I've come to realize the enormous costs of pursuing my simultaneous degrees, not only in direct summer costs (housing, food and summer-session costs), leisure time, and the administrative hassles, but also in academic focus (depth of knowledge) and career development (getting a head start). Granted, there are unquantifiable benefits to my current course of study--breadth of education and the breadth of opportunities and knowledge that follow--but the costs are not negligible.
I took an entire summer in 2008 to take four Haas (Undergraduate business administration) classes, including one Microeconomics course that is required by all upper-division Economics courses. In addition to those classes, I had to complete all Economics and Haas prerequisites and seven out of nine Haas breadth requirements by the end of this semester. In short, by the end of this semester I will have taken 12 (graded) classes that I did not need to complete my EECS degree--that's an immense cost in terms of my EECS education.
If it weren't for my Haas and Economics requirements I could have completed all of my lower-division CS requirements by the end of my first year at Berkeley, which I still can't yet say is the case, (I am taking CS 61C) which in last year's environment would have qualified me for some entry-level EECS internship job. In money terms, that's 10,000 dollars for the summer; but in experience terms, that's the stepping stone to a much more competitive position this year, which would serve as a stepping stone to a even-more competitive position the year after.
The costs are in lost opportunities. I could have completed every upper-division CS course (+10-25k/year of increased productivity) by the end of my four years and began on graduate CS courses. I could have graduated a year or two early. (That's another 80-160k) I could've gained industry work experience last summer. (10k direct earnings + 5k "increase in value" for the next job) I could've worked on my own projects more (I've always had a plan with OriginXT that's still in my head, but I haven't yet had the time to realize; and then there're my Facebook projects that are all at 70% but no more). I could've enjoyed more life!
The cost of my economics major (alone--not including those that overlap with Haas or EECS) in the next two years is one class per semester, which is actually pretty reasonable given the more manageable workload. But that's still four class-slots that I can use to take CS upper-division or graduate courses.
The cost of my Haas major in the next two years is seven Haas classes total and a couple breadth courses.
So even the marginal costs (the ones I can eliminate by giving up on a major) are not insignificant.
There has to be some benefits that's pushing me to pursue these degrees. Most of them are highly indirect and difficult to quantify, though. I'm unlikely to be doing things that require solely my Haas or Econ degrees--investment banking is not my type of job, and I don't qualify to be the Fed chair. For the most part, they're just so I know more about the workings of the business environment than the typical engineer.
But how much is that knowledge worth? It's impossible to quantify, and at this point, very minimal. It lets me participate in intelligent discussions about financial accounting, discounted cash flow, monetary policy or even game theory; but money-wise, it does me little good.
The one major advantage is the entry on my Resume, but after a chat with my economics professor during his office hours, I'm beginning to doubt that. He suggested that my majors show that I'm simply "fishing for majors to get on" my degree, not my breadth of education. He says it demonstrates that my undergraduate study lacks focus, and where it is focused, is characterized by extreme amounts of overlap (between Haas and Economics).
He suggested that I drop either Haas or Economics, and being an economics teacher, he recommended I drop business. Dropping Haas is impossible, and I need the Economics major to get into Economics classes more easily (otherwise I can't get in until adjustment period).
The answer is I don't know. The costs are definite and quantifiable, but the benefits are indirect and unquantifiable. The other question is whether the costs matter--is money that important? If money is the major difference, does it matter? That's around a year's worth of salary in difference, but I'm getting degrees in majors that require on average four years of undergraduate study. The major confounding factor is that I enjoy most of the classes I'm taking for Haas and Economics--auction theory and economic history were pretty fun--but how much practical value they have is a question. How do I evaluate my level of enjoyment?
I don't know. I'm confused. I'm the first one my adviser knows to do a simultaneous degree across three colleges, so she has no feedback from previous attempts. I suppose if I persevere despite these challenges I'll graduate with more knowledge in finance than EECS majors, more knowledge in algorithm optimization than Economics majors, and more knowledge in the state of the macroeconomy than Business majors, and the variety of knowledge alone should be benefit enough to compensate for the costs.
Comments
o_o
Right now you are comparing "[1 BS] vs [1 BS + 1 BS]", and you can see that the benefits of each option are too similar to easily compare. i think you should be comparing "[1 BS] vs [1 BS + 1 MS]" because the benefits are more distinct while the costs are roughly the same.
when i was a freshmen, i compared the major requirements and found i could complete discrete math and computer science without any graduation delays by using free electives + ap credits. i also wanted to add a third degree, either econ/management/physics. however, my school won't let us go over 2, and we have to take 30 hours of classes in addition to fulfilling the requirements. i reasoned that 2 semesters of extra classes was too high a price for a second math undergraduate degree. so now the question is "Would a Master's be more beneficial than this second Bachelor's?"
Claim 1: it's more beneficial to get a BS in field x and a Master's in field Y than to get a BS in each X and Y:
a) job application for job in field X: all else equal, you have an unrelated Master's degree, whereas another candidate has an unrelated Bachelor's degree. Your BS + MS > his BS + BS.
b) job application for job in field Y: all else equal, your MS shows a higher level of mastery than their BS.
c) you can opt to get a head start on your career and delay the master's, which is less feasible if you're going for two BS
d) you can potentially take night classes to earn the MS if so desired (depending on major/school), which is rarely offered for bachelor's
e) if you work for a company, it's more likely they will pay for your master's than for a second bachelor's
i have supported the notion that the master's is greater than a bachelor's, which is generally accepted. the obvious question now is "if my undergrad is in field X, [why] should i get a master's in field Y instead of field X?"
Claim 2: it's more beneficial to get a BS in field x and a Master's in field Y than to get a BS in field X and a Master's in field X.
a) expertise in X is great if you really love X. but what if you want the possibility of changing or advancing careers? for example, you start off as an engineer for a company. but you notice that the guy making the big decisions really sucks, and you could do it better than he can. and what if he's actually making more than you? you might decide to go into management where a business degree is more beneficial than an advanced engineering degree.
b) "well rounded"; unless you're going into a highly specialised career, employers like to see people who have a variety of interests/expertise. i talked to my employer as well as the other interviewers at my company, and they agree. (they interview people for sales, management, "professional services", development, quality assurance).
c) looking at a single candidate (as opposed to comparing two candidates), my employer looks at two things with regard to degrees: i) do they have a degree? and ii) do they have a degree in the desired field? Looking at a single candidate, my employer didnt care whether it was a bachelor's or a master's. if the number of areas of expertise is more important than the level of expertise in each, then it's better to get 2 distinct majors than 2 similar ones. this is especially true of computer science; i'm not as familiar with other degrees
since multiple bachelor's takes roughly the same amount of time as a master's, these claims suggest you should NOT take multiple bachelor's but rather a master's. this is true if you insist on getting multiple degrees, since time and money costs are roughly the same while the benefits are higher.
if your question is "Should I get multiple degrees?" then i cannot answer that. comparing "extra major vs single major" introduces more costs, unlike "extra MS vs extra BS" where costs are roughly the same. i hope that making the benefits more distinct will help you make the decision.
consider an analogous situation: you are at home, and you can walk 1 mile north and get a free cup of rice. you're asking yourself "should i stay or walk a mile north for rice?" and i'm giving you an alternative: you can walk 1 mile south for a free cup of rice + a slice of cake. now you should be asking "should i stay or walk a mile south for rice + cake?". can't answer that because it depends on a few things: 1) are you physically capable of walking 1 mile? 2) can you spare the time? 3) how hungry are you?
a
I'm just wondering, as far as grad school, don't you need a certain type of bachelors to get a certain type of masters? Like, if I have a bachelors in math, I could probably then get a masters in physics, but would I be able to get a masters in English? I figured EECS is too different from Economics, but then I don't really know how the whole grad school thing works. I wouldn't think that a computer science degree will act as much of a prerequisite to an economics masters degree (or whichever one goes with whichever degree), but then I don't really know if there are strict prerequisites like that.
Hm, you mean to say I get my
Hm, you mean to say I get my BS in EECS, then an MBA? Because I am certain that I will be getting the EECS BS.
The other thing is, I don't want to graduate early, but I don't want to take "useless" classes (or if I have to, do the minimal amount of them), and by useless I mean classes (a) I don't enjoy, (b) get nothing out of (or rather, there are better or "less useless" classes I can take during that time), and (c) take only because I have to. I am pretty certain I want to get a MS in EECS, but an undergraduate study in a similar field is pretty much necessary for me to be adequately prepared for the master's program, so that invalidates your "1 BS + 1 MS in diff fields is better than 1 BS + 1 MS in the same filed" argument because I can't feasibly get the MS in EECS if I did business for my BS.
But if I do BS, EECS and MBA, I'll be much less competitive than people who got a MS for EECS too. Plus, you don't learn that much in an MBA program...
What I plan to do at this point (since I can't just drop business or EECS) is to apply to the 5-year (4 year BS + 1 year additional) MS program in EECS, which strongly stresses interdisciplinary study--so I'm encouraged to take MBA classes from Haas (Berkeley's business school) alongside my EECS MS classes. So degree wise, I'll have MS, EECS + BS EECS/Business + BA Econ, but I'll also have some knowledge I'd get from doing an MBA program. Since I'll have the Haas undergraduate program under my belt, I'll be picking MBA classes that complement it (and aren't just extensions or repeats of what I learn in the undergrad program). I probably won't be taking the accounting MBA classes (I don't want a CPA). I'm not sure what I want to take, really--I might even do some MFE (basically quant stuff) classes if I can.
But I think that given my circumstances that's the best I can do in 5 years. (or 3 additional years from now)