<p>Originally posted by sybbie:</p>
<p>Richard Montauk:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I see anything in the second quotation box that precludes a rigorous business major. The near universal advice seems to be, “combine it with some rigorous writing courses.” That hardly indicates that majoring in business would be negative in the admissions process.</p>
<p>I agree, starbright has a good point.</p>
<p>Gtown college is arguably more prestigious and selective than the SFS. Just to set the record straight, there is a debate (though superficial) over which of the two is the most presitigious Gtown school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and as an alum of the College at Georgetown University, I have no trouble stating that the SFS is conceived of as more prestigious and more selective.</p>
<p>And as a person who did admissions in one of those schools, I attest to the SFS’s being slightly more selective as a matter of fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But do many schools offer “rigorous business major”? I doubt it and I am not the only one that perceives it that way. I personally know two people that majored in the field but they asked me how to use the financial calculator (basic stuff like PV, FV, NPV - I learned that myself in one afternoon). It really made me wonder what they teach at these “business programs”. “Hopsitality management” is a subset of “business administration”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because what’s true of a particular subset must be true for the population as a whole (not that you’re saying exactly that, but you’re being awfully judgmental and this seems to be the implicature).</p>
<p>I don’t know what constitutes a “rigorous business major,” but you know it when you see it. Incidentally, my study partner during 1L did international business from an unknown UG and ended up with a 3.9+ for the year (easily the top 5% of our class). To get into or succeed in a law school, the business degree need not come from a name brand institution, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt in any tangible way (of course, fluff business majors like communications won’t pass muster, just like any other fluff major (i.e., sociology, american studies, etc.).</p>
<p>I’m really annoyed when people say “you might need a high(er) LSAT to prove that your GPA is accurate.” That’s really uninformative: Of course you need a high LSAT for any top school. If you’re on the border, a business major won’t hurt, but it won’t help either. Things that usually give a minor boost are (certain types of) work experience, undergraduate school, leadership positions, etc. Major boosts come from race, prestigious fellowships, major accomplishments, certain other types of job experience, etc.</p>
<p>And it’s ironic that people in this thread deride business as an anti-academic field, with the corresponding implication that law school admissions officers think similarly. It’s ironic because more than half the class they’ll end up admitting will be heading into BigLaw upon graduation (probably the antithesis of any sort of academic field). What’s even funnier is, in my experience, the boost applicants get when they’ve had prestigious ibanking experience (and isn’t a B-School an ibanking feeder?).</p>
<p>Let’s face it: Law school is a professional school. Though people like to pretend it’s this intellectually fulfilling program, you don’t go through it for intellectual fulfillment (or you do, but you don’t do BigLaw as a career, then). Admissions officers won’t doubt your capabilities for doing a business major, simply because it’s pre-professional. That’s dumb. Engineering is pre-profesional, and so is… pre-med! Admissions officers love that stuff.</p>
<p>So how do we distinguish the business from them? The ease. Admissions officers will hold it against you if you’re major was easy. That said, not all business majors are easy, but those that are will be held against you.</p>
<p>I’m considering law school after completing an undergraduate degree in business(finance). To the poster that inquired about USC’s level of rigor, Marshall does indeed have a rigorous curriculum.</p>
<p>To repeat what has been said a few times in this thread, for those considering the business/law academic combo make sure you balance out your business courses with plenty of classes that require research, analysis, critical thinking, and writing. I’ve taken at least 2-3 history, philosophy, sociology, and econ classes to give myself enough experience that I am comfortable working on lengthy research papers.</p>
<p>Most schools have a “general education” core that involves writing and humanities courses however if it appears their core is rather weak or not inclusive of enough research/writing courses, consider taking a few extra as electives to better prepare yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Small nit, but not necessarily. Plenty of econ grads from Dartmouth, Colgate, Brown, Columbia et al head to The Street (and Big Consulting) after undergrad. Indeed, some/many MBA students are at top B-schools bcos they have such a liberal arts undergrad + work experience.</p>
<p>I do concur with the rest of your post, but in some respects, also with Sam Lee’s in that not ALL undergrad biz schools focus much on readin’ & writin’. Sure, some like Emory and Wake do bcos that is part of their undergrad ethos, but many are not so liberal-arts-focused. NYU, for example, offers many liberal arts reading/writing courses, but Stern grads don’t have to take more than a couple of them…(if I’m reading it’s website correctly.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no nit to pick here. I know plenty of non-business UG people who into ibanking; that doesn’t preclude undergraduate b-school from being a feeder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>flowerhead,
Please don’t call me “awfully judgemental” when you are telling people that “sociology, american studies” are fluff majors. I actually never thought of them as such, at least no more so than business adminstration. I have an opinion based on my experience and so do you. Your view is no superior than mine. That your friend got 3.9 proved nothing about the u-grad business education he/she received; heck, maybe he/she was just very intelligent and would get that GPA without even going through college. That my friends didn’t know how to use financial calculator says nothing about their intelligence (they are actually smart); but it does reflect poorly the business/“finance” programs they went through. That’s on top of what I heard already. </p>
<p>Undergraduate b-schools are NOT feeders to ibanking. People on the ibanking forum are gonna tell you the biggest feeders are the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke…etc. In other words, they are looking for the smartest students, not students finishing the most number of business-related courses. The same can be said about top management consulting firms also. Please note that this is considering the fact that much more students would be interested in ibanking/management consulting from undergrad b-schools; they are losing the recruiting battles even with such self-selection.</p>
<p>I don’t see how “the boost applicants get when they’ve had prestigious ibanking experience” has anything to do with how adcom would think of an undergrad business major. ibanking and u-business major are completely different animals; the former is very selective while anyone can major in the latter if he/she wants to.</p>
<p>Edit: Forget it. This argument ain’t worth it.</p>
<p>Whoa I didn’t know that…so the only “non-academic” major in college is Business administration and/or Bus. econ? Why? Is that the same for finance, accounting? If not, why not?</p>
<p>Why is engineering, physics considered academic, yet not business administration? This is weird.</p>
<p>All I see when I google non-academic majors is stuff like pre-law, pre-med, which are not considered academic. Why isn’t bus econ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goodness no; there are tons of these. IT, Network Management, Marketing, Kinesiology, Exercise Science, Communications, Public Relations, Laboratory Science… the list is too long to name.</p>
<p>How can Business Administartion/Business Economics be non-academic when the rigor is clearly there and there is a heft of work/analyzing involved?</p>
<p>Communications AND PR are both non-academic? Why does the Grad school for PR require the GRE then?</p>
<p>If Business is non-academic, then why is physics, chemistry, engineering considered ‘academic’?</p>
<p>I was Political Science, is that also not academic? What constitutes an academic major? So is the MBA also non-academic?</p>
<p>I’m going to address only one of the questions in post #35.</p>
<p>Just for the record, “Professional Schools” like medical, law, and business schools are by definition non-academic. So yes, that includes MBA programs.</p>
<p>Thanks for that, but I was really wondering why the aforementioned in the post are considered “non-academic.” I truly had no idea that those fields I mention are not academic and why others are. If anyone wants to explain it further I’d really appreciate it.</p>
<p>Generally, I do know that the academic degree comes from Masters’ Programs and Doctorate programs.</p>
<p>Why then is a Masters in Public Relations not considered academic? </p>
<p>Sorry if I’m uninformed here but this is a new shock to me as I didn’t know what constitutes an academic degree aside from professional schools, yet an MA in some fields as was stated is not academic.</p>
<p>You’re confused because you’re thinking of “academic” (schoolwork-intensive) vs. “non-academic” (not schoolwork intensive).</p>
<p>The distinction being discussed on this thread is a different one: academic (theoretical, intellectual) vs. vocational (applied, technical training). See post #14 on this thread for a good example. (Engineering, in this rubric, is vocational – but is SO difficult that it tends to be treated slightly differently than other vocational majors.)</p>
<p>^ titcr.</p>
<p>You really can’t see the difference between a PhD in Philosophy and an MA in PR?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d also add that part of the difficulty comes from the fact that there are tons of abstract scientific concepts and theories involved. My thermodynamics and fluid mechanics courses were examples and often it’s not clear how they were utilized in real world; chemEs were asked to take a course in physical chemistry (from chemistry department) which also covered thermodynamics but with much less math and details than the thermodynamics from the chemE department. “reactor engineering” isn’t about teaching one how to operate a reactor at all; but it’s about learning the theories, integrating reaction chemistry/physics, and applying them to, say, reactor design. Engineering is a cross between science and application. Though classified as a pre-professional field, a large part of it is pretty academic, and yes, intense.</p>