Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market
The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.
Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.
Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.
The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.
To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they're defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.
The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.
This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today's evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.
As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.
I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.
A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.
And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they're asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.
Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.
As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.
In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.
At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.
Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.
The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.
Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.
Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.
Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.
Students' career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.
Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.
This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.
Such a model wouldn't undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.
One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can't be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students' unique skill sets.
Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.
It's worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don't grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.
Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.
We take the college major for granted.
Yet it's worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.
Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: John Weigand, Miami University
Read more:
Will the 'right' college major get you a job?
Why do we need the humanities?
Some want to get rid of college majors – here's how that could go wrong
John Weigand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Host Hits Republican Lawmakers With A Blunt Election Warning
Republican lawmakers on Thursday were in a jubilant mood as they marked the passage of President Donald Trump's signature 'big beautiful bill.' But Fox News host Jessica Tarlov said some of them might not be celebrating next year, when they could face unexpectedly early retirement. Polls show the bill ― which adds trillions to the debt, cuts taxes for the wealthy, and slashes Medicaid ― is deeply unpopular with the American public. With midterm elections looming in 2026, Tarlov ― a rotating co-host of 'The Five' ― wrote on X that moderate Republicans in particular will be at risk next year: By voting for this budget bill, many moderate Republicans are ensuring their retirement will come earlier than expected. — Jessica Tarlov (@JessicaTarlov) July 3, 2025 The bill is so unpopular that CNN data chief Harry Enten earlier this week showed it was underwater in five recent polls by between 19 and 29 percentage points. 'The American public at this particular point hate, hate, hate the 'big, beautiful bill,'' he said. 'As far as they're concerned, it's not a 'big, beautiful bill,' it's a big, bad bill.' Democrats also believe that Republicans who support the bill will pay the price at the polls next year. 'There are House Republicans now, this morning, who are about to sign their political obituary with this vote,' Representative Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) told Reuters before the final votes were cast. 'They are literally walking the plank for Donald Trump.' The party that wins the White House often suffers in the midterm elections that follow. Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews expects that to be the case next year, as well, and said the passage of the bill won't make things any easier for Republicans. He estimated that Democrats could pick up between 15 and 20 seats ― more than enough to win control of the House.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rocket Lab (NasdaqCM:RKLB) Soars 99% In Last Quarter
Rocket Lab has experienced a significant 99% increase in its share price over the last quarter. The recent addition to multiple Russell indexes, including the Russell 1000 and Midcap Growth benchmarks, highlights the company's rising prominence. This profile elevation coincides with Rocket Lab's successful launch activities, including its 67th and 68th Electron rockets, and a new contract with the European Space Agency. While the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are at all-time highs, Rocket Lab's performance could be seen as aligning with this momentum, enhanced by strong operational and contractual developments in the space sector. You should learn about the 2 risks we've spotted with Rocket Lab. Outshine the giants: these 22 early-stage AI stocks could fund your retirement. The recent developments, including Rocket Lab's successful rocket launches and addition to the Russell indexes, could positively influence its narrative by bolstering investor confidence and enhancing visibility within the space sector. These achievements align with the company's goal to expand its market presence, potentially supporting revenue and earnings forecasts as they show operational strength and capability. Over a longer three-year period, the company's shares have delivered a very large total return of 803.29%, showcasing strong performance beyond the recent quarterly gains. This return surpasses the broader one-year return of 38.5% for the US Aerospace & Defense industry, highlighting Rocket Lab's ability to outpace its sector peers in the past year. The news of successful launches and new contracts might impact revenue and earnings positively, as they reflect Rocket Lab's capacity to secure and execute significant contracts, crucial for its revenue trajectory. The increased Electron launch cadence and the potential Neutron development could further drive long-term growth, leveraging the demand for medium-class launches and large satellite constellations. Rocket Lab's current share price of US$22.4 remains below the consensus analyst price target of US$24.6, indicating a 9% potential upside. This suggests that while the recent achievements have bolstered the company's profile, its valuation still offers room for growth relative to analyst expectations. Investors may view this gap as an opportunity, provided the company continues to meet its operational and financial targets. Learn about Rocket Lab's future growth trajectory here. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include NasdaqCM:RKLB. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How companies are rethinking their vetting of engineering candidates in the age of AI coding tools
When Intuit chief technology officer Alex Balazs was getting his undergraduate mechanical engineering degree at Kettering University more than three decades ago, he recalls the Michigan school's professors being split on whether they'd let students use calculators in class. 'And now, when you think about it, of course you use a calculator,' says Balazs. Similarly, he believes today's AI coding assistants that help developers write software will gain broad acceptance in schools and the workplace. In response, he said Intuit is reevaluating how it tests potential engineering hires during the interviews. One expected change is that the coding exercises will be more complicated, requiring that candidates solve bigger problems, with the expectation that those candidates will use AI tools to complete some of those tasks. 'Because when they arrive inside Intuit, that's how we expect them to work,' says Balazs. AI coding tools like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Windsurf have rapidly grown in popularity, especially among more junior software developers and engineers. Veteran workers, in contrast, are more pessimistic about the tools and the impact of AI on their jobs, according to surveys. CTOs and chief information officers frequently laud the big productivity gains the coding assistants provide and the help they give employees in getting off to a faster start at their new jobs as they learn company-specific programming languages. Usage rates, which many CIOs and CTOs have been closely monitoring, have increased steadily over time. With new tools comes a rethinking of the skills required for an AI-enabled developer workforce, says Deborah Golden, chief innovation officer at accounting and consulting giant Deloitte. It will be less important for engineers to memorize application programming interfaces (APIs), the rules that let software applications communicate with each other, and more critical for them to show good judgement on the job, including determining if there are any risks or bias in AI-written code. 'AI doesn't just level the playing field, it tilts towards those that can adapt quickly,' says Golden. For both new college graduates and more established working professionals, embracing AI means 'anybody can be left behind the same way that anybody can leap forward,' she adds. Several CEOs of major corporations have said that 20% to 30% of code written within their companies is being done by AI tools. But those claims should be taken with a grain of salt, according to Andrew Rabinovich, the head of AI and machine learning at online freelancer marketplace Upwork. 'The numbers can be highly inflated because it's verbose,' says Rabinovich, referring to AI coding assistants regularly churning out unnecessary lines of code. He also says coding assistants aren't good at personalization, or gearing what they write to the tastes of more senior software engineers. Some of those managers may reject AI-written code if not presented the way they like it. 'The older or the more experienced of a software engineer you are, the more habits and rules you impose on the LLM in order to be satisfactory,' says Rabinovich. 'But if you're a junior software engineer, it's kind of an open playing field, and you're like, 'I'm okay with everything, as long as it gets the job done.'' Brendan Humphreys, the CTO of Australian software maker Canva, says some in the industry have expressed concern about 'cheating' during the interview process, with candidates using AI tools to mask how well they can write code. 'We think that's the wrong framing,' says Humphreys. 'Software engineering as a job has fundamentally changed. And you need to now demonstrate that you can have competency in using these tools to accelerate your output.' With that in mind, Humphreys has changed Canva's assessment criteria to make it tougher, yet more ambiguous—meaning job prospects cannot just feed inputs into LLMs to get a response that would satisfy Canva's expectations. 'You're going to have to work with an AI intelligently and we want to see that competency,' adds Humphreys. Autodesk CTO Raji Arasu points to an AI jobs report published last week by the design software company that found mentions of AI skills in U.S. job listings increased 56% in the first four months of 2025 versus last year's level for the design and make industries, which includes construction, architecture, and engineering. With AI being adopted across more kinds of work, Arasu says she's seen 'the initial fear has been replaced with enthusiasm to try and dabble and experiment in new ways.' That's led Autodesk to embrace more adaptability, actively encouraging software developers to be less siloed on specific projects. 'We're creating an environment within our company where it's okay for you to disrupt another team's work,' says Arasu. Nikhil Krishnan, senior vice president and CTO of data science for the enterprise AI software company C3 AI, says his business almost always conducts in-person interviews, so there's little risk that candidates are cheating with AI tools unless C3 wants to test them on how to solve a problem with an AI coding assistant. He prioritizes problem solving and reasoning skills and is on the hunt for candidates who have curiosity, a passion to learn, can show their ability to absorb new information, and work well on a team. With those skills in mind, Krishnan says C3 AI has a bias toward more senior candidates. 'I do see a world where it becomes harder and harder, as a junior entry-level software engineer, to land that first opportunity,' says Krishnan. 'We certainly find that we are much more careful about who we're hiring.' John Kell Send thoughts or suggestions to CIO Intelligence here. Fortune recently unveiled a new ongoing series, Fortune AIQ, dedicated to navigating AI's real-world impact. Our second collection of stories make up a special digital issue of Fortune in which we explore how technology is already changing the way the biggest companies do business in finance, law, agriculture, manufacturing, and more. These companies are rolling up their sleeves to implement AI. Read more AI avatars are here in full force—and they're serving some of the world's biggest companies. Read more Will AI hold up in court? Attorneys say it's already changing the practice of law. Read more Banking on AI: Firms such as BNY balance high risk with the potential for transformative tech. Read more Recycling has been a flop, financially. AMP Robotics is using AI to make it pay off. Read more AI on the farm: The startup helping farmers slash losses and improve cows' health. Read more Can AI help America make stuff again? Read more This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data