All Schools are Created Equally

Salve · July 26, 2009, 10:08pm

Does it matter if IIT = MIT? Student of IIT (can) = student of MIT. That is all I’m trying to say. Yes, MIT has more research opportunities, probably more skilled professors, a motivated student body. I will admit that, but I am talking more about the individual, not the school in its entirety. That is what I have been talking about this whole time.

BCEagle91 · July 26, 2009, 10:23pm

""]

Yet I think there is little dispute that the vast bulk of successful
tech startups tend to come from certain regions of the country.

[/QUOTE:

Yes, but you were talking about none in the MidWest.

Successful tech startups can happen anywhere. There are a lot of them in the San Francisco area but there is no exclusivity.

 [QUOTE=""]

We are indeed talking about opportunities for career growth, so that begs the question - where is the best place for you to advance your career quickly - in a manufacturing plant, or in headquarters? Where is the political power of the company concentrated? Put another way, why haven't the Big 3, for all their supposed outsourcing prowess, relocated their headquarters outside of Michigan?

It depends on the economy, your skills, where you want to go and what
your needs are. My first real job was in a manufacturing plant. I
worked for the IT department. It gave me exposure to a wide variety of
business applications and vertical access to employees.

Where can you get a 4-bedroom home for $60,000 in Silicon Valley?

That there are fewer in Maine doesn't imply that it is harder to do.

Really? I would think that career considerations take on a variety of
factors. Cost of living. Access to quality health care. Quality of
schools. Safety. Distance to relatives. Access to recreation.

I'm not an expert on movies - I only watch one every few years.

One of our engineers works in Austin during the winter and in New
England during the summer. So I am familiar with Austin as he's spent
a lot of time telling me about it. It isn't Silicon Valley or
Cambridge, though, which I thought was your point.

According to this CC poster, her husband runs one in Miami. Her
contention was that it's a piece of cake to run one wherever you want
to.

Well, I already said this. That the founders can start up their companies
wherever they want to.

I've only been to Hawaii once and I didn't care for it.

There are companies that treat their employees rather well. They don't
have to, especially in the current economy. But they still do.

Let's look at AMD. A company with a stock price that's had wild
oscillations over the years. Over the course of their long history,
have they made a net profit? They've diluted over and over again.
Borrowed money left and right. Made deals with the wealthy in other
countries. Paid their executives handsomely. Do they really give
a care about profits? Margins? The shareholders? You ever hold a large
position in a company where they announce a secondary after the close?
What happens? Oh yeah, the stock tanks the next day.

My friend did exactly that. He hopped on a plane to see customers and
CEOs. He had a pretty easy day. He only spent about 20 minutes examining
his positions every day. He did radio shows or meetings during the week
but otherwise didn't have to work very hard. The founders spent most
of their time playing golf. You ever run a hedge fund? What you're saying
is different than what he told me.

I've always said this. It is a fact of life that it happens but there
are some disadvantages to it too. I personally do not care for it as I
would rather see the jobs in the US. Call me protectionist.

One of my sisters moved from San Francisco to Burlingame many years
ago. One of my other sisters continues to live in San Francisco. The
sister in San Francisco is wealthy and sends two kids to expensive
private schools in San Francisco. The sister in Burlingame moved there
because the public schools were so bad.

People live where they do for a variety of reasons. If you can afford
private schools, then it doesn't matter as much as to where you live.
If you have kids and can't afford private schools or want to go the
public school route for other reasons, then you look for a house in
the best school district that you can afford. Sometimes you come up
short. What I've heard is that the schools in the valley are generally
a lot better than the schools in San Francisco.

I asked if you have kids. It is a very important question if you're
thinking long-term about your career.

Cal-Maine. I think that they're in Mississippi. I called their
Investors Services department and got their CFO on the phone. I'm sure
that they use some tech in their operations. A pretty successful
business overall (a stock ten-banger in the last seven or eight
years). It was pretty funny watching the CEO on CNBC once. I think
that he was drunk on the show.

It doesn't really take a lot of people and I think that there are
already a lot of potential customers in the area (Miami). If nothing
else, Bernie Madoff thought that it was a good stalking area.

Really. I think that almost all large and successful companies are
tech companies as they have to come up with technology to manage and
run their businesses. That's like saying that WalMart isn't a
high-tech business. It must take a lot of logistical analysis to run
McClane. It must take a lot of technology to run their derivatives
business. And their insurance businesses. And their airline business.

I think that success, at least in terms of money, depends a lot on
luck. If you know how to manage money well, then it can depend a lot
on your skill as you will be able to turn a small amount of money into
large amounts of money independent of your work. If you get into a
startup at the right time and the company does well, then you may
become wealthy. If you work your way up the ladder at a company, you
may become wealthy or successful too. You may buy a house in a place
where property costs are very low but likely to rise and then make a
nice capital gain on your property. You might be good at buying houses
and renting them out. There are a lot of routes to financial success.

I think that it is useful to get a job and work as hard as you can at
it when you start out. Learn as much as you can about the company and
see if you can figure out how to do things better. Learn how to manage
your income wisely. Don't buy high and sell low - especially with
houses. Don't go into debt.

I've been pretty successful at this game over the long run and I
haven't lived in the places that you've talked about. I was facing
pretty long odds too. I know lots of others that have done the same
thing. Where is it more likely? I think that taking care of the above
means that the location isn't as big a factor. I certainly don't
believe that you have to be in Cambridge or Silicon Valley to be
successful.

<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/video/en/us/details/7066bbee-a654-4d84-8f47-9b1ef9532c85%5B/url%5D">http://www.microsoft.com/video/en/us/details/7066bbee-a654-4d84-8f47-9b1ef9532c85</a>

AMD is really headquartered in Abu Dhabi.

Look at where the work is being done in the company. Where was the work
that saved Intel's bacon when P4 wasn't competitive with K8 done?

Would you guess that one of the strong candidates for the next CEO of
Intel currently works in a war zone?

The analogy falls apart because there are a lot of other variables to
consider in choosing where to work and live.

Yes, but it isn't LA, right?

People like excitement, other people, availability of culture,
availability of goods and services and the availability of jobs. Cities
tend to also carry disporportionate political power such that cities get
disproportionate tax dollars compared to other areas. There is also the
criminal element where you can get economies of scale in selling drugs,
weapons, etc. and run other criminal operations.

I have suburban and city residences and a city residence in an asian
country. There are a lot of things that I like about the suburb. Peace,
quiet, safety, low taxes, low cost of living, educated neighbors, a
good school district, a wonderful natural environment nearby. What I
like about the city is that you can get around without a car. What I
don't like is the crime. Two were wounded and another shot to death two
weeks ago two blocks from our residence in the city. The shooting was
one block from the police station. There's crazy vandelism. Lots of
traffic accidents. Lots of drunk driving. Self-sustaining gang activity.
Fights between racial groups.

What do you think the average quality of life is for those that live
in these huge, teeming cities? In China, you have large cities that
are shrinking because they are draining the water out of the ground at
an unsustainable rate. There's widespread pollution due to
industrialization resulting in groundwater pollution.

I've lived in and near decaying cities that have been decaying for a
long time. I can't imagine that people want to live in these places. I
don't think that a lot of them are there for the economic
opportunities. I have a friend that owns a bunch of apartments in one
of these cities. Several of his tenants are section 8. I don't think
that they are enjoying the economic opportunities outside of getting a
free lunch.

I think that many silicon valley companies do provide these
opportunities. One simply needs to find an office in another part of
the country and request a transfer.

""]

nor are the educational systems particularly strong.

[/QUOTE]

I've heard that the schools in silicon valley are quite good. Perhaps
they won't be with the coming budget cuts.

California has just been through a property bubble and I think that a lot
of people tried to take advantage of the bubble. Bubbles are lots of fun
on the left side. Not so much fun on the right. It may be that the bubble
was attractive to employees moving in. Perhaps it's not so attractive now.
Time will tell.

[QUOTE="":

Similarly, why doesn't the entire New York financial industry decamp elsewhere? After all, New York taxes are at nosebleed levels, the physical geography is mediocre at best, and the school systems aren't particularly impressive. Are they all just being stupid in staying?

You mean like why doesn't Bank of America move their headquarters to
somewhere cheaper like North Carolina? Oh wait.

noimagination · July 26, 2009, 10:31pm

Funny, I was under the impression sakky did that already. Many times. Here are a couple of them…

Personally, I think this back-and-forth argument has gone on enough. Of course, somebody can do anything they like. It’s theoretically possible. Probability is what matters, and I personally would be very interested in discussing the relative probability of employment based on education at MIT (or IIT or UMN). Can we get back on track?

Salve · July 26, 2009, 10:40pm

Ya, noimagination, he did say that someone can succeed, but very reluctantly. It was more of “ok, I guess it is possible, but statistics say…”. 
sakky seems like a very intelligent individual, but I just didn’t agree with some of his comments (which is perfectly normal for any human being).

Why don’t we just go back to whatever the original question was, haha, but I don’t even remember what it was…

AuburnMathTutor · July 27, 2009, 12:49am

Actually, I thought software-based filters were becoming more common in processing applications.

These could do incredibly intricate analyses of all applicants for a position… the sky’s the limit on what they could do. These could favor MIT graduates if they are qualitatively superior to others, either intentionally or coincidentally. It could process as many applications as it would get, as fast as it got them, most likely.

Is this not already done? It’s silly if it’s not. Think about it. If companies required a standardized application section in an online system, they could screen and rank applicants… by

Major
Overall GPA
In-Major GPA
School (weights could be assigned to schools, or say all reputable schools could be allowed and problem schools could be screened)
etc.

This sort of makes the “name brand” problem w.r.t. getting your application read irrelevant. Thoughts? Who does this? I know similar things are being done in academia, or will be soon. A professor at my University actually has got some attention by helping to make an automated filtering/ranking system for college applications. Pretty neat, and it has the potential to take a lot of the bias out of the system, not to mention making it drastically more efficient.

BCEagle91 · July 27, 2009, 9:14am

The best jobs are those created by networking where you have someone in the organization that can make a case for you. They may not have any openings but they will create one for you. One of my major career growth jobs was offered to me when the current project leader of a large software project stopped me in the hallway and asked me if I wanted his job. This was one of those 80 hour/week jobs and I think that he had had enough of it.

If you do a great job at your current job and show a lot of interest in what is going on in your organization, then opportunities are going to show up internally. They may show up externally too but you have to maintain your network or do the kind of work that is quasi-public. That can be done by doing shows, giving lectures at universities and industry associations or just publishing aspects of your work online.

College Graduates often have a harder time as their networks aren’t well-formed or they may not be used to or comfortable using their networks. Internships and coops are certainly helpful as they add to your network. Sometimes one can get a job at a company that one interned at. In the current economy, internships and coops are highly recommended on the parent boards for making it easier to land the first job after graduation.

We typically do 12 to 16 hours of interviews with candidates before hiring them. If they come with strong recommendations, then the interview time may be much shorter. In that case, the interviews are a mere formality as the hiring decision has already been made.

sakky · July 30, 2009, 4:46pm

I said there were few, arguably zero, major tech firms started in the Midwest in the last few decades. Now, granted, I’m sure that if I investigated, I might indeed find some. But they’re not exactly rolling off the tongue.

Nor have I ever claimed such exclusivity, heck the status of the Boston area as the #2 most important startup center in the nation itself serves as living proof.

What I have said is that startups tend to congregate in certain regions. From a probabilistic standpoint, you increase your odds of finding such a startup by moving to one of those regions, just like you increase your odds of becoming a successful actor by moving to Los Angeles.

Actually, I think it depends mostly on facetime and social networking. You said it yourself in post #126: The best jobs are those created by networking where you have someone in the organization that can make a case for you. The most powerful people in any organization - the ones who are most likely to have the power to create jobs for you in the organization - are far more likely to be in headquarters. That’s where the political power lies, and that’s how social networking operates.

Nobody can help you if they don’t know you exist, and the best way to make sure that people know you exist is to simply be around. As the old saying goes, 90% of success is simply showing up.

What does that have to do with the question at hand? What we are talking about is career advancement, not where to find a cheap house. After all, why haven’t all the rich investment bankers all moved to cheap Mississippi? Why do they insist on staying in Manhattan?

It means that they’re harder to find. It also means it is harder to procure employees who are willing to work for startups, and conduct business transactions necessary to run a successful business, the most important of all probably being the venture financing. Few VC’s want to be trundling up to Maine.

Yes really. Those concerns have nothing to do with your career. They have to do with your quality of life, but not your career.

Again, why do so many aspiring actors move to Los Angeles every day, most of them leaving families behind, when LA ain’t cheap? Are they all just being stupid? Why do so many aspiring bankers, lawyers and consultants move to New York - one of the most expensive cities on Earth? Are they too being dumb? Heck, why do cities even built at all, and why do people continue to move there, as cities are invariably more expensive than the surrounding countryside, often times being less safe, and far away from your countryside relatives. Yet the fact remains that over half of all people in the world now live in cities, mostly due to migration, and the trend of urbanization shows no sign of stopping, with a predicted 2/3 of the world’s population residing in urban areas by the year 2050. Are all these people in the world being stupid? Why don’t they just all move back to the countryside?

You don’t have to be an expert on movies to understand that he moved to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career.

Another non-sequitur.

It’s a startup locale, which is my point. I never said there were only two.

You obviously no nothing about how businesses work. Perhaps you’d like to explain how Goldman just announced record profits. Perhaps you’d like to explain how the banking industry as a whole, has actually (surprisingly) done relatively well, compared to the rest of the economy. 50 (actually now about 70) banks going bankrupt is miniscule compared to the thousands of banks around the country. Only 2 investment banks have gone bankrupt, compared to the many others that have remained standing. How many other businesses have gone bankrupt lately? Last time I checked, 2 out of the 3 US auto companies have gone bankrupt.

So you’re saying that moving to Mississippi means not treating employees well? I’m sure the people in Mississippi would love it.

And my point is, why haven’t they all done so then? Why do they insist on staying in New York or, even worse, Connecticut? Are they all being dumb?

Have you ever run a hedge fund? Or perhaps your friend is saying that all those funds who insist on staying in the City are just being dumb, and he’s the only smart person, right? Well, if that’s really true, then I’ll anxiously await his appearance on top of the league tables with his ‘brilliant’ strategy.

&lt;/p&gt;

And your point is?

Then perhaps you ought to read about it. Silicon Valley clearly has far more tech companies than does the average region of its size and the bulk of VC funding to boot.

But then you said it yourself - it’s impossible to find a family house in the Valley for $60k. So why doesn’t everybody in the Valley just leave and move…to Maine? Are they all just being dumb?

And I’m sure if it is a positive area for growth, then firms will inevitably move down there. But there certainly hasn’t been much of a stampede to move to Miami (or Mississippi) now.

Interesting, so now you’re trying to broaden your argument (and dilute its effect) by saying that every large firm is a tech firm.

Well, good luck trying to make that argument to anybody else. In particular, for the purposes of this discussion, I think it’s not very easy to try to work as an engineer at the Berkshire Hathaway holding company. You may be able to work as an engineer at one of BH’s subsidiary companies, especially if that company is a true tech company. But to work at BH headquarters as an engineer would be difficult.

And that’s where I have to stop you, for to do what you said, you have to be where the startup is, so that it can hire you. You can’t just sit around in your home in Missouri and hope that a startup will sprout near you such that you can join it. To maximize your chances, you have to move to where the startups tend to congregate.

Well, that doesn’t matter, right, for I thought you were now arguing that every large company is a tech company. That is what you said, after all.

But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about career success. We’re not talking about personal investment success.

Wrong. Please be more careful in checking your facts next time.

AMD Headquarters:
One AMD Place
P.O. Box 3453
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3453
View Map
Tel: 408-749-4000

[Contact</a> Us](<a href=“http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_3592,00.html]Contact”>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_3592,00.html)

In fact, I happen to know exactly where it was done: in headquarters in Sunnyvale as well as in the old DEC Alpha design offices around Boston (as the Athlon team was really the old Alpha team, including Dirk Meyer, who is now AMD CEO).

Now, what you seem to be referring to is the manufacturing of said chips. But manufacturing is a commodity. What matters is the design.

And that next CEO, whoever it is, will end up working in Santa Clara if and once he is promoted.

I never said it had to be LA. It can be any one of the major cultural centers. New York too is a major center of entertainment.

But all you’re doing is reinforcing the point that you need to move to where the opportunities are. I’m glad that you agree that moving to Toronto may be a smart move for an aspiring Canadian actor.

Wait - what’s that? So now you’re saying that cities have advantages - such as the availability of jobs, social networks, political power, and markets for goods? I thought your theme was that anybody could find success no matter where they lived, so nobody needs to move.

[quote]