marketing major..the "fail" major? (1 Viewer)

[dvse]

I disagree. As I mentioned, I did a Commerce degree and all it did me was good. Not only did a gain a wealth of knowledge in my major, but I also know much about and work in other fields of business. I did practical work as well as theory which allowed me grasp the concepts from both angles.

Please explain

"Wealth of knowledge"? It's great you feel that way. Compare, say, this:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/teaching/

with whatever you did in your degree.

 

[Bananaberry]

I'm sorry I cant even get into that website, but it looks American.
I really dont care though.. We go to uni to get a job, that I have done. I know what I need to know to succeed in my job, thus I win and my time at uni was worth it no matter how much you think a marketing/commerce degree is shit.

 

[Ziva]

"Wealth of knowledge"? It's great you feel that way. Compare, say, this:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/teaching/

with whatever you did in your degree.

You do realise you are comparing postgraduate econ/finance with undergraduate commerce?

 

[Vagabond]

At university you can essentially learn straight from textbooks and updated industry articles.

I could very easily learn everything in my uni course without actually attending uni - and save a lot of money at that too. But that's not the point.

Maybe once upon a time things were different - but in this day and age the key role of university is to provide a comparable means of testing students via formal exams and standardized coursework.

This allows employers to make recruitment decisions.

If there's any particular knowledge that an employer wants you to know then they'll send you on a training course.

If you're a bright and motivated employee you'll independently go to the effort yourself to learn what you need to know.

Quit deluding yourselves.

 

[dvse]

You do realise you are comparing postgraduate econ/finance with undergraduate commerce?

Yes. And the former can be called "education" while the latter is mostly a waste of time. Note how none of the better MBA programs have "commerce" as a prerequisite!

 

[dvse]

I think you are mostly right but miss an essential point.

Generally, career success has little to do with education. All you need as background for any entry level job in finance is proficiency with 2U maths and decent written English. You are also right that the university education has largely degenerated into a series of semi-standardised exams.

On the other hand there does exist such a thing as genuine education that can completely change ones perspective and allow to think in terms of concepts which it would not have been possible to formulate otherwise. Such a thing is indeed in short supply and I believe is of considerable value. It is not something that can (usually) be taught/learnt on the job. You have probably never experienced it so your cynicism is understandable.

At university you can essentially learn straight from textbooks and updated industry articles.

I could very easily learn everything in my uni course without actually attending uni - and save a lot of money at that too. But that's not the point.

Maybe once upon a time things were different - but in this day and age the key role of university is to provide a comparable means of testing students via formal exams and standardized coursework.

This allows employers to make recruitment decisions.

If there's any particular knowledge that an employer wants you to know then they'll send you on a training course.

If you're a bright and motivated employee you'll independently go to the effort yourself to learn what you need to know.

Quit deluding yourselves.

 

[Vagabond]

I think you are mostly right but miss an essential point.

Generally, career success has little to do with education.

Actually I would say you are the one that missed the point.

Within the context of commerce forums I would presume that 'career success', as you admit, would be a better measure of how 'fail' a degree is.

Commerce is a relatively modern discipline and I'd assume that by design it intentionally lacks the depth and holistic nature of the arts and sciences which are better enclosed within the realms of acadamia - education as you so put it.

tl;dr

If people want a job they do Commerce.

 

[Ziva]

Yes. And the former can be called "education" while the latter is mostly a waste of time. Note how none of the better MBA programs have "commerce" as a prerequisite!

tbh MBA programs are also pretty useless but hey, i'll do whatever I have to do to accelerate up the corporate ladder

edit: with an undergraduate commerce degree you basically do a bit of everything up until your 1st and even 2nd year, and then you basically specialise ONLY in 3rd year. An MBA is basically a general commerce degree in which you undertake units from every commerce discipline but instead of at 1st/2nd year level you do them at postgraduate level which imo only really equates to about 3rd year material.

The content of an undergraduate commerce degree might be in question, and contestable. But for every graduate firm to look favorably upon commerce graduates in a way which hedges their financial risk through skill/competentcy analysis really does rid any sort of arguement you may have.

COMMERCE DEGREE ARE SHIT BUT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON ARE SO EMPLOYABLE WHY ARE LARGE MNC's EMPLOYING COMMERCE GRADS WHEN IT APPARENTLY TEACHES THEM NOTHING

 

[dvse]

edit: with an undergraduate commerce degree you basically do a bit of everything up until your 1st and even 2nd year, and then you basically specialise ONLY in 3rd year. An MBA is basically a general commerce degree in which you undertake units from every commerce discipline but instead of at 1st/2nd year level you do them at postgraduate level which imo only really equates to about 3rd year material.

At the very least check the link I posted earlier and see how it compares with third year courses at your favourite Australian university.

The content of an undergraduate commerce degree might be in question, and contestable. But for every graduate firm to look favorably upon commerce graduates in a way which hedges their financial risk through skill/competentcy analysis really does rid any sort of arguement you may have.

Does this paragraph even mean anything? What's a "graduate firm"? How does one "hedge financial risk through skill analysis"? No one with half a clue (and not just parroting back buzzwords) would say something like that.

COMMERCE DEGREE ARE SHIT BUT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON ARE SO EMPLOYABLE WHY ARE LARGE MNC's EMPLOYING COMMERCE GRADS WHEN IT APPARENTLY TEACHES THEM NOTHING

That's because for most entry level jobs offered by "large MNCs" one indeed doesn't need any education whatsoever beyond baseline literacy and numeracy.

 

[Ziva]

At the very least check the link I posted earlier and see how it compares with third year courses at your favourite Australian university.

I'm a 3rd year econ/commerce student and tbh the material in some of the units in the MGSM (which is the 2nd best business school in the country behind AGSM) MBA program that i've had the pleasure of reading (my dad did his MBA there) was in my eyes, at 3rd year level.

Does this paragraph even mean anything? What's a "graduate firm"? How does one "hedge financial risk through skill analysis"? No one with half a clue (and not just parroting back buzzwords) would say something like that.

Graduate recruitment firm. Big 4 accounting firms, the big 4 banks, P&G, the RBA, the treasury etc all recruit a range of commerce undergraduates into their graduate programs. They have hedged themselves financially (lessening the risk involved with recruiting a dud {training costs and the works}) by recruiting commerce graduates on the presumption that they all have acquired a standardised level of knowledge, thus limiting the possible liability of the firm/agency. You cannot score a graduate position at these firms/agencys without tertiary qualifications, the majority of the graduates are commerce graduates.

That's because for most entry level jobs offered by "large MNCs" one indeed doesn't need any education whatsoever beyond baseline literacy and numeracy.

Most entry level jobs or graduate positions large MNCs require some form of tertiary education. On the topic of this discussion, commerce usually doesn't go astray. Firm's then have their own recruitment methods to sort the graduates beyond educational measures (psychometric testing, behavioural interviews, reasoning tests etc)



edit: I read some of the lecture slides for that "monetary economics for PhD studies" or whatever. The skills I've learnt so far in my undergraduate economics education allowed me to grasp and understand most of it.

 

[Bananaberry]

tbh MBA programs are also pretty useless but hey, i'll do whatever I have to do to accelerate up the corporate ladder

edit: with an undergraduate commerce degree you basically do a bit of everything up until your 1st and even 2nd year, and then you basically specialise ONLY in 3rd year. An MBA is basically a general commerce degree in which you undertake units from every commerce discipline but instead of at 1st/2nd year level you do them at postgraduate level which imo only really equates to about 3rd year material.

The content of an undergraduate commerce degree might be in question, and contestable. But for every graduate firm to look favorably upon commerce graduates in a way which hedges their financial risk through skill/competentcy analysis really does rid any sort of arguement you may have.

COMMERCE DEGREE ARE SHIT BUT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON ARE SO EMPLOYABLE WHY ARE LARGE MNC's EMPLOYING COMMERCE GRADS WHEN IT APPARENTLY TEACHES THEM NOTHING

Agreed.

When I went for my job I have now as well as my first graduate job, requirements of the job as stated in the job ad included "must have marketing/business/communication or related degree"
I had these requirements as a result of doing my marketing/business degree, as well as whatever the other job requirements were, thus got the job. i dont see how any of that was a fail.