Your thoughts on higher education
I recently had an argument with my friend about college curricula. I was defending the merits of a solid liberal arts-based core, while he believed that most of the classes he was being forced to take were a waste of time. I told him that he did not deserve to be in college, thinking like that, with no appreciation for scholarship.
It seems that more and more often, kids are going to college for the sole purpose of getting jobs. This can be attributed to the high salaries of investment bankers, lawyers, doctors, etc. Many people don't really care about what they take in college, and just wanna get a professional degree in grad school, and others only want to take practical, career oriented finance and business courses. Others take science courses not because they want to do research on a subject they love, but because they want to become engineers--a much higher paying job.
Although I want to go into investment banking, I actually value a scholarly, research intensive education because I enjoy learning for learning's sake. Not to mention the fact that finance isn't everything, even if you are pursuing it as a career.
So, what are your thoughts on a scholarly versus a practical education? Would you prefer a college that produces intelligent, well rounded academic types? Or do you prefer your college focus primarily on preparing you for getting a job? I feel like people worry too much about their career and lose sight of all the interesting things to be learned from good professors in college. I think that if you are a career oriented person, you don't need to learn all that professional knowledge in class, and therefore having a more well rounded education would be much more enriching and fulfilling. Would be interested to see the opinions of a career-oriented forum. Perhaps some UK monkeys would like to chime in, since I've heard their programs (at least LSE's) are much more major/concentration based.
Disclaimer: I am very much against the university system
-I personally want to learn things that can make me money. Those are just things that I enjoy learning about. Just because I don't like learning about art doesn't mean I dont deserve being at university. Why is someones reason for going to college better than others. Just because someone wants a return on their education (in the form of a job) and not take 'Rocks for Jocks' as a class doesn't mean they have any less valid reason for being in education.
-Studying in the UK is good because you are not forced to take anything if you know what you are interested. And if you want to do something else just redo your first year. This way it will be 4 years anyway. Ive been to freshmen US college classes (top 10), and it was appalling how watered down everything was.
All of this doesn't matter anyway. University is basically there so you can be unemployed for 3-4 years and have your parents still be proud of you.
It's funny; an american friend of mine did study abroad in the UK and he said that it was appalling how watered down everything was there. Not trying to say he's right, just that I find it comical that you guys basically said the same thing about the other's higher education system.
Haha, I've heard the same thing. A good friend of mine just got back from the UK and couldn't get over how easy the assignments were, how few there were, and how low the bar was set in terms of the scoring of them.
I'm also very against the current education system.
Warhead I agree that learning for learning's sake would be optimal, but come on man. You've got girls going into 6 figure debt to spend 4 years majoring in women's studies. With student debt being non-dischargable in bankruptcy, that's just not a smart move.
In the words of Will Hunting: "You wasted $150000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library."
It's easy to say learning for learning's sake is great when you have a solid job lined up but having spent the last 2 and a half years in an absolutely bogus BO job, I would gleefully have gone to a solid public school (Cal, UVA, UMich) or the UK, despite my alma mater being as competitive academically speaking.
Op, let me get this straight. Your friend has a different opinion than you do, values different things and because of this he doesn't deserve to be in school? Glad to know a liberal arts education gives you the right to decided for other people.
People are free to study what they want. I sure hope your at an Ivy because your medieval lit degree isn't going to put food in your mouth. Don't expect my taxdollars to subsidize your bad decision. Welcome to liberty.
Wow, almost every single post/thread from you nowadays is about taxes or some insertion regarding taxes.
To the original point. I am divided on this issue. I did Computer degree along with a double in International Relations. In addition to helping me boost my GPA, I felt I actually learned more on the mechanics of the world than I did in quantitative classes calculating time complexity of algorithms.
I think it's vital to have a core "strong" major like Science, Engineering, Finance, Accounting (Not so sure about a general business degree) with a liberal arts related double major or minor. I think liberal arts education teaches a lot more intrinsic knowledge and understanding and a lot more interesting than programming. But, a liberal arts degree by itself is just not all that much use in today's society. This point is entirely mote if you went to a top Ivy HYP and S&M, which I did not. Consulting and Banking (for some extent advertising and a few other people services industries) will keep taking top Ivy liberal arts majors and turn them into money generating monkeys.
The interesting thing is, after doing a fairly artsy econ degree, I have the complete opposite view. The artsy classes was just all waffle and the only benefit from education I received was in the stats/maths classes.
I would kill myself before I would need to sap away the tax dollars of others to put food in my mouth.
It depends on your goal. IMO Math, Physics/Chemistry are essential for the Arts people while History/Philosophy is essential for the Science people. But I prefer to teach myself instead of taking courses in universities (note that I'm from Science side so it's quite easy to read history books without registering a program).
I think most of us disagree with the current education system, but like surderdude alluded to you have to be practical. College has 2 main objectives in my eyes. First get a job, and secondly learn about people who are different than you. There are more cost effective ways to do that than the 4 year ~100k haul of college but it is what it is. One thing that should be noted about college is that it does teach you how to get shit done - like learn a semester's worth of material in 48hrs haha.
if youre at a top school it doesn't really matter what you study as long as you network and put the time in to research the industry outside of class. i think the US has plenty of schools for kids who want to study liberal arts and those who want more focused degrees like undergrad business or engineering. pre-professionalism is not necessarily a bad thing as long as people are given a choice imho.
And people wonder why China is kicking our butts...
Look, you want to spend $150K learning totally useless material, then be my guest. Regardless of who is paying for it (student, parents, tax-payer, uni endowment), using up all these resources to teach otherwise bright people useless subjects is a huge waste. I have nothing against any major, as long as its related to a career you want to be in.
IMO, the best people are those who love what they do. I took tons of finance classes when I was in college, about 3 more than I needed for my major; because I liked it and knew I wanted to work in it. I even took some accounting classes p/f for the hell of it.
Most people don't want someone who's "well-rounded"; they want specialized professionals who can truly add value. The sooner you specialize in what you have a passion for, the sooner you will move up the ladder.
Specialization sounds all well and good, but when you can go through an entire undergraduate degree without doing any math, reading a book, or doing a presentation then I'll bet you may think differently. That is the beauty with the American system, you can do whatever you want. The UK heavily specialized system is best for people who want to be academics as it get you a leg up in your chosen field. But for most people, liberal arts would have suited them MUCH better.
People should have choice. If they think they already know the amount of math needed for their career, and don't want to take it, then that should be their choice. Maybe the UK system doesn't have enough choices available for those that need refreshers on those things, but you can always get help with those basic things outside of school (unlike a specialized education, which is far harder to get outside of school/classes).
If you like reading books, but are specializing in say engineering, nothing is preventing you from watching a little less tv so you can read some books in your free time. My point is that people are treating universities like "play time", when they shouldn't be. Just because you should be able to do whatever you want doesn't mean that what you want to do is a smart decision.
Many English majors from middle of the road colleges are making less than plumbers who did a two year apprenticeship/vocational school (and to top it off the English major is indebted to the hilt).
It costs easily 160k to go to school in the US, people are looking to get a return on that simple as. The UK universities, while def cheaper, are an administrative nightmare and do not provide the same level of education as schools in the U.S.
I am american and went to a top school in the UK and have also spent time at UPenn. Trust me, Penn blew the university in the UK out of the water. The UK unis system is archaic and will never change. I think in general liberal arts is important (or at least having the option to do it). There is no job that requires three years of studying an academic subject so in depth. Most people get bored and it gets to a point where the material is so specialized that it is theoretical beyond any practical use and only suits academics.
There are kids who have not done math since the age of 15/16, and conversely there are people who have not written an essay or read a book since then either. That is ridiculous. Remember, when we apply for IB jobs in the UK we have to do those dump online reading comprehension and math tests because many people who are applying did their entire degree without having done much of either.
People tend to study what is in demand. For most people, getting a job is important. There is a small minority that can study things just for fun and these are usually people who either have rich parents or some job lined up with their family's connections. It's not that lib arts is not useful, but people whose primary goal is to get jobs tend to study something more immediately applicable. Try getting a job as an engineer, quant, supply chain specialist, geologist, or mathematician by doing a 4-year lib arts degree only. If you go into sales, which is basically what IB advisory is, you don't really need any specialized degree. The same goes for consulting, which at the lower levels is glorified secretary work, while at the higher levels it is a sales job again. However, these are not the only jobs in the world. You need some people to drill for oil, build and operate the planes you fly on, or provide electricity to your home. They usually cannot do that by studying only gender studies.
If you want to worry about people's feelings and that sort of thing, study Psych, English, or whatever. If you want to get a high paying job after graduation study Finance, Math, Engineering, etc. The great thing about America is that you can do whatever the hell you want. Some people, like a lot of us here on WSO, are motivated by the high salaries in Finance. Let your friend do what he wants, maybe you can turn to him for a loan in a few years.
kids go to college to get laid and get fucked up under the guise of doing it to get a job
the american education system is by far the most worthless and useless on earth when compared to the resources we have to offer
liberal arts courses are a waste of time for most people.
Cut the pseudo intellectual crap, maybe 1% of people studying liberal art courses at elite unis are intelligent enough to be considered intellectuals and will benefit society through the pursuit of liberal art subjects and later on contributing to their subject of choice.
The remaining 99% was too stupid/lazy to do a proper course and now rationalizes their own inadequacy through some pseudo intellectual flawed bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts degree, just like there is nothing wrong with getting a finance degree. Different objectives for different people. Why do people feel the need to bring down others to validate themselves?
I'm a senior at a liberal arts school, BS in Business Administration, concentration in finance. I have loved the classes in my major, and at times have struggled to get through some of the requirements I've had being at a liberal arts school, i.e. Geology, Biology. 208,000 dollars later I resent that to an extent. When I went to school my objective was to get a job, but I certainly appreciated the value of scholarship.
I've benefitted greatly from my liberal arts education. Having the choice to take different classes has been huge for me. For instance, last semester I took China After 1800. I was fortunate enough to sit in on a lecture about the 1 child policy in the country, and consequently I was able to develop a thesis on the socioeconomic future of the country. Somehow during an interview with a SVP at the firm I took a job with we got talking about the classes I was taking, and what interesting things I'd learned. I started talking about the lecture, explaining what I'd heard, the thoughts I'd developed, and the implications. He took the bait and we had a great conversation. He emailed me after I'd gotten the offer saying he pushed for me because he could see I was a learner. Having studied finance, did I ever imagine that a silly lecture on China's 1 Child Policy would be a determinant in me securing employment? Absolutely not, never in a million effing years. I can think of multiple similar instances, and this has made me realize that my liberal arts education has provided me with many favorable attributes. Liberal arts students are solid writers, they can make comparisons between things (both causal and correlations), and they can have intelligent conversations about the obscure things they've been exposed to.
The current university system makes no sense on the surface. Think about it, a few thousand kids thrust together with relatively no supervision and innumerable chances to make bad decisions. However, this is the most valuable aspect of the education. Those that succeed are able to learn from their mistakes and grow up in the process. It's a huge waste of money, and few graduate with practical skills, but life skills are pretty important too. So it's easy to disagree with the system, but we all know it's the best thing that happened to us.
Baddebt already touched on this, but I want to reiterate: being a "learner" is less about where you went to school and more about something that's inside you. I'm not saying you're either born that way or not, just that it's not something that school gives you in most cases. Being intellectually curious is an incredibly useful trait IMO, it's just not necessarily something you'll pick up in college (liberal arts or otherwise).
I go to undergrad bschool and its a waste of time. I'm doing two liberal arts minors and enjoy them much more than any of my business classes.
A "regular" lib arts degree will open up doors for you professionally. English, History, and Philosophy majors can easily move on to law school. Biology and chemistry majors to med school. Econ majors (or in the boom years, art history majors) into finance. It doesn't really matter. Take classes you enjoy taking. Ideally, go for a solid mix of quantitative and qualitative in order to have a nice balance. (Disclaimer: My school has a mandatory 16 course liberal arts core for business students so perhaps I've been brainwashed).
I'd recommend a liberal arts education (again, in a more traditional lib arts mentioned above, not medieval history or gender studies) because you will never really have a chance to learn about the subject in that manner again. Studying liberal arts in a classroom forces you to read the text, and to discuss it with like minded college students. Discussion is key. You have your entire life to study a profession, why would you waste the one opportunity you have to learn about something else wasting it on something you'll be doing for forty years anyway.
MMM hit a great point above. College is about getting laid and fucked up. Really, its about meeting new people and learning about yourself. Doing both of the above can lead you there. 90% of the things you learn are outside the classroom anyway. I've taken about 20 liberal arts classes and 20 business classes, and at the undergraduate level, I've enjoyed liberal arts classes more by far. Perhaps your friend is just not enlightened. Or perhaps he reads the texts you read anyway at a local library on his own time.
Below are a couple thoughts for starters. I'll probably have more later, since I love this topic and have mixed emotions on it.
Why can't different people value college for different reasons? Why do we need a one sized fits all curriculum? If someone like your friend doesn't want to have to take so much core coursework, why shouldn't other colleges exist that give him this option? And for people like yourself, who value the liberal arts education, you can go that route?
For one thing, they should think about their career because they'll be spending much more time doing that than going to college. Secondly, many of them probably have student loans racking up. Lastly, why wouldn't some people be drawn to college solely for financial/career reasons? In your liberal arts education, haven't they ever exposed you to econ 101 where you learn about the role incentive play. (Just to be clear, that last line was written tongue-in-cheek; I'm not trying to be a condescending prick.)
Lastly, who says you need to take liberal arts courses to be interested in it? It's amazing what one can learn on their own, so it might make more sense to treat college as a way to get a good job, and satisfy your love of learning outside of the classroom. Especially when you consider that you pretty much have to teach yourself everything anyway, even if you are taking a class, so why pay the money for it. It's cheaper and more effective to self-study. And, this is also not to even point out that many of the coursework is bullsh*t and indoctrination, and you're forced to study stuff the professor thinks is important, and you have to do it when he says so. When you self-study, you can focus on the stuff that's most interesting and relevant to you, and you can take your own time, and study/learn when you feel like it (and not have to worry about grades; getting evaluated by someone else's standards, based on taking tests and writing papers under strict timelines and whatnot).
Ive benefited nothing but B's and B-'s from taking crap like Philo, Lit, Theology, etc etc. Get all A's in my Fin and Acct classes. Liberal arts is useless if you dont want to be in academia.
Academics love talking about liberal arts as if its the master key to instilling a love of learning amongst kids. It couldn't be farther from the truth. I am sorry but a love for learning can't be bought.
To the guy talking about China> I can assure you I learnt more about China this winter break by picking up some great books on the history of the country and the business climate. More importantly, I made sure to read a China focused newspaper everyday and decided to pen short essays to help me understand the concepts. I didn't require a college professor, a couple of grand, and an incredibly slow pace to absorb the material.
Colleges are under the impression that only through liberal arts can people tie concepts across disciplines. This is false. I go to a top 10 school and have been bombarded with liberal arts courses (I major in econ as well). The cross disciplinary thinking that happens is elementary at best and extremely theoretical at its worst. If I had been bright I would have gotten a degree in the sciences or engineering. I would have extracted the maximal academic AND career ROI.
If you love learning pick up a book. You will be outpacing seminar taking liberal arts majors like me if you are consuming 2-3 books a week on diverse subjects.
when the shit hits the fan in life, some of those seemingly useless things from the liberal arts can give you some real comfort and direction.
Higher education especially pre-professional degrees such as finance, pre-law, pre-med, etc. are all good and important for landing that big job after college and paying back hundreds of thousands in student loans, but at the same time I think a well rounded education is still really important.
A business education certainly helps with understanding case studies but does it teach you the skills to critically question the system as a whole? In 2006 to 2007 everyone that I was graduating with wanted to go into structured finance or structured products. Students could explain to you the logic behind the products, the ins and outs of them, and could explain to you how the products allocated risk efficiently. Problem was did they develop the skills to actually think about several of the assumptions that were being made that would later cause the crisis starting in May 07 into 08?
“The low hanging fruit, i.e, idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy ended up only making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God Bless America…”
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/andrew-lahde-fairwell-email
Does history repeat itself? On WSO it does: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/article-in-the-nytimes-about-100k…
This topic has already had the shit beaten out of it on WSO not too long ago. Really interesting posts.
Oh god, This is why I don't like reading topics I start. Okay: First of all, the whole "my friend doesn't deserve to be in college" thing was a bit of a facetiously radical comment. Didn't really mean that.
Second of all, I'm not saying which is more important, or which is more USEFUL (I think even an idiot can answer that). I more want to know what YOU prefer.
I've been immersing myself in the liberal arts because I like it. But that hasn't stopped me from joining finance related clubs, networking my ass off, and landing internships to try to further my career as well. I just think that everyone thinks about money, who's economy is bigger, who's got the bigger dick. I was just wondering whether there was anyone who shared my enjoyment of intellectual pursuit. I think there should be a balance, for there's only so much effort you can put into your career before it's not worth the opportunity cost of learning all of these other wonderful things.
You're not alone, I share your intellectual curiosity. Honestly, I think pursuing knowledge for knowledge sake is actually a virtue, but that's just a personal opinion.
I am studying engineering and science and have taken one or two liberal arts courses a semester. Invariably, I find these courses the least fulfilling since you can easily teach yourself with casual reading what you are paying to be taught. I have been a hard core reader since the ninth grade and I though about majoring about economics or political science but decided against it after reading some course descriptions. Liberal Arts is a waste of time unless you truly want to add value to the subject.
Being scholarly doesn't put food on the table and pay the rent, but with that being said, you can also learn and apply things from courses that seem to not have any relevance to your main focus. Then again, you should not be forced to pay for the irrelevant things because I am positive that schools care more about you paying tuition than they do about what you are learning.
While I think higher education in general is a good idea (and necessary for the majority of people to be successful), I think institutions go about doing it in a fairly half-assed manner. I'd get into it more, but I don't currently feeling like spending a half hour on why colleges/universities around the world are a joke.
I wouldn't be so against having liberal arts requirements in standard curriculum if I didn't have to take something like freaking Russian Literature or History of Western Civilization which I really couldn't give two shits about. I purged all that shit out of my brain anyway as soon as I finished the finals, so it contributed absolutely nothing to my life except a pair of B's that I would rather have gotten while taking something useful like computer science or even something interesting, like Logic.
Hey guys, has WSO become limp-wristed? In terms or job, you either come from a target or you don't (especially since the downturn). Since when do we have respect for SUNY accounting majors?
In terms of the programmes, I usually find people without an interest in things outside of their main field rather shallow. To me, the advocates of education-for-jobs on this thread come across as the kind of people you don't want to spend an evening or have dinner with.
By the way, I am an Oxbridge/LSE alumnus.
What's this supposed to mean?
But apparently you don't find people shallow who are overly concerned with credentials, such as what alumni network they belong to?
"Liberal arts" are not useful to one's career in terms of technical skills. Hell, students at the Seven Sisters even have dance classes. That does not mean that they are useless. I personally find people who know useless stuff more interesting and likeable on average. When educated people spend time together, they often like to have more profound discussions than the workings of Repo 105. I do. It is also a reason why you don't find many CPAs in client-facing PWM.
Likewise, sciences give you nothing (except for a mindset, perhaps) that might help you be a banker. But I have a scientific background myself and my girlfriend loves how I can explain some mysterious phenomena we encounter in everyday life, such as why the sky is blue. At the same time, she's a lawyer and I totally understand how technicality matters in her field, but is understanding the origin of legal principles not more interesting than knowing how to apply the letter of the law? At the dinner table, it certainly is.
Finally, it took me some time to understand but it is not true that one can pick up a book and learn everything there is to know about medieval history, thermodynamics or sociology. Most of the time a teacher is necessary. On the other hand, employers in most of investment banking do not expect deep technical knowledge from new hires. So it is probably a safer bet to study what you like rather than to tailor your curriculum to an idea of a dream job that will change over time anyway.
This brings me to the never-ending issue of targets versus non-targets. Is it worth paying $200.000 to study psychology at Harvard? I don't know (I did meet a psychology major from Jane Street, though). One thing is certain, though: a psychology major from a non-target stands absolutely no chance of getting a banking job in this environment. I can therefore understand why people who don't get into targets might want think hard about their future prospects on the job market, and then rationalise their choices on this forum.
-
Disclaimer: I chose to be an investment banker. I have sunk 15 years of my life into that decision. I am biased my my background.
However, I was a liberal arts major. I did just fine learning what I needed to about finance, on the job or during my MBA. My only educational regret was not being bolder about how liberal, and artsy, my courses might have been. I would have taken much greater advantage from the resources that [what I consider to be] the top undergraduate institution in the country offered to me and I did not take advantage of.
I did not, and looking back today would never, ever have taken a finance or accounting class.
I would have scaled back the science side of my education (I thought originally I would go to med school), and substituted classes that might have expanded my worldview.
I am thankful that I had the privilege to attend my university. I would not subsitute what I got for what I might have received at a trade school. Like Wharton.
:)
I hate college and refuse to graduate with more than $40,000 in student loans. When you calculate how much some "intellectuals" shell out over the course of their life in student loans it is ridiculous. I would rather use the money and invest it wisely, and maybe one day I can hire some of those intellectuals with $200,000 in student loans to work for me. When I transfer out of Dowling, I will limit my search to state schools and private schools that offer me more than 60% in grants and/or scholarships.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by intellectuals, but if you're referring to academics, or just PhDs more generally, you'd probably be surprised with the small amount of debt they actually have. PhD programs are almost always free (due to a tuition waiver and stipend). The people with all the debt tend to be MBAs, JDs, MDs, etc.
Yeah, a friend of mine had pretty ridiculous GPA in Biochem/Biomedical engineering from a top undergrad school. He did research and had internship with a high GPA, like 3.8+. He always wanted to do PhD, mostly I think because he's dad is one. But he could have easily gone to MBA, JD with his GPA and test taking skill.
He got in a pretty good PhD program, and it was no joke. But it is fully paid for and he gets a stipend for research. So most do not actually have much loans if they are good. It's the mediocre PhD programs people pay a lot of money for that really will ruin their lives.
i think education is a means to an end, but in many ways is very important to the structure of society and i would never put down someone who wants to become more educated. that being said, there is a limit. I have a friend who did 4 year undergrad, 2 years masters, and now is currently doing a 3/4 year PhD. He is going to enter the job market at 30 (he does not want to stay in academia). This is a complete and utter waste of time and is just self indulgent.
Heh...."Oxbridge/LSE alumnus". So you went to LSE?
For the vast majority of people a liberal arts degree is an absolutely bad investment. I think you are overestimating the rigor of liberal arts courses here in the United States. Most liberal arts majors are like most people that end up in law school - they couldn't think of anything else to do so they got a law degree (and will wind up being absolutely miserable by 30).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/your-money/student-loans/29money.html…
interesting article fairly relevant
NYU is one of the scummiest players in the grand education racket we have in this country. Not only do they hose the undergrads in terms of tuition, they are one of the master proliferators of nonsense master's programs which also charge an arm and a leg.
The reason college costs so much is that the govt has placed essentially its entire balance sheet on the demand side. Winners and losers in this racket:
Winners: 1. Politicians, who are lauded as heroes for enabling the Horatio Alger dreams of the next generation 2. University administration which gets a ton of dumb money from students ignorant of the grave financial situation they are putting themselves into
Losers: 1. Students who don't realize that their debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (we can thank a particular president for sliding this into a bankruptcy reform program during his second term) 2. Students who actually can afford to pay, but will have to pay much higher than the natural market rate because Sallie Mae and their like have guaranteed the loans of all the financially unsavvy families who think that going to any college at any cost is the path to the better life
People like to trash finance, but the education market is equally shot through with scumbag opportunists and racketeers.
What is with all this education hate? If your parents are poor you can get all kinds of need based scholarships. If you are poor and smart you can get a free ride. If you are rich and smart you will at least get a chunk of your schooling for free. If you are neither, then you should be looking at community college, state school, etc. All offer a low cost way of going to school.
I worked full time during my undergrad and found plenty of time to be fully involved and get good grades. At the very least you can work part time. A degree from any 4 year school will help you out. The people who get a degree and go to work at Starbucks not only got an impractical degree, but didn't network or put much effort into things. Either way they will find their path soon enough.
I am a complete business student (finance UG, Finance MS, Finance MBA). I enjoy finance. I also enjoy a multitude of other things. Here is my low cost secret I will let you all in on. It is called the library. Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone.
At the UG level, we all take almost the same amount of classes. You can take extra classes if you want. I've been in plenty of liberal arts classes and I can honestly say I have taken more away from reading books and watching PBS than I have in those classes.
Never before in my life have I encountered a site that measures dick more than this place. Who the fuck cares what your major is or what you studied. The fact that anyone would have to spend a moment thinking about why their liberal arts degree is superior to a business degree is laughable. Do what you like and be happy with it.
why are none of you watching football right now (i assume you are not watching football because of these long ass posts)? stop distracting me with this pointless arguing.
Stop reading it and watch the game you whiny zero
I think that most people could handle college level work in high school
a college degree is like an advanced high school diploma: it doesn't PROVE anything, but do you want to hire someone without one?
unless you've already got money save the liberal arts stuff for a dual degree/mino, get a REAL degree and read books on history + poetry on your own time
I agree with GhengisKhan and mxc.
To those saying that you can learn liberal arts on your own. You know what? Finance is a pretty easy subject to learn on your own. That is why there are hordes of people that are in finance who haven't taken a single class in it. I'd say the main difference between those two classes would be that liberal arts are less of a top-to-bottom injection of knowledge and more of discussing ideas with others. I'd say the benefits of latter are greater.
That being said, if you go to a non-target, it's difficult to find jobs with non-professional degrees so that might be a necessity more than choice. There is no need to validate this by trashing liberal arts however.
As someone in this thread who kept preaching the virtues of self-study, let me be the first to say that I totally agree. Finance is probably easier to teach yourself than many of the liberal arts. As far as I can tell, the hardest subjects for most people to teach themselves are math, stats, and physics (I'm sure there's more, but that's what immediately comes to mind). Business fields in general seem like some of the easiest subjects to teach yourself, in my opinion.
Your logic smells of libarts major, its that terrible.
Also if your genuinely interested in liberal arts youll read books on the sides. I read philosophy in my free time. Libarts majors read cosmo in their freetime :X
LOL, if you're curious, I majored in econ and minored in math. It seems to me that econ is much more quantitative than finance, and even in econ you pretty much just do a bunch of algebra and calculus (except at the graduate level where you actually do a lot of proofs, matrix algebra, and real analysis). So, it seems to me (based on self-studying of finance) that you really just need to do some algebra. The kind of math you do for a degree, straight up blows the kind of math you do in finance out of the water. In fact, in one or two low college level math classes, you've probably more than covered everything you would need for a finance major. So, the math you learn as a math major/minor is not even comparable to the math you do in finance. When you major/minor in math, you quickly start getting into much more abstract stuff, with an emphasis on proofs. That's a far cry from the simple arithmetic and algebra that's done in finance coursework. Try teaching yourself real analysis and you'll see what I mean. (Don't get me wrong, people can teach themselves real analysis. I'm just saying it'd probably take one 10-20 times the amount of time/effort to teach introductory real analysis than it would to teach most finance courses. And that's assuming you already have the requisite knowledge of algebra, calculus, and logic. If you don't know those things, then we're talking 50+ times the amount of time/effort.)
this is so totally wrong its not even funny. have you ever done real quantitative finance courses? its all advanced stochastic calculus and modeling random walks. this is NOT easy. yes, bond pricing and DCF is a joke, but real heavy duty finance courses require math that most people don't even cover in undergraduate, even if they do a math degree
Yeah, if you're considering really, really high-level stuff, then sure, you get into stochastic calculus and random walks. That doesn't include most finance though.
And just because most math majors don't do that stuff, doesn't mean it's above them. If you can take a bunch of real analysis and abstract algebra courses, you can teach yourself stochastic calculus and random walks if you need to.
Pymp, education is all well and good and knowledge of history, philosophy and the arts is important, but ONLY if your actually genuinely intellectually inclined, otherwise your still just a r*tard who feels they are smart cause they can recite poetry.
I was speaking very generally initially, so allow me to go into a little more detail. I totally agree that there are areas of finance which are very quantitative. In fact, I wouldn't even really distinguish too much between finance and econ at that level (because in PhD programs in econ and finance, students pretty much take the same courses and use very similar tools). What I was saying, is that at the undergrad level (and maybe the MSF level, but maybe ANT can tell me if that's true) it's really not that quantitative; but at the MFE and PhD level, finance is very quantitative. More importantly, my point was that it's much easier to teach oneself undergrad level (and even CFA level) material, than it is to teach oneself math, stats, or physics at the undergrad level. Furthermore, my point was that if you studied math at a high level (grad level or advanced undergrad), it'll allow you to teach yourself MFE and PhD level finance; but if you studied finance at the grad level or advanced undergrad level, it'll be much harder to teach yourself a lot of math.
From a wise man I met in NYC:
I’d encourage your youngest one to abandon kindergarten altogether. Almost everything I learned was learned outside the classroom, and school itself interrupted my education. Moreover, school locks you in with your peers. That is a mistake. One’s social circle should never include one’s equals. From my earliest years I found children uninteresting and always preferred the company of adults. This was an advantage, because I got to know lots of folks who are dead now whom I never would have known if I had waited until I was an adult. – So I have a collective memory – and oral tradition – that goes back to the eighteenth century, having spoken with people who knew people who knew people who knew people who lived then. – The only real university is the universe and a city its microcosm. That is why an expression like “New York University” is foolish. New York City is the university….Instead of school, children should spend some hours each day in hotel lobbies talking to the guests. They should spend time in restaurant kitchens and shops and garages of all kinds, learning from people who actually make the world work….One day spent roaming through a real classical church building would be the equivalent of one academic term in any of our schools, and a little time spent inconspicuously in a police station would be more informative than all the hours wasted on bogus social sciences. Formal lessons would only be required for accuracy in spelling and proficiency in public speaking, for which the public speakers in our culture are not models, and in exchange for performing some menial services a child could learn the violin, harp, and piano from musicians in one of the better cocktail lounges, or from performers in the public subways….So I urge you to keep your child out of kindergarten, because kindergarten will only lead to first grade and then the grim sequence of grade after grade begins and takes its inexorable toll on the mind born fertile but gradually numbed by the pedants who impose on the captive child the flotsam of their own infecundity.
what about majoring in coll-unary arts?
I love college so much I am getting out a year sooner ... with a degree.
.
Part of an elite? Finer things in life?
Awesome.
Wow Pymp, I usually chuckle at your shit, but could you be anymore of a cock. Do realize that a lot of people do not have the luxury of going to the best schools for free, having a helping hand with internships and the first job and trips paid for during the summer. Some people take loans and sure as hell better be ready to pay them off.
To be honest with you, I would much rather be rich and keep to my own circle of friends than try and impress a bunch of people who have a silver spoon up their ass.
I am partially just trying to be inflamatory and get some attention with my choice of language... but I really actually am serious to a degree. I mean... why the fuck do you want to make a lot of money? So that you can have leisure time, travel, explore the world, experience other cultures etc... money brings more education. If you just want money so you can go to nightclubs and bang slutty girls thats pathetic (not that I don't endorse doing that... but its not the only reason to have money). And that doesn't make you part of an elite... what makes you a real leader in the world is having education, experience, perspective, knowledge, etc.... not having a lambo
where is my response? the sight is malfunctioning!
Iure ut est iure placeat voluptatem odio. Dicta minima ipsam quaerat rerum et non molestiae. Sunt vel magni ea et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolor recusandae ut molestiae eveniet nam at sed. Voluptatum et eos ea velit sint dicta architecto natus. Quo id architecto et et sunt est facere.
Laborum qui quia quod architecto. Dolores rerum et quae consequatur repudiandae et quae. A exercitationem earum est alias doloribus.
Eum maiores vel tempore. Nulla et eaque ea quas mollitia accusamus at. Fuga repellat rerum facere odio.
Qui excepturi dolorem ex omnis voluptatibus voluptas debitis minima. Facilis nam corporis magni eveniet. Iusto officiis sed quisquam quis et. Quae maiores voluptate molestiae sapiente. Suscipit perspiciatis aliquid incidunt aperiam.
Laborum odit dolores temporibus harum et error consequatur. Perspiciatis incidunt dolore at aut eum voluptas est. Optio dolor est laborum vero pariatur aut. Dolore laborum quia enim voluptas aut.
Dicta nisi error accusantium. Tempora neque officiis sed sit fugiat.
Consequatur et modi dolor ad voluptate. Soluta aliquam maiores sit. Rerum ad maxime impedit occaecati aut voluptatem et. Assumenda minus non molestiae praesentium iusto iusto sunt. Unde nulla minima cupiditate debitis voluptate ut consequatur.
Ut aut voluptatibus non corporis at. Consequatur eum voluptas est et maxime ipsum libero. Earum impedit eius eos quo animi veritatis quaerat.
Quis sunt possimus tenetur dolor. Ab laborum maxime nobis laudantium. Voluptatibus consequatur necessitatibus reiciendis et voluptatem et aut. Consequatur quaerat nihil harum labore libero.
Sed eos et quasi perspiciatis. Autem facere aspernatur consequuntur ut deserunt optio sint earum. Aut quisquam cumque explicabo. Minus ut saepe sapiente esse enim ut.