<p>Both of you make valid points and I don't know if I mentioned this, I wanted to work in the biotech industry for a few years as an Engineer and then perhaps move on to management.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon--America's top engineering schools--even to get invited to interview. Brin and Page still keep a hand in all the hiring, from executives to administrative assistants. And to them, work experience counts far less than where you went to school, how you did on your SATs, and your grade-point average. "If you've been at Cisco for 20 years, they don't want you," says an employee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't that a bit hypocritical from Page and Brin? Brin didn't go to a MIT for undergrad (Maryland). It just seems to me they are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by ignoring talent that exists at state schools and lower ranked schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't that a bit hypocritical from Page and Brin? Brin didn't go to a MIT for undergrad (Maryland).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I didn't say that I necessarily agreed with the policy. I'm just telling you what the policy is. They didn't ask me what their policy should be.</p>
<p>However, I could actually argue that perhaps it's actually NOT hypocritical. For example, I could argue that since Brin knows through first-hand experience what a lower-ranked school is all about, that's why he doesn't want to hire at those schools. </p>
<p>From an argumentative standpoint, Brin is therefore in a no-win situation. If he had come from an elite undergrad program, you could argue that he is simply ignorant about the quality of students at lower-ranked schools. But because he didn't come from an elite program, you can argue that he's a hypocrite. Either way, he can't win. </p>
<p>Surely you're thinking that under Google's hiring policy, Google wouldn't have even hired Brin. Not so. I'm sure that if Brin were here, he would respond that if go to a lower-ranked undergrad program and you want to work for Google, then the answer is to do what he did and get yourself admitted to a top graduate program (Stanford). </p>
<p>
[quote]
It just seems to me they are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by ignoring talent that exists at state schools and lower ranked schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that Google's financial results ought to put that notion to bed; Google has clearly outperformed plenty of other companies that have not 'ignored' the talent at lower-ranked schools. As a case in point, Ford and GM hire plenty such people. How are they doing financially? </p>
<p>Besides, think of it from an economics standpoint. Sure, there is talent at lower-ranked schools. The problem, as I'm sure you'd agree, is that there are plenty of other students who are of, at best, middling quality. The problem is, how can you distinguish between the two? You have to expend effort in separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. </p>
<p>What the top schools offer is a pre-sorted deck. The quality of graduates at the top schools is higher than that at the lower schools. That saves on search costs. Now, is it perfectly sorted? Of course not. No school is perfect. But the sorting is a lot more reliable than it is at a lower school.</p>
<p>Toyotas are more expensive than Fords in the equivalent vehicle class. Why? Because Toyotas tend to be more reliable. Now, you might find a Ford that will last 20 years. You might also find a Toyota that is a complete jalopy. But the odds are that a Toyota will last longer than a Ford. That's why people pay more for Toyotas. Toyota has spent a mountain of money in building a reputation for reliability. Similarly, the top schools have expended a lot of effort in building a reputation for high student quality. Economically speaking, it may make perfect sense for Google to minimize search costs and recruit exclusively from the top schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but he wants to get a masters in the engineering field and go to business (assuming another MBA)</p>
<p>so why would his undergrad engineering school matter ? as long as he learned what he needs, he can aim for a better grad school and/or a better school for mBA (which we all know is about networking)
once u get a grad degree, no one cares about the undergrad
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the key assumption is that he actually will go to graduate school. This is not a safe assumption in the least. Far from it, in fact. Plenty of people who want to go to graduate school don't get admitted. And even of those that get admitted, plenty of people choose not to go, usually because they found something better to do. I know a bunch of MIT undergrads who got admitted to top grad schools (MIT, Stanford, etc.), but turned them all down to work for Google or other promising companies. If you can get hired by an elite employer straight out of undergrad, you may never need to go to graduate school at all. Frankly, working for Google or another top employer is probably a better educational and networking experience than most graduate schools are.</p>
<p>So rankings do matter?</p>
<p>If you want to work for google. :)</p>
<p>I get tried of answering this question, and I'm sure there are those that tire of my response. Any I'm sure there are many who will say I'm "wrong", but I do speak with authority with respect to aerospace companies. Here goes the short version:</p>
<p>I am a recruitment manager for one of the worlds leading aerospace companies. I'm also an MIT grad...so if anything, you'd guess if I had a bias, it would be toward the elitest end of the spectrum on these boards. My short answer: "rankings" are <em>way</em> over-analyzed in these forums. It's true we maintain a list of 28 "key" schools on which we place the most recruitment emphasis (over half of those are public) and further have an additional 50 schools from which we actively recruit. But it matters very little from which of these schools you attended (we hire individuals, not a collection of average statistics based upon a presumed "strength" of the incoming freshman class...that would be absurd). Further, if you attended none of these schools, that's still OK, we love to find talent anywhere it exists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to work for google
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Google is obviously just one famous example. Other examples abound. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am a recruitment manager for one of the worlds leading aerospace companies. I'm also an MIT grad...so if anything, you'd guess if I had a bias, it would be toward the elitest end of the spectrum on these boards. My short answer: "rankings" are <em>way</em> over-analyzed in these forums. It's true we maintain a list of 28 "key" schools on which we place the most recruitment emphasis (over half of those are public) and further have an additional 50 schools from which we actively recruit. But it matters very little from which of these schools you attended (we hire individuals, not a collection of average statistics based upon a presumed "strength" of the incoming freshman class...that would be absurd). Further, if you attended none of these schools, that's still OK, we love to find talent anywhere it exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. There is one large and famous auto company which I shall not name, but we all know it, that used to recruit heavily at MIT but has lately decided to greatly cut back and instead recruit more heavily at some regional low-ranked schools. Why? Simple. The recruiting managers at that company have said that they, quite frankly, don't offer the types of jobs that would satisfy MIT graduates. Those grads demand more money, more power, and more career development than the company is apparently willing to give. Hence, they would rather recruit from lower ranked schools whose students who, frankly, are in no position to make demands. </p>
<p>Hence, another reason to go to a top school is to increase your bargaining power. Think of it this way. That auto company has had great difficulty in dealing with the demands of MIT grads, but those grads can demand as much as they do because they know they CAN. They know that other companies are willing to give them what they desire, so they expect nothing less if they were to join this auto firm. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that employers are not your friends. Far from it, in fact. Let's be perfectly frank. If it was up to them, employers would make you do the crappiest jobs and pay you nothing at all for the privilege. Furthermore, employers don't really want to provide career development. If they can have you complete a project that generates profits for them, but renders your skills obsolete: such that the company could fire you after the project is completed yet you can't find another job because you no longer have marketable skills, the company doesn't care. That's your problem. The company will happily milk you for profits and then toss you into the trash. The way that you secure yourself a share of the profits is by developing bargaining power. If a company knows (or just thinks) that you have numerous desirable alternatives, the company is going to offer you a better deal. Once a company knows (or thinks) that you don't have alternatives, then they got you by the short hairs. Companies * love* to find qualified people who don't have bargaining power.</p>
<p>I'd like to see a ranking for the following: How accessible profs are to students, teaching quality & attitude of profs, percentage of TA-taught lectures, condition of labs, availability of courses and ease of registration, dorm conditions, grad school placement, and undergrad research & internship opportunities. I probably forgot some, but this would be a more useful ranking for undergrad engineering students.</p>
<p>Ok one last thing, I promise I won't bring up this discussion again.</p>
<p>So is it better to choose (hypothetically) Columbia Fu over UIUC for my Managerial Ambitions?</p>
<p>What about ChemE powerhouses like Minnesota and Wisconsin and well respected Public Institutions like Berkeley and Michigan, how do they figure into this?</p>
<p>Thanks a lot!</p>
<p>Sakky - you are absolutely right in your earlier post about how corporations
love people with no bargaining power and they can pay lthem less.
I've seen it a lot in engineering where you hit your middle years and
six figures and they look for ways to cut you or reduce your salary.
I don't know how old you are, but you are wise!</p>
<p>Yep sakky's a wonderful poster. Would a double major (in a related field like Materials Engineering or maybe something like Business/Finance) be a good way to increase that bargaining power?</p>
<p>Milki: It depends what sorts of companies you would eventually like to target.
Many folks I know have gotten their undergrad engineering degree then
either worked for a few years or gone directly to Business School.
I think you are better off not double majoring because Materials Engineering
(like many branches of Engineering) is quite demanding and lacks what
every engineering major really needs - a good old fashioned dose of
grade inflation! Also, depending on where you go, the business side
of the double major might not be as impressive as the materials
eng. side and could kind of dilute the experience. If you do well,
get good research opportunities along the way, and snag a good
job on the way out, you will be on the right road. Just my 2 cents.
BTW, I see your are from Maryland. Are you familiar with the
University of Maryland at all? I'm looking at Chem undergrad for
my d.</p>
<p>Don't sweat the business school side right now.</p>
<p>I'm somewhat familiar with UMD. PM me if you have any questions (CC's UMD Forum if pretty active too). You're right my job targets should better influence my major/minor choices.</p>
<p>Milki - Sorry I misread your post. Best advice is to stick with a biotech-related
major or just Materials Engineering and not to pair it with business.
Many execs at biotech firms are actually scientists, btw.</p>
<p>ChemE, Biotech research and other ECs are currently my priority. I'll definitely heed your advice. Thanks!</p>
<p>Kind of off subject, but I believe Sakky has described Google's former employment practice. There was a big article (?in NYT?) reporting that they had abandoned that approach, since it did not reliably find them the top talent they were seeking. Now, apparently, they pay more attention to the individual, and less to college and grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So is it better to choose (hypothetically) Columbia Fu over UIUC for my Managerial Ambitions?
[/quote]
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion after reading the posts on this thread. All of the major employers recruit at UIUC, that is, if you intend to start your career in the engineering industry. Likewise for Minnesota and Wisconsin for ChemE.</p>
<p>Btw, Google recruits at Michigan ... otherwise why would they set up an AdWords office in Ann Arbor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kind of off subject, but I believe Sakky has described Google's former employment practice. There was a big article (?in NYT?) reporting that they had abandoned that approach, since it did not reliably find them the top talent they were seeking. Now, apparently, they pay more attention to the individual, and less to college and grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, things have changed. But that only illustrates the key point of what I'm talking about. It's far less appealing to join Google now than it was in the past. Ideally, you would have wanted to join Google as early as possibe, and certainly before the 2004 IPO, as that's the way you can get rich quickly (and note that the article I cited was written in 2003). It's a lot harder to get rich by joining Google now. And certainly, Google's growth has been so frenetic that it inevitably would have had to lower its hiring standards. When you're just a company of a couple-thousand people, you can maintain high standards of exclusivity and elitism. But when you've grown past 10k employees, and counting, you have to broaden your net. But from a personal wealth standpoint, it's far better to be one of the early few thousand than to be one of the later 10k. The earlier you get into a tech company, the more your stock options tend to be worth. </p>
<p>As a case in point, Microsoft used to hire exclusively superstars. Now, with the company having more than 60k employees, it's not that hard to get *some *job at Microsoft. It's still exceedingly hard to get certain jobs at Microsoft - i.e. in Microsoft Research or in the core Windows architecture development team. But if you just want any job at Microsoft, it's not that hard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion after reading the posts on this thread. All of the major employers recruit at UIUC, that is, if you intend to start your career in the engineering industry. Likewise for Minnesota and Wisconsin for ChemE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The way I saw it Columbia was "more" of a top school than UIUC (Overall). I dunno but sakky's statement about MIT Grads kind of shook me a bit! Most Columbia students (from Fu) go into Finance, so it's more or a bargaining power....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most Columbia students (from Fu) go into Finance, so it's more or a bargaining power....
[/quote]
That's true if you want to start off your career on Wall Street ... but you indicated that you wanna start in engineering. UIUC engineers have more job opportunities in engineering than Columbia.</p>