Skip an elite school, and doors will close

Go work for free at Oglivy and Mather if you are interested in advertising. Go work for free at APCO if you want to work in risk/reputation management. Go work for free at Brookings if you are interested in becoming a policy expert at a Think Tank. Go work for free at Conde Nast if you want to explore the (shrinking) world of glossy magazines. Go work for free at Procter & Gamble if you want to understand brand management/CPG.

Why is this news? Some of these places hire interns (i.e. free labor) and have lines out the door for one of these free positions. Not sure what this has to do with a company’s proactive recruiting strategy.

Kids don’t understand the labor market. Not news. Neither do their parents- also not news. So they extrapolate from five datapoints and think they get it. Again, not news.

As the tech world was imploding in 2001 there were kids lining up to major in “e-commerce” at a bunch of universities which had launched these degree programs with great fanfare two years earlier. This tells you what exactly? That kids are 17 and 18 years old and don’t have a lot of experience with the labor markets. Not news.

There are talented people every day who don’t get a particular job because they didn’t pass a security check (not because they are terrorists, but because of some small administrative hurdle) or because they don’t have vision in the right range or because they had a melanoma which has been cured or because they are too short to fit in a cockpit. Only on CC is the observable fact that sometimes talented people don’t get jobs because the company is hiring ABCD but they are MNOP a crisis.

BoolaHi, Lol!

Blossom, that melanoma comment is scary. Is it legal to not hire somebody because of a past case of melanoma?


[QUOTE=""]
During our conversation, the wife, the psychiatrist, said a word I did not understand. I said to her, "I don't know what that word means. I did not go to Stanford"

[/QUOTE]

Hmmm… I don’t know about that.
Just came out of a 2 hour meeting with my boss who has a Ph. D from Stanford.
Frequently occurred words in our conversation seemed to be crap, suck, and that other word that rhymed with the previous word. I guess we are just a couple of crude plebs. :stuck_out_tongue:

Dstark- my guess is that NASA isn’t hiring someone to be an astronaut who is within the “window” post-cancer. Just a guess. I would also wager that you aren’t getting picked to be a Green Beret or Special Ops with a high risk medical condition.

I should have verified this before posting. But this is my guess. Is NASA going to tell you why you didn’t get the job? No. But since they aren’t telling anyone else why- and it is a very competitive process- it’s likely there were other potential disqualifications along the way.

I remember the scientist at the South Pole who performed her own cancer surgery a few years ago… Yikes.

duplicate

@blossom, as far as I know, Cargill isn’t in the exploitation business*.

In any case, my point is that it’s myopic to extrapolate from your personal experiences if your experiences are only from a certain part of the world.

*BTW, I would almost never let my kids work for free; if an industry requires you to work for free to break in to, then it’s not worth breaking in to because the demand/supply balance does not favor labor. If you’re going to work for free, do it for yourself. Start a company or create something. Only exception would be if that particular experience gives you something that is clearly going to guarantee you success in that field.

Blossom, ok. Thanks for the explanation.

In most areas of employment, I hope not hiring somebody because of a prior tumor is illegal.

Furrydog, lol. Your boss is using language I can understand. :slight_smile:

Purple I agree with your point 100%, and sorry to have missed it.

Two of my kids worked for free- summer internships. One of them was on the Hill- incredible experience, college provided a paid fellowship so kid had the same amount of dough at the end of the summer as if it had been a paying job. The other kid won a more competitive fellowship to fund work at a non-profit- it covered living expenses with a little extra, not quite as much money left in September, and kid decided that this type of work wasn’t for him.

So valuable experience all around. From what we observed, the only paying summer jobs in politics are at PAC’s (usually the very polarizing ones) or polling research firms. So a kid interested in public policy/politics/something in that realm may need to take one of the non-paying internships to figure out if the work is of interest. And this kids first job post-graduation- a paying job, health insurance, etc. was with the internship employer (as they had promised).

I dislike unpaid internships but sometimes they are a necessary evil depending on a kid’s aspirations.

“Only on CC is the observable fact that sometimes talented people don’t get jobs because the company is hiring ABCD but they are MNOP a crisis.”

I don’t think anyone on here is saying that certain companies in certain fields may have preferences, whether it is a company that will hire only engineers from XYZ or a division or manager that will hire only people from schools ABC, no one is arguing that, it isn’t a crisis (though to be honest, when I hear things like “a manager I know hires only students from schools ABC, because only they seem to learn fast enough or be good enough”, my response to that person was that likely it was the way they recruited that had an issue, not the schools. Chances are, the kids from elite school ABC had things like internships and such, wheres the kids from DEF likely lacked them. Put it this way,a kid from an Ivy league school with no work experience compared to the kid from the flagship U who had done work in the field, likely the second kid will do better. BTW in grad school part of my program was technical management and had several units on recruiting, and one of the things that is a know fact with hiring managers is when they make claims like “people from school X or Y do better than the others”, there often is a kind of self created prophesy there, unconscious though it may be (much the same way hiring managers will claim to be color blind or wanting ‘a variety of types’, yet will hire people just like themselves), that what will happen is they believe school X or Y is better, and when they hire kids from there, they make an effort they aren’t aware of to make them succeed, act as mentor and so forth, whereas with kids from schools they perceive as from ‘lesser schools’, they may not make that effort. I also question whether someone from Canada wouldn’t have the view of the ‘elite schools’, kids from Canada apply to Elite schools, and schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton and so forth have a global brand, and have had for many years. If it didn’t, kids from overseas wouldn’t be trying in record numbers to get into elite colleges (according to an article I read recently, application from foreign students at all schools, especially the top ranked ones, is up almost 50% in the last 5 years or so)…so to say someone from Canada might not have ‘elite school syndrome’ doesn’t ring true.

The reality is companies have preferences, managers have preferences, I have interviewed kids some on here would probably go ga ga over, came from a top school, was active in this and that, looked really good in paper, but when interviewed showed they had little in the nature of pragmatic problem solving skills or ways of looking at things we were looking for, so it all depends.

What people are railing against are broad based claims that not going to an elite somehow dooms your future. Yep, if you wanted to work at firm XY,where they tend to hire from Stanford or MIT, and you went to Cal X or U of Y, you might not stand much of a chance, there is no doubt, or if you graduate from NYU and are applying for a job with some company in Iowa that loves to hire U of Iowa grads, might be tough…but those are normal biases that exist.But to say that if you don’t go to an elite school, that make it seem like a giant door will slam on you (rather than some smaller doors closed entirely, or others open very narrow), is the part people are questioning. It isn’t that the elite schools don’t give you special opportunities, they do (much as a local school to a specific employer might give grads there a big leg up), or that they aren’t great schools, they are, but it is just that, about relative advantages. If you want to go work for Goldman you better come out of an elite school, in fact I would say that door is slammed shut if you went to a ‘merely’ excellent school, or you wanted to work for McKimsey or wanted to work for Bane or wanted to work for (fill in the blank), yep, if you don’t go to an elite school, you might want to rethink your priorities, there is no doubt, if you wanted to work in the petroleum engineering field it might be better to go to a school down in Texas then one in Michigan (that is a hypothetical, folks, though I am sure there are grains of truth to that, in large part because of internships going to Texas schools). Likewise, if you plan on working in some relatively exotic field, like biogenetic engineering, you may want to find a top rated program…but those kind of jobs represent a small fraction of the total, where the bias is absolute (ie not in top X school? Don’t apply to Goldman), other biases are going to be a lot more subtle where trying to find a college to fit the bill might be a fools errand, that’s all. If a kid applies to Ivies or whatnot and gets in, that is great, and if the family can afford it and they like the school, I would encourage them to seriously think of going there. What I am saying is that if the kid applies to an ‘elite’ school and would, for example, have to go into serious debt or didn’t get in at all, their life isn’t over, and the obsession with an ‘elite school’ or bust is the problem, not the elite schools.

The other thing is, that has been mentioned here, that as you go on in your career going to an elite school will matter less and less, with some small exceptions (read, McKimsey, Goldman and other bastions of the old boy/girl networks, where they self select from those schools cause they went there, and it also looks great to some boob at a corporation hiring Mckimsey to say “Our kids are all from elite schools and are the best”), but those are exceptions as time goes on, after that it is what you do, who you work for and what you show. Yes, there are managers out there who will look at GPAs 10 years in, or who will look at someone’s resume, look at the college first and say “ooh, they went to Yale, must be great, let me interview them, to hell with the others”, but they are rare animals, it could be going to an elite university gives you an edge with some employers down the road, but it is not going to be much if anything at all, and certainly not worth agonizing over (again, with the caveat of some jobs, like investment banking and consulting and so forth).

Funny, the Canadian did go to Waterloo for CS! And as I said, he did not start with biases but developed them based on the competency of the applicants coming from certain schools compared to others.

Anyway, another situation in my region that is having an impact is globalization and immigration. My geographic area has one of the highest concentrations of East Asians in the US. My D is often the only non-Asian in her honors and AP classes, and the parents of her high-achieving classmates are all senior scientists and IT managers in big companies in the state. As we have seen, generally speaking Indian and Chinese families absolutely believe in the value of HYPSM et al. Some are even obsessed over getting their own children in those institutions. So can you appreciate the possibility that when they interview young people for jobs, they might be less open-minded with regard to the applicant’s school? This is a reality in NJ so it behooves us to take it into consideration.

OT, but the NASA cancer post made me think of a young man who was told by a military recruiter that he was ineligible due to a peanut allergy. First time I heard that.

[never mind]

@TheCFG, I wonder how many Stanford graduates want to work for an industrial equipment distributor in NJ? Did your daughter accept their offer?
Poor Rutgers graduates will have to settle for Goldman and Google, all big 4 accounting and every insurance company and tons of banks that recruit there.

Did I say that big companies did not recruit at Rutgers? No I didn’t. I just said that there are companies who only recruit at elite schools, and they aren’t just the big finance and consulting firms that hire this way. As blossom said, if you’re a small company near an elite university and you can go there for a day and find the one or two kids you need, why bother spending time and money going to other, lower-ranked schools as well. It’s a matter of practicality and conservation of resources.

Secondly, you should know that companies like Goldman recruit at some schools for certain jobs but not others. The bank my son worked at recruited true financial analysts only at elite schools, but administrative, accounting and marketing people at others. That makes sense, of course, since HYPSM don’t have marketing and accounting majors. Even so, they might go to Rutgers to find accountants, but not the other state schools. They do care about school ranking.

@monydad, “no forward curve” meaning no liquidity in forward markets leading to bogus observed prices?

In any case,

  1. Black (essentially the same thing as B-S) can handle any sort of forward curve (backwardation, contango, whatever), though if you’re in the markets, you’ll know that a model like Black is just a convenient idiom useful for communication (of vol levels, for instance). Models are models. Markets are markets.

Oh, and there definitely are CS targets (just like there are Street targets and MBB targets), though they also don’t line up perfectly with selectivity or lay prestige.
As with anything, it depends and you really need to do research.

Also, NJ isn’t the world.

I will never dance with the Bolshoi ballet and somehow I’m ok with that.

I’m not sure why folks here have such an axe to grind over the (observable) reality that paths lead to different destinations.

It’s ok for a firm in Silicon Valley to prefer kids from Berkeley, Stanford and CMU, but not OK when a company in NJ prefers Princeton and Stanford?

And now we need to learn that NJ isn’t the world???

Defensive day on CC methinks.

[quote]
Also, NJ isn’t the world.

[quote]

People in NJ are going to be very disappointed to read that.

When I travel back east, and look at all the people, I wonder. I am the center of the universe. What are you people doing here living parallel lives with my life? Why do you even exist?

PurpleTitan, do you work in the financial markets? I like monydad’s post. I don’t know why he deleted the post.

I just consulted my Atlas. It was put together by someone name Steinberg for The New Yorker in 1976. We keep it on a large framed poster upstairs, for ready reference.

It shows that a place called “Jersey” is indeed part of the world. It is on the other side of the Hudson River. The city after it is Kansas City. There are about ten cities after and around that, then Los Angeles, the Pacific Ocean and three continents on the other side.

Also,the world is flat.

[Re: Black, volatility, etc, I’ve had over ten years to forget everything about my experiences there, let’s keep it that way]

Of course, but this happens at companies near “lower-ranked” schools as well. Recruiting locally is not a new concept… In fact, even the preferences can work in reverse, where companies actually prefer hiring from Flagship U.

Why anyone would actually want to work for a company that hired exclusively based on school ranking is beyond me. To each his own I suppose.