How EMPLOYERS Look At Degrees IMPORTANT

<p>This is a very helpful question for deciding colleges...
Are most employers cautious about choosing based on the education quality of a degree from a good private school versus a degree from a public university?
For example, if an employer had to choose between a person who had a degree from Northwestern versus a person who had a degree from the University of Maryland, would the difference in education cause the employer to choose the "better" private college, or does it not really matter???</p>

<p>I don’t know how atypical we are. We don’t hire too many fresh grads, and relevant work experience seems to trump educational qualifications.</p>

<p>Some of this is going to go along the same rules that an adcom looks at… did you take advantage of what was available to you and what did you do while you were there. This is going to depend on your major. For an engineering student, did you participate and take advantage of research opportunities? University of Maryland works with NASA and does work at Goddard Space Center in Rockville. If you majored in aerospace, spent 4-5 years there and never found a way to take advantage of it… not so good. The same would be true at any top level private university.<br>
This is just one example, but you get the idea. Obviously some schools are going to offer a better education than others, but the degree alone isn’t going to get the job.</p>

<p>If 2 ppl have the same qualities+credentials, the employer will usually hire the princeton graduate rather than the U of Maryland graduate. However, this doesn’t get as extreme as to the point that Harvard grad> Duke grad.</p>

<p>As always you need to be careful of generalizations. Case in point is your very own example…UMCP is a “key school” for at least one major aerospace company while the that other school doesn’t even merit “target-school” status…that is, the UMCP senior is more likely to be engaged, recruited, and hired. YMMV.</p>

<p>When I was interviewing entry level folks for a large finance company, we didn’t care about the degree as long as it came from somewhere accredited. Far more important were the experiences during college - internships, etc.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>YaleRocks - you haven’t even graduated from college. How do you “know” what employers do? If the employer is doing college recruiting, he will have already made his determination what schools he wants to go to - which can be based on many things – where the HR department has relationships, where a top manager went, where the employees who will be doing the interviews want to go, whether students want to relocate to the company’s area, etc. It is silly and naive to think that they all lust after the top schools and then just go down the pecking order. You will find companies that recruit at a handful of top schools and a handful of state flagships. You will also find that no one gives a damn about USNWR in that regard. </p>

<p>And if the employer isn’t doing college recruiting, and winds up interviewing the P grad and the UM grad, he’ll pick whoever comes across better in the interview. Once the interview happens, that’s what counts.</p>

<p>Please don’t spread misinformation when you haven’t even been out in the work force.
Listen to parents who have been working for 20+ years and have recruited for firms.</p>

<p>In certain fields the school may matter (like I-Banking) but in most cases the school doesn’t matter much (sorry U of Phoenix, but in some cases it does). In most cases a combination of how the candidate does in the interview and some work experience is the deciding factor.</p>

<p>I work in high-tech and have had some involvement in recruiting over the years. Generally speaking, if the applicant has more than a few years of experience then where they got their degree is much less important than their work experience. And if we’re hiring new college graduates then it normally occurs in the context of campus recruiting rather than a general open requisition. But this is just from my limited experience.</p>

<p>Honestly, I think it depends on the field you are in and the salary range you are being considered for. Having run a Human Resources department for 8 years, I am simply speaking from experience. If you have 2 candidates applying for a 6 figure position, both interview well, the job more often than not will go to the grad of the higher eschelon school. Don’t forget, we have to justify why we hired an individual to our boss, or board of directors. </p>

<p>By NO means am I saying that they are more qualified, they very well could just be a braniac with zero social skills, but… none the less… we are expected to do our jobs the way they want us to and have to justify why we are paying them X amount of dollars. Right or wrong it does matter in some fields where you go to school. Honestly, in some fields, I am a firm believer in experience and social skills over the braniac who lacks in those areas. You can train people to do their job, but it is rather hard to teach someone how to interact with their co-workers or how to carry themselves when representing your company. A fluid environment is a productive and profitable one, usually with high morale, which almost always guarantees a successful company.</p>

<p>The only hiring I have done has been for fresh graduates of schools. Because of limited resources (our company is in India) we only go to the Ivy League schools to recruit, but we accept candidates from other schools and put them on equal footing. Within the Ivies we don’t draw distinctions…indeed you can’t. If you whited out the name of the school you’d never guess who went to Harvard and who went to Cornell.</p>

<p>In my experience, (20+ years as a hiring manager), what Tiki24 says is correct, but only for a small fraction of positions. What is described is the thought process for hiring MBAs, (again, in my experience).</p>

<p>I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, hiring of undergrads (with a few small exceptions) is predominantly local or regional. Why? Because it costs time and money to send HR reps and line managers all around the country to recruit for “generic” entry-level positions. If I’m a hiring manager in Chicago it would be impossible to justify sending 2 people to California for 3 days to recruit at USC, UCLA or UCB for some run-of-the-mill financial analyst jobs. In Chicago they’d get sent to Northwestern, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Illinois and depending on budget constraints, Indiana and Michigan. If someone in HR had contacts at DePaul and Chicago, we’d give select candidates a shot from there as well. In his own way ilovebagels confirms this approach, you have limited resources to find the people you want, so his company sends recruiters to a limited, geographically narrow area to get the people they need.</p>

<p>How did I discern among candidates? It costs time and money to train new hires, not only in teaching them the way we want it done but in the lost productivity of the “teacher’s” efficiency. On paper, a candidate who showed that through internships or co-op experience that they’d somewhat done the job immediately had an edge. I’d choose a BC 3.4 with two summers of relevant experience over a Harvard 3.4 with no experience every single time.</p>

<p>Second, how did they do at the school they attended? A 3.8 from DePaul with good references beats a 3.0 from Northwestern with the same references. I never once spent a second trying to speculate on the differences in rigor or grading scale of two different colleges. A 3.8 has produced when they’ve been asked, a 3.0 raises doubts. Winners win.</p>

<p>Third, how do they interview and interact with the team? Your first job is about doing the tasks assigned, your future with a company is about doing your assigned tasks but also about anticipating and interacting with your peers and higher levels of management in order to get things done on a larger scale. This is not about sucking up, but about being politically and tactfully adept. The better you interview, the better your chances.</p>

<p>Finally, it is very rare that you’re faced with two “all things being equal” candidates. After checking transcripts, vetting internships, talking to references and going over interview notes, the number of remaining candidates is usually pretty small. The one time we truly couldn’t decide between two candidates we created a second position and hired both, (this was back when the economy was flush). Like it or not, the process is as much about eliminating people as it is about identifying the “right” candidate.</p>

<p>As for HR recommending candidates from more prestigious schools because it’s “safe”, that’s a mistake I’ll let an HR manager make once. I can read USNWR as quickly as the next manager, if the sum total of their Human Resources skills is to tell me that School A is higher ranked than School B then what am I paying them for? Schools are like race horses and candidates are like winning jockeys. Winning jockeys find a way to win no matter what horse they’re on.</p>

<p>I think it’d be very rare for someone to hire you based upon a degree from Northwestern as opposed to one from Maryland. But after four years at NW, you’d probably learn to communicate, carry yourself, develop a work ethic, and set your aspirations and standards in accordance with what you perceive to be the norm for NW students. You may or may not do the same at the average large public U. That difference would be what gets you hired.</p>

<p>Of course, if you and the hiring manager are alums at the same school that is always helpful.</p>

<p>And for certain industries (Finance) an Ivy league degree carries much more cache. But I agree with the most recent posters that it really doesn’t matter where you go.</p>

<p>When I was in the Federal government we looked at experience. A law degree from Catholic far and away trumped a Harvard law degree if the person had the right experience.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree, but the problem is that it is precisely that small fraction of positions that the graduates of the top schools seem to predominantly want. Similarly, I agree that the hiring of undergrads is mostly regional/local, but, again, it is precisely that small fraction of companies that recruit nationally that undergrads at the top schools seem to want the most. For example, before the recession, around half of all Harvard and MIT graduates who entered the workforce took jobs in consulting or finance, mostly for the largest and most prestigious firms in those fields. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except that the BC or DePaul graduate may not even have a chance interview for the job in the first place, but the Harvard or Northwestern graduate may. </p>

<p>As a case in point, McKinsey - the most prestigious management consulting firm in the world - simply doesn’t recruit at DePaul or BC (but does at Northwestern & Harvard). Let’s face it: more college graduates would probably rather work for McKinsey than the types of jobs that many DePaul or BC grads obtain. </p>

<p>[Campus</a> calendars | US Schools Recruitment](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/campus_calendar.aspx]Campus”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/campus_calendar.aspx)</p>

<p>Granted, I tend to agree that if you can garner the interview, your chances are comparable to those from other schools who also garnered an interview. But what if you can’t even garner the interview because the employer doesn’t recruit from your school?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, the issue is that the Maryland guy may not even be able to land the interview in the first place, because the desired employers in question simply don’t recruit at Maryland. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem is that that logic presumes that everybody can agree on who actually ‘won’ the horserace, yet the fact is, there are certain industries, such as finance and especially consulting, in which it is extremely difficult to determine the true ‘victor’. Is one consulting project deliverable “better” than another? Nobody really knows. This is particularly salient in client-focused industries (again, consulting and finance) in which the qualifications of the people themselves are part of what you are marketing. It is easier for McKinsey to market to clients that they have the best Ivy/MIT/Stanford/etc. graduates available for projects. {Granted, maybe the clients themselves are being dumb, but that’s a different issue altogether.}</p>

<p>Consider the hiring policies of Google, circa 2003, hence pre-IPO, which was precisely when you wanted to join, as everybody who joined before the IPO and vested their stock options became rich. </p>

<p>*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. *</p>

<p>[Can</a> Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/12/08/355116/index.htm]Can”>Can Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003)</p>

<p>sakky is correct. Some companies only recruit at some schools. It can work the other way, too. One of my friends worked at Proctor and Gamble for many years. She said they recruit mostly at mid-level universities because they feel that the students at the ivies are prima-donnas and are disgruntled new-hires who believe they are owed a management position after two years. P&G was a perfectly fine company and my friend didn’t get rich, but met her husband there and they both had a long, satisfying careers and have now retired early with a good pension.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet interestingly, until last year, the CEO of P&G was a Harvard graduate.</p>

<p>Page went to Michigan UG and Brin went to Maryland UG…</p>