<p>“strong social networks matter in terms of your overall career success.”</p>
<p>well you still have to be good in order to succeed, social network doesn’t mean everything~</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Gates didn’t go to Podunk U. That’s the point. For whatever reason - possibly foolish - many of the best future entrepreneurs choose to attend the top schools. Mark Zuckerberg might have devised the idea for Facebook at any school*, but the fact is, he went to Harvard. Consequently, much of the original Facebook staff consisted of his old pals from Harvard, and they will all become filthy rich when Facebook launches its IPO. </p>
<p>Heck, Facebook may be an even more salient example than Microsoft. Let’s face it. Facebook, in its original incarnation, was not particularly technically impressive, and certainly less technically impressive than Microsoft’s first products, which were among the first of their class, built with primitive tools using (I think) assembly language at a time when PC tech standards were changing rapidly. It’s not as if the original Facebook team was particularly technically ingenious. They used well-established tools and frameworks to build a website that contained no features that didn’t already exist on many other websites (for example, extant websites already allowed people to build user profiles, upload photos, and connect to the profiles of their friends). A team of decent Web engineers could have easily built that first incarnation of Facebook in less than a few weeks. But that’s not important, rather, what is important is that Facebook became immensely popular, and that popularity will generate a boatload of millionaires for that original team. </p>
<p>Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that budding successful entrepreneurs tend to choose to attend a small subset of schools of which Harvard (and, yes, Stanford) are included. If you want to latch onto one of those entrepreneurs, you too should probably attend one of those schools. </p>
<p>Look, I agree, it’s not fair. It’s certainly not fair that Ballmer would not have become the billionaire CEO of Microsoft had he not gone to Harvard. But what can I say? Life is not fair. Since life is not fair, you should be trying to maneuver the unfairness of life to work in your favor, not against you. If a Harvard (or Ivy, MIT, Stanford, etc.) education provides people with unfair advantages, then you should want to obtain those unfair advantages. </p>
<p>*Or perhaps not, if you believe the ConnectU narrative.</p>
<p>If the CC generation ever makes it into hiring, they will probably make the distinctions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>George W. Bush is the poster boy that completely refutes that thought.</p>
<p>Lmao…</p>
<p>To offer my own insight on the OP’s question…</p>
<p>There is likely a hierarchy of the Ivy League schools that certain employers may internalize.</p>
<p>For instance, many people condescend to the humanities/liberal arts and to undergraduate focus. Consequently, Brown suffers on account of this peculiar prejudice. Dartmouth, less so, because it has always been a well-established school for the WASP elite, whereas Brown gained popularity relatively recently.</p>
<p>And, certain folks condescend to Cornell because it’s the odd one out and, as the rumor goes, the least selective.</p>
<p>The hierarchy may flow something like this:</p>
<h2>Harvard</h2>
<h2>Yale, Princeton</h2>
<h2>Columbia</h2>
<h2>Penn, Dartmouth</h2>
<p>Brown, Cornell</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that really so ? Let’s look at some of the post-WWII US presidents. </p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>] Harry S. Truman: didn’t have a college degree.
[</em>] Dwight D. Eisenhower: military man, went to West Point.
[<em>] Lyndon B. Johnson: graduated from the Southwest Texas State Teacher’s college (now part of Texas State University-San Marcos).
[</em>] Richard M. Nixon: graduated from Whitier College (but later attended Duke Law School).
[<em>] Jimmy Carter: enrolled at Georgia Southwestern College and, later, the US Naval Academy.
[</em>] Ronald Reagan: graduated from Eureka College.
[/ul]</p>
<p>True, presidents with wealthy backgrounds like FDR, JFK and the Bushes went to Harvard/Yale. Gerald Ford attended the University of Michigan as an athlete (football player) and later made his way to Yale Law School. Bill Clinton, probably the most intelectually gifted president since Woodrow Wilson, went to Georgetown, Oxford and, finally, Yale Law. Overall though, an Ivy degree is hardly a necessary qualification to be POTUS, as shown by the evidence to the contrary over the past 60 years or so. </p>
<p>That stands in sharp contrast BTW with what happens e.g. in the UK, where almost all post-WWII PM’s (Attlee, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Blair, and, in a few months, probably Cameron) were/are Oxford graduates. But then, again, the UK is still much more of a “class society” than the US.</p>
<p>^ West Point and Georgetown are very elite schools.</p>
<p>“Dartmouth, less so, because it has always been a well-established school for the WASP elite,”</p>
<p>Not the case for employers outside the US</p>
<p>“And, certain folks condescend to Cornell because it’s the odd one out and, as the rumor goes, the least selective.”</p>
<p>well it really depends on what major we’re talking about here, for engineering/technology/hardcore science, Cornell’s definitely one of the best in the ivy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, so he keeps repeating himself in long posts. Anecdotes don’t prove anything. And may I point out that Bill Gates is not a Harvard alumnus because he didn’t graduate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really have a problem with the idea of a best job. Would you please not throw something like this out so casually. And please don’t explain to me what you mean, I know what you mean, just like Harvard is the best school some political appointment is the best job.</p>
<p>I agree that the people you meet in college will be an important network for finding a job after you graduate. It’s not a good old boys club as sakky describes it, it is just networking. All the more reason to go to a college that suits your personality. Then your fellow alumni will be like you and you’ll be more likely to find a career that suits your temperament.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think i made it clear I don’t care nor need Ballmers’ money. Not everyone is concerned about material wealth as measure of success. Are you an MBA grad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, it’s not a necessary degree (I don’t think anyone here every claimed that) – but it certainly can’t hurt – and the evidence is pretty compelling if you take a good hard look at it, which I have. Out of the 44 POTUS to date, 33 attained a higher education degree (undergrad, grad or both).</p>
<p>Out of those 33, </p>
<ul>
<li>11 graduated from an Ivy college (undergrad – including some that attended both Ivy undergrad + grad such as GWB and Obama) </li>
<li>3 graduated from an Ivy grad school (Hayes-HLS, Ford-YLS, Clinton-YLS)</li>
<li>3 attended an Ivy grad school (but didn’t graduate: W.Harrison-Penn, Teddy and FDR both attended Columbia Law School)</li>
</ul>
<p>That means that out of 33 POTUS that attained a higher degree, 14 graduated from either an Ivy undergrad or grad school – that’s 42%! If you add those that at least attended or graduated from an Ivy institution, that’s over 51%.</p>
<p>And for those who claim that, “well, it’s only because in the Colonial times when Harvard was the only game in town, guys like Adams and Madison make up a disproportionate number”… let’s take the last 20 POTUS starting from Teddy Roosevelt to Obama (POTUS #25 to POTUS #44).</p>
<p>Out of the last 20 POTUS, 8 graduated from an Ivy undergrad + 2 graduated from an Ivy grad school (Ford-YLS, Clinton-YLS). That math is very simple: 10 out 20 of the last POTUS graduated from an Ivy undergrad or grad school: 50%. If you add the two Roosevelts that attended Columbia Law School before dropping out, that’s 60%.</p>
<p>Is it necessary? No. But it certainly doesn’t seem to hurt your chances does it?</p>
<p>True the_prestige, but it is important to note that when one says Ivy League (in the context of presidents), they really mean HYP. </p>
<p>Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn combined have produced 2 president (Columbia’s Obama and Penn’s Harrison). That’s not very impresive when you consider that 4 of those 5 schools were founded before 1770.</p>
<p>wait why are we talking about being the president here?</p>
<p>which prez attended princeton? I disagree. Definitely H & Y have many, along with W&m.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>POTUS 04: James Madison. Class of 1771.
POTUS 27: Woodrow Wilson. Class of 1879. Later served as President of Princeton University.</p>
<p>POTUS 22: Grover Cleveland. Served as Princeton University Trustee.
POTUS 34: JFK. Enrolled at Princeton University freshman year (1935) before being struck with illness then transferring to Harvard.</p>
<p>FLOTUS: Michelle Obama. Class of 1985.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Nobody has a gun to your head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re certainly better than no data at all, which is what other people have offered. Yet I don’t see you having any problem with their logic. Why is that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that he is; he’s in the alumni database. Being an alum merely means having attended a school as a registered student, without necessarily having to graduate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OP’s question is regarding employers. I think it’s fairly clear that if Ballmer had never gone to Harvard, he would never have become Microsoft’s first business manager, and eventually CEO, simply because he would never have met Gates. </p>
<p>Nobody is arguing that material wealth is the sole measure of success, or should be. However, the fact remains that networking is a key factor towards hiring in any particular industry. Consider academia, a field in which few people care about material success, as almost every academic could make far more in the private sector. Yet the fact remains that social networking is a dominant mechanism by which people are hired for academic positions - so much so that academic conferences are widely touted as opportunities for networking. It has also been widely noted that coauthors (naturally) tend to be those you went to graduate school with, and indeed the opportunity to find future promising coauthors and hence boost your chances of future publication in order to be promoted to tenure is an important reason to choose one grad program over another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You forgot about GWBush - Harvard MBA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes he is an alumnus. Not only is Harvard his alma mater (btw the text book definition of an alumnus / alma mater is attendance OR graduation).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alumnus[/url]”>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alumnus</a>
</p>
<p>Gates also has an Honorary Doctorate from Harvard (2007).</p>
<p>I mean, what more do you want? He’s arguably Harvard’s most famous alumnus. Besides, in theory (above) and in practice (such as now), Gates is associated with Harvard – which is what really matters. It’s a matter of positive association on both sides (if it is mutually beneficial). </p>
<p>In other words, does Harvard receive a positive association with Gates and vice versa? Absolutely. It’s a win / win. Harvard people will be quick to point out that he is an alumnus and Gates’ folks will likewise. I mean do you think the folks up at Cambridge, Ann Arbor or Berkeley like to pump up the fact that the Unabomber (Ted Kazynski) went to Harvard, Michigan and taught at Cal? Don’t hear about that little tidbit much do you? And there is a reason for that.</p>
<p>In sum, when Gates is associated with Harvard, it’s no mistake. Both sides are playing this card.</p>