Why law school over MBA? Forum

[Joeshan520]

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

I totally disagree with this. The liberal arts curricula provide an excellent thinking foundation applicable to a variety of fields. It's one of the only programs left that salvage the university's reputation of becoming a training post for corporate America. Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work. How is that more useful than receiving and open-minded approach to education?

[dingbat]

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

I totally disagree with this. The liberal arts curricula provide an excellent thinking foundation applicable to a variety of fields. It's one of the only programs left that salvage the university's reputation of becoming a training post for corporate America. Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work. How is that more useful than receiving and open-minded approach to education?

What are you talking about?
Seriously, what is this shit?

[ams212]

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

I totally disagree with this. The liberal arts curricula provide an excellent thinking foundation applicable to a variety of fields. It's one of the only programs left that salvage the university's reputation of becoming a training post for corporate America. Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work. How is that more useful than receiving and open-minded approach to education?

What are you talking about?
Seriously, what is this shit?

I would definitely agree that a liberal arts degree does have some valid strengths and teaches some useful skills. The problem is that unless you go to an ivy, one of those skills isn't the ability to get a job.

[dingbat]

To be clear, my questions are:

A) It's one of the only programs left that salvage the university's reputation of becoming a training post for corporate America.
What does this mean?

B) Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work.
what are you on about?
What models are antiquated and no longer correct/applicable?

[collegebum1989]

Most people who study liberal arts do it because of a genuine interest in the field. Besides graduate school and law school, there are less professional outlets for students of these fields as opposed to people who study science who can either go to health-related professional programs, industry, government, private sector, etc.

But since the number of people who study sciences is smaller relative to the number of people who study liberal arts fields, there is more competition for positions requiring just
Liberal arts bachelor degrees which is why you need to go to a top school to pursue a career with these degrees.

There is also a perception that the Ivy's are the best/most cultured for a liberal arts education. This isn't nearly true for science. Schools like MIT, Stanford, Johns Hopkins are considered better for science undergrads. In some fields, like engineering, the Ivy's are pretty much not even in top 10 (minus Cornell).

[dingbat]

Here I figured most people studied liberal arts because they didn't really know what to do with their lives but had been hammered in from a young age that they should go to college

If they had a genuine interest in, for example, history, they'd study history, rather than the all-encompassing and meaningless "liberal arts"

[rayiner]

B) Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work.
what are you on about?
What models are antiquated and no longer correct/applicable?

This is true. The behavioral economists are too polite to say it, but their research obsoletes neoclassical economics in the same way quantum mechanics obsoleted Newtonian physics. Throwing out the rational actor model, as modern research forces us to do, renders much of our economic and financial policy suspect.

There is a good primer here: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf.

[dingbat]

B) Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work.
what are you on about?
What models are antiquated and no longer correct/applicable?

This is true. The behavioral economists are too polite to say it, but their research obsoletes neoclassical economics in the same way quantum mechanics obsoleted Newtonian physics. Throwing out the rational actor model, as modern research forces us to do, renders much of our economic and financial policy suspect.

There is a good primer here: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf.

I stopped myself from saying it but my big problem with economics is the concept of a rational market (it's a herd, and it can be made to stampede)

But the basics, like Keynes, the Phillips Curve or the Laffer curve, though antiquated, are still correct

[JohnV]

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

Speaking as a history major I'd say the reason I picked it was because I had decided that I wanted to go to Law school and knew that GPA mattered more than anything (besides the LSAT). So, I ended up dropping my Economics major and any lingering thoughts about switching out of Liberal Arts and decided to take something I enjoyed and knew I'd do well in. Then I picked up Gov because I basically had the credits anyways and it helped my GPA. Are these degrees weak in many fields? Yes. Does it worry me? No, because I have one goal, I've researched and worked 'near' my occupation of choice and I know what I want to do with it. A lot of people talk about liberal arts majors like they are stacking themselves with debt because they are ignorant or naive but that's not the case with many, at least with a sizable law-bound few who have realistic goals and a plan.

[DoctorShawHi]

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

I totally disagree with this. The liberal arts curricula provide an excellent thinking foundation applicable to a variety of fields. It's one of the only programs left that salvage the university's reputation of becoming a training post for corporate America. Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work. How is that more useful than receiving and open-minded approach to education?

Yeah. Maybe saying that you're not really learning anything is harsh. I was not a liberal arts major, so I don't know. But it's symptomatic, isn't it? I assume you aren't learning anything because that's the stereotype and the signal of a liberal arts major. It might not be true, but what's true isn't necessarily what's getting you the job, which I think should really be the only thing of functional importance in a competitive society.

That said, I'll concede the point that liberal arts has a lot of great stuff in it. No doubt. But it's not stuff that is directly applicable. I hate to say it, but the economy is definitely breaking into segments. People who majored in science, engineering, accounting, operations, math, and sometimes some of the other general business majors (HR, Marketing, Management, MCS etc.) can generally get jobs out of college. People who majored in anything else (and sometimes even in those subjects) either go into customer service or law school.

It's because the stuff that you learn in the mathematics intensive subjects is directly applicable. You don't need 2 years of work experience as a mathematician to know how to do advanced mathematics. Employers trust you because math is math.

Of course there are exceptions, even large swaths of majors (journalism, oddly), can recruit into different positions, but they're exceptions and the employment prospects are still bleak.

This is why a lot of people, from my experiences, go to graduate school. It's tough to find a job. Employers are terribly unkind people. Markets are terribly unkind. Kids are comfortable with school. They associate school with safety. That could account for a lot of advanced degrees.

[DoctorShawHi]

B) Besides many of the principles taught in finance and economics courses are based on antiquated models of the way markets work.
what are you on about?
What models are antiquated and no longer correct/applicable?

This is true. The behavioral economists are too polite to say it, but their research obsoletes neoclassical economics in the same way quantum mechanics obsoleted Newtonian physics. Throwing out the rational actor model, as modern research forces us to do, renders much of our economic and financial policy suspect.

There is a good primer here: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf.

That's true, but who becomes the physicists to change physics? People who studied physics. Behavioral economists started out in economics courses, learning antiquated models that built a foundation for them to communicate and study. The skill taught is largely the ability to discover and utilize the basis of your knowledge to work on your feet. Nothing in the working world is so cut and dry as a university test. A lot of the information you learn will be outdated in a few years, but you'll be able to keep up with those constant changes only if you're familiar with the subject matter.

Besides that, education is a signaling mechanism. What you major in signals what your interests are, what you're passionate about, and what you're going to be working with and applying for. I wouldn't recruit an English major (Ivy or not) to run supply chains at my company.

[dingbat]

I wouldn't recruit an English major (Ivy or not) to run supply chains at my company.

You'd miss out. I was an English major (not an Ivy) and ended up with a career in Finance

[splitbrain]

I wouldn't recruit an English major (Ivy or not) to run supply chains at my company.

You'd miss out. I was an English major (not an Ivy) and ended up with a career in Finance

Yah I don't get why you'd focus so much on their major...that's weird...

[DoctorShawHi]

I wouldn't recruit an English major (Ivy or not) to run supply chains at my company.

You'd miss out. I was an English major (not an Ivy) and ended up with a career in Finance

Yah I don't get why you'd focus so much on their major...that's weird...

The real answer is that hiring managers wouldn't take two looks at someone without a relevant degree, I guess.

[dingbat]

The real answer is that hiring managers wouldn't take two looks at someone without a relevant degree, I guess.

Only lazy ones

[DoctorShawHi]

I don't ask. I assumed it made sense. You've never heard of half the terminology you'd be working on day to day. It would take you longer to become acquainted than someone who has at least a running familiarity, costing more. Why would I want a higher cost to train you?

[dingbat]

I don't ask. I assumed it made sense. You've never heard of half the terminology you'd be working on day to day. It would take you longer to become acquainted than someone who has at least a running familiarity, costing more. Why would I want a higher cost to train you?

for a fresh out of college kid with no experience and no savvy, I agree.
except, a lot of good jobs won't hire a kid fresh out of college
Who would you rather hire - some kid who had the right major in college, or someone who busts his or her ass to prove s/he wants your position and will do whatever it takes to succeed?

[DoctorShawHi]

I don't ask. I assumed it made sense. You've never heard of half the terminology you'd be working on day to day. It would take you longer to become acquainted than someone who has at least a running familiarity, costing more. Why would I want a higher cost to train you?

for a fresh out of college kid with no experience and no savvy, I agree.
except, a lot of good jobs won't hire a kid fresh out of college
Who would you rather hire - some kid who had the right major in college, or someone who busts his or her ass to prove s/he wants your position and will do whatever it takes to succeed?

Absolutely true. But there are companies that have fresh grad programs that are aimed at science, accounting, demand planning, operations, etc. That's the kind of company I'm talking about.

Your degree diminishes with time, certainly. THere's no question about that. And those fresh grad programs are sadly too few and far between.

[westinghouse60]

A lot of (maybe most?) people get liberal arts degrees because they're easier and ostensibly more "interesting" than math/science type stuff. You don't have to be terribly smart to sit in an english/poli sci/history/whatever class and come up with a few original comments the professor likes (and I think this is what a lot of people think law school will be like). Since kids today (myself included) are told to "follow their dreams" by boomer parents, which do you think they're going to choose?

[Joeshan520]

I'm sorry but if you think the "efficient markets" hypothesis is a living breathing model in light of the speculative valuation practices that have distorted markets significantly over the past 20-30 years, you are living under a rock. And they seriously indoctrinate students of economics with that malarkey (whether that is purposeful remains to be seen).

[hblake]

If they had a genuine interest in, for example, history, they'd study history, rather than the all-encompassing and meaningless "liberal arts"

My Liberal Arts degree allowed me to concentrate in Cognitive Science, so a good slice of psychology, linguistics, and other sciences.

[rayiner]

My Liberal Arts degree allowed me to concentrate in Cognitive Science, so a good slice of psychology, linguistics, and other sciences.

None of those are sciences.

[hblake]

None of those are sciences.

That's okay because the philosophy guys get the top scores on the LSAT along with math/physics majors. Since my thesis was on organic evolution it integrated science and philosophy and whatever you say are non-sciences, so here's to doing what's interesting and relevant at the same time.

[rayiner]

None of those are sciences.

That's okay because the philosophy guys get the top scores on the LSAT along with math/physics majors. Since my thesis was on organic evolution it integrated science and philosophy and whatever you say are non-sciences, so here's to doing what's interesting and relevant at the same time.

So what. That doesn't change the fact that those aren't sciences.

[hblake]

So what. That doesn't change the fact that those aren't sciences.

So what.