Why are DCUM parents less inclined to have their child major in business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dcum always recommends CS and Engineering as degrees with best employment but I recruit finance undergrad and it is a decent major.

I don't really see the difference between DCUM promoting econ majors and finance degrees. They overwhelmingly go to the same careers.

That’s not really true. Econ and Finance majors from top schools may end up in IB and consulting, but you will find more Finance majors working for F500 companies either in trainee programs or going into financial planning & analysis or treasury functions. Econ majors aren’t usually hired for these roles.

Statistically, you have far more Econ majors pursuing graduate work vs finance majors as well (and interestingly, you have Math and Econ majors pursuing finance PhDs in higher numbers than finance undergrads).

I don't necessarily see the difference, other than you just saying econ majors aren't hired. From DC's recent cohort, quite a few are going to Apple after going into their Financial Developer program, and a ton participate in those trainee programs for financial planning and many of those jobs list "Finance, Financial Economics, Econ,..." as acceptable degrees. Sure, many went into IB or Consulting, but most end up in typical financial positions that you would get from a decent finance program. Of course, more people are going into Econ grad school-there's more economics to do out in the academic world, and if your goal is to work for the Fed or some prime-time international NPO, grad programs place well into them. The math majors going into finance want to be quants, not really surprising to me.

From what school? You have to go beyond the Top 50 to understand the difference for an Econ major vs a Finance major and career paths.

Actually…there is plenty of grad school work for Finance PhDs but schools have a hard time getting people to pursue those PhDs…that is why a finance PhD comes with a generous stipend and it is one of the few academic areas with lots of tenure-track jobs.

I don't see why. The type of students to get into a Finance PhD program are top students. The type of students to get into a good finance development program are from top schools overwhelmingly (in the case of Apple, they take a few "local" students at Santa Clara University for DEI). If you have the chops to get into a good finance career, you typically come from the top 50 or 100 colleges.
DC attended CMC.

Well…it depends a ton if you have an Econ or finance degree from CMC vs a finance or Econ degree from say University of Alabama. The finance majors probably have an easier time getting a job in the Coca Cola management trainee program vs the Econ majors…or a real world example, getting a job in the Capital One trainee program.

CMC doesn't have a finance undergrad program. I'm not sure about Capital one specifically, but most finance development programs do list econ as a sought-after background. Would you really want to design a finance program that excludes Harvard econ grads for example? If you have any prominence, you'll definitely be getting applications from top colleges, so it wouldn't really help to close those students off with a finance major requirement.

Most Harvard grads have little interest working for a F500 company…even if you designed a program for them I bet you wouldn’t even fill 50 interview slots at Harvard for say the Ford or Eli Lilly or John Deere Finance/Trainee program.

Companies know their target audience and are way more likely to recruit from Penn State than Harvard.

Really? It seems like people are always saying you need to graduate from places like Harvard to get in the door at Goldman Sachs, Apple, etc. Investment banking, engineering, etc. are no longer paths of interest for Harvard et al. grads?

You mentioned Goldman and Tech…there are only like 3 investment banks in the Fortune 500.

I guess you don’t understand that Harvard grade want to work for PE firms, hedge funds, VC funds…and yes maybe 20 tech companies but actually they want to work at OpenAI or other hot tech startups. Most of these firms pay crazy amounts but are not Fortune 500 companies.

There are probably 400 Fortune 500 companies that certainly aren’t top targets for Harvard grads.

CS students are desperate for a job. This isn't 2015.

Not from Harvard and the other top schools: no desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an MBA and still believe that if you are going to go to B-school then there is no need to do an undergraduate business major. That may be less true today than it was in my day but I still find the most successful people I know, including younger generation, have an MBA and not just undergrad business. So that's what I advised my DC who wants to get an MBA as well.

+1

Shows lack of curiosity and depth to waste the undergrad years on a generic business degree before going on to Business School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dcum always recommends CS and Engineering as degrees with best employment but I recruit finance undergrad and it is a decent major.

I don't really see the difference between DCUM promoting econ majors and finance degrees. They overwhelmingly go to the same careers.

That’s not really true. Econ and Finance majors from top schools may end up in IB and consulting, but you will find more Finance majors working for F500 companies either in trainee programs or going into financial planning & analysis or treasury functions. Econ majors aren’t usually hired for these roles.

Statistically, you have far more Econ majors pursuing graduate work vs finance majors as well (and interestingly, you have Math and Econ majors pursuing finance PhDs in higher numbers than finance undergrads).

I don't necessarily see the difference, other than you just saying econ majors aren't hired. From DC's recent cohort, quite a few are going to Apple after going into their Financial Developer program, and a ton participate in those trainee programs for financial planning and many of those jobs list "Finance, Financial Economics, Econ,..." as acceptable degrees. Sure, many went into IB or Consulting, but most end up in typical financial positions that you would get from a decent finance program. Of course, more people are going into Econ grad school-there's more economics to do out in the academic world, and if your goal is to work for the Fed or some prime-time international NPO, grad programs place well into them. The math majors going into finance want to be quants, not really surprising to me.

From what school? You have to go beyond the Top 50 to understand the difference for an Econ major vs a Finance major and career paths.

Actually…there is plenty of grad school work for Finance PhDs but schools have a hard time getting people to pursue those PhDs…that is why a finance PhD comes with a generous stipend and it is one of the few academic areas with lots of tenure-track jobs.

I don't see why. The type of students to get into a Finance PhD program are top students. The type of students to get into a good finance development program are from top schools overwhelmingly (in the case of Apple, they take a few "local" students at Santa Clara University for DEI). If you have the chops to get into a good finance career, you typically come from the top 50 or 100 colleges.
DC attended CMC.

Well…it depends a ton if you have an Econ or finance degree from CMC vs a finance or Econ degree from say University of Alabama. The finance majors probably have an easier time getting a job in the Coca Cola management trainee program vs the Econ majors…or a real world example, getting a job in the Capital One trainee program.

CMC doesn't have a finance undergrad program. I'm not sure about Capital one specifically, but most finance development programs do list econ as a sought-after background. Would you really want to design a finance program that excludes Harvard econ grads for example? If you have any prominence, you'll definitely be getting applications from top colleges, so it wouldn't really help to close those students off with a finance major requirement.

Most Harvard grads have little interest working for a F500 company…even if you designed a program for them I bet you wouldn’t even fill 50 interview slots at Harvard for say the Ford or Eli Lilly or John Deere Finance/Trainee program.

Companies know their target audience and are way more likely to recruit from Penn State than Harvard.

Really? It seems like people are always saying you need to graduate from places like Harvard to get in the door at Goldman Sachs, Apple, etc. Investment banking, engineering, etc. are no longer paths of interest for Harvard et al. grads?

You mentioned Goldman and Tech…there are only like 3 investment banks in the Fortune 500.

I guess you don’t understand that Harvard grade want to work for PE firms, hedge funds, VC funds…and yes maybe 20 tech companies but actually they want to work at OpenAI or other hot tech startups. Most of these firms pay crazy amounts but are not Fortune 500 companies.

There are probably 400 Fortune 500 companies that certainly aren’t top targets for Harvard grads.

Please, many a Harvard grad will line up to be chosen by Google or any top tech firm, it doesn't need to be AI
-A yale grad.

Once more…nobody disputes that Harvard grads aren’t knocking down the door at Coca Cola, Eli Lilly, Ford, McDonalds…all the “old school” companies that actually comprise the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies.

Hence, why those companies don’t spend much time recruiting Harvard grads.

Harvard has over 400 alum in Eli Lilly, and Eli Lilly really is heavy on getting grad school graduates. I have no idea how the finance students are doing but seeing as it is a medicine company and Harvard is the top biological sciences university in the US, i don’t think they’re struggling to get Harvard talent.

Not for their management trainee program for undergrads. We aren’t talking about scientific positions for graduate degree roles, but business roles at these companies.

I mention Eli Lilly because their two top schools for this program are IU (not surprising as an Indiana company) and Penn State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dcum always recommends CS and Engineering as degrees with best employment but I recruit finance undergrad and it is a decent major.

I don't really see the difference between DCUM promoting econ majors and finance degrees. They overwhelmingly go to the same careers.

That’s not really true. Econ and Finance majors from top schools may end up in IB and consulting, but you will find more Finance majors working for F500 companies either in trainee programs or going into financial planning & analysis or treasury functions. Econ majors aren’t usually hired for these roles.

Statistically, you have far more Econ majors pursuing graduate work vs finance majors as well (and interestingly, you have Math and Econ majors pursuing finance PhDs in higher numbers than finance undergrads).

I don't necessarily see the difference, other than you just saying econ majors aren't hired. From DC's recent cohort, quite a few are going to Apple after going into their Financial Developer program, and a ton participate in those trainee programs for financial planning and many of those jobs list "Finance, Financial Economics, Econ,..." as acceptable degrees. Sure, many went into IB or Consulting, but most end up in typical financial positions that you would get from a decent finance program. Of course, more people are going into Econ grad school-there's more economics to do out in the academic world, and if your goal is to work for the Fed or some prime-time international NPO, grad programs place well into them. The math majors going into finance want to be quants, not really surprising to me.

From what school? You have to go beyond the Top 50 to understand the difference for an Econ major vs a Finance major and career paths.

Actually…there is plenty of grad school work for Finance PhDs but schools have a hard time getting people to pursue those PhDs…that is why a finance PhD comes with a generous stipend and it is one of the few academic areas with lots of tenure-track jobs.

I don't see why. The type of students to get into a Finance PhD program are top students. The type of students to get into a good finance development program are from top schools overwhelmingly (in the case of Apple, they take a few "local" students at Santa Clara University for DEI). If you have the chops to get into a good finance career, you typically come from the top 50 or 100 colleges.
DC attended CMC.

Well…it depends a ton if you have an Econ or finance degree from CMC vs a finance or Econ degree from say University of Alabama. The finance majors probably have an easier time getting a job in the Coca Cola management trainee program vs the Econ majors…or a real world example, getting a job in the Capital One trainee program.

CMC doesn't have a finance undergrad program. I'm not sure about Capital one specifically, but most finance development programs do list econ as a sought-after background. Would you really want to design a finance program that excludes Harvard econ grads for example? If you have any prominence, you'll definitely be getting applications from top colleges, so it wouldn't really help to close those students off with a finance major requirement.

Most Harvard grads have little interest working for a F500 company…even if you designed a program for them I bet you wouldn’t even fill 50 interview slots at Harvard for say the Ford or Eli Lilly or John Deere Finance/Trainee program.

Companies know their target audience and are way more likely to recruit from Penn State than Harvard.

Really? It seems like people are always saying you need to graduate from places like Harvard to get in the door at Goldman Sachs, Apple, etc. Investment banking, engineering, etc. are no longer paths of interest for Harvard et al. grads?

You mentioned Goldman and Tech…there are only like 3 investment banks in the Fortune 500.

I guess you don’t understand that Harvard grade want to work for PE firms, hedge funds, VC funds…and yes maybe 20 tech companies but actually they want to work at OpenAI or other hot tech startups. Most of these firms pay crazy amounts but are not Fortune 500 companies.

There are probably 400 Fortune 500 companies that certainly aren’t top targets for Harvard grads.

Please, many a Harvard grad will line up to be chosen by Google or any top tech firm, it doesn't need to be AI
-A yale grad.

Once more…nobody disputes that Harvard grads aren’t knocking down the door at Coca Cola, Eli Lilly, Ford, McDonalds…all the “old school” companies that actually comprise the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies.

Hence, why those companies don’t spend much time recruiting Harvard grads.

Harvard has over 400 alum in Eli Lilly, and Eli Lilly really is heavy on getting grad school graduates. I have no idea how the finance students are doing but seeing as it is a medicine company and Harvard is the top biological sciences university in the US, i don’t think they’re struggling to get Harvard talent.

Not for their management trainee program for undergrads. We aren’t talking about scientific positions for graduate degree roles, but business roles at these companies.

I mention Eli Lilly because their two top schools for this program are IU (not surprising as an Indiana company) and Penn State.

I’m not following. Because some niche management program isn’t specifically filled by top college grads (and honestly we don’t even have proof for that, there’s not suspicious reason to believe many top college grads are in this management program), top college grads don’t want to go into F500 companies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many good schools don’t even have undergrad business degrees.

This. Think about that.

+1 But I imagine OP won't understand that because OP has magic data showing the majors of DCUM offspring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many good schools don’t even have undergrad business degrees.

This. Think about that.

+1 But I imagine OP won't understand that because OP has magic data showing the majors of DCUM offspring.

Most of this post can be summed up as “smart people get good careers”
“Mediocre people do better in careers that net good outcomes”
“Dumb/passionless people should go to business specializations like Accounting or MIS.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

LOL, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

LOL, no.

What then English? Communications? Psychology? Art history?
LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:dcum always recommends CS and Engineering as degrees with best employment but I recruit finance undergrad and it is a decent major.

I don't really see the difference between DCUM promoting econ majors and finance degrees. They overwhelmingly go to the same careers.

That’s not really true. Econ and Finance majors from top schools may end up in IB and consulting, but you will find more Finance majors working for F500 companies either in trainee programs or going into financial planning & analysis or treasury functions. Econ majors aren’t usually hired for these roles.

Statistically, you have far more Econ majors pursuing graduate work vs finance majors as well (and interestingly, you have Math and Econ majors pursuing finance PhDs in higher numbers than finance undergrads).

I don't necessarily see the difference, other than you just saying econ majors aren't hired. From DC's recent cohort, quite a few are going to Apple after going into their Financial Developer program, and a ton participate in those trainee programs for financial planning and many of those jobs list "Finance, Financial Economics, Econ,..." as acceptable degrees. Sure, many went into IB or Consulting, but most end up in typical financial positions that you would get from a decent finance program. Of course, more people are going into Econ grad school-there's more economics to do out in the academic world, and if your goal is to work for the Fed or some prime-time international NPO, grad programs place well into them. The math majors going into finance want to be quants, not really surprising to me.

From what school? You have to go beyond the Top 50 to understand the difference for an Econ major vs a Finance major and career paths.

Actually…there is plenty of grad school work for Finance PhDs but schools have a hard time getting people to pursue those PhDs…that is why a finance PhD comes with a generous stipend and it is one of the few academic areas with lots of tenure-track jobs.

I don't see why. The type of students to get into a Finance PhD program are top students. The type of students to get into a good finance development program are from top schools overwhelmingly (in the case of Apple, they take a few "local" students at Santa Clara University for DEI). If you have the chops to get into a good finance career, you typically come from the top 50 or 100 colleges.
DC attended CMC.

Well…it depends a ton if you have an Econ or finance degree from CMC vs a finance or Econ degree from say University of Alabama. The finance majors probably have an easier time getting a job in the Coca Cola management trainee program vs the Econ majors…or a real world example, getting a job in the Capital One trainee program.

CMC doesn't have a finance undergrad program. I'm not sure about Capital one specifically, but most finance development programs do list econ as a sought-after background. Would you really want to design a finance program that excludes Harvard econ grads for example? If you have any prominence, you'll definitely be getting applications from top colleges, so it wouldn't really help to close those students off with a finance major requirement.

Most Harvard grads have little interest working for a F500 company…even if you designed a program for them I bet you wouldn’t even fill 50 interview slots at Harvard for say the Ford or Eli Lilly or John Deere Finance/Trainee program.

Companies know their target audience and are way more likely to recruit from Penn State than Harvard.

Really? It seems like people are always saying you need to graduate from places like Harvard to get in the door at Goldman Sachs, Apple, etc. Investment banking, engineering, etc. are no longer paths of interest for Harvard et al. grads?

You mentioned Goldman and Tech…there are only like 3 investment banks in the Fortune 500.

I guess you don’t understand that Harvard grade want to work for PE firms, hedge funds, VC funds…and yes maybe 20 tech companies but actually they want to work at OpenAI or other hot tech startups. Most of these firms pay crazy amounts but are not Fortune 500 companies.

There are probably 400 Fortune 500 companies that certainly aren’t top targets for Harvard grads.

Please, many a Harvard grad will line up to be chosen by Google or any top tech firm, it doesn't need to be AI
-A yale grad.

Once more…nobody disputes that Harvard grads aren’t knocking down the door at Coca Cola, Eli Lilly, Ford, McDonalds…all the “old school” companies that actually comprise the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies.

Hence, why those companies don’t spend much time recruiting Harvard grads.

Harvard has over 400 alum in Eli Lilly, and Eli Lilly really is heavy on getting grad school graduates. I have no idea how the finance students are doing but seeing as it is a medicine company and Harvard is the top biological sciences university in the US, i don’t think they’re struggling to get Harvard talent.

Not for their management trainee program for undergrads. We aren’t talking about scientific positions for graduate degree roles, but business roles at these companies.

I mention Eli Lilly because their two top schools for this program are IU (not surprising as an Indiana company) and Penn State.

I’m not following. Because some niche management program isn’t specifically filled by top college grads (and honestly we don’t even have proof for that, there’s not suspicious reason to believe many top college grads are in this management program), top college grads don’t want to go into F500 companies?

Isn't location a factor as well? I would think many Ivy grads, especially if they have no ties to Indiana/the Midwest, would not have Indianapolis as a top choice to live post-grad. But I wonder if you looked at a similar company on the coasts, there may be more Harvard/other top 20 grads. Hiring really is affected by locality - for example, Baruch and Rutgers are top feeders to top NY Investment banks. U of Washington sends a lot to Amazon and Microsoft. Way more so than similarly ranked schools on the other side of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

LOL, no.

What then English? Communications? Psychology? Art history?
LOL

Some would say Econ is a pretty smart person major…philosophy…there’s quite a few with smart cookies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

LOL, no.

At the four schools I have sent children to, the undergrad business program is most selective and high stats behind college of engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a major for academically smart kids.

True, outside of the top undergrad business programs (Wharton, Mit, Cornell, and about 5 others) it is not where smart kids land. Look at the smartest kids from the top private high schools and top publics: Engineering, other stem, Liberal Arts (typically prelaw or prePhD goals, for the smartest).

Again not true at all.
If a university has a business program, it's usually higher demand and more competitive to get in.
Students are smarter on the average.

A student at IU Kelley may be smarter than the average IU student, but those students in IU Kelley are NOT on average the same level of smarts as students from the top rigor/most academic group of top private and top public high schools. Those kids do Stem, Engineering, Liberal Arts at top schools, and if they want business they go to the big names, Wharton et al.
OP asked why DCum looks down on it—that is why. And it is consistent with what the PP teacher said regarding their high school, and what the vast majority of UMC parents see in their circles.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
It's especially competitive to get into the business programs at top schools if they have business programs.
UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, Michigan, Notre Dame, Berkeley, NYU, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.

At many of these schools, you have to competitively apply to the program after you get accepted to the university.
Thus, if they are in a business school, they are smarter on the average.

I don't see your logic. Because you have to apply separately, the kids are smarter. I'd venture to guess the average Physics student is smarter than an honors english student, but the english student will have to apply separately to get into his/her honors program.

Don't you understand 'on the average'??
On the average, students at MIT are smarter than students at UAlabama.
O the average, students in business programs are smarter than English major students.

Yes, I'm saying just slapping that to anything can be false.
On the average anthropology majors are smarter than sociology majors. Proof? none, but the anthropology major at X and Y school has to be applied to.
On the average, you have massively idiotic takes-just, on the average though.

Are you pretending to be dumb?
It's a common sense and simple logic.
It's competitive admission.
Smarter students get in and less smart ones get rejected.

Let me guess, you’re an undergraduate business major? Just because it’s competitive admission doesn’t mean the kids are smarter. Not everyone applies. Only the kids who want to pursue undergrad business degrees. And most agree that the most academically smart kids are not interested in undergrad business degrees.

Most academically smart kids go into STEM or Business.
Those programs are competitive and they are smarter on the average.

LOL, no.

At the four schools I have sent children to, the undergrad business program is most selective and high stats behind college of engineering.

That’s not typical. Usually Nursing, Engineering, and CS are the most selective colleges, along with highly specialized arts programs occasionally

[Anonymous]

Graduated from a college with supposedly a top 5 undergrad business programs. Their course work was for an 8th grader and the teacher was explaining slope in one of their lectures. Unlike these comments trying to cope, business majors know who they are: pretty middle of the road, indecisive and passionless but want money, enough drive to do well but lacking intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Which schools have non competitive undergrad business school admissions?! (Relative to their overall admissions/ranking.) Please share! My son's top two choices are Wisconsin and Indiana and we feel confident(ish) about his chances of getting into the universities as a whole, but getting into the business programs is a whole different ball game that is very competitive and requires higher stats than the university in general!