Stuck on a College Major? Why 'Process of Elimination' Is the Wrong Approach
The Problem You're Facing
If you're a high school student trying to plan for college, you're probably feeling an incredible amount of pressure. The single most stressful question is almost always, "What are you going to major in?"
You're told to "follow your passion," but what if you don't have one single, clear "passion"? What if you have several interests—maybe you're good at science, but you also love art, and you find history fascinating?
So, you do what seems logical: you start a process of elimination. You cross off majors that seem too hard, too impractical, or that your parents wouldn't approve of. The problem is, this doesn't leave you with a choice you're excited about. It just leaves you with the "safest" option, the one that's left over. This approach doesn't create clarity; it just creates anxiety and a quiet sense of dread.
The question you're asking is, "How can I possibly choose one thing to do for the rest of my life when I'm only 17?"
Here’s what systematic thinking reveals: You’re asking the wrong question.
The Common (and Flawed) Approaches
When stuck in this decision paralysis, most students (and their families) default to one of three approaches. All seem reasonable, but all are systematically flawed.
Approach 1: The Reactive "Safe Bet"
"I'll just pick Computer Science. It makes good money, and my parents will be happy. I don't love it, but I don't really hate it either, and I need to put something on the applications soon."
This seems reasonable because it solves the immediate problem. It checks a box, satisfies external pressures (from parents and peers), and seems financially responsible.
But it fails because it’s a decision driven entirely by fear and external validation. It completely ignores your own curiosity and interests. This approach is a form of premature convergence—you’re committing to a 4-year path based on minimal data just to reduce short-term anxiety, which often leads to long-term regret, burnout, or a costly change of major two years into college.
What this approach misses: The purpose of college isn't just to get a job. It's to build a foundation for your future. Picking a "safe" major you have no interest in is one of the riskiest bets you can make.
Approach 2: The Deliberate "Data Gatherer"
"Let me research the 'Top 10 Highest-Paying Majors' and read articles about 'The Future of Work.' I'll take a bunch of online career quizzes, talk to my guidance counselor, and see what majors my friends are picking. I need to gather more information."
This seems reasonable because it's thoughtful and research-based. You're gathering data before making a choice.
But it fails because it leads to analysis paralysis. You're drowning in information that tells you what's popular, what pays well, and what other people are doing—but none of it can tell you what you will find engaging. Career quizzes are generic, and market trends change. More data doesn't equal more clarity.
What this approach misses: You can't research your way to a passion. You're treating an exploration problem like a research problem. No amount of data will tell you what it feels like to actually do the work.
Approach 3: The Structured "Logical Analyst"
"Looking at my grades, my best subjects are math and biology, and my weakest is English. The online quizzes I took point towards 'Engineer' or 'Doctor.' I'll make a detailed pro/con list for Pre-Med vs. Engineering. Pre-Med seems like too much school and debt, so Engineering is the more logical choice based on the data."
This seems reasonable because it’s analytical and self-aware. You're using your own past performance (grades) and a structured framework (pro/con list) to make a logical deduction.
But it fails because it mistakes what you're good at for what you'll be fulfilled by. It’s still a binary choice, forcing you to pick between two limited options based only on data from your past. It doesn't allow for the discovery of new possibilities.
What this approach misses: A pro/con list is a tool for validating a choice, not discovering one. This approach misses the opportunity to explore paths you haven't considered, simply because they don't fit your past data.
A Better Way: The Systematic Approach
The Systematic Approach: Parallel Tracks
"I'm falling into a trap of trying to find the one perfect major. Instead, I'll use Parallel Tracks to design four distinct 5-year experiments I can explore. I'm not choosing a 40-year career; I'm choosing the most interesting first step.Track 1: The 'STEM Specialist' (Major in Biology, minor in Data Science. Goal: Research)Track 2: The 'Creative Technologist' (Major in Graphic Design, minor in Computer Science. Goal: UI/UX)Track 3: The 'Policy Wonk' (Major in Public Policy, minor in Environmental Science. Goal: Non-profit/Government)Track 4: The 'Interdisciplinary' (Design my own major combining History, Art, and Digital Media. Goal: Museum Curator)
I'll spend the next three months exploring each track with equal fidelity: I'll interview one person in each field, try one small online project for each, and read one foundational book. The right first step will emerge from this exploration, not from just thinking about it."
This approach works differently because it uses Parallel Tracks, one of the four systematic thinking capabilities. It reframes the entire problem.
Here's the process:
Step 1: Reframe the Problem
Stop trying to predict your 40-year career. The goal is to design the best first experiment (your college experience). This lowers the stakes from a "forever decision" to a "5-year exploration."
Step 2: Generate 3-4 Distinct Tracks
Instead of eliminating options, you create 3-4 different, viable versions of your future self. Look at the example: "STEM Specialist," "Creative Technologist," "Policy Wonk," "Interdisciplinary." These aren't just minor variations. They are fundamentally different paths, each combining your real interests (science, art, history) in plausible ways.
Step 3: Develop Each Track with Equal Fidelity
This is the most critical step. Don't just pick the "easiest" one to explore. You must give each track a fair shot. For the next three months (or your junior/senior year), you systematically gather real-world data on each:
- Talk to a Human: Interview one person who is 5-10 years into each track.
- Try a Micro-Project: Do a 3-hour online course, write a one-page analysis, or design a small logo for each track.
- Read One Book: Read a foundational book or long-form article about each field.
Step 4: Let the Best Path Emerge from Exploration
After you do this work, you'll have real data. You may discover you hate the day-to-day work of coding (Track 2) but were fascinated by the interview with the museum curator (Track 4). The choice is no longer based on guesswork; it's based on your own lived experience.
What This Reveals:
This systematic process reveals that clarity comes from doing, not just thinking. The "safe bet" (Response A) and the "logical choice" (Response C) are both based on 100% speculation. Running parallel tracks builds your decision on a foundation of real-world feedback.
This works because it addresses the root cause of your anxiety: fear of the unknown. Parallel Tracks is a system for making the unknown known before you commit.
The "Aha!" Insight
The key insight: Choosing a major isn't a prediction problem; it's an exploration problem. Stop trying to find the one "right" answer and start designing 3-4 real-world experiments.
Parallel Tracks turns you from a nervous predictor into a confident explorer.
Your Next Move
This scenario highlights the power of systematic thinking—specifically Parallel Tracks, but it's one of four capabilities that work together.
To discover your own thinking patterns across all four moves and get a personalized upgrade plan, download the free Systematic Thinking Scorecard. It's a 5-minute diagnostic that reveals:
- How you currently approach decisions
- Which of the four moves you use naturally
- Where your biggest growth opportunity lies
- Your systematic thinking development pathway
Whether you're facing a college decision, a career change, or any complex challenge, systematic thinking gives you a reusable framework that works across unlimited contexts.