<p>Been reading threads and posts for a while...this is my first post.
I'm just really curious why people get undergrad business degrees instead of a general liberal arts degree. </p>
<p>I've talk to a few family friends (more like my dad's friends) who work for investment banks and they say that they know colleagues who were hired out of school that majored in philosophy, music and all sorts of "fuzzy" majors that are often sometimes looked upon with disdain by business/science types on this board. Granted most of these art and English majors did graduate from school like the Ivys and top-LACs and what not but the point that I seemed to be getting was that the Wharton-types didn't seem to do much better in terms starting salaries and stuff.</p>
<p>Is this true or are these just isolated cases? Does it really take a undergrad business degree to get a good job in the finance world? Is there a benefit?
I mean, is this heresy, because I doubt my dad's friends are lying. But is so...why are people clamoring to get into Wharton or Sloan or wherever when they can instead go to another good school and major in something they might enjoy more?</p>
<p>A business undergrad degree may get you a few more bucks off the bat, but to me it's entirely a waste of your mind and soul. If I were in a recruiting position, I would never hire a recent college grad with a business degree.</p>
<p>If you want to get into the finance world, then I'm assuming you like finance. It would make a lot of sense to take the courses that you like, instead of the "easier" ones regardless of starting salaries and whatnot. </p>
<p>Why go to Wharton or Sloan when you can go elsewhere and still end up in the same place? Pride. School pride. Personal pride. Going to either of those schools means you're among the best in the country for potential business majors. People go oooh and ahhh when you tell them you graduated from there. Lots of people are competitive; I have friends who just simply like to be challeneged and then excel at it. </p>
<p>It all depends on your approach and mindset towards college.</p>
<p>The Wall Street world is a somewhat unique subset of all business jobs and the rules that apply there DO NOT apply to the vast majority of entry level business jobs out there. Due to tradition and good old northeast elitism I banks and a handful of consulting firms do hire a fair amount of LA grads. But they only take very select and harshly vetted ones. If you don't go to certain schools--mostly in the top 10-20 and a few recruited LAC's you won't get a whiff from most of these firms and you will be scrambling to find a good job. For example students at Grinnell are begging the school do to something to get better jobs after college. On the other hand most grads of business programs anywhere in the Top 30 or so will have a good selection of firms recruiting at their campus and find starting salaries higher ($45-$60K) than most Ivy grads not hired by the Ibanks and consulting firms--which is the vast majority of Ivy grads.</p>
<p>So would say an undergrad business admin degree from a lesser known school or local state school be better than getting a philosophy degree at Yale or Swarthmore or UChi if I'm not necessarily looking for working at an I-bank?</p>
<p>I'd like to work in the business world but I'm not sure if I really want to dedicate my undergrad life to a business degree but rather something that's a bit more abstract or intellectual. I know some places like Wharton fill give some emphasis to the liberal arts besides the main courses in business/econ etc. However, at most other places, that doesnt really seem to be the case-I've been looking at some NJ private schools and publics that offer business programs.</p>
<p>There is a wide gulf between Yale and some local state school. In between you have some great schools with good liberal arts and business schools such as Berkeley, UVa, Michigan, UNC, Wisconsin and others. Some similar privates would include Emory, MIT, WUSL, USC and others.</p>
<p>Barrons is right. Frankly, the difference between the local state school business program and Wharton is going to be extremely different. Do look into the schools that Barrons listed; Olin at WUSTL and Haas both offer good undergrad business programs. They are also slightly less cutthroat than Wharton. </p>
<p>In the end, it really depends on what you are looking for in terms of a long term career and what you want in your college experience. Plus, what field of business are you looking into? Entrepreneurship? I-banking? Real estate? Service Industry? and so on.</p>
<p>Some of the most interesting startups in tech companies are started by neither business majors nor liberal arts majors but rather engineers. If you are looking for a prestigious I-banking job, either a LA degree from Ivies or top-20 schools (granted that you graduate with a good GPA) should be fine. A BS in business from Haas, Stern, Olin, and Wharton or somewhere along those likes would also be great</p>
<p>As for a Bachelors degree in Business from your local state school: If you arent that ambitious of a person and would be satisfied with a desk/office job somewhere in your state, it should be enough. Then again, if your local state school is in Cali or Michigan, its a different story. It depends on what state school you are talking about. </p>
<p>But Im gonna guess that youre not that kind of person. (As you have said, youre looking into Swarthmore and Yale) Theres no need to settle for a second rate business school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm just really curious why people get undergrad business degrees instead of a general liberal arts degree
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just to point something out few colleges nowadays allow you to get a "general liberal arts" degree, IE a BA with no major, or a BA with a "general studies" major. An example of such a place would be St. Johns. So in most cases you would be just as specialized as a business undergrad person, just specialized in a field that corporations aren't interested in.</p>
<p>The bottom line when it comes to why students want undergrad business degrees now, is because thats what the corporations are demanding.</p>
<p>As to why the corporations are doing this; most places don't want to train someone from scratch, they also want some assurance that this person is serious about a business career. Basically they've come to realize that many people major in liberal arts because it's "easier" something they will "enjoy more", IE a Mickey Mouse major.</p>
<p>You gotta be taking the p_iss! What exactly does an undergrad business major demand that's more difficult than a major in philosophy, physics, mathematics or history? Business has no central theory holding it together, it provides little if any opportunity for serious research, and lacks the depth of most liberal arts fields.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to why the corporations are doing this; most places don't want to train someone from scratch, they also want some assurance that this person is serious about a business career. Basically they've come to realize that many people major in liberal arts because it's "easier" something they will "enjoy more", IE a Mickey Mouse major.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! So, you're saying that business is harder than philosohpy, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, etc... Rofl, I hope that's a joke</p>
<p>my guidance counselors from HS always told me that that a business major is a waste because you dont need to study business to go into business. In general, i've seen this be quite true as the I-Bankers who have recruited on campus said they encourage all serious students, no matter what their majors, to apply.</p>
<p>That might be true for the select group for Cornell that gets hired by the IBanks--usually about 1 in 10 applicants. What happens to the rest that were not in engineering or Cornell's new business program?? Ask the undergrads from Grinnell (a fine school but not on the Ibank trail) how happy they are with their job prospects.</p>
<p>I heard a girl from Dartmouth with a liberal arts degree just about crying on the radio because she had all this debt and no job as a social science major.</p>
<p>Quite frankly,
Most of the CEOs of major companies hold undergrad degrees in all sorts of majors ranging from engineering (quite popular) to English literature and history. Surprisingly, few actually hold undergrad degrees in business. </p>
<p>I'd venture that a MBA is infinately more important. So go to a good school and major in something you want. If you do well, you'll get a good job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, you're saying that business is harder than philosohpy, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, etc... Rofl, I hope that's a joke
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mathematics, physics, biology and chemistry aren't liberal arts. They're sciences. Which would be competing against engineering majors for jobs. Engineering majors have very good job prospects. But we're talking about liberal arts and business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the CEOs of major companies hold undergrad degrees in all sorts of majors ranging from engineering (quite popular) to English literature and history. Surprisingly, few actually hold undergrad degrees in business. </p>
<p>I'd venture that a MBA is infinately more important. So go to a good school and major in something you want. If you do well, you'll get a good job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You need to realize that those CEOs are mostly over 50. Back when they were hired there weren't many undergraduate business majors to begin with. This is a new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago when those current CEOs were hired out of college, no one would have even asked the question posed by this thread. And about 120 years ago the very concept of a major didn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mathematics, physics, biology and chemistry aren't liberal arts. They're sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm...not everyone will agree with that. Traditional liberal arts include mathematics as well as astronomy- if you take it to mean what it does in the medieval sense. Today, the term liberal arts usually include both humanities and sciences and exclude vocational majors such as engineering, business, nursing etc.
So I would consider the hard sciences as well as mathematics as part of the liberal arts.</p>
<p>The bulk of liberal arts majors do not major in a science. History, Poli sci, psych, English, languages are all more popular than math and physics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Umm...not everyone will agree with that. Traditional liberal arts include mathematics as well as astronomy- if you take it to mean what it does in the medieval sense. Today, the term liberal arts usually include both humanities and sciences and exclude vocational majors such as engineering, business, nursing etc.
So I would consider the hard sciences as well as mathematics as part of the liberal arts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When you major in chemistry and graduate from a college or university does your diploma say Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science?</p>
<p>What's next are you going to include the Fine Arts in your "liberal arts" definition?</p>
<p>I really hope people aren't going off of medieval age vocabulary. When most institutions of higher learning only offered one degree to begin with, and the only people who wanted that degree were monks.</p>