<p>
[quote]
I truly am lost on what major/career path to take, but I do know that I like money- alot. I love it. Love making it. Love spending it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not just take some general education courses and while doing so you figure out what you want to do as well? Why let money control your entire life? Yes, it is good to know what kind of jobs actually earn adequate enough money, but it is even better to do what you want to do in life is it not?</p>
<p>Engineers do have lives, dont confuse all engineers with the asian dude that sits in his dorm room all day and reads manuals. I have plenty of social life, alot more than I did in highschool, and probably too much. (Too often are mornings I wake up and think 'frick, I definitely shouldn't have done that last night') and at the same time I find time to study my nuts off. You can be an Engineer and have an extreme social life, you just need to prioritize (and that doesn't always mean studying comes first, but sometimes it does) and manage time. Also, you have to recover from the shock of getting B's and C's, even though in highschool you could get A's without opening a book.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
econ is really nothing more than liberal arts, like history or asian american studies. Unless your coming from a top 10 school, 50% of economics majors end up teaching economics
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Um, definetely not true. First of all, economics majors do the best on the LSAT, which means that a lot become lawyers. And while it may be a liberal art, there is still a big demand for economists....</p>
<p>Anyway, to back up the LSAT point:</p>
<p>Whoever thinks that with a BA or BS in some certain subject you can only teach is not aware of the way the degree works. </p>
<p>As to econ majors performing "the best" on the LSAT, math and physical sciences usually is above it, but yes, certainly econ majors do very well on the LSAT. Philosophy majors tend to follow the econ majors. Do the students do well because of the curriculum they took, or because they were the type of person to major in the discipline they did? Maybe both? Who knows.</p>
<p>PHILOSOPHY MAJORS received higher scores on the LSAT, for instance, than students in all other humanities areas, and higher scores than all social and natural science majors except economics and mathematics, and higher scores than all applied majors.</p>
<p>Who thinks of econ as a liberal art and not a social science? What about psychology?</p>
<p>
<p>However, if I were you, I would consider that once you get your MBA that's probably the last degree you would get.</p>
<p>I plan on getting a MS Chemical Engineering degree to complement a PharmD. Essentially, both degrees allows you to participate in many departments within a pharmaceutical company (ie. research, development, manufacturing). An MBA would be icing on the cake.</p>
<p>Since with a PharmD you would be making more than $100,000, you don't have to rush to get an MBA.
Thats a plus. You could follow a PharmD with a MS then have your company pay for the MBA correct?</p>
<p>Also, what about pharmacy combined with finance/ibanking? ie working as a pharmaceutical consultant/analyst for a finance frim? Would that be 'overkill' pursuing a PharmD and getting into finance? Would an engineering degree be a better route?</p>
<p>
True, that is the best way to go about it. I enjoy math/science, and I'll be taking a wide array of classes next semester to get a feel for everything. It'll come down to a compromise between a subject that I enjoy (or at least slightly enjoy) that will still rake in the big bucks. For me its a 60 (salary) - 40 (enjoyment) split.</p>
<p>I dont think I would mind working all week in a job that I only liked a little if I could still enjoy the weekends with family/friends and my incredible super/exotic car collection.</p>
<p>Let's say that I must have at least 20% salary to "survive". I would do 20% salary and 80% enjoyment. Luckily, the field I love is much more than 20% anyway so nothing to worry about.</p>
<p>A PharmD puts you in a very good position to seek additional degrees because it is the highest paying PART-TIME job. Take advantage of that.
By getting an MS Chemical Engineering, you are really broadening the fields that you could work in. With an engineering degree, you could be a analyst for a couple more fields.
You can always do finance later, but once you do it, it's your last degree. It is extremely rare for a person who has an MBA to go back for an engineering degree. It's the end of the road.
If you have a solid background in pharmaceuticals as well as a couple types of engineering, you could work for essentially ANY field after you obtain your MBA.</p>
<p>"both engineerin and compsci are just "momentary" jobs.
when you are 50 -60 yrs old, when you getting old, you wont find any place to work except staying home play some little MP3."</p>
<p>My dad is 49 , and has a comp sci job and gets paid very well -__- they are not momentary jobs unless you cannot keep up with the latest language or programs</p>
<p>redski, I want nothing to do with the west coast, maybe when I retire =P</p>
<p>and fantasy05, you are an idiot.</p>
<p>if u go to an ivy or toptier skool, do finance or econ, get an i bank or consulting job, u could prob make mid 40k with like 20-100% chance of bonus, so u could be making like 90,000 first year undergrad, course ull be working 90 hours per week, but the op was talkin about money, and thats that, then after mba if u get a job at an ibank you could make around 200,000 w/ bonus, and then it skyrockets from there. doctors have 8 years of skooling, then tons of loans to pay off, at could prob make 200,000-400,000, but ppl who do med probly arnet motivated by money</p>
<p>Guguru,</p>
<p>I've heard that ivy or first tier schools have undergrads that will make anywhere from 100,000 to 170,000 from working for an Ibank. I'm not sure if the 90 hour per week figure is correct. It may be slightly lower, but that is besides the point.</p>
<p>The going rate for a part time pharmacist is $60/hour. If you had a 70 hour week @ $60 per hour you'd make $4200 a week. If you worked every week of the year, you would make $218,000.</p>
<p>The original question was to make the most $$$ as an undergrad. While pharmacy is technically considered a graduate school, I'm considering it an undergrad because in many instances you get into these schools straight from HS.</p>
<p>polo, </p>
<p>base salaries are mid 40k, with chance usually of 100 percent bonus, but there have been instances of up to 120k. the average of 100k-170k was probly pre-dot com bubble burst, but even then i doubt a first year analyst at an ibank could make that much. and the average is between 80-100hrs a week.</p>
<p>But if we use your numbers, say a person at an ibank made 150,000 first year, and then 175,000 the next year, he will make 325,000 in two years of work, whereas a pharm major will still be in skool and graduate at the end of that year. say for the pharms first year he makes 218,000, if the ibankers salary follows the upward trend, his total combined salary for the 3 years would be over 400,000. so gettin a job at an i bank will give u more money.</p>
<p>I think we have to map it out year by year at each age interval. It's true that pharmD graduates will be in school for two more years than typical entry level analysts for an Ibank. But most Ibankers will burn out in two years as well.</p>
<p>If the question was worded more specifically in the sense of immediately after graduation, pharmacy is the way to go. If the question that the original poster meant at age 26, than the Ibanker will probably have a larger net worth supposing either one does not have any debts.</p>
<p>Anywhere beyond age 26 is anyone's guess. After that point there are just too many factors to have a definitive answer.</p>
<p>Engineering have the best starting salary.</p>
<p>engineers do have the best salaries, but crappy bonuses,
theyre lookin at say 55k, ibankers look at 45k with usually 30k bonus, big difference, but if we look at the way polo is, then polo is right, but i big trading firms offer 85k base salaries to first year undergrad, but they accept 1/500 applicants. (thats only DE shaw though)</p>
<p>Engineering + MBA is the most money.</p>
<p>Hardly anyone in this thread knows what they are talking about, at least on the first page.</p>
<p>First of all, salary is extremely variable based on where you live.</p>
<p>That said, excluding freaks like pro athletes or someone who starts up a wildly successful b usiness, people with Business/Finance/Economics/etc degrees who go into Investment Banking or Trading or something on Wall Street right away can make well over 100k their first year, but most only make like 50-70k. It's a hard job to get though, and you need to go to a good university.</p>
<p>If you get into a good law school after your bachelors, you can be making 100k+ easily by the time you are 25 or so (7 years after high school).</p>
<p>Pharmacists can also make 100k+ by age 24 or so (6 years after high school).</p>
<p>Doctors take around a decade after high school to start making money, and then they will make anywhere from 100k-300k, or more if they own a practice.</p>
<p>With JUST a bachelors, besides bankers/finance people, engineers and computer people can make anywhere from 50k to 100k right out of college, and it will go up after that, but anyone who tells you that engineering or being a doctor or some science related field will net you among the highest salaries in America hasn't thought the question through. Look at all the richest people in America, none of them got there from doing science and math, they started or worked with businesses, they go where the money is.</p>
<p>If you just want to make 100k or whatever eventually, and you consider that a high salary, you dont even have to go to college, you could just get a real estate license or go to trade school.</p>
<p>If you just want a stable, technical job that is prestigious, will make your parents happy, and pays a lot (a lot being 100k, which isn't much at all in my opinion), then listen to the people in this thread and become an Engineer or Doctor/Pharmacist, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're going to have a Bentley or Penthouse and be on the cover of Fortune magazine if you go that route, because you won't, unless you spin those careers into some sort of lucrative business. You'll have to resign yourself to being upper-middle class.</p>
<p>Upper middle class is good enough for me. Not looking to get rich anyway. :P</p>
<p>I don't know how you define upper-middle class, but I think that people who make over 100k a year don't make up that much of the population. Care to provide some data, and why you think making between 100k and 300k a year won't qualify one for the "upper-class?"</p>
<p>cmaher brings up a good point, however:</p>
<p>Who's really making "more" money? The person earning $50K a year in a smaller town in New Mexico, or a person making $100K a year in West Los Angeles?</p>