WSJ: Companies favor big state schools for recruiting

[sakky]

<p>

Looks like the WS ride might be crashing into a wall. More layoffs coming soon to an IB near you. Hiring this year will crater.

</p>

<p>True, we may indeed be headed for a double-dip. </p>

<p>But that still doesn’t adequately answer the question of why corporations couldn’t pay high salaries during the last year when, as demonstrated in my previous post, they were reporting record profits. After all, even if it is true that the Wall Street banks may be laying people off in the next quarter, that doesn’t obviate the fact that earlier this year, bankers were earning record bonuses, and they’re not giving any of it back. </p>

<p>I hardly think that I’m an extremist on this issue. I certainly agree that if a company is performing poorly, then employees should be receiving stagnant pay, or perhaps even lose their jobs entirely. But when companies are making record profits, why is it so outrageous to think that the employees deserve a share in that success, at least during the quarters when those high profits were being made? Granted, if profits dip in later quarters, then you can cut pay during those quarters. Is that really so unreasonable?</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>I can pick and choose articles as well. Housing industry, retail… Companies are showing a profit because they are sitting on cash and HAD to scale back. </p>

<p>Please let us know how things work out for you after graduation.</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>There are signs the rest of the economy is finding its footing, and corporate profits are indeed high. But investment banks are not doing so well. </p>

<p>

@NY Times

Inside the great investment houses on Wall Street, business has taken a surprising turn — downward. . . . After an unusually sharp slowdown in trading this summer, analysts are rethinking their profit forecasts for 2010.</p>

<p>The activities at the heart of what Wall Street does — selling and trading stocks and bonds, and advising on mergers — are running at levels well below where they were at this point last year, said Meredith Whitney, a bank analyst who was among the first to warn of the subprime mortgage disaster and its impact on big banks. . . . </p>

<p>The drop in trading translates into lower commissions for brokerage firms, as well as a weaker environment for underwriting initial public offerings and other stock issues, traditionally a highly lucrative niche.</p>

<p>Banks are also scaling back on making bets with their own money — known as proprietary trading — another huge profit source in recent years that will soon be forbidden under terms of the financial reform legislation passed by Congress this summer. . . . </p>

<p>To make matters worse . . . many Wall Street firms increased their work forces in the first half of the year, before the mood shifted and worries of a double-dip recession arose. If activity remains anemic, firms could soon begin cutting jobs again.

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t thumb my nose at a job with a profitable corporation in favor of an IB job that probably won’t be there come graduation.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I can pick and choose articles as well.

</p>

<p>Uh, it’s not a matter of ‘picking and choosing articles’, as every single business publication has reported that the corporate sector as a whole is showing high/record profits. You will not find a single (respectable) business publication that hasn’t reported that the overall corporate sector has done very well for itself over the last year. Go ahead, try to find one. </p>

<p>

Housing industry, retail

</p>

<p>Are you sure? </p>

<p>Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reported a 3.6 percent increase in second-quarter net income and raised its earnings guidance for the full year</p>

<p>[Wal-Mart</a> Profit Rises But U.S. Sales Weak](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>

<p>*Lennar Corp, the third-biggest homebuilder in the United States, reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit *</p>

<p>[FOXBusiness.com</a> - Lennar profit beats, orders down less than feared](<a href=“http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/20/lennar-profit-beats-orders-feared/]FOXBusiness.com”>http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/20/lennar-profit-beats-orders-feared/)</p>

<p>But I agree that obviously there are some industries and some companies that are doing poorly. Even in a year of bumper-crop profits, there will still clearly be some companies who do poorly.</p>

<p>But again, what is undeniable is that, overall, the corporate sector as a whole is reporting some of the highest profits in history. Hence, you would think that, overall, they should be providing some of the highest employee pay in history. Why not? They clearly have the money. </p>

<p>How about this: that small subset of companies who are still doing poorly don’t have to provide high pay. But if the overall corporate sector is reporting high profits, then there clearly are many companies that are doing smashingly well, so why don’t they provide high pay? </p>

<p>

Companies are showing a profit because they are sitting on cash and HAD to scale back.

</p>

<p>Oh really? If it really is so easy to generate profits just by scaling back, then why didn’t companies always scale back, even during the boom times? After all, companies always want to generate high profits, right? </p>

<p>Also note, it’s also not just a simple matter of firms cutting back on investment or inventory - indeed, businesses have been spending heavily while nevertheless enjoying high profits. </p>

<p>Business spending jumped 20 percent last quarter and is up by 13 percent against 2009.</p>

<p>[The</a> anti-business president’s pro-business recovery](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606238.html]The”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606238.html)</p>

<p>The bottom line is that it’s become quite the interesting paradox why employees are doing so poorly when corporations are clearly doing so well. But again, I think we can dispense with the simplistic notion that corporations can’t afford to pay their employees better. They clearly can, they just don’t want to. </p>

<p>

But investment banks are not doing so well.

</p>

<p>As I said before, earlier this year, banks paid their employees some of the highest bonuses ever, and they’re not giving any of that money back. </p>

<p>*The bank bonus season, that annual rite of big money and bigger egos, begins in earnest this week, and it looks as if it will be one of the largest and most controversial blowouts the industry has ever seen, *</p>

<p>[Bank</a> Bonuses, Bigger Than Ever, in the Spotlight - NYTimes.com](<a href=“DealBook - The New York Times”>DealBook - The New York Times)</p>

<p>* JPMorgan Chase & Co. on Friday announced a record $9.3 billion payday for its investment-banking employees,*</p>

<p>[JPMorgan</a> Chase allots $9.3 billion in bonuses - Business - Earnings - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34875777/]JPMorgan”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34875777/)</p>

<p>*By almost any measure, 2009 was a lean year for Morgan Stanley — except when it came to pay. </p>

<p>Despite the first annual loss in its 74-year history, Morgan Stanley earmarked 62 cents of every dollar of revenue for compensation, an astonishing figure, even by the gilded standards of Wall Street. In all, the bank set aside $14.4 billion for salaries and bonuses. *</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/21morgan.html?_r=1&ref=business[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/21morgan.html?_r=1&ref=business&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

I wouldn’t thumb my nose at a job with a profitable corporation in favor of an IB job that probably won’t be there come graduation.

</p>

<p>And there it is again…the attitude that, rather than aspiring to something better, people should be willing to ‘settle’ for a regular corporate job… the very corporate job that provides anemic pay at a time of record corporate profits. </p>

<p>So I disagree with you and say, yes, they should be thumbing their noses at such a job. We all should be thumbing our noses at those jobs, until those jobs pay better. Clearly the companies can afford it. Right now, corporations are enjoying the best of all worlds - they are enjoying roaring profits, while sticking their employees with subpar pay. </p>

<p>Again, I don’t see why it is so unreasonable to believe that, at a time of record corporate profits, employees should be earning record pay. Why not? The banks were paying record bonuses earlier in the year. Why didn’t the regular companies do the same? </p>

<p>I’m not a zealot. As I said before, if the investment banks perform poorly this quarter, then fair enough - bankers should now have their pay reduced and even lose their jobs. But at least they received stellar bonuses earlier in the year, which they are not giving back. So why don’t regular companies pay record bonuses too? If they can’t or, more likely, don’t want to, then it’s clear why people would rather work for the banks rather than for regular companies. {Granted, some of the banking bonuses were in the form of deferred stock, but hey, how many employees of other industries received large deferred stock bonus compensation earlier this year? I’ll happily take such a bonus, as that’s far better than no bonus at all, which is what a lot of employees were stuck with.} </p>

<p>But the greater issue is that it is precisely this sort of defeatist attitude that ensures that nothing ever improves. That’s why I have to say - ‘No’. We should not be satisfied with the subpar packets the corporate world is paying us. We should demand better than that. The evidence is quite clear that they can easily afford it. To my detractors: tell me exactly why shouldn’t employees be earning record pay at a time when corporations are earning record profits?</p>

<p>But the most perplexing aspect is not the defeatism but its accompanying spiteful ‘crab bucket mentality’ expressed in this thread. Apparently, not only should people be satisfied with the mediocre salaries that corporations pay, but anybody who wants something better than that is castigated as ungrateful and undeserving. Why? What’s wrong with trying to improve your station in life? If one crab is trying to escape the cooking bucket, you should be happy that he’s escaping. In fact, you all should be trying to escape the bucket. Instead, you seem to just want to pull that crab back into the bucket. The mentality seems to be that if you can’t get a better salary, you don’t want anybody else to get it either. How is that anything more crass than mere spite?</p>

<p>But the bottom line is, I still don’t understand why any of you would defend the corporations, which some of you are implicitly doing when you say that employees should be happy with the pay they receive. Corporations are screwing you on pay - booming profits but stagnant pay - and you’re happy with that?</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>I hope you aren’t planning to be a business major.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Do we? Given the choice between a blue-collar and white-collar job that paid the same on an hourly basis, would you prefer the blue-collar job because you’re paid for every extra hour you work?

I was only referring to the specific text quoted.

And the problem is that most Ivy grads are liberal arts grads, not preprofessional majors.</p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way: take an Ivy liberal arts grad, and were given the choice between making $35k a year in the standard liberal arts corporate job, or going to consulting/banking, what do you think they will prefer?

Sure. But judging by the fact that the WSJ subject rankings all focused on professional fields, the industries targeted in the main ranking, and the overall focus on post-graduation employment, I did not perceive the ranking as of much interest or use to those primarily interested in the pure liberal arts.

Ultimately, this thread is about why large companies may tend to prefer state-school graduates over graduates from Ivy-Plus schools, which was the focus on the WSJ article. My (and others’) hypothesis is that graduates from the Ivy-Plus schools don’t really want to work for those companies, instead preferring other opportunities such as consulting, finance, law, medicine, entrepreneurship, and so forth. Now, maybe you’re right and such a preference is a consequence of irrationality that will not translate into ultimate future happiness. But that’s not the point, for the point is not to explain what people should do, but rather what people actually do. If those Ivy-Plus graduates tend not to want to work for regular companies - however irrational you may think that is - then that explains why those recruiters do not reciprocate.

I appreciate the informed and detailed perspectives you bring to these topics, which is why it’s such a shame that we almost always end up talking right past each other. Your points are all very valid if we are indeed trying to figure out “why large companies may tend to prefer state-school graduates over graduates from Ivy-Plus schools.” However, based on the discussion throughout the first several pages I concluded that this topic primarily centered on the age-old CC student question of “state school vs. Ivy” and approached the discussion from that perspective.</p>

<p>Through that lens, the WSJ results tend to support the conclusion that those interested in professional majors can expect decent recruitment at a variety of large, state-supported institutions.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I hope you aren’t planning to be a business major.

</p>

<p>Momofwildchild, you gave excellent advice before, which is why for your own sake I recommend that you take it: read the WSJ. It’s an excellent newspaper than I peruse every day. If you’re going to be talking to actual business people, you ought to know what you’re talking about, particularly regarding the corporate earnings releases over the last year that you recommended, but with which you are clearly not familiar. Otherwise you’re just going to embarrass yourself again.</p>

[DocT]

<p>“True, we may indeed be headed for a double-dip.”</p>

<p>First, we are not heading for a double dip. Secondly, Sakky is right on virtually all counts.</p>

[kb10]

<p>non-elite recruiters love schools like penn state, michigan state, maryland, schools where students are generally bright individuals who don’t have huge egos. from an HR perspective, </p>

<ol>
<li><p>they prefer to goto campuses where there’s a large population of good candidates (lower hiring cost per candidate), they can goto penn state and hire 50 out of the 1000 candidates, this is much more desirable than going to Brown and hiring 5 out of 100 candidates. They are simply trying to find people who can do the job. </p></li>
<li><p>They prefer candidates who accept their offers, top school grads are picky. My company used to recruit at Michigan, but they have stopped because no one would take the offer or they try to negotiate higher salaries, they now instead now hires 20+ people from michigan state and penn state instead. The offer acceptance rate is much higher at those schools. </p></li>
<li><p>They prefer candidates who stay, it’s a huge cost to keep on hiring people and train them. Top school grads have a sense of entitlement and are much more inclined to want to jump around, they feel they “can do better”.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>For anyone who has worked for a few years, this article isn’t really enlightening, it’s been this way forever.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I appreciate the informed and detailed perspectives you bring to these topics, which is why it’s such a shame that we almost always end up talking right past each other. Your points are all very valid if we are indeed trying to figure out “why large companies may tend to prefer state-school graduates over graduates from Ivy-Plus schools.” However, based on the discussion throughout the first several pages I concluded that this topic primarily centered on the age-old CC student question of “state school vs. Ivy” and approached the discussion from that perspective.

</p>

<p>And that was precisely the problem. If the conversation had limited itself to the narrow confines of the WSJ article results, I would have felt no need to intervene. </p>

<p>The problem was that the thread soon took the unseemly turn of Ivy-bashing and, particularly, of denigrating the hopes of dreams of those who want something better than the life offered by the regular corporate world as somehow ‘arrogant’ and ‘deserving of comeuppance’. I have to call that entire narrative into question, for why shouldn’t people want a better life than that? The regular corporate life is not that good, as exemplified by the fact that corporations are enjoying record profits but refuse to share them with their employees. As I said before, if corporations choose not to match the opportunities available in other careers such as consulting and banking, then is it really so surprising to find that people prefer to take jobs in consulting and banking? </p>

<p>

Through that lens, the WSJ results tend to support the conclusion that those interested in professional majors can expect decent recruitment at a variety of large, state-supported institutions.

</p>

<p>No dispute here. However, even at the state schools, many (almost certainly most) graduates are not in professional majors. As I’ve said on other threads - notably in the engineering section of cc - a student who can only win admission to an average school can do very well for himself by majoring in engineering. But what about the students at the average schools and who earn average grades while majoring in the liberal arts? What happens to them? Those are the ones who tend to get stuck with the $35k a year liberal arts jobs, the average pay for lib arts grads in 2010. By comparison, they might arguably have been better off not even going to college at all but simply being waitresses or learning computer tech skills.</p>

[DocT]

<p>All I can say about this is that when my kid graduated this year, the housemaster giving out their diplomas went through what each student was doing after graduation. Every single one had a job (mostly on Wall St or hedge fund) or was going to graduate school, law school or medical school.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>^^ It’s all good. I remain unconvinced that waiting tables is superior to an office job, but I think our primary debate is resolved.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

non-elite recruiters love schools like penn state, michigan state, maryland, schools where students are generally bright individuals who don’t have huge egos

</p>

<p>

Top school grads have a sense of entitlement and are much more inclined to want to jump around, they feel they “can do better”.

</p>

<p>See - there it is again: the phraseology of “huge ego” and “sense of entitlement”. I don’t know if you’re speaking for yourself or from the perspective of a HR officer, but the analysis is the same either way. </p>

<p>As I’ve been saying throughout this thread, regular corporate jobs are not that good. Corporations have been raking in spectacular profits over the last year but refusing to share them with employees, and you’re simply going to take that lying down? You’re going to let the corporations walk all over you? Why is it wrong for people to want something better? </p>

<p>Now, to be fair, I agree that often times, like now, people have to take whatever jobs are available because they have no choice. Heck, I’ve done it before in past downturns. To invoke my neighbor’s vernacular, sometimes you have to eat shi*. </p>

<p>But just because you may have to eat shi* doesn’t mean that you have to like it. Even more importantly, just because you’re eating shi* doesn’t mean that you should demand that other people eat shi* too. Misery loves company, but that doesn’t mean that one miserable person should demand that everybody else be miserable too. If one crab is climbing out of the bucket, be happy for that crab! You should be happy for those who are striving to do better, because we all want to do better. Better yet, we crabs should all be helping each other climb out of the bucket. But if that’s not possible, then it’s still better that some of us escape than for none of us to escape.</p>

<p>Please remember that corporations and especially corporate recruiters are not your friends. They’re not looking out for your best interests. They’re looking to capture as much value out of you as they can, and they’ll stick you with the worst jobs for the worst pay if you allow them. It is your responsibility to secure the best deal you can, so that you capture the value that you produce. </p>

<p>But even if you can’t, and you need somebody to blame, then at least direct the blame in the right direction. If you can’t convince your employer to pay you what you’re worth, don’t scapegoat the Ivy-Plus students. They didn’t set your employer’s payscale. It’s not their fault that corporations are enjoying record profits while not sharing them with employees. It’s not their fault that you’re eating shi*.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

It’s all good. I remain unconvinced that waiting tables is superior to an office job,

</p>

<p>The issue to me is the overtime. I heartily agree that a 40 hour a week office job is better than a 40 hour a week waitressing job, even if they paid the same. The problem is, at least in the case of my friend, the office job wasn’t a 40 hour a week job. It was more like a 50-60 hour a week job, for no extra pay. </p>

<p>But what was even worse was not that the office job in question had longer hours, but that the hours were unpredictable. She never knew in advance which night or which weekend would have to be blown because her boss would call her in. Hence, she could never plan anything ahead. In contrast, while she might be summoned to an unexpected waitressing double-shift, she could refuse it if necessary, and even if she took it, she could at least count the extra money she made. The office job by contrast offered no such solace.</p>

[kb10]

<p>sakky, i don’t know what point u are trying to make. I’m not saying feeling of entitlement and having an ego is a negative trait. I’m analyzing this issue from the employer perspective. i’m not arguing over the issue of what is right or wrong.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Kb10, that’s why I specifically allowed for the possibility that you were arguing from the perspective of an HR officer. Obviously what you are saying is perfectly rational from that perspective, or the perspective of the corporation he represents.</p>

<p>But I am simply demonstrating why that argument is so deleterious from the point of view of the employee, which only reinforces what I’ve said above: companies are not your friends. They don’t have your best interests at heart; they’re not really trying to help you. They’re out to help themselves. Given the opportunity, they would have you work as hard as possible, in the worst jobs possible, while paying you as little as possible. </p>

<p>Since companies are only out to help themselves, you should be out to help yourself. It is your responsibility to ensure that you don’t become their doormat.</p>

<p>What I find bizarre is that I continue to attract naysayers in this thread, despite, not really saying anything that, IMO, is particularly controversial. Does anybody really think that companies truly are our friends? Does anybody really believe that you shouldn’t take responsibility for your own career future? Does anybody really believe that you should not have ambitions to advance? Aren’t we all interested in improving our futures?</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>I am an executive at a corporation that actually cares a lot about each and every employee. It also owes a duty to the shareholders. I have worked for a number of corporations- some great and some terrible. The worst ones were the smaller ones. If you really think you can lump every company into the heading “corporate America” and dismiss it as not worthy of you, you have some serious issues. Most of the people I have worked with over the years DO advance and DO care about their futures.<br>
Sakky- you are hilarious. You really are. As I said, please let us know how your career (or lack thereof) works out.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I am an executive at a corporation that actually cares a lot about each and every employee. It also owes a duty to the shareholders. I have worked for a number of corporations- some great and some terrible. The worst ones were the smaller ones. If you really think you can lump every company into the heading “corporate America” and dismiss it as not worthy of you, you have some serious issues. Most of the people I have worked with over the years DO advance and DO care about their futures.
Sakky- you are hilarious. You really are. As I said, please let us know how your career (or lack thereof) works out.

</p>

<p>MomofWildChild - you are hilarious, you really are. </p>

<p>After all, you said it yourself - regular people are hurting terribly, with housing equity values sundered, unemployment hovering around 10% with only minor reductions projected in the near future, and overall work hours and pay vastly reduced. </p>

<p>Yet the inconvenient, yet undeniable truth that you apparently didn’t know (or didn’t want to know) is that corporations are generating record profits - a fact that has been extensively covered in every single business publication throughout the past year.</p>

<p>Yet despite all of that, you continue to defend the corporate sector? Come on, really? Why doesn’t the corporate sector rehire the millions of Americans that have been laid off in the past few years? Why don’t they restore the work-hours and bonuses of pre-recessionary days? After all, it’s not as if they couldn’t afford to do so, again they’re making record profits. </p>

<p>Now, you say that you work for a corporation that does care of its employees. Fine, fair enough, I’ll take you at your word. {Heck, I don’t even know which company it is, nor do I care.} But be that as it may, the fact remains that many other companies are clearly not taking care of their employees. After all, if the corporate sector is generating record profits, those profits aren’t just disappearing into thin air - they must clearly be going somewhere. Which begs the questions - where are they going, and why isn’t some of it accruing to labor? </p>

<p>Like I said before, I can understand that if the corporate sector performs poorly, many employees will lose their jobs or have their pay reduced. But why should this also happen when the corporate sector is performing at a record pace? It seems to me that if corporate profits are high, employees should share in that success through greater hiring and greater pay for those who are hired. To be clear, I’m hardly avaricious - I fully recognize that other stakeholders such as investors also will share in those profits. But employees should share as well.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I see no way to avoid the notion that the corporate sector, as a whole, does not treat its employees well. That’s not to say that certain corporations do so, but it must also mean that the sector as a whole does not. That is part and parcel of the central point of my posts on this thread: the corporate sector is not really the most desirable place to work, precisely because it doesn’t treat its employees well. If they did, then you would expect them to offer record pay & employment in accordance with their record profits. </p>

<p>MomofWildchild, what I find most mystifying indeed is why you would continue to take the side of the corporate sector. They’re earning record profits - higher than what they made before the crash - while refusing to share any of those gains with employees, **and you defend that practice? ** Why? </p>

<p>I don’t want to believe that you’re nothing but a corporate shill, but your robust apologia for the corporate sector does beg the question: exactly whose side are you on? If you’re on the side of the employees, then I think you should join me in asking why doesn’t the corporate sector improve the desirability of its jobs, particularly in light of the high profits it has been enjoying?On the other hand, if you’re actually on the side of the corporations, then your all of your posts make perfect sense. But if that’s the case, then I think it’s only fair that you admit as much. </p>

<p>**Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the inescapable fact is that employees are hurting badly while the corporate sector is doing very well, and if you truly and honestly see nothing wrong whatsoever with that combination, I suppose there’s nothing left to say. **</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I am an executive at a corporation that actually cares a lot about each and every employee. It also owes a duty to the shareholders.

</p>

<p>Since you brought that up, let’s talk about that.</p>

<p>The recession officially ended in June 2009, according to the NBER. From July 1 2009 to today, the market has been up a whopping 25-30%, depending on whether you’re using the DJIA, Nasdaq, or S&P 500 index. (If you don’t believe it, then look it up for yourself). No matter how you slice it, the inescapable fact is that shareholders have been amply rewarded since the recession ended. </p>

<p>Since shareholders have been well rewarded, why shouldn’t employees? To be sure, I am not saying that employees should receive a proportional share of the gains. Equity holders assume the position of greatest risk, so they deserve most of the downside and upside. But employees should still receive some of the upside. If shareholders are enjoying gains, then employees should be enjoying gains as well. </p>

<p>To say otherwise is to admit that corporations are prioritizing shareholders at the expense of employees. But that then begs the question - why, as an employee, would you want to work for a corporation that does that?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Apparently, not only should people be satisfied with the mediocre salaries that corporations pay, but anybody who wants something better than that is castigated as ungrateful and undeserving. Why? What’s wrong with trying to improve your station in life?

</p>

<p>Honey. I already improved my station in life precisely so that my children won’t have to make career decisions based on money. They’ll get to do what interests them instead of look to money as the determining factor. Money is only useful insofar as it buys freedom.
I didn’t realize you were still in college. Man, you have a lot to learn. Good luck.</p>