Included among several ridiculous statements made by Professor Caplan in the LA Times article are:
“After four years at Princeton, though, the guerrilla student would lack [just] one precious thing: a diploma.”
Really ? Just one thing ?
Does Professor Caplan understand the significance of what it takes to earn a Princeton diploma ?
The “guerrilla student” also would lack graded work, constructive feedback, and research opportunities in addition to internships.
Professor Caplan also wrote:
“As long as they have good grades and finish their degree, employers care little about what they’ve learned.”
Apparently Professor Caplan hasn’t been on any job interviews in the last decade or two. Employers care a lot. Sometimes employers care about technical knowledge & skills, but employers seem to always care about communication skills, problem solving skills, and willingness to learn (trainability) and demonstrated work ethic.
“but employers seem to always care about communication skills, problem solving skills, and willingness to learn (trainability) and demonstrated work ethic.”
All true, but there is an assumption here that formal college learning provides these traits that would otherwise go unnurtured, and specifically, that earning a college degree rather than attending classes and/or learning on one’s own would not have the same effect.
Couldn’t those same traits be acquired by a “guerrilla” student sitting in on classes without earning a diploma, or a young adult who reads classic books on his/her own while working in a job? I know I’ve learned much more over the years by reading books, watching PBS documentaries, and being employed than I ever learned in a formal educational setting.
Also (with high probability) these traits were already present in the student prior to enrolling in college. The sheer function of increasing in age also may serve to mature the 18 to 22 year old, augmenting these desirable traits over a four year period. Only a randomized study with similarly accomplished high school seniors, one group attending college, other groups doing “guerrilla” learning and/or working in a job, etc., would answer this question, but such a study won’t happen for several reasons.
Agreed. A HS buddy of mine went on to become a very senior person at a BB (more than one). He told me he hired literally thousands of students in his career. He would agree with you 100%. Said recruiting is a combination of having an informed opinion on what you’ll get AND efficiency. He used the elite schools at a vetting process with the thought that if they’re good enough for HYPWS, they have the intellect to be successful. Asked him about the diamond in the rough, missing opportunities with a stellar kid at BC or Nova or X. He essentially said not worried or concerned at all. Sure they’re great kids there, but why would you assume they’re better than the great kids at HYPWS? he essentially had 10 (maybe 15 ) schools on his radar. If not from that pool, they really would have to stand out to even get interviewed (hard to do).
It sounds like people who are born into low income families (who are often people of color) need not apply. It’s no wonder low income families take on 6-figure debt for a name brand school. They’ll be discriminated against if they don’t.
Why would students from non-elite schools have to be “better” than kids from elite schools? They have to be capable of doing the job. Making low income/students of color pass a higher bar is discriminatory.
This doesn’t have to just be about discriminating against low income or minority students. There’s an attitude in some circles, exemplified in @rickle1 ‘s post, that students at tippy top private schools are intrinsically superior. Its clear in my S’s DC think tank internship cohort that the students from places like HYP didn’t need the same level of experience to get hired as those from public schools.
I do think that the bias towards private vs public is much more common in the northeast, here in CA (and internationally) graduating from Berkeley or UCLA carries more weight than most east coast privates.
Yes, they care about these things, but it can be hard to fully assess these things over several hours of typical job interviews (e.g. problem solving skills for larger programs that take longer to solve, trainability over the longer term, knowledge and skill over a broad and deep subject area relevant to the job).
To some employers, a college degree can be a proxy measure to indicate somewhat greater likelihood of these desired skills being present. I.e. a signal that the person is more likely to have the desired skills. (However, it can also signal other things that may or may not be intended by the employer, such as parental ability and willingness to send the person to college, or a particular college.)
By definition though, if the degree from a specific school is considered to be a proxy for certain skills, those skills must actually exist. If enough students hired from a certain school/program ended up not being able to demonstrate the required skills graduates of that school/program would no longer be considered. Signalling only works if the signal conforms with reality the vast majority of the time.
The reality is that for some students and some employers a degree is a form of credentialization as evidenced by the inevitable questions each enrolment period from students looking for advice on the best “bird courses”. For jobs requiring specific skills though, a degree goes beyond that. You aren’t going to hire a humanities graduate, regardless of how fabulous a school they attended, to build a bridge. In that case the actual skills acquired matter.
The employers indicated that they did value specific skills among applicants, not just signaling. Among specific skills, the top ranked surveyed skills by the ~700 employers were as follows. The largest gap between what employers said they need and what they believe new grads have occurred in adaptability and problem solving.
Written and oral communication
Adaptability / managing multiple platforms
Problem solving
Collaborating with others.
*. Technical Skills (#2 for science & tech employers, not in top 5 overall)
When evaluating resumes of new grads for hiring decisions, from most to least important the average ranking was as follows. Experience in a work environment was by far the most important criteria on average, in all surveyed industries. College reputation was the least important criteria, although there were some exceptions. For example, 2% more employers said they were far more likely to consider a grad from a elite college than a national known college. 1% more said they were far less likely to consider the elite college kid than the nationally known college kid.
Internships
Employment during college
College major
Volunteer experience
Extracurricular activities
Relevance of coursework
College GPA
College reputation
When asked the primary value of a college degree for employment, the employers emphasized a bachelor’s degree being the minimum requirement to be hired or advance (like a HS degree was in the past), but also mentioned indicating proof of some basic skills.
My personal experience mostly relates to working at small engineering companies, which have only a single location, although I interviewed with companies of all sizes as a new grad. Having a bachelor’s degree in a relevant major is often the minimum requirement to apply in my field. Depending on position, a master’s or PhD in relevant field may be preferred/required. Skills indicated on the resume can also be important, particularly among applicants who have work place experience doing something similar to the desired position. Many employers want to hire new grads who can do the job requirements soon after hiring, without a lot of new training.
The school name or GPA is not tremendously important at the tech companies I am familiar with, beyond a possible GPA resume screen. However, the school name is influential in on-campus recruiting. When the smaller companies I’ve worked for go to a college fair or recruiting event, it’s always at an in-state university with a decent engineering program in the desired subfield. For example, a Bay Area company I have worked for only recruited at local Bay Area schools. Colleges attended by current successful employees at the company is also highly relevant in choice of where they have recruiting events.
After getting your foot in the door for an interview, then skills learned in college can be especially important in my field. Without exception, all positions I have interviewed for involved a long series of technical questions. Some questions were short verbal one-sentence type questions… Other questions were longer and involved writing code. The interviews could last all day, with hours spent on tech questions. A new grad applicant who does not do well in the technical questions portion of the interview will not be hired. The interviews also usually involved evaluation of softer skills, such as ability to communicate well and function well along with the team, and these softer skills were also usually critical in hiring decisions. Past knowledge of the applicant, such as during internships with the company could often substitute for much of the above. Past interns at the company had a high rate of continuing to work at the company after graduating at all companies I am familiar with.
To be clear, this wasn’t or isn’t my opinion / philosophy, just passing on a reality check from a friend who was a senior leader and did a lot of hiring. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. Regarding why the non-elite school kid needs to be “better”, from my friends perspective it was simply an efficiency thing. They knew what they got from the elite schools: smart, intellectual, capable, hard working kids. He saw no reason to go outside their success formula. It would take an overly impressive kid from a lower tiered school to get on his radar.
I don’t doubt that there are some employers with such philosophies, and those employers are almost certainly overrepresented among participants on CC forums or similar forums focused on “elite” college admission. However, I believe such employers are the exception, not the rule. For example, in the survey of 700 employers linked in my earlier post, employers as a whole ranked college reputation as the least important listed factor when evaluating resumes for hiring new grads, and ranked colleges as follows when asked “Please tell us how a college’s reputation affects your consideration of a candidate.” As a whole, they indicated little to no preference for elite college grads over grads from quality publics.
Employer Survey: 1 = Far less likely to hire, 5 = Far more likely to hire
Public Flagship – 3.87
Nationally Known College – 3.77
Regionally Known College – 3.76
Elite College or University – 3.69
Local College or University – 3.57
For Profit College – 3.41
Online College – 2.82
Unknown College – 2.67
The portion who were more and less likely to consider an applicant from the college grouping was:
More Likely to Consider Applicant
Nationally Known College – 57%
Regionally Known College – 56%
Elite College or University – 56%
Local College or University – 47%
Unknown College – 6%
Less Likely to Consider Applicant
Nationally Known College – 1%
Regionally Known College – 1%
Local College or University – 2%
Elite College or University – 3%
Unknown College – 34%
There are various subfields that differ. For example, if we are talking about “elite” banking, then attending an “elite” college can be very important. And many students from “elite” colleges do follow that path, which contributes to a strong networking effect. However, the vast majority of new grads go into different fields where employers have different hiring processes.
If we are talking about the engineering companies I am familiar with, then “elite” college and public college grads go through a similar hiring process, with similar interview tech questions. Neither group gets a pass for the technical skill evaluation. It was my experience that recruiting event selection has more to do with things like location (distance from company), having a quality engineering program, and having quality past hires form that college – not eliteness of college.
BC…I don’t think your post is accurate that top grads from public U’s are “systematically” overlooked or discriminated against in some way.
M&A at Goldman Sachs is not the labor market. In the same way that you can’t look at the Green Berets and make sweeping conclusions about the composition of our armed forces…it’s one, tiny, non representative slice.
Employers are not monolithic and the skills required for different roles force employers to have a very wide lense. Would you balk to learn that surgical residencies have different screens than those for family medicine…even though theoretically an MD should be just as capable at one as the other?
I had a boss once who would insist on two colleges on every recruiting calendar…Stonehill and Santa Clara. Even when we needed skills or a major which you would not find at those schools. He didn’t last too long. We’d be hiring for statistical analysts for a facility in new Jersey… Rutgers had at the time one of the best applied math programs in the region and he’d be sending staff to California and MA???
The list of public U’s that recruiters love is a lot more robust than what you read about on CC.
I’m curious what evidence you have for “systematic”?
I don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much. As I said in post #18:
I also said the bias against public flagships is most pronounced in the Northeast. Here in the Midwest you’d find little trace of it except among the small handful of Midwesterners who went to elite private schools themselves, and even there it’s far from universal because they tend to be surrounded by talented and highly accomplished graduates of public flagships who functionally aren’t much different from the graduates of elite privates, though perhaps a bit less snobby. But I do think in certain fields and at certain firms in certain locations, there is a systematic bias against publics.
I don’t recall exactly where I read it, but there was a major article in a major publication fairly recently about a certain firm in the Northeast, in investment banking if I recall correctly, where they hire primarily lacrosse players from elite private colleges in the Northeast. That’s systematic bias. I’m not saying it’s pervasive, but it does exist in certain fields at certain firms in certain locations. Does that mean top grads of the better public flagships can’t find good jobs, or that all employers operate under these same biases? No, of course not, and I never claimed they did. So as I see it, you’re arguing against a straw man of your own creation. But I think you’d likely agree that there’s still systematic racism in this country, even though many, perhaps most employers, and most people generally, aren’t racist. That doesn’t make the racism that persists any less systematic or any less unjust. Same sort of phenomenon.
It’s not just investment banking and consulting. When I worked in LA for a Big 4 accouting firm we heavily recruited students from two colleges: USC and UCLA for summer internships and less so from other local colleges. The other BIg 4 firms did the same.
Once employees got experience at “lesser” firms; where they did their undergrad studies became less important in “experienced recruiting”.
With that said, I still do some recruiting at my current tax specialty firm and I am always impressed with CPAs who came out of USC who have one of the top accounting programs in the nation.
Covert racism may be more common than many people think. Consider how, in some areas, housing is still very racially segregated, and “white flight” is still observed even after controlling for SES ( https://news.iu.edu/stories/2018/04/iub/releases/10-research-ties-white-flight-to-race.html ). If such covert racism, applied in decisions that individually cannot be proven (or disproven) to be racist, is common, then it is no surprise that even if an institution like an employer wants not to be racist, it can have a hard time stopping all of its employees from applying covert racism in their decisions (principal / agent problem; see also the example of the (now-retired) Detroit police chief being stopped for a bogus reason by one of his own officers at https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2020/06/11/isaiah-mckinnon-former-detroit-police-chief-restructure/5333368002/ ).
There is PLENTY of racism in corporate America- covert and overt— but not sure why that’s relevant to the discussion of “systemic” bias if a company with headquarters and most of its US operations in Boston doesn’t send a recruiting team to U Iowa (a fine institution btw).
Nobody claims bias if a corporation with HQ in Minneapolis does most of its recruiting at Wisconsin, U Minnesota, and the two handfuls of private colleges in the region. So how is it bias when the coastal companies do the same?
Re: the Lacrosse bros… I have never worked for one of those companies but I have friends who have. If they accounted for more than .0001% of new grad employment in America, there would be a concern. But the fact that there are still companies whose LAX CEO loves to hire in his own image-- that number is dwindling fast. There are banks which have had to change their recruiting strategies quickly… why? Because when they get a call from their largest customers- a State which does huge bond issues, a Fortune 25 corporation which has a lending and treasury relationship going back 30 years-- which says “You either send a diverse team to our next meeting or you don’t get the business”- well, that’s a powerful signal.
And the number of companies which have had to pivot quickly to learn the ins and out of recruiting at HCBU’s and recruiting minority kids all over the place-- that’s powerful as well. When the top grads from Howard – or the top non-white kids at Princeton or Berkeley aren’t interested in your company-- because they’d rather work for someone with a track record hiring, promoting, mentoring, talented minorities-- that’s a powerful signal as well. The top non-white male at your company is head of employee relations or a VP of Sustainability? Yawn. These kids want to see someone in a senior line role, with operational P&L responsibility. Your company doesn’t have that- because you only started worrying about DEI five seconds ago? Good luck getting the top students to fill your interview schedule.
And an addendum- I’ve been asked “What church do you go to” (clearly illegal in an interview) and I know companies that specifically recruit at Liberty and Oral Roberts so they don’t “risk” hiring someone who is “unchurched”.
Not all elitism is about Harvard and Princeton! Talk about systematic…entire companies built with white, Protestant talent of a certain orientation…
It goes well beyond regional hiring preferences, and it goes well beyond the LAX bros. There are some decent state flagships in the Northeast, and some excellent students coming out of those schools. But many students and parents in the Northeast seem to think public flagships are for losers. Similarly, some employers in the Northeast look upon a degree from Rutgers or UConn with little short of disdain, and they’d hire an Ivy League grad with a mediocre record over a top student from the public flagship with equal or better individual credentials any day.
I’ve spent enough time in the Northeast to understand how this pecking order works. I’ve also spent enough time as both a student and as a professor at Ivy League schools to know that some students—a minority, to be sure, but a not inconsiderable number—slide through those schools without putting in much effort and without accomplishing anything of note academically,. They’re aided and abetted in this by notoriously generous grading curves, the ready availability of easy-A classes for those who seek them out, the school’s desire to keep its graduation rate as close to 100% as possible, and the professors’ desire not to turn off the weaker students through harsh (or honest) grading, so as to keep the professor’s teaching evaluations up. Not to mention outright cheating, which isn’t all that uncommon these days. These students count on the school’s golden nameplate and their own family connections to land a nice job upon graduation, and in most cases they succeed. They may be talented at some level; you typically don’t get into Yale anymore on class privilege and family ties alone, as in the past. But they’re slackers, plain and simple, and their talent seems to be devoted largely to finding ways to avoid hard work and discipline.
Think “Animal House,” reputedly inspired by Dartmouth. The movie’s a little dated and no doubt exaggerated even for its time, but I do think it captures a certain ethos prevalent within a subculture of students. Heck, one of my best friends sent his son to Cornell recently. My friend says as far as he could tell, the kid majored in Beer. Yet he landed nicely upon graduation. In his case it wasn’t family connections so much as the college nameplate that worked its magic.
“Similarly, some employers in the Northeast look upon a degree from Rutgers or UConn with little short of disdain, and they’d hire an Ivy League grad with a mediocre record over a top student from the public flagship with equal or better individual credentials any day.”
Other than Goldman Sachs and possibly DE Shaw- who are these employers? I have worked for some “elite” employers (including management consulting firms) and there was zero disdain for Rutgers or U Conn.
You do realize that recruiting folks get evaluated? I’d have been out on my tush if I hired kids majoring in beer (whether at Southern CT State, U Conn or Yale) for a role with a top tier company which required actual smarts, initiative, ability to work hard, and some content knowledge (obviously, that content varies with the role.)
It only takes one clunker to put a fine reputation on thin ice. I know exactly who the Lax bros are at the campuses where we recruit-- it ain’t rocket science to evaluate a transcript. And the real “offenders” (lots of beer, not a lot of studying) are NOT the public U’s (and certainly not Rutgers or U Conn). There are two handfuls of private colleges- very well known to the college counseling folks at the private schools-- where the kid who needs his or her ticket punched ends up. It’s not 1950- you can’t get those kids into Harvard anymore for the Gentleman’s C. And do I worry about where those graduates end up? Nope. These are small, private LAC’s and there aren’t enough grads to make a darn bit of difference in the economy or in overall labor trends. But the bottom tier of the prep schools needs a place to hang for 4-5 years… it is not a mystery which colleges love these kids (they are full pay, they major in business which is a cheap degree to deliver unlike aerospace or mechanical engineering or biology or chem or physics).
Do you really think I’d have a job- I’m over 60 in a young person’s field- if I hired slackers no matter what their last name was, and no matter where they graduated from??? I could be replaced tomorrow with someone prettier and cheaper. Not worried right now.
You’re right. The lax grading scale at many top private schools is such that the proverbial Gentleman’s C has become a Gentleman’s B. That’s why the the average GPA at many of these schools (e.g., Brown) is now an A-. You need to affirmatively screw up in a major way even to get a B.
[quote]
Do you really think I’d have a job- I’m over 60 in a young person’s field- if I hired slackers no matter what their last name was, and no matter where they graduated from??? I could be replaced tomorrow with someone prettier and cheaper.
[/quote
To be clear, I’m not accusing you of anything and I never did. I’m quite certain I said in a previous post that you give every indication of doing your job diligently and with integrity. When I say “some” employers or “many” employers, the clear implication is that I’m not saying “all” or even “most.”
I don’t know whether you’re including Cornell is the “two small handfuls” of colleges where slackers skate by. Most people would regard it as a pretty darned good school, and it’s not a “small, private LAC.” According to my close friend—and I have no reasons to doubt his judgment on this—his son wasn’t exactly an outlier. His entire fraternity seemed to be majoring in Beer, and probably a lot of other frats besides. And I know from first-hand experience both as a student and as a professor that the same sort of thing goes on at other Ivies. Most students are diligent and hard-working. Many end up with truly impressive academic achievements. But the left-hand tail of the curve can be pretty gosh-darned mediocre, and that’s perhaps being generous—yet most of these people seem to land well in the job market because some employers are taken in by the razzle-dazzle of the college nameplate. Not discerning employers like you, mind you. But I’m really not sure why you’re so insistent that this phenomenon just can’t exist. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, as have others whose perceptions and judgment I trust.