Who has a better chance of getting into IB/Finance/etc: Economist or Engineer? Watch

Beet
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
I hear people saying that Engineers can do jobs that Economists may do. However, in reality, who tends to be employed more for IB/Finance/etc? And iss there a considerable difference?


If you wanna look at the above differently... consider 2 students: one does Engineering, Economics and Management(/Engineering) at Oxford(/Cambridge), yet the other does Economics and Management(/Economics).

Who has the greater chance of being employed into a top IB/Finance/etc?
0
reply
Swayum
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
Ceteris paribus? The economist. In reality? The better applicant.
0
reply
stainluss
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 years ago
#3
(Original post by Beet)
I hear people saying that Engineers can do jobs that Economists may do. However, in reality, who tends to be employed more for IB/Finance/etc? And iss there a considerable difference?


If you wanna look at the above differently... consider 2 students: one does Engineering, Economics and Management(/Engineering) at Oxford(/Cambridge), yet the other does Economics and Management(/Economics).

Who has the greater chance of being employed into a top IB/Finance/etc?
Yes, Economists are far better qualified than engineers
0
reply
illy123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
Economist; economics is the hardest course to get into at a top 5 uni so it carries more prestige. Econ at Cambs/LSE (Maths Cambs too) is probably the best course to do to go into IB.

No bias lol
0
reply
IWantSomeMushu
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 years ago
#5
Is this a serious question?
0
reply
Medicine Man
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 years ago
#6
(Original post by illy123)
Economist; economics is the hardest course to get into at a top 5 uni so it carries more prestige.

No bias lol
Surely getting into med school anywhere is harder!

No bias

Just joking - Economics is well hard to get ino! :p:
0
reply
coldfusion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 years ago
#7
theoretically the economist but in reality it's gonna be the better applicant. No 2 applicants are the same.
0
reply
AlexCash
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
Many more factors than choice of degree.
0
reply
HushPush
Badges: 0
#9
Report 9 years ago
#9
(Original post by illy123)
Economist; economics is the hardest course to get into at a top 5 uni so it carries more prestige. Econ at Cambs/LSE (Maths Cambs too) is probably the best course to do to go into IB.
Your attempts to in effect dismiss Oxford or indeed in someway prove Cambridge being better than Oxford (reletentlessly as can be seen through some of your previous posts - please don't ask me to "provide the links to these threads", as I think you'd have to be extremly lazy/ignorant to not be able to do this, or realise this, yourself), WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE I might add, are quite pathetic ha! :rolleyes:

..Unless of course that is, you can indeed find a SINGLE PIECE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE to back up your claim that Econ at Cambridge/LSE carries more prestigue than say at Oxford (despite the latter's E&M course being voted the most employable degree and despite it being the toughest economics based degree to get into in the UK - E&M acceptance rate is at 6% this cycle I believe, where as Cambridge is still all the way up at 11%; LSE we'll have to discount as many many more people apply for the university, in part because it doesn't involve such an extensive application process as Oxbridge, but in pure number terms, has the hardest acceptance rate indeed).Care to provide the info from which you form your statement from, or is this all your A-level mind has learnt yet about the real/IB world?

OP - despite some of the trash that has been spouted above (such as that from illy123 for example), engineering is just as good as economics. Very little of economics really plays any role at all when working in IB and furthermore, dependent on the role you go for and indeed the content of the course you are studying, it may even help you when applying for more (non-quant) mathematics heavy roles (i.e. structuring etc). Bottom line is, neither the university that you go to (i.e. providing you are at least from Oxbridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL etc), nor the course (providing it isn't heavily non-mathetical depending on your IB goals), will matter. It will be down to whether you are better candidate than you counter-part(s).

Good Luck.
0
reply
Anon the 7th
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 years ago
#10
The Economist.
0
reply
illy123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
(Original post by HushPush)
Your attempts to in effect dismiss Oxford or indeed in someway prove Cambridge being better than Oxford (reletentlessly as can be seen through some of your previous posts - please don't ask me to "provide the links to these threads", as I think you'd have to be extremly lazy/ignorant to not be able to do this, or realise this, yourself), WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE I might add, are quite pathetic ha! :rolleyes:

..Unless of course that is, you can indeed find a SINGLE PIECE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE to back up your claim that Econ at Cambridge/LSE carries more prestigue than say at Oxford (despite the latter's E&M course being voted the most employable degree and despite it being the toughest economics based degree to get into in the UK - E&M acceptance rate is at 6% this cycle I believe, where as Cambridge is still all the way up at 11%; LSE we'll have to discount as many many more people apply for the university, in part because it doesn't involve such an extensive application process as Oxbridge, but in pure number terms, has the hardest acceptance rate indeed).Care to provide the info from which you form your statement from, or is this all your A-level mind has learnt yet about the real/IB world?

OP - despite some of the trash that has been spouted above (such as that from illy123 for example), engineering is just as good as economics. Very little of economics really plays any role at all when working in IB and furthermore, dependent on the role you go for and indeed the content of the course you are studying, it may even help you when applying for more (non-quant) mathematics heavy roles (i.e. structuring etc). Bottom line is, neither the university that you go to (i.e. providing you are at least from Oxbridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL etc), nor the course (providing it isn't heavily non-mathetical depending on your IB goals), will matter. It will be down to whether you are better candidate than you counter-part(s).

Good Luck.
Sorry, you are right. For some reason I don't really consider Oxford to have a prestigious economics course - perhaps in part because most of the qualified economists whom I have talked to (RES winners, prestigious internships, etc) all come from Cambridge and LSE, as well as famous Economists (Krugman, BBC's Stephanomics, etc). However, FT's Wolf, Hartford, Kay do come from Oxford.

Please note, I am not using the above for evidence in proving which course is better (as that would not be logical ) but merely examining why I've never thought about the Oxford economics course. Most potential students whom I have met (and when I was applying) had hopes to go for LSE/Cambridge and not Oxford as they wanted to study economics without mixing it with management (which they have no idea bout) and I guess that must have made an impression.

I don't have any reliable evidence that any one of the courses between Cambs, LSE, Oxford is better than the other - so it would be illogical for me to therefore hold a view on the matter.
0
reply
Easywellyes
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
(Original post by HushPush)
Your attempts to in effect dismiss Oxford or indeed in someway prove Cambridge being better than Oxford (reletentlessly as can be seen through some of your previous posts - please don't ask me to "provide the links to these threads", as I think you'd have to be extremly lazy/ignorant to not be able to do this, or realise this, yourself), WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE I might add, are quite pathetic ha! :rolleyes:

..Unless of course that is, you can indeed find a SINGLE PIECE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE to back up your claim that Econ at Cambridge/LSE carries more prestigue than say at Oxford (despite the latter's E&M course being voted the most employable degree and despite it being the toughest economics based degree to get into in the UK - E&M acceptance rate is at 6% this cycle I believe, where as Cambridge is still all the way up at 11%; LSE we'll have to discount as many many more people apply for the university, in part because it doesn't involve such an extensive application process as Oxbridge, but in pure number terms, has the hardest acceptance rate indeed).Care to provide the info from which you form your statement from, or is this all your A-level mind has learnt yet about the real/IB world?

OP - despite some of the trash that has been spouted above (such as that from illy123 for example), engineering is just as good as economics. Very little of economics really plays any role at all when working in IB and furthermore, dependent on the role you go for and indeed the content of the course you are studying, it may even help you when applying for more (non-quant) mathematics heavy roles (i.e. structuring etc). Bottom line is, neither the university that you go to (i.e. providing you are at least from Oxbridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL etc), nor the course (providing it isn't heavily non-mathetical depending on your IB goals), will matter. It will be down to whether you are better candidate than you counter-part(s).

Good Luck.
The truth is that any would be economists I know disregard Oxford at undergrad as they don't want to dilute their course with Management (or P&P).

That's not to say Oxford is bad at economics - they just don't tend to attract people who are really into economics at undergrad level.

I know people who have done/doing all of the courses you talk about, and I can assure you there is more maths involved in LSE/Cambridges courses. In my opinion (and a lot of peoples I know), the more quantitive the degree - the better.
0
reply
Liquidus Zeromus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 9 years ago
#13
(Original post by Swayum)
Ceteris paribus? The economist. In reality? The better applicant.
:ditto:

An economics course should give you a much stronger position, but it depends on who's applying.
0
reply
Easywellyes
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 years ago
#14
(Original post by illy123)
as well as famous Economists (Krugman, BBC's Stephanomics, etc). However, FT's Wolf, Hartford, Kay do come from Oxford.
Oh please, famous? :facepalm:

And John Kay was a prof at LSE for awhile (if I'm not mistaken) aswell as Oxford.
0
reply
HushPush
Badges: 0
#15
Report 9 years ago
#15
(Original post by Easywellyes)
The truth is that any would be economists I know disregard Oxford at undergrad as they don't want to dilute their course with Management (or P&P).

That's not to say Oxford is bad at economics - they just don't tend to attract people who are really into economics at undergrad level.

I know people who have done/doing all of the courses you talk about, and I can assure you there is more maths involved in LSE/Cambridges courses. In my opinion (and a lot of peoples I know), the more quantitive the degree - the better.
You do realise what sub-forum we are in yes?

If were talking in terms of an academic view-point (i.e. those who wish to go into academia as a goal), by all means I would say Cambridge Economics would perhaps trump Oxford and even my economics course at LSE (partly b/c its reputation comes from being one of the oldest economics courses, alongside the LSE, where Oxford only started teaching E&M about 15 years ago I believe). But were talking about banking; which is completly the other way around - where Oxford has one of the best (exlcuding LBS and other post-grad specialist schools) business schools in the country/EU (FAR FAR better than judge for example imo), and thus the advantages this brings along to the university as a whole. One of the world's largest hedge funds has opended up a quant centre there, and they choose to do so over the LSE (having ruled Cambridge aside from the start), despite our efforts to 'persuade' them to stay in London (where argubably it would have been more applicable for a financial institution etc).

On the topic of management - it is seen in this country as some sort of inferior subject, mainly b/c it gets used by every tom **** and harry university to make their courses sound better. In the US, were most management theory originated, it is completely the other way around. Management is seen as a subject better studied than economics, and those who have developed the subject have become the best business schools in the world (re: Wharton and HBS).
0
reply
HushPush
Badges: 0
#16
Report 9 years ago
#16
(Original post by illy123)
Sorry, you are right. For some reason I don't really consider Oxford to have a prestigious economics course - perhaps in part because most of the qualified economists whom I have talked to (RES winners, prestigious internships, etc) all come from Cambridge and LSE, as well as famous Economists (Krugman, BBC's Stephanomics, etc). However, FT's Wolf, Hartford, Kay do come from Oxford.
That's because the economic courses at Cambridge and LSE are +60 years old - where as Oxford starting teaching E&M in 1997 (i.e. just over 10 years ago). Unless therefore, Kenyes et al all somehow came back to life to study economics again, there is no way Oxford can match the supposid 'prestigue' (from an academia viewpoint that is) b/c it is impossible for them to do so.

Its the same thing with say, PPE at Oxford, and the alternatives offered at Cambridge (SPS) and LSE. These latter courses won't have the prestigue of the PPE at Oxford for a long time, b/c PPE in itself has been around for a century plus.

My point - it's history which makes prestigue, and thus is fairly pointless as a argument for or against how good a course is today, nor is looking at alumni a relevant matter.
0
reply
HushPush
Badges: 0
#17
Report 9 years ago
#17
(Original post by Easywellyes)
Oh please, famous? :facepalm:

And John Kay was a prof at LSE for awhile (if I'm not mistaken) aswell as Oxford.
I would count Martin Wolf as famous (not in a historical sense) - he is a brilliant economist and commentator in my view.
0
reply
ElemenT'
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 9 years ago
#18
Economics.
0
reply
illy123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 9 years ago
#19
(Original post by HushPush)
You do realise what sub-forum we are in yes?

If were talking in terms of an academic view-point (i.e. those who wish to go into academia as a goal), by all means I would say Cambridge Economics would perhaps trump Oxford and even my economics course at LSE (partly b/c its reputation comes from being one of the oldest economics courses, alongside the LSE, where Oxford only started teaching E&M about 15 years ago I believe). But were talking about banking; which is completly the other way around - where Oxford has one of the best (exlcuding LBS and other post-grad specialist schools) business schools in the country/EU (FAR FAR better than judge for example imo), and thus the advantages this brings along to the university as a whole. One of the world's largest hedge funds has opended up a quant centre there, and they choose to do so over the LSE (having ruled Cambridge aside from the start), despite our efforts to 'persuade' them to stay in London (where argubably it would have been more applicable for a financial institution etc).

On the topic of management - it is seen in this country as some sort of inferior subject, mainly b/c it gets used by every tom **** and harry university to make their courses sound better. In the US, were most management theory originated, it is completely the other way around. Management is seen as a subject better studied than economics, and those who have developed the subject have become the best business schools in the world (re: Wharton and HBS).
Why would you say Oxford is seen as being better for IB when the course at Cambridge is seen as being more academically rigorous (partly due to its established history with Keynes and partly because the watered-down connotations of 'management' put off top economics students of Oxford who don't want to study anything but economics) and the course at LSE is also seen as more academically rigorous (due to its quantitative element and also influenced by its prolific share of the Nobel Prize Winners in Economics) as well as having better connections with the city through alumni and geographical location.

Surely the top IB firms must have a reason for seekign out Oxford over LSE/Cambridge. Oxford may have a lower admissions % than cambridge (however Cambridge economists generally have higher grades, e.g. UCAS tariff) however it does not have a lower % than LSE (you mention that some students are scared off by the applications process, however there is no reason to assume that they are less talented, and so the difficulty in getting in remains).
0
reply
Easywellyes
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 9 years ago
#20
(Original post by HushPush)
I would count Martin Wolf as famous (not in a historical sense) - he is a brilliant economist and commentator in my view.
I was more making fun of the fact that there are numerous (more) famous economists that could have been listed. That list did look like it was created by an A-level student (:rolleyes:).

Your posts confuse me. I don't see why an LSE student is defending Oxford. I also don't see why someone who seems to be taking an academic route (I could be mistaken, but I know that Msc is a well-known path to a Phd at a top 5 US econ program), seems to be disregarding the rigourousness, and quantitiveness, of courses - when these seem to be the things that you are following.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (249)
38.97%
No - but I will (44)
6.89%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.36%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (299)
46.79%

Watched Threads

View All