<p>Right. If the graduate is willing to move at their own expense, and accept the lower (based on COL) wages? then they are valid candidates. But the “investment” return on money spent on recruiting in colleges where this isn’t likely? is low. And companies know that, and manage around this effort accordingly.</p>
<p>Giterdone, most Ivy League grads are smart enough to know that working in an office park in Minneapolis or Cleveland or Denver is pretty much the same thing as working in an office park in Baltimore or Boston. Also in case you haven’t noticed several Ivies are located in the equivalent of flyover land - small towns in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>Giterdone, I am in a professional association with other heads of recruiting of global companies. Not a single one of them asks a new grad to relocate at their own expense. Not one.</p>
<p>Do you actually have any knowledge about the hiring processes at large corporations or are you just pontificating to prove some point?</p>
<p>I am intimate with the recruiting process at large corporations. Assuming 75,000 degreed professionals (not line workers) is considered “large” enough for you? And I am pontificating to act as a counter weight to the “reputation bias” fallacy that inevitably resurfaces here, practically monthly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily.</p>
<p>In some instances, a firm will happily recruit on the other side of the country for well-qualified candidates (such as, for example, graduates of Cornell’s engineering school or hotel school). One of my daughter’s friends, a Cornell engineering graduate, is now working for a major (you would recognize its name) California-based firm that recruits at Cornell every year (even though Cornell is not only on the other side of the country but also in the middle of nowhere). </p>
<p>And in other instances, a firm with facilities all over the country will recruit for all of their company’s locations (or all of the locations that have openings) when they visit a college. One of the Cornell graduates I know is working in a particular location (very far from Cornell) because the company had an opening there and offered her the job. Another one is working in a particular location because the company asked her which of its many offices she would like to interview for, and she picked that city. It happens to be an East Coast city, but she could just as easily have interviewed for Chicago or Dallas or one of the California offices.</p>
<p>And of course these kids got signing bonuses that covered their moving expenses. </p>
<p>Giterdone, I wonder whether your knowledge of recruiting might be based on a sample of colleges that doesn’t include the major national universities.</p>
<p>I will provide better context.</p>
<p>Recruiting as I am defining it is; the process of an organization representing vacancies in, or a need to increase capacity in, certain areas/departments/functions. And as a result of that disclosure, graduates sell themselves as appropriate, qualified individuals capable of performing in said areas.</p>
<p>I am NOT talking about targeting for specific, narrow or specialized niches, or highly competitive fields.</p>
<p>
The majority of the posts on this message board are written as if they emanate ex cathedra from assorted anonymous pontiffs. You might as well refer to this place as the “Holy CC”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a large group of exceptions. </p>
<p>Pretty much every kid I know who got a job through on-campus recruiting belongs to one of these two groups. Some are in both (e.g., highly competitive jobs in specific areas of engineering).</p>
<p>giterdone, blossom is absolutely right. Some recruiting is done locally, some is done nationally. Those who are recruiting nationally and representing large or prominent firms are often paying for relocation expenses. Schools that predominantly draw from their own backyards likely are going to have more students who simply want to stay in that backyard (family ties, etc.) than more national-in-scope schools, who drew from a wider geographic scope in the first place. </p>
<p>The comment about “what are the chances the Ivy grad would come to flyover land” represents a complete ignorance of the fact that a) the Ivy grad may have COME from “flyover land” and b) most young people are smart enough to understand that people are people and cities are cities. I swear, I feel like I’m going back in time on CC and the country is just as depicted in the old New Yorker cartoon where there’s nothing between the Hudson River and California. Part of the reason to go to a national university is precisely to understand that cities are cities and people are people, not to be like the ignoramuses at my daughter’s Boston-area campus who thought that she must live in the middle of cornfields since she came from suburban Chicago.</p>
<p>In the spirit of this thread, Pizzagirl; Most from and choosing to live and work in “flyover land” hold no reverence for the Ivies. Whether they went there or not. Whereas, the OP and others on this thread attempt to suggest that, but for ones Ivy (or other “reputation”) degree, one stands lesser chance of being employable.</p>
<p>I fold to the much greater voices of wisdom on this thread.</p>
<p>Parents- regardless of whether you believe in campus recruiting or not; think it’s a lie that a kid in Hanover New Hampshire has ever been offered and accepted a job in Cincinnati Ohio AND had that company pay to relocate him; believe that only a moron would pay to send their kid to a prestigious U on either coast when everyone knows that all the good jobs go to the kids at State schools, etc…</p>
<p>PLEASE encourage your kid to check out the resources at their career development office BEFORE March of their senior year. If your kid is at a school with poor advising and resources then he or she will have to do much of the legwork themselves, but every spring and summer I am astonished by the parents who post here (and people I know in real life) whose kids did not take advantage of career development counseling on their campuses.</p>
<p>You can decide that I’m a delusional idiot thinking that companies actually have a recruiting strategy (instead they just look outside their window and announce, “hey, there’s a college over there. Let’s wander over and pick us up some employees”) but even if you don’t believe me, you should make sure your kids take advantage of the service you’ve already paid for at career services. Whether it’s at prestige U or party school or flagship or directional state college… do not let four years go by without your kid getting serious about life after college.</p>
<p>Even if your kid thinks they don’t need it- because they’re applying to med school or going into the Peace Corps or becoming an acrobat or doing Teach for America-- even the worst career development office I’ve seen has counselors who can do mock interviews, or videotape an interview so your D can see that she plays with her hair or your S can see that he says “y’know” every 30 seconds. The best career development offices will have so much more than that- but even the bare bones is helpful for a 20 year old who has no clue about how to find a job.</p>
<p>Go back to your regularly scheduled programming of bashing the ignorant people who send their kids to Williams and Swarthmore.</p>
<p>What people are saying Blosson, is that many jobs are very major specific and many firms and other hiring groups are very happy to hire within a radius of where they are. Engineering groups are NOT typically hiring non-engineering majors–even from Williams or whatever. Schools disticts do most of their hiring from schools within a drive of the district and they hire mostly education majors. Most accounting firms and businesses seem to prefer accounting majors and business majors from the best schools in the region with–an accting or business major. And grads of the eastern elite schools get hired mostly by firms that place an emphasis on that and do not require much actual knowledge but prefer a pedigree and willingness to work hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Recruiting to me means firms trying to attract certain talent and are waiting to pay up for it, not graduates selling themselves necessarily. Applicants maybe so talented that they have multiple offers, kind of like when athletes are recruited. Many students from those top tier schools are “recuited” by multiple firms. They are offered with sign on bonus, moving expenses paid for, temporary housing, extensive training program…</p>
<p>A firm like GS may prefer to hire NU graduates fro their Chicago office, but if a graduate has a preference for NY, they often do accommodate. Stanford graduates are recruited for jobs across the country/globe. A young woman I know from Columbia is working in Singapore as her first job.</p>
<p>It appears to me that the “recruiting” definition being bantered about here more often applies to the 1%. While that happens, it is not the norm. I like your athlete analogy - that is “rare air” when one is recruited (that way) from college. It might surprise a few folks reading here that; the vast majority of jobs awaiting graduates are at small, private companies :eek: who aren’t even publicly traded! (oh the humanity!) :p</p>
<p>But this thread is “Do some firms favor “big name” schools?” I think what people are saying that some firms do. The reason they are “big name” is because there are not that many of them. Vast majority jobs do not recruit “big name” school graduates because most employers could not afford to (paying for all the perks). I don’t think people are suprised by that notion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This question hardly warrants a thread with 116 posts. The simple and absolute correct answer is: Yes (duh!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has it occurred to you that if you have to qualify your answers this much, it might mean that your initial assertion that 100% of recruiting is locally driven is not defensible?</p>
<p>No it hadn’t. However, it was intended to be a provocative statement. And I’d accept challenges or attempts to argue it down, although I doubt anyone would get much further concession than 90/10.</p>
<p>Vast majority of jobs do not require a college degree, so why bother to get a college degree. A job is a job, right?</p>
<p>I feel like this page is becoming a record of anecdotes, but here’s mine:</p>
<p>I’m at a well-paid policy/research internship at an education nonprofit only based in one state. A sizable portion of the staff, including the supervisor who hired me attended a good state school across town from where the organization’s location. They were extremely impressed during the interview that I’m from a top 20 school (which I didn’t bring up) and made sure to emphasize that several times when they introduced me to staff and clients.</p>
<p>I think one has an advantage if applying for a state/regional job from a top school–as long as the hiring manager isn’t intimidated by big-name schools or anti-big-name (yes, these people exist)–if for no other reason than you stand out.</p>