19 ms·

If you really want to compute this, I think you'll need to use marginal benefits of math skills, which varies a lot by person and environment. It depends on not

If you really want to compute this, I think you'll need to use marginal benefits of math skills, which varies a lot by person and environment. It depends on not just other aptitudes, but also preferences and circumstances surrounding that person. Britney Spears or Tiger Woods probably wouldn't benefit much from Calculus. Even for an 'average' salary person, it depends a lot on other skills s/he has. A top salesperson/marketing wizard does not need calculus and can earn several times the salary of the best engineer who does not pursue business or get involved in a startup. The premise that Q-N is positive could be flawed from the start. See, e.g. "A Whole New Mind" http://www.amazon.com/Whole-New-Mind-Information-Conceptual/dp/1573223085 http://www.amazon.com/Whole-New-Mind-Information-Conceptual/...

tokenadult 17y ago
The premise that Q-N is positive could be flawed from the start. That's an important caution, and thanks for posting the link to the book description. Whether Q-N is positive in general is, of course, an empirical question. (I'm pretty sure the general answer to that question is yes, quantitative careers outearn nonquantitative careers in the aggregate.) You make some very good points about individual preferences and particular skills that trump math skills. If I had a child who played soccer like Freddy Adu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Adu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_Adu and who enjoyed playing soccer, I'd only bother him about enough math homework to make sure his agent wasn't cheating him.