10 Best Careers for INTJs and INTPs

Combining the hourly pay data from BizJournal’s survey of employers, PayScale.com’s polling of employees,[1] and US News’ career guide, I have culled ten standout careers from the many recommended for INTJs and INTPs.

• Best Bets Overall – Consultant/Lawyer: Two careers stand out as not only highly recommended for INTJ/Ps but also rather lucrative. Although a few other careers are recommended ahead of them for INTJs and INTPs, Lawyers ($58 or $68/hour) are still near the top for both and make substantially more than other career options.[2] Management Consultant ($35/hour or $61/hour) is not only one of the best paid careers but also even more highly recommended for both INTJs and INTPs than Lawyer. Do the long hours for consultants taper off with experience as PayScale’s graphs imply, or are Managers and Partners also caught up in the 65 to 75 hour work weeks? If it’s the latter, consulting might be downgraded, but US News picks it as one of the Best Careers for 2009 while calling Lawyer an overrated career so I kept them both on equal footing.[7]
• Highest-Paying Career / Career in Health – Doctor: If the absolute most important thing to you is salary or you know you want to be in a health-related field, then being a Doctor ($67 or $70+/hour) might be the way to go. They are less recommended for INTJ/Ps than Consultants, Lawyers, and Engineers but are still on many lists. Despite making more than these other options, Doctors must invest in far more school and training, so the eventual higher income might not make up for the income lost by not working. Although US News counts Physician as an Overrated Career, it also recommends Veterinarians and Optometrists as Best Careers for 2009.
• Best Careers without an Advanced Degree or Killer Hours – Engineers / System Analysts: Although an advanced degree will help, Engineers* ($22/hour or $38/hour) [2] and System Analysts ($22/hour or $37/hour) can get started making decent money right out of college and are both recommended in US News’ Best Careers 2009. The same can be said of Consultants (above), but they must also work incredibly long hours. In addition, those who stick with it might become Engineering Managers or Computer System Managers, the sixth-highest and eighth-highest paid careers in the United States, respectively, according to BizJournal. Economists/Auditors ($21/hour or $28-$37/hour) and Scientists were also options here but are not as highly recommended for INTJ/Ps or included in Best Careers 2009.
• Career with Minimum Hours / Career in Education – Professor: If you want to maximize your free time but still make a solid living, then you should consider being a Professor ($33/hour or $46/hour), which has the lowest number of required hours of any career recommended for INTJ/Ps. US News notes Professor as an Overrated Career, and the average 7 years in a PhD program without making any substantial income reduces actual lifetime earnings relative to other careers, but there is no denying that the eventual schedule is the most flexible. [2, 3] Teacher ($22/hour) is also recommended for INTPs and is on US News’ list of “Overrated Careers.”[4]
• Non-Profit/Public Sector Career: The career “Manager” is rather vague, but it is a top recommendation for INTJs and could be the ticket for those interested in public service. While US News notably warns against Non-profit Manager, it recommends Government Manager. Although it likely requires the investment of an advanced degree, it returns salary ($28/hour) and hours on par with Engineers and System Analysts, recommended above.
• Building/Design Career: The best Architects and Urban Planners could have done in my previous posts on INTJs and INTPs was the bottom tier of recommendations, because Team Technology did not really include them in their survey. Recommended for INTJ/Ps on most other sites, these careers and others like them could be excellent fits for this personality type. Kind of a compromise between Architects and Urban Planners, Landscape Architects make about the same amount ($24/hour), but can get started without an advanced degree. In addition, they have a higher level of job satisfaction and a better market outlook than Urban Planners, while regular Architects are panned as an overrated career. Unfortunately, the downswing in the economy has been particularly detrimental to these professions.
• Creative Careers: Although selecting a creative career is likely based more on the inclinations of talent than anything else, Writer stands out because it does make a little more ($23/hour or $27/hour)[5] than other options like Graphic Designers ($16/hour or $23/hour) or traditional artists (fine artists, musicians, actors, etc.). In addition, one strain of Writer, the Ghostwriter, is recommended as a Best Career 2009 by US News.
• Random Extra Career: For INTPs who want to directly help people through interacting with them, Occupational Therapist ($32/hour) could be an excellent choice. It is recommended for INTPs and is included in US News’ Best Careers 2009, but keep in mind that is not as highly recommended for INTPs as the other options above, and US News’ Report Card shows they probably barely made it onto their list.

CareerCast’s Jobs Rated ranking of 200 jobs takes even more factors into account, including stress, physical demands, and the environment. Not surprisingly, these additional elements make options for “Best Careers without Killer Hours” (System Analysts at #6) and “Career with Minimum Hours” (various research-oriented/professor-like careers) comprise more than half of the top 20.[6] All the other careers listed above comprise the middle 40% of the ranking, with Technical Writer (#60) and Occupational Therapist (#61) at the top of that group and Teacher (#127) toward the bottom. The only career for INTJ/Ps outside the top 70% is an Actor, coming in at #170.

Notes

1. PayScale’s salaries, which are the median of those reported, will generally be lower than BizJournal’s, which are skewed higher due to highly compensated employees at the top of the spectrum in their respective careers.
2. Lawyers, Professors, and Engineers who work for hospitals make about 20% more than their peers in other sectors.
3. PhD’s in Business Administration might be a different story, with starting salaries averaging $86,000 (in 2001), substantial growth potential and non-academic opportunities, and a shortage of business professors.
4. If you want to be in education, a good alternative might be Curriculum Designer.
5. Some writers can actually a little more. Technical writers average $27/hour, and grant writers, after paying their dues for 10 years, end up averaging $29/hour.
6. Biologist (“Scientist” above) #4, Software Engineer (“Engineer” above) #5, Systems Analyst #6, Economist #11, Physicist #13, Computer Programmer #18, and Astronomer (“Scientist” above) #20 are all in the top 10% along with a variety of research-oriented/professor-like careers–Mathemetician #1, Historian #7, Sociologist #8, Philosopher #9.
7. Before you run out to apply for business school, Vault’s articles on Consulting are highly worthwhile: Reality Check – Changing Careers to Consulting, What It Takes to Be a Consultant, and Consulting Caveats.

Top-25 Cities for Singles & Outdoors (in the United States), Part II

In my last post, I discussed some cities that are good places for both singles as well as outdoors and the method I used for selecting those cities for my list.  Here, I examine cities that are rated even better than those previously discussed by Forbes’ various rankings.  If you are willing to move and want an “upgrade” in the singles scene and your outdoor life, then one of these cities is probably an excellent choice for you.

• Tier II – Huge Cities, Vegas & Tampa: You can’t go wrong with any of this group of seven cities, as all but two logged a top ten ranking for singles at some point in the last three years, and all are in the top 25 for outdoors.  Las Vegas and Tampa-St. Petersburg get into this tier with #8 and #5 rankings for outdoors.  Both cities expend more than $100 per resident on parks and experience a lot of sunshine each year, but can be relatively hot, especially Vegas.  Tampa is ranked higher for outdoors overall due to its exceptional #5 ranking in Forbes’ “Recreation Index,” but Vegas has been in the top 25 for singles in each of the last three years.  With less impressive but still relatively good outdoor experiences, big cities like New York, Atlanta, LA, Dallas, and Chicago are even better bets for singles than Vegas and Tampa, with all but LA and Chicago scoring two top ten rankings in the last three years.  In the 2008 study, New York, LA, and Chicago stood out for their culture, number of singles, and top-ranked nightlife (#1, #2, and #3, respectively), but suffers from lower ranks in job growth, online dating, and relatively high cost of living (ranked #34 or lower out of 40).  Atlanta and Dallas, ranked #1 and #3 overall in 2008, rate well (top 15) across the board for singles, with the exception of online dating for both cities (#24 and #20) and the actual number of singles for Dallas (#34).
  

  Denver probably belongs in Tier II, as its ranking for singles is inflated by including Boulder with Denver in the 2006 study. However, I personally like the mountains, and Denver is really the only option in the Rocky Mountains, so I left it in Tier I.

• Tier I – West of the Mississippi, DC & Boston: If you want to choose from the best of the best in cities for singles and outdoors, then you’re going to Boston, DC, or west of the Mississippi.  At the bottom end of this tier, Austin, Boston, and Denver all had a top-ten ranking for singles at some point in the past three years and are in the top 15 for outdoors.  Boston’s singles scene is comparable to to the megalopoles (NYC, LA) as described above but with better online dating (#15 in 2008), while Austin is notable for top-5 rankings in the number of singles, online dating, and job growth.  Edging these cities overall are Seattle and Washington, DC, both remarkably in the top ten for singles every year of Forbes’ ranking, making them the most consistent cities in this area, while ranking a solid #11 and #12, respectively, for outdoors.  Both of these cities are great for online dating but have relatively high living costs.  DC is better for the number of singles (#7 to Seattle’s #22), but Seattle is better than DC for job growth (#9 to DC’s #19).  While not as consistent for singles as Seattle and DC, San Diego and Phoenix have all jumped into the top seven for singles in one of each of the last three years and are all in the top six for outdoors.  Thanks to 20% of its land devoted to parks and comfortable temperatures year-round, San Diego ranks #2 for its outdoors, but it’s been outside the top 15 for singles each year except 2006 since it has a relatively high cost of living (#36 out of 40) without ranking in the top third in any other area for singles.  Phoenix might not be as spectacular and San Diego for the outdoors, but it is still relatively affordable (#13 cost of living) and is in the top fifteen in 2008 for culture, night life, and job growth.
  

  A testament to the limitations of rankings, Washington, DC is rated among the best cities for singles and outdoors but inexplicably remains one of the last cities in which I would actually want to live in the United States. I just don't like it.

• Runner-Up – Minneapolis: Minneapolis numerically tied with San Diego and Phoenix, but this was probably due to St. Paul’s inclusion in the 2006 and 2007 Forbes’ rankings, which brought Minneapolis’ ranking down to #14 and #13, respectively.  Analyzed separately from St. Paul in 2008, Minneapolis jumped to #3 overall for singles, with a huge improvement in Forbes’ “online dating” ranking, “determined by the number of active profiles in each city listed on dating site Yahoo! Personals.”  Minneapolis is in the top 20 in every category for singles except for cost of living, but even there its #28 ranking handily beats all of the best cities for singles other than Dallas and Atlanta.  Meanwhile, Minneapolis ranks a solid #7 for outdoors, with a stellar $150 spent per person on parks and a tiny 2.3 days with unhealthy air, both measures in which Minneapolis is rated second among all cities ranked.  Residents have to put up with almost three months of noticeable precipitation, but this is still less than Boston, Portland, and Seattle and on par most East Coast and Midwest cities.  The real stinker is five months of sub-freezing temperatures, an amount only Denver beats among ranked cities.  Minneapolis is 11th for Forbes’ “Recreation Index,” which measures “the number of ball diamonds, tennis courts and pools” in a city, but even without the cold it would be tough to beat the #1 city for singles and outdoors…
  

  If you can brave five months of below-freezing temperatures, Minneapolis is hard to beat for its singles scene and outdoor activities.

• The Best – San Francisco: If you’re willing to pay for it, San Francisco has seemingly no weaknesses in its singles scene or outdoor life.  It has been ranked #4, #1, and #2 for singles the past three years.  Despite an astronomical cost of living (second only to New York City among ranked cities, based on Forbes’ calculations) and relatively middling job growth (#24), it is quite good for online dating (#13) and nightlife (#12), excellent for culture (#4), and tops (#1, for those aren’t sure what I mean by “tops”) for the sheer number of singles, and these rankings are fairly consistent over the course of the last three years.  As for outdoors, San Franciso blows away the competition with over $250 spent per person on parks and recreation and featuring just one day over 90 degrees and zero below freezing, a climate rivalled only by San Diego and Los Angeles.  A good 20% of the city is parkland, and only about a week has “unhealthy air.”  It’s wetter than San Diego and LA, with two months (instead of one) of noticeable precipitation, but this is still less than all but desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Of course, rankings, with their perfectly even weighting of various “objective” factors whose very objectivity is questionable in first place,* are not the perfect guide to anything, including where to live, and averaging those rankings together does nothing to address their inherent limitations.  Innumerable factors like family, jobs, and networks keep people in one place despite supposed enhancements to their life that other cities might be able to deliver.  I, for one, lived most of my adult life in and enjoyed Philly (a “Tier III” city here), would never choose to live in Las Vegas (“Tier II), and have lived in and can’t stand Washington, DC.  However, this assessment gives me an additional appreciation for Minneapolis, where I currently live, and grounds that appreciation in some interesting facts about the city.

Top-25 Cities for Singles & Outdoors (in the United States), Part I

Every year, Forbes comes out with a ranking of the best cities for singles and recently also ranked cities for their outdoors opportunities.  As a single person who enjoys the outdoors, I thought it might be informative to see how these rankings compare and determine what cities were best for both singles and outdoors.  This post reviews my methodology, the cities in the bottom third of my top-25 composite ranking, and the cities that barely or almost made the cut.  Next time, I’ll look at the top cities for singles and outdoors.

• Methodology: Since Forbes has ranked cities for the outdoors only once and little other information was available online, I did not tinker with their 2008 rankings at all.  However, for singles, I averaged Forbes’ rankings from the past three years (3 parts 2008, 2 parts 2007, and 1 part 2006), assuming that consistent performance over three years was a better predictor for future success than simply last year’s rankings.*  I considered other sources like Sperling’s and Kiplinger’s, but the former was targeted at 18 to 24-year-olds and the latter did not articulate its methodology online but is for “young” singles, so I assumed the 18 to 24-year-old range might apply there as well.  I then simply averaged the rankings for singles and outdoors together and looked at the top 25.  I have grouped them into three tiers as described in this and my next post.
• Barely/Almost Making the Cut – Cities in the Midwest: The Midwest has fewer cities in this top-25 ranking than any region other than the Rocky Mountains, but there is no need to despair if you really want to live in this area.  A good chunk of them are clustered at the bottom of this ranking, and being “last place” on this list is not a bad thing.  There are thousands of cities in the United States, and dozens are included Forbes’ study each year.  St. Louis makes it into the top 25 for basically being #25 across the board; it’s been ranked #30, #27, and #20 for singles in the last three years which, when averaged together with weight on the more recent rankings, comes out to #24.  It’s ranked #25 for outdoors, so it is well-deserving of an overall ranking of #25 for singles and outdoors.  Columbus isn’t quite as nice for the outdoors (#31), but had an admirable #11 ranking for singles in 2006, followed up by top-twenty rankings in 2007 and 2008.  Other Midwest cities (Kansas City and Cincinnati) barely didn’t make the cut.
  

  I've always kind of liked Baltimore, and it seems that others kind of like it too. It is just outside the top 25 for singles each year and #28 for outdoors but not quite good enough to make this composite top-25 list.

• Tier III – A Pair Each from Florida, Texas, Mid-Atlantic & West Coast: Eight cities scattered around the United States but not in the Midwest make it into the bottom of three tiers that divide up the top 25 cities for singles and outdoors.  If you prefer the outdoors, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville are both top ten cities for outdoors but don’t crack the top 25 for singles in any of the last three years.  Virginia Beach is ranked highly for outdoors due to its exceptional spending per resident on parks, and Jacksonville is for nearly 20% of its space devoted to parks and a miniscule 1.3 days per year of unhealthy air; both experience sunny days at least 60% of the year.  As mirror images to this, Miami, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Houston all broke into the top fifteen for singles at least once, but rank between #20 and #30 for outdoors, which is still quite good.  For balance in this tier, look at Sacramento and Portland.  Sacramento ranks #13 for outdoors and matched that for singles in 2006, but dropped to #32 in 2008.  Portland has not had any peak rankings for singles but has consistently been in the top 30 every year to go with a #17 ranking for outdoors.
  

  San Jose did not make this top-25 list because it has never been ranked as a top city for singles by Forbes. However, it is #3 for outdoors and with San Francisco and Oakland just 50 miles away, how bad can it be?

You probably won’t be disappointed by the singles scene or the outdoors in any of these places, though if you’re open to moving anywhere, one of the cities in a higher tier might be more to your liking.

* It is actually more likely that changes in methodology impact the rankings more than anything else.  Minneapolis is one example, as noted in the caption above.  Denver is another one, ranked #1 for singles in 2006 when it was paired with Boulder, but dropping out of the top ten in 2007 and 2008.