<p>i invented the sweater vest</p>
<p>I invented the letter ‘j’. I live off the royalties. Before me, everybody just used an ‘i’ with a tail.</p>
<p>^^haha, nice… I’m going into my fourth year of Latin, so I absolutely love Latin references. Funny thing is how Latin is composed of ‘i’ instead of ‘j’, so you could have indeed invented the letter ‘j’.</p>
<p>I invented freeze pops… those things rock.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re gonna look at those top engineering schools of UIUC and UW but not my alma mater, NIU? I’m a little offended there Salve!. My school not good? :(</p>
<p>No JHB619, your school is perfectly fine. It’s just my parents will hardly let me even go out of state let alone New York. I’m sure NIU is awesome! :)</p>
<p>NIU is in New York? I thought NIU is Northern Illinois University???</p>
<p>EDIT: Or did I miss a joke somewhere?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice catch. Salve!, explain joke.</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess you indeed missed the joke… :(</p>
<p>No, really though. NIU is fine, it’s that I would rather go somewhere either where one of my siblings are going, or to a smaller private school. U of Wisconsin is in there because my brother was considering it at one time. How is NIUs engineering program by the way? I have a friend who goes there (where the “joke” came from), but he’s not in engineering.</p>
<p>This whole thread has been slightly ridiculous. Almost everything that actually relates to the original topic can be easily summed up into a few truths:</p>
<p>1) You can succeed if you go to JSU.
2) It is easier to do so if you go to MIT/equivalent.</p>
<p>There was a study done showing something to the effect that high-caliber students going to highly ranked privates ended up having about the same amount of success as high-caliber students going to less highly ranked state schools (this study wasn’t about engineering specifically, but I think the general message holds true). I think it’s clear that as long as you push yourself, you can succeed. It’s just easier if you end up going to a more prestigious institution.</p>
<p>haha this is a good username-post combo</p>
<p>are your 213 other posts like this?</p>
<p>What can I say? It’s better to be succinct if possible. :P</p>
<p>I actually sympathize with sakky’s argument; I just think it’s more realistic. However, I also believe that if you’re brilliant, you can succeed wherever you go…Salve and sakky are just on two different levels that, while related, can’t really be compared as they are on different perspectives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re right with this, and I have realized it after all of the constant back-and-forth argument. Sakky is focusing more on employers perspective, while I am focused on the individual. I understand that employers are one of the most important things in a job-seekers life, but they are not the ones I have been referring to. I understand fully what sakky is saying and I agree with the idea that it is easier to get a good job (when talking about the world in general) if you have a “top” school behind you. But as I have been saying this whole time:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you necessarily have to be brilliant, but you can indeed succeed wherever you go to school (like NIU). Also, it depends largely on how a person defines success. Is success being a multi-millionaire or is it having a stable job that allows you to provide for your family or maybe it is a combination. I do not know how everyone defines success, but my definition is the latter involving a stable job. That also fuels my comments. </p>
<p>Anyway, thanks sumzup for summing everything up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even established organizations have the same general problem: how do you maximize your chances of building a functioning team? </p>
<p>I’ll point directly to the top: consider the way the Obama Administration has conducted its hiring. How many high-level officers in the Federal government just so happened to be old friends of Barack Obama’s (or, in some cases, Michelle’s)? Surely the government has sufficient resources to conduct whatever employment searches and background checks - including FBI background investigations - that it wants. Yet at the end of the day, the Administration is dotted with a myriad of Barack’s old pals from Harvard and/or Chicago. </p>
<p>[Crimson</a> Tide](<a href=“http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eceb7628-27e1-461e-b3a2-ce2ff7abb3a2]Crimson”>http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eceb7628-27e1-461e-b3a2-ce2ff7abb3a2)</p>
<p>[Obama</a> Camp Has Many Ties to Wife’s Employer - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103646.html]Obama”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103646.html)</p>
<p>Nor is Obama particularly unique. G.W.Bush surrounded himself with a hand-picked team from Texas, and Clinton imported a large Arkansas (and Georgetown & Yale) contingent to Washington.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, you need a team that you can trust. People are therefore naturally going to gravitate towards those they’ve successfully worked with in the past. In fact, right now, I know numerous highly qualified people who would like nothing more than to work for the Obama Administration, the problem being that they don’t actually know anybody on the inside, and they certainly don’t know Barack himself. They have no way in.</p>
<p>Now, keep in mind that this is in the world of politics, where complaints regarding nepotism would sting the most and where public scrutiny is obviously pervasive. Heck, Obama himself campaigned on a platform on meritocratic technocracy in contrast to the Bush Administration that placed a premium on loyalty. Yet Obama himself has imported his own social circle into his Administration. So if this happens in even the highest circles of government, what do you think happens in corporate America?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Paul Graham once said, entrepreneurial locales are less of a technological phenomenon than a social one, meaning that while technology has become ever-cheaper over time, what is not cheap - and in fact, what is nearly impossible to replicate - is the social culture. That is precisely why so many countries have tried to build their own versions of Silicon Valley, with most having failed miserably. What those countries usually ended up creating was an economic zone that has the best technology infrastructure in the world and that may be filled with large tech firms (who have probably been enticed by tax incentives), but little startup activity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am fudging on nothing - I am simply saying that Silicon Valley is the top startup locale, which I doubt that anybody disputes. But if you want to talk about other ones such as the Boston Technology Highway or Seattle, we could do that too. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is clear. You only get to live in one place at one time, so if you want to enter the startup world, why wouldn’t you place yourself in the best possible place to do it, unless you had an excellent reason to be elsewhere? Why settle for anything else when you can have #1? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the same idea: what’s the best way to develop sufficient social trust necessary for somebody to endorse you for a job? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Distributed work is a fact of life - but so is the monotonic trend of global urbanization. </p>
<p>In fact, I might actually argue that the spread of telecommunications technology will mean that social connections and physical proximity will become more important for the American worker over time, not less. For example, you say that some employees of your company were given jobs characterized by 100% telecommuting. Well, then I would ask, what would stop the company from just offshoring that job completely to India or some other developing country? After all, if the job really can be completed from anywhere in the world, then it probably will be sent to whoever in the world can do it the cheapest. The competitive advantage of the American worker will have to be that he is in America and can therefore perform tasks for which physical proximity provides an advantage, whether due to fixed capital or due to social propinquity. I would be extraordinarily paranoid going forward knowing that my job could be completed on a pure telecommuting basis. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet the trend of urbanization continues. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I said all sorts of Ibankers live in Manhattan. I never said that all Ibankers live in Manhattan. Please read more carefully next time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please see above and respond to what I actually said, not what you think I said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like an argument over shrinking the finance industry in general, not about where is the best place to be if you want to obtain a job in that industry. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe I’ve made any. You, on the other hand, seem to have made quite a few. </p>
<p>But in any case, I’m glad that you’re repudiating what you said before. Welcome aboard, I’m pleased to make your acquaintance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now you’re agreeing with me that people may put up with moving to a place they don’t really like in order to receive other benefits that they do like. That is why people work offshore in some of the most hostile territory in the world. That is also why Ibankers may choose a career with such a low quality of life, at least in the first few years. </p>
<p>And that is also why some people will move to a location they don’t really like, if it offers opportunities. For example, I know many people who don’t really like Silicon Valley. But, hey, that’s where the venture funding is. That’s also where the entrepreneurial culture is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More importantly - why is it keeping its hq in Boston? And why? </p>
<p>Like I said before, headquarters is where the political power lies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but you seem to be a great fan of mine. Thank you for the support. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re fudging again. Obviously I have never disputed that there are a variety of reasons for anybody to live anywhere. But at the end of the day, people do move for career reasons. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I never said that everyone was flocking to the cities. I said that the trend was for people to move to the cities. </p>
<p>Secondly, I never said that Boston itself had a lot of VC activity. I said the Boston area did. Most of the VC’s are not actually located within Boston at all, but rather in Waltham (or to some extent, Cambridge). </p>
<p>But to your point, it is certainly true that those who are interested in startup activity are indeed flocking to the Boston area. </p>
<p>On the other hand, like I said before, there are many dying industries in Boston and in Massachusetts in general. Manufacturing, in particular, used to employ far more people than it does now, and the slow death of manufacturing has resulted in a large population exodus, and manufacturing employs far more people than the tech industry probably ever will. Hence, I certainly agree that if you want a manufacturing career, Massachusetts is probably a poor choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never once disagreed that other factors of life impact what you should do with your life. When have I ever said otherwise? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that only career factors matter, and nothing else. </p>
<p>But on the other hand, I think you would not disagree with me that career is certainly an important factor. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you didn’t read about the fact that the entire Massachusetts economy is losing jobs. On a relative basis, academia in Massachusetts is still a bright spot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel sorry for the people who were laid off from AMD. But that doesn’t change the fact that AMD still maintains its headquarters in Sunnyvale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The distance from Boston to 495 is less than the distance from San Jose to San Mateo. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t even know what you’re arguing here. Are you saying that people don’t move to Los Angeles to find acting jobs? Or are you saying that they’re stupid if they do? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, so have I. Granted, it was a long time ago. </p>
<p>As I recall, Hudson is about half an hour away from Waltham. That sounds like the Highway128 area to me. You choose to disagree? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I never posited that he was in a manufacturing plant outside of HQ. In fact, Intel has barely any manufacturing capability outside of HQ (the fab in Santa Clara is tiny). </p>
<p>However, what I said is that the political power in Intel rests in headquarters. Let’s face it - Otellini is more powerful than Perlmutter and will be so as long as he runs Intel. </p>
<p>Maybe Perlmutter will be promoted to CEO, maybe he won’t. However, I’m willing to take the bet that if Perlmutter is indeed promoted to CEO, he’ll move to the Valley. Would you like to take that bet? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of that is a complete nonsequitur. The question is not regarding whether the banking industry should fail. The question is where is it located? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s good that you’re onaboard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, do you want to work for an egg company? I thought we were talking about technology and entrepreneurship here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, like I said before, do you want to work in an auto manufacturing plant? I don’t see too many young Americans dreaming of working in an auto plant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>New England in general is dying because of the downfall of Northeastern manufacturing. Many of the old factories have been mothballed, and many more continue to be shuttered and demolished. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t changed anything. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can??? Really? Have you perfected cloning? If so, what are you doing here - why not just commercialize your invention and become a billionaire? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably as good as the theater scene in New Hampshire. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, right. How can it be wrong when I’m citing you? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On a cost-of-living adjusted basis - absolutely. What’s Brad and Angelina’s net worth? I suspect it may actually be more than the entire combined net worth of every actor in Branson, even after adjusting for COL. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about the binary choice of where you choose to live. You can in only live in one place - that is, unless you really have perfected that cloning device. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? Did I say that? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. </p>
<p>Oh, can’t do it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you still arguing for it? After all, it is your argument, not mine. Don’t blame me for your argument. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that Omaha is a terrible place to find an engineering job - indeed it may be the best place in all of Nebraska.</p>
<p>However, there are places that are even better in terms of finding jobs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I’ve been saying, it’s difficult to find jobs in a location in which you are not physically present. The lack of physical proximity means that you won’t even hear about many jobs in the first place, so you won’t even know to apply. </p>
<p>Besides, I could turn your logic right on its head. You can be in California and look for jobs elsewhere - including in Omaha if you so desire. If, that is, in fact so easy to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, technically, you don’t have to do anything in life. If you just want to be a homeless bum, you could do that too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jobs are easier to find if you are physically around. It’s easier to find work in California if you’re already in California, and the same is true of Omaha, Florida, or Idaho. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of that is a nonsequitur, for at the end of the day, the problem remains that those college kids don’t have strong networks. Maybe it is their fault. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the fact is, they didn’t. What should they do now - kill themselves? Invoke a time machine? They have to move on with their careers by doing the best they can. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s still an office, right?</p>
<p>I thought you said that the rise of communications technologies means that offices are losing their importance over time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that most Americans would dread the day when their jobs could be performed on a completely remote basis, for who’s to say that those jobs won’t all be offshored? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have always said that multiple locales exist - for example, from the very beginning I identified Boston as an alternate locale to Silicon Valley. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can do anything you want, but it’s obviously easier to be where the infrastructure is already in place, whether that infrastructure is physical or social. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Therein lies the risk - what if you fail? After all, most startups fail. If you’re in an established startup locale, join a startup and it fails, oh well, you can probably just join another . But if you’re in a locale where only one startup is around, and it fails, that presents a problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your sister is just lucky - not everybody has the good fortune of buying a house when it’s cheap. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet what I find interesting is that the US auto companies are not moving to the South. Granted, maybe you could argue that the manufacturing facilities can’t do so for union reasons. But why not the headquarters? After all, while Detroit/Flint/Auburn Hills is relatively cheap, it surely isn’t as cheap as Mississippi. So why don’t the Big 3 just relocate their entire headquarters? </p>
<p>Similarly, while we see Japanese and European auto firms building manufacturing facilities to the US South, they have yet to move their headquarters to the US South. Why not? Japan is one of the most expensive nations on Earth. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet that doesn’t take away from the fact that the IB jobs that remain are to be predominantly found in places like New York. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that the presumption is that most college kids are probably looking for jobs close to where they already are. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We cannot control the future, we can only deal with the present, and as long as telework remains suboptimal for certain industries, propinquity will remain important. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly - I dread the day when my job can truly be performed on a completely remote basis. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, you have to deal with the social issues immediately. A brilliant guy who nevertheless generates strife within the team can set you back for months, and perhaps kill the project entirely if for example, he incites key employees to quit or even resort to violence in an explosion of frustration. I’ve seen that happen myself. As a team leader, you can’t have that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, he wouldn’t be hired at all, nor should he be, if team performance is being optimized.</p>
<p>Now, granted, perhaps one could devise a system in which he would not need to interact within a team framework. But, again, you would need to know what the bounds of his social idiosyncracies are, and you could only know that through social capital.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>From what I’ve seen, you use a combination of approaches. You look at
schools in your general area, you use headhunters, you use job lists,
you use your networks and you use your human resource centers. You
also look for experienced employees to mix in with college graduates.</p>
<p>Sometimes you outsource. I am less familiar with the mechanics of this
though I’ve seen it happen to others.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps you could enumerate all of the high-level positions so that we
can fact-check your hypothesis. I seem to recall that he went after a
bunch of old Clinton operatives to fill senior posts.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And yet was every high-level post from Texas? Where were his Supreme
Court picks from?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Like Tim Geitner? Zoe Baird? Kimba Woods? Harriet Meirs? </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>When did Obama and Geitner work together?</p>
<p>Go through his cabinet and tell me when they worked together.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps they should try starting from the bottom.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So is it his social circle or those that he “worked with”.</p>
<p>I work in Corporate America and do see what goes on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but I don’t know that I need to, as it’s already been done by the press:</p>
<p>[School</a> buds: 20 Harvard classmates advising Obama - Carrie Budoff Brown - Politico.com](<a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16224.html]School”>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16224.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say that every high-level post came from Texas? </p>
<p>On the other hand, we can’t underestimate the influence of old Texas pals such as Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett, Scott McClellan, Alberto Gonzales, and many others.</p>
<p>Supreme Court Justice picks? You mean like Harriet Miers, who had been Bush’s personal lawyer for nearly 3 decades? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know - I’m not aware that Obama actually knew Geithner, and maybe that was the problem (see below). Nor did Clinton know Baird or Woods personally. </p>
<p>Miers, didn’t become S.C. Justice but did work as White House Counsel and one of Bush’s close advisors for 6 years. Not a bad job. I wouldn’t have minded having that job. I’m sure that plenty of other people wouldn’t have minded having that job. </p>
<p>Nor would have I minded being Alberto Gonzales, Margaret Spellings, or Alphonso Jackson. After all, at the end of the day, whether they deserved the jobs or not, they were Cabinet secretaries, and I’m not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How has the Geithner pick worked out so far? You were the one criticizing the iron triangle of Wall Street, the Fed, and the lobbying industry. Maybe Obama should have picked somebody who he knew better. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should they, if they can start from the top? After all, that’s what Valerie Jarrett did, now as White House Senior Advisor and long time friend of Barack’s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s the difference? Either way, the point is that he got to know certain people well, and he then brought those people with him to his new job. Perhaps other people were more qualified, but Obama didn’t know those people. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, and so you would surely agree that plenty of social network recruiting takes place. That’s the reality. </p>
<p>Maybe AuburnTutor is right and life isn’t fair. But if life is unfair, you want that unfairness to work in your favor, not against you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet the core problem remains: how to find somebody who will actually fit in your team rather than generate strife and dissension in the ranks. Social networks provides important information that you can use to filter potential hires.</p>
<p>
Which is all fine and good right up until the individual needs to get a job and the two perspectives collide.</p>
<p>Since this thread is still going in circles, I’ll restate my question from a few pages ago and see if anyone has thought a bit about it:</p>
<p>I think a more interesting comparison is between MIT and a very strong but not quite as tip-top school such as U Minnesota (not ChE, where it’s top dog anyway). Both of these are top 20 (if you trust USNWR…) programs, but MIT is light-years more competetive for admission and about twice as expensive. In a closer comparison such as this, how much impact would the MIT name have? Would the UMN degree get the job applicant “in the door” for individual review?</p>
<p>I think what sakky is saying holds true more for start-ups. You could consider a new administration in the white house a political start-up. When you do something new, you need people you know and can trust on your side. That’s when you reach into your social network. Just like Obama, Bill Gates, and countless others.</p>
<p>What BCEagle is saying holds true for large corporations, who have the resources to find anyone from anywhere as long as they have the skills.</p>