<p>The career center data is collected from voluntary response surveys, so there is probably some bias.</p>
<p>anony33, you should elaborate on what you mean by adding to society. I could argue the creation of wealth adds to society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I took both UGBA10 and Econ 1/100A/100B. And you? </p>
<p>I don’t think my major is relevant anymore, as I’ve been long gone. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, frankly, I can think of plenty of other (non-Haas) classes in which nothing particularly insightful was ever said. How many MCB students care about little more than what their grades and MCAT scores are? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, you can disagree about what drives Haas students. But at least they’re driven towards something, even if towards only money. There are plenty of other majors where many students, frankly, don’t seem to be driven by anything at all; not towards learning the material or towards any career goals. Many of those students just want to pick up a degree from Berkeley while putting in the minimal possible effort. </p>
<p>Look, it sounds as if you enjoy economics more so than Haas. Good for you. But there are people who enjoy Haas more than economics. Let those people pursue the goals that are important to them. I’m not here to criticize economics, but I don’t think we should criticize Haas.</p>
<p>Financial investment leads to capital investment leads to increased productivity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, by that notion, I’m not sure that many aspects of economics adds all that much social value either. For example, Paul Krugman himself has argued that much of the theoretical macroeconomic modeling work of the last 2 or 3 decades has turned out to probably be junk. Barry Eichengreen (yes, of Berkeley), has conceded that the events of the last 2 years has “cast into doubt much of what we thought we knew about economics.” I take up the mantle of Russ Roberts to ask the question: name a single econometric study that was so well done that even opponents of the issue at question had to concede that they were wrong. I don’t know of any, and neither does Roberts, despite the fact that there should be hundreds. </p>
<p>None of that is to say that economics as a whole has no social value. I think it does have some value. But the fact is that much of what the economics profession does and has done over the past few decades, frankly, does not confer social value.</p>
<p>I’ve taken all those classes and some more (Declared Econ/MCB double major). And I happen to actually like MCB and biochemistry.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point of this whole thing was that Econ/Business are very different and one is not just the backup for the other. And that Haas is not that amazing/elite as every prospective freshman currently thinks, but they will realize this for themselves soon enough - like on their first walk through sproul.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And in a perfect world, economists should have been able to predict that the financial crash was going to happen. Indeed, you did have some lonely voices such as Robert Schiller who were doing just that. But the economics profession should have all been converging towards one position - that of flashing danger - before the crash. And, especially, the economists of the Federal Reserve should have predicted that a crash was coming and acted accordingly. There is now widespread agreement that inappropriately loose monetary policy in the mid 2000’s was an important contributor to the financial crash (the dispute is now over just how important of a contributor it was) , yet monetary policy was being determined by economists. </p>
<p>The overarching, existential question is: if the economics community couldn’t clearly predict a financial crash as traumatic as the recent one, then what exactly is the purpose of the economics community? Note, I say this not to criticize economics unnecessarily, yet this is a point that has been raised by numerous high-profile economists over the last few years. Why have all of these faculty members building analytical models and running econometric specifications if they can’t actually predict an event as momentous as the crash? </p>
<p>None of this is to excuse business schools, who I also feel had a key role to play in the crash, especially the departments that propagated financial engineering (which is where I agree with you). I believe both economics departments and business schools have some soul-searching to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for you. Yet I’m sure you have encountered those MCB students who couldn’t give a damn about the major at all, but only care about being admitted to med-school. We’ve all seen those students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that economics and bus-ad are highly different. Furthermore, nobody is arguing that Haas is “amazing” or “elite”. Yet there is no need to denigrate bus-ad simply to defend economics. Both are perfectly worthy majors and departments. </p>
<p>But it is nevertheless still true that Economics is indeed a backup to Haas. That doesn’t make Economics a bad major, but rather is a simple observation stemming from the fact that many students who are rejected from Haas will indeed relegate themselves to economics. {Yet the reverse is rare: almost no students who are rejected from the Economics major relegate themselves to Haas, for the simple reason that if you couldn’t get into the Economics major, you probably wouldn’t get into Haas either.}</p>
<p>You are so condescending sakky - and it’s sad that your long official sounding posts with all this random knowledge make you sound like you know what you’re talking about more than other people do.</p>
<p>“Furthermore, nobody is arguing that Haas is “amazing” or “elite”.”
Did you read the original post on this thread?</p>
<p>The original poster and many other incoming freshmen (including myself 2 years ago) thought the same thing: that the only people who majored in Econ were Haas-rejects and that everyone in Haas should be much smarter and motivated than in Econ. I’m just saying that this isn’t true and if you agree with me, WHY must you be so nitpicky and argue against me? </p>
<p>And I never said that Econ isn’t a backup major for some people, I just said that it is more than JUST a backup major. You misinterpreted me and now you’re repeating yourself even after I pointed that out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then when asked to fill out the survey, you would expect a person making significant bonuses to include that in their salary. </p>
<p>Wow, 3 pages of posts in < 3 hours haha. I didn’t make this thread intending to start a huge debate between Econ vs Haas, but I would like to point out that while Haas students may not be naturally smarter, Haas students are almost certainly more competitive and have more work experience than other majors. </p>
<p>Many students (in my high school) are pre-business because they say “I want a job that pays.” People that are interested in math major (no one in my school) would probably say something like “I love math. I don’t care if I’m making no money, so long as I’m happy.” Yet looking at the numbers, it appears math majors have a higher starting salary than HAAS graduates. I’m just curious if people can provide any logical reasonable explanation. </p>
<p>HAAS people WANT to earn more money (they have the drive), are on average more competitive, and on average have more work experience before they graduate. But they make less money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you? I don’t see anything in the original post stating that Haas was “amazing” or “elite”. You were the one who brought up the notion that “pre-business freshmen always think Haas is so elite and cool”. I said no such thing, and neither did the OP. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you’re misquoting the OP. Not once did he ever say that *everyone * in Haas is smarter than everyone in Econ. He is merely making a simple statement regarding the admissions criteria for Haas vs. Econ (or the other majors in L&S). Haas does indeed have relatively high admissions standards. </p>
<p>Nor did the OP ever once say that the “only” people who majored in Econ were Haas rejects. If he had, then I would be on your side. What he said is that many Econ majors are Haas rejects, which is indeed a true statement. Many econ students are indeed students who would rather be in Haas but were not admitted. </p>
<p>If you think I’m being nitpicky, it is only because you insist in misquoting people and insisting that they said something that they never did. That is why I must argue against you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, see above. You’ve misquoted the OP several times now, and now you’re complaining that you’re the one who is being misinterpreted?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you wouldn’t. As I said, the bonus is unpredictable; you might get zero. If you don’t actually know what bonus you will receive, or whether you will even receive one at all, then the conservative tactic is to simply not report it at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Easy: it was a one-shot deal. 2008 was an anomalously recessionary year. In every single other year on record, bus-ad majors made more than math majors, even if we were to confine the discussion only to salaries (which we should not). </p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Math.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Math.stm</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/BusAd.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/BusAd.stm</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/Math.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/Math.stm</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/BusAd.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/BusAd.stm</a></p>
<p>I think everything I said is much more relevant to this poster than anything you said. And I would love to not read any of your posts (I’m barely skimming them right now), but unfortunately you’re influencing other people like incoming freshmen who I actually care about. JBeak just wants his questions answered, not this huge debate.</p>
<p>"Isn’t it odd that the average salary of Business majors is only $56k? Can any current Berkeley students comment on this data? Many use Economics as a back-up major to Haas School of Business yet the average salary is the same. Haas itself as inherently more competitive, more experienced, and smarter people because it self-selects out of the Berkeley students, yet the average salary with a Bachelor’s degree from Haas is strikingly low. "</p>
<p>JBeak wants to know why Econ/Business major salaries don’t end up being that different because he expects Business majors to be smarter, more experienced, and more competitive. Does Jbeak really not think that Haas is better and more elite than Econ here in general? Is that really too much of an extrapolation for you Sakky? </p>
<p>And the simple answer to your other question JBeak: Do you really think Business and math majors learn the same amount in college? Math majors learn a lot more specific knowledge and skills that they will actively use in whatever job they take when they graduate. Business majors will learn how to be professional, network, and sound smart. I don’t think anyone will argue that it is easier to be a math or science major than to be a business major. (Actually maybe sakky will.) Anyway you get paid based on how valuable you are to whoever you’re working for and how hard to replace you are. Anyone who graduates from Berkeley math is guaranteed to be very smart, have a very intense math background, and have a lot of knowledge and skill in math. You cannot say the same thing for just any Haas graduate.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am going to go study. Please do not ****ing quote me again sakky. How’s that having 12,198 posts on this forum going for you btw?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I answered some of them. I feel no compunction to answer every question here. </p>
<p>Those who don’t want to participate in a debate are free not to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is only in this year that Econ and Haas graduates make the same. In every other year, Haas graduates make more just in salary alone.</p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Econ.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Econ.stm</a>
<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/BusAd.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/BusAd.stm</a>
<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/BusAd.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/BusAd.stm</a>
<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/Econ.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2007/Econ.stm</a></p>
<p>2008 was clearly an anomalous year for the business environment, for many reasons. I hope that’s not too much of a stretch for you, flutterfly_28. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? What exactly would that be? I’m not aware of too many jobs in which you have to solve proofs as part of your daily set of tasks, yet that is precisely what the vast majority of the upper division math coursework entails. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, whether we like it or not, those are in fact the types of skills that are necessary in the business world. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I won’t. But difficulty and pay are not always linked. Physics, for example, is arguably the most difficult major at Berkeley. Yet physics graduates make unimpressive salaries. </p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Physics.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/Physics.stm</a></p>
<p>So allow me to pose a question. Why do physics graduates tend to make less than math graduates? I don’t think anybody would argue that physics is significantly easier than math. {Actually, maybe flutterfly_28 will}.</p>
<p>as a haas admit, and hopefully econ double major (econ’s my primary interest), i have to say i have found this thread pretty interesting :]</p>
<p>I looked at your links sakky, and business administration majors still make around 54-56k even in the past years.</p>
<p>Also, I do not think econ majors are all HAAS rejects. I personally have a slight interest for econ (academic) but none for business whatsoever. I do think people who are in HAAS should a more competitive edge in getting high paying jobs than econ majors.</p>
<p>But what I’m amazed by is the fact that HAAS people on average undoubtedly must be more experienced and be more competitive to get into HAAS in the first place. Yet once they leave they make less money despite the fact they most likely joined HAAS for the money.</p>
<p>I read many articles online and heard from many friends and adults that if you want to make money, go business, but if you want to enjoy what you want to study (like math, physics, etc), then major in that. But it seems to me that HAAS undergrads dont make more money than math majors! (starting salary)</p>
<p>Many math majors become programmers. Some are hired by financial companies to crunch numbers. That probably explains the higher starting salary.
The average haas grad salary is lower mainly becasue the financial industry in the bay area is not as well developed; consequently, many have to settle for Big 4 accounting jobs, corporate business jobs, marketing jobs etc.</p>
<p>
Butthurt much?</p>
<p>I am a Econ Business double major, and I can tell you that Econ is in no ways more “intellectual” than Haas. It is all about what classes you take. If you went for the PhD path and took hardcore applied math/quant classes (Math 53, 54, Econ 101 series, 141, 103, 104), then yes, you would learn a lot. On the other hand, if like 75% of the Econ majors here (read: Haas rejects), you would end up taking a bunch of qualitative classes (History of Econ, Game Theory, etc.) that are more social science that rigorous economic theory. </p>
<p>The same goes for business. You can take a bunch of fluff classes, or you can go through the finance series for a solid financial education.</p>
<p>There is so much animosity for Economics from the Business Degree forum. I don’t understand why. Sakky posts a lot there too.</p>
<p>Also, I think the reason that the starting salary is low is because it doesn’t factor in bonuses or incentives.</p>
<p>When I first came across this topic, I thought that it would be an actual intellectual debate. but after reading racist and ignorant statements like
it is clear to me that it is just a few ■■■■■■ who have no lives and whose only source of entertainment is flaming people on the internet</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you should stop believing everything you hear.</p>