<p>Im not really sure what the argument was in the first place, but is this what you are saying:</p>
<p>Michigan would be better for a business.
Harvard would be better for other careers?</p>
<p>Not to put words in Alexandre's mouth, and certainly not to try to beat dead horses and pick at old scabs again, but I think the following paraphrase of the argument is a fair one.</p>
<p>Alexandre: The Michigan undergraduate program is a top 10-15 undergraduate program</p>
<p>Me: While the Michigan graduate programs are great, and the Michigan undergraduate program is very good, I don't think it is good enough to merit inclusion in the top 10-15 undergraduate programs, simply because I can identify at least 18 or so undergraduate programs (the 8 Ivies, MIT, Caltech, AWS, Stanford, Duke, Chicago, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins) that I believe are better. Maybe more than 18. But in any case, again, while I don't dispute that the Michigan undergraduate program is good, I don't think it is in the top 10-15. </p>
<p>I believe Alexandre and I have agreed to disagree on this point. </p>
<p>However, while, again, I don't claim to speak for Alexandre, but I doubt that even he would say that Michigan is better than Harvard when it comes to business.</p>
<p>For an MBA yes, but not undergraduate.</p>
<p>Why not go to the best undergraduate business program in the country, Wharton?</p>
<p>Esrajay, I don't understand your last quote. Are you trying to say that the Michigan MBA program is better than the one at HBS?</p>
<p>No, if I was sure I would be in the business field, I would go to Michigan for undergraduate, and then Harvard for MBA.</p>
<p>Well, no, I disagree. I think that even a pro-Michigan partisan like Alexandre would concede that if you wanted to be in the business field, rather than go to Michigan for undergrad and then Harvard for the MBA, it would be better to go to Harvard for undergrad and then (also) Harvard for an MBA. At the end of the day, Harvard is a better undergrad program than Michigan if you want to get into business. Let's face it - it's easier to get a high-powered corporate job if you're coming out of Harvard undergrad than it is coming out of Michigan undergrad.</p>
<p>Wow!! I wish I would have discovered this thread a long time ago. I think I could have added some interesting perspectives on the subject of sakkys belief in the relative mediocrity of top public institutions such as Berkeley, UMich, and my personal favorite: UCLA. Actually, to tell the truth, Im quite glad I didnt discover it sooner. Sakky and I have argued this issue many times and none of us will budge so nothing could have really been said that hasnt been said before. While I personally do not agree with sakkys opinions (I think I dont agree with anything he says!!!thats a joke sakky, dont take it too seriously), he is entitled to them. Actually, it is my opinion that Alexandre and Sakky and are among the brightest people on CC so you guys just witnessed a classic battle of good versus evil. </p>
<p>Sakky, I was cheering your demise but it seems as though you just never die! ;)</p>
<p>But harvard doesnt even have an undergraduate business program. Sure companies may look upon you more favorably (slightly), but you get a better undergraduate business education at Michigan (much better). Am I speaking the truth?</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. San Jose State University offers an undergraduate bus-ad degree. And we know that Harvard does not. So, technically speaking, one could say that SJSU offers a better undergraduate business education than Harvard does, because after all, SJSU offers something, and Harvard offers nothing. But does it then follow that SJSU is a better place to go if you want to get a career in business? Well, you're obviously entitled to your own opinion, but I think you'd find very few people who want a career in business (or a career in anything for that matter) who would turn down Harvard to go to SJSU. I think very few Harvard students would rather be at SJSU, yet quite a lot of SJSU students would rather be at Harvard. </p>
<p>The simple reality is that the specific things that you learn in an education don't really matter very much. They don't. If you don't believe me, go to your parents and ask them honestly, what things did they actually learn in school do they use in their job. I don't know about you, but most working adults don't regularly go around quoting Shakespearean sonnets, solving trig problems, conjugating French verbs, or using a Bunsen burner to cook up some compounds in a flask. This is why you often hear people say that they learn things in school, and then they never use those things ever again. The value of an education is not the specific subjects you learned, but rather that it teaches you how to think and also teaches you self-discipline and time management and other life skills. </p>
<p>So, yes, I agree, Michigan undergrads who get their BS in bus-ad may have a better business education than Harvard undergrads do. But so what? The fact is, most of the specifics of that education are never going to be used anyway.</p>
<p>Case in point - ask yourself why is it that one of the prime recruiting grounds for top-level Wall Street investment banks are the top-ranked engineering programs in the country? Why? Ask yourself why does Goldman Sachs recruit very heavily out of the MIT School of Engineering? What exactly does engineering have to do with investment banking? Nothing. GS should only recruit students who have degrees in bus-ad, finance, and other subjects that are directly related to banking, right? So why is GS recruiting all these MIT engineers? Is GS being stupid? I don't think so. Wall Street banks like engineers because engineers are known to work extremely hard, and to be good at rigorous mathematical analysis. If anybody has the stamina to survive the 80-100 hour per week marathon that is investment banking, it would be the MIT engineers. Having a specific business or finance background is not that important, because those banks are going to train their new employees anyway. That stuff is relatively easy to teach. What is not easy to teach is the raw potential necessary to succeed - i.e. the work ethic, the analytical instincts, the self-discipline. Engineers have shown that they have these traits. That's why GS recruits MIT engineers, but not from the bus-ad program at San Jose State. </p>
<p>Also consider this. If majoring in bus-ad as an undergrad really was so important, then why do top MBA programs admit so many engineers? In the elite MBA programs, engineering is either the #1 or the #2 most common undergrad background of incoming students. Why is that, if the undergrad bus-ad major is so important to learning business? If you have an undergrad business degree, and you apply to an MBA program, you can easily lose out to somebody else who does not have an undergrad business degree. Are you saying it's outrageous that a master's degree program in business is rejecting candidates who have an undergrad business degree in favor of candidates who don't have such a degree? Are these top-level MBA programs all being stupid for bringing in all these engineers and all these other people who have no formal academic background in business? </p>
<p>I don't think so. What it really goes to show you is that you just don't really need an undergraduate bus-ad degree to be successful in business. Not at all. And the elite MBA programs know that, which is why they routinely admit people with no such degree and reject others who do. Just look at the top partners of the major banks and the major consultancies, and you can see that while some of them have undergrad business-degrees, many do not. Neither do many, if not most of the CEO's of major companies. Some do have undergrad business degrees (especially from Wharton), but many do not. Makes sense - because many of these people went to college at one of the '4 horsemen': Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford - and none of the 4 horsemen offer an undergrad business program.</p>
<p>"San Jose State University offers an undergraduate bus-ad degree. And we know that Harvard does not."
I am comparing Harvard and Michigan. What kind of comparison are you trying to make? Michigan is a top 25 school; I have never heard of San Jose. It is ridiculous to subsititute a tier 4 school (or whatever it is) with Michigan and then argue your case.</p>
<p>"If you don't believe me, go to your parents and ask them honestly, what things did they actually learn in school do they use in their job."
Suppose I get a degree in entrepreneurship and you do not. We can both create a business, but who has the better chance of being successful? I probably do because I have an education with respect to entrepreneurship. Sure we all take the required english and math courses. I know I wont memorize Shakespeare or trig, but no one goes to college for that. I will most definately take the knowledge I have learned at a university and apply it to my job. If I am wrong, then why cant those Perect SAT scorers get a job right out of college?</p>
<p>"And the elite MBA programs know that, which is why they routinely admit people with no such degree and reject others who do. "
To get into med. or dental school you dont have to major in chem or bio, and many who do get rejected. It applies to everything, not just business. So should a doctor major in engineering as well? No. Would it not be an advantage if the future doctor majors in chem or bio? Obviously. The point is, it does not matter what you major in. But if you are sure you want to be in business, why not major in it?</p>
<p>Now tell me this: How many more companies recruit on Michigan than Harvard? Would an admissions committee at a graduate university (for business) give the advantage to a Harvard or Michigan grad?</p>
<p>Business school admissions don't really take into account what undergraduate school you went to. It's all about work experience (and to a less extent-GMAT/GPA). If someone went to San Jose State and someone went to Harvard, the person from San Jose State could easily get in over the Harvard grad provided they had a better performance.</p>
<p>First of all, I was questioning what boundaries were you making when you said that Michigan was a better place to go to business than Harvard is. Did you specifically say that you were restricting yourself to only top 25 schools? You made no such restriction - you were only talking about schools that had business undergrad programs. And I was happy to oblige you. </p>
<p>So now that you have indeed restricted yourself to a subclass of schools, again, I would rather doubt that Michigan bus-ad undergrad has anything over Harvard. The proof is in the pudding. Consider this thought exercise. What if Harvard offered free transfer admission to any student within the Michigan undergraduate business program, and what if the Michigan undergraduate business program offered free transfer admission to any Harvard underrgraduate. I think we would all have to agree that more of the former than the latter would take up the offer. I think it's safe to say that very very few Harvard students would rather be studying at Michigan, even if it's the Michigan undergraduate business program we're talking about, unless we're talking about an one-off factor like cost. </p>
<p>Or, I'll put it to you this way. I can name quite a few extremely prominent business leaders who went to Harvard for undergrad. Steve Ballmer, Scott McNealey, Bill Gates (OK, he dropped out, but he still went), just to name a few. Can you do the same for people who went to Michigan undergrad business? </p>
<p>As far as your second paragraph, I believe it is misleading. I will agree with you that, all things being equal, a person with a degree in X will probably do better in X than a person with a degree in Y.</p>
<p>The problem is, that in this situation, all things are not equal. Let's face it. It's a lot harder to get into Harvard undergrad than to get into Michigan undergrad, even MIchigan business undergrad. Hence, on average, the Harvard undergraduate student body is comprised of a significantly more driven and more capable group of people than are Michigan undergrads. Note - I didn't say that all Harvard students were better than all Michigan students. I said on average, it is true. Moreover, the educational experience seems to be better at Harvard than at Michigan, in terms of there being a far greater availability of resources per capita at Harvard. Hence, at the end of the day, while you could say that perhaps getting a business undergrad degree may help you develop specific skills that are useful to business, the fact of the matter is, it's not going to take the average Harvard graduate a long time to get those skills too, simply because that Harvard graduate tends to be extremely capable and motivated, and has gotten an excellent general education besides.</p>
<p>Again, keep in mind that most of the things you will learn in school, you will never use. And the small fraction that you do end us using can be easily and quickly learned by somebody who has the raw talent and has the motivation. Again, that's why Goldman Sachs hires lots of engineers, and then trains them to be bankers. If business-administration programs were really teaching everything there is to know about banking, then GS and other I-banks should only hire from elite undergraduate business programs like Wharton. So again, I ask, why does GS like to hire lots of MIT engineers? Is it because GS is being stupid in hiring people who don't know what they're doing? Of course not. They're bringing in raw talent, and then training them to be bankers. It's really not that hard to train somebody who has the talent. It's extremely difficult to develop that talent in the first place. By the same token, why does McKinsey hire all these Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford liberal arts majors, or Stanford/Princeton engineers? Same reason. </p>
<p>You may want to read some of Thomas Sowell's work where he details what he calls 'human capital'. Sowell talks about what is far more important than specific skills is the desire and the capability to develop those skills in the first place. Those people who may not have specific skills necessary but who are unusually quick learners and who are unusually motivated to learn will quickly surpass those people who may have the specific skills but who are less motivated and less capable of learning. That's the whole point of a general education. Nobody is going to know what specific skills are going to be valuable in the future and it would be counterproductive for schools to try to teach for those specific skills. The point of education is to give people the ability to quickly develop whatever skills turn out to be valuable. </p>
<p>Finally, you ask why is it that if you are sure you want to be in business, why don't you major in it? Well, first of all, nobody can ever know that for sure. Second of all, many of the Harvard guys basically are majoring in 'business', even if it's not formally called that by name. They are majoring in economics or political science (with a business bent), or some other program of their own creation. I rarely find a Harvard undergrad student who complains about not being able to study what they want to study. Those Harvard guys who already know they want to have a career in business are basically taking programs full of classes related to economics, finance, and the like. It's just not formally "called" a bus-ad major, but so what? As Shakespeare once said, what's in a name? Who cares what your degree is formally called? </p>
<p>Now I do agree with uc_benz that graduate B-schools don't care very much about what undergraduate school you went to. But employers care. The fact is, to get into an elite B-school, it helps to have worked for an elite employer like McKinsey or GS, and the fact is, it's easier to land a position with such employers if you come out of a school like Harvard. Hence, in that sense, graduate B-schools are effectively weighting their admissions towards those who came out of elite undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>Sakky, nobody is questioning Harvard's slight advantage over Michigan. But for a student primarily interested in an undergraduate Business education, Michigan is obviously a better choice than Harvard. Overall, Harvard has a slight edge...not a big one mind you. But would you pick Harvard over Cornell if you wanted to study Engineering? Sure Harvard has a better overall reputation, but Cornell is clearly superior in Engineering. Same goes for the Harvard/Michigan scenario. For a student wishing to study Business at the undergraduate level, going to Harvard makes little sense.</p>
<p>The types of companies the average Michigan undergrad joins (Business and Engineering schools NOT included, since you maintain it is unfair to include those two schools in the debate) and their average pay is equal to those of students who graduate from schools like Columbia, Chicago, Penn, Duke and Cornell and only slightly lower than undergrads graduating from Harvard, MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>As for Michigan alums, here are a few notable ones that come to mind, but there are thousands over the decades that have accomplished incredible Business feats.</p>
<p>Bill Joy Co-founder of Sun Microsystems
Larry Page Co-founder of Google
John Knoll Co-creator of Adobe Photoshop
William Mayo Co-founder of Mayo Clinic
Charles Walgreen Founder of Walgreen Drugstores
E. Grifford Upjohn Founder of Pharmacia Upjohn
Thomas Monaghan Founder of Dominos Pizza
Claude Shannon Father of Information Theory</p>
<p>As far as the people you listed, I looked them up, and here's what I found</p>
<p>Claude Shannon - majored in electrical engineering and mathematics.
Tom Monaghan - never graduated, and in any case, certainly never graduated in bus-ad</p>
<p>Gifford Upjohn - can't figure out what he majored in, but it wasn't bus-ad</p>
<p>William Mayo - did not do undergrad at Michigan, rather did his MD there.</p>
<p>John Knoll - did not do undergrad at Michigan (got his BA from USC), did his PhD at Michigan</p>
<p>Larry Page - studied engineering at Michigan</p>
<p>Bill Joy - studied engineering at Michigan</p>
<p>The point is, none of these people studied undergrad bus-ad at Michigan, yet it was precisely the undergraduate business program at Michigan that we were talking about. And in fact, thank you alexandre, for helping me prove a point that I've been trying to make to esrajay. All these people are successful at business - yet none of them hold an undergraduate degree in bus-ad. In fact, I would argue (and you, alexandre, can confiirm this), that of all the successful businesspeople in the world who graduated with undergrad degrees from Michigan, only a small portion majored in business as undergrads. </p>
<p>You also keep talking about how I think it is unfair to include pre-professional degrees like engineering in the equation when you are comparing schools. Rest assured, it is not just I, but quite a few people. I said it before, I'll say it again, Georgia Tech graduates make more money, on average, to start, than do Princeton graduates - but does that mean that Georgia Tech is a better school than Princeton. I think that even you, alexandre, would blanch at that. But if you really think that it is fair to include engineers and other pre-professionals in the equation, then you have to agree that Princeton is not as good as Georgia Tech. Are you prepared to take it that far? </p>
<p>But look, the point really is about success in business. I of course have no choice to agree with you that if a person was absolutely gung-ho on studying business as an undergrad, than Michigan would be a better choice, for the simple fact that Harvard doesn't offer a formal undergraduate business major. But that's not really the issue at hand. The issue at hand is about business success and getting business jobs and so forth. Simply put - you don't need a business undergraduate degree to be successful in business. The most successful undergraduate programs for placing graduates in top business positions are HYPS - 4 schools that do not run undergraduate business programs. The point is, just because a school does not have a formal undergraduate business program does not mean that that school is bad at preparing its graduates for business careers. If that was not the case, then why are all the top I-banks and management consultancies filled with such a disproportionate number of people who did their undergrad at HYPS? Are they being dumb?</p>
<p>i'm sorry.. i'm late to join in this discussion, but i disagree with alexandre on this subject:</p>
<p>"I personally recommend Economics as an undergraduate major. It is more challenging, more analytical and more versatile. Also, as mentioned above, you have access to more top universities if you major in Economics since about half of the top 20 universities do not even have Business as an undergraduate major."-Alexandre</p>
<p>it has been proven that finding a job with an economics major is much more difficult than finding a job with a degree in finance or any other business related major. this could be a problem if applying for an MBA because they heavily factor your work experience. don't get me wrong... majoring in economics isn't bad, it would be a great major if you're planning on going into law school, just not really for business. in a perfect world business oriented people would attend the university of pennsylvania for undergraduate school and Harvard for an MBA.</p>
<p>Patiently waiting, the year I graduate from Michigan, 36 BBA students landed jobs with the Big 3 (JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) compared to 37 Econ majors who landed jobs with the Big 3. And the Econ department at Michigan is about the same size as the Business school.</p>
<p>Sakky, I left out Business alums on purpose. And whereas I agree that one does not necessarily have to major in Business to get a good job, that does not change the fact that some students only wish to major in Finance or Marketing or whatever Business discipline. What is why Haas, Ross, Sloan, Stern and Wharton are in existance.</p>
<p>I disagree that it is not fair to include Business and Engineering majors in the mix, but I don't mind removing them. At Michigan, it is the Chemistry, Mathematics, English, Economics and Political Science majors that are getting the best and highest paying jobs at the best companies, not the Engineering or Business majors. I almost always recommend a student major in Economics over Business. In my Econ class of 260, 37 ended up getting jobs with the Big 3 IBs and over 75 ended up at top 25 Law schools.</p>
<p>Again, I think this is actually a more detailed matter. I do agree that, all things being equal, having a degree in finance or bus-ad is better for getting a business job than majoring in economics. The problem, again, is, that rarely are all things really equal. Majoring in economics at Harvard (a school that does not offer an undergrad business degree) is better for getting a business-related job than majoring in business at practically every other school in the country, including Michigan, and quite possibly Wharton as well (although that might well be a tie). </p>
<p>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. At HBS, by far the greatest fraction of students did their undergrad at (no surprise) Harvard College, and this holds even if you refactor the numbers by proportionality. I would agree that Harvard College students might be even more successful in the business world if Harvard were to offer an undergrad major in bus-ad or finance. But as it stands right now, Harvard College is still extremely successful in getting its graduates into the business world.</p>
<p>And I'll say it again - who says that if you are at Harvard College, that you can't do a bunch of classes that are in effect, equivalent to a bus-ad undergrad degree elsewhere? Take finance for instance. Sure, Harvard doesn't offer a formal finance undergrad degree. On the other hand, Harvard offers classes devoted to finance within the economics department, and these classes are some of the most popular on campus with Harvard students who want to get into banking. Colloquially speaking, these classes are known on campus as the "pre-banking" major. </p>
<p>So I would ask - is there really much of a difference between a guy who got a formal undergrad degree in finance or some other bus-ad related discipline, and some other guy who just took a whole bunch of classes that had to do with those subjects, but just didn't get a formal degree in bus-ad? At the end of the day, they took what is in effect the same curricula. Seems to me that the only difference is what words are printed on their diplomas, but honestly, what does that matter?</p>
<p>You are preaching to the choir. I would pick Economics over Business any day. But you cannot compare the results of an Econ department to the results of a Business department, not even Harvard's Econ department against Michigan's B-School. Of the 330 or so Michigan BBA graduates, over 300 get jobs with prestigious fortune 500 companies. </p>
<p>If an Econ department (even Harvard's) gets better than a 50% placement at Fortunate 500 companies, it is a miracle.</p>
<p>But this said, I would major in Econimics over Business. </p>
<p>And one more thing Sakky, you are assuming that people can just get into Harvard. Obviously, that is not the case. Only 10% of the best students in the World have a shot at Harvard. Same goes for Princeton, Yale, MIT and Stanford. The rest must make alternate plans. And yes, it is more effective getting a Business degree from Michigan or Penn than getting an Econ degree from Duke or Brown if your goal is to hit the job market hard.</p>