Picking a major-Classical Studies vs. Econ

study what you enjoy, you're probably not gonna have time to study another subject that in depth again. you can definitely get a job with a 3.7-3.8 in classical studies, especially as a varsity athlete. obviously you might have some questions / might be a bit more difficult but i think all else equal that would look better than a 3.2 - 3.3 in econ. but don't underestimate classics, it might not be as easy as you think and you might not get a better GPA vs. if you majored in econ

I don't understand people who do classical studies, philosophy, english, etc. majors intending to go into finance. Yeah college is great and about "expanding horizons" and all that crap, but it's really meant to prepare you for the real world. If you want to be a classical studies professor (or a high school history teacher or a researcher) or something like that, then major in that. Otherwise, major in econ because that is what you are going to be doing after you graduate. It will put you in a more flexible position and offer you real life skills that will actually get you a job in a tough economy. For me personally, I don't care if someone has a 4.0 in classical studies, why would I hire that person for a finance job over a 3.3 econ major?

At the end of the day, do what makes you happy, but if the probability of you working in what you're going to major in is essentially zero, then what's the point? Econ is at least a much more flexible major, it can get you much better job offers than a classical studies major (and don't take it for granted that you will get a higher GPA in the "easy" major - for example, I would get As in the hard core finance classes and got a B- in the writing seminar that supposedly everyone gets an A in...).

alexpasch as an economics major I can say it has not helped me in banking. While it might be more impressive to recruiters it does not help you on the job. Banking is taught on the job, why else do banks take liberal arts majors from williams/amherst?

major in econ. You can thank me later.

Didn't he say he'd be minoring in it, had completed his math requirements already, and would be pulling coursework in finance and accounting additionally? Not sure how that constitutes letting the quant side of your brain go dull ...

As a classics, will you be learning Greek and Latin? If so, I'd say go that route. I'm doing both an economics and philosophy minor, so I've dabbled in both. Trust me, you can always learn economics by reading the news, magazines, listening to Bloomberg Radio, etc. I've learned a lot that way, more so than anything in my classes. Studying ancient texts in their original languages would be an incredible opportunity that you would never be able to take advantage of again. I've tried reading Metaphysics in English and, from classics majors I've talked to, it just doesn't do it justice. Being able to read those texts in Greek or Latin will allow you to understand them much better (again, from other students I've talked to who understand these languages).

This is the program, right? http://registrar.duke.edu/bulletins/undergraduate/2008-09/ugbhtml/under…

I don't work in IB so I can't comment on recruiting. However, if you think of your undergraduate education as an end in itself, and not as a means to an end, the choice is easy. Learn what you want to learn; the rest will come if you work at it. Especially coming from a school like Duke.

(deleted)

What you will learn as an economics major has absolutely nothing to do with banking in the slightest bit. Nothing. Anybody that believes differently is truly delusional. Using lagrangians to maximize utility functions or pretty much anything you do in econometrics has nothing to do with the real world or what you will be doing on the job. Maybe if you are interested in being a quant or getting involved in some sort of research area like that, it would be more useful, but it has nothing to do with banking.

lol I took a substantial sum, only a few away from a second major, of economics courses at one of the best econ programs in the world--I have a pretty good idea of what is covered. There was not a single thing covered in any of those the least bit related to anything in finance.

It isn't the application of classical studies--it is the critical thinking, analysis, and research that you learn as a part of the major. And I'm not arguing about which one is better/worse, just that your original points are completely irrelevant since none of those topics are even touched on in ANY econ major of significance (ie any top econ program).

Most of what you have said is going to help you with econ is: -If relevant to econ at all, can be learned in intro to micro/macro and be done with -Not traditionally considered part of most economics majors -Quantitative aspects can be learned just as well, if not better, through many other subject areas (any hard science, math, stat, etc.) and you can take electives in these as well.

There are plenty of people in research who have non-econ backgrounds. Your points are just horrible dude and not the least bit important for the OP. According to the OP, he has more interest in classical studies, which will likely lead to a better GPA, keep him interested in schoolwork, and teach him plenty critical thinking/etc. and he will be able to take quantitative courses as electives and perhaps some more finance related courses as well. Intro to macro/microecon will cover 95+% of stuff relevant to finance without having to major in the subject (most schools don't even include intro to micro/macro in the major).

Although firms claim they don't really care what applicants study, it makes things a lot easier if you study Maths / Business / Economics / etc...

Why not major in Business? It's easier than Economics and still well respected.

I've always viewed economics as a framework for thinking. I feel that it makes you approach problems differently than other people (always looking at opportunity cost, etc)... which is why I think it's a valuable major.

I think people who look down on majors like classical studies, history, philosophy, etc. don't understand the real value of these degrees. No, it is not as practical as economics for a career in banking, but over the course of your life, I think a more liberal arts/humanities major will be much more valuable. These majors don't just teach you how to think, but studying the classics gives you a certain "depth" or level of insight into people and life that you just can't get from quantitative majors.

hey everyone, thank you for all of the responses. I held in an internship after my freshman year in Financial Advising at a BB (think Goldman, UBS, Wells Fargo...). It would have probably helped if I mentioned in my OP that I'd like to get an internship after this year (sophomore) in Asset Management or maybe Banking. I also have 2 years of real investing experience, which is "teaching me the game" (Livermore). I'm the first in my family to go to college that's why I'm a little unsure of how this process works. I apologize for not mentioning the specifics in my previous post. All responses have been helpful. Thanks again.

Anyone else love the fact that he stated BB and then went GS/UBS/WF?

wtf, corp fin, portfolio management, etc fall under ECON department at my school.

Then your school doesn't have a real economics department. Those are aspects of finance and have very little to do with economics in an academic sense.

Study what you love. Econ is not any more relevant than any other majors when it comes to finance. You can always take quantitative/analytical classes outside of your major.