It's no joke in STEM either, I'll give you that. I should have said it's hard for humanities majors relative to STEM, because I definitely wouldn't try to claim

It's no joke in STEM either, I'll give you that. I should have said it's hard for humanities majors relative to STEM, because I definitely wouldn't try to claim it isn't a big difference for everyone, graduating in a recession vs a boom. I read an article a while back about how it doesn't matter where you go to college provided you major in STEM. Here's a link, along with a counter point: https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-elite-colleges-lead-to-higher-salaries-only-for-some-professions-1454295674 https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-elite-colleges-lead-to-highe... https://money.com/college-matters-stem-majors/ https://money.com/college-matters-stem-majors/ I wasn't super caught up in the debate, mainly because I think that as an absolute statement, the claim that it doesn't matter at all is nearly impossible to defend. It's really a relative argument. Read that way, though, I do find it compelling. Another couple of problems here is that 1) there's always a bit of hand waving around "STEM", with a temptation to turn it into a no true scotsman argument. I defined STEM for this purpose as majors that require you to take specialized upper division coursework with a prerequisite 2 year undergraduate calculus through linear algebra and differential equations sequence. Even that's loose though, and may include some finance or highly quantitative Econ majors (I suspect they do just fine, though). The other is that I think this may hide some differences between elite STEM majors in the nature of the work done. There's a big difference between "senior data scientist at uber cool prestige media company with tons of autonomy" and "senior CRUD bug fixer."