AJH2008

Although it's not about where you go... going where you want to be makes a difference.

drmambo

...soo many flaws in some of the previous arguments.

Yes, it's true that companies like microsoft, google, and the like all threw it, or still throw it, back to college buddies, but that's just it. Management threw it back to COLLEGE buddies (I didn't give a specific name did I?).

Well good job, we've made an astounding discovery: places like Harvard and Stanford are colleges (i.e. educational institutes). In the most forward way, you've proven the point of this thread right. There are plenty of successful firms that didn't start from HYPS grads that also employed the "employ your college buddies" methodology, it's not just exclusive to top schools.

So the true point is, obviously ignoring the losers who don't even know what they're arguing, it's not where you go, it's just that you went (and hopefully met some people).

sakky

No I did not. After all, many of the early employees at Google were Stanford undergrads. That's the point. Furthermore, the entire idea for Google wasn't spawned until Sergey and Larry met each other at Stanford.

No, the bottom line is that, if you don't have the business idea yourself, then the next best thing is to be buddies with somebody who does. After all, like I said, most of Facebook's early employees were Zuckerberg's (and the other cofounders) Harvard pals.

And Gates and Zuckerberg themselves reinforce the point even further: at least they went to Harvard. In fact, doing so almost certainly made them even more confident and risk-tolerant. After all, what was the worst thing that would happen to them? If their business fails, big deal, they would just go back to Harvard.

Is it? The real question is, how do you know who has talent? How do you know who has proven ability? Remember, we're talking about college kids with no work history. How exactly do these guys "prove their talent"? They can't. That's the point. They have to be hired through some other means.

Again, taking it back to the Facebook example, most of the early engineering team were former Harvard pals of the cofounders. Exactly what sort of work history could they have? Many of them weren't even old enough to buy alcohol. Do you even think the company went through a formal hiring process? Almost certainly not. Most likely, it was just a case of one of the cofounders asking his buddies one day if they wanted to join their new business venture. That's how startups are when they're just starting up.

You say that social networks are established in numerous venues, and that is obviously true, but the question is, exactly how many venues do young college kids have? College is all they got. Sure, if you have decades of work experience, you can access a wide range of venues. But that fact doesn't help the college student.

Well, let me put it to you this way. At least you know you can get along with your friends. Just being able to work with people is crucial to productivity. It's a heck of a lot better than working with somebody who is 'talented' but is also a jerk. Put another way, I would far prefer to work with an untalented friend than with a highly talented jerk. I think most people would agree. Now, if you want to call that nepotism, then so be it, but I would just say that it's just good business sense.

sakky

And let me stop you right there. The presumption in your statement is that the person got the interview. Sure, I agree, once a person has reached that point, then college probably doesn't matter much. But, for the most desirable firms, most candidates can't even get an interview. This is especially true of new college graduates who have no prior work history. Whether we like it or not, for these people, college brand name is one of the most common screening factors for determining whether somebody will even get an interview.

Consider the hiring practices of Google:

For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon--America's top engineering schools--even to get invited to interview.

Can Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003

sakky

Uh, no, that's not the true point. The actual true point is that some schools will expose you to a group of people with higher potential than will other schools, thereby increasing your chances of meeting that 'special someone'. Certainly, no guarantees. But the chances are higher.

It's like if you're a woman who's looking to meet an amazing man who will be your future husband, you have to go to where the men are. And not just any place where there are men, but a place where there are lots of men who are single and who are successful, tall, and handsome. That's how you maximize your chances.

Now, don't get me wrong. Nobody is saying that any college will guarantee success. Nothing can guarantee success. It's all a matter of improving your odds.

jkojkl

I read an interesting article a few years ago that explored the link between the college one attends and future earnings prospects. It cited research that had been done on a large number of 1976 high school graduates and explored the relationship between the status of the college they attended and their future economic success. It wasn't particularly surprising to read that the Ivy League cohort did better than the average (though less than I might have imagined) - yet the top future earners were the Ivy League Rejects. Presumably people of high ability and ambition but who, for whatever reason, just didn't make the cut. Of course, for most of these disappointed High School Seniors, the choice they faced probably wasn't between Princeton or Beautician School. I'm guessing that they generally found themselves at other top institutions. However, the article seemed to suggest that this group left college with a greater ambition to succeed than their Ivy-educated peers. Make of that what you will.
Another point. In my career I've interviewed and hired hundreds of people. I have to say that an Ivy degree is impresssive and likely to be noticed, but the key driver of any hiring decision has to be on 1) relevant experience 2) demonstrated career success and 3) the right personality fit between a candidate and the business. An Ivy degree will really only ever open the door to a first or second job. The playing field quickly evens out after a couple of years in employment.

drmambo

sakky:

I'll cut you a break, you're probably tired after the flurry of posts that came prior to mine.

Perhaps you're a wannabe-ivy-leaguer, or perhaps you think that talent can't exist anywhere but, however the flaw in that assumption is fairly evident. You give the nation's top 10 a bit too much credit, and you fail to recognize the other side of this forum: the one populated by the smart, talented, and driven kids who DIDN'T make it to the ivy leagues.

I agree that some while schools might give you a better opportunity to expose yourself to a group of people with a higher potential (i.e. a third-tier vs. a first-tier), no school will do all the work for you.

If you hang out with just athletes at harvard, you'll most likely glean less than if you hang around the investment club at UW-Madison.

Maximizing your chances doesn't just come from attending one of a handful of schools. With this generation's college turn out, the amount of "first rate" institutions is growing quicker than anyone predicted (mainly because the original "top schools" don't have enough space to admit all of the talented students that apply). Plenty of grads from my high school got admitted to top LAC's and engineering schools, but went down to UIUC instead (why pay $50k/yr when you can get the same degree cheaper, and just do the grad work there later).

I'm not completely arguing against you, I'm just saying you have to open your eyes and realize the caliber of college student today is changing dramatically. Flagship state schools like UCB, U Mich, UIUC, UF are becoming ivy-prospects back-ups and, due to the selectivity of ivies, eventually where rejects will most likely matriculate.

I'm arguing that after a certain point (i.e. the perceived quality of an education), where you go no longer matters. This contention is obviously rooted on the assumption that once a student reaches the top of "tier-two" or enters the "tier-one" category, student bodies become, for the most part, homogeneous (in terms of talent).

Using your example of finding a husband, some could argue that just being in a place with great quantities, and subsequently diversity, places one in a better position. To assume a majority of men at school X (in your example) are handsome, smart, or whatever quality you're looking for, is probably as crazy as an assumption as you can make. Plenty of schools deans of admissions go on the record saying that they aren't trying to build a class of valedictorians, or student body presidents, they're trying to build a diverse class. I visited my friend at Harvard, and can tell you first off: not everyone there is the next Bill Gates, or Zuckerberg (hate to break it to you). Some people there are just (sorry to say this as well, I know this'll crush some people) regular students/kids who don't know what they want to be but did well in high school.

I guess to recap because this was a long post (sorry):

I partially agree, some schools have more talented student bodies than others, however, I contend more school have high levels of motivated and talented students than just the few schools with ivy-rotted brick + stanford.

And though I won't go completely on the record for this, flagship state schools might be the next-best place to meet future zuckerbergs (purely due ivy-selectivity). This point is fairly debatable, though, and in the sake of fairness, I think only time can develop it as false or true.

ken285

I don't recall anybody saying UCB, UMich, UIUC aren't in the same league as Stanford, the Ivy's, MIT, etc. because they are.

FLVADAD

Yeah, sorry Sakky, but I thought the main point went beyond the acquisition of the first job. If it's the ease of employment fresh out of college I might give an Ivy degree the edge depending on the region. However, for the long haul, beyond the first job, I stand by my earlier comments. There's a limit to how far college pedigree can take you. I agree with drmambo that a few years out of college and it's a moot point.

Moreover, I would hire the kid from State U. who has demonstrated aggressive interest and research related to my business over the one from an Ivy who is smart, but less accomplished relative to demonstrated interest or ability. The idea that the only thing that distinguishes college grads from one another is the school they attend couldn't be more misguided. Your assessment is overly simplistic.

Also, what you completely overlook is that in some parts of the country employers are far more likely to seek out and hire a State U. grad. In my State, HYPS grads are not put ahead of the State flagship grads by any means. Using your theory, students that want to work here would be better off at State U --even for their first job. State U. has much stronger alumni networks and influence here than any Ivy.

UCLAri

I think what sakky is more interested in, considering the pedigree of most on this site, is the so-called "top employers." Most people on this site are overly obsessed with being McKinseyites, Deloiteians, Microsoft Drones (get it? Borg reference? I'm clever ), or Northroputians.

In that regard, the Harvard degree does probably have a significant edge over the UNC degree.

Columbia_Student

Yes, but they met as graduate student at Stanford not as UG and that is my point.

I think Google interviews at UCI, UCSB and UCLA too.

Milkmagn

look, an ivy league degree won't mean much at all in respect to job advancement if you don't have the proper skills and "soft skills"

I have seen this through a lot of personal first hand accounts

Columbia_Student

I agree with the above. A lot of colleges become more selective not just the top colleges.

But I think low-income students do benefit the most from attending top colleges. I think not only the tuition is free for most low-income students but college is where low-income students get to interact with different people who might not have had a chance to meet them before. For example, people who can't afford to travel and meet different culture and different people, then college provides an opportunity to meet different people of different culture. While people who can afford to travel on their own money, already have the opportunity to meet and interface with different people before entering college.

UCLAri

And that also brings up another question: Do you really want to work in a place where your pedigree is more important than the individual? Some do, some do not.

The problem with all of these debates is that they are never "one size fits all." I, for one, didn't bother applying to big names for jobs because they never interested me. I chose my undergrad largely because of soft factors. I don't believe it works for everyone, but I would be miserable at one of the Big 4 or one of the top consulting firms. The lifestyle offers NO appeal to me.

The second it takes me away from friends, family, and time to travel and pursue my hobbies, a job becomes meaningless to me.

Why should I care, then, that I can't get a job at Google because Brin and Page want a certain cohort? I support their right to hire who they want, the right of CCers to want to be part of that cohort, and the right of those who are just as happy working less for more free time.

Columbia_Student

I'm with you there. I made it a point at every job interview that I don't do travel. My family comes first.
But I think others might find it exciting to travel, I know I did before I had my family. One has to decide what one is suited for.