<p>If I get my BA in Business, would it be dumb to go for my MBA in Business again?</p>
<p>It’s best to have an accounting, a finance, or an econ degree. A Bachelors in Business is less marketable.</p>
<p>Yeah I’m starting to realize that… but I’m already getting my business degree.</p>
<p>Damn it, I better start a business or something…</p>
<p>An MBA is mostly a rehash of a BA in business.</p>
<p>Like the other poster said, a bachelor’s degree “other” than in business would be best. Including degrees in science and/or engineering.</p>
<p>Well, it’s now after the fact. Woah is me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is a bachelor’s in business less marketable than a bachelor’s in economics? Seems to me that the business graduates from, say, Berkeley actually garner higher starting salaries than do the economics graduates.</p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/BusAd.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/BusAd.stm</a>
<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Econ.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Econ.stm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s not really the right question, for the decision to obtain the MBA really depends on where your career is now vs. where you would like it to be, regardless of whatever your undergraduate degree was. For example, if you want to enter elite finance/consulting and you’re not in those industries currently, then you probably need to obtain an MBA (from a top school), as there is no other reliable for you to make that transition. {Granted, another pathway is to obtain a different graduate degree such as an MS/MA/MPA/MPP/JD from an elite school, but that’s generally a far more roundabout path to consulting/finance.} Or if you want to quickly advance to management in your current firm, then you may find that you need to obtain an MBA (i.e. from a night school). </p>
<p>Hence, the issue is not about whether it may be ‘dumb’ to pursue an MBA because you already have a business BA. The real issue is whether you think an MBA will help you build your desired career as it stands now, and that’s a question entirely independent of whatever you had majored in as an undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The <$2K difference is negligible, with 60% response rate vs. 42% response rate.</p>
<p>In other words, it is not an accurate representation and inconclusive.</p>
<p>Sakky, are you not busy pursuing your many and various degrees?
Harvard, MIT, Berkeley?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any better evidence? If not, then we need to rely on the evidence that is available, whatever its limitations may be. Some evidence is better than none. It’s certainly better than mere theorizing. </p>
<p>Besides, do we have any strong reason to believe that the 18% differential in non-responders between econ and Haas graduates (60-42=18) are disproportionately earning high salaries? It seems to me that whatever selection effects may be occurring would apply equally to both Haas and econ.</p>
<p>So if you don’t like my evidence, fair enough, by all means present some evidence of your own.</p>
<p>@sakky:</p>
<p>Cal is famous for it’s Environmental Economics program which tends to earn little money. Also, Haas is an especially good school, to the point that it stands out even amongst the rest of the Cal faculty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to me that they’re doing OK for themselves.</p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EnvEcon.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EnvEcon.stm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, Haas is a standpoint program. But Cal economics is no weakling, being one of the most highly regarded economics departments in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A simple report that is inconclusive is not evidence. You can argue whatever you want, I think people here have better intellect.</p>
<p>I am surprised you didn’t attend law school, you’ve done everything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Practically no evidence in the social sciences is ever true “conclusive”, but it’s still far better to have some evidence than no evidence at all. That certainly seems to be far epistemologically sound than relying on pure ‘intellect’ alone. Or are really taking the stance that evidence doesn’t matter?</p>
<p>But if you insist on more evidence, then consider the salary comparisons amongst the graduates of MIT. Once again, the evidence does not support the assertion that a bachelor’s in business is less marketable than one in economics. If that were so, then somebody needs to inform the employers who hired the Sloan graduates and paid them an average of $10k more than did the economics employers. </p>
<p><a href=“http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation10.pdf[/url]”>http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation10.pdf</a></p>
<p>If it is too late to market into someone like finance or accounting just get the business degree and worry about an MBA when you have some experience. Why is this such an issue.</p>
<p>Providing statistics for a few years from a couple of well-known, world-class business schools doesn’t give any kind of evidence for what this OP can expect. These are descriptive statistics, not inferential ones - we can make no inferences as to how marketable his degree in business will be vs. one in economics, especially since a lot of that will depend on the reputation of his undergraduate’s business school vs. the econ department (we’re talking about nationally ranked top-10 business schools here - of course their graduates get hired. Is the same true of the BBA candidate at a small regional public school?) as well as his experiences, internships, etc.</p>
<p>I also disagree that “some evidence is better than none,” as evidence that is poorly analyzed or presented can be more damaging than no evidence at all, and people have a tendency to misuse descriptive statistics.</p>
<p>I’m not offering the argument that an economics degree would be better than a business degree; I’m not in the field and I don’t know. I’m just saying that presenting the statistics from Haas doesn’t say anything about this student’s particular predicament unless he actually goes to Haas.</p>
<p>That said to answer the question - lots of people major in business and then get an MBA later. A graduate degree is more advanced than an undergraduate degree and will, presumably, give one a more in depth study of the particular field. However, MBAs usually require or strongly recommend 2-5 years of experience before admissions, and MBA students usually benefit more from the programs if they have that experience. Furthermore, since a graduate degree is a professional degree - you should have a clear plan and goal of what to do with that MBA. It shouldn’t just be a “next step” but there needs to be a direct reason you need the MBA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hahahaha, you’re an idiot.
- That survey includes everyone from Haas, which includes people with concentrations in finance and accounting.</p>
<ol>
<li>Haas is especially competitive to get into. Only people with decent gpas get into the business school. A good chunk of econ majors are people who simply couldn’t get into haas.</li>
</ol>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Hahaha, you’re an idiot. You’re trying to teach me about Berkeley? Are you sure? </p>
<p>1) So what if it includes Haas students of various concentrations? Regardless of their concentration, they receive degrees in business. Notice how the original post that started this thread never asked a single word about the various concentrations of the business degree, but rather only asked about value of the business degree itself. In fact, it’s actually impossible to obtain a bachelor’s degree in finance or accounting at Berkeley. </p>
<p>2)Again so what? Economics at Berkeley is also impacted.<br>
But more importantly, employers won’t care about whether any particular program is impacted or not. All they will see is your degree. </p>
<p>The bottom line is there is no evidence to indicate that a bachelor’s degree in business is in any way less marketable than one in economics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I must fundamentally and diametrically disagree: you can clearly make an inference regarding the marketability of said degrees, subject to the limitations of the data. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the matched-case is likewise not only a nationally ranked top-10 economics department, but one at the exact same university. Hence, I have absorbed all fixed-effect factors regarding geography and brand-name reputation of the university proper. </p>
<p><a href=“we’re%20talking%20about%20nationally%20ranked%20top-10%20business%20schools%20here%20-%20of%20course%20their%20graduates%20get%20hired.%20Is%20the%20same%20true%20of%20the%20BBA%20candidate%20at%20a%20small%20regional%20public%20school?”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that’s not the question at hand; the OP never said that he was from a ‘small regional public school’. But even if he was, the relevant question would not be whether he would be hired with a BBA, but rather he would be hired relative to if he had earned a bachelor’s in economics instead at that same university. Let’s face it - while somebody with a BBA from a 4th tier school might experience hiring difficulties, that same person with a B.A. in economics from that same 4th tier school probably isn’t the most marketable job candidate either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And again, I must fundamentally disagree. I can agree that the evidence is incomplete, but some evidence is always better than none. It’s certainly far better than the mere assertions that often times passes as supporting arguments on this discussion board. </p>
<p>If you think that my evidence is poorly presented or analyzed, then by all means explain why. Or, better yet, offer some countervailing evidence of your own. Like I said, more evidence is always better. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep talking as if only descriptive statistics are misusable, whereas inferential statistics never are. I frankly, don’t see the difference. If somebody is going to misuse statistics, they’re going to misuse them, regardless of the type of statistics in question. </p>
<p>But in this case, I don’t think I’m misusing anything. After all, I have no motive to do so. Whether the OP chooses business or economics has no impact on me. I’m simply going with what the evidence says. I agree that the evidence is limited. But it’s still better than mere assertions. And frankly, mere assertions seem to be far more ‘misusable’ than is evidence.</p>
<p>I think we’re missing the whole point. The OP is 25, so he already has his BBA. I think the question is more the sort of: “Do I get a normal MBA or should I get a more specialized degree such as a MSF?”</p>