Petroleum engineering. Would non-oil energy sources cause pay to drop over the next 40 years?
Yes. Also even aside from that there is volatility in fossil fuel prices, and thus demand for fossil fuel occupations. Probably too narrow a specialization for you there, without enough compensating benefits.
Actuarial math. If I understand correctly, actuaries had high pay because they were basically a cartel, artificially limiting the supply of certifications to a certain number each year. And I’ve heard that people that used to hire actuaries now hire cheaper equivalents, so pay could be less over the next 40 years.
You can do better than that at Stanford, e.g. higher-end fields within finance, or entrepreneurship, or high-end research.
Pre-med.
Medicine has many virtues, but you don’t need to sculpt your choice of major around it even if you want this option open: as long as you take and get A grades in the pre-requisite classes, success in any major (with appropriate extracurriculars and test scores) can get you admitted to medical school.
Quantitative finance
Finance can easily beat CS if you don’t become an entrepreneur in earnings, but they are closer in risk-neutral returns if one goes the entrepreneurial route. Much would depend on which is a better fit for you.
a science major plus a humanities major has lower earnings than the science major alone; greatest returns are achieved by pairing a math/science major with an engineering major, which increases earnings “up to 30%” above the math/science major alone. I’d guess these effects are largely not causation, but correlation caused by conscientiousness/ambition causing both double majors and higher earnings.
Substantially, but STEM majors are independently desired in particular fields, and act as credible signals to employers.
What other things could increase earnings?
Doing an internship every summer.
Yes.
Maybe I could try to get into a leadership position at a student club or something.
Founding things is better, particularly something you actually want to do so that you will put more into it and get more value out of it.
Honors programs, or doing research. Do employers care about this?
Research is most useful for getting a sense of/preparing for/applying to PhD programs and academia.
Studying abroad.
Doubtful. Most study abroad programs push you towards taking less useful courses and being isolated from great things at Stanford (which has a higher density of good connections and resources than the usual study abroad sites).
they are closer in risk-neutral returns if one goes the entrepreneurial route
I would be very interested in some source for this where I could read about it in more detail.
If someone asked me, then based on a remark I came across at 80,000 Hours, my advice for choosing a high-earning career would now simply be to choose finance if your “ability” (mainly IQ) is sufficiently high and medicine if not.
Edit: It would probably be easier to find the info if I could read 80,000 Hours here in China...sigh.
It’s by no means a rock-solid conclusion. There are various data showing good returns, but not well matched to particular individuals’ ex ante prospects.
For example, the combined wealth of all technology billionaires firmly surpasses that of all finance billionaires, and if one looks at fortunes earned in the last several decades the disproportion is overwhelming.
The mean returns of venture-backed entrepeneurs are good (while the risk-adjusted returns look comparatively poor), but that’s a highly selected subset of entrepreneurs and startups (some discussion on 80000 hours).
The evidence for finance is more robust than for tech entrepreneurship (although 80,000 hours is trying to get a better picture).
Yes. Also even aside from that there is volatility in fossil fuel prices, and thus demand for fossil fuel occupations. Probably too narrow a specialization for you there, without enough compensating benefits.
You can do better than that at Stanford, e.g. higher-end fields within finance, or entrepreneurship, or high-end research.
Medicine has many virtues, but you don’t need to sculpt your choice of major around it even if you want this option open: as long as you take and get A grades in the pre-requisite classes, success in any major (with appropriate extracurriculars and test scores) can get you admitted to medical school.
Finance can easily beat CS if you don’t become an entrepreneur in earnings, but they are closer in risk-neutral returns if one goes the entrepreneurial route. Much would depend on which is a better fit for you.
Substantially, but STEM majors are independently desired in particular fields, and act as credible signals to employers.
Yes.
Founding things is better, particularly something you actually want to do so that you will put more into it and get more value out of it.
Research is most useful for getting a sense of/preparing for/applying to PhD programs and academia.
Doubtful. Most study abroad programs push you towards taking less useful courses and being isolated from great things at Stanford (which has a higher density of good connections and resources than the usual study abroad sites).
I would be very interested in some source for this where I could read about it in more detail.
If someone asked me, then based on a remark I came across at 80,000 Hours, my advice for choosing a high-earning career would now simply be to choose finance if your “ability” (mainly IQ) is sufficiently high and medicine if not.
Edit: It would probably be easier to find the info if I could read 80,000 Hours here in China...sigh.
It’s by no means a rock-solid conclusion. There are various data showing good returns, but not well matched to particular individuals’ ex ante prospects.
For example, the combined wealth of all technology billionaires firmly surpasses that of all finance billionaires, and if one looks at fortunes earned in the last several decades the disproportion is overwhelming.
The mean returns of venture-backed entrepeneurs are good (while the risk-adjusted returns look comparatively poor), but that’s a highly selected subset of entrepreneurs and startups (some discussion on 80000 hours).
The evidence for finance is more robust than for tech entrepreneurship (although 80,000 hours is trying to get a better picture).