<p>One thing though- I cannot emphasize enough how much where people went to undergrad comes up in the job world. Say an Ivy and people assume you're smart, off the bat its yours to mess up. Say a random state school and you have to prove your intelligence. Sucks but its true.</p>
<p>and slipper, ur saying that places like Duke and Northwestern dont get that instant respect????</p>
<p>Heh. slipper isn't the best person to try that with. :p</p>
<p>T_P - Ah, yeah, that's more what I was thinking.</p>
<p>Name recognition wise I wouldn't worry about Duke and NU, just pretend they fall in the Ivy category lol</p>
<p>the one thing you realize once you get "out in the real world" is simply that "life is not fair".</p>
<p>in a controlled environment (school, sports, etc.) the "winners" are easily measurable: the highest GPA -> Valedictorian, the fastest runner -> 1st place. everyone pretty much starts at the same starting line and the one who does "the best" (whatever that may be) wins.</p>
<p>now fast forward to the "real world". it's not the smartest, brightest, etc. that always win out - (now don't get me wrong - there is nothing against pure talent and intelligence - these qualities of course will serve you very well in life) but more often times than not you will be working for someone where you will be thinking to yourself "how in the world did this knucklehead get so far?"</p>
<p>see, the problem is that when you leave a "controlled" environment, meritocracy may not always be the rule. it starts right off of the bat when you are interviewing for jobs -> this process HAS to be one of THE most subjective processes known to man. if you just happen to not get along with your interviewer, 99 out of a 100, you aren't getting that job no matter how good you are.</p>
<p>also, how many times have you heard the phrase "it's not what you know, but who you know." never have truer words been spoken (particularly in business). this is the ultimate "intangible". if you are well connected, your career path is all but written in stone (as long as you don't screw up majorly). when someone behind the scenes, behind closed doors (or under the table) is pushing another ahead (or pulling strings), it's hard to beat that kind of advantage. you may be up for a promotion one day against a guy you could wipe the floor with in terms of pure ability, but that person may get the job over you because he was simply better connected. nothing you can do about it... no academic committee to appeal to, no "instant replay" here.</p>
<p>think about George W. Bush for a short second -> do you think that being born into a life of American blue-blooded family "royalty" with a silver spoon so firmly stuck in his mouth that he can't speak right had nothing to do with the fact that he has coasted along through life in an enviable life of wealth and privilege from Andover to Yale to HBS to Texas Governor to US President? How much did true "ability" play a part in W's success to becoming the most powerful man in the free world?</p>
<p>this guy is THE "intangibles" poster child.</p>
<p>Lol! Northwestern and Duke (and all the usual suspects) of course fall into the same category of "smart schools."</p>
<p>this is a very intersting and informative thread. </p>
<p>and no arguing!!!</p>
<p>"One thing though- I cannot emphasize enough how much where people went to undergrad comes up in the job world. Say an Ivy and people assume you're smart, off the bat its yours to mess up. Say a random state school and you have to prove your intelligence. Sucks but its true."</p>
<p>This actually kind of annoys me...</p>
<p>kk, how come?</p>
<p>I agree it may be somewhat arrogant and it's not always fair to label somebody right away, but i've also worked my butt off to get where I am and gratification like this makes the work i've done well worth it.</p>
<p>I don’t know. I really don’t like either extreme. The whole "you go to elite School X you MUST be smart" thing is kind of silly to me... So is the "you go to State School Y, you must not be as smart as person from school X" mentality...</p>
<p>
[quote]
"you go to elite School X you MUST be smart" thing is kind of silly to me... So is the "you go to State School Y, you must not be as smart as person from school X"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well, that's reality.</p>
<p>let's say you meet two people and ask them what they do: Person A says "I pump gas at my local gas station" and Person B says, "I work at Goldman Sachs" - what can you deduce from just that? Now, before I get flamed, I'm not saying that Person B is a BETTER human being than Person A, but it does give you some insight about these people.</p>
<p>What if person A were Bill gates???????</p>
<p>Fair point the_prestige, but I'm going to (half) disagree about that being a valid response to kk's assertion.</p>
<p>If you go to elite school X, you must be smart - Well, there are the occassional development admits, athletes, etc who certainly weren't admitted for their awe-inspiring intellect, but on the whole students at these elite schools ARE smart. That's not an unfair assumption to make at all.</p>
<p>If you go to state school Y, you must not be as smart as person from school X - Now this is not entirely fair. Intelligent students end up at state schools for a variety of perfectly valid reasons. To say a state school graduate is definitely less intelligent than one from an elite school doesn't really reflect reality at all.</p>
<p>However, and this is more addressed to kk, on average the students at elite schools are smarter than those at typical state schools. Pick a random student from an elite and put them up against a random student from a typical state U, and the elite will come out on top much more often than not. That's really not something you can argue against. So slipper has a point. If you go to a state school, it doesn't mean you're not intelligent. But, because the odds of you being a genius are not as high, it makes perfect sense that you will have to do more to prove yourself after graduation than a similar student from an elite. The elite students had to do the same thing, only they chose to do it earlier.</p>
<p>PS: Er, last time I checked, Bill Gates doesn't pump gas. :confused:</p>
<p>haha, bill gates went to harvard.</p>
<p>“PS: Er, last time I checked, Bill Gates doesn't pump gas”</p>
<p>That is my point…… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>the_prestige said:</p>
<p>"Person A says "I pump gas at my local gas station" and Person B says, "I work at Goldman Sachs" - what can you deduce from just that?"</p>
<p>The answer is: one can deduce nothing more than that information. Didn't the SAT teach you anything... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Also, I still think it a crazy assumption that a person from an elite school is more intelligent than a person from a state school. I think elite school students were, on average, better high school students than those in state schools, but not all that much smarter. But hey, what do I know….</p>
<p>If your business card says Managing Director nobody will care where you went to school. They will assume you are a smart business person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you go to elite school X, you must be smart
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there are always exceptions of course, but the overwhelming majority of those students who enroll at an elite school (e.g. an Ivy) are extremely well qualified ... consider how few spaces there are at any given Ivy in any given year.</p>
<p>and even if they are not (i.e. they had extremely powerful connections / legacy etc.) then, I'd argue that those individuals (see my George W. Bush example above) are giong to do just fine in life.</p>
<p>bottom line? being a grad of an elite school def. gives you an edge vs. your peers (regardless if it is "deserved" or not - perception becomes reality over time)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you go to state school Y, you must not be as smart as person from school X
[/quote]
</p>
<p>now I'm not even going to touch any assumptions with regards to State U. grads, because: a) there seems to be a fairly wide range of people with a wide range of backgrounds and circumstances that attend your typical State U. and 2) i just don't know enough about State U. to make any hard assumptions about this group... of course there are going to be highly qualified people who attend State U. for a variety of reasons (financial, location, etc.) </p>
<p>the point here is simply, as slipper stated, that those grads will have more to prove, all else being equal.</p>
<p>Barrons, for a person from an average school who is a managing director of course it doesn't matter. This person clearly surpassed expectations at all levels. But the point is its a harder struggle. At the later points in one's career it matters much less, but for the first 10-15 years it matters.</p>
<p>i've said it a few times before on CC, but both of my parents recruit for two separate Fortune-500 companies, and here's what my mom told me about her recruiting routine...</p>
<p>step 1 - the resume load.<br>
She gets a stack of resumes of prospective applicants (some times it may be fore jobs, sometimes for internships). Usually the pile is enormous - sometimes thousands of resumes for only a few positions. The next step is to sort through these to get a smaller load of applicants. She will take each resume, look at the statement of intent (or whatever it's called), the student's GPA, and the college they are from. This step takes about 3-4 seconds per resume - either you're in or you're out. Your statment must be concise and show interest in the company; your GPA should be above around a 3.5 usually; the better the college you're from, the lower your GPA can be to make the cutoff. Depending on the quality of the applicant pile, she may ONLY take students form top schools, like the IBanking firms do. Heck, she can afford to be this selective. The logic behind this is the fact that the colleges have already selected the best people in the first place by admitting them into their college. This is the first and the last time your resume will be seen or used. So much for all of that resume prep stuff at career services, eh?</p>
<p>step 2 - first interview round.
explanation is obvious enough, general interivew to eliminate some candidates.</p>
<p>step 3 - final interviews. usually much more in depth and where most of the selection takes place. </p>
<p>For step 1, she's just looking for a general overview - suble differences like a 3.9 at Harvard and a 3.6 at Cornell won't matter (unless there's a strict cutoff at a 3.6, but this is rarely the case). As long as you're in this range, you're good. The Harvard one won't be favored - both students will be on equal footing now. The rest will come down to you and your interview. Interviews can take up to an hour if not more, very important. Yet, those first 3-4 seconds when your resume is looked at are critical - this is where comming from an elite college can be a big boost. </p>
<p>So, this is just my experience from an inside perspective. Obviously, many companies do different things.</p>
<p>this is an old thread, but when these companies recruit at these schools, what majors are they interested in?</p>