By definition, a fallacy is an argument in which the premises fail to provide adequate logical support for the conclusion. Most arguments start with a premise (X) that is either a fact or an assumption forming the foundation of the argument. Some logical principle (Y) is then applied to arrive at a conclusion (Z). Originating from the Latin meaning “deception, deceit, or trick,” fallacies are useful analytical tools when assessing the validity of an argument or statement. When dissecting an argument or statement, individuals need to recognize the existence of uncertainties in measurement, errors in sampling, and biases in research. These uncertainties, errors, and biases are especially prevalent when discussing the relationship between academic majors and career potential. For example, in his remarks to a General Electric plant in 2014, President Barack Obama declared “folks can make a lot more potentially with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.”75
This example of flawed logic is just one of many examples of how politicians from both major political parties in the United States have labeled certain majors like art history useless and an intellectual luxury, limiting in employment opportunities, and unworthy of public funding.76 Choose a useful major and you will always have a job, a successful career, and become rich compared with those individuals who choose a useless major and in turn end up unemployed, without a career, and become poor. This dichotomy between useful and useless majors lacks substantiation and is too often used to simply a nuanced connection between major and career. As professor Peter Cappelli of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania observed, “it seems that what a person studies in college should relate to his or her planned career path, but it turns out that it’s very hard to predict how those two things will interact with each other.”77 This unpredictability has resulted in five common college major fallacies:
• Confusing association with causation fallacy: (also known as cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, “with this, therefore because of this.”) Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. What does this mean? A brief explanation is that correlation is a measure of how closely related two things are; and just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. When a visual representation of data illustrates two or more lines sloping or bars rising, “the data practically begs us to assign a reason. We want to believe one exists. Statistically we can’t make that leap, however. Charts that show a close correlation are often relying on a visual parlor trick to imply a relationship.”78 Correlations between two things can be caused by three or more factors and often are. “Our preconceptions and suspicions about the way things work tempt us to make the leap from correlation to causation without any hard evidence.”79 This happens quite frequently within higher education and the discussion between the selection of a college major and the potential for lifetime earnings. Examples include:
○ Ex: You need to major in business because employers value students with that major over all other disciplines.
○ Ex: Your salary is directly related to your level of happiness. The more money you make, the happier you are.
○ Ex: The most important thing you can do for your career is pick the perfect major. Nothing else matters.
○ Ex: Since engineering majors have the highest salaries upon graduation, you need to select that as your major if you want to have a great career.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: (“after this, therefore because of this”) “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. This is the second fallacy many individuals fall into when discussing the selection of an academic major. Examples include:
○ Ex: Kyle has had a successful 20-year career in marketing and it’s all because he majored in business.
○ Ex: Shelly had an offer of full-time employment prior to graduation and it’s because she majored in economics.
• Single-cause fallacy: It occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. This fallacy often demonstrates a lack of awareness about the specific topic examined and can disclose one’s bias to demonstrate contempt prior to investigation. Judgments are made quickly instead of analyzing the multiple causes of a situation. Examples include:
○ Ex: Employers really want me to have two majors and two minors.
○ Ex: Employers only care about your grade point average; the higher it is, the better your chances of being hired.
○ Ex: People with high grade point averages in college earn more over the course of a lifetime compared with those with a low grade point average.
• Anecdotal fallacy: using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence. This is a common fallacy committed by parents, relatives, or friends of undergraduates. There is a tendency to persuade students, intentionally or unintentionally, into a major based on one’s experience with that specific academic program. Examples include:
○ Ex: My sorority sisters and I majored in business, economics, or finance and we all have extraordinary careers, so major in one of those subjects and you will be just as successful as we are.
○ Ex: I worked at one organization doing the same job for 30 years, so you should do that if you want to be successful.
• Sweeping generalization fallacy: assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances. Sweeping generalizations also tend to correspond with other fallacies such as the single cause or anecdotal. Examples include:
○ Ex: Recent college graduates with a history degree are all unemployed.
○ Ex: No one would ever hire a philosophy major.
○ Ex: People who choose interdisciplinary studies as a major are wasting their time.
These fallacies surrounding the college major exist because of the mental models or thinking algorithms that are formed from ingrained assumptions and theories about the way the world works. These fallacies also exist in part because some incoming students may not yet be developmentally ready to make important life decisions. Without a structured period of self-reflection, learning, and growth, they end of declaring a major based on the opinions of those with whom they have a personal relationship, such as family members and often make an uneducated, unrelated, and ineffective decision not based on their true personal goals, interests, and values.80 “Though mental models lie below people’s cognitive awareness, they’re so powerful a determinant of choices and behaviors that many neuroscientists think of them almost as automated algorithms that dictate how people respond to changes and events.”81 The mental models students rely on when deciding to declare an academic major often undermine their ability to view college as “an expansive adventure, yanking them toward unfamiliar horizons, and untested identities.”82 This “yanking toward unfamiliar horizons” is a necessity in order to prevent a single myopic view of the world, which is another characteristic of a flawed mental model. “If you only have one framework for thinking about the world, then you’ll try to fit every problem you face into that framework. When your set of mental models is limited, so is your potential for finding a solution.”83
This book examines five assumptions prevalent in the mental models of undergraduates, parents, educators, higher education leaders, administrators, and policymakers that cause people to fall into one or more of the following traps when selecting a college major:
• Your major determines your long-term income potential.
• You need to land your dream job and figure out what to do “with the rest of my life.”
• You can only apply to jobs in your major.
• Employers only care about my major and grade point average.
• Specialization in one major is the key to long-term career success.
The substantial evidence overwhelming demonstrates that no one college major holds a “monopoly on the ingredients for professional achievement or a life well lived.”84 As one observer succinctly noted, “it doesn’t matter what you focus on, as long as you focus on it in a rigorous way.”85 In a recent survey, 93 percent of employers agreed with the statement: “a candidate’s demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than their undergraduate major.”86 Contrary to what many may believe, you do not have to major in English to have a career as a writer; you do not have to study business to work as a consultant; and you do not have to study international relations or political science to get a job in government. Likewise, you are not limited to working as an archivist, librarian, or teacher as a history major. “The real world doesn’t care about your degree as much as your work ethic and attitude.”87
This type of thinking surrounding the college major needs to be advocated, explained, and supported from higher education administrators if students are to recognize the value of focusing on an academic program they enjoy instead of what they think they should declare as a major. As one observed noted, “For years we have been focused on access, and now we need to turn our attention equally to student success. It takes courage to say we can do better.”88 For higher education institutions to improve, they will need to think and act very differently. “The current way colleges function, with their roots grounded in outdated Weberian management practices, outmoded instructional delivery systems, and archaic approaches to student and institutional support services, simply will not work for institutions that are charged with serving as major democratizing forces and economic engines for a changing population, a changing world and a rapidly evolving future.”89 Thinking differently and moving away from the usual way of doing things, however, is a formidable challenge as “people often refuse to relinquish their deep-seated beliefs even when presented with overwhelming evidence to contradict those beliefs.”90