<p>OK, thanks for the info and a small window into your mind and view of your future horizon/landscape. I will also offer you some of my life experiences and personal journeys so that you can take what I say in that context. So, my apologies in advance for this long note.</p>
<p>You clearly have great conceptual and math skills, and a special interest in economics. You have a societal mindset, higher level self actualization goals, with a touch of idealism. All positive and somewhat par, for many, at your stage of the life cycle.</p>
<p>Re some of your thoughts about the business world and preconceived notions, some of it is true, in some instances, some functional areas (sales, marketing advertising require social skills), some industry sectors (financial services, hedge funds etc) are cutthroat. However, the facts are that one cannot paint with a broad brush. The devil is in the details and like Einstein in the physical world, in the business world, way too much is relative.</p>
<p>So, over a 20-30-40 year career in business/industry you WILL come across situations where, to some extent or the other, you will have to sell you soul to make next quarter’s financial goals. I was in the revolving credit card business (during the huge growth phase) and quickly moved to the non-revolving charge card business because I did not like being aggressively pushed into making the preponderance of the profits from people who were poor at math and made their minimum payments at huge interest rates and a boatload of profit for us. </p>
<p>Yes, in the business world it’s a lot easier to make money off the ‘not too smart’ majority who have poor math and money management skills. It’s a whole lot harder to make money off the well educated, rich people, unless you are sellng them stuff from Tiffany’s, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus or the high end luxury cars/yachts. I found the insurance industry to be similar in that they too sold a paper and a promise, took the money upfront, invested it, and decided when or whether to pay a claim. In fact, in the insurance business I ran some lines of business where we made more money by constantly bringing in new customers and allowing them to churn, because customer attrition for certain lines of business can throw off a lot of cash, as the attrited customer’s claim set-aside claims reserve gets released into free cash flow. But the business-to-business commercial side is much harder to make money in, because the decision-makers are highly informed and financial savvy CFO’s.</p>
<p>To cut a long story short, let me say that there are many industries and sectors, in certain functional areas, where someone like you will be unhappy - very unhappy - over a long 20/30/40 year career.</p>
<p>My dad died of a heart attack when I was 6, so even though I was idealistic and had great intentions, I needed to make money. So, I gave up my big goals and made some money, and I semi-retired at the age of 45. This was because I was around the corner from the NYSE on 9-11 (I actually was in Amsterdam that day). So, I sold my soul somewhat, though I drew the line on many instances, to my detriment. In any event, I wanted to share that with you, because I feel for you, in terms of your current goals and mindset. I ran global consumer finance businesses for about 12 years for the biggest of the biggest players and spent about 21 years (including non-financial service and the consulting ervices industry), on the road, outside the country more than 50% of the business days, for a straight 20 plus years. Got burned out and 9-11 made me reevaluate my personal goals and what I wanted out of life.</p>
<p>So, Sal, the business world is the business world. But as I said, you cannot paint with a broad brush. Many companies, like Caterpillar (I did not work in any such industries) or GE or Apple or Google, you are less likely (I am choosing my words carefully) to find places where you could lose your soul. But yes, even in manufacuring, say General Dynamics, of Lockheed, or Boeing or even GE, they will have to do deals, globally, and play ball in different cultures. So, if you are looking at the for profit sector, and want to rise to the top, in say 20-30 years, it WILL not be lilly-white. Stuff Happens. Competition happens, and laissez faire takes over.</p>
<p>Now, are the non-profits much different. Trust me on this. All non-profits are caught up with the political world. And, if you think the private sector is not lilly-white, just wait until your non-profit needs to get funding. You’ll want to throw up! So, there’s no escaping some of the unpleasant aspects of work-life in our current society. The best you can do is navigate the world, and the cards, as they are dealt to you, unless you want to be in academia. </p>
<p>So, I think your choice might be the academia route. Kind of like Bernanke, or other notable econimists. Except when they too get up there, they have to deal with the worst of the beasts, the politicians.</p>
<p>So, Sal. Here’s what I suggest:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Don’t be in a rush. You are just a freshman. Give it some more time, and hedge your bets and for now, stay on a dual major track, with eco as a double major. Don’t quit McCombs just yet. That would be dumb. There’s no need to.</p></li>
<li><p>Take the ECO courses, and also take Philosophy with Bonevac.</p></li>
<li><p>If you have not already, watch Steve Jobs’ Stanford commencement speech on Youtube.</p></li>
<li><p>If you have not already, I suggest you read Ayn Rand’s ‘Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’, before the start of the Spring semester.</p></li>
<li><p>Delve a little bit on your own into the Hegelian dialectic (thesis- antithesis clash, spawns a new thesis from the synthesis, and then continues with a new thesis-antithesis progress through infinite iterations. Conception and evolution itself can be seen in this way, and manmade social systems mimic the natural systems of the cosmos.)</p></li>
<li><p>Since you’ve completed Micro, and assume Macro via AP, try to see if you can find a strong course in consumer behavior. Why? Today’s global economic world is too interconnected, and all econimies are vulnerable to weak links in the global chain. Witness Europe, the Euro and debt issues of today. China could face severe challenges in a few years, due to poor long-term financial foundation of their economy and the macroeconomic impact in 15-20 years of their ‘one child’ population control policy. So, behavioral econimics and how that affects the macroeconomic global landscape will be very, very important. Agricultural, and new+old energy economics will also become bigger factors 10-20 years from now. By definition, these will huge global impacts and herald major global changes. For all of the above reasons, given your math skills, I would also suggest some actuarial science classes. They will come in handy for your eco future.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>To conclude, my advice is for now stay on a dual major route. Do NOT quit McCombs. If after you finish your sophomore year, you still have the same goals, and same mindset, then decide on eco, and perhaps go into academia and true eco think tanks, with NO political connections. Or, the World Bank could be another route. For that, finish your undergad at UT and go to Oxford or the London School of Economics or Harvard for your econmics graduate degree, and maybe a PhD. Yes, eco route, would necessarily mean a PhD. That’s 4+2+3, at least 9 years total. All think tanks want eco people who have Phd’s.</p>
<p>I am happy to continue this conversation this conversation here, or via PM.</p>
<p>Sorry, for this long shrink-like response. I just don’t want to see you do what happend to my buddy who got his MBA and Columbia and was so unhappy and went to become a medical doc.</p>
<p>But, you have at least another year to allow your mind to expand and mature before making a decision on a major…</p>