Berserk Focus

You Might Have to Take Out Grandma

2010-03-15T18:33:00.000-07:00

Just today, I realized something and its best summed up by a quote I heard from a co-worker, "I love humanity...but then I met people." As hilarious as it is to think about it, it really makes sense. Every person is different by nature and for the most part, there are going to be a ton of things we disagree about. Democrat or Republican? Family Guy or South Park? Pat's or Geno's? Higher taxes or lower taxes? The list goes on and on but there are still plenty of things that also make us similar as well. We all have feelings, we all (more or less) don't like being treated like garbage...blah blah blah...we are all human beings in the end. However sometimes I wonder if people have forgotten that fact. Between Madoff, Enron and corruption in the government and clergy, all you have to do is just read the news and you'll find something that makes you wonder, what the hell is happening? Here's my statement on that: The younger (and generally poorer) generation is suffering due to the decisions of older (and generally richer) generation.

First, let me make a vast gross generalization that quite frankly I'm willing to stand behind. The past two generations (in aggregate, not any particular person) really made a mess of things. They pushed financial deregulation to an excessive degree, allowed big businesses to block the passage of universal health care and borrowed copious amounts of funds only to leave us with the bill. The results? A financial crisis that rivaled the Great Depression, health care costs inflating at an almost unfathomable rate and an excessive debt burden that, barring ridiculous long-term economic growth, we will have to pay back in kind. Here are my personal views in full disclosure on this stuff:

There's no such thing as too much or too little regulation. There is good and bad regulation. A lack of good regulation (allowing credit default swaps) or an excess of bad regulation (Regulation Q back during the Great Depression) cause financial crises. If you think bankers are scumbags, I personally agree with you. But to think they are any more scummy than any other profession with inherent conflicts of interest is not fair. People will react to incentive structures whether we like it or not. Yes, we can create laws to keep people in check, but we also need to enforce those laws (I'm looking at you SEC, OTS, Office of the Comptroller, etc.)
I like the idea of Universal Health care for three reasons. First, it removes a very preventative barrier to people starting their own businesses therefore creating more companies and more jobs. For all of you who can't find a job and don't want universal health care, you have no right to complain about being unemployed. You are preventing a very real program that would allow more start-up companies, one of the foundations of this country and the primary driver of economic growth. Second, universal health care is an eventuality whether we like it or not. It is cheaper when everyone pools together in insurance, and so long as the population in this country grows, it will becoming a better option in the future. We might as well get it started now. Third, insurance companies, when allowed to work in a market system, have a very real misalignment in incentives. When you pay upfront for a future service in a specified event that is contingent on the company you paid agreeing it should pay you for said future event, it is in the best interest of the company to say that you don't qualify for payment. As a side note, I'm totally fine with medical expenditures being tax-exempt if that is what you feel is a better system. However, for all the people who are roadblocking real health care reform (and supporting those who also block health care reform), don't complain about your high bills because you are asking for it.
Our country has a debt addiction that stems from a combination of our desire to not accept a lower standard of living (or living within our reasonable means) and the political game of no one wanting to raise taxes & cut spending. I think Fareed Zakaria spoke to this perfectly and here is his view on the matter from his show GPS:

Everyone agrees Washington is a mess. In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans were angry at the way Washington works, and there's plenty of blame to go around. Washington is blamed for partisanship, dysfunction, paralysis, problems are never honestly addressed, we kick the can down the road, et cetera, et cetera. You've heard it all.

But, in one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget.

Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level. At the root of this problem, writes Jacob Weisberg, the editor of "Slate" magazine, is our national ambivalence towards government. We dislike government in the abstract, but we love government in the particular.

Strong majorities don't want any more stimulus spending, but 80 percent of the public wants unemployment benefits extended, and more money put into roads and bridges. Another term for that, as Weisberg notes, is stimulus spending.

The lesson of the polls in the recent elections is that politicians will succeed if they pander to this public schizophrenia. So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends.

If you are wondering why I listed all of these things, It's because they are important to our generation (mainly 21 to 29 year old people) and the impact that they will have on us. Unfortunately our generation is tasked with not only figuring out solutions to all of these problems, but will have to also live with the fallout of not tackling these problems. Once again, in full disclosure, there is a real chance that all of these problems will be fixed without direct intervention. However, I'm not willing to bet that the past two generations will put us on the path to growth. This gets to the basis of the first part of my statement. The younger generations in this country have far more problems to worry about than the generations before us. Between increased competition from aboard, a dismal education system compared to other developed countries and a rapidly polarizing political system among other things, it seems that we were given a hand of 2, 9 off suit compared to the older generations who seemed to have a pair of aces when they hit their 20's.

Speaking of which, let me make some comments about the older generation. First, let me define them precisely. I would argue the generations that were capable of being politically active (influencing policy) from the 1970 to 2000, are the main culprits. I will leave out WWII vets and Korean vets as many of them were actually past their most politically active moments by the 1970's. Second, before I criticize them, let me applaud them for some of their achievements. Many important civil rights movements that paved the way for social change were started by these generations and many people in the country are better off for it.

Now my criticism. How about helping in the formation of some policy that will lay the groundwork for success for us and future generations economically? Congrats on promoting social equality but it won't mean much in the long run if their isn't economic growth because polarizing socioeconomic classes can be just as devastating as racial, gender or social status divides. The older generation's reckless abandon in terms of policies that promote long-term growth has screwed the younger generations (you know, the older generation's children). We are now shifting from gender, racial and social divides to divides based on wealth (and indirectly age). Personally, I feel that this is even more devastating in the long term than gender or racial divides as usually the hierarchy of society perfectly mirrors the wealth distribution in a company. Do you know of CEO's that makes less and has less political sway than an entry-level worker? By having the new divides be based on wealth and indirectly age to a certain degree, it becomes clear to me that the younger generation has to compete with the older generation who currently have a better hand.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any solution in the near future with the way the system currently works. The point of capitalism to a certain degree is that the capitalists can control the direction of a country. When people ask, "What the hell is going on?" my general answer is "The people in power are abusing it and a lot of the problems you see are symptoms of that." Too bad that the people in power are also the people who have the biggest capital stores and too bad that those people tend to be the older generation whose polices got us here in the first place.

A Word About Academics To Help The Average Undergrad From A Budding Economist

2010-02-23T02:36:00.000-08:00

For my first post, I’d like to share with those readers who are currently on their way to a four-year undergraduate program my thoughts on creating a path to leave college well-equipped for the insanity that is the real world in regards to doing well academically and picking a major. This post is designed to help you think more proactively about picking a major rather than the traditional crap you will probably be fed. As a gross disclaimer, there are people who know exactly what they want to do, and if you are one of them, I encourage you to follow your focus. This guide is for the rest of us who aren’t awesome like that and actually need to think about the future. This post is not about selecting schools, but about making informed decisions once in college.

With that, let me share a little about the path I took. My undergraduate experience was had at Franklin & Marshall College (http://www.fandm.edu/), a small liberal arts college in Lancaster, PA. I graduated with an Economics and Business double major. Some interesting facts about Lancaster:

· There is a quilt museum (http://www.quiltandtextilemuseum.com/)

· The bars are dirt cheap and have really good specials (http://www.brendeescafe.com/specials.php)

· The Amish are a staple of the region (http://www.800padutch.com/amish.shtml)

In full disclosure, I went to my college because they gave me a scholarship (I like not paying for things), not because I thought it was the best place for me or for the interesting aspects about the area around it. Now that you know about the region lets take a quick year by year tour of my growth through college. If you don’t want to read the commentary, focus on the italicized phrases and understand that I will explain them further later in the blog, and then jump down to further to “The Guide.” If you are a DILLIGAF’er about my life and how it might relate to you, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmUKVrT0iI), just jump right down “The Guide”.

Freshman Year:

Like most people who want to save the world, I started out pre-medicine (http://www.fandm.edu/x3531). Let’s be clear, pre-medicine is NOT a major, but rather a guidance of courses to take in preparation for the dreaded MCAT exam (http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/) that causes incubus attacks for budding doctors. During this time I took a lot of science and math courses. While I wasn’t the worst student (I managed a 3.38 cumulative GPA by the end of my freshman year) it began to dawn on me that I might not be cut out for my passion at the time. Let me stop you right there and italicize this next phrase, Yes, in the real world (defined as whatever is after undergraduate) there is something called being qualified for a job or practice; if you can’t cut it for a specific job or practice, then you will not be there very long. Thankfully, my college had graduation requirements and I was exposed to various other classes.

Sophomore Year:

The year that is hardest for most people and I was no exception; I too fell to the dreaded sophomore slump (http://www.cabrini.edu/assets/cabrini/counseling/TheSophomoreSlump.pdf) in terms of academics and other things. It is also one of the most critical and I will break it into first semester and second semester.

First Semester:

My sophomore slump was definitely exacerbated by joining the college football team and pledging a non-football fraternity at the same time. I struggled immensely with what is arguably the hardest course for any budding doctor, Organic Chemistry, and had to withdraw from the course. At the end of my first semester I saw my cumulative GPA fall to a 3.33. You are not wrong if you are thinking, “This dude is baby, a 3.33 isn’t bad.” However, let me highlight something to you that may change your view. If you want to go to a good medical school, chances are that a good GPA and good MCAT score are needed (http://www.studentdoc.com/medical-school-requirements.html). Once again let me italicize the next phrase, while D does stand for “Degree,” it also increases the probability that you will be “Dependant” on others for shelter which may mean living in your parents’ basement.

Second Semester:

Over the course of the winter break, I realized I was not cut out for pre-medicine. How did I respond, I selected courses that were easy and I had a slight interest in. What? You say? How could you do that, let me respond with, italicized time. Taking courses to explore different subjects is a good idea, taking easy courses to explore different subjects is a great idea. At the end of the semester, I decided to double major in Economics and Business as I liked both fields and had three requirements in the bank.

Junior Year & Senior Year:

I was now in full blown “have to finish my majors on time” mode and had to strategically select courses. After being behind 2 years compared to everyone else in the Econ and Business departments, I lost the ability to take other courses and focused only on Econ, Business and graduation requirements courses. In fact, I had to go to summer school between sophomore and junior years in order to be able to graduate on time. I did well in the end; my cumulative GPA went from a 3.33 to a 3.53, managed to graduate “Cum Laude,” and got a good job. Yay! Happy ending (or is it?)

Post School:

I now have a job which is good, pays well and is stable. Only problem is that I’m looking to switch industries cause I don’t like what I’m doing anymore. Wait, what does this have to do with college? Let me call in my friend italicized, You will have to live with what majors you choose in undergrad in the time after college.

The Guide:

Now for my guide on building a future for yourself as an undergrad as this blog entry is made to help you. First, let’s list all the italicized points one at a time and then go through each one ( I will refer to these as guide statements from now on):

Yes, in the real world (defined as whatever is after undergraduate) there is something called being qualified for a job or practice; if you can’t cut it for a specific job or practice, then you will not be there very long.
While D does stand for “Degree,” it also increases the probability that you will be “Dependant” on your others for shelter which may mean living in your parents’ basement.
Taking courses to explore different subjects is a good idea, taking easy courses to explore different subjects is a great idea.
You will have to live with what majors you choose in undergrad in the time after college.

Yes, in the real world (defined as whatever is after undergraduate) there is something called being qualified for a job or practice; if you can’t cut it for a specific job or practice, then you will not be there very long.

The Theory:

Are you happy that your doctor must pass rigorous test before diagnosing you? Are you happy that your lawyer must past certain qualifications to represent you in a court of law? If you answered no, then chances are you disgruntled because YOU couldn’t become a doctor or lawyer due to these requirements. For the rest of us this is a good thing because it means that everyone who is certified by an overseeing body is capable of doing a good job and contributing positively to society. While this is one of the forces of society, in general there is a much more prevalent force that keeps qualified people performing their best fit occupation.

The forces of supply and demand help regulate who gets into what and help make sure only the best people stay in the best jobs over the long run. If you are not an Econ major, I will do my best to summarize by example. Imagine a world where the following are true:

Everyone has the right to choose their profession but not everyone is equal in their ability to perform said profession
A profession is what you do to make money and sustain life
Everyone has the right to choose who they hire for a task
People can freely attempt to change professions

If you think about it, this is pretty much true in general in the US, and this leads to something that is really good in that people in a given profession compete with each other in trying to win over customers and clients. What does this mean? Customers get the best service because service providers (professionals) compete with each other. What does this mean for a professional? In order to put food on his or her table, he or she needs enough clients to make ends meet. Let me hark back to assumption 1 and reiterate that all of our said professionals are NOT equal in ability to compete. If a less skilled professional can not compete, he or she will not get enough clients to make a living. Does this person just die then? Not unless they are so unskilled that they can’t do anything well (and even then we have systems to sustain them). Let’s look at assumption 4 in this context. Most people will say, “I’m hungry and therefore need to find something I can do to make money. I can freely choose professions so I will at least choose something I can compete well enough at to make ends meet.” Thus, we get to the crux of guide statement 1 in that people have a real incentive to pick professions that they have enough latent ability to compete at regardless of their level of enjoyment.

What does this mean for you?

If you want to have a life with ample income (I avoid the word “happy” because some people are happy being broke), you are going to need to be able to compete in the real world. If you focus on doing things you are bad at in college, you will be disadvantaged out of college in terms of your ability to make money. Now let me address something many people don’t seem to get, which is that loving something does not mean you will be good at it.

While I am a believer in the adage, “If you do what you love, you’ll be good at it,” it is a general rule that highlights a correlation (which for those who are not statisticians, this means that being good at something it is not a direct effect of loving it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) and is not a law of nature like how 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore while focusing on what you love will give you a higher probability of doing well at it, it is by no means a guarantee that you will be good at it.

While D does stand for “Degree,” it also increases the probability that you will be “Dependant” on others for shelter which may mean living in your parents’ basement.

The Theory:

Remember how I said you need to compete in the real world for money? Well it turns out that you even need to compete with all those other people graduating! Once again, I’m going to make some assumptions:

For people entering the workforce: Most college graduates do not have much work experience to rely on and therefore must rely on their accomplishments during college to signal that they are capable of providing value to an employer.
For people looking to go to school for further education: The previous assumption is even more prevalent as schools really look at test scores and grades as the biggest factors in accepting and rejecting applicants.
We will ignore people who interned at a company or a graduate school and did well enough to get an offer as this point is moot if your immediate future is set. Also, if you already have something lined up, congrats and enjoy the rest of your college experience.

Let’s think about this from the point of an employer as I think the relation to graduate school programs is fairly easy to comprehend without explanation (FYI, good grades equal good graduate school, bad grades equal bad graduate school.) If an employer is going to hire someone, he or she needs a good way to evaluate whether the person is a good fit for his or her company. What does this mean? You are going to have to play the game of getting a job. For you undergrads out there who don’t know how it works, the general system of getting a job is pretty simple in theory:

It generally begins with finding postings from potential employers or contacting connections and learning about openings at various companies
Usually you will need to provide a resume and a cover letter to said employer
Interviews are what usually follow after employers look at your resume and cover letter
Job offers get extended after employers interview with you

Simple right? What could be so hard? Well let’s start with your resume. Remember assumption 1 and how you don’t have a lot of work experience? Yeah, that’s not good. For a little context, one of the best indication of how much value you will contribute to an employer is how much value you contributed to your previous employer. Since you don’t have a previous employer, and I’m talking about full-time meaningful employment for an extended time period, you are kind of disadvantaged. So what do employers then have to make decisions with? The answer is your accomplishments during college and what did you spend the most time doing other than drinking and making mistakes? Going to class and getting grades and thus we get to crux of guide statement 2 in that the best signaling tool you have out of school is your academic record which employers will look at and make a decision as to how much value you will contribute to said employer. For another perspective read this wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) - on a very well documented game regarding education and finding a job.

What does this mean for you?

Grades are the most important device you have to getting an interview and eventually getting your first job out of college. Sure you will hear about people who have connections and got jobs or into graduate schools because of friends or family but for the average person (and this entry is for the average person), you are best assuming your academic record is the best tool you have in getting a job. Anyone who has looked for a job will tell you that getting an interview is usually the hardest part of any job hunt, which translates into Bad academic record = weaker resume = low chance of interviews without some outside form of an influence = Move into mom’s basement.

Taking courses to explore different subjects is a good idea, taking easy courses to explore different subjects is a great idea.

This one is fairly beautiful in its simplicity and therefore I will keep it brief. If you are a freshman or sophomore, chances are you are thinking of potential majors but don’t know which one to select as The Major; chances are also that your advisor told you to take some courses that will expose you to various other fields or that by default you’ll have to take some graduate requirements. The only way you are going to get exposure to different fields and fulfill graduate requirements is to take classes, which covers the first part of guide statement 3. How about what courses though? Do you take rocks for jocks (Intro to Geology at my alma) or a more difficult course? My advice is to take a simpler course for one reason, There is no reliable indication as to whether you will like the course or not (course description are rarely good indicators as to whether YOU will like the course), but if it is easy, at least you get the benefit of it improving your GPA. Anyone who tells you that you should be challenging yourself is giving you incomplete bad advice; they are right that you should be challenging yourself, but it should be in fields you actually have a discovered interest in, not exploratory courses. If you actually enjoy the material, you’ll be willing to put the time in to do well in it, otherwise you’ll just watch your GPA plummet faster than the stock market over second half of 2008.

How do you find easy courses? Ask the upperclassmen what courses they took as their “joke” courses as they will best be able to guide you. If you don’t have an upperclassmen friend, I recommend you go to a drinking function and strike up a conversation with upperclassmen.

You will have to live with what majors you choose in undergrad in the time after college.

Before I go any further, for those who are going to graduate school, these following statements definitely still apply, except that it is for after you finish school. This point may be difficult to think about as people probably don’t usually think about life in college in this manner but let me highlight something about workplace skills and characteristics (I will refer to them collectively as talents). In general there are certain classifications for these said talents and while no standard rubric exists, I will use the following terminology below (the parenthetical are another usually referenced way of referring to the same skills):

Tangible (Hard) skills: Such as the ability to write computer code, perform a science experiment, write a paper or build excel models. These skills produce a visible, tangible product that is used in the process of generating revenues for a company
Intangible (Soft) skills: Such as the ability to effectively converse with clients, manage junior employees, read or think strategically. These skills usually do not produce tangible products but usually facilitate the process of generating revenues. For example, a manager who can effectively communicate with his employees and motivate them will have employees who produce products that are better than if the manager was not good.
Characteristics (Traits): Such as hard-working, patient or gregarious. These are general traits that make up someone in the workplace as an employee and affect their general demeanor.

If you grasped this, then you are leagues above most people. Now let me talk about how people generally develop these talents.

Tangible skills are generally accumulated by either taking a formal course or doing some form of a self-study program where you practice these skills and develop them. They can be mastered over time in the work place but this cannot happen without some level of knowledge from the beginning.
Intangible skills are generally accumulated through work experience but can also be learned by either taking a formal course or doing some form of a self-study program.
Characteristics are either genetic or learned over daily interaction (I’m not going to make arguments for nature or nurture).

Now let’s make some assumptions:

Tangible and intangible skills can be learned in the classroom or through some form of a self-study program.
Learning a tangible or intangible skill in the classroom is more efficient (defined as you progress much further given the same amount of time) than self-study. Note that the hybrid “take-home” curriculum falls between the two as an organized course will be faster than just learning it on your own, but not as fast as having a dedicated instructor and course.
People are evaluated on their ability to demonstrate mastery of a tangible or intangible skill.
Characteristics can not be learned and are constant for everyone. This does not mean they don’t change over time, but given the focus of this analysis, we will assume someone’s baseline characteristics do not change fast enough to make a significant different.

The point of assumption 4 is to say that your characteristics are what make you, well you. Thus, it is the starting point for who you are and unless something drastic happens, you probably are not going to change your baseline characteristics in the near future. To begin understanding guide statement 4, think of everyone as a combination of soft and hard skills. One of the points of college is to accumulate enough of these skills to allow you to compete in the workplace (notice how I keep harkening back to how you must eventually compete in the real world?)

To begin this discussion, let’s imagine a hypothetical. We are going to start a company and we need two people: One person who will produce widgets and another person who will sell widgets. The person who is producing the widgets is using his or her tangible skills whereas the person who is selling the widgets is using his or her soft skills. Now let us assume each person focus solely on his or her task (i.e. the seller only sells and the widget maker solely makes widgets). Let us now think about the skills necessary for each task.

Depending on what a widget is, the maker may need skills in engineering (A bridge), mathematics (A research paper discussing a new theorem), computer programming (A video game) or writing (A book).
Depending on what a widget is, the seller will need knowledge of the market and be able to convince people to buy the widget.

Now let me pose this question, Which job is better? Neither and I’m going to attempt to answer this question in a simple concise manner by using minimal sources even if it is a complex problem. Let me also add that a study like this is reserved for a PhD student, but just gaining an appreciation for the system of skill acquisition will place you leagues above your classmates. The following top 10 majors were taken from the following article and values are rounded for simplicity sake.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/10/27/cb.what.major.pays/index.html

Let’s look at this from our tangible and intangible skills standpoints. The tables at the top adds what I believe the classifications are for each program. Let’s also look at some basic statistics now of the various skill sets. In the following table, Hybrid Skills are counted towards both.

Notice, how that at least in terms of entry level work, there really isn’t a much difference the average pay. For you statisticians, yes I know this is bogus in terms of a proper study, but it does highlight that industry or skill set are at least somewhat not important when you consider getting a job in a gross macro sense. More importantly notice how many more fields can be considered using soft skills as opposed to hard skills. I’m going to draw two inferences from this:

No matter what field you go into, it is possible to make a living where you can generate ample income assuming the industry doesn’t collapse or become obsolete
Intangible skills are the focus of more fields than tangible skills

The first inference should be intuitive in the sense that if skilled professionals couldn’t make a living, then the profession would die. The second inference is that more fields engage in soft skills rather than hard skills. Let’s look at the majors offered at my alma, Franklin & Marshall. The final table lists all of the majors offered and how the author classifies them. Also note that I am not making a judgment as to the practicality of any specific program (Dance vs Chemistry vs Economics) but simply the skill set acquired. Once again, hybrid programs count towards both. The programs were taken directly from the website http://www.fandm.edu/academics

Let’s now check the count of skill sets: Tangible 21, Intangible 39

Almost double the fields rely on intangible skills than tangible skills as the primary focus. Now let’s think about this and I want to draw you attention to some things I find interesting:

The intangible fields usually relate to languages, social sciences and history
The tangible fields usually relate more to natural sciences and performing, audio & visual arts

Now let me ask you this question, if you think about the five generic fields I listed in the bullet points above (languages, social sciences, history, natural sciences and performing arts), which ones do you practice more frequently everyday? If I was a betting person, I would say the average person meaningfully practices language quite frequently (talking with friends, writing papers) and meaningfully engages in the social sciences pretty frequently as well (Figuring out what someone is thinking, making rational decisions). Now, let’s think about how often average person meaningfully engages in the natural sciences (staying alive) and the performing arts (dancing at a party). I’m going to draw another set of inferences:

The average person is actively developing intangible skills at a faster rate than tangible skills
People have a much more natural ability to learn the fields with intangible focuses as opposed to tangible focuses

These inferences have huge ramifications for your major choice (ha, you thought I forgot didn’t you?) Let’s do quick recap

We assumed and inferred the following:

Tangible and intangible skills can be learned in the classroom or through some form of a self-study program.
Learning a tangible or intangible skill in the classroom is more efficient (defined as you progress much further given the same amount of time) than self-study. Note that the hybrid “take-home” curriculum falls between the two as an organized course will be faster than just learning it on your own, but not as fast as having a dedicated instructor and course.
People are evaluated on their ability to demonstrate mastery of a tangible or intangible skill.
Characteristics can not be learned and are constant for everyone. This does not mean they don’t change over time, but given the focus of this analysis, we will assume someone’s baseline characteristics do not change fast enough to make a significant different.
No matter what field you go into, it is possible to make a living where you can generate ample income assuming the industry doesn’t collapse or become obsolete
Intangible skills are the focus of more fields than tangible skills
The intangible fields usually relate to languages, social sciences and history
The tangible fields usually relate more to natural sciences and performing arts
The average person is actively developing intangible skills at a faster rate than tangible skills
People have a much more natural ability to learn the fields with intangible focuses as opposed to tangible focuses

Let’s synthesize this into a point. The most important points are listed below:

a) Tangible and intangible skills can be learned in the classroom or through some form of a self-study program.

b) No matter what field you go into, it is possible to make a living where you can generate ample income assuming the industry doesn’t collapse or become obsolete

c) Intangible skills are the focus of more fields than tangible skills

d) The average person is actively developing intangible skills at a faster rate than tangible skills

e) People have a much more natural ability to learn the fields with intangible focuses as opposed to tangible focuses

Time for my final advice regarding selecting a major! (hopefully have been leaning towards what I’m about to say after following this entry). If you cannot decide between a group of majors let’s say Economics, Chemistry, Computer Science, American Studies, Chinese, Government and Dance, you should pick the one’s that require tangible skills, in this case Chemistry, Computer Science or Dance. I’m making this recommendation on the basis that you are ambivalent enough that any of the above majors is appealing and that you are capable of doing well at the major you select; if you really like one over the other, then by all means pick it. Why, you may ask, would I make this recommendation (even against what I studied in college)? It’s simple if you think about d) and e) above. You will naturally be developing intangible skills throughout the course of your life; you don’t build tangible skills by just engaging in the common activities of life and therefore need to actively learn them.

This is the most critical piece of the this post. If you want to have flexibility in what you pursue in the future after your undergraduate degree, you will have more options with degrees in fields that require tangible skills rather than intangible skills. Let me add this disclaimer too: I'm not saying that you will be permanently restricted in pursuing your goals, but what I am saying is that you will have to acquire those tangible skills at some point. Since you are already in college and have a teacher (which is the most efficient method of learning), why not take advantage of it? What does this mean for you in particular?

If your goal is to get an MBA, you can get it regardless of your background. If your goal is to get a PhD in chemistry, you won't have a chance in hell unless you have a chemistry undergrad background or have acquired substantial knowledge over your life
If your goal is to be in finance, you can get an entry level job regardless of your background. If you want to do programing for a video game developer, you are going to have to have substantial skill in programing either from work experience or taking classes.

If you don’t believe me, I would recommend you scan some job postings or graduate school website and look at what different programs require as qualifications. I’m willing to bet you’ll see pretty quickly that tangible fields, like the natural sciences or art design, require you to have a either an undergraduate degree or extensive work experience in that field, whereas jobs in softer fields, like marketing will have less specific qualifications and say things such as “Must be passionate,” or “Have good communication skills.”

If you have any questions, feel free to send them my way as I’m always willing to help an undergraduate in need. Hopefully, these points will help you in thinking about your future studies and inform your decision beyond the standard, "College is a place of learning."

- Emre