I agree with the above post.

Here are two things the piece didn't mention.

1) You often need a Bachelors degree and usually a masters to move into management in the business world ( maybe not the IT world but for most others)

2) Many people with two year degrees I have found have other "life issues" that cause problems down the road so I tend to not hire individuals that have associates only degrees.

More telling would be to compare the earnings of those who get 4 year technical degrees with those who get 2 year technical degrees. For instance those with a 2 year nursing degree versus those with a 4 year nursing degree. Same field, different degree levels - who earns more out of college?

I think the only thing to take away from this article is that the value of a "Liberal Arts" education has diminished significantly. My guess for this is because everyone is being sent to school to get a 4 year degree these days, even if they have no idea what they want to be when they grow up.

Here is a idea. Serve a career in the military, E-6 and above make double the average starting salary for a 4 year grad and completing college while in the military and benefits after retirement is free. Serve your country and benefit from it. I make more than a 4 year grad with just my retirement check and my management skills beat out any management degree holder. It doesn't take alot to party and nurse hangovers for 3 years and cram for finals to get that sheet of paper. Not saying everyone does this, but from what I have seen in the workforce, there is at least an 80% ratio that does.

That's funny to me that you mention "nurse hangovers", though I assume you may have meant nursing hangovers, most nurses I know love to get shi7 faced.

Here is a idea. Serve a career in the military, E-6 and above make double the average starting salary for a 4 year grad and completing college while in the military and benefits after retirement is free. Serve your country and benefit from it.

As the old saying goes, "Nice work, if you can get it!".

Unfortunately, times have definitely changed. First, the US Armed Forces no longer take everyone they can get their hands on like during the Cold War era. They don't need people like they used to, and the preferred way of acting accordingly is to boost the standards for enlistment and commission way up. I've seen an insane number of people who'd had their hearts set on enlisting rejected outright for things that would hardly have made a difference back in the 80's. The number of people who were booted from Basic Training for unbelievably silly, trivial issues that shouldn't have been any kind of problem whatsoever would shock you. Because of force downsizing, when units were disbanded, quite often a lot of highly trained people were just discharged early - and usually had to surrender benefits because they didn't serve their entire enlistment - instead of being retrained and reassigned elsewhere. After I was injured on active duty, an investigation into what happened uncovered that I was improperly cleared for enlistment because I'd suffered a concussion in a car wreck when I was a kid. The Department of Defense physician examining me had said, "that was years ago, it won't be a problem". That sure wasn't the same way it was looked at after I was too badly injured to remain on duty...since I'd never been eligible for enlistment in the first place, I was discharged for erroneous enlistment and given the boot, instead of being granted a medical discharge. I lost all my benefits and financially, I was really left hurting, to say the least.

If someone can make it far enough in the military to reach an NCO pay grade and to earn their bachelor's degree while on active duty, wonderful, but that's far from a sure bet anymore. A lot of really good people can't even get in the door anymore, mostly due to things that are no real fault of their own and they couldn't help. Assuming a young service member doesn't get washed out somewhere early on, getting promoted is inherently difficult thanks to the 'pyramid' structure of the chain of command. The higher you rise, the fewer slots there's going to be, and it's generally 'up or out'. If you don't promote after a period of time, you won't be allowed to reenlist even if you want to. Anyone who is looking to enlist and is planning to eventually retire from any of the armed services, well, good luck! The odds are very much against it happening and you're going to need all the good luck you can get.

Wait Kallie, are you saying you discriminate against candidates that have only an associates degree? So glad you can rain on someone's parade. You must be proud of yourself, right?

Chemical and electrical engineers have it pretty good as well and will put you into high five or six figures at the right place, and you only need the four years.

Well, you only need four years of college. After college you take a test for an EIT (engineer in training) license, but still aren't a licensed engineer - you need another four years of working under the supervision of an engineer before you can take the Professional Engineering test to get your license. Trust me, that's where I'm at right now. So the total investment to become a licensed engineer is a minimum of 8 years (assuming you pass both tests the first time, as each are only offered twice a year.) A Technical Engineering degree, if I remember correctly, requires 6 years of supervision. BUT, straight out of college with an EIT license you can make a pretty good salary. Some people don't even bother going on to getting their professional license.

@Gunner ... Getting to the E-6 rank isn't always the easiest. Many of my military friends have just recently gotten this promotion and have been in for 8 - 10 years. They are very good at their jobs as well. They've also spent 2 - 3 tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, missed anniversaries, birthdays (some even the birth of their children), holidays. They have numerous 1 - 3 week long trainings, many of the trainings there is little to no communication home. WHY would this be a better job than most? The starting pay in my field in DC, for example, is $60,000. A soldier stationed at Belvoir at E-6 with 6 years in makes about $60,000. In my field the next big promotion is 2 - 3 years from there, generally a $15,000 raise. So by 24 or 25 s/he would be making $75,000 (assuming s/he is like me and graduated from college on time).

A much better suggestion would be to go through a ROTC program in college and get a degree that has value, work your way up in the ranks of the military and go from there. My friends that are officers that are the same age as the enlisted have $0 college debt AND make very good money.

Actually 18 - 20 is a maturing time if you didn't learn your lessons in the first 18. Go into the military to get the rough edges off and when you leave the military you'll know without a doubt what you don't want to be. You'll be mature, have a sense of honor, ability to lead and take and give orders and if you saved some of your bucks you are just what an employer is looking for.

Hey hey, Chemical Engineering is what I'm going for :)

I am constantly baffled by people who pursue degrees that don't have value in the job market. My sister is getting a degree in philosophy. While I do think that philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor for every human, it is not a profession, and certainly does not require a degree of any kind.

I think the article does broach the key point of that discussion which is that it's not having a degree that counts, it's having one in a field that has jobs to offer. The unfortunate thing is that most people pursuing degrees think that simply holding one is the goal. While I agree it is still an accomplishment, and for someone who is not pursuing a degree for job purposes it is great, but for someone who is looking for a degree to apply to the job field this is not well understood.

Of course numerous universities, and colleges prey on this by offering degrees in programs that don't have job value. They constantly repeat that mantra that a degree is what counts when it isn't. Of course, if they actually did force kids into programs that are marketable, which by their nature tend to be more difficult, drop out rates would be much higher, and in turn revenue would be much lower. In that regard a degree is as the rest of life, if you want one that counts, you gotta work for it, but for everyone else there's liberal arts and philosophy.

Students who major in liberal arts, unless they graduate in the top quarter of their class from any college or the top half of their class from one of the top colleges or somehow or other distinguish themselves, are usually wasting their time and money.

I wish these studies would just ignore the idiots that spent 4 yrs getting a liberal arts degree-- its just noise when it comes to getting a real job. What was the average salary after a 4 yr USEFUL degree?

And they fail to mention why education is so much more expensive than 20-30 years ago.

The government likes bubbles until they burst. Dotcom, housing, bond, education etc etc.

Well you have to realize it needs to be repeated because there are many who tell young students otherwise. "A degree is what counts!" Of course most of them have a financial interest in doing so, but when an average 18 year old hears that, and then considers that a four year degree in something technical is going be difficult many then don't inquire further into the matter.

For most people the thought of calculus, physics, chemistry is nerve wracking, and when they are told that having any degree will help, they think they have the answer to avoiding those subjects.

Govt also likes competition until someone competes against them. Then they're all about "harmonization." LOL

If you want that 4 year liberal arts education you're better off these days getting an Associates in liberal arts at a 2 year school, scoring a low-level job with a company that pays for tuition reimbursement and getting your BA over 3-4 years at night and weekend classes. When you graduate you have a degree and work experience and no college debt. You can then work to a promotion within that company or begin searching for a better job with a significant advantage over the 21 year old English and Philosophy majors who have never done anything more challenging than flipping burgers in their lives.

Actually, one is best off getting a degree from a technology center (in some states, one can do that while in high school and get completely free tuition). Then, when one has one's degree in IT or basic health care or whatever, one can then get a job either with a business that does tuition reimbursement or with a college/university that does tuition remission. One can then gradually work through a degree in whatever. A combination of night, flex (part online), online, and weekend classes easily fits with a full time job.

An associates in liberal arts is virtually useless. A technology center certificate in IT will get one a fulltime job at nearly any institution of higher education. I cannot recommend wasting time at a community college to study liberal arts--they do not (typically) have programs that are worth a warm bucket of spit. They do, however, often have great occupational degrees because that is what industry gives them money to do.

The technology centers (a lot of people don't realize that the US has a fantastic network of technology centers which do not offer degrees, but certificates, and which are local and very, very inexpensive) are best particularly for people who only want to study information related to their field of interest and don't want to have to take humanities classes. Why these articles rarely mention technology centers and adult education is beyind me.

An English major with no job should get thyself to the local technology center and obtain a certificate which will complement his/her degree--it might be in web publishing, it might be in IT, it might be in healthcare (a lot of healthcare degrees allow one to do stuff like educate a person about diabetes--something that English majors could do well). It is quick and it is cheap.

Liberal arts degrees have always been for the "idle rich" because after getting one, you'll still be idle and rich. The Useful Arts (as its called in patent law) is for productive people.

It's a nice thought that "my children WILL have their undergrads" [sic] but I hope that they are in agreement with you on that. They're kind of hard to control at that age and outside of controlling the purse strings, there's not much you can do about it.

I would avoid the liberal arts like the plague. My son graduated in 2005 with a BSEE with a first year starting salary of $60K, in two years that went to $80K with a different company, this year(7 years out) he is going to gross $155k with yet another company. There are a lot of jobs out there for STEMs, but sometimes you have to change employers to get big raises. Still if he had not gotten a BS in Electrical Engineering and had instead gotten a BA in the arts he would probably be languishing at the $40k to $60k range if he even had a job. His job decisions have centered around not finding a job, as much as which job to take.

Terrys son is more likely the exception and not the rule. Check salaries of BSEEs, MEs, or any other Es. 150k plus will put you likely in the top 5-10% in most engineering fields.

Yes, changing employers seems to be the only way we engineers can get any kind of significant raise though it is possible with a masters and success on some high profile, highly profitable projects.

The article is extraordinarily accurate. It is a myth that all bachelor's degrees are equal and that they are all superior to a certificate or an associate's degree. I see that you have partaken of the myth.

There are quite a few bachelor's degrees that are utterly useless--the jobs one gets after completing a bachelor's degree are jobs one might have gotten with a high school diploma. English, history, sociology, and philosophy are among those degrees that are actually counter-productive to getting a job. Around 50% of recent college graduates are presently unemployed.

A technology center certificate or an associate's degree is a quick ticket to a job. One needs money to live. Once one has that job, one can then pursue gradually a useful bachelor's degree. Many bachelor's degrees are very useful: engineering, math, science, healthcare, information sciences. Any kind of a STEM degree or practical degree (forensic accounting and forensic computer studies are both fantastic) is even better with a bachelor's.

This specific article addresses the myth that a bachelor's will always be better--it is not. A bachelor's in English is worthless--I have a PhD in English, and it is worse than useless, as it makes me way overqualified for nearly any job I could actually find and apply for.

If you have a kid who wants to spend time studying one of the humanities, explain that it is like studying acting or pottery. It's a whole lot of fun, but the likelihood of making a living at it is pretty much nonexistent. Let's understand the distinction between a vocation (like accounting) and an avocation (like history or literature). One should first get a vocation--then one can play around at an avocation to one's heart's delight.

Bean The trick is incorporating both. When people say "you are so lucky to make money at your passion" Well luck has nothing to do with it. It doesn't happen by accident. Life's choices effect who you are a slave to. If the definition of our success is measured with the dollar only, we are in for a pretty empty life that's just filled up with distractions to cope. We are losing a nation of innovators to a nation of workers that just look shinier. The education system is just funneling people into the game of Monopoly that just sells insurance to one another. There is a reason that the most truly successful people in this country went through a good four year Liberal Arts education.

Terry-753375 I'm sure forgot to mention that the boost in his/her son's salary to 6 figures was AFTER he gained his licensure as a Professional Engineer. It's not a promised salary boost - it was also a job change (from engineer-in-training to licensed engineer) that comes with a lot more work and a lot more liability.

Overall, though, it isn't really an incredibly exceptional situation. In my area the average salary is $27,000, but I make $42,000 as a Civil Engineering graduate... in my first job, within the first year post-graduation. To give you an idea, that's more than our county Tax Assessor makes. In another 3 years I'll become a licensed engineer like Terry's son did and - if I stick with my current employer - earn about $65,000, or more if I go to a private sector position.

The actual numbers really depend on your area. Terry's son might live in New York or LA, so his salary is more proportionate to the averages there than they would be in my hometown. Similarly, I imagine that my salary, which is awesome in my area, would be very sad-looking in Terry's son's hometown.

Regardless, graduates of Engineering programs can expect a more-than-comfortable salary, whatever the exact numbers are.

I noticed they didnt break out the salary for 4 yr TECHNICAL majors so we compare apples to apples. It would also be interesting to know how much of a waste the first 2 yrs of mostly liberal arts CLASSES are a waste. Seems like if you graduated HS with decent math & language skills, you could jump to your junior yr and get the useful part of a 4 yr degree in 2 yrs. Best of both worlds-- higher skills, lower cost.

If the liberal arts student also acquired expertise in electrical engineering at a technology center, I wouldn't have a problem with him or her installing my wiring.

I do wish that techology centers (they aren't "vocational" centers any more--they are terribly advanced in their training, and sometimes moreso than the local university) were more discussed. They are a fantastic alternative for working class and middle class people who don't qualify for merit scholarships or financial-burden scholarships.

The idea that one gets one degree and then that is one's destiny is a problem. A technology center certificate or associate's degree is the first step--one can then acquire more degrees as one goes along. Attending college full-time is not necessary. One just has to live in a college town--there are early morning, late afternoon, night, weekend, flex, and online classes. Many employers are fine with one taking classes--one can even work at the college or university, which is ideal as one often gets tuition remission.

Education is a step--not an identity.

while this is true, we really do need history teachers!

History teachers don't get History degrees, they get History EDUCATION degrees (or Social Sciences, or whatever the college calls it.) You get a degree in Education, with a focus on whatever curriculum you're going to teach.

Want to be an English teacher? Get an "English Education" degree, not an "English" degree. It really depends on the area if they will even hire someone as anything but a substitute without the Education degree (mine won't), but regardless someone with an actual teaching degree will get hired over the person with the general focus degree.

I respectfully disagree, tbiM20. If you want to teach a specific subject, major in that subject, and then get your education background and credentials.

tbiM20 - It really depends on what kind of students you want to teach and where you want to work. Being an educator in the public school system gets you certain bennies (like good insurance and a pension) but costs you intellectually. Most private school educators have higher caliber educations--not education degrees. Look at the backgrounds of instructors at the top private prep schools in the US (try Exeter and Andover or Hopkins), and you will find people who majored in a subject in a college of arts and sciences, not a college of education. There are good reasons that the top tier private schools hire these people. These are the folks that the 1 percenters want to teach their children.

Why knock yourself out playing sports? Robbing banks takes only a few hours a week, and can easily net you big money, tax-free to boot!

What are the odds? Out of 300 million Americans there, what? 3000 highly paid athletes and actors. Most pro athletes and actors are barely middle class.

It's still not fair that Lebron gets to be in the NBA and I don't. I think we should cut the arms and legs professional athletes as needed to slow them down, disfigure the attractive, and drug the intelligent. In the name of fairness.

The odds of earning six figures as an actor or athlete are probably on par with one of the millions of pageant kids becoming Miss America.

Are you saying Honey Boo Boo isn't destined for billions? :D

Q Tip: they already do.

That is true of most of the Sciences too, a BS in Physics or Chemistry or many others is worth about as much as a Bachelor of Medicine degree.

Let's define "the best graduates." Most humanities programs will take any warm body that they can get because bright people have figured out that a graduate degree in humanities will burden one with crippling debt, suck away ten years of a person's youth, and leave one unemployable. They take what they can get.

A science degree is not a bad thing--social sciences is bad. Science is a good thing, especially if one then parlays it into a health sciences career.

Yes, psychology and social sciences are definitely stepping stones. You can get a great job with a masters in psych. At least you are doing something you like. We aren't all cut out to be engineers.

I have an associates and am self taught in web development and now only 1 class away from a psych degree. If I focus on human factors design, not only does this give me a specialty, but it helps me in any field. A phd can give you a chance to hit six figures in corporate or clinical psych. And goodie for me, I love learning.

Why should I settle for less?

social science isnt even a science. They just switched from social studies to help their egos. Reference Dilbert cartoon about Code Simians. ;)

"The demise of the liberal arts education . . . ." What demise? The liberal arts model of education is still alive and well, unfortunately.

The first two years of college courses (general education requirements) are spent learning / reviewing what the student should have learned in High School. The last two (or three) years are then spent working on classes in the students' "major area of concentration." Motivated students who are so inclined can then go on to earn a Master's degree through an additional year of study.

Personnally, I think education could be more efficiently dispensed through intense, targeted programs of instruction that skip the "liberal arts" part of the show and proceed directly to that portion of the program that the student is truly interested in. If he or she wants to be an engineer, a chemist, an accountant, etc., throw him or her into the deep end of the pool from day one and three or four (not five) years later graduate him or her with a B.S or M.S. degree. If the student wants a degree in history or english or social studies, let them do a three to four year liberal arts program and, again, graduate his or her with a B.A. or M.A. degree.

We force students to spend too much time (and incur too much debt) working through education programs that are overly broad and that do not adequately prepare them for the workforce of today. Just my two cents worth, feel free to disagree.

Oh, please. Are you a professor with an axe to grind, or what?

There is no "demise" of liberal arts education, as ddoughtyjd points out. Any person who wants to get the sort of degree that takes one to the "educated class" (wow, can you come up with a more elitist term than that), by which I take it you mean a leadership position in society, is going to involve a lot of liberal arts core courses. Generally, that's 30 to 60 hours of work (depending on the degree)--it's hardly "dead."

I just have to laugh at the comment about "reward[ing] excellence." Now, bubba, you go down to any college or university that you want, and you look at the humanities departments which have very willingly gone along with abusing graduate students, luring people into graduate degrees that faculty know will be useless, and corralling adjuncts into $2K per class, part-time, temporary, at will jobs. Around 70% of college classes are taught by part-timers who are paid around minimum wage and treated like dirt.

When humanities departments in colleges and universities start rewarding the "excellence" of people who pursue PhDs only to find themselves as "contingent" faculty, then you can start talking about how the "educated class" needs a "liberal arts" education because that will inoculate them against cupidity and heartlessness.

A liberal arts education is going to teach a person to "reward excellence"--there's a joke.

I have a B.S. in Psychology. Graduated in '09.

It's worthless, unless you like working in the field of mental health for a buck above minimum wage (which I did). As I was in the process of completing my degree, I realized how useless so many of the courses were. The bacc core requirements are a joke and a complete waste of time/resources. My adviser argued that they were in place to provide us a "well-rounded" education. Such BS. It's about the $$$. The truth is, many of those liberal arts courses wouldn't exist if they weren't required. Entire departments, including philosophy, sociology, art, and so on were barely hanging on as it was. I minored in philosophy - I enjoyed it. But, like a 4 year degree in Psychology, it's crap in the modern day service & tech economy.

Well-roundedness occurs up through High School. Too much of the college program is review - not enough focused learning. It really is time for colleges to reevaluate and structure their programs around jobs in demand.

I made a costly mistake. I was pushed out the door and into college before the recession hit. Parents need to stop thinking that any degree is a ticket to success. Like I've said for years now (and as the article states), it ain't what it used to be. Engineering, pharmaceuticals, nursing, business management, and computer science are the only real choices anymore. Good luck.

Nursing until all the boomers are dead. Largest demographic, wealthiest, oldest... Better import some more immigrants.

Calvin, why don't you stick it out and do 2 more years? Not a big sacrifice you know.

@Q Tip -- baby boomers were born 46-64. So assume a boomer born in 1960 lives to be 85 -- that is plenty of more years of nursing demand.

janellect

Because a Masters program will just add more debt without the guarantee of a job. There are no grants and scholarships are few. I went back as a post-bacc student last year, planning on working for a second undergrad in Education followed up by Masters in Counseling. I ran out of funds half way through each term. I was maxed on loans and I couldn't get any more so it's unsustainable. I worked at the university, however, they only allow up to 20 hours/week. In other words, school is no longer an option unless I fall into some money.

Stories like mine don't have to happen. Learn well from the mistakes of others. If you go to college, you had better pick a field in demand such as the one's I listed. If not, just work a menial job and save the money. That's what you will be doing anyways, degree or not.

amen dd. I've been in computers for 30 yrs and nobody has ever required me to "appreciate" some art. ;)

Cool story, bro!

I agree. I wasted money and time getting a useless biology degree in the early eighties. I had to go back and get a second degree in nursing. I wish I had all of the money I wasted on the first degree. I also discourage young people from college UNLESS they go into a specific profession that is MARKETABLE such as PT, engineering, nursing, IT, eyc. I don't even recommend getting a degree in education or law, two professions in which the market is saturated. College is a rip-off for most young people. How is it that college tuition increases by 30% while everything else went up 3-7%? Because young people are encouraged to "just take out loans" and they have no idea what the real impact will be on their future of repaying those loans. I know college graduates wiht $80,000-140,000 worth of school loan debt. That's practically a condo mortgage! Now we have a generation of youth living at their parents' so they can repay school loans. Therefore, the rental market is negatively affected, then a few years later the starter home market is affected, etc. Banks and colleges reap the benefits off of the backs of naive gradustes.

Ohio -

I think you went to the wrong college. I am sorry for your experience and hope in time you see that is not everyone's experience in college.

Case in point, Frederick W. Smith. If there's any truth to the urban myth, Mr. Smith was given a C+ on a paper he turned in while an undergrad at Yale wherein he outlined the business model of what would become Federal Express. He was told the idea would never work. Shows what the "experts" knew in that particular case, huh?

that's awesome ddought... I grew up in New Haven, and my husband worked with Yale grads... says there is nothing exceptional about their skills.

But I attended college with some Choate grads, and I have to say those kids are definitely book smart!

By definition, college only teaches you what is already known. It doesnt teach creativity.

Some electives are worthwhile. I am an engineering student, and I cleared my social science electives with macro and microeconomics. I do not at all feel those were wasted credits. In the world of engineering, it helps to have a good understanding of economics too. After all, engineering is the art of doing something in the most efficient manner balanced by cost. I'm sure there are many great things an engineer could do if cost were no issue, but the engineering aspect is itself not the only matter to consider in any project.

@Waynero -- I disagree. A few courses in history, English, philosophy, government, economics, and/or accounting are helpful for engineering majors when they get out in the working world -- and I been there, done that.

Library Science 101 class - you dont have to know what's in ALL the books, just how to find the book you need.

You slay me...

As I alluded to earlier, if you want a liberal arts education then, by all means, feel free to pursue one. I did and doing so helped me tremendously in my subsequent legal studies and throughout my career.

However, if you want to be an engineer or a chemist or an accountant or any of the other "applied science" fields, you should not be forced to spend precious resources (time and treasure) taking what many in those fields would consider extraneous courses on your way to completing the degree needed to become employable.

Benny, you are so right about the income level. I personally could not live on that unless my rent was free or my house paid for. Depressing.

I think we very well could Linda. It's more of a money thing here. If the parents can't afford to pay for it ,it's all loans and interest money...they prefer it that way

In Britian they aren't forced to take all kinds of liberal arts classes to make them "well rounded", instead focusing on core classes. That is why they get done in three years and get done without spending as much money...

Linda the short answer is because colleges are in the business of selling not education. Look at the salaries of college presidents in relationship to the salaries paid their graduates. Gee from Ohio State is a great example.

In America its always about the money. Our high schools used to prepare kids for college. Our lovely corporate culture realized you cant put a money meter on a high school kid but you can if they are a Freshman or Sophomore in college. The damn socialist were giving it away for free in high school. They put an end to that nonsense.

You are an uneducated person making 6 figures evaluating resumes with poor grammar. Now that is funny... evaluating your comments with many grammatical errors.

That depends... Are you paying the plumber $100/hour or are you paying their COMPANY $100/hour, and the plumber only gets part of that? If they are self-employed, or an hourly employee, you should factor in how much down time they have, in which they are NOT getting paid. Great money, sure, but not steady money.

Also, it depends on how much college prep you had in college that determines if the first two years are "a waste." I, for example, took AP classes in math and science my senior year, instead of the "college prep" or "dual credit" options (or just skipping math that year like so many of my classmates.) That AP math credit let me skip the first four math classes of college!

The trick is that the college program has the required classes, but those classes have their own minimum requirements, or "prerequisites." And if you don't get those in high school, you have to earn those prerequisites in lower-level classes in college. Hence why students should invest themselves more in high school.

tbi, some colleges don't take AP class credit. They want your money!

I'm confused how that worked because most organizations I've had experience with won't license an Associates. Then again, your liability and your insurance must be through the roof.

That sounds about right.

Metallurgy? Material sciences would be better. Something that includes polymers, composites, or whatever. Metallurgy is good, but heat treat ovens are really expensive if you want to open your own shop, which is something you might want to think about.

Gixerkiller - Get an apprenticeship as a Farrier. That is, the guy who puts shoes on horses. People pay $75 per FOOT, for shoes on a small pony. I know people who have paid $400 per foot on their draft horses. A farrier I know gets calls throughout three different states because there are so few of them... we've paid $100/foot for him just to trim our horse's feet and put the same shoes back on. Start getting into specialized work such as special shoes for certain foot/joint problems, show horses' pads and weights, or custom-worked shoes, and expect that number to go WAY up.

Farriers also make as little as $30 for just a trim per horse. Lots of back-breaking work.