Eh, I think we might be arguing slightly different points and therefore talking past each other.
I certainly didn't intend to come across as argumentative. My apologies.
If I had to choose between money and happiness, I'd take happiness every time.
You, see, Jerry, I'm totally with you here. The only difficulty that I have in accepting this specious maxim is the knowledge that
money really does buy happiness, at least within the threshold of six figures. Also, generally speaking, it's quite difficult to be happy when you're either really fucking poor or perpetually working your ass off to keep the collectors at bay. These dilemmas make out the old 'money vs happiness' schtick as a false dichotomy no matter which way you spin it. I see college as an opportunity for privileged kids to discover a thing in which they're intellectually interested and/or won't hate doing for the rest of their lives so as not to end up living the life of a gas station attendant, electrician, plumber, hard manual laborer, etc. Call me cynical, but I have a suspicion that, dollars to donuts, that's what college will really end up looking like 10, 20, or 30 years down the road.
TL;DR - If you're poor, you're unlikely to be very happy on the merits of your poverty and choice of major alone. Conversely, if you're rich, you're more likely to be happy than if you were to be poor,
all other things being equal.
I will admit that I subscribe to the "do what you love" policy to a certain extent. For example, if you hate a certain subject, you do not want to major in that subject just because you'll make a good paycheck when you graduate. That will only lead to a miserable life with plenty of money.
This is why I prefer the maxim 'do what you don't hate' (which I suppose is somewhat reminiscent of the contrast between the
golden and
silver rules). And though I may agree with you in principle that those people who choose loveless majors and go on to have horrifically successful careers end up more-or-less miserable, I've found that, at least in practice, it rarely works out that way once all is said and done. Permit me, if you will, this small digression re. manual labor:
Consider all those (i.e., literally billions of) people for whom the word 'work' invariably means Hard Manual Labor. I don't how much experience you have with that particular brand of suck, but I assure you, having worked a handful of full-, part-, and overtime jobs in that 'field,' they're called hard for a damn good reason. Some or most of those people will report that although some improvement in their circumstances would be much appreciated, their lives are basically fine on the whole. They elect (wisely, I think) not to define themselves or the quality of lives on the merit of their jobs alone. Try asking one of those people what they 'are.' Oftentimes, they'll refer to their hobbies or interests in order to paint a clear picture of their personality. Then try asking someone who performs work befitting someone with a degree in nuclear physics, biochemistry, or cultural anthropology. They are likely to reply "physicist," "biochemist," and "anthropologist" respectively.
I believe that this little thought experiment says something significant about what the word 'work' means to a person who has attended a university and obtained a degree; and what it means to someone who has not. The point of all this is as follows: If one goes to college and chooses a major of which they may not exactly be fond, but succeeds nevertheless in a manifestly unpleasant career (whilst making fat guap stacks along the way, of course), in what way would they significantly differ from their Hard Manual Labor counterparts, irrespective of the amount of money that they make? If we were to make a bet, I firmly believe that my money would be exactly where my mouth is (ew) on this one. One guy I knew was an engineer for the latter half the 20th century solely because that profession was expected to garner a proportionately high income relative to the cost of the degree he had to obtain. He wasn't a natural at mathematics, hated delivering speeches regarding his designs, and never liked to talk about his work outside of the office. For him, that was perfectly natural, normal, and fine. He was my grandfather, and for him, it worked. I would never advise that anyone take his chosen career path for the reasons mentioned above, but I think that this example serves to underscore the point that 'loving what you do' may not prove to be the most important thing in the world once all is said and done. So I guess, if I had to be succinct, my views appear to be in diametric opposition to yours. Better to do something that you don't
hate, but may not exactly rustle your intellectual cherries, for good money than to be a starving artist with no prospect of improvement in life circumstances.
TL;DR - Better to go to school, learn something lame/excruciating, and make lots of money down the road than to throw your life quality and cash away with a useless degree that you love, or no degree at all.
Many people see the university as some big job placement agency where you learn only what you need to do a specific job for the rest of your life and when you come out you will get that job immediately and live happily ever after. I call bullshit...If a young student finds a major where they truly enjoy going to every class and they are good at the subject, IMO they have a much better chance at living a full, happy life than the ones who just pick a major that will earn the most money.
I call...maybe. The 'happy pauper' is a thoroughly debunked myth. Call me Scrooge, but in my opinion, stuff like good healthcare, a functioning automobile, and a nice part of town are at least as important as enjoying what you must to do to earn all those nice things.
As a mod, if someone comes to this subforum saying they want to major in music, it is not my job to discourage them just because the economy is in the shitter. They will get plenty discouraging from other forumites.
That's perfectly fair. But I'm not a moderator, so I feel free to offer my honest opinion either way. I don't mean to tread on any toes.
I have a friend with a BFA and he works in an office setting. He has a nice house, two cars (his and his wife's), a family....the whole nine yards.
I'm sure you're well aware that your friend is the exception to a truly depressing rule. However, this does raise an interesting point that I was trying (unsuccessfully, it would seem) to broach in my What I Expected; What I Got Thread. I've heard more stories than I can count that prominently feature Dick&Jane-type professionals whose degrees include linguistics, Classics, and the plastic arts, none of which have even the remotest scrap of relevance to their actual careers (job recruiting, U.S. Army artillery training, database management).
