[MH]

I am at a point in my undergraduate work where I can go for a BA or stay in school an extra year for the BS. I don't see myself going to grad school (I am older than the average undergrad and sick of doing menial jobs to finance my school "hobby") but I don't want to limit my options when it comes time to look for a job. I understand BS programs are more rigorous, but for an entry-level position is anyone going to care that I had a semester of PChem instead of a year? Forgive me if this topic has been covered ad nauseam.

[Arkcon]

What is your specific degree?  What general experiences have you had in classes that translate directly to an industry position?  What experiences are you missing out, besides 3 semesters of physical chemistry, that translate to industry positions?

[MH]

Right now I'm in a regular B.S. Chemistry program. The B.A. would be quicker but I would miss a semester of PChem, an Inorganic class and Instrumental Analysis. I am doing research in a lab already so there's no real advantage to the B.S. there.

[Arkcon]

Hard to understand, for me, really.  I was in my universities' College of Arts and Sciences, with a Molecular Biology major, and got a Bachelor of Sciences degree.  I assumed the other 'scientists' got B.S. degrees, and the other 'artists' got BA degrees.  I'd like to say that, to insure your future, those extra classes and the different (more typical?) BS degree is preferable to the BA degree.  But if you're the one who's sure it won't matter for your first job, then maybe it doesn't matter at all.

[JGK]

It may be just my UK upbringing and some inate snobbery, but I just can't get my head around a creditable academic institution offering a Batchelor of Arts degree in a science subject.

It's something you see (rarely) in the UK but would make most employers quite suspicious.

Do they do a BS in Arts based subjects as well?

[Fluorine]

The only person I've know that wanted to go for a BA in chemistry said it was because they were only interested in teaching. I don't know if this is how it really works though.

[fledarmus]

At one time, a lot of the liberal arts colleges especially thought that a person didn't get a well-rounded education if all he or she took was science courses. There was also a feeling that a purely technical education produced a purely technical person without the skills required to be a good communicator or manager. Bachelor of Arts programs in sciences were designed to provide a strong technical background in a particular field, but still allow sufficient room for other, non-technical coursework. Most of the time this is done using electives - in chemistry, for example, both BA and BS degree chemists would have the same core chemistry curriculum and the same general English, history, and basic math requirements, but the BA student would be getting electives in things like arts, humanities, management, or languages, and the BS student would be getting electives in the maths and sciences.

This allowed for career options like management in technical fields, editing technical journals, technical writing, science advisor to political figures, teaching in the sciences, and other fields where scientific results were not necessarily the only, or even the major, determinant of success.

When it comes to looking for a job, as a new chemist with no experience and a fresh undergraduate degree, you need to demonstrate to your employer how whatever coursework you took is going to make you the best candidate for the job. If you get a BS degree, emphasize all the extra science and math that you took and show how it will apply to the job you expect to get. If you get a BA degree, emphasize the extra communications, management skills, acting lessons, or whatever you took, and show how it makes you a better candidate. If you can define the terms under which they are considering your BA or BS early in your cover letter, then there will be less chance that they will automatically categorize you as soon as they see the letters.

[Doc Oc]

I agree 100% with Fledarmus' last paragraph.  I don't judge people based on whether they have a BA or a BS, mainly because at that level I expect there to be a significant amount of training for the position no matter what.  And as much as people would like to believe that their BS is superior to a BA, I've known plenty of BS students that I would consider subpar or unfit to work in a lab.  Conversely, I worked with someone who had a BA in chemistry that was outstanding.

[ProfessorD]

The B.A. degree gets a bad reputation in some circles for being the 'easy out' degree.  Though I agree that some people use it that way, I applied it differently.

The B.A. typically frees up about 30 credits (approximately one academic year worth) of your schedule.  If you spend that time taking golf class and playing Nintendo, you do so at your own peril.  The point of the B.A. curriculum is to encourage interdisciplinary study.  I used the extra space in my schedule to earn a B.S. in Geology.  Later, I was accepted into a top 30 U.S. school for my Ph.D. in Chemistry which I completed without any perceivable disadvantage to those entering with a B.S.

In short, the B.A. is a fine option if you want to pursue interdisciplinary study (like a rigorous minor or even a double degree like I did).

Having said all of that.  If you already know that Chemistry is your thing and you are all in to go all the way as a chemist, my advice would be to stay in the B.S. program.  That single B.S. degree will serve you better.

Dr.D

[Wald_ron]

How do you figure out what the top 50 schools are?

[Raphael]

I've seen a lot of people that got BA's go on to get Phd's as well.

[Dan]

It may be just my UK upbringing and some inate snobbery, but I just can't get my head around a creditable academic institution offering a Batchelor of Arts degree in a science subject.

Oxford gives a BA for biology.

[JGK]

It may be just my UK upbringing and some inate snobbery, but I just can't get my head around a creditable academic institution offering a Batchelor of Arts degree in a science subject.

Oxford gives a BA for biology.

I think both Oxford and Cambridge did or do BA's in mathematics. The university of Cambridge offered a masters degree to all its graduates for a small administration fee. (not sure if theyre still doing that though).

[Dan]

The university of Cambridge offered a masters degree to all its graduates for a small administration fee. (not sure if theyre still doing that though).

As far as I know cambridge still do, I had a colleague pick up a masters on a NatSci degree a couple of years ago. Oxford do it for the arts only (I think), but not science BAs. So you can buy a masters to compliment an English BA, but you can't buy a masters for a biology BA. Most of the scientific subjects at Oxford are masters courses anyway, chemistry is an MChem you can't do a BAnything.

Bizarre places.

[stewie griffin]

I knew early on that I wanted to pursue a PhD in organic synthesis. When I sat down to look at my school's BS requirements I realized I'd have to take classes I really could care less about (P chem lab, inorganic lab, biochemistry lab, environmental chemistry, a second semester of analytical lab focusing on instrumentation). I realized that I could get a BA without those classes and dedicated this newly freed time to undergrad research and some graduate courses. So instead of some (to me) boring labs, I got to take classes in organometallics, advanced organic, and solid state chemistry as well as take some classical guitar classes. It helped that my school was small for chemistry and that although it offered a masters degree, the graduate work wasn't much more challenging than an advanced undergrad course. I had great grades in all my classes, got accepted to grad school and had no problem getting through my PhD coursework. In fact I think I was better prepared for my organic PhD courses than I would have been with those other BS courses.
I think however that if I weren't going to go to grad school I probably would have gotten the BS only b/c the BS was "ACS certified" while our BA was not.