Economics or Engineering degree

Economics is as you rightly thought looked upon better simply because it's harder to get into.

I know Economics seems like a really interesting degree and it truly is. But be realistic in terms of expectations when it comes to job prospects. Nobody can convince me that an Economics degree offers more opportunities than Engineering... You will end up in finance/sales/banking/other generic corporate jobs, where a degree in Actuarial Science/Accounting/Finance would be far more competitive. The courses I listed are far more practically oriented whereas Economics tends to be more philosophical - do not expect to practice the majority of things you study, especially the more interesting concepts.

You can not go wrong with Engineering. Society will always be in need of scientists and engineers. Chances are you will be paid more and do something, which actually benefits the rest of society.

...Or you can end up in professional jobs in the public or private sector which actually require further training in Economics .

Lol yh which is why the average starting salary for Econ grads are higher than Engineering grads at all the better unis

But it's easier to get into a better uni doing engineering as it usually has lower grade boundaries

One question. Are you actually interested in Engineering? You haven't even taken Physics so how do you know you would be?

...Or you can end up in professional jobs in the public or private sector which actually require further training in Economics .

Lol yh which is why the average starting salary for Econ grads are higher than Engineering grads at all the better unis

I think if you do maths then physics isn't a must at some unis

Posted from TSR Mobile

It is harder to get into because it is popular, not because it is more demanding.

Never said it was more demanding. But the fact it is harder to get into does not go unnoticed in the job market. In no way are people in specialist disciplines "far more competitive". Certainly not the general roles and even for the roles specifically related to that discipline Economics grads are no at a disadvantage in the slightest. For example Accounting and Finance, the big 4 accouting firms don't care about your academic backgrounds. They take people from all, including the arts. Only for Actuarial Science would you have a case, but that's a very niche area. And even then, the broader skill set of an Economics grad would see them in better stead in all areas outside of actuarial science.

With regards to whether it is indeed more demanding, it's difficult to objectively argue for one way or the other. You claim Economics is a lot more philosophical but for Bsc courses at the top universities it is very mathematical.

You have a point, but my opinion is that the job market shifts more and more towards towards graduates with a specific skill/ability - especially in the US for example. I like to maintain a global perspective on subject prospects - I do not intend to work only in the UK and I do not think any reasonable man/woman should limit his/her opinion based on statistics just for the UK.

If anything, most if not all global trends tend to stem from the most developed countries. Specialists are more valued now and this is going to snowball even more in the future. I am not trying to devalue Economics as a subject - I am just stating my opinion, based on my observation.

When it comes to your second paragraph - I intended to say that Economics is more philosophical than the specialist degrees I mentioned, not in general. I did not word my argument correctly, so I apologise.

And just to clarify and not let the other guy confuse. Economics degrees will have you better off than Accounting and Finance or Actuarial Science. Actual degree content matters very little, Economics is as you rightly thought looked upon better simply because it's harder to get into. There's a reason why Accounting and Finance only needs AAB at LSE (might have gone up now). Actuarial Science is very specialised, so unless you want to be an actuary there's no advantage in it.

Disagree with bold comment for the following reason:
- For many finance/accounting careers, LSE Econ and LSE A+F guys will have pretty much the same prospects. A+F degrees are more useful than econ degrees for IB careers also. I've met quite a few econ guys who lack the accounting understanding which ultimately undid them at interviews. A+F is just more applicable in the real world. That's not to say econ guys can't quickly learn all that's needed for IB.

- I respect econ is harder than A+F in terms of difficulty. But I don't see the point doing a harder degree just because of prestige when you could do a more relevant degree (assuming you wanted a finance career in the case of the OP), which frees up more time for applications, ECs etc.

Because Economics looks way better than A+F to most employers. Maybe if your degree is from LSE then it won't really matter whether you do Economics or A+F, but if its from a lower-tier uni then it will start to matter. So if someone decided to apply for A+F courses instead of Economics courses and then got rejected from LSE and went to a lower-tier uni then they would have lower prospects than if they had chosen Economics.

Disagree with bold comment for the following reason:
- For many finance/accounting careers, LSE Econ and LSE A+F guys will have pretty much the same prospects. A+F degrees are more useful than econ degrees for IB careers also. I've met quite a few econ guys who lack the accounting understanding which ultimately undid them at interviews. A+F is just more applicable in the real world. That's not to say econ guys can't quickly learn all that's needed for IB.

- I respect econ is harder than A+F in terms of difficulty. But I don't see the point doing a harder degree just because of prestige when you could do a more relevant degree (assuming you wanted a finance career in the case of the OP), which frees up more time for applications, ECs etc.

I do A+F at a RG which isn't Ox/LSE/UCL/Warwick and I've landed IBD interviews and an offer whilst many econ guys at better unis haven't. Same is said for friends on my course. I know it's anectodal but I've simply seen no difference. This isn't to show off it's just to prove a point. Any difference in prospects is down to the individuals themselves rather than the course they study - when it comes to econ vs. A+F.

I think that's plausible. For specifically Accounting and Finance related careers, there may be very little difference once controlling for university. Outside of A & F though, Economics holds an edge imo, say for example in Consulting or other roles in industries outside of A & F. With regards to IB, you have a point with respect to back and mid office roles. From my experience, they care less about prestige. However, for front office, once controlling for university and extra-curriculars (ie assuming they research and are knowledgeable about the role), I think Economics grads have the edge. Purely from the angle of banks being prestige whores.



That said, congrats on the IBD interviews. It's an achievement. Don't get me wrong OP. At the end of the day, subject is one of many factors that will come into play when you hit the job market. I would echo the idea that the individual is more important than the subject on your CV. My perception of Econ grads being more competitive than A & F grads may just be reflecting the quality of Econ grads being better than A & F grads rather than the subject choice in and of itself being the causal reason.

Your choice:

1. Earn lots of money doing something useful.
2. Earn less money do something useless.