UCLA biz econ

andrewyeon · 04-01-2008, 08:20 PM

I've been accepted to both UCLA and berkeley,

and i'm contemplating between the two.

I wanna major in business and berkeley's haas is very appealing but

i'd like to actually enjoy my college life and have some fun and therefore UCLA is equally appealing to me as well.

I know that berkeley's haas school of business will guarantee my future career/income for sure,

but how is biz econ at UCLA?

now i dont wanna become a millionaire or anything,

and even though some schools excel in particular majors, i am still aware that UCLA is a very prestigious school

If I plan to go to graduate MBA, then would it matter too much at all?

is a biz econ degree from UCLA not good enough to be promised a well-paying job?

pick · 04-01-2008, 09:20 PM

who doesn't want to become a millionaire?

well I have nothing to contribute to this thread, as I also have the same question as TC.

do note that both aren't guaranteed into the major. Just as you have to apply to Haas school of business in berkeley after 2 years, which is tough to get in, you have to do the same for biz-econ in UCLA (which is also competitive from what I've heard)

for berkeley, I've heard that the acceptance rate for Haas is around ~50%, but a lot of people end up not applying because they know they won't get in, so take 50% of the remaining applicants and that's the real acceptance rate of Haas.

does anyone have the statistics for UCLA's biz-econ acceptance rates?

karagon7 · 04-01-2008, 09:25 PM

Great question! Would love to know some information on this.

rusoboy23 · 04-01-2008, 10:20 PM

I've also been accepted to UCLA for Business Economics, and would like to know some more information about the major.

As for having to apply to it, according to this site: UCLA Undergrad Admissions: Transfer Major Prep - Business Economics, you don't have to if you're admitted as a "Pre" major. All you have to do is complete the prerequisite courses listed before you can take classes associated with the major.

Is that correct?

Altema · 04-01-2008, 11:46 PM

You have to do the prerequisite courses and get a certain GPA.

"The requirement for transfer students is either:
1. A minimum 3.5 GPA in Econ 11 and 101 and a 3.3 cumulative UCLA GPA.
or
2. Have a minimum 3.3 GPA in Econ 11 and 101 and a 3.5 GPA in Econ 11, 101 and all Econ courses taken by the time Econ 101 is completed (must have Econ 11 as a prerequisite) and a 3.3 minimum cumulative UCLA GPA.

For all majors: If you have transferred any coursework for the pre-major from any other college, please provide a transcript for grade verification."

From: UCLA Department of Economics

VinWang · 04-02-2008, 01:17 AM

I don't think either school "guarantees" a well-paying job. It depends on the effort you put into school and getting yourself out there. Recruiters don't want to just see a high GPA and the major. They want well-rounded students who they recognize from having taken early initiative in getting involved with organizations they're passionate about.

As for which one, I can't say. Personally, if your passion is "business", I do recommend Berkeley over Biz Econ at LA just because at LA, it's not really "business" at heart. It's pretty much Accounting (I believe Berkeley probably has more diversity in business courses but I could be wrong).

But I believe you can become successful in either program. I know people from the Biz Econ program who received internships/full-time offers from Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, KPMG, PwC, E&Y, Deloitte Consulting, Accenture, Grant Thornton, and more.

The professors at UCLA, from what i've heard, are decent. Personally, I feel the Econ department is rather lacking but we have some good Accounting professors.

I say base your decision on which school you could see yourself at. Which atmosphere do you find more appealing to you? Good luck!

*This all is mostly just from my personal experience and my opinions =)

passerby · 04-02-2008, 03:40 AM

I was in a similar position as you 3 years ago; had to choose between pre-BizEcon at UCLA and pre-Business Administration at Cal.

I chose UCLA for 2 reasons: 1) the environment/campus, and 2) because I believe there's a better chance of getting into the BizEcon major at UCLA than getting into the Business major at Berkeley's Haas School. If you are very confident you can get into Haas' business major, and that's the only deciding factor for you, I say go for it.

That said, you can land the same business jobs with a UCLA degree as with a Cal degree. A top student at UCLA can land an i-banking job at Goldman Sachs (yes they came to recruit here), or a management consulting job at Bain, or a job at one of the Big 4, etc.

Also, a business degree is NOT necessary for business. I didn't believe it 3 years ago, but found that it's true. UCLA's BizEcon is pretty much a combination of economics and accounting; it is NOT a business major. A 3.7 gpa UCLA Biz Econ major can land almost any business job at pretty much any of the top firms. The key is a high gpa, great leadership and teamwork experience, extra-curriculars, work exp., etc.

bruinboy · 04-02-2008, 05:59 PM

if you're going to do MBA after anyways, then it doesn't matter where you go...

ijreinsn · 04-02-2008, 07:20 PM

"Do not let lies sway the heart."

Objectively, Berkeley Haas has far more potential. It is roughly two cuts higher than UCLA's Business Economics Program. However, if you won't be happy at Berkeley, come to UCLA.

flopsy · 04-02-2008, 07:40 PM

Article:

UCLA Students Bad at Selling Themselves: School Culture?

Quote:

(Note: this article ignores the obvious explanation that UCLA lacks a business management major, hence not attracting “management” consulting firms.)

So when talking to the top consulting firms in the business world, the recruiters have consistently said that UCLA students are not good at selling themselves. Besides being in lack of practice for the case interview, this might explain why among the top 50 consulting firms, only 8 of them recruit seriously at UCLA. Compared to other schools like UC Berkeley and other top colleges, UCLA does seem to be more warm and friendly, which matches the nice warm weather. This also means that the competition is less fierce here. It seems to me that students are relatively chill here, with their enjoyment of all the interesting places around, accompanied by the entertainment industry. The whole feel is like happy bruins enjoying a lighthearted life in the warm weather without worries.

In the Case Competition hosted by Bruin Consulting this year, we put together a panel of judges from Mckinsey, Bain, Deloitte Consulting, Hitachi, and Anderson Students. This is very important as many of the recruiters don’t recruit much at UCLA and if we don’t give a strong presentation, these firms won’t come back again. So the founders of Bruin Consulting wanted the teams names to be very professional. However, most of the team names were not professional, but consists of of somewhat cute names. Names that don’t take a prestigious college education who is going into a prestigious business field to create. This is consistent with the cuddly and cute feel of UCLA students.

So I was wondering why is this the case in UCLA? Do we have an environment that decreases our competitive spirit and causes us to reside to cute and cuddly good-warmheartedness? Looking into the issue, I thought there might be three forces that causes such an effect. Those are 1. The geographical environment, 2. The Asian dominated ethnicity, and 3. The Mascot(!).

So maybe the warm and mild weather, along with being in a rich and stable neighborhood and the fun entertainment industry makes bruins sheltered in a environment that destroys the fierce competitive spirit. Peace and harmony is more nurtured in this little village. Berkeley has a much harsher climate, and the neighborhoods are not as pleasant, which may or may not cause people to grow through a struggling environment, which they transition to struggles against each other. In countries like Russia, an extreme example, where the climate is harsh and many neighborhoods are poor, people tend to conserve that competitive spirit more.

The large Asian based population might be a cause of this tendency too. A many Asian cultures value humbleness as a great virtue, and people are not good at selling themselves. However, since Asian kids are forced to do a few dozen math problems after they finish their homework since they were in second grade, a good proportion of them are good at number crunching. UCLA at this point does not attract many consulting firms, but it’s Investment Banking and Accounting is quite strong. Accounting and Finance related jobs are more based on technical skills, while consulting stresses a bit more on presentation skills(outside of the analytical). However, this cannot be the sole reason, as Berkeley is Asian dominant too, and it does not have the same tendency.

Now is the Mascot. I think UCLA often goes towards team names that are cute and not being acquainted to sell themselves well goes with along with them identifying themselves as Bruins. Bruins is like a baby bear, or those good hearted bear characters in childhood stories. It’s almost like we’re constantly identifying ourselves as Berkeley’s little brother. I think doing that often automatically associates students to a cuddly, cute and goodhearted little bear in their subconscious minds. Even in competitive sports, when we compete against USC, we are always Joe Bruin the cute little happy bear-figure who jumps around all the time, where our nemesis is a trojan figure who seems dignified, serious and sharp(though he has a lower IQ and only pretends to be cool). This might be far fetched but I do believe that this has some effects on UCLA students. Btw, I don’t know about Banana Slugs.

These are just some observations that I noticed in trying to explain why UCLA students are not good at selling themselves according to consulting firms. It’s not like we can change our climate or mascot, so we can only hope that each student wakes up from this modesty and shine a stunning light to this world, proving they have more than brains, but the ability to create astounding value in this world as UCLA students.

dontcha · 04-02-2008, 08:21 PM

I believe the mention if UCLA investment banking and finance recruiting is false, is it not?

LaxAttack09 · 04-02-2008, 10:09 PM

If you want to go into ibanking Berkeley is the choice hands down....and yes it makes up for the chiller atmosphere of UCLA. Yes, you can get ibanking from UCLA but it's going to be VERY HARD to get a BB internship in NYC from UCLA. It is MUCH easier to get these gigs from Berkeley. Unless you have family connections in the industry I don't think this is that big of a choice.

If you don't want IB then I'd still take berkeley because you're going to be getting better WE out of HAAS. It's easier to get those hard to land ib/consulting gigs for 2 years...and those are the best WE you can get for b-school. If you come from a top 3 IB or Consulting firm, with haas as your UG degree, you can almost write your ticket to a top 5 MBA assuming you get 700+ on gmat.

thecheesecake · 04-03-2008, 12:03 AM

Actually, I agree with LAXAttack on the ibanking part. If you want to go to the Big Four, either one is fine because both places are heavily recruited. However, the ibanking recruitment presence is significantly smaller here than that at Cal. It's not that you can't get an ibanking job/internship here, it's just a lot harder. It's just like if you want a Big Four job, it is way easier to get one if you are at UCLA/Cal rather than SD/Davis (I heard only 2/4 of those firms recruit at Davis, and none at SD).

mmmmwu · 04-16-2008, 03:38 AM

what about economics (not Haas) at Cal vs business economics at UCLA

LaxAttack09 · 04-16-2008, 04:16 AM

There's no choice here. Anything biz related go to haas...unless you plan to major in business then never work in any type of business, then you gotta ask yourself *** you're doing.