<p>I was planning on majoring in econ and perhaps minor in poli sci at either cornell or chicago. My calc BC teacher worked at goldman after doing electrical engineering at undergrad. He also helped hire new applicants to work, and he told me when recruiters look at undergrad applicants, they would much rather like to see engineers or hard science majors rather than econ because it is too general. Is there any truth to this, am i better off majoring in something like physics(a science i'm interested in) and minoring in econ?</p>
<p>Math is not a hard science?</p>
<p>Physics, he never said math is not a hard science. I think he wants to couple math with economics for the quant feeling.</p>
<p>It's more of a quantitative approach now a days to be honest. The reason they want engineering and hard science majors in because of the math behind and the brain power behind it. Do anything "hard" and you'll come out bigs.</p>
<p>Take note that the farther you get into economics, the more mathematical it becomes. Math becomes big down the line. This could set you up for a masters or even a PhD, that is if you like it.</p>
<p>Physics is fine. No worries.</p>
<p>Goldman</a>, Sachs & Co. Recruiting Profile</p>
<p>Check the middle of that page. It's for 2005 hires. Engineering is a dismal 9. Then again don't expect too many engineering majors to go into banking. Doesn't come off as the right correlation.</p>
<p>Liberal arts, we can both assume, consists of econ majors and those hard science majors.</p>
<p>JP Morgan: JPMorgan</a> Investment Bank Recruiting Profile
Lehman Brothers: Lehman</a> Brothers Recruiting Profile</p>
<p>Same.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>edit: Computer science might be the "other". I read its becoming very big and very well respected.</p>
<p>Note that at some level the concept of a major is completely superfluous and one is just being hired on the basis of specific qualifications that a physics/math/econ/stats PhD happen to have, e.g., the Monte Carlo method.</p>