Boring but lucrative major vs Interesting poor major

College Majors
21

<p>How can you turn down 1 million dollars a year? (assuming that stat is true)</p>

<p>And to the person that said you have no time to spend all that money, there is something called RETIRING EARLY</p>

<p>So yes, my answer to the OP is:</p>

<p>Go into investment banking, even if you hate it. It is worth majoring in a field that you feel is boring just for the grand paycheck, only if the paycheck is enormous, which it clearly is for your intended area. </p>

<p>Money = Happiness, as long as you have a good family</p>

<p>It's all worth it, because you can retire early and then kick back</p>

22

<p>Yeah, but when you retire at 50 it's not like you'll be able to enjoy that $500k sports car, and you'll be getting to the point where your golf game is degrading. What's the point?</p>

23

<p>hey.. many IBers went to law school.. Lloyd Blankfein- argually one of the most successful these days- went to Harvard Law school.. I didn't read all the posts.. I just want to point out:
do what you love in college: History, Philosophy, whatever and go to a top law school.. you can then go anywhere..</p>

<p>even the President of World Bank now majored in history from Swarthmore and went to Harvard Law.. he's not an IB now but any huge bamks would want to hire him</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
do what you love in college: History, Philosophy, whatever and go to a top law school.. you can then go anywhere..

[/quote]

Job prospects in the law field are the worse they have ever been in the history of this country. It's normally as expensive as medical school but with an overabundance of graduates flooding the job market, as opposed to medicine where there is a distinct shortage of physicians (and medicine is still much less lucrative than it once).</p>

<p>No one should ever go to law school and consider it the equivalent of business school (which is essentially what you're saying--major in whatever you want and then go to law school and pretend it'll get you a career), because it's more expensive, the skills you learn are more niche and not always applicable (it's law school, not lawyer school) and the job market is oversaturated both at the top and the bottom. If someone knows law is what they want to do, and they know they can get into a top 10, and they know they can get their parents to cover some of it--then they should do it. To do it for any other reason is to guarantee yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt with awful odds of getting a high-paying job out of school.</p>

25

<p>I have to say, I agree.</p>

<p>the only thing that stops me from saying "F*** investment banking and go do philosophy!" is your apparent inconsistency--unless you do have a true passion for it? philosophy (acadamia exempt) is hardly lucrative in itself--however, you might want to consider double majoring, or minoring in something else to give you a little extra breadth for a career. </p>

<p>as far as law, i have to agree with tetrishead (i was considering it until i read this article written by a lawyer called 20 reasons not to go to become a lawyer, and i haven't looked back)--do not do law! unless you are 200% sure that is what you want to do (because about 15 years or less into the job i'm sure that'll have dropped to somewhere around 50% or less), don't go into law. </p>

<p>why don't you check out ways that a philosophy major can be useful or at least lead to a career?</p>

<p>The</a> Philosophy Major's Handbook</p>

<p>that might help you but the internet is your friend!</p>

<p>oh yeah and doing a job strictly for money is a bad bad bad idea, especially if you are sure you are going to hate it. maybe take some classes in finance/accounting/economics or w/e and see for yourself? then at least if you decide it's not for you, you're not left wondering "what if"? if you really love something, you'll find a way to make it work, and make money. it might take some time but if it really is your passion, you will find a way to make it work out.</p>

<p>best of luck to you!!</p>

26

<p>(btw i was agreeing with Undclrd Stdnt)</p>

<p>and also a philosophy major gives you a good foundation for analytical and critical thinking/writing skills which is a huge PLUS no matter what job you go into. with some planning (like interning while in college for work experience or volunteering or something else) philosophy could be the best decision you ever made.</p>

<p>peacee x</p>

27

<p>it's kind of strange though, how philosophy seems so connected to law. you'd think philosophy is a pre-law major.. which it kind of is, but it makes me kind of think it's mainly for kids who want to go to law school.. unless you focus on phil of lit or something.</p>

28

<p>Law is derived from ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. We as society are rooted very heavily in the Roman tradition, as passed on through the English and the French. Much of the language in law that appears to somewhat archaic is just a slightly modernized, English form of older writings in Latin. A lot of our terminology in the legal system actually is Latin. When you consider that people that study philosophy are studying what was concentrated heavily in the beginning in Rome it's not hard to see how that translates to a little bit of a leg-up in studying law.</p>

<p>There are derivations of philosophy. A focus on philosophy of the mind (cognitive science stuff) is generally a component of good undergraduate neuroscience, cognitive psych, engineering psychology, architecture and HCI/usability computer science programs. An understanding of philosophical logic can aid mathematicians because their form of deductive reasoning is a result of the philosophical form of it, which was developed first. I can't see how anyone could ever become "good" at abnormal psychology without studying philosophy of self.</p>

<p>Generally philosophy does not lend itself to large classes, which is why many LACs and smaller, elite, private research universities have the better programs (there are exceptions, especially in the UC system) and tend to produce more future doctoral students. Another problem with philosophy is that, like psychology and sociology and really any subject that does not have a technical or heavily quantiative barrier early on, the low-level classes are populated by obnoxious morons.</p>

<p>College is supposed to teach you how to think, although I've never really believed that it does that. Philosophy is the exception, because it literally does teach you how to think within a specific logical framework, and the reason why people with a background in philosophy (PPE at Oxford is one of the most prestigious programs I can think of in any field of study) tend to do well (despite the fact that plenty of philosophy majors happen to end up working at Starbucks) is because it gives them an intellectual framework to use in the decision making process.</p>

<p>It's useful, I'm sure it's an enjoyable subject for plenty of people, but in any situation in which someone is concerned about employability it shouldn't be a single major--it should be doubled with something more pragmatic.</p>

29

<p>Would something like physics and philosophy, engineering and philosophy be really sought after?..</p>

30

<p>Physics isn't heavily sought after unless you're doing some very specific things. All the talk about people in physics getting rich doing quant work on Wall Street involves people with doctorates and years of experience. Focusing on quantum mechanics isn't going to get you a good job. Engineering is fine, I'm sure. X + philosophy isn't really going to do anything for you that X wouldn't, the reason to take philosophy is just to study the subject itself.</p>

31

<p>So engineering bachelors is better than a physics bachelors? How about engineering PhD vs a physics PhD?</p>

32

<p>Better for what? Job prospects, in general, yes. Studying solid-state physics opens a few doors, study of quantum mechanics doesn't really have many similarities with anything in the job market.</p>

<p>What about an engineering PhD vs. a physics PhD? It's about marketable skills. Someone with an engineering PhD is going to be able to... engineer? I mean, I know what you're asking, but I don't think you know what you're asking. A person with a strong background in physics will be very good at mathematics, and it's up to them how they apply that knowledge and what skills they develop. A person with a strong background in engineering will be in a similar position, but most engineering disciplines have direct parallels in "industry," and they're going to be in the best position to get those jobs.</p>

<p>This is kind of like a discussion of the difference between math and a very quantitative finance program. Students from both groups will be capable mathematically, the students in the finance program will have taken that learned ability and applied it to a specific concentration that is pragmatic in that it closely mirrors a real-world discipline. The math student can do the same, but it's up to him.</p>

<p>There is this very basic misunderstanding young people have, and it's everywhere on this forum. And seeing it kind of drives me nuts. It doesn't really matter what you major in. It's about where you are 20 years from now, and while major X may help you get job Y that leads to where you want to be 20 years from now, if you hate major X and love major Z you're more likely to get to where you want to be 20 years from now with Z because of enjoyment of Z. Enjoyment of Z means you're going to study Z and think about Z and you will therefore be better at Z--and better is a much more marketable skill than having taken a course in managerial accounting.</p>

<p>Even if you can't get job Y with major Z, or it takes longer. And you could always double in major X if that's a concern. Arguably the greatest military tactician in the history of the world (and the first) said "We will either find a way, or make one." If you are better at something, and you are confident in that ability, and you are willing to learn a few basic skills (record keeping and accounting and learning about raising money and managing people and "developing" an entrepreneurial spirit and blah blah), you can make a way. Of course, plenty of people never develop those secondary skills, and that can and often does keep people that are exceptional at a specific subject stuck in a poor position--but it's their choice to not expand and develop additional skills.</p>

<p>Being excellent is better than anything else, even if what you're excellent in isn't as pragmatic. I'd much rather be a writer in the top 5% of all writers than a programmer in the middle 50% of all programmers. Most people can get to the middle 50% in any discipline, very few people can find one thing they're good at and get to an elite level.</p>

<p>Most people are focused on their first jobs here, which is reasonable, and is why people hyperventilate and focus on these specific, more preprofessional programs. "O noes, I got rejected from Wharton and now I have to go to a state school, what ever will I do?" I've hired people before, and I don't care what their major is. I care what skills they have. Yes, having a degree in something preprofessional makes your life easier when you're first trying to get a job, but once you're "in" all that matters is what you can do.</p>

<p>If you enjoy physics, if it's something you think about in the abstract in your free time and you do well in the subject, you should study that. If it's that way for engineering, you should study engineering.</p>

33

<p>^Thanks for your post. I think the best way to go would be to find something I love, which will lead to doing well in it..</p>

<p>May I know in what field do you hire?</p>

<p>Let's say Investment Banking is one of the options I'm looking at.. would a double in econ and engineering be better than economics and physics?.. would there be any difference with a econ major on board?</p>

34

<p>I used to work for a real estate property management group (commercial) that also held inventory. The hiring I had a say in for was IT and sales work. I'm starting college so I left them later last year. I had worked for some people doing private wealth management, but I only really dealt with people we contracted for certain tech related jobs.</p>

<p>If you're looking at investment banking econ is fine. If you're looking at investment banking anything is fine if you can get internships, although being in certain majors makes it easier (economics is one of them).</p>

35

<p>^Thanks..,.</p>

36

<p>I think that the question is posed badly in several ways. First, there is not necessarily a connection between boring & lucrative, or interesting & poor. So much goes into making a program of study "interesting" that the word becomes almost meaningless when applied solely to a major. For example, a brilliant faculty member in ANY major might put some spring in your academic step. A department that offers lots of chances to study abroad. The personalities of your classmates. Your own inclinations. In other words, a great and rewarding experience can be had in accounting, just as an intellectually unfulfilling trip through a philosophy department is a distinct possibility. Be alert to the quality of your individual professors, your fellow students, and your other opportunities. None of these are consistent across majors (or even within them, and remember that).</p>

<p>Secondly, the example of salary is flawed. Yes, high-finance jobs pay more than law. There is relatively little connection between major and career, though. By this I mean it's not fair to say that since an economics is (very) loosely connected to a career in I-banking, it is inherently a lucrative major. Look at the median salary of ALL people with a given degree to get a better idea of the value added BY the degree. An above poster was right when he said that the difference between the I-bank millionaire and anybody else has very little to do with the degree itself.</p>

<p>Most undergraduate degrees are essentially commodities on their own. It's silly to think that one will make the difference between making 100k and a million a year. At most, you might get a 20-30k difference from the degree itself, and if that's your main idea, go for ChemE.</p>

<p>That said, I'm going to make a few comments based on my own recent soul-searching. My ideas weren't unlike yours: I wanted to get a job in high finance (specifically hedge funds). I wanted a major that would enable that option, but still not bore me silly.</p>

<p>I tried looking for the best decision, rather than making the best OF a reasonable decision. That best comes back to you. Don't try to foist responsibility for your future financial success on some course of study. It all comes back to you.</p>

<p>I saw that a person cannot credential himself to truly elite levels. It comes down to brilliant accomplishment, highly enviable connections, and a degree of random chance. You can only control one of those. If you choose to let "a 4.0 finance and mathematics double major" do the talking for you, then I can say without reservation that the odds are against ever making the truly "big time." Why? Because out of every top school in the country you've got a pool of probably 20-30 students with the exact same selling point. Annually. And the flow of raw talent only grows with time. The degree cannot be responsible for your success here, not if you want to have any control over the outcome. You've got a find a way that only you see, and it's very hard.</p>

<p>I think what this boils down to is risk/reward. Frankly, the odds of anybody being hired into a highly coveted position are slim. Not much can be done about it. Recognize, though, that gambling 4 years on a potential multimillion dollar paycheck is dangerously akin to gambling with your time and your formative education. I'd think long and hard before you use that as the yardstick by which you measure the value of your schooling.</p>