<p>^^so they don’t have to worry about money because you’re going to support them??</p>
<p>No, it means that they’ll start off their career life debt free so they can choose what they want to do without feeling forced into taking a higher paying job for the sake of being beholden to student loans.</p>
<p>No but they may need to take a higher paying job to live regardless if they have student loans. For example, while somebody may think they’re going to be a rock star, in most cases they’ll starve and will need to do something else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, you obviously realize nothing about me whatsoever. That means that you surely have a lot to learn, and I wish you luck with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for you and your children. Unfortunately, not everybody is that lucky. What advice do you have to those people who do have student loans to pay off and therefore do need the money? Apparently you have no answers, except for simply telling them to meekly accept a regular corporate job. Never mind that that job should probably be paying them more which would therefore help them pay off those encumbering student loans, for this thread has indisputably established that the corporate sector clearly has the money. </p>
<p>So since you have no answers for those people who do have student loans, let me offer one. How about those corporations whose vaults are brimming with cash commit to a large-scale educational loan reimbursement program? Again, it’s not as if they can’t afford it.</p>
<p>But I suspect you would not support that either, under the notion that new college graduates should simply be grateful for whatever regular pay that corporations might deign to pay them now, regardless of how profitable they may be. But if that’s the case, then only confirms that you’re taking the side of the corporations, and to that I would ask - why? Why would you take their side?</p>
<p>I thought sakky was in high school still.</p>
<p>Good luck sticking it to The Man, sakky!</p>
<p>i work for one of the largest companies in the world, it doesn’t get any larger or more blue-chip than the one i work at. I wouldn’t say record earnings/profit should equate to record bonus/raise. There’s a lot of consolidation in many industries, and this is one of the best times to make those acquisitions so that once the market recovers, u can still churn out even better earnings. The employees at my company do complain about lack of bonus/raise even though we post record earnings every quarter. But even as an employee I can say people will always expect higher raise/bonus, this is true at any company. but u can count on the most important people in the company getting significant bonus/raise because their work brings in the dough. </p>
<p>perhaps what sakky says should be true about profit sharing in the financial service industries where human capital cost is the greatest and the wealth should be spread around. and i believe they do get compensated well because of that. </p>
<p>sakky, i think u are making a lot of claims based on the assumption that people can move around and onto greener pastures. fact is majority of people cannot. this is especially true once u get to your 40s, 50s. it’s not easy to just get up and goto a different company. if u can’t move around, all of this talk becomes moot because they have no say in the matter, it’s keep the job or unemployment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it remarkable that you still don’t want to answer the question: do you support the fact that the corporate sector is not hiring more people for higher pay given their record profits?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree: obviously there is no simple causal relationship between high profits and high employee pay. Employee pay is largely determined by power. The economists would say that management/capital has greater bargaining power over labor because the high unemployment rate constrains the freedom of labor to switch jobs. The sociologists would say that management/capital has won the battle over intra-organizational political power. The psychologists would surely emphasize the lack of confidence and empowerment that labor feels. But no matter which social science you choose to invoke, it all comes down to power. </p>
<p>But that all serves to illustrate my central point: ** the corporate sector is not your friend**. They’re not really trying to help you. The gains generated by the corporate sector are determined by market forces, but how those gains are distributed amongst the stakeholders of the corporation is determined by power. Anytime that the corporate sector becomes powerful - such as right now - they’re going to claim the bulk of the gains for themselves and stick labor with the dregs. This is not the behavior of friends. </p>
<p>As kb10 said: “once u get to your 40s, 50s. it’s not easy to just get up and goto a different company. if u can’t move around, all of this talk becomes moot because they have no say in the matter, it’s keep the job or unemployment.” I agree - which demonstrates that as you become older, less mobile, and less able to switch jobs, the corporate sector will use those life circumstances against you. They will relegate you to a worse deal because they know that you lack bargaining power. Obviously that’s not how friends behave. I don’t try to screw over my friends whenever they’re weak. I don’t think anybody does. </p>
<p>So now that we’ve clearly established that the corporate sector is not your friend, that then - returning to the original impetus of this thread - begs the question of why exactly working for the regular corporate sector is so desirable in the first place. What’s so great about working for a company who you know will try not to pay its employees well whenever they can get away with it, even when they’re making record profits? </p>
<p>Given that, I think we can all understand why many of the graduates from the top schools do not really want to work for the regular corporate sector, instead preferring other careers, such as consulting, banking, startups, medicine, law, etc. The banks paid record bonuses this year. The regular corporate sector could afford to do the same, but chose not to. That in a nutshell demonstrates why people don’t really want to work for the regular corporate sector.</p>
<p>And that captures the limitations of the WSJ study that inspired this thread. The study investigated which schools are viewed the most positively by recruiters (mostly) from the regular corporate sector. But that simply begs the question of whether working for that sector is really such a desirable goal in the first place, especially given the profit-hoarding behavior of that sector over the last year.</p>
<p>ROFL – like the I-banks and mgt consulting firms care one whit more about you or are any more your “friends.”</p>
<p>^^ What she said.</p>
<p>Yes, the glamorous world of management consulting. Take an eager 22 year old, stick him in a hotel room in Newark or Omaha (oh wow, a mini bar! cool!) for six months on end, and have him crunch spreadsheets in a cubicle at his client’s office where he’s persona non grata for 80 hours a week and maybe, just maybe, let him show his face to a client every now and then if he promises to be good and behave himself. Gosh! Wow! The glamour! It’s like living the life of Paris Hilton!</p>
<p>BTW, I’m also laughing at your naivete about the pay scale in corporate America. Ever heard of stock options? That’s where the money is, not your every-2-weeks paycheck. Your eyes would pop if I told you how I left corporate America 9 years ago at a director level to join a small consulting firm.</p>
<p>I keep wanting to stop reading this thread because I get frustrated with stupidity, but then I decided it makes me really appreciate my kids- even the money grubbing one- because they are actually somewhat connected to reality! Thanks, sakky!</p>
<p>i think if we look at this from the perspective of the motivation of employers, they are all the same. management consulting/ibanking included. they are all trying to turn a profit.</p>
<p>Oh, no. I-banking is so much more noble. They care! They really do!</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - The experience you described would suggest that you should understand that you must first build credential and follow established procedures (utilizing creativity and minor discretion on occasions) before you can go into the most chaotic parts of the world to innovate and create systems that would ultimately improve the world. However, your sarcasm directed towards those hardworking young management consultants show a very immature view of the world. Also, a majority of managing directors leave their organization after a few years, so I don’t really know why you think that your case is special.</p>
<p>
What kind of industry do you have in mind here? Could you give us a more specific example?</p>
<p>And if a graduating student should not enter the corporate world, what do you suggest he or she do? Start a business at 22?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t see why they would care about you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoever claimed that MC was great? In fact, I’ve been careful to make no such claim whatsoever - and indeed, on other threads, I have myself lamented the fact that so many of the top college graduates want to pursue MC.</p>
<p>But that’s neither here nor there, for the fact remains that, for whatever reason, they want it. You can complain all you want, but they’ll still want it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, if you wanted to stop reading the thread, then why not do so? Nobody is holding a gun to your head, and if you think we are, well, I question your connection to reality. </p>
<p>So now I trust that you will indeed stop reading this thread, as that will help both of us. You wanted to stop reading anyway, and we will no longer have to put up with your comments that add nothing to the conversation. Thanks, Momofwildchild!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also laughing at your naivete at the pay scales about corporate America. For every one regular employee who has become rich through stock options through regular corporate America - which excludes startups as they have been deliberately withheld from the topic of conversation - there are surely at least 100 such employees whose options have done relatively little. Let’s face it - the vast majority of major corporations do not provide significant stock options to rank-and-file workers, but instead reserve the lion’s share for management. Furthermore, it may have dawned on you by now that the stock markets have been essentially stagnant for about a decade: all stock indexes are basically where they were around year 2000. {Heck, anybody who was hired around 2007-08 and hence whose options’ strike price was set correspondingly is underwater.} </p>
<p>Stock option pay packet components of corporate managers are obviously more generous. But that simply begs the question of how do you become a manager in the first place so that you can garner those packets? The preferred answer - whether you agree with it or not - seems to be not to attempt to climb the regular corporate ladder but rather to choose IB/MC which are viewed - rightly or wrongly - as faster escalators to corporate management. </p>
<p>But - fair enough - your proposal therefore reveals another option for corporations: provide better stock option packages to regular employees. Provide more options, through faster vesting periods, and reprice them at lower strike prices when the equity is stagnant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re admitting that you left your corporate employer in 2001, after one of the greatest stock market bull runs in history. No wonder you became rich. </p>
<p>Sadly, the rest of us had to suffer through the stagnant equity returns of the 2000’s, when stock options were basically worthless. What are you going to say to the guy who joined General Electric a decade ago and given stock options striked at ~$50 a share, for which the current price of GE is around $17? Or, worse, what about the guy who joined GM a decade ago and whose stock options were entirely defenestrated by the bankruptcy? I’m sure they would like to hear how their stock options are where “the real money is”.</p>
<p>Ultimately, whatever quibbles my detractors may propose, I notice that all of them continue to dodge the basic question despite numerous entreaties to answer it: **Why would you take the side of corporate management over regular employees? ** That is, unless you are yourself a corporate manager or corporate PR representative, in which case such a stance is perfectly logical as you’re simply ‘talking your book’, and all I would then ask is that you acknowledge your stance is self-serving. </p>
<p>As I pointed out before, and has been restated just yesterday in the WSJ (my detractors’ favorite periodical, even though they apparently don’t actually read it), corporations are enjoying high profits. Yet unemployment remains stuck at near double-digit percentages and the pay packets of those who are employed remains stagnant. Corporations could obviously easily afford to hire more employees and improve their pay - but they won’t do it. And you’re still going to take their side? Why? </p>
<p>* * OCTOBER 3, 2010
U.S. companies are rebounding quickly from the recession and posting near-historic profits.</p>
<p>An analysis by The Wall Street Journal found that companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index posted second-quarter profits of $189 billion, up 38% from a year earlier and their sixth-highest quarterly total ever, without adjustment for inflation.*</p>
<p>[Propelling</a> the Profit Comeback - WSJ.com](<a href=“Propelling the Profit Comeback - WSJ”>Propelling the Profit Comeback - WSJ)</p>
<p>Frankly, I’m still surprised that anybody would actually unashamedly declare such a stance. What I actually expected was the far more intellectually defensible position that fully acknowledges that corporations, given such unusually high profits, may indeed be underpaying its employees, but that they may need time to adjust their pay scales, and the corporate sector nevertheless offers other advantages such as better work/life balance and so forth. Then we could have enumerated the pros and cons of the regular corporate lifestyle vs. that of alternative careers such as IB/MC, law, medicine, and so forth. </p>
<p>But that expected conversation never even got off the ground, because my opponents won’t even acknowledge anything amiss about the unusually high corporate profits-to-pay ratio. I’m not sure whether they would rather choose to ignore it completely, or accept it and are entirely unapologetic about it. I’m also not sure which is worse: that they don’t know (or don’t want to know), or that they don’t care. </p>
<p>But in any case, I’m amazed that some people are clearly unperturbed by the fact that corporate employees are creating record value while capturing an unusually small proportion of that value. That’s amazing to me.</p>
<p>World-Class Greatness at a Land-Grant University Near You?</p>
<p>September 26, 2010
By Bill Gleason</p>
<p>“EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.”</p>
<p>the Dodo (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)</p>
<p>As I write, the leaves are turning color, and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers are actually ahead in the early stages of the first half against Southern Cal in Twin City Federal Stadium, also known as the House That Bob Built (for Bob Bruininks, the U of M’s president). There’s been a lot of talk in Minneapolis this week that our recent lousy performance in Bob’s House has been because we aren’t spending enough money on footballeven though our new stadium, just a year old, has close to the largest locker room in the universe. Complaints started after we lost last week to those high-spending South Dakota State Jackrabbits. I wonder how we’d do if we swapped athletics budgets with them.</p>
<p>The size of an athletics budget is related to how well the football team performs over the long termor, in the case of a program like ours, how much of a subsidy the university can provide. And, of course, there is the issue of using one’s resources to best advantage. In some respects, it’s like maximizing resources in academics. The president of a university ends up responsible for both.</p>
<p>Academic competition this fallthe annual greatness rankings of American and world universitiesis also upon us. As if that weren’t enough excitement, the National Research Council rankings, which are supposed to be released every 10 years but have been delayed for some time now, will soon be made public. The NRC’s data are so old as to make its ratings virtually useless (the council began collecting this information in 2006), but maybe that’s the idea. I cynically believe that the long delay in release may have been due to great unhappiness of interested parties about the results. But administrators of public and private universities apparently believe they need those rankings to validate their claims to world-class greatness.</p>
<p>Where does the University of Minnesota stand in the greatness rankings? I write about Minnesota because I know the institution as an alumnus, faculty member, and strong supporter. But the points I’m about to make pertain to most land-grant universities in the United States.</p>
<p>The phrase “land-grant institution” is often used but still bears some explanation. Institutions of higher education designated by states as beneficiaries of the federal Morrill Acts have been granted federal land for the purpose of development or sale to finance their activities. Per the language of Morrill, the mission of land-grant institutions is to concentrate on the teaching of agriculture, science, and engineering.</p>
<p>There are approximately 70 such institutions in the United States. Among them are some of our finest universities: the Universities of California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona, along with Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State Universities.</p>
<p>The exact mission of land-grant institutions is open to discussion, but there seems to be a consensus that they have a special obligation to provide high-quality education for citizens of their home state, as well as to focus attention on the economic development and social welfare of that state. An inscription on Northrop Auditorium, a central building on the Twin Cities campus, summarizes one such land-grant mission:</p>
<p>The University of Minnesota
Founded in the faith that men are ennobled by understanding
Dedicated to the advancement of learning and the search for truth
Devoted to the instruction of youth and the welfare of the state
So how does the maintenance of high academic ranking as a research institution fit into the land-grant mission? Simply put, it doesn’t.</p>
<p>Rankings are the result of selected factors, weighted in a somewhat arbitrary fashion, that give sortable scores for institutions. Depending on the factors and their weighting, the results demonstrate wide variability.</p>
<p>The value of rankings is in the raw data they provide rather than the final score they reach. Students and their parents can make sensible choices based on such things as graduation rate, average debt at graduation, and other factors important to them. But what can we say about diverse methods that variously rank Minnesota as 28th, 96th, and 52nd in the world, but 64th in the United States (as the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, QS TopUniversities, Times Higher Education, and U.S. News, respectively, have rated us)?</p>
<p>Attempting to game the rankings is a losing proposition for land-grant institutions because some of the factors that affect rankings are in direct opposition to the land-grant mission. Because high SAT scores and high-school rank often influence university rankings, many institutions try to recruit students from out of state to raise those numbers. What of the citizens of the state who are squeezed by such tactics?</p>
<p>Agricultural and applied research that are part of the land-grant mandate, on the other hand, have traditionally been undervalued in academic-ranking schemes. That has led to a “We are not a trade school” mentality among many land-grant administrators, which in turn has led to a neglect of the kind of work intrinsic to the mission. Not to mention the fact that applied research can be of enormous importance (witness the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Minnesota alumnus Norman Borlaug for his work developing high-yielding, disease-resistant wheat that has helped developing nations attain greater agricultural self-sufficiency).</p>
<p>It’s wrong that many land-grant institutions have been sucked into the competitive university-ranking business and have strayed from their mission. In 2004 the University of Minnesota’s president boasted in an embarrassingly titled document (“Serving Minnesota Through World-Class Greatness”) that under the provost’s leadership, “the University community articulated an ambitious aspiration for the University to be one of the top three public research universities in the world within a decade.”</p>
<p>That would be 2014. As Hook said to Smee, “Do I hear a clock ticking?”</p>
<p>There’s something both hubristic and clueless about statements like those from my university. Does the administration believe that the public cannot see through the unreality of its intention to be one of the top three public universities in the world in four more years?</p>
<p>Land-grant universities should get back to the business of doing what they do best*in particular, teaching at a level sufficient to prepare people in their states to be competitive in the job marketand worry less about becoming world-class public research institutions. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of recruiters found that large public universities (although not Minnesota) dominate the top 25 favorites of recruiters for big companies. That is the sort of ranking about which universities like mine should care.</p>
<p>It is possible for a student to get a better education at the University of Minnesota than at St. Catherine or Northwestern Universities, or Carleton or St. Olaf Colleges, to mention a few of the institutions where I have been on either the receiving or the giving end of teaching. Minnesota excels in the depth and breadth of courses available to students. It simply is not possible, even for the Carletons of the world, to compete with that.</p>
<p>Many of the students who have worked in my lab have been accepted for graduate work at universities like California at Berkeley, San Diego, and San Francisco; Caltech; Stanford; Harvard; and Cambridge. If you go to a large public university and do well, you can write your own ticket. I have had many undergrads in my lab or courses who are the equal of students anywhere.</p>
<p>The University of Minnesota is, in other words, a tremendous resource for the state of Minnesota. Public education should be the great equalizer, and Minnesota and other land-grant institutions should return to their original land-grant priorities.</p>
<p>Re-establishing those priorities will also help in making a stronger case to the Legislature for increased support. Gordon Gee, at Ohio State, is a master of that lesson, and he and his university have prospered because of the good relationship he has developed with the Ohio legislature and the people of Ohio. Other land-grant-university presidents and administrations could learn a great deal from Gee.</p>
<p>Final score? Southern Cal 32, Minnesota 21. Prospects for winning even two more games this year seem dim. We’ll probably even get beaten by my other alma mater, Northwestern.</p>
<p>But we will also be getting a new president soon. Perhaps he or she will help us return to our land-grant priorities. And maybe we’ll even get a great football team to put up a fight against Ohio State. </p>
<p>Bill Gleason is an associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.</p>
<p>Source: [World-Class</a> Greatness at a Land-Grant University Near You? - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/World-Class-Greatness-at-a/124591/]World-Class”>http://chronicle.com/article/World-Class-Greatness-at-a/124591/)</p>