<p>I've read the other threads dealing with this subject, but I just don't get it. The curriculum as I understand it at Harvard is mostly theory-based. And yet half of the class at Harvard are econ majors. Why would i-banks want to hire them if they don't take practical coursework like they do at Wharton? I mean, it's so broad and NOT closely tied to finance/personal investment. Is it just internships and cross-reg with MIT that serve as their saving grace? And I was accepted EA, so if it sounds like I'm bashing Harvard, I'm not. It's my absolute top choice, but I really want to understand all sides before I send off my acceptance of admission in April/May. Thanks for the help, guys! And happy holidays!</p>
<p>Hey, I am working at Citigroup next year and a substantial amount of my investment banking analyst class is composed of Harvard students. Top tier investment banks like Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, etc. do not care what type of coursework you have had on the undergraduate level. All they really care about are that they have bright, hard working kids who they can train and mold in the field of finance. They are going to train you their way and it is six weeks of intense finance and accounting training. Therefore, some of the students are actually liberal arts majors who have never taken a business course in their life. As suprising as this may seem, it is the truth.</p>
<p>Yeah, the firms have training classes where you learn everything. Plus Harvard kids are regarded as the best and brightest, so why not have them work for you?</p>
<p>Hmm, that does make a fair bit of sense. thanks for your help!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yet half of the class at Harvard are econ majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about that. Sure, there are a lot of Harvard econ majors, but half of the class? How many undergrad majors/concentrations does Harvard offer, something like 40 or so? Yet half of the class is going to choose just one of those concentrations? I think that's a stretch. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, it's so broad and NOT closely tied to finance/personal investment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's the same reason why Ibanks hire plenty of MIT and Stanford engineers, and the same reason why they hire lots of HYPS liberal arts majors in general. </p>
<p>Look, the fact is, banks are hiring you for your ability to think, not on the specific courses that you've done. I think we have a simple misunderstanding of what the true purpose of education is all about. The truth is, most of the specific subjects that you take in high school and in college you will never use ever again in your life. For example, how many people really hold jobs where they deconstruct Shakespeare or write papers on the War of 1812? Almost nobody. But does that mean that that was all just a waste of time? Not at all. These classes teach you how to think and learn and that's the REAL purpose of education. Most of the specific topics that you learned in school will turn out to be useless in the sense that you will never use them ever again in your life. But what you will use is the mental dexterity and logical reasoning that you those subjects develop. </p>
<p>Consider this analogy. If you want to perform better at sports, you might join a gym to lift weights. But why? Doing a bunch of bench presses and squats is not 'useful' in the sense that that's not what you're going to be doing when you play your sport. But what will be useful is the muscular strength and stamina that you develop by lifting weights. The goal is not really to learn how to bench press a lot of weight, the real goal is to develop your muscles, and lifting weights is the way that you do it.</p>
<p>This is why a lot of companies will actually pass over a person who has the specific skills that the company needs in favor of somebody who has greater potential. Skills are easily taught. What is not easily taught are the underlying raw talent and the attitudes. As a case in point, NFL teams would rather draft a guy who has limited football experience but has tremendous size and athletic ability (i.e. the 'physical specimen') than draft a guy who has played football his whole life but is small and slow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Almost nobody. But does that mean that that was all just a waste of time? Not at all. These classes teach you how to think and learn and that's the REAL purpose of education. Most of the specific topics that you learned in school will turn out to be useless in the sense that you will never use them ever again in your life. But what you will use is the mental dexterity and logical reasoning that you those subjects develop.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This should be posted on every school website and emphasized in high schools. Well said.</p>
<p>I agree, but the above posts disclose another harsh reality for many students. Namely that the school that you attend has a huge difference for recruiting in IB.</p>
<p>Liberal arts students from HYPS (ect) do get IB jobs and you do not have to be an econ/finance/business major. You can be a top student from another college/university and they will not even look at you. I am sure there are exceptions, and some of you will post them, but the truth of the matter is that your school makes a huge difference with regard to opportunity in IB. I know of two guys who were social science majors at Yale and are doing really well in NYC with big firms. Don't kid yourself into thinking that where you went to school isn't all that important.</p>
<p>Thank you for all the valuable information. </p>
<p>Kono-the "name" value is one concern of mine, and my two most viable options are Haas undergrad (hopefully-admission decision in March) or econ major undergrad at Harvard. </p>
<p>Which would you you choose? There's a 80-100k savings that comes with going to Cal, and also the benefit of living less than an hour away from my family. And doesn't SF have lots of i-banking opportunities? But it's Boston, and it's Harvard. Ahhhh!</p>
<p>The problem with going to Cal for Haas is simple - you don't know whether you will get into Haas. You go to Berkeley hoping to get into Haas, but with no guarantee that it will happen. You then apply to Haas at the end of your sophomore year. About half will get in. And that's only figuring in those people who actually apply. Plenty of other people don't even apply because their grades in the Haas prereqs are so low than they know they won't get in.</p>
<p>Sometimes I wish I could look two years into the future to see for sure whether or not I'd get into Haas if I went to Berkeley (heck, I wish I could look 3 months into the future to see if I get into Berkeley at all). Since I can't do that, I'm forced to evaluate them as if I had the opportunity to enroll at either. So looking at the two on a purely evaluative level (without regards to admissions), if a student had the choice, which would you suggest, factoring in the 100k savings by going to Berkeley and also the closeness of UCB to home?</p>