<p>^ Although Princeton offers a fair number of finance courses in its economics dept.
This is probably the case at some other elite universities that don’t have an undergrad business program—sneaking business in the back door, so to speak, as many of their econ majors are really closet business administration students.</p>
<p>Liberal Arts Colleges do not offer pre-professional courses or majors.</p>
<p>If you’re interested in a university that makes the effort to imitate the intimacy provided by a LAC, consider Dartmouth–especially if you’re interested in a career on Wall Street.</p>
<p>LAC graduates can do anything that other graduates can do besides specific professional degrees. </p>
<p>But even some LAC’S have professional degrees. Bucknell has an accounting major that is heavily recruited by the big 4 accounting firms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many LACs provide such rigorous preparation that the upper-division undergraduate courses are the effective equivalents of lower or sometimes even mid-level graduate courses at many elite universities…including Ivies according to several classmates who are grad students. </p>
<p>This was a reason why they were able to opt out of some required mid-level language courses and introductory grad courses and proceed to taking more advanced grad courses…including some in STEM fields.</p>
<p>If wallstreet is where you want to go, you don’t need a finance or a business degree. Harvard, for example, doesn’t have a business degree. Trust me that it’s okay to major in economics. I would actually argue it’s better because of the macro perspective that is becoming increasingly relevant in the world. That being said, there are people that major in art history that are on wallstreet. That’s because most wallstreet firms will have a weeks worth of training where they teach you all that is necessary/relevant. I recommend you join an undergraduate investment club at whatever place you look/end up at. Those clubs usually offer networking opportunities and unique internships that usually aren’t presented/known to the rest of the student body.</p>
<p>
Graduates of Harvey Mudd are some of the most successful science/engineering majors out there! Easily better than MIT and only second to arguably CalTech.</p>
<p>(As a matter of fact, the bulk of the top LACs actually breed more successful undergraduates than the top national universities, the only exceptions to this really being CalTech and MIT.)</p>
<p><a href=“As%20a%20matter%20of%20fact,%20the%20bulk%20of%20the%20top%20LACs%20actually%20breed%20more%20successful%20undergraduates%20than%20the%20top%20national%20universities,%20the%20only%20exceptions%20to%20this%20really%20being%20CalTech%20and%20MIT.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As much as I love LACs, blanket statements like this one are just horrible.</p>
<p>A rather amusing thread - the LACs better than universities for science majors? This forum is the first place where I’ve ever heard such a silly assertion. </p>
<p>It could be true for some individual situations, but the general rule is quite the opposite.</p>
<p>Not all or even most LACs, just Harvey Mudd (and possibly Reed). </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is admittedly an extreme exception but there’s pretty much no arguing it’s second only to Caltech.</p>
<p>EDIT: I would like to note all the Ivies have mediocre to horrid engineering programs and they take up a bunch of the top national university spots so I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of LACs are actually better than top national institutions.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is great and wonderful, but “there’s pretty much no arguing it’s second only to Caltech” is a bit of an overstatement.</p>
<p>Cobrat, you stated that “Many LACs provide such rigorous preparation that the upper-division undergraduate courses are the effective equivalents of lower or sometimes even mid-level graduate courses at many elite universities…including Ivies according to several classmates who are grad students.” </p>
<p>Do you really think the upper division undergrad physics courses at Williams are superior to those at Harvard or those of Reed versus Stanford? I would expect all of them to be excellent. But, the students at Harvard and Stanford have the advantage over their counterparts at Williams and Reed in that they have the opportunity to take graduate level physics classes while still undergrads.</p>
<p>The assertion that science is better at universities is just wrong. I have science kids at both a LAC and a top university. The personal attention from faculty that my kid at the LAC is getting makes me feel at bit sorry for the one at the top uni. She is sitting in lectures of 300+ students and will for the next two years. Yes, she is working as a freshman on cutting edge research, but that doesn’t make up for the lack of day-to-day mentoring and interest in her personal development that the other is getting. She’ll be fine - she’s highly motivated - but its not nearly as much fun to try and differentiate yourself in the crowd.</p>
<p>“I am hoping to NOT go to grad school.”</p>
<p>You’ll be competing for jobs with those who do if you choose science.</p>
<p>I’m mainly focusing on business right now, and I kind of think of science as a hobby, so IF I do science I would prefer that personal attention at LACs.</p>
<p>But about BUSINESS, you all implied that an Amherst graduate would be just as successful in landing jobs in Wall Street as a graduate from a business school…then what’s the use of attending a “business” school? What don’t people use that time to study other topics, since they’ll learn about business in the real world anyway?</p>
<p>My sentiments exactly. why would anyone go to UG business school.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is incorrect. A grad student isn’t taking “an undergrad’s spot.” S/he is holding down a grad student’s spot, and there are a lot of undergrad slots in the lab along with them. And on what basis do you conclude it’s “more difficult” for undergrads to do research at universities? Because LAC boosters commonly say so? My family’s expereince three different universities contradicts this notion. </p>
<p>I have no experience with the humanities to say one way or the other, but I’ve never known a university science undergrad who was motivated to do research who couldn’t find a slot. They are sometimes called “Research Universities” for a reason. </p>
<p>As I said, there are many good reasons for choosing an LAC, but thinking you can’t get the opportunity to do research at a university is not one of them.</p>
<p>
Reed is the rank #4 college in terms of undergrads who go on to earn a PhD in Physics. Stanford is not top 10. </p>
<p>[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>Don’t look down on Reed. Reed is arguably better than both Harvard and Stanford in terms of the sciences.</p>
<p>One reason some LACs have such a good track record is that all seniors are required to do a master’s level research thesis; no motivation needed!</p>
<p>Yes, just look at the results.</p>
<p>Undergrad research is not why they’re called Research Universities. It’s where LAC grads go to do more research. ;)</p>
<p>Go Reed! We also have a research reactor that is completely student run that draws many potential physics majors to the school. It’s the highest paying student job on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What did I say to indicate that I was looking down on Reed? My very next sentence was
. </p>
<p>As to the issue the LACs generate a higher percentage of PhDs, I wonder if anyone here can refer me to a study on this. I am not questioning whether a handful of LACs have an inordinately high percentage of graduates that go on to a PhD. I am wondering about cause and effect. Is it because of what the school does for these students as is posited by so many here? Is it because the applicants who envision themselves to go on for a PhD are narrowly selecting these schools because of the past track record? Is it because fewer companies recruit at these schools so the graduates have fewer employment opportunities and choose to go to grad school by default?</p>