<p>Uh, it doesn’t matter whether we think it’s a good idea or not. Heck, I’ve been careful not to defend the hiring practices of highly desirable employers such as consulting and banking firms. But whether we agree with it or not, it is an inescapable fact that consulting and banking firms hire from a wide swath of majors, as long as you come from a certain select group of schools, and no matter how much we may disagree with such recruiting practices, those firms are not going to stop. That inevitably means that if somebody wants a job with one of those firms - or at least the chance for a job at one of those firms - he needs to attend one of those target schools. And that will be true until and unless those firms change their recruiting practices. I too admit that I am quite mystified as to why investment banks would hire an Art major to be an analyst. But they do…as long as that Art major came from, say, Harvard. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, again, you’ve completely missed the point. Nobody has ever contended that there are absolutely no differences amongst majors. Certainly there are. </p>
<p>The question on the table is whether those differences in majors trumps differences in school prestige, and the answer seems to be that it does not. At least, not for those particular jobs that are considered to be highly desirable amongst new graduates. For example, an Art History student at Harvard is far more likely to be offered a job as a strategy consultant at McKinsey than would a business major at a no-name school, despite the fact that a business major seems to be far more relevant to the practice of strategy consulting than would Art History. And McKinsey is not going to stop hiring Harvard students with ostensibly irrelevant majors no matter how foolish we think they may be. </p>
<p>I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: most people do not end taking careers that are closely related to their majors. It’s hard for me to construct a reasonable story to explain how most Berkeley English majors are utilizing the education they obtained within that major in the jobs they ended up taking, despite the fact that Berkeley has the #1 rated English department in the country. Is the guy who became an assistant manager at Abercrombie & Fitch really utilizing the literary analysis skills that he surely developed? How about the curriculum assistant at the Academy of Art? Or the project manager at Active Maps? </p>
<p>I could equivalently say that a shockingly high percentage of poli-sci majors actually become political scientists - surely a higher percentage than the pool of university students at large who become political scientists. But that doesn’t obviate the point that most poli-sci students end up doing other things. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I see some Berkeley poli-sci majors becoming Store Managers at Abercrombie & Fitch. {Perhaps that’s better than the Berkeley English major who became just an assistant manager at A&F.} I see one guy who became a warehouse worker, I see one guy who became an actuarial analyst, I see one guy who became a development assistant at the American Conservatory Theater, and so on down the line. It’s hard to make a reasonable case how most of those grads are actually using their poli-sci training. </p>
<p>Now, perhaps one could argue that poli-sci oriented employers should hire more Berkeley poli-sci majors, or, relatedly, that perhaps Berkeley doesn’t do the best job with matching its poli-sci students with the right employers. But whatever the reason may be, at the end of the day, the inescapable fact is that most poli-sci majors, at least at Berkeley and presumably many other schools as well, do not end up in related jobs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the question on the table is not whether people would be better served majoring in something they are actually going to use in their career on any absolute basis (presuming that they even know what their career will be when they enter college). The question is relative: would they be better served in doing so at the expense of turning down a more prestigious school. I would argue not. Let’s face it: a Harvard art student is far more likely to obtain a job as a Wall Street investment banker than will a finance major at a no-name school. You might argue that such Ibanking recruiting practices are foolish and that they should hire that no-name-school finance student over the Harvard art student, but that’s neither here nor there. They’re the ones with the jobs, and so they’re going to hire as they please, whether we agree with them or not.</p>
<p>“Obviously recruiting plays a heavy role - and Wharton has its own dedicated recruiting system that the nursing students (I believe) are not allowed to access.”</p>
<p>So finally we see that you agree that all majors, and colleges within a multi-college university are not necessarily treated the same, by elite employers. </p>
<p>Thank you for agreeing with me finally. And concisely.</p>
<p>this seemed quite baffling to me at first but now that I’m on wall street I see the other side as well (I don’t fully endorse the hiring practices). The Harvard art major did make it to Harvard in the first place, and while they might not have learned anything specific to the job, they only got the job because they did at least reasonably at Harvard and so have shown that they have what it takes to compete with some of the most driven students anywhere. Anecdotally most art and english majors working in finance and consulting happen to have taken several econ/finance related courses and worked in the industry a summer or two before getting a full time offer. </p>
<p>Anecdotally as well, I’ve found that finance major from less prestigious university comes in with much more theoretical knowledge about the industry, but by the end of training and few weeks on the job no longer has any advantage over your engineer or art major. Everything you need to know to contribute effectively is taught in training and in the first few weeks. Starting a job is in many ways like starting college, you have to find the best ways to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible, it’s a relatively level playing field again.</p>
<p>All that, plus the art history/ english major may be more likely than some to have outstanding verbal communication skills, which are a valuable commodity on the banking side. The ability to write a compelling RFP response can be a quite important asset. In addition to outstanding oral communication, interpersonal and social skills, not necessarily taught so much more there than in the engineering college, but more frequently found there nonetheless IMO.</p>
<p>By the way, many College of General Studies grads in your training program with you?</p>
<p>I met a couple when all the firm’s analysts were together. GS is not recruited as vigorously as CC and SEAS, because they are a non-traditional school with older students with some work experience. Most GS students are interested in law, medicine, journalism or getting a phd. A much smaller proportion is interested in starting in finance or consulting with a bunch of 22 year olds, doing analyst type work. They do however have access to finance and consulting job postings on the columbia career center (unlike barnard). In practice though a small number of GS students apply to finance and consulting positions.</p>
<p>Uh, when did I ever disagree? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that majors never matter at all to elite employers. </p>
<p>But I hope that you will finally agree that elite employers do not treat students who attend elite schools the same as those who don’t attend elite schools. Or, are you saying that you never disagreed? Alright then. </p>
<p>Again, whether we agree with it or not, a Harvard Art student has a far better chance at landing a job on Wall Street or in consulting than will a business major at a low-tier school, which therefore means that somebody wanting those jobs is well-advised to prefer the former pathway over the latter. Does anybody seriously dispute this? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The training program probably has more CGS grads than business students from some low-tier school. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the inescapable truth is that, if you want a job with an elite employer, it is better to complete the ‘wrong’ major at the right school than the ‘right’ major at the wrong school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’re not talking about an art history/english major from, say, Northwest Missouri State University, right? Let’s face it, he’s not going to be hired for an IB analyst job, no matter how outstanding his communications and interpersonal skills may be or how well he may write an RFP. Heck, he can’t even get the interview. You’re surely talking only about art history/english graduates from elite schools.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the inescapable fact is that most college graduates do not end up in careers that are closely related to their major. The Berkeley data shows that Berkeley poli-sci and English graduates often times end up (apparently) as, say, store managers at Abercrombie & Fitch, and I don’t think that Berkeley is an outlier. Most poli-sci majors do not take jobs that are closely related to political science. Most English majors do not take jobs that are closely related to English. Most sociology majors do not take jobs that are closely related to sociology. Generally speaking, the vast majority of liberal arts students do not take jobs closely related to their major, and the liberal arts comprise the vast majority of students at most unspecialized schools. </p>
<p>Hence, I ask again, who really cares about the specific strength of your major if you’re not going to take a job that is closely related to it anyway? It’s quite a stretch to see how the guy who studied in the #1 ranked English department in the country is now utilizing his literary analysis skills to manage an Abercrombie & Fitch store.</p>
<p>“…elite employers do not treat students who attend elite schools the same as those who don’t attend elite schools.”</p>
<p>I agree, but what I’m pointing out is that sometimes the determination of how elite they consider a “school” to be is done at the college level of a multi-college university, not necessarily at the university level as a whole. When there are material differences in entrance standards or vocational objectives of students at particular colleges of a particular multi-college university, distinctions can be, and are, made. If your college has a 10% admissions rate, and another college at that same university has a 35% admissions rate and lower stats, these employers will know and recognize these distinctions. If your college has numerous people interested in the jobs they offer, and another college there has few or none, they will know this. After all, they have numerous alums of that university on staff, some of them are probably leading the recruiting effort there. Where material differences exist, not every college at a particular university is considered equally elite. Or identical in other respects. When they aren’t. </p>
<p>Generally employers tend to focus recruiting efforts on the colleges within a mullti-college university where they are most likely to get the people they are looking for.
If they are recruiting for engineering jobs they will recruit at the engineering college not the Arts & sciences college. If they are recruiting for Architects they will recruit at the College of Architecture, and not the other colleges there . If they are looking for the smartest people in america who are interested in their positions, they will focus accordingly. At some universities where talent is homogeneously outstanding and there are many interested and qualified people throughout, this will mean they will recruit the whole student body. At other universities which are less homogeneous some subset may well be more highly focused and targeted.</p>
<p>Wharton does not have the same branding as College of Nursing, to these employers. Or, on the other hand, to employers of nurses, either. In both cases the employers will formulate these distinctions at the college level, not at the university level as a whole.</p>
<p>Stern does not have the same branding as Steinhardt College of Education, and I doubt many Steinhardt students are showing up on Stern interview lists. </p>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>Employers value the pre-sorting that selective college admissions provides, and when admissions are done by college at a particular multi-college university there can be generic differences between students at that university’s colleges, in interests and/or abilities, that the employers will recognize, where these differences are material.</p>
<p>Yes, but the issue is that most employers do not really seem to focus recruiting at any level, regardless of how well-branded a particular college or program ostensibly is. As I pointed out, at any broad-based university, most students will be liberal arts students, yet most liberal arts students do not end up in jobs that are closely related to their major. Berkeley has some of the highest ranked liberal arts departments in the country, and so ostensibly the Berkeley College of Letters and Science would be one of the best-branded liberal arts colleges in the country (assuming that departmental rankings are indeed correlated with branding of the umbrella college). Yet most Berkeley L&S students do not take jobs that are closely related to their major, but instead become, say, store managers for Abercrombie & Fitch. Furthermore, something like 75% of all Berkeley undergrads are in the College of L&S, which speaks to the magnitude of the issue. </p>
<p>Now, perhaps one could argue that the Berkeley Career Office simply does a poor job of placing its students in commensurate jobs, but I don’t think Berkeley is much of an outlier in this respect. The underlying issue seems to be that there simply aren’t enough focused liberal arts jobs to accommodate the vast hordes of students studying the liberal arts. Let’s face it: there aren’t that many jobs as political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, literature analysts, mathematicians, economists, and so forth available - certainly having only a bachelor’s degree - relative to the boatloads of students obtaining bachelor’s degrees in those disciplines. In fact, there doesn’t even seem to be enough discipline-specific jobs at the bachelor’s degree level to accommodate just those students graduating from just the top programs, without even factoring in all of those students graduating from average programs. {Either that, or Berkeley truly is doing a horrible job in placing its L&S students into appropriate careers.} </p>
<p>Instead, you have Berkeley liberal arts graduates becoming store managers at A&F. I personally don’t see how that job is closely related to the liberal arts. {If there’s any major that is closely related to that job, it would be Haas business administration, yet, interestingly, nobody from Haas ever took that job, only the liberal arts students did so.} I therefore wouldn’t be shocked to find A&F employing some nursing students to be store managers; that’s no more of a stretch than them employing political science students. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is simply this: the strength of any specific major is not as important as many people on CC seem to think it is, simply because there is a high chance that you will not end up in a career that utilizes that specific major anyway. What matters far more are recruiting and networking opportunities.</p>
How would you rate Berkeley’s recruiting and networking opportunities, and how would it fare against other prestigious schools like Brown or Cornell?</p>
<p>"Yes, but the issue is that most employers do not really seem to focus recruiting at any level, regardless of how well-branded a particular college or program ostensibly is. "</p>
<p>That has not been my experience.</p>
<p>“What matters far more are recruiting and networking opportunities.”
And these opportunities are not necessarily equal, for every desired future destination, at every college of a multi-college university. For a particular desired destination, some particular colleges there may have access to better recruiting and networking opportunities for those desiring that path than students at other particular colleges there have.</p>
<p>“…the best-branded liberal arts colleges in the country”
Employers are seeking the best employees, not the best research professors.
For those employers seeking “the best and the brightest” interested in their jobs, and not necessarily specific knowledge, “the best-branded liberal arts colleges in the country” for them are those where they can easily segregate a sufficiently large number of highest-capability students who are interested in their jobs. Those people are valued for their communication and interpersonal skills, as well as general intelligence. While for the most strenuous numbers crunching activities they may look to the engineering students at the same university more than the liberal arts students there. Again major can matter, every job there is not the same.</p>
<p>Students will seek and attain destinations based on their abilities and interests. Where abilities and interests are highly diverse the subsequent destinations will also be diverse. Berkeley does not have the most homogeneous student body in the world.</p>
<p>Liberal arts colleges are the primary source for future law school and medical school students, as well as graduate school in the respective fields. Many of the highest-capability students who pursue liberal arts educations do so with a plan that presupposes more advanced subsequent training and education down the road. It is well known that these are not specifically vocational degrees. Nevertheless, there are typical traits and relative capabilities one can stereotype between typical Arts & sciences majors and typical engineering majors, say, that likely will be relevant to employers at various levels in deciding where to interview.</p>
<p>A store manager at Abercrombie and Fitch probably needs good communication and interpersonal skills. A lot of engineers I know would not make the cut for such jobs, and would be horrible at them if they got it. If I were Abercrombie and Fitch looking to fill that job I would interview at Arts & sciences. My guess is Abercrombie and Fitch was not on the interview list at Berkeley’s engineering college. The college should matter in where they decide to interview.</p>
<p>Personally if I were seeking a future investment banking job I would choose Georgetown SFS over Penn School of Nursing. And obviously the pool of specific majors follows directly from those choices of specific colleges within their respective universities. But if you would choose otherwise, go in peace</p>
<p>"How would you rate Berkeley’s recruiting and networking opportunities, and how would it fare against other prestigious schools like Brown or Cornell? "</p>
<p>Who is “you”??
Who here has participated as a student in recruiting at these three universities?
Who here has acted as a recruitment manager recruiting students from these three universities?</p>
<p>Certainly I haven’t. I can tell you who walked in the door most in my department at my investment bank though, if you want to know.</p>
<p>Then your experience seems to be far from the norm. Again, taking the reported career outcomes of the graduates from Berkeley, frankly, most of the employers do not seem to be particularly selective. The Abercrombie and Fitch store manager job doesn’t seem to be particularly selective, as A&F recruits for those positions at the CalStates. It certainly doesn’t seem to be particularly difficult to become a head cashier at Barnes & Nobles, a waitress at a local restaurant, or a barista at Starbucks. Yet that is indeed what some Berkeley liberal arts graduates end up getting. Across the board, most jobs that they do get seem to be average jobs for average employers. </p>
<p>Again, that is, unless you want to argue that Berkeley does an unusually poor job of placing its graduates, the inescapable conclusion is that many employers of liberal arts graduates from even the top-ranked schools are not particularly selective or targeted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that they are equal. But certainly we can all agree that high-prestige universities offer better opportunities than do low-prestige universities. For example, I think we can agree that more Berkeley L&S graduates find jobs as strategy consultants and investment bankers than will liberal arts graduates from Northwest Missouri State. Heck, more Berkeley L&S graduates probably find jobs as strategy consultants or investment bankers than even the business majors at Northwest Missouri State. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which all serves to reinforce the point that it may not really matter what you specifically learn from your major, as your employer probably won’t care. Like you said, A&F is not seeking the best English research professor, so who cares if you graduated from the #1 ranked English department in the country? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet interestingly, the top strategy consulting firms and Ibanks do hire plenty of Berkeley engineering students. Communication and interpersonal skills seem to be paramount in the consulting and banking industry, if for no other reason, that you need to be assured that the person you hire is going to be presentable to clients who are paying for multi-million dollar consulting or banking engagements. I find it an interesting assertion that McKinsey, Goldman, BCG, and Bain will happily hire Berkeley engineers, but A&F dare not. </p>
<p>I also find it interesting that Haas graduates never seem to become store managers at A&F. Let’s face it - the Haas students are, without a doubt, the smoothest cats on campus. If anybody knows how to schmooze a room or give a jaw-dropping, ‘Obama-esque’ speech, it’s going to be one of the Haas kids. They actually learn these skills at Haas. Yet it seems to me that either A&F doesn’t recruit at Haas, or nobody at Haas takes a job at A&F.</p>
<p>Using Occam’s Razor, it seems to me that a far more simpler reason is afoot. The A&F store manager job, frankly, doesn’t pay that well: only around $30-40k a year, last time I checked. A Berkeley engineering student can do far better than that just by taking a regular engineering job. Engineering students are often times are lured away from engineering and to consulting and banking because the pay and opportunities are even better in those fields. But very few engineering students are going to opt for the lower pay that is on offer at A&F. Similarly Haas graduates can find jobs that pay far better than A&F will. </p>
<p>The average salary of Haas graduates from 2003-2006 was $54k a year, the average salary from the engineers was $47-61k a year (depending on the engineering discipline), compared to $38k a year for the poli-sci grads and $33k for the English grads. Now, obviously, that’s old data, but the relative rankings are probably the same.</p>
<p>So you would choose one top-ranked school over another. That’s not exactly a shocking choice. Both Penn and Georgetown are Ibanking recruitment targets. </p>
<p>Now, if you were to assert that you, as a hopeful future Ibanker, would turn down Penn nursing to major in finance at Northwest Missouri State, then that would indeed be a shocking choice. Yet I suspect you’re not willing to countenance that choice. But why not - after all, you’d be majoring in finance, which is precisely what the Ibanks should want, right?</p>
<p>Otherwise, I think you have to concede my main point: that inter-university recruiting variation trumps intra-university recruiting variation. It’s better to major in the ‘wrong’ subject at the ‘right’ university than to major in the ‘right’ subject at the ‘wrong’ university.</p>
<p>penn is ranked higher than Georgetown, I believe.
I would choose Stern over Penn Nursing, for that purpose, too.
Penn is ranked higher than NYU.
I would choose Tufts diplomacy school over Penn Nursing too.
Penn is ranked higher than Tufts.</p>
<p>I don’t know about Northwest Missouri state.
However my boss who I directly reported to at a midwest investment bank attended Southwest Missouri State. I have never encountered a Penn Nursing grad in my travels within that profession.</p>
<p>My point was relative eliteness, and job opportunities, can vary by college within at least some multi-college universities. And therefore by major, since majors often vary by college. I am not specifically aware of any that shine very high at Northwest Missouri State. </p>
<p>I have given examples of specific colleges at lower-ranked universities that I might well pick over a specific college at a higher-ranked university. There are others. However it does not follow that every college or every university exhibits this tendency to an equal extent. Or that they are all the same.</p>
<p>“Yet it seems to me that either A&F doesn’t recruit at Haas, or nobody at Haas takes a job at A&F.”</p>
<p>“Yet interestingly, the top strategy consulting firms and Ibanks do hire plenty of Berkeley engineering students.”</p>
<p>“The average salary of Haas graduates from 2003-2006 was $54k a year, the average salary from the engineers was $47-61k a year (depending on the engineering discipline), compared to $38k a year for the poli-sci grads and $33k for the English grads.” </p>
<p>So if I understand you, at Berkeley one’s choice of specific college (and by extension choice of major, since majors differ by college) is absolutely critical with respect to future opportunities and monetary prospects, which differ drastically by college there.</p>
<p>So are you saying that people should turn down Penn nursing for NW (or SW) Missouri State if they want to become investment bankers? </p>
<p>Probably not, and that’s been my point all along. General school prestige, whether we like it or not, is more important than specific major if you want a job in banking or consulting. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing otherwise, and in fact, is inherent to my point. Berkeley ostensibly has the #1 ranked English program in the country. Yet the fact remains that English majors, on average, don’t really get paid that well, and many - probably most - don’t even end up in jobs that are closely related to the English major. For example, I see some English grads ending up as head cashiers at Barnes & Noble, one becoming a bartender, one becoming a waitress, a bunch of people becoming receptionists, and one person even becoming a lumber puller (whatever that is). </p>
<p>One explanation is that Berkeley’s career office simply does a terrible job in placing its graduates into appropriate jobs. I agree that that is possible, but that seems to be a different question. I personally don’t think that Berkeley’s career office is significantly worse than that of most other large state schools. But that then leaves open the question: what exactly is the value of attending what is ostensibly the #1 ranked English program in the country if many of the graduates don’t end up in closely related careers anyway? Who cares how highly ranked your academic program is if you’re just going to end up working as a lumber puller? </p>
<p>The differential amongst engineering and liberal arts salaries actually serves to highlight this fact. Even somebody graduating from a mediocre engineering school will probably make more than will a Berkeley English major. Furthermore - as I have myself lamented numerous times on the engineering forum - engineers from Berkeley (and other top-ranked engineering programs), by and large, do not really make much more than do engineers from average schools, especially after adjusting for living cost. For example, in 2009, the average Berkeley chemical engineering new graduate made $67k to start. Yet the average chemical engineering new graduate across the entire country made $65k. </p>
<p>If chemical engineering employers truly valued the supposedly better training that the #2 ranked ChemE program (according to USNews) provides over the average program, then surely you would think that they would pay more than a measly $2k premium. And even that tiny engineering ‘premium’ may be misleading, for it may exist only because some Berkeley ChemE’s don’t even take engineering jobs at all, but rather take higher-paying consulting or banking jobs, hence boosting the average salary. </p>
<p>So, again, nobody is disputing that there are obviously differences between different majors or different colleges. At any school, the average engineer will be paid more than will the average English major. The interesting question is how much do specific undergraduate program rankings matter, and the answer seems to be: very little. As I said, even a graduate from a low-ranked engineering program will probably make more than will a graduate from a high-ranked English program. </p>
<p>So my question is: is it really so important, as a typical undergraduate, that the specific major you choose be highly ranked? Who really cares if your English department is ranked #1 or #100, unless perhaps you’re a member of that small minority who actually wants to enter academia?</p>