to educate students in different fields. The economists looked at education costs and future earnings from undergraduates that came through the University of Florida system. They estimate it typically costs the universities more than $62,000 to

educate an engineer (including professor salaries, facilities fees, and administrative costs). The price to educate an English or business major is nearly half that.

一项新的调查估量了不同专业的学生需要多少花费，经济学家通过佛罗里达大学的系统分析了本科生的教育花费和未来收入。最终得出结论，要培养一个工程师学校需要花费62000美元（主要包括教授薪资、设施费用和行政费用），而英语专业或者商科专业几乎只是这个花费的一半。

下面这个图表显示了每个专业的花费情况（按专业受欢迎程度排列）

Engineering degrees cost about 40% more than the lowest-cost majors; that difference can mostly be attributed to higher personnel costs. Engineering majors also need more expensive indirect resources: advising, administration, financial aid, plant maintenance, library costs, and student services.

相比于花费最低的专业，工程专业的花费超过40%多，这个差异主要归因与较高的人员成本。除此之外，工程专业的学生还需要很多昂贵的间接资源：咨询、管理、行政援助、植物维护、图书馆花费，还有一些学生服务。

虽然工程专业花费很高，但对获得学位的毕业生做了调查，可以发现他们的收入也是最高的。下面这个图表显示了往届毕业生直到45岁之前的收入情况。（其中以教育专业的收入为基准，举个例子，从下表中可以看出：等到45岁的时候，商科专业的毕业生会比教育专业的毕业生多赚78000美元）

At most universities, people pay the same tuition no matter what they study—and what students pay in tuition is less than what the university spend to educate them, no matter what they study. But universities spend different amounts on different degrees, and English and Philosophy majors demand fewer resources—which means they essentially subsidize engineers.

在大多数大学，不管什么专业，学生其实所缴的学费是一样的，有可能他们缴的学费其实少于学校教育他们所花费的。但不同的是，学校对不同专业的投资是不同的，比如说，英语专业和哲学专业需要的资源相对较少，这就意味着他们的学费其实被学校用来补贴到工程专业了。

From a life-time income perspective, philosophy majors subsidizing engineers is regressive. Since college is already financially crippling for many families, perhaps charging tuition that is adjusted to the potential value of each major would be more fair. It could be argued this type of pricing would make students more aware of the value of their degree. Engineering is the most profitable major, but it’s not very popular. That may be, in part, because tuition isn’t set based on what you study so price does not signal the value of different degrees. Degree-specific pricing is one way to convey value to students.

从终生收入的角度来看，哲学专业补贴工程专业是在递减的，考虑到大学费用已经让很多家庭财政瘫痪，那么根据专业的价值潜力来调整学费应该公平得多。但如果以此方式决定学费，又会让学生意识到他们的学位价值。工程专业确实是回报最高的，但却不是最受欢迎的。部分可能是因为现在学费并不是以专业来定的，所以从学费上还看不出不同专业的价值。特定专业的收费其实是一种向学生传达专业价值的方法。

Of course, many students don’t pick a degree based on earnings potential. Charging by degree would change the nature of a college education. College in America is not intended to be vocational training; it’s also an opportunity to get exposure to different ideas and try different fields.

当然了，很多学生并不是以收入潜力来挑选专业，按学位收费将会改变大学的教育本质，美国大学并不是完全致力于职业培训；它其实也是探索不同想法，尝试不同领域的一个机会。

Then there’s the concern that if engineering classes cost more, low-income students would be discouraged from pursuing the major. This would undermine economic mobility: STEM ( science, technology, engineering, and math ) courses are generally more expensive to teach and they also have higher dropout rates —so upping the price tag increases the risk associated with taking a STEM class.

所以就会有这样一个顾虑，如果工程专业花费较高，很多低收入的学生就会在选择这个专业上有所泄气。这样就会逐渐损坏经济的流动性：STEM（科学、技术、工程和数学）课程一般来说昂贵得多，同时辍学率也很高——所以贴标签就会增加上这些课程的风险性。

The study also found that university spending on high-return fields, like engineering, fell from 1999 to 2013. The University of Florida system put comparatively more resources in low-return fields like biology. It may be responding to student demand or trying to shift resources away from

more expensive subjects. This makes economic sense for the university, but could be impacting its students’ earning potential: engineering classes cost more, and it’s the student who reaps the benefits, not the university (at least directly—there may be indirect benefits if higher earners become large donors or improve university rankings)

研究同时发现，从1999年到2013年，学校投资到像工程专业这类高回报专业上面的资金是在减少的。佛罗里达大学补贴到像生物专业这类低回报专业上面的资金相对来说有所增加。这可能是响应了学生的需求，或者是尝试将资金从昂贵的课程上转移开，对于大学经济来说，这是合理的，但可能会影响学生的收入潜力：工程专业课程成本高，其实是学生受益，而不是学校。（至少没有直接的利益，但可能会有一些间接的，比如说，那些高收入者给母校捐赠，或者学校的排名提前）

There is a case for subsidizing STEM education, but if universities don’t share in the payoff from their investments， they may not continue to do so for long. A better alternative could be increasing government subsidies earmarked for STEM education and financing with income taxes, some of paid, inevitably, by high-earning engineers.

如果大学一直投资STEM这些课程，却没有获益的话，他们就很有可能经营不下去了。其实有一个更好的选择是给STEM课程增加一些政府补贴或者融资所得税，当然不可避免地，其中的一部分要由高收入的工程师来支付。

现在是不是恨不能回到上大学前呢？没关系啦，只要你用心攻克你的专业，也一定会有好回报的！如果你有弟弟妹妹快要上大学了，又不知道选什么专业，记得分享给他们哦！

不点赞么？

本文转自普特考试小助手

猜你喜欢

点击阅读原文，获取普特英语音频节目！