Maybe we can take this off this thread, but I don’t understand.
How does one do this? How to identify the decision maker and how to reach them?
In his sophomore year, S22 attended an invitation-only networking with Dropbox (because Founder/CEO is an alum) (son was lucky enough to be one of the chosen to attend), and he was able to meet/speak w/ the CEO.
For the internship, Dropbox sent him an automatic OA, and he didn’t do great on it because he didn’t know how to prepare for OA back then.
But other than that lucky opportunity, he hasn’t gotten anywhere to knowing who the key people are, let alone how to even reach them.
”I better reach out to the decision makers, and if so can I identify this person at each target company or should I shape my target list only to include companies where I can get to a clear decision-maker (CTO, CEO etc.)”
Son is not reaching for FAANG. He’s open to smaller companies/startups, something less on the grid/all opportunities anywhere in the world.
I would like to point out that while some job seekers may achieve success sending out hundreds of resumes, this approach does not work for all. One of my kids told me to stop sending her jobs from Indeed. She went on to list all of the reasons why, and they made sense (for her industry). When looking for jobs, one size does not fit all. Her CV and cover letters need to be tailored to each position (this takes a long time).
Networking is continuous. Reach out to authors whose articles you have read (this was mentioned earlier), reach out to people/strangers on LinkedIn, keep in touch with everybody - profs, internships etc, attend conferences and talk to people, introduce yourself.
Certainly good words. Truth is many aren’t comfortable with this or good at this but like lots of things in life, diversification is good.
Most kids simply aren’t highly networked or comfortable cold calling. Everyone has to remember - you are in sales. People say I don’t want to be.
But you are and the product is you.
I wish Cornell didn’t remove their how kids find jobs data. It was overwhelmingly online corporate listings and linkedin/indeed. It was far less networking, alums, or the schools via job fairs/on campus interviewing. Those are great methods but most kids aren’t set up to engage in those areas and while I read a lot here a lot how to do it, their reported data showed otherwise. I’m not sure why they removed it.
i wish others would post it.
But yes, no matter how you find a job, you do have to work to find it.
The advice I give to those I mentor (both students and early-career employees) is to start building your network long before you need it.
Focus on forming genuine relationships with people. You may never need help from 95% of them, but when you do need support from the remaining 5%, it won’t feel opportunistic, and they’ll be far more willing to help. Moreover, you won’t know in advance who that 5% will be, so be authentic in all your relationships and offer help whenever you can. Don’t just be a taker - be a giver as well.
WSJ on the convergence of career interests towards tech, finance, and consulting. Some interesting data in the article. Edited and condensed GPT summary:
How the Highest-Earning Millennials Made It to the Top of Their Generation
Key highlights (dense, detail-preserving)
Top-earning millennials are following increasingly similar “narrow pathways.” High earners disproportionately come from a small set of lucrative fields, concentrate in a handful of “superstar” cities, and often pass through top-tier universities. This reflects a broad economic re-sorting that has reshaped which careers reliably produce top incomes.
Tech and finance have become the dominant engines of millennial top incomes. A Wall Street Journal analysis of 2023 Census/ACS data finds tech and finance are now more likely to propel millennials into the top 5% of household income than they did for baby boomers at similar ages in 1990.
The income bar for “top 5%” is higher now (inflation-adjusted).
Millennials (2023): top 5% household income threshold > $300,000
Baby boomers (1990, in 2023 dollars):> $212,000
This underscores that the payoff for reaching the top tier is large—and the threshold has climbed.
Doctors and lawyers remain strong—but are less dominant than before. Compared with boomers, millennial doctors and lawyers are less likely to be top earners:
Doctors: ~2/5 of millennial doctors reach top 5% vs 1/2 of boomer doctors
Lawyers:< 1/3 of millennial lawyers reach top 5% vs 38% of boomer lawyers
The article attributes the legal drop partly to too many law grads relative to demand (Paul Campos).
Pay has “skyrocketed” in a few high-wage sectors. Citing a 2024 American Economic Review study: wage growth from 1996–2018 was much faster in higher-wage industries, and a small set of fields—tech, science, engineering, finance—explained more than half of the widening pay gap. Economist John Haltiwanger: “The earnings have just skyrocketed in those industries.”
Tech/finance roles massively increase odds of being top-5% income. Millennial software developers and financial analysts are ~4× as likely to land in the top-earning 5% of households compared with millennials overall (per the Journal analysis).
“Mega firms” and scalable work amplify upside. High-paying jobs are increasingly concentrated in large “mega firms” (10,000+ employees). The article argues that working on global products can generate compensation upside comparable to or exceeding traditional high-status professions. Harvard economist/physician Anupam Jena draws the contrast: a surgeon’s earnings can resemble those of someone “programming the interface” at a major tech company.
Narrow success routes create systemic fragility. Because top outcomes cluster in a few industries and cities, instability in those hubs could block mobility for many millennials. This is compounded by the generation’s timing: millennials (now 28–44) entered adulthood around the 2007–09 recession, which hurt early career prospects—then a few booming sectors helped some catch up.
Despite the “financially stunted” label, millennials are wealthier than prior cohorts at similar ages (inflation-adjusted). The article notes millennials have higher average net worths than boomers and Gen X did at comparable ages, after inflation.
Career aspirations are converging early—especially among elite students. Sociologist Lauren Rivera observes undergrads increasingly fixate on a “triumvirate of banking, consulting and tech,” even if they initially want to “change the world.”
Elite education meaningfully boosts odds of extreme earnings. A 2023 Opportunity Insights study finds attending an elite private school vs. a public flagship raises chances of reaching the top 1% by roughly 60%.
Talent is being pulled out of regions into elite pipelines and coastal hubs. Harvard’s David Deming says elite colleges now recruit top students nationally (e.g., from Iowa) and funnel them toward major power centers (East Coast/Beltway, etc.), intensifying geographic concentration.
Where you live matters more for millennials’ earnings trajectories. UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti argues the metro you start and build your career in has become much more important, as places like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and Washington, D.C. pulled away economically over decades. The article highlights rising earnings in “thriving metros” relative to others.
Top-earning millennials are more diverse than top-earning boomers. Among top-earning households:
Millennials: 62% white
Boomers (1990 top earners): 86% white
Millennials in the top tier are also ~2× as likely to be foreign-born.
High earners often “pair off,” compounding advantage. The piece notes financially successful millennials frequently partner with other successful earners, reinforcing household-level top-income clustering.
Illustrative stories (what the narratives are used to show)
AJ Debole (37): law school didn’t pay off as expected; she pivoted through telecom + trading into cybersecurity/tech, enabling a single-income household and faster repayment of old law debt—an example of tech as a second-chance wealth escalator.
Ryan Haugh (35): deliberately avoided medicine/law due to time/cost; used military service to fund school, moved from rural Pennsylvania to Bay Area consulting, and counts on startup equity upside via his spouse—an example of geography + consulting/tech adjacency + equity option value.
Chirranjeevi Gopal (37) & Caitlin Bigelow (35): immigrant talent draw into Silicon Valley, entrepreneurship, and dense networks—an example of hub magnetism and the internationalization of top-earner pipelines.
This has 100% been my experience. I do not like what I think of as “networking” but I like people and am very interested in others and what they do and why, having genuine connections with people, etc. The vast majority of jobs I’ve had, are through some connection. Most of them not somebody close, or that I would have predicted, and often someone I have known for years without thinking there would ever be anything I’d need from them, or that they job they connected me to was even a thing at the time we started a relationship. Often it has been the person I know connecting me to someone they know, which has led to an amazing job opportunity.
Good networking can largely relationship building with people you you want to know, some of whom will have career interests in common.
I’m just trying to figure out which industries it is in which the hiring decision-makers at very large corporations in it do not have active bozo filters to weed out the chaff of random job-seekers trying to target them.
they all do. and the stakes are higher with c level titles. much more downside than upside. and that’s the art of networking that makes it valuable when done right and with authenticity.
I think it is often both. If you know the right people, but not the right stuff, you often still get shut out. If you know the right stuff, but not the right people, you are often dime a dozen and get shut out. The confluence of the two is where the best action is.
From zip recruiter - I’m surprised it’s this low based on what Cornell showed but it’s still leading
How are grads actually finding their jobs? Among recent grads, 29.8% say they found their first job through a job board (up from 22% in 2023), while nearly 17% say referrals/networking and school resources, such as job fairs on campus, led to landing their first role.
Edit - I’ve always noted shotgunning is inefficient but we’ve seen posters here say I’ve sent 100 resumes and hit 2 or 3 interviews. That’s 2 or 3 more than they had otherwise. And not everyone’s resume or cover letter are necessarily impactful. So some may miss out for that.
Each application has an 8.3% chance of landing you an interview
It takes 10-20 applications to secure one interview
You’ll need 10-15 interviews to get one offer
The math is brutal: If you need 15 applications per interview and 12 interviews per offer, that’s 180 applications for one job offer.
(from the article cited above)
So many cold applications don’t make it through the AI screening. But I was talking to someone in the field and they commented that all of these applications are tracked so they can see where they are coming from. Some may go to the junk pile because of where they’re coming from, which is sad , but other places, possibly programs or schools, might get a closer look.
