Want to earn nearly $100 64%

By Orianna Rosa Royle64%

7/12/2026, 12:15:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 37.3% saturation with 278 hits. Analysis detected 2,024 faulty-reasoning hits from 746 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.5% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,970 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.60% of the article peer group.

With college setting students back an average of $38,270 per year, young people today are banking on their college degree opening doors to more than house parties and sororities—specifically, to top-paying jobs. 
But whether they succeed at this depends greatly on what they choose to study. 
That’s because one major study from the New York Federal Reserve shows that those wishing to earn the big bucks after college may want to consider studying some form of engineering. 
Even though it typically costs the same to study psychology as it does computer science, the research revealed 80% of the top 10 college majors with the highest incomes five years after graduation are engineering degrees, highlighting the trend toward technology industries in recent years. 
The New York Fed studied the labor market outcomes of college graduates depending on their major—and computer engineering grads came out on top with an annual median salary of $80,000 within five years of tossing their graduation cap in the air. 
Those who studied liberal arts or humanities are earning half of what engineering grads take home 
Even within the field of engineering, not all degrees are equal. 
Those with more specialist engineering qualifications, like aerospace engineering, electrical engineering, and industrial engineering, end up earning slightly more than generalists. 
Meanwhile, the only non-engineering degrees to make the list are the engineering-adjacent computer science—which ranked third with a median early career wage of $80,000—and finance. 
Although the latter just about made the list at number 10, 22 to 27-year-old finance grads can still expect to take home an impressive $70,000 per annum. 
By contrast, those majoring in the liberal arts or humanities can expect to earn around half of those studying engineering. 
Within five years of graduating from college, theology and religion, performing arts and liberal arts grads—which tied for the top spot of the major which pays the worst after college—earn $38,000 a year on average. 
What’s more, although previous research has shown that a degree in the medical field is generally the golden ticket to the big bucks , miscellaneous biological science, treatment therapy, and nutrition sciences are included on the list of low-paying majors—all three pay early career starters up to $50,000. 
For context, the U.S. personal median income (which includes 15-year-olds and those without a degree at all) is $45,180 . 
Degrees that pay the most in the five years after college 
Computer engineering—$90,000 
Chemical engineering—$85,000 
Computer science—$87,000 
Aerospace engineering—$85,000 
Electrical engineering—$82,000 
Industrial engineering—$83,000 
Mechanical engineering—$80,000 
General engineering—$75,000 
Miscellaneous engineering—$75,000 
Finance—$70,000 
Degrees that pay the least in the five years after college 
Fine arts—$45,000 
Elementary education—$45,000 
Early childhood education—$45,000 
Biology—$45,000 
Art history—$45,000 
Anthropology—$45,000 
Performing arts—$44,000 
Social services—$43,000 
Theology and religion—$41,600 
Pharmacy—$40,000 
Even if you’re studying engineering, don’t set your standards too high 
Think an engineering degree at an Ivy League college will automatically make you successful? 
Think again. 
Although certain degrees may increase your odds of landing a high-paying job, don’t bank on it; Nvidia cofounder Jensen Huang thinks setting your expectations too high at college actually makes it harder to succeed in the real world. 
“People with very high expectations have very low resilience—and unfortunately, resilience matters in success,” Huang said during an interview with the Stanford Graduate School of Business . 
“One of my great advantages is that I have very low expectations.” 
“I don’t know how to do it [but] for all of you Stanford students, I wish upon you ample doses of pain and suffering,” Huang said. 
“Greatness comes from character and character isn’t formed out of smart people—it’s formed out of people who suffered.” 
A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on March 25, 2024 . 
Read more on careers from Fortune’s Orianna Rosa Royle: 
Despite degrees being slammed as ‘useless’ by Gen Z, data shows graduates have had the lowest unemployment rate of anyone for the last 20 years 
Ex-Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg says the 10-year career plan is dead thanks to AI : ‘Don’t script your career when the future is uncertain,’ she warns Gen Z 
$7.2 billion AI CEO gets thousands of job applications a day but still can’t find candidates with a strong work ethic 
Samsung’s UK exec admits work-life balance is a myth: ‘Anyone who tells you otherwise is either very lucky or not being entirely truthful’ 
Arianna Huffington says, ‘If you can finish everything before you go to sleep, you don’t have an interesting enough job’ 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 4.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.0%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 6.4%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.6%Fortune: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 2.8%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.1%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.4%Fortune: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 4.8%Fortune: 6.7%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.7%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.4%Fortune: 3.4%Optimism Bias1.5%This article: 6.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.9%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 27.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias27.3%This article: 1.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.3%Fortune: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 1.9%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.0%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.7%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Orianna Rosa Royle: 5.8%Fortune: 3.2%Halo Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.2%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.9%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.3%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man1.9%This article: 19.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 7.5%Fortune: 4.8%Appeal to Authority19.3%This article: 17.2%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.0%Fortune: 2.2%False Dilemma17.2%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.3%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.1%Orianna Rosa Royle: 11.3%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization18.1%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.6%Fortune: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.9%Fortune: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 6.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.9%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 9.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.3%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.5%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division8.7%This article: 17.2%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal17.2%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 37.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.4%Fortune: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)37.3%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 6.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 10.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 5.8%Fortune: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice10.3%This article: 1.5%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.2%Fortune: 1.3%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.9%

746 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers21%attributed speech592writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJensen Huang • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSheryl Sandberg • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSamsung • 23 words • 100.0% coverageArianna Huffington • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samsung

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words15% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +90.7 ptsWriter: 9.3%Samsung: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Samsung: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Samsung: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.