Pity the Prestigious

The American points us to this Harris Interactive poll conducted in July on the most prestigious jobs.

Here are the most highly regarded occupations according to respondents, with the percentage of people saying the job has "very great" prestige in parentheses:
- firefighters (61%)
- scientists (54%),
- teachers (54%)
- doctors (52%)
- military officers (52%)
- nurses (50%)
- police officers (46%)
- priests/ministers/clergy (42%)
- farmers (41%)

And the bottom of the list:
- athletes (16%)
- business executives (14%)
- journalists (13%)
- union leaders (13%)
- entertainers (12%)
- stockbrokers (12%)
- accountants (11%)
- bankers (10%)
- actors (9%)
- real estate brokers (5%)

Notice how, in general, the occupations in the first list are associated with lower paying jobs, while the ones in the second are linked to higher paying jobs? (You can make the case that if the entire sample of athletes, entertainers, and actors was factored in, then those jobs would be considered low or average paying. But, I'm going to assume that in responding, people were thinking of Peyton Manning, Howard Stern, and Brad Pitt.)

That must mean there is some correlation between the number of people aspiring to be employed in fields considered to signal the most success, rank, and/or wealth, right?

(Upon further reflection, commenter Brendan is absolutely right. the previous sentence is garbage. Allow me another crack at it:)

Does that mean that there is a correlation between what people say are prestigious jobs and the demand for those jobs?

Last time I checked, that just wasn't the case.

Polls like this suffer from what's called response bias, or when people are inhibited from revealing their true feelings by societal pressures. The only real value that can be drawn from this particular poll is in identifying the most altruistic job in America.