gianievve

I have a few questions about these two concentrations at Princeton:

1) Which degree provides the best prospects after graduating - a degree in economics, or a degree in Woody Woo (public/international affairs)?

2) What is the difference between majoring in econ and majoring in Woody Woo plus taking several econ classes as your requirements?

3) What do can you do with an econ degree that you couldn't do with a Woodrow Wilson School degree... and vice versa?

4) For someone who will eventually go to business or law school, which degree is "better"? Is there really any difference?

If you have any thoughts, comments, advice on this issue - please do post. Thanks!

thinkjose1

Can't answer the first three, but law schools or business schools don't care what your undergraduate major was.

An0nym0u5

i cant really answer any of those three either, but personally i think individuals will turn out better by choosing the field they love most (to an extent, and econ and woody woo are not fluff majors), regardless of what overall job prospects are.

zantedeschia

Well, what are you planning to do with your life? Do you want to go into international relations or politics or do you think you'll end up being a tax lawyer? If you want to be a diplomat, then woody woo, but if you're going to do corporate law, probably econ.

gianievve

Thanks for the advice guys

Problem is I'm not 100% sure what I'm planning to do for the rest of my life Probably corporate work or law or international relations so... what should I do?

My concern with the Woody Woo program is that you're studying a little bit of everything: econ, politics, sociology, psychology... but you do you really have an speciality, a good base knowledge of any one subject? I think Woody Woo has the problem of making students "a jack of all trades and a master of none"...

An0nym0u5

haha that is a common criticism, however because it is princetons only subjective concentration, it looks good on a resume. and, the robertson family (which granted the huge endowment to found woody woo) happens to be suing precisely because not enough of its graduates become diplomats, and rather go into business and consulting.

gianievve

I heard about the suing... would you have a link to the info?

What do you mean the only subjective concentration? Do most employers fully understand the meaning of the degree from Woody Woo, or are most unfamiliar with and would be like, "Hmm, okay, so you did a liberal artsy major in international affairs..." Is the Woody Woo degree really the most prestigious degree you can get from Princeton?

tunanfish

I would recommend reading this article:

http://www.princeton.edu/~sshimp/vol2no3/23shimp.html

I had originally thought about majoring in Woody Woo, but after reading this, and taking the Humanities Sequence, I now have no plans to do so.

gianievve

Thanks so much for the link tunan! I've just started reading and it covers just about everything I was concered about. Definitely an interesting read.

gianievve

Zant - I guess I've figured out what I would be studying if I were at another school. Double majoring in Economics and Psychology with a possible minor in Visual Arts. I guess the Woodrow Wilson degree is the closest possible thing to combining those two fields. I've considered studying either econ or psych....It's just such a shame that the nearest thing to a minor in Econ is a Finance Certificate, and the nearest thing to a Psychology minor is a Neuroscience Certificate. Both are way off and not what I'm interested in.

The article about Woody Woo is quite disturbing, actually. How can students be getting a degree in basically nothing? They should definitely have 'tracks' within the WWS that provide more focus because, as is, the lack of structure in the program is actually kinda scary.

Does anyone have a clue of how the degree is viewed outside Princeton? Is a WWS concentration just an insider thing, where only the Princeton community views it as prestigious, or do people outside the school see the program in a positive light?

zantedeschia

I actually think that outside people view it in a MORE POSITIVE light than those at princeton. Because really, it sounds like a fine program and the fact that it's selective and pretty unique to Princeton makes it look good. But only people who have insider's knowledge can really critique it, so I think pton students actually criticize it more. I think it would be impressive-looking on your resume, but so would an econ degree from Princeton, you know?

I think what you'll end up having to do is pick econ or psych and just take a lot of classes in the one you're not majoring in.

tunanfish

I would agree with Zant that it's viewed as more prestigious from without than within.

Also, have you thought about doing Econ with a WWS certificate? There's also the program in Political Economy, although I don't know too much about that.

Lastly, it sounds like one professor you would *love* is Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize a few years ago (for Economics, I think), and gave the opening address for the class of '08. He often talks about decision-making in various contexts, and when I attended a special dinner at Wu this spring with him, he talked about the keys to being happy, and gave what I thought was a pretty sound explanation, which follows:

Kahneman noted that there are certain experiences that we're more conscious of while we're doing them than others. For example, the first time you drove a car, you were very conscious that you were doing just that -- driving a car. But now that you've been driving for a year or two, probably, you don't really think about driving, or being in a car, for that matter, while you drive. But if you're on a roller coaster, you're definitely going to be aware that you're *on* a roller coaster.

OK, so what's the point? Kahneman's thesis was that, given a certain amount of disposible resources, you should apply those resources towards those ends and activities which you'll be conscious of while your doing them. What are some examples? Well, according to this model, laying out $65,000 for a Lexus SUV probably isn't very likely to make you happy: you'll tend to zone out while you're driving, and accessories like leather seats, a nice stereo, and so on, are things that you're going to become accustomed to, and, thus, appreciate them less -- in effect, an "appreciation depreciation!" :-) A good investment for happiness, on the other hand, might be spending the $65,000 on an incredibly lavish vacation. If you're getting completely pampered (and if you're not normally pampered at home) at the Ritz in Paris for two weeks, eating at five-star restaurants every night, and so on, these are experiences that you're very likely to be aware that you're participating in, while you're participating them. Therefore, even though the Lexus SUV may be nice, because you'll be less conscious of its niceness while you're in it, than you will be of the niceness of the Paris Ritz, you're likely to get more *happiness* (although perhaps less bang for your buck) from the Paris trip than the Lexus.

Another topic Kahneman talked about was perceived happiness, and I'll go for brevity on this one. Most people, if asked how they would feel if they won the lottery, think they would feel very happy. Yet Kahneman's research has shown that while lottery winners do tend to be very happy after they win the lottery, after about 6-12 months, they're only as happy as they were before they hit the jackpot. So while winning (or imagining yourself winning) will make you happy in the short term, in the long term, overflowing coffers won't necessarily equate to happiness. The same was true when Kahneman asked people how they would feel if they lost a limb: those interviewed thought they would feel less happy, and those who had recently lost a limb were less happy than they were before they lost a limb, but those who had lived for a longer span of time since losing their limb were, on average, no less happy than four-limbed people.

I think it's fairly clear that you can take a lot of this stuff to interesting applications in business and economics -- that's why Kahneman won the Nobel -- but a lot of this stuff is interesting just on its own. Prof. Kahneman's website is:

http://webscript.princeton.edu/~psyc...eman/index.php

gianievve

Kahneman's theory is definitely interesting. I have been reading up on a similar research project that studies satisfaction levels and the choice-making process from the consumer's point of view, so that's pretty cool!

Yes, several times, but it seems that the WWS only offers the certificate program for students interested in science/engineering. Their reasoning seems to be: "At Woody Woo you study econ anyway, so if you want to do econ, either do Woody Woo or join the Econ department." I wonder if psychology majors can get a Woody Woo certificate...?

Also, is the PPE program a CERTIFICATE Program? Because on Princeton's Academic website http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/, there is no mention of the Political Econ program. Maybe it's a new certficate program that's just been established...?

An0nym0u5

Oops sorry gianievve, I meant to say "selective" not "subjective."

joelj

you cannot do an econ major and a WWS certificate. you can't get the WWS cert if you major in any of the disciplines in the school: econ, his, pol, psy, soc. the WWS major is very dividing. some people love it, many people hate it because you don't graduate with a major in "anything". the Task Force instead of a JP tends to be much more difficult (many WWS majors say the task force is harder than the senior thesis). and in all honesty you shouldn't bank on getting into WWS. the selection process is non-sensical. it isn't merely based on grades or background. sometimes qualified people get rejected and unqualified people get in. and please don't list WWS as a major in your facebook profile. would you say you were a member of a bicker club before you got in?

as a side note the kahneman WWS/PSY class (WWS312) is an econ cognate which means it can count as an econ major departmental should you chose to take it.