Self-righteousness and Wharton bashing

Recently, I've noticed a lot of Wharton bashing. My non-Wharton friends, my professors, and even the pages of The Daily Pennsylvanian tell me how Wharton represents everything that is wrong with America. Apparently, Wharton students are soulless, money-grubbing tools. They work for the Dark Side (aka corporate America) in pursuit of world domination, trampling on the innocent liberal arts majors who litter their path.

Although Wharton jokes are occasionally amusing, anti-Wharton stereotyping is ultimately nothing more than prejudice. Students of the so-called "liberal" arts should be ashamed to propagate such closed-minded attitudes.

I admit that I am possibly the opposite of the Wharton stereotype. I'm a College student majoring in theatre arts and linguistics and minoring in music and Hispanic studies. I study subjects that I am passionate about, without an eye to my future paycheck. My hobbies include the performing arts and community service. I will probably work in the arts or the public sector for the rest of my life.

I also confess to having a few anti-Wharton gripes of my own. The gleaming extravagance of Huntsman Hall irritates me, especially after attending class in the moldy music building. Wharton students have the exclusive use of Wharton computers and study rooms. And they whine a lot about recruiting.

Nonetheless, it's wrong to stereotype Wharton students. When examined closely, most stereotypes boil down to prejudices that reveal more about the critics than about Whartonites themselves.

For example, here are three claims that some non-Wharton students make:

Claim 1: Wharton students have traded away personal fulfillment in favor of a fat paycheck. By contrast, College students supposedly pursue their passions.

Unfortunately, this assertion merely reveals the critics' narrow-minded inability to appreciate the appeal of anything outside their own interests. Although a career in business might not be attractive to some people, myself included, for others, it is their passion. For instance, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan graduated from the Julliard School of Music with degrees in clarinet and saxophone performance. After touring the United States with a popular swing band, he discovered that he preferred economics and business consulting. Rather than selling his artistic soul, Greenspan found his true passion. The fact that his passion pays a lot does not make it less fulfilling.

Furthermore, even if business is not your passion, having a comfortable, business-related income may grant you the ability to focus on your other interests, such as travel, art, education or family. For some people, having a steady business position is the best way to pursue as many interests as possible.

Claim 2: Wharton students only want to make money.

Although wealth should not be one's only life goal, there's nothing wrong with financial success. It's bizarre that many liberal arts students demonize moneymaking; it smacks of sour grapes. From a broad perspective, capitalism and personal ambition are part of what has encouraged American success and prosperity. Moreover, a focus on property ownership and individual achievement has helped fuel the civil rights movements of blacks, women and gays.

Once people earn their money, they use it for a variety of purposes. Many of the arts organizations that I cherish are funded by corporate donations and wealthy patrons. Other business people donate to charities and educational institutions, or help run nonprofit organizations. Society needs talented money managers just as much as it needs artists, teachers and humanitarians.

Claim 3: Whartonites sympathize with corporations and large business interests.

This might be true, but it shouldn't be damning. I admit that liberal arts elitists often harbor poorly reasoned anti-corporate attitudes, sometimes viewing large corporations as a single evil entity seeking world domination. In fact, however, the inability to view vastly different businesses as anything more than a monolithic Man merely reveals a lack of intellectual sophistication. Some corporations have positive effects, and others have mixed or negative effects. Companies are not bad simply by virtue of being big; rather, they can become bad by doing harmful things. It saddens me that our liberal arts education, which stresses analysis, has not helped us view big business in a more insightful way.

Ultimately, anti-Wharton criticism seems to reflect a teensy bit of insecurity. Concerned about job prospects and the purported impracticality of our degrees, we liberal arts students compensate by claiming moral superiority. We sneer at those who make us feel inferior.

In reality, such posturing is unnecessary. We made a choice to study subjects we like, that might or might not immediately lead to a job, and that's OK. We've learned a lot, and we've enjoyed learning it. And research shows that undergraduate major has little effect on lifelong earnings. Now that I've validated our choice, can we ditch the holier-than-thou attitude?

For me, Wharton bashing is a form of self-righteousness that I cannot stomach. Anti-Wharton attitudes are a prejudice that has no place among "liberal" arts ideas.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.