How arrogant must one be to assume that everyone in the world would just KILL to have the opportunity to have / do the same job they do! Different people have different tastes and preferences. Really, bankers, get over yourselves. No one’s admiring or envying you the way you think they are. You have a nice job you’re happy with - great. So do lots of other people.
I think in many professions what matters most is where you earned your terminal degree. In other words, even among the few rarified companies that care about the name on the diploma, those hiring don’t really get too worried if an applicant’s undergraduate degree is at a second or third tier school if they attended an elite graduate school. Furthermore, after the first or second job all that takes a back seat to the experience and skills you’ve demonstrated on the job.
Even when the goal is an academic career, where the school name really does matter, it’s very possible to jump from a non-elite undergraduate school to an elite grad school.
My own personal experience is as (many years ago) the administrator who handled admissions for the PhD program at a major department at a HYPS university. The only issues re. undergraduate schools I remember were not knowing what to do with a purely narrative transcript from the Evergreen State College (student was admitted), a professor unknown to the department who essentially wrote the same recommendation for two different students (neither got in, but neither’s work dovetailed perfectly with the work being done in the department) and a student who applied from a community college and was clearly not prepared for the work at our institution (I was straight with him and told him he would not be admitted before the committee even met.) A strong recommendation from what was considered a peer school may have held slightly more weight, but attending a non-elite school didn’t hold applicants back as far as I could tell. What mattered was a) that the work was in a field that aligned closely with work being done in one of our labs, b) that the applicant had strong recommendations and grades c) that the professor in whose lab the applicant would work liked him or her (they visited the lab as an interview,) and d) that the professor who wanted the student for their lab had funding. We had a certain amount of general department funding, but around half of our student support came from grants. A prof with huge grants might be able to take 3 students In a year whereas a more junior member of the department without funding might get a grad student every 2-3 years. It was very common for profs to call the undergraduate mentor to get a better handle on students they were considering. In that way I would suppose an undergraduate degree from a peer school might advantage a student slightly in that our faculty were more likely to know their peers at similarly-ranked schools, although I saw at least one case in which this turned out to be a disadvantage. Faculty called mentors at non-peer schools as well.
And what academia values has nothing to do with what the business world values, IMO.
“And what academia values has nothing to do with what the business world values, IMO.”
I would hope that they both value a good education.
[QUOTE=""]
I usually disagree with @pizzagirl but I think she is doing a fantastic job on this thread. The world does not revolve around finance and banking
[/QUOTE]
Same here. 
Go get them, Pizzagirl!
romanigypsyeyes, much2learn,
Sheesh - who cares if you guys chose Omega over Rolex.
The adults here are discussing the merits of Vacheron Constantin .vs. Patek Philippe.
(and according to my Timex, it is time for me to take a nap)
A concern I have relates to the resume screening done by computers and HR personnel. How are the computers programmed with regard to sorting for educational background, and also how knowledgeable are HR people about the programs at various universities? HR folks are not admissions committees, so who knows how holistic they care to be. Suppose HR receives 30 resumes for a position and has to pass on 10 of those to be considered by the relevant corporate department head for possible interviewing. So s/he picks what s/he thinks are the 10 best candidates. She knows CMU, MIT, and Stanford are good for CS, but never heard of Waterloo, so she leaves the excellent Waterloo candidate out of the group of 10 just because she had to narrow down the field and that’s a way to eliminate one more. Does this happen? (Please don’t get hung up on the CS aspect and the schools I picked. Just talking about a general idea here.)
I do know that my sister and her colleagues, who work in regulatory control for big pharma, sometimes have to ask to see all the resumes received because they do not like the candidates HR has pre-selected. In some way, HR’s rationale for sorting is not supplying them with candidates who have the desired characteristics. Not saying HR is at fault, but HR is HR–not scientists, or doctors or programmers etc. So even though the people making final hiring decisions (who are the ones getting surveyed for college articles about what’s important to them) may say they don’t care so much about undergraduate school attended, what if the computer or HR screener does?
(there were 20 million college students, not applicants - my bad)
“…at many hardcore engineering/CS firms I know of…including ones where relatives/family friends are in a position to recruit/hire college graduates, most of the Ivies wouldn’t be considered “elite” in their field.”
"In fact, many schools not considered “elite” by some here on CC and elsewhere would be strongly preferred as they are considered much more elite in their field than most of the Ivies. A few examples are UIUC, UW-Seattle, Gtech*, RPI, Harvey Mudd, etc.
OK let’s talk about that field for a change. What does the designation of “eliteness” in their field mean to the students at those schools that are considered “elite” in that field? Nothing? So your view, or PG’s view is there is no reason students should tend to prefer those “elite” programs over any other?
Do those “elite” schools get just the same pool of technical recruiters, across the country, as graduates of “non-elite” programs do? Including the same number and proportion of recruiters out of region?
Are there really no “elite” employers, in that field? Or "elite"job functions within it?
Would someplace called “Google”, to pick one firm at random, be considered an “elite” company to work for, in some of those circles? Would we expect an engineering grad of say Clarkson College of Technology to have just the same opportunity to work there as grads of those “elite” programs?
Is it possible that, in the world of technology too, if you skip an “elite”, in that field, school, some doors will be constricted?
Ignoring, for the time being, any greater opportunities students may have to find work outside of a purely technological function.
Discuss.
Well…let’s see where google recruits…and aapl…and facebook
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/alumni-network-2/
http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/in_schools_f.jpg
What does google want?
http://mic.com/articles/83377/3-simple-reasons-google-doesn-t-hire-the-top-college-grads
"Discuss. "
Ok I’ll go first. When I was an engineer my company recruited mostly within region. It only recruited out of region at schools it considered “elite” in that field. Within region it recruited most heavily at the in-region schools considered “elite” within the field.
My conclusion is that students of elite technology colleges are advantaged in recruiting, in at least certain respects, and if one doesn’t go to one some doors may close.
No that doesn’t mean that every individual technology graduate cares, or will be disadvantaged vs, what they particuarly would do.
Uhhhh monydad, you went second. 
Slate referenced the wired article.
There is San Jose State.
Here is one simple measure. The list isn’t only engineering, but most are engineering.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/05/30/50-college-diplomas-with-the-highest-pay/
@Sue22
Our current PhD admission process is not significantly different from what you experienced years ago. As I stated earlier, the resulting student population has a very small percentage of graduates from non-top schools. This is just the result, however, not the intention.
@Pizzagirl
“And what academia values has nothing to do with what the business world values, IMO.”
You may not know what the academia actually values. For my own doctoral graduates, the same top performing students have been pursued by universities, government labs, industry, wall street, thinktanks, etc. It seems to me that these different kinds of employers are looking for very similar quality.
The survey of hundreds of HR reps I linked earlier found that among tech employers (and nearly all other fields), HR rated college reputation as the least influential factor in evaluating resumes of new grads by a good margin. Comparing company executives, managers, and HR; all 3 groups rated college name as the least influential factor, but HR rated college reputation as even less influential than managers and executives did.
Based on my personal experience in working at a tech company, college name can influence evaluating resumes, but often not in the way suggested in his thread. For example, if someone if someone evaluating resumes attended the same college as the applicant, he may give preference over similarly qualified candidates, even if that college is not one considered “top” on this forum. The local state school in my area has classes that emphasize the specific technology used at the largest tech employer in the area, and a lot of unique connections in that regard, such as professors who have worked at the company and/or consult for the company. Students who attend that state college have more internship, networking, and recruiting opportunities at this company than would students who attended ivy league colleges since the ivy league is in a different section of the country. You see a similar pattern in hires at many tech companies that new grads think of as desirable. Apple has the most hires from San Jose State, rather than an elite college. Microsoft’s Texas division has by far the most hires from colleges in the University of Texas system. However, experience is much more relevant in evaluating resumes. The most important criteria is whether the applicant is likely to perform in the position well, and one of the best ways to demonstrate this is experience succeeding in doing something similar, in a work environment.
"Are there really no “elite” employers, in that field? Or "elite"job functions within it?
Would someplace called “Google”, to pick one firm at random, be considered an “elite” company to work for, in some of those circles? "
Sigh. There are elite employers within given fields, sure. But the argument that was made on this thread was that the fields themselves were elite and everyone should want to desire them (or, they already do, but they just don’t have a shot in hades so they regretfully resign themselves to all the “second-tier”). And that’s just nonsense.
Really, the only place I’ve found people wet their pants over finance / banking is CC. I have never seen it in the real world. And I have close friends who work in banking, a nephew and a close friend at Morgan Stanley, blah blah blah. But they don’t assume that everyone wanted their job. And no one bows down to them when they enter the room. They have … a job. That’s all. Just like everyone else.
As for “elite” job functions within something? No, I don’t see what it much matters. If the person is happy with the particular position, then it’s really of no consequence whether other people deem it “elite.” I have to laugh at the front-office vs back-office distinction. Some people like front-office stuff and other people like and are well suited for back-office stuff. If everyone’s happy, that’s all that counts. I reject the notion that everyone should want to do front-office or that it’s a sign of laziness or failure or lack of ambition. People have different talents and ways of contributing. I think it’s a mark of … well, something not very good to get all wrapped up in the distinctions.
“Is it possible that, in the world of technology too, if you skip an “elite”, in that field, school, some doors will be constricted?”
Sure. But now we’re getting somewhere. See, people who major in tech fields presumably want to do that for a living, so it behooves them to go to a place that opens the most doors in tech fields.
The argument being made here was simply “elite schools are ‘better’ because they open the particular doors of finance /banking / consulting,” without regard to the fact that that aspect is completely irrelevant for the many, many people who just plain don’t have an interest in those areas.
Look - if I said Northwestern was the ultimate elite school and was better than any place else because if you don’t go there doors will close, and then I clarify that those doors are on Broadway, Hollywood and TV studios, you’d say - so what? I’m not an actor, what do I care? That’s exactly how I feel about the continued argument that other schools are the ultimate elite school because finance / i-banking doors close if you don’t go there. Whoop-de-doo. I’m sorry some people are so narrow that they think that “business” = finance / i-banking when that’s only about 1/100th of what constitutes the business world, but whatever.
This is a list from linkedin of alumni at google.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-best-schools-for-getting-a-job-at-google-2014-10
I know there are people who like ther jobs on wall street. Finance people and engineers. I am happy for them.
The Private Equity industry likes “elite schools”.
Is a private equity person really smarter than a scientist working on a cure for cancer?
“Based on my personal experience in working at a tech company, college name can influence evaluating resumes, but often not in the way suggested in his thread. For example, if someone if someone evaluating resumes attended the same college as the applicant, he may give preference over similarly qualified candidates, even if that college is not one considered “top” on this forum.”
My business partner is a USC grad. She has a very decided preference for USC grads. Well, so what? Let her indulge it - the USC grads we’ve hired have been excellent. If we can get the quality that we want there, then where’s the problem? No one has the time to look everywhere. If you can find a good school that provides easy access to the kinds of students you want - well, yeah, you’ll overlook some other schools. Such is life. It all works out.