UCLA Business Economics major - Future plans (careers/graduate) / other comparison (Haas/Marshall) questions?
Today I was accepted into UCLA with a business economics major selected. I did a lot of reading on the school and this major today and heard some things that are making me skeptical about going there. I heard that the business-econ major is essentially an econ major and is recognized as such. So, I am wondering what sort of jobs are available to me after graduating with this degree. Are most career paths centered on econ? If I chose to go to graduate school, how likely would I be to get into a good MBA or law program? I have not heard from Berkeley or USC yet. But if I did, what advantages would I have going to Haas or Marshall (other than networking) over LA? Obviously Berkeley is the most prestigious of the three, but is it worth going there if I would prefer to be at LA? I ask about Marshall because I currently do not know if I will be accepted into Haas. Lastly, I honestly do not know about how college in general is structured and what all of the limitations and mechanics are in choosing a major/minor. I have heard that they highly encourage/require doing an accounting minor (which I have no problem with). What are my other options concerning minors? If I wanted to switch majors how likely am I to be able to do that? I know bizecon is a pretty competitive major in the first place. Thanks in advance to anyone with helpful advice. I know a lot of these answers can be found in forums and such, but I'm getting a lot of mixed signals. So getting some direct answers would definitely be nice. One last thing, would it be pretty easy to transfer into Haas after a year at LA (with a good GPA of course) just because they are both in the UC system? I've been hearing that a lot of people that are declined from Haas have been accepted by LA for econ. (They add business to the name to make the major more attractive to business applicants)
Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?
A software developer I know recently got a call from a recruiter at Google, asking what it would take for him to come to work for them.This developer had actually already worked for Google, but he left about five years ago to pursue other projects, and he didn’t want to live in one of the cities that have a Google office. Even though he didn’t have a degree in computer science and never took a college course in OOP, he must have impressed them enough to keep him on the recruitment list these years later. The recruiter suggested maybe he could be interested in interviewing with the Project Loon team in Singapore.He gave a little chuckle to the recruiter over the phone, and his first question was: You know how old I am, right? The recruiter confirmed that yes, his date of birth was on file, and that Google didn’t factor age into its recruitment policies. The developer agreed to think about the prospect and they agreed to touch base again in a week.That 66-year-old developer is my father. He is collecting social security while being courted by Google. He had a fulfilling career running his own company, consulting, and being an employee. He made contributions during the early stages of numerous technologies such as TCP networking, USB protocols, 802.11b implementation, and military GPS. Then he was hired by Google in 2008, when he was 58.While at Google, he wrote software in Java, a language that wasn’t even invented until he was 45. And he was an individual contributor, without having any other engineer report to him.One of the great things about software development is it’s all about your passion to learn and ability to perform, which is demonstrated by my dad’s career and the careers of thousands others. If you don’t have those required ingredients, then sure, software development is a dead-end job at any age. But if you have the passion and skill, then it is not a dead-end job after 40, 50, or even 60.
Conservatives: how do you define "small government"?
Conservatives and tea partiers keep raving about having a "small government"... but do you know what you even mean by that? so... what does "small government" mean to you??? why is one area of the government more important than the other? for example why do we need so much spending on our military and so little on education? our military spending is HUGE! why are no conservatives complaining about that? clearly no one can take over the US... so why are we still spending almost 7 times more on military than the next highest country? IMPORTANT: please don't just parrot over Obama insults or rephrase Fox News talking points... I'm interested in THE ACTUAL parts of government that you think should be increased or decreased...