<p>@sally305:</p>
<p>Even the folks who know Duke only from basketball know that it is a good school, as the TV announcers never fail to mention that it is strong academically.</p>
<p>The irony, though, is that Duke’s academic standards for it’s athletes is far lower than its regular academic standards, so the average UIUC student probably has done better academically than the average Duke revenue-sport athlete.</p>
<p>“Because prestige does matter in finding high-paying jobs and opportunities.”
-Since I disagree with this based on ALL of our family history (everybody has some kind of degree, including Grad. School), I do not care for ANY of it, and I know I will be screamed at for that (had happened many times) but I do not care.</p>
<p>Oops, I thought this was a rehash of the WM Mother Teresa rankings in anticipation of tomorrow’s Morse release. </p>
<p>Same with non-Ivies as well. Most lay people would be more impressed with a degree from Duke that CMU or UIUC</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s true. If you live in Illinois, you likely know all kinds of impressive, successful people from UIUC. All you might know of Duke is its basketball team."</p>
<p>Perfectly said. Why some people assume their local pecking order applies everywhere is beyond me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the average person isn’t watching sports with a college-comparison filter.</p>
<p>I do agree with you about the irony of even mentioning that, though. I’m sure there are examples of academically gifted athletes on some of these teams but they are likely outliers.</p>
<p>"Some are thinking in ways that are too wide, as if, say, given a final choice between a kid from CMU and one from Duke or Rutgers, it’s “so obvious” who has the leg up. It’s that same hierarchical thinking that confuses some on other topics. As if there is some special gloss that overcomes the hard work and smarts required. "</p>
<p>You can tell that the people who think this way are generally pretty low on the totem pole, and aren’t brought in for hiring decisions. Because in the case of our hypothetical kids from CMU, Duke and Rutgers applying for the same position, you don’t go “oh, well, Duke > CMU > Rutgers on USNWR” or whatever. You bring them in, interview them, and whoever impresses you most in the interview – in terms of being thoughtful, demonstrating initiative, ability to work as a team player, creative, dedicated, sincerely interested in the position, etc. – is the one you hire. This, of course, is a big fat duh, but one thing I’ve learned on CC is never to overestimate the common sense some people have.</p>
<p>This is true. Individual qualities matter most. Schools do have different networks and different companies recruiting them, however.</p>
<p>Companies can be simultaneously recruiting from different schools though. It’s not as if they say, “We’re looking at Duke kids, so we can’t possibly look at CMU kids.”</p>
<p>“This is true. Individual qualities matter most. Schools do have different networks and different companies recruiting them, however.”</p>
<p>Absolutely. Which just means the network at CMU is different from the network at Duke, or whatever. It doesn’t mean omg-all-the-top-companies-recruit-at-Duke and all-the-bottom-feeders-at-CMU or whatever. it’s just … different. CC is not a place where people seem to understand the concept of “different but equivalent enough.”</p>
<p>I see how uninformed I was.</p>
<p>However, I do have a question, regarding business and how relevant the college is to doing well in it.</p>
<p>When you look at Businessweek and job employment prospects at prestigious colleges (ex: Wharton, Stern, Goizueta Schools), many get offers from major firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Pricewater Coopers, JP morgan, and Morgan Stanley.</p>
<p>If you look at the bottom of the ladder, like U of Kentucky or Drexel Uni, their business schools not only get lower job offer chances and salaries, but the companies which hire from these universities are nowhere near the stature of major firms</p>
<p>Seeing this, is prestige of the college affiliated with employability in the Business world?</p>
<p>“If you look at the bottom of the ladder, like U of Kentucky or Drexel Uni, their business schools not only get lower job offer chances and salaries, but the companies which hire from these universities are nowhere near the stature of major firms.”</p>
<p>Your mistake is thinking that big firms = better opportunities. A lot of high school students are sadly uninfomed that working for relatively-unknown-company-X may be just as well paying (even higher the higher you go, since private companies don’t have to disclose salaries of officers the way publicly traded companies do) and offer plenty of perks and opportunities. Whether the company is a household name or not is irrelevant in this regard. </p>
<p>Smaller companies can also offer more chance to test your mettle with broader and deeper responsibilities and input, plus a chance to rise faster. We aren’t talking going to work for a mom and pop with 10 employees. </p>
<p>Even getting the offer from a best-known firm doesn’t mean the job stays yours. Many large companies expect to weed. Many start you in less interesting positions or narrow, repetitive roles, while you pay your dues, even with an MBA. </p>
<p>It’s also tricky to let the income numbers we hear about for WS dance through our heads. That’s a particularly demanding and risky path. If you have stars in your eyes about IB, you’d better do some heavier research on what that’s really like and how many young kids pass muster . Or not.</p>
<p>I took a closer look at the pros and cons of working at major firms like Barclays and Goldman Sachs…the biggest sore thumb that stood out was the insane work hours. It seems like 65 - 80 (even 90?) hour workweeks are common especially for new workers, and even when you go home you’re still at the mercy of your clients and the market.</p>
<p>I initially had fantasies of becoming a financial analyst at a large firm for a long time, but damn, I’m having second thoughts.</p>
<p>All that work isn’t worth wasting away your youth and personal relationships IMO. </p>
<p>After all what can you do with a boatload of cash in middle age when your best physical years have faded away. Seems like a more reasonable 40-50 hr workweek with lower pay (50 - 60k a year) would be better for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, in fields like ibanking or law/paralegaling in biglaw, 50-60 hours/week would be considered a bit of a light week. From what I’ve seen from working in a biglaw firm in the IT department 60-80 hrs/week is considered par for the course, especially when there are depositions or client matters which require immediate attention. </p>
<p>Sometimes from what I’ve seen and to some extent, experienced, those hours could be extended to 90 and sometimes even beyond for those in the biglaw world. During one particularly busy/hairy deposition for a case belonging to a large corporate client, even I was called on to put in a 90 hour workweek in a 6 day period because the senior partners in charge wanted IT support on standby “in case we’re needed”. And yes, we were quite needed during that loong workweek. </p>
<p>And that’s not as bad as some of the stories I’ve heard from friends in ibanking who mentioned putting in as much as 120+ hours/week or moreso, medical intern/doctor roommates with such loong work schedules/odd hours that I’d often only see them awake 1 week out of the month…if even that. </p>
<p>@cobrat Did you retire from that position? It couldn’t have been healthy emotionally or physically…</p>
<p>I think many of us have been in positions where we sometimes put in long weeks- whether long days in the office or taking work home. People who travel a lot on business certainly experiences those stresses. Same for people on call. The point is that some jobs just chew you up and spit you out, so to say. You have to have a reason you enjoy them. It helps if that’s more than the money. Loved ones need to understand (which is hard, over time, another stress.) It helps to find balance with other interests. If you’re a hs senior, it’s good to have ideas, but you’ll learn more over the next few years. </p>
<p>I cannot imagine a 90 hour plus work week. I’m a nurse, so my job is very physical. Yesterday I worked 9 hours with no lunch, and when I got home I collapsed and slept really hard for 2 hours. I’m getting too damned old for this.</p>
<p>@Jarjarbinks23
You stated, “Because prestige does matter in finding high-paying jobs and opportunities.” I don’t quite agree with that statement. It depends on what field you’re going into. Yes, if you’re a Lawyer, it matters but there will be opportunities for everyone that is will to present themselves in the best and most qualified manner. I’m not saying that some people can get a job because of their alma mater but now it’s more related to your qualifications.</p>
<p>I was a dental hygienist. None of my employers cared much about where I went to school unless they went there as well. They only wanted to make sure that I was licensed to practice. </p>
<p>Law firms arent the only companies with high expectations for billable hours. True for many consulting firms, and also the reverse-- where the employee was told he must meet all the demands… errr… needs of the client when needed, but could not bill for more than 40 hrs/wk. That was indentured servitude. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That or being hopelessly math-challenged in counting the NON working hours devoted to commuting, resting, eating, and … bathroom breaks. </p>