<p>I don't know where to post this, I'll just post it here.</p>
<p>Say you were the employer at a certain company and had to chose between a group of people. Say they were all recent college graduates, all from middle class suburban families, all with the same degree, all with similar internships and extra curricular, etc. the only thing that sets them apart is their GPA and school attended.</p>
<p>Who would you choose and why?</p>
<p>Student one: Attended Harvard, graduated with a 3.4 GPA.</p>
<p>I assumed they all interviewed the same (up to insignificant fluctuations)… my shortlist is between 4-5-6 because 1-2-3 came from schools with high grade inflation and, because they are recent college graduates, are average as far as these particular schools are concerned. 4 or 6 if I was operating an East Coast business, 5 if I was a West Coast entrepreneur.</p>
<p>My theory is that most interviewers are trying to ‘hire themselves.’ For example, I had to work all through school so I look for students that maybe had to figure out how to earn a good portion of their tuition but still managed to have good grades. If I didn’t get to ask any other questions, I’d go with one of the public schools, UCLA or UMd, and I’d go with the UMCP because I have a UM degree too (although UMAB). Hiring myself.</p>
<p>A lot of employers have a GPA floor. Above that floor they aren’t going to quibble over a 3.4 vs. a 3.9 GPA.; they will be focused on other qualities. </p>
<p>I took “otherwise the same” to mean “otherwise the same, up to insignificant fluctuations” meaning that the actual content is similar only in quality while the differences are workable once any of them have foot in the door.</p>
<p>First responder nailed it - interview is how I would decide.</p>
<p>If you’re really trying to stretch this into the absurd realm where literally the only differences between the applicants are the GPA/school name (i.e. they took equivalent coursework as well) then it would depend on the industry/location. Am I in an industry where people are going to judge where my staff went to school (e.g. consulting?)</p>
<p>" all with similar internships and extra curricular"</p>
<p>Only happens if they all did the same internships at the same company. In such cases many of them get offered a job if they are “able to” same internships. The managers simply offer jobs to who they like at that point.</p>
<p>not alot of detail here. many will hire alumni as long as they like them. some will prefer to have only ivy or standford while others will prefer the state school kid. i think it comes down to who you like and who expresses the most desire and “sells themselves” the best. I know many people from schools, like MIT, working along side those from state schools. All make same $ if same position. we all know from CC that there are tons of smart kids that cant go to these elite schools cause $ or the compitiveness. Many choose not to go and never apply.<br>
bottom line is conveying your real worth to the interviewer and your desires and ambition. How will they fit in to the company and with other people they have to work with…</p>
<p>If literally everything else was exactly the same, I would hire whoever I liked the best in the interview, thought would fit into the culture and environment of the company, and thought would perform their job the best.</p>
<p>UMD for sure!!! That’s my alma mater LOL! Seriously, I was an employer and have faced these scenarios all too often. First, I would be intrigued by the Ivy backgrounds. They raise an eyebrow, but beyond that I would rank what is most important to me and my company. 1) How well prepared are they to do the job (that varies more by experience and less by their schools). 2) How well did they interview 3) Ties to the community (there is nothing I hate more then to hire someone who eventually leaves)!` In my field, medicine, prestige means very little beyond a raised eyebrow. Although, it would be hard not to give the UMD graduate a boost because it is my alma mater.</p>
<p>Or less absurdly, how every difference between one another other than the data provided would balance each other out in the aggregate (the one who interviewed best is not be the best fit, for instance)</p>
<p>To be blunt, an employer may not interview at all of those campuses. A graduate from UMD may not even get a chance to let an employer know what a great applicant he/she is. If an employer recruits from a particular school, doesn’t matter if it is Harvard, UMD or Georgetown, they are not going to care if someone has 3.5 from Harvard or Georgetown. I think this only really matters for the first few jobs. After few jobs, all employers care about is your experience.</p>
<p>If employment is a concern, I would suggest for you to check out school’s career center to see what companies recruit on campus and see what percentage of graduates have full time employment upon graduation.</p>
<p>You also need to mention majors. Employers are keen on the strengths of each school for producing employees who are prepared for the work. If you mentioned engineering, I would quickly remove several of the schools you’ve listed from contention. </p>
<p>Depends on the industry, company, position and what the applicant can bring in terms of experience and personality needed for the job. If the person was to be reporting directly to me, it would be based on if they could do what I wanted them to do, whether I liked them, and whether they would fit with the existing team in place. Employee hiring is not a meritocracy. It’s based on filling a need. </p>