<p>
</p>
<p>As I mentioned before, they would laugh at those who choose Harvard over Purdue for graduate study in engineering because they look down on such attitude, not because of their better-off position. You may have your opinion on why those engineering students chose Harvard while others may have theirs. Look, you are entitled to argue why choosing Harvard over Purdue/Michigan is not a bad choice, but it is the fact that some people who laugh at this decision (based on their own reasonings) do exist, whereas nobody laughs at those who choose Princeton over Cornell for CS. Why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Comparing Michigan vs. Harvard for graduate engineering is like comparing Cornell vs. Yale for CS. No, it is not fairly close. It is far and away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me with this example? What is the previous position that Rosing held before Google recruited him? a bum? Do you think Google would have recruited him if he was just a fresh high school grad? And what he’s hired for? Core search engine design? Hey, your position and company matter much much more than your alma mater once you start working. But these fresh PhD grads may not have anything to prove beside their PhD theses. Furthermore, in engineering PhD thesis matter more than anything else for employability, a criterion which put many Harvard engineering PhD at disadvantage. On the average, I would argue that Michigan grads in engineering are more marketable than Harvard grads (for graduate level). I don’t have hard data on this, but it’s just a personal judgement based on my exposure in engineering field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What matter is whether you get the job or not. You never know if he’s a jerk or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have any link on that? I thought that only those with high management positions at CityGroup may make over 500k. I’m not familiar with the management hirearchy in investment banking, but 3-5 years is typically enough to become principal engineers in engineering and this position is generally not yet regarded as a management position. Make sure you compare orange with orange.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This logic is very wrong. Management consulting jobs on the average require higher qualifications and work hours. This is why they’re ‘better’ than typical average engineering jobs. Lawyers and doctors on the average make much more money than engineers does this mean that it’s a better path than engineering too? The fact is that average lawyers, doctors, and i-bankers have better qualifications than average engineers. It’s not about the profession, it’s about the quality of the person. How about taking Larry Page, Gordon Moore, or Kai-Fu Lee as an example, wouldn’t you then say engineering paths that they chose are more rewarding.</p>