Are LACs worth > $200k

<p>OP- I manage a large team of recruiters for a global company and have been recruiting both mid and senior level execs as well as new grads for most of my career in a variety of organizations.</p>

<p>A couple of thoughts for you:</p>

<p>1- People who hire for a living don’t just throw the dice when developing a recruiting calendar, figuring out how many people to hire for which location, etc. For the most part, the people who help decide how many new grads get hired and where they should get hired from for big organizations have a pretty detailed view of a wide range of colleges and universities. That includes LAC’s. The top LAC’s have a terrific reputation at most of the companies that hire large numbers of new grads every year. </p>

<p>2- Once you leave the very big corporations, banks, media companies, consumer products, insurance companies, consulting firms, etc. this is not necessarily the case. You can be a mid level manager at a small company and be told, “We are launching a new project next year so go hire 5 new analysts” and then be left to your own devices, i.e. your own alumni network, schools you’ve heard of, schools your spouse has heard of, etc.</p>

<p>3- GPA is important. Not as important as some people think (a 3.8 is the same as a 3.9, trust me, so don’t take lame and stupid courses to “protect” your GPA). But the days where a gentleman C at Harvard could trump Phi Beta Kappa at U Michigan are long gone. Don’t obsess about grades to the detriment of getting an education, but don’t think that majoring in beer pong and partying is going to impress any corporate hiring manager. Lots of the kids that we all know who have “failed to launch” and are living on mom’s couch did not do well in college. And the fact that it’s a terrible economy means that the 2.9 GPA in Marketing Management isn’t going to have the world beating a path to the door.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Quality trumps prestige- but not in the way that parents and kids like to hear. Majoring in something that a university does well, and doing well at it, is very important. Patching together your own major in leisure studies at a college that has a phenomenal economics department and then trying to pass yourself off as an econ major because you took three econ classes as a leisure studies major isn’t going to work. Not from Harvard, not from Swarthmore, not from U VA. Go major in econ; write an honors thesis about leisure studies. Or major in Renaissance Art- it doesn’t matter, but do well in it, and don’t spend the next ten years explaining why you couldn’t find a department to study in and had to make up your own.</p></li>
<li><p>Most recruiters and hiring managers have a very broad perspective on the talent pool. My team reads over a hundred thousand resumes every year for positions all over the world. (professional roles- not clerical, hourly, etc.) So the fact that someone down the block from you hasn’t heard of Pomona or doesn’t know what linguistics is shouldn’t worry you too much, unless a kid has very narrow interests which suggests that they’re going to work in one particular region of the country with a narrow set of employment options.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t flame me… the quality of the Career Services department is more important than the things that people on CC obsess about constantly. Worry less about whether Harvey Mudd produces more PhD’s per capita than Williams; most kids who were good students in HS think they are either going to med school or getting a doctorate. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to look around and realize that most of these kids are wrong. They don’t end up doing that. They end up getting jobs that don’t have MD or PhD attached to them. So for god’s sake- spend an hour investigating the quality of the career development operation since for most of you, that’s where your kid is heading. </p></li>
<li><p>Engineering and other technical professions (actuary, statistics, etc.) have their own rules but all the above still stands. Quality trumps prestige- if I run recruiting for a global manufacturing corporation with a large research facility in the Midwest and I need mechanical engineers then my hiring team is heading to Rolla Missouri. I fish where the fish are biting. </p></li>
<li><p>But prestige is important. Not because it matters if your neighbor has heard of the college, but because prestige is often (not always, but very, very frequently) an excellent proxy for quality. If I’m looking at a resume of a kid from Princeton with a BA in English I’m not going to worry that he will need his boss to edit his emails or two page memos. If I’m looking at a resume of a kid from MIT applying for a business development/strategy job, I don’t need to give her the math/analytical test we give to applicants for some roles.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Yes- it is very, very bad and lazy of us to use college as a sorting device. But the quality of K-12 education in this country is so lousy, and basic skills are in such a pathetic state, that I’d need to hire another 50 recruiters just to apply “holistic assessment” to every resume, and frankly, that’s not a good deal for our shareholders. Better to use a sorting device, as imperfect as it is, and quickly boil down the pile to a manageable number of strong, talented candidates, then waste time and money trying to figure out every whacky major and minor and triple major and GPA scheme that’s out there.</p>

<p>When times are tough- we hire fewer people, and we spend less money doing so. When times are better, we kvetch that it’s a “war for talent” out there and we can’t find what we need and we go to more schools and are more open to thinking about kids from schools we don’t know well. </p>

<ol>
<li> Family connections? next to useless. We give courtesy interviews all the time to relatives of “important people”- but they are courtesies. Nobody here would risk their job hiring someone’s idiot nephew. We have anti-nepotism rules anyway which prevent a lot of the old-boy/interfamily stuff… but if you are laboring under the impression that playing tennis in Nantucket with the right people is going to get you hired by a top tier company these days (unless it’s to be a tennis pro) you have not been reading the newspapers.</li>
</ol>

<p>Your #8 and your #9 can be internally contradictory. People don’t get hired because of “family connections”. They are able to make connections on their own because they have been placed in situations where they know of opportunities, know how to capitalize on opportunities, and already have been pre-selected for prestige. </p>

<p>To use Xiggi’s favorite two employers - Bain and Morgan-Stanley - I doubt (but am happy to be proven wrong) there are very many Pell Grant students (regardless of where they went to school) who ever get interviews there. And, of course, since there are so few Pell Grant students at the prestige schools to begin with (your point #8), it’s already stacked.</p>

<p>And for my own kids… we were full pay; I didn’t have the money “lying around” but it was something we planned for a very long time (prenatal) and were fortunate enough to be able to make it work for our family. None of my kids were interested in LAC’s- they’d been to a small high school so were anxious to be small fish in a bigger pond- but I’d have happily paid for an LAC assuming it was the right fit and offered the right things for each kid.</p>

<p>But there were many U’s on the original list for each kid that I vetoed. For my kid interested in engineering, no way was I paying for a second tier private U- the public was both cheaper and offered a more robust program, better reputation, etc. For the kid interested in humanities- many private U’s didn’t make the cut.</p>

<p>I felt fortunate to be able to swing the full pay option but that didn’t mean I was going to be an idiot about it. And in some disciplines, the large public U’s can’t be beat.</p>

<p>Mini, I would love to see a longitudinal study on Pell Grant students which tracks their careers. I don’t know of any but since you seem to know the answer already perhaps you do. I can’t speak to Bain- and it’s privately held. But Morgan Stanley is a public corporation which has well publicized initiatives in NYC at both the K-12 level and the college level. You would probably be surprised by the number of people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who work there. And it’s not an accident, and my hat is off to several large and prominent corporations who have successfully tapped the talent market in disadvantaged communities.</p>

<p>There is for sure a small number of Pell Grant students at elite universities. And the federal government does not allow me to use family background, race, country of origin, in making hiring decisions. But I have fed-exed checks to students dormitories prior to an interview to provide money to purchase appropriate clothing. I have given taxi vouchers to students after campus presentations because otherwise they’d be taking public transportation alone at 11 pm. I have sent visa debit cards to students to use to take a commuter train ($8 train ticket) because they did not have the resources to get to an interview otherwise. I’m not special. You couldn’t find a college recruiter in America who doesn’t have a huge file of “I can’t believe this kid got hired here” stories. </p>

<p>I’m not running a charity and I don’t get to tell the federal government how to use Pell funds, nor do I get to tell Harvard who to accept. But we make a good faith effort to get disadvantaged students through the door.</p>

<p>The fact that many Pell grant recipients never graduate or get mired in poverty all over again is the real story here, not your rant that family connections get folks into some magical “elite”.</p>

<p>Does Harvey Mudd offer a doctorate in Math?</p>

<p>Wow, blossom - great posts. Thank you for sharing your expertise here.</p>

<p>I’m not running a charity and I don’t get to tell the federal government how to use Pell funds, nor do I get to tell Harvard who to accept. But we make a good faith effort to get disadvantaged students through the door.</p>

<p>The fact that many Pell grant recipients never graduate or get mired in poverty all over again is the real story here, not your rant that family connections get folks into some magical “elite”."</p>

<p>I have no problem with the way prestige institutions spend their money - it is their money. But YOU said that it is likely that when YOU hire, prestige institutions make a difference. So putting aside any question about whether Pell Grant students can or cannot do the job, the pure statistical reality is that YOU are more likely to choose applicants whose parents can afford full freight at prestige institution than those who who are on Pell Grants at the very same institutions. As a purely statistical matter, YOU are actually at least four times as likely to do so, and in the case of H., nine times more likely to do so. This assumes that they apply in equal weights to their proportion on campus (which I doubt, but you didn’t speak to that, so we’ll let that slide.)</p>

<p>I am glad you are charitable to the poor. (And I mean that seriously.) But it doesn’t change the reality that YOU wrote. (and I fully believe you)</p>

<p>In other words, wealth and family connections count - and they count a lot - even if the interviewer is entirely family and wealth blind. (I don’t see why anyone should see that as surprising.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, could you give us some examples of what constitutes “leisure studies” to you and your employers?</p>

<p>Also, what constitutes “doing well”? 3.3+ or something much much higher?</p>

<p>Well, yes. If connections (whether family or alumni) didn’t count, they wouldn’t be called connections.</p>

<p>Cobrat - I believe she means the actual major of leisure studies. She’s not using it as a catch-all for non-STEM or non-econ majors, if that’s what you’re thinking. Here’s an example of leisure studies …</p>

<p>[Leisure</a> Studies - Majors & Programs - Undergraduate Admissions - The University of Iowa](<a href=“http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/undergrad/majors/at-iowa/LeisureStudiesGroup.html]Leisure”>http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/undergrad/majors/at-iowa/LeisureStudiesGroup.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mini, I know you love to combine the whimsical with the serious, to mix data culled from reputable sources with some you pulled out of thin air, and to present a hodgepodge of amazing personal humility with obnoxious bragging about loved ones … but I have to shake my head about that last post.</p>

<p>Do you happen to know something about me that I have yet to discover? Did the backchannels of College Confidential play an awful joke on you? Except for knowing that Bain is mentioned in the next POTUS race, and that Morgan Stanley is not hyphenated, I really know little about them, let alone being my favorite employers. This said, I am quite certain that those firms are highly rated by future applicants. </p>

<p>Do not hesitate to PM me to find out about my favorite employers!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I was curious because none of the respectable top unis/LACs I know of…certainly not my alma mater has the “Leisure Studies” major. I also know for a fact none of the Ivies have that major…unless you consider Cornell’s School of Hotel Management to be it (It’s not if you knew how difficult it is to not only attain admission, but to go through the program). </p>

<p>Was wondering as I have heard the phrase “Leisure Studies” frequently used to denigrate non-STEM/pre-professional fields in many corporate workplaces by corporate executives/colleagues with a strong anti-intellectual bent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT happens to require all students (including humanities majors) seeking bachelor’s degrees to complete multivariable calculus. That is a lot more assurance of math ability than one can say about most other similarly prestigious schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mini, you’ve posted before about how you felt like the “poor relation” (for lack of a better term) – coming from a lower socioecon class than many of your Williams classmates, and that you were very conscious / resented that (even if they were well intentioned and didn’t intend to marginalize you).</p>

<p>Yet on the other hand - you’ve chosen an “alternative” career path (or journey as the case may be) - which has taken you some pretty neat places, and seems to really fit your personality, ethos and values. I presume you’re pretty happy with how things all turned out for you - certainly you have a lovely family and two lovely daughters who are doing all kinds of neat things too.</p>

<p>It’s not like anyone ever thought that you would have wanted to put on the suit and tie and head off to Wall Street to make millions a year. That’s not in your DNA. So I’ve got to ask - why the continued resentment? Are you annoyed that Williams didn’t position you better among the “upper classes”? But you weren’t heading to corporate America anyway and you’re pretty happy with your life as it turned out, right? I guess it’s not hanging together for me. I see a lot of class resentment from your posts that I can’t quite figure out.</p>

<p>blossom, terrific and very thoughtful post.</p>

<p>I don’t think mini’s got it right, but I think family connections do matter. Not for hiring the idiot nephew of someone important. But, all other things equal, a kid with family or other connections is likely to have more opportunities and with a bigger set of opportunities is likely to end up with something better. For example, a highly qualified, ambitious kid who gets introduced through connections to people in her field may well get thrown into more pools to be interviewed. And, the connections can make such kids more competent. A friend is a major league scientist. He suggested that his protege, another heavy hitter, hire the friend’s 8th grade son. She said, he needs to know Java programming. So, that summer, they hired someone to teach him Java programming. The following summer, the Java-trained son worked in a prestigious lab doing something way more useful than a 9th grade and 10th grade student could possibly be expected to do. He’s now able to do even more for her or work in another lab. When he applies to college and later when he’s looking for a job, he’ll be years ahead of many kids and have experiences and a resume that less well-connected kids are much less likely to have. He’s not an idiot; far from it. But all other things equal (drive, IQ, etc.), he’s going to have a better resume than almost any other kid. Advantage does indeed confer advantage, all other things equal, for those who are willing to take it. </p>

<p>If an economist’s daughter were going to study in a field related to one he know and if she wished to talk over paper topics with him, he could guide her towards topics that were more promising or hotter. She’d have to do the work but with a little guidance as to what to work on, she might look stronger than otherwise comparable kids. </p>

<p>Out of the academic realm, if I were connected, I could suggest to a highly placed friend that he take my child as an intern. In fact, one friend who mistakenly thinks I’m very bright and hearing that my son is very bright, volunteered to have him spend the summer at the friend’s family firm that investments money in very sophisticated ways. It hasn’t struck my son’s fancy (yet). But, it might. A summer job or internship with the friend’s firm would undoubtedly look good on a resume for someone going into finance. You as a recruiter might see the resume and say, that’s pretty impressive, without knowing exactly how the student got the job at that firm. And, the next summer’s job would build on that, so many people might not even think of asking. They might say, “Here’s an incredibly qualified kid. Great grades from a strong school, and look at the work experience.”</p>

<p>And, xiggi, I think I used Bain and Morgan Stanley in an earlier post. I think that is where mini picked them up. Let’s try McKinsey and Lazard in the next example.</p>

<p>No resentment here. But I think you are denying the obvious. And something that everyone knows. Money, family, and class position do matter. They don’t necessarily or even often matter in the sense of the billionaire handshake. (Though among billionaires they probably do - but I don’t know any as far as I am aware,( They just matter in the normal way Blossom said she does business. I was just pointing that out.</p>

<p>It’s just the way it is - and is why “prestige colleges” have prestige to begin with, and why we discuss whether they are “worth” $200k. Pizzagirl - Why do you assume bitterness when I was simply providing a statistical check? Is there something eating at you?</p>

<p>I’m not denying money, family and class position matter at all. Nothing’s eating at me at all. I did just drop my D off at school yesterday, though, flew back from Boston to Chicago and then turned around to fly to LA (where I am now) so I’m allowed to be cranky :-)</p>

<p>shawbridge, if your kid doesn’t want the internship, can mine have it? ;)</p>

<p>JvtDad:

</p>

<p>We’re happily paying the full sticker price at selective private…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mini, may I suggest to take some time to check your sources for accuracy and timeliness? I understand that statistics that are true today might not be true yesterday or tomorrow, but it does seem that your statement about St. Olaf versus Harvey Mudd might be suspect. Is it possible you relied on the data analyzed by Smith that tracks this type of information for female candidates only, and simply used older data? Or did you rely on St. Olaf own website?</p>

<p>Do you have any reason to believe that Reed College suddenly decided to quote erroneous numbers in the indexes the school loves to publish? </p>

<p>[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>

<p>The source of this type of information should be the same for everyone: Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, 2010. This shows baccalaureate origins of people granted Ph.D.s from 1997 to 2006.</p>