@PurpleTitan, I didn’t say you had rendered one. I’m asking your opinion…just not clearly enough. ?
@eyemgh, I would choose Cal unless I had 8 figures in net wealth.
BTW, you should work before an MBA but you could get a master’s.
Do you have enough AP credits to finish in 3 years at Cal? That also gives you a little extra optionality at Cal: graduate early if the job market is hot and you get a good offer. Stay in school longer if it isn’t and you don’t.
@PurpleTitan . . . re, your 1st paragraph ^^^, post #22, Cal, as @ucbalumnus would tell you, has a dual CS/Bus degree. I think Cal is trying a little too hard to find the person who brings forth the next unicorn company by having a this dual major, when the next guy who does so will probably not be a person who’s into mixing the two together: he/she’ll be all about tech 24/7.
@penguin2 . . . your parents are already in the game, so you obviously know the ins and outs better than the rest of us, and you’re probably one of the 45 students whom Cal will take from many of the high schools immersed in Silicon or its neighboring areas.
For all the others out there who are reading this, pursuing a position at a FANG or FAANG (with the inclusion of Apple) has its numerous downsides:
– An obvious high turnover simply manifested by how many new grads the techs hire per year; for many of these, their tenure will be extremely short, because management will have numerous performance measures.
– The high cost of living in the Peninsula or even the East Bay. I’ve used this before: the home prices in Mountain View, Santa Clara, etc – forget about Los Altos (Hills), Woodside, Menlo, Portola Valley, Atherton, etc. This drives up the rents to among the highest in the nation outside of NYC for new grads.
Many things to consider…
Both are great schools! If your parents aren’t uber rich, do your undergrad at Cal and save money for MBA at Sloan. You get the best of both worlds, and your ability to hold a senior position in any company is increased with your MBA.
As others have said, your MBA will have little value if you don’t have substantial tech experience under your belt. In general, companies don’t hire people who have never done, to manage those who do.
@firmament2x: Sure, there’s high turnover. But there’s high turnover at MBB and people want to work there too. There are obvious benefits (like increasing your network, for example).
@PurpleTitan . . . That’s actually their way of keeping costs down. Hire new grads at a salary that looks great, but is actually a cost-reduction measure wrt someone who might have more seniority.
So in effect, for the tech companies and MBB or wherever for most, it’s just like an internship. Granted, the alumni as they call them, of these sectors go on to do good things, and the techs pay more because they desire a more unique talent, but factor in the cost of housing, and it becomes more of a wash.
@firmament2x, depends on your timespan.
Long-term, starting out at one of those companies probably is smart. Experience matters more than compensation (or even net cash flow).
I agree about experience > compensation.
I believe the consensus is go to Cal? This thread has spun off into the merits of FAANG and hiring new grads, so I’m still a bit in the dark on what you all think about the social life and cooperation/competition between Cal and MIT.
If you could pitch in about that?
No matter the answer (which I don’t have…sorry; my gut is that they’ll be similar), it won’t impact the fact that MIT is MASSIVELY more expensive, that for half the price you can attend one of the top CS programs in the world and that MIT will place a burden on your family. With that in mind, why is the question really germane any more? Would you subject them to that based on some random internet posters’ opinions (mine included)?
^ MIT is more expensive, but it all depends. For instance, on net worth. I’d revise to say that I’d spring for MIT even if I had high 7 figures net worth. Arguably, $300K to someone with $7M is the same as $30K to someone with $700K.
At MIT, you could easily switch to becoming a business (or other) major as well. Or double major. At Cal, you’d need to be in some special program.
In 2019, there were 151 students who were admitted to Cal who chose MIT, or about 1.06% of the school’s 14,277 admits. Obviously these were not all the cross-admits, because some of these chose other universities. How many of MIT’s admits chose Cal? Certainly, the big question and only the National Clearinghouse and MIT would know, and neither, especially the latter, are (edit: is) going to tell us.
^ Though many of those 151 who chose MIT would not come from doughnut hole families. If MIT costs the same or cheaper, of course you choose MIT. Same thing if your family net worth is high 7 figures or more. $300K just wouldn’t be that big of a sacrifice. It may not even be what you’d expect to gain on average each year in stock market appreciation. If your net worth is low 7 figures or lower but you don’t qualify for fin aid, then it’s a much tougher decision.
Actually, if your net worth is a couple million or less. Even mid-7 figure net worth families may figure they already have enough saved for retirement so why not splurge on an MIT degree.
" I’ve heard horror stories from students about the workload, lack of help, and even the occasional sabotage of fellow students’ work. Is this typical at techie colleges? "
As ucbalumnus points out, since EECS is a direct admit program, you should see less of that, even though it still will be competitive but probably not cutthroat. This happens anywhere a larger class needs to become smaller, which is typically pre-med and engineering/cs. But it could happen in private non-tech schools, and public as well.
As for your question, I’d lean to UCB because you should be able to get internships in silicon valley a little easier in eecs, if that’s one of your factors. And it doesn’t have to be faang internships either, a lot of smaller companies would take an eecs student. It’s not like they won’t take an MIT student, but you’re right here, and you’ll see the opportunities up close.
I don’t know if your second bold is a correction of the first, because the first bold of “family net worth is high 7 figures” (not income) as a minimum wouldn’t fly, though you might have self-corrected even in your first P. But even “if your net worth is a couple million or less” per your second, it wouldn’t be a reason the “splurge on an MIT degree.” OP’s family presumably is near the Bay tech hotbed, which means that his/her family live in an area that has real estate that is extremely overpriced for the sq. footage for a lot of houses in the area. Additionally, is OP an only child or have there been other siblings to educate and/or will there be more? California, especially the Bay, is an entirely different animal when it comes to the funding of college educations in one’s family, and that’s why many of wealthiest families in the state default to the UC.
Three year old article on :
“Silicon Valley hires the most alumni of these 10 universities, and none of them are in the Ivy League”
@firmament2x, extremely costly housing also means a lot of home equity (if they had been in the Bay Area awhile; assuming they aren’t renting).
Enough for their house to essentially be their retirement plan (they’d just have to move somewhere cheaper to retire). Granted, may mean not a lot of free cash flow. And yes, being an only child vs. having multiple siblings would make a big difference in the calculation.
Correction in second sentence: “it wouldn’t be a reason [to] ‘splurge on an MIT degree.’”
@purpletitan . . . That’s just it, for “their retirement plan.” It’s got to be all cash flow, i.e., income, along with no interference with home equity, or it shouldn’t be considered feasible.
Edit: @sushiritto . . . some of those have to be marketing/bus types, like ASU.