Why Undergraduate Business School.

<p>bdl108: Are you out of your mind! </p>

<p>Come to the Ross School of Business. You will see that, on average, hell, not even average, kids in the Bschool are smarter than Liberal Arts students. The business school classes are more rigorous and you learn a hell lot more! </p>

<p>In my opinion, liberal arts education is a waste of time. I mean, come on, what the heck do you do with a women studies, or African American studies degree coming out of college if that is not what you are going to primarily focus on at a PhD level. These classes are ridiculous. </p>

<p>Go to a business school before you start trash talking.</p>

<p>Too many people are talking too much crap. You have no idea about the curriculum at the top undergrad business schools at least (Wharton, Ross, Stern, McIntire). As undergrad students, we need to complete 60 credits in business and 60 in Liberal Arts. How is that NOT a well rounded education? We take courses in Finance, Accounting, Management Science, Marketing, Business communication, as well us the humanities and social sciences (especially in the first two years). I have taken courses in poli science, philosophy, history and psychology in addition to my business classes. Do you really think I’m at a disadvantage compared to someone that takes all liberal arts classes? In addition, the career services at the top business schools are much much better than the career office at the liberal arts school within the same university. </p>

<p>Bottom line: Major in something that you are interested in learning about. If you want a career in business later on, why not STUDY BUSINESS rather than wasting your time just taking useless liberal arts courses?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have to dispute the notion that an undergrad business program somehow deprives you of a well-rounded and holistic education. That might have been true a few decades ago, but business is now a mature academic discipline in its own right, with its own scholarly societies (the Academy of Management, INFORMS, CCC, and others) and its own academic journals such as Management Science, Strategic Management Journal, and the Academy of Management Review. Furthermore, many of the leading ideas within social science were developed not within pure social science departments, but rather within business schools. For example, Professor Austan Goolsbee was Barack Obama’s senior economics advisor starting from his Senate campaign and through his Presidential campaign. Yet he doesn’t even hold a faculty position at a pure economics department. His formal academic position is at a *business school<a href=“the%20UChicago%20Booth%20School%20of%20Business”>/i</a>. </p>

<p>[Austan</a> Goolsbee](<a href=“http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/]Austan”>http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/)</p>

<p>Far from being a narrowly defined course of study, business is arguably the most well-rounded of all of the social sciences due to its inherently interdisciplinary nature. Rather than drawing from only economics, only sociology, or only psychology, business schools draw from all three. Economics provides applicable theories as to how markets work, but has much less to say about how companies operate internally, which is the preserve of sociology and psychology. How do you motivate a team? How do you construct teams to maximize performance? How do you effect organizational learning, in which not just individuals, but the company itself is able to adapt to new information? These are questions that cannot be readily addressed through economics, but can through sociology or psychology. Similarly, the fields of sales and marketing often times has little to do with economics, as customers do not always behave rationally. Many products are bought because of their perceived “coolness” cachet or through peer pressure - the entire luxury goods market is replete with examples - and the questions of how do you make your product seem “cool” can be addressed through sociological or psychological tools. </p>

<p>A business program can provide you with knowledge of all of those social sciences, rather than of just one. Many econ majors, for example, know nothing about sociology or psychology and are then baffled to find that people and teams do not always behave rationally. Similarly, many sociology and psych majors do not understand economics and therefore have great difficulty in understanding market forces and price signals. </p>

<p>Now, to be fair, it is certainly true that many (probably most) undergrad business majors are not looking to gain a deep academic and theoretical understanding of business. They don’t care about the Academy of Management. They don’t care about the journals. They don’t care about the research papers of management academia. They just want to get a job. </p>

<p>But the same is true of any other major. Let’s face it. Most econ majors don’t care about the American Economic Review or QJE. They just want to get a job. Heck, many of them are majoring in economics simply because their school didn’t even offer an undergrad business major (or they weren’t admitted to it), and econ is therefore seen as the next best alternative, even though, as I said, econ is actually quite poor at explaining intra-organizational phenomena where market forces do not directly impinge. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that undergrad business can offer an education that is at least as holistic as any other major out there, and possibly even more so. But the students still have to desire such an education. Pursuing a business degree with the tunnel vision of obtaining a job is no different from pursuing any other major with the same tunnel vision of obtaining a job.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, obviously most of them came from non- business majors. After all, how many business undergrads are there, compared to all the other undergrads out there? As others have pointed out, many schools don’t even offer a business undergrad major. Precisely 0% of undergrads from HYPS were business majors. </p>

<p>My point simply is to show that many people major in business as an undergrad and still get their MBA’s. This is not an either/or situation.</p>

<p>After more thoroughly reading this thread, I can more comfortably assert my position on a liberal arts education being a waste of time except for certain occupations. Also, business schools are not trade schools and provide an equal quality education compared to the liberal arts.</p>

<p>“There are many paths to the same destination, and in no way shape or form do I dismiss any of them.”</p>

<p>That’s what I said, sakky. I do not discredit your opinion whatsoever.</p>

<p>You make a valid argument, but if you look at the link you posted, you’d see that his undergraduate degree was a BA in Economics from Yale. In fact, it appears that Professor Goolsbee does not hold a single degree from a business school… this is my point exactly.</p>

<p>and again, I’m not discrediting business school. Business can be a great thing to study. I just think it’s inappropriate to have at the undergraduate level. I don’t think 18 year old kids need to be learning how to write financial statements or whatever. What’s next? Undergraduate J.D. degrees for law?</p>

<p>

You’re right, there is no need for 18 year old kids to learn how to finance money. They shouldn’t learn how to manage money because they don’t need to know how to pay the bills, how to budget money, how to manage time and work, how to invest their energy to attain maximum returns and efficiency. That’s why many students have a difficult time adjusting to the real world. That’s why credit cards prey on their little pockets and expect poor parents to pay for their sorry little butts. Plus, you’re limiting yourself to basically accounting with that definition. There is SO much more to learn about business, including finance, economics, entrepreneurship, marketing, and management. And there are so many sects of finance, economics, and marketing, and management studies that give people new insight about how the world operates in general.
You know, there ARE undergraduate law degrees at top colleges, right (check McGill, Cambridge, Oxford, Amherst)? And for most top colleges who don’t have law majors, people can MINOR in law. I don’t see any business minors at most of the top schools (unless you count economics).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Proprietary trading maybe, but very few coming out of UG are directly going into this in comparison to corporate finance and M&A, which is more traditional investment banking and not in any way legal gambling.</p>

<p>I may be biased but have generally found students going into business UG to be less interesting and sophisticated than their peers. Also, I don’t really think all liberal arts degrees should be lumped together. There is a big difference between majoring in math, physics, economics, philosophy, chemistry vs. women’s studies.</p>

<p>And what do M&A guys do on average? They pitch companies (and their sometimes gullible CEO’s) about buying other companies with outlandish spreadsheets showing never to be hit saving and profits so they can pocket a hefty fee and move on to the next deal. I think the data show the majority of such deals are losers for most concerned. </p>

<p>“Reasons for frequent failure of M&A were analyzed by Thomas Straub in “Reasons for frequent failure in mergers and acquisitions - a comprehensive analysis”, DUV Gabler Edition, 2007. Despite the goal of performance improvement, results from mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are often disappointing. Numerous empirical studies show high failure rates of M&A deals. Studies are mostly focused on individual determinants. The literature therefore lacks a more comprehensive framework that includes different perspectives.Using four statistical methods, Thomas Straub shows that M&A performance is a multi-dimensional function. For a successful deal, the following key success factors should be taken into account:� Strategic logic which is reflected by six determinants: market similarities, market complementarities, operational similarities, operational complementarities, market power, and purchasing power.� Organizational integration which is reflected by three determinants: acquisition experience, relative size, cultural compatibility.� Financial / price perspective which is reflected by three determinants: acquisition premium, bidding process, and due diligence.All 12 variables are presumed to affect performance either positively or negatively. Post-M&A performance is measured by synergy realization, relative performance (compared to competition), and absolute performance.”</p>

<p>That still isn’t legalized gambling the way you were implying. The efficacy of the practice is another matter and far off the topic of the thread. Plus, this is just one prof’s research.</p>

<p>UG business programs are an utter waste of time at the elite level of colleges. I’m not willing to speak for business programs outside the top 25 but at most any top school, finance and consulting recruits equally out all majors provided you are able to demonstrate why you want to go into these fields and that you’ve developed some base level of analytic ability. </p>

<p>You have your whole life to work in finance, take an accounting course and a couple of econ courses in UG and youll be more than prepared for a career in high finance. Spend those four years getting a true liberal arts education instead of a vocational one (maybe a little harsh there but those are my two cents)</p>

<p>You are right, I should have said legalized gambling and fraudulent or just ****-poor advice. If any real professional with a license gave such bad advice or service–say a doctor or lawyer or engineer or architect–heck even a barber–they would be sued for malpractice.</p>

<p>I dislike most undergraduate business schools. For one, they tend to be ridiculously easy, which makes me think that business school assume their pupils are all idiots. For example, the intermediate microeconomics class that biz majors at my school have to take is about 20% as challenging as the real intermediate micro class I took. The former classes handed out A+ like hotcakes. Furthermore, I don’t like business majors. Out of all I’ve met, there was about 2 of them who weren’t obsessed with money. And not the good kind of obsessed, because most of them wouldn’t touch monetary theory with a ten foot pole. </p>

<p>Just my experience.</p>

<p>Ray192, I never hear that Economic class is different for Economic major and business major. </p>

<p>I don’t know about other schools, but at Georgia Tech, there is one level of course so everybody takes the same course (Chemistry, Calculus, Computer Science) (i.e. Management major takes the same course engineering major/Science major takes).</p>

<p>Also, many good business students are liberal-art college students first two years. They have to apply for business school after completing 60 credits of courses. If they got accept, they go to business school or reject and stay in liberal-art college. That’s situation at UGA and Emory U.</p>

<p>Intermediate micro is the only class in my school that has two versions of it (and they’re both called the exact same thing). Why? I have no idea. If I had to guess it’s because the business and policy management majors found the math too distressing and revolted.</p>

<p>“UG business classes tend to be really easy”</p>

<p>You dear friend, are talking out of your rectum. Come to Ross, Wharton or Stern and tell me that. You have NO idea of what you’re talking about. The material might be easy content wise (compared to math, physics and the sciences) but the competition within the school makes it 10x harder.</p>

<p>“UG business classes tend to be really easy”
Two words: Organizational Behavior.</p>

<p>Vinnyli: </p>

<p>You have a point about what I said. I used a bad example. My point was that people don’t need to be learning how to do their jobs at 18 years of age. It’s pathetic to see these Stern kids going to class in suits every day. They’re so far up their own asses that it’s ridiculous. </p>

<p>And in terms of the law degree I was referring to American schools, since most of the people here are American and we seem to primarily be discussing American universities. And the degree at Amherst is Law, Politics, and Society or something like that, it’s a BA, not a law degree.</p>

<p>I think that an undergraduate business school is important because without it one cannot find out whether business is right for them or not as early as possible. If you plan on getting a non-business degree since you are planning to get the business degree later and then gettng an MBA, you might make the mistake of forsaking your plans for business during college or you might end up finding out that business is not right for you. At least if you start out freshmen year in business, you can find out whether you like it or not.</p>