Harvard/Yale Law GPA/LSATs

Graduate School Law School
161

<p>Right, but you didn't address my point:</p>

<p>If I have a particular career goal (policy) and I already know where I want to end up (in Washington), should I take the Harvard name over Georgetown even though it's easier to network and get the job through Georgetown? Hell, when I did work in DC, I remember a director for Southeast Asian intelligence at NSA said, point blank, "My Kennedy degree, while strong, is not a SAIS degree in this town."</p>

<p>Yes, I agree that it pays to go to the best damn program you can. But if you have a very particular field you want to work in, it's not always the big names that get the jobs in very niche fields.</p>

162

<p>Sakky should be getting paid for his last couple posts --I just decided where I want to work, go to school, eat, buy stuff for my partner, etc...:D</p>

163

<p>For the record, Starbuck's pastries are quite weak, and Peets tend to be fairly good. It was a rather informative couple of posts, sakky, as to various industries and brand names.</p>

164

<p>


</p>

<p>Very true. My English teacher in high school went to Stanford in the 1970s, and we were in awe that she went there. But now I realize it wasn't prestigious back then. :0</p>

<p>On a related note, some people think that Berkeley will decline in future from being one of the top universities. In the early 1990s I believe it was ranked as one of the top ten (correct me if I am wrong) and ranked higher than Stanford because of a great chancellor. Now we are ranked 20th or so. What do you guys think? Will we continue to decline ?</p>

<p>What improvements can be made? Personally I think we need stricter rules regarding athletes for one...and maybe reduce the size of the student body for more one-on-one rather than "1000-on-one" teaching.</p>

<p>Maybe it should accept more out-of-state students and more out-of-state competition? I'm getting the impression that people think it's "easy" to get into Berkeley from in-state, and that is definitely not the right mentality for keeping Berkeley prestigious.</p>

165

<p>Or could it just be that the methodology changed? ;)</p>

166

<p>Thanks for responding so openly. We can actually move on. I'll try to limit myself to only things which I am personally arguing because to retort to all the wrong things about my points that were in your post would is not really exciting. The point of the scenario at the dinner party is that you have people who are pretty much uninformed save their general idea of "brand name" colleges and you, who are informed about strengths and weaknesses of schools that aren't entirely obvious. We are arguing about what should be real value be, and AFAICS it's whatever marketing tells you it is. </p>

<p>"An unknown company will try to sell some networking gear, and will sell X units. Then Cisco will acquire that company and slap its brand name on it, and now that gear will sell 5X or 10X the number of units, just because of the trusted Cisco brand name. It's the same darn gear! The only difference is that now it has the Cisco brand name on it. But it works."</p>

<p>I am not arguing about whether it works or whether they have the right to do that. I am arguing about whether you should really buy it and whether it is really better. In the scenario the product is the same, so you admit there is no difference besides brand name, which is essentially meaningless. By you saying "it works" you obviously say that people assign a positive meaning to something which is meaningless; they trust it more easily and it "gets them" to buy the product. Really though this is what marketing is all about. It is not about unbiasedly giving you information, and explainng why a product is better; it is an appeal toward emotion, product design, catchy phrases, and the like. </p>

<p>Because companies spends billions of dollars on marketing only means that it is a successful financial move. They spend billions because it makes them money. I am not arguing over what makes a company the most money. I am arguing that this is an excess and does not really benefit the consumer. Is it corrupt to go to a popular sandwich shop that has worse sandwiches than a less known shop's? No, but it is a bad decision. The factors which influence you in that decision are also not entirely honest. The people behind them are motivated by factors that are obviously less than ideal, but you seem to be content with this.</p>

<p>"You can have the best facilities, the best profs, the best libraries, but if you don't market yourself, you won't get the best students. And without the best students, you won't have the best graduates. Hence, your program then, is by definition, not really the 'best'."</p>

<p>By what definitition? I disagree with that. This IS the best, that is if you do not care about the social scene or whatever else. But academically, and in every way that the school has power over, it is the best. Not by measure of students, but by measure of the college. The product is what the college offers. The college does not offer students. The college offers you an education. If you have the best things at your disposal, then you can become the best person you can be. Why would you settle for anything less? </p>

<p>"Ultimately, the world will judge your program by how strong your graduates are."</p>

<p>With as little reference as possible to the world's beliefs, why do your graduates even matter? They can't think for you and they can't learn for you. Getting you a job doesn't mean you are better educated, nor does it mean that the program you were in is better than another.</p>

167

<p>ouch sorry for the length.</p>

168

<p>I wanted to add something:</p>

<p>There is often a divide between what the "common person" and the "learned person" see as good. I'll use an example from my own experience.</p>

<p>Most people don't know the difference between different brands of computer part. Well, in the niche market, most people knew that AMDs regularly were outperforming Intels in a lot of areas (particularly overclockability). As a niche shopper, I knew that I should make a beeline for the AMD parts if I wanted a certain type of machine. </p>

<p>Now, AMD doesn't have the name goodwill of Intel and has suffered financially for it. That doesn't mean that I, as a niche shopper, am not going to look at an AMD if I know what I want in a product.</p>

<p>Think of some industries as niche markets. To the company hiring computer programmers, do they want the Princeton grad, or the best-darn-programmer? Why has Digipen, a definite unknown in most households, had so much success in getting their grads amazing gaming industry jobs? Because they are catering to a niche market (like AMD did in the late 90s). If you want a niche market job, it may pay to go for the niche market degree.</p>

169

<p>
[quote]
If I have a particular career goal (policy) and I already know where I want to end up (in Washington), should I take the Harvard name over Georgetown even though it's easier to network and get the job through Georgetown?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say that. Everybody has to weigh these decisions for themselves and decide what they really want to do and how to best achieve those goals.</p>

<p>My point is that pop-prestige has value. It is up to you to determine how much value it has to you. But let's not pretend that it has no value. I can guarantee you that sometime in your career you are eventually going to meet some powerful people who are not familiar with your field. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not arguing about whether it works or whether they have the right to do that. I am arguing about whether you should really buy it and whether it is really better. In the scenario the product is the same, so you admit there is no difference besides brand name, which is essentially meaningless. By you saying "it works" you obviously say that people assign a positive meaning to something which is meaningless; they trust it more easily and it "gets them" to buy the product. Really though this is what marketing is all about. It is not about unbiasedly giving you information, and explainng why a product is better; it is an appeal toward emotion, product design, catchy phrases, and the like. </p>

<p>Because companies spends billions of dollars on marketing only means that it is a successful financial move. They spend billions because it makes them money. I am not arguing over what makes a company the most money. I am arguing that this is an excess and does not really benefit the consumer. Is it corrupt to go to a popular sandwich shop that has worse sandwiches than a less known shop's? No, but it is a bad decision. The factors which influence you in that decision are also not entirely honest. The people behind them are motivated by factors that are obviously less than ideal, but you seem to be content with this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, no no no. You are now taking the position that branding is purely emotional. Far from it. In fact, there is tremendous rational economics at play here.</p>

<p>Let's take it back to the Cisco example where Cisco buys the startup and then sells much more of the product even though it is the same product. The biggest reason why Cisco is willing to sell much more of it than the startup could is simple reputational costs. Cisco, by branding the product, is willing to put its reputation and its money behind the product. Let's say you buy Cisco-branded computer network product and it fails, shutting down your whole company's computer network down. You can sue Cisco. Cisco is a huge company so obviously has a lot of assets available for you to claim through a lawsuit. A startup company may not even exist tomorrow as a going financial entity. So if you buy a product from a startup and it fails, there may be nobody to sue as there may be no assets for you to claim. In fact, this happened many times especially during the dotcom boom where new startups sold gear that didn't work, and then went bankrupt and disappeared, leaving nobody for their customers to sue for redress. It is highly unlikely for Cisco to go bankrupt anytime soon.</p>

<p>Or put another way. Let's say Quizno's gives me a moldy sandwich that puts me in the hospital with food poisoning, I can sue Quizno's for millions. But if some mom-and-pop sandwich shop gives me a moldy sandwich that puts me in a hospital, sure I can still sue them, but will they pay? Do they have the assets to pay? </p>

<p>Even taking lawsuits out of the equation, Cisco has an extremely valuable brand name to protect. Cisco has paid billions of dollars to build its brand name. Hence, Cisco has a strong incentive to protect this brand name by not selling unreliable gear. If Cisco all of a sudden starts branding a bunch of products that are bad, Cisco's brand name will be tarnished, jeopardizing the billions of dollars that Cisco has invested in its brand name over the years. A startup doesn't have a big brand name to protect, so has less to lose by selling bad gear.</p>

<p>As an example of this, consider General Motors. In the 50's and 60's, GM used to be the most widely respected brand in the auto industry. Then in the 70's and 80's GM started producing some really bad and junky cars. GM's brand name went into the toilet. GM's poor product quality effectively destroyed all the brand equity that it had built. Now people often times buy GM cars DESPITE the GM brand name. The GM brand name is almost like a 'value-subtract'. </p>

<p>Another aspect is the pure longevity of the product. Companies buy computer networking products expecting it to last for years. They're not just buying the gear itself, they're buying the support of the gear. Companies want to know that if, 3 years later, some problem comes up, they have somebody they can call for tech support. Or some company they can go to for spare parts or software upgrades. Every vendor will SAY that they will support the gear for years, but how believable is that? Cisco will probably still be here in 3 years, but some small startup may have gone bankrupt and disappeared. Again, this happened a lot during the dotcom boom - lots of startups sold gear and then went bankrupt, leaving a lot of sold gear for which there is no tech support, no spare parts, no software maintenance, no nothing. How do you think those customers feel?</p>

<p>The other aspect is the pure cost of information gathering. Again, taking it back to the Cisco example, another reason why Cisco can sell more is because it can market the products widely. Cisco can run all these ads in trade magazines, can send all its sales reps far and wide, can sponsor all these trade conventions, and basically can do all these things to market a product and make customers aware of it. A startup company can't do that. A startup company doesn't have the resources to promote its products widely. Hence, a lot of customers simply don't buy a product from a startup because they don't even know that the product exists. But when Cisco gets a hold of it puts its marketing machine behind it, now customers will know that the product exists. Like I said, in the business world, what's so good about producing a great product if customers don't know about it? </p>

<p>The fact is, information is not free. Information is actually quite costly. Information takes time to gather and understand. Nobody has unlimited time, and thus nobody has unlimited information. Nobody has the time to sit down and weigh the individual merits of each individual sandwich shop in a neighborhood. In the real world, everybody has to make decisions on limited information. Economically speaking, branding and marketing act as information substitutes. </p>

<p>Hence, from an economic standpoint, what brand names do is that it reduces both information costs and reduces risk. These are ENTIRELY rational responses that have absolutely nothing to do with emotion. </p>

<p>If this is a subject that interests you, you may want to do some investigation on economic asymmetric information and the role of marketing and branding.</p>

170

<p>
[quote]
I can guarantee you that sometime in your career you are eventually going to meet some powerful people who are not familiar with your field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay...and so what? Should a doctor go to Harvard if UCSF has the better program just to impress some fatcats?</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong. You're not. I'm just saying that you're not entirely right, either. The fact remains, you're looking from a mass-market perspective. Some of us aren't looking to work in what people consider the "mass-market." We're looking for niche jobs. In our cases, the brand names, while good at the dinner table, aren't going to get us hired.</p>

171

<p>
[quote]
By what definitition? I disagree with that. This IS the best, that is if you do not care about the social scene or whatever else. But academically, and in every way that the school has power over, it is the best. Not by measure of students, but by measure of the college. The product is what the college offers. The college does not offer students. The college offers you an education. If you have the best things at your disposal, then you can become the best person you can be. Why would you settle for anything less?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh no, I'm not talking about it from the standpoint of the student. I'm talking about it from the standpoint of the employers. These are the customers that I'm talking about. </p>

<p>The employers just want to hire productive employees. They don't care how or why their employees are productive. All they care about is that they are productive. Employers will therefore judge a school based on how good the final product is - which is the quality of the graduate. If the graduates are good, then the school's prestige will be enhanced, even if the facilities are bad, even if the profs are bad, even if everything in the school is bad. The employers don't know about that and don't care. All they know is that the person they hired is good.</p>

<p>In contrast, if the guy is no good, it doesn't matter whether the school had the best facilities, the best everything. All the employer sees is that the outcoming product, that is the graduate himself, is of poor quality. It's like when General Motors spent billions of dollars in the 80's to upgrade its manufacturing plants with the latest and most high-tech gear. Yet the cars they produced were still shoddy and unreliable. Contrast that with Toyota that continued to use old low-tech manufacturing equipment, but produced extremely reliable cars anyway. Car customers don't know and don't care what happens inside the plant. All they see is whether the car they buy is good or not. It's like a sports team like the Yankees spending millions to get the very best players, and not winning the championship. It doesn't matter how good your players are, all that matters is that you either won the championship or you didn't. </p>

<p>This is why companies prefer to hire from prestigious schools, because those prestigious schools have developed a strong reputation for producing productive employees. This is why Goldman Sachs recruits from Harvard and Microsoft recruits from MIT instead of from some no-name community college. These companies are relying on the brand-name of the school. Once again, brand names are serving as substitutes for information.</p>

<p>But think about what that means. If Harvard and MIT start to consistently produce low-quality bad graduates, they will hurt their brand name. Companies will realize that their vaunted Harvard and MIT employees really aren't that good, and then they will downgrade the reputation of the schools as a indicator of quality. It's like GM in the 70's trying to live off its old reputation while selling unreliable cars. Customers caught on and began to distrust the GM brand name. Toyota, in the 60's, used to sell really unreliable cars. Then Toyota cars got better and better, improving Toyota's brand name. Now Toyota is seen as a brand name that stands for reliability. The value of a brand name is built by a reputation, good or bad. </p>

<p>In fact, we talked about this previously. UCLAri said it himself. He would rather go to JHU SAIS to get a policy job But that itself is a function of a brand name. It's just a different kind of brand name, but it's the same idea. He knows that the brand name of JHU SAIS helps him in getting a policy job. In the area of policy, JHU SAIS has developed a reputation for producing solid graduates, and that reputation and consequent brand name is used as an indicator of quality. </p>

<p>Just like you say that it's a "bad decision" for somebody to choose to go to Quizno's over some unknown (but possibly better) sandwich shop, I can similarly say that its a "bad decision" for a policy employer to hire a SAIS graduate over a no-name school grad who might actually be better. Once again, it's the same idea. That no-name grad might actually be better, but as an employer, how would you know that? It would cost you a lot to get that information. The SAIS brand name stands as a substitute for information and reduces risk. </p>

<p>Now, switching the subject to an individual student, you have to know that the value of your degree is wrapped up in its reputation. Why go to JHU SAIS? Why go to Harvard? Part of it is because you know that those schools are valued by others. You know that those schools have developed strong brand names. What that means is that those programs with strong brands tend to get stronger students. And since those reputations are enhanced by producing strong graduates (who tend to be strong incoming students), that enhances its reputation and brand even more. This is what they call brand-virtuousity. For example, Vera Wang has a brand name for producing top-quality women's dresses. The brand name makes famous celebrities want to wear Vera Wang, which enhances the brand name even more. Women see that Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lopez are wearing Vera Wang, which makes them want to wear it too. </p>

<p>The point is, people will go to schools that they think will help them in the future, and that is intimately intertwined with the brand name and reputation of the school. Hence, those schools that have the top brand names will tend to attract top students. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether a school has the best facilities or the best profs or the best this-and-that. What matters is whether the brand name is valued, and that is determined by the reputation of the graduates. Just like I don't care how much the Yankees spend on payroll and facilities, all I care about is whether they win the World Series or not.</p>

172

<p>"Okay...and so what? Should a doctor go to Harvard if UCSF has the better program just to impress some fatcats?"</p>

<p>Well, if the doctor wants to impress the "fat cats" for some reason, s/he should. I guess it all depends on the specifics of a situation. One cannot generalize.</p>

<p>"I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong. You're not. I'm just saying that you're not entirely right, either." </p>

<p>For all that it may be worth, I agree with both. I mean, I agree with sreis's idealistic views. But I also agree with Sakky's pragmatic views. I even agree with UCLAri's post. I guess it all depends... (Not much of a comment, I know.)</p>

<p>I will say, however, that given the way the American society (and consequently much of the rest of the world) operates gives more "validity" to Sakky's point. It is one thing how things work; it is another thing how they should work, and yet, it is another thing how they work in specific settings/circumstances.</p>

<p>Yours in confusion,</p>

<p>WF</p>

<p>Ps. I need some sleep...if I end up agreeing with anyone I will become a great politician :D.</p>

173

<p>
[quote]
Most people don't know the difference between different brands of computer part. Well, in the niche market, most people knew that AMDs regularly were outperforming Intels in a lot of areas (particularly overclockability). As a niche shopper, I knew that I should make a beeline for the AMD parts if I wanted a certain type of machine.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But don't you guys see what is happening here? It's the SAME THING. Only instead of, in this case, Intel having the better brand name, in this niche market, AMD has the better brand name. But we're still talking about brand names. AMD has a marketing department too, and for the niche markets that it excels in (specifically the gamer and the tech enthusiast market), AMD now has a better brand name. But we're still talking about brand names.</p>

<p>So taking it back to the example of Harvard vs. JHU SAIS. Some would say that, for a policy job, they would take the JHU SAIS brand name over the Harvard brand name. But that only serves to reinforce the importance of brand names. This does not invalidate my discussion of the importance of brand names. In fact, it actually strengthens it. </p>

<p>Nobody is talking about turning down both JHU SAIS and Harvard for a no-name school. If people were doing that, that would serve to invalidate my discussion of the value of brand names. Nobody is doing that. All the discussion so far has been a trade between one kind of brand name and another kind of brand name. But at the end of the day, we're still talking about some form of brand name.</p>

<p>I think the real debate is not about the value of brand names in general, but rather the value of different KINDS of brand names. JHU SAIS is a brand name that is strong in the highly specific to the policy field. AMD is a strong brand name in certain niche markets. In contrast, Harvard is a strong general brand name. Intel is a strong general brand name. The debate seems to be which is more valuable - the more specific kind or the more general kind.</p>

<p>And my answer is, it depends. Specifically it depends on where you think your career will go. I have never said that everybody should go to Harvard over JHU SAIS. The answer really depends on what you want to do. Do you truly envision yourself staying within one specific particular industry for a long time, or do you see yourself as more of a generalist, interacting with a diverse number of people in a diverse number of positions? In other words, do you envision your career as being a sniper shot, or a shotgun blast? Obviously if you know you are going to stay in policy, you want to go to a school that has developed a strong brand for policy. But if not, then you probably want a more generalist brand.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I would point out the following points</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Most people end up switching majors from what they thought they would major in. I discussed this point before.</p></li>
<li><p>Most people do not get jobs in the field that they majored in. After all, how many History majors get jobs as historians? How many Sociology majors get jobs as sociologists? How many Math majors get jobs as mathematicians? Even those who get professional degrees sometimes end up in entirely different fields. I know a guy who majored in EECS who now works as a real estate agent. He's making more money doing that than he did as an engineer. I know a number of people who majored in chemical engineering who are now investment bankers. I know people who majored in nursing who are now in law school. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>*Eventually in your career, as you rise, you will most likely eventually have to interact with people who are not members of your field. For example, as a novice engineer, you will probably only interact with other engineers. But as you progress, you will eventually be expected to deal with salesmen, marketing people, finance people, etc. These people know nothing about engineering and for the most part they don't want to know anything about engineering. But you are still going to have to establish your credibility with these people if you want to work with them. </p>

<p>Again, none of this means that I am advocating that you choose one path over another. These are decisions that you have to make yourself. My point is that you cannot categorically dismiss the value of general brand names. </p>

<p>For those who want to read more about this, I would direct you to the works of Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz, These 3 guys won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for their work on Information Asymmetries, Market Signalling (through brand names and other means), Information Screening, and the impact of imperfect information on economic markets. I happen to believe that their work is some of the most important work in economics in the last few decades.</p>

174

<p>Sakky - any more books/articles you would recommend reading?</p>

175

<p>
[quote]
"Okay...and so what? Should a doctor go to Harvard if UCSF has the better program just to impress some fatcats?"</p>

<p>Well, if the doctor wants to impress the "fat cats" for some reason, s/he should. I guess it all depends on the specifics of a situation. One cannot generalize.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I am saying is that brand names matter. They matter because they serve as a substitute for information, because information is costly and hence usually imperfect.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. If information was truly perfect and ubiquitous, then there would be no reason to prefer Harvard. There would also be no reason to prefer JHU SAIS. In fact, everybody would be just fine in going to a no-name school. After all, if information really is perfect, then employers would always know exactly who the productive employeers are no matter where they went to school, whether it's Harvard or JHU SAIS or a noname school. In fact, there would be no need for campus recruiting or interviewing, because companies would always know exactly who they should make job offers to and would just contact those people directly. Why bother to recruit or interview when information is perfect and so you already know who to hire? There would be no reason to list your school name on your resume, because employers wouldn't have to care where you went to school. In fact, nobody would even have to write a resume at all. After all, the point of a resume is to catch the eye of a company recruiter enough to generate interest to possibly get a job offer. But like I said, if information was truly perfect, then employers would already know exactly who they want to hire, and so there would be nothing on the resume that they don't already know. </p>

<p>The point of all this is to illustrate the brand names do matter. Marketing does matter. This is particular true in labor markets, which are probably the most riven with information problems of all markets. It is precisely in these kinds of markets where branding matters the most. Companies resort to a reliance on brand names of colleges and programs for hiring purposes precisely because of the lack of freely available information. The Harvard graduate has an edge over grads of no-name schools for a general job because of the Harvard brand name. The JHU SAIS grad has an edge over no-name school grads for policy jobs because of the SAIS brand name. But at the end of the day, it's the same idea.</p>

176

<p>I agree. I just don't think that brands are as ubuquitious as you suggest. You seem to be arguing that HYPS is always going to be the best bet. I'm arguing that there are times where brand names shift.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most people end up switching majors from what they thought they would major in. I discussed this point before.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is meaningless to someone who wants a graduate degree. Graduate work, as you know, is far more specific. You don't go to get an MA from SAIS (which is graduate only anyway, like Kennedy) and then "change majors." You already have a career goal in mind.</p>

177

<p>Sakky's views are only "pragmatic" if you believe they are. I know it sounds sort of obvious and like I am not saying much, but let me explain myself a little by example. </p>

<p>An honest person who really sought the best education (by researching a lot in high school and college despite what "brand names" indicate) is now the head of his own business. He looks to use the same paradigm for his employers. This is clearly the practical way to do it for him. But he finds that, under the notion that you must attend a "brand name" school, most capable students (like Sakky) think that they will only get hired if they attend a "brand name" school. So essentially all he has to do is look to these schools. If he weren't so idealistic he wouldn't even have considered this and would've gone straight to the brand name schools! </p>

<p>But aren't we all losing something by this? Aren't we all tricking ourselves in one big cycle? Who are we trying to fool? Employees expect employers to be a certain way and when they are employers, it is too late. Instead of getting the best education we can and actually contributing as much as possible, we admit that the social system is the only way. If we admit that, then it is. Does that make any sense?</p>

178

<p>In your last post Sakky about information being imperfect, I think that is key. From the student's perspective, brand names obviously don't give you very much information. As students here, I still am lost as to why we are subjecting ourselves to some conception of would-be employers at the cost of our education.</p>

<p>Going to college to get a job should not be the mindset, that is nuts. Going to college to be able to do work that is worthy of a job is the goal. What happened to getting educated? Just so it's clear I am not talking about learning philosophy or anything high-browed, educated in a trade is great and necessary for our society to function. Something useful that doesn't bottleneck our society until the end of time.</p>

179

<p>"The employers just want to hire productive employees. They don't care how or why their employees are productive. All they care about is that they are productive. Employers will therefore judge a school based on how good the final product is - which is the quality of the graduate. If the graduates are good, then the school's prestige will be enhanced, even if the facilities are bad, even if the profs are bad, even if everything in the school is bad. The employers don't know about that and don't care. All they know is that the person they hired is good."</p>

<p>Wouldn't it make sense that the "good" person can be even better if given the best facilities, professors, and the rest? So you're saying we shouldn't rely on our own judgment but on the laziness of employers. Not all employers are like this. It may be true in the corporate world, but starting your own company is your ability alone. Your salary is not the brand name school, it is you. I'm sure everyone knows about the tests Google gives to applicants. A brand name school will probably get you far, but can you get in as high as you can be? Can you get hired by a company that actually rates in applicants by a standardized test? You can bank on it, I'll pass.</p>

180

<p>Sakky has justified my Crate & Barrel addiction... SWEET. :)</p>

<p>Now, for those of you who don't think that there is any "brand name" importance to a well-known school - try going to one that people haven't heard of. The comment(s) I get all the time with respect to my education is one of two things: if people have heard of it, they are impressed (tons of doctors, for example); if they haven't heard of it, it's the blank stare and the look on their faces like, "I thought you were smart; why did you go there?" or "Isn't that a state school?" Or the first law school to accept me... some people were like, "Where's that?" or "I never knew it had a law school." Fabulous. </p>

<p>Try talking to people who are in their mid-20s - those recent college grads who can still leverage the name of their undergrad. The ones who went to outstanding but relatively unknown schools always preface their answer to "Where did you go undergrad?" with "Well, you probably haven't heard of it..." and their voices drop a few decibels while they stare at their feet. </p>

<p>Everyone knows UCLA. In fact, they know of it more than they know of schools which are considered academically better - but that doesn't matter. </p>

<p>(Now, must say that a few years of CC has certainly expanded by knowledge of different schools... but it makes me realize how very little information a "non-specialist" will ever know about different schools - let alone their specific programmes.)</p>

<p>...just saying... but going to an excellent-but-unknown-outside-of-academia school has its drawbacks. Also very hard to leverage that degree outside of the geographical area of the school. </p>

<p>As someone who read resumes (for my own job - had to help find my replacement when I went back to school), I can say that there is no way in hell that any employer is going to do background research on the programmes, professors, schools, and companies that are on someone's resume... because there are about 50-100 resumes for one position, and you need some efficient method of weeding people out. </p>

<p>Final thought: this is the law school forum. Be very aware that lawyers, as a group, are extremely risk-adverse. They aren't going to look up your school, your thesis, and other stuff - they just want to see something that they know is good.</p>