More important career wise: your grad school or your undergrad school?

Yes its me again. Anyway, since in the next 5-6 years of my life I will probably have applied to Stanford a whopping three times, here’s a question I was curious about for everyone: in the job market, which is more important, (all character traits, previous job history aside) the prestige of your grad school or undergrad school?

Here’s the scenario:

Student A: Accepted to Berkeley or UCLA, graduates without honors. Obtains master’s at a middle tier grad school (excuse my lack of knowledge for middle tier grad schools).

Student B: Accepted to UC Davis/Irvine/Santa Barbara, graduates with honors. Obtains Master’s from Stanford/Berkeley/another prestigious grad school.

Which looks better to you? Which do you think would look better to an employer?

I’m sorry everyone, these topics are probably really annoying by now, but I have to get myself outta this slump from the Berk rejection. I just want to know that there’s still a way for me to have a successful career.

<p>The only thing that matters is the last school you attended (if you received a degree). After you're out in the work force for a few years, your job experience and reputation counts more than any school.</p>

<p>undergrad is only important to get into a good grad school</p>

<p>grad school is important to get a good job</p>

<p>Some states (including Calif) have a reputation for "good state schools", and some don't. But people outside of a given state really don't distinguish among campuses of that state's university system very well. They are sort of all lumped together.</p>

<p>It depends on the undergraduate school, your major, your graduate program, and the specific field/job. I can think of several examples where the grad program would be secondary to the undergrad program.</p>

<p>You need to be more specific before your question can be properly answered. Are you talking about an MBA, law school, med school, or a masters in your undergraduate field?</p>

<p>It's not so simple although most would say grad school and have a point. But undergrad school impacts where you go to grad school, especially profesional schools, as top college grads have a big edge on getting into the top ones. </p>

<p>For business school admission, the job after college is hugely important and where you go to undergrad is a big indicator of the calibre job you'll get.</p>

<p>And lets not ignore the contacts you make in college. They do for many effect future opportunities.</p>

<p>All that said, the opportunities after grad school will be mostly a reflection of the grad school.</p>

<p>Grad School, if you get some really good grades at a mediocre school and then get into an awesome grad school. UG is neccesary to get into a decent grad school. But there are plenty of undergrads at top 25 colleges who don't get into top 25 grad schools in their field.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I'd be curious to hear the examples. Other than academia, I can't think of any.</p>

<p>Even for academia, how do you figure? It might be different for things like law or business, I'm not sure, but in the case of the sciences if you have a PhD in physics from Caltech or MIT I don't think many schools are going to care that you went to State U for UG. Of course, quality of the research during PhD work counts too.</p>

<p>yeah same here i would like to hear some examples</p>

<p>">>I can think of several examples where the grad program would be secondary to the undergrad program."</p>

<p>Business and Law and politics, any career where prestige overwrites merit especially politics cough-presidency-cough</p>

<p>I'm mostly talking about MBA's.</p>

<p>It is common to get MBAs after you have some experience working(2-3yrs). So UG school is important in a sense to get you a good job so you can get into a good grad progam after a few years of working. Correct me if im wrong.</p>

<p>in terms of MBA I think that good undergrad is important because from I have read HBS gets a chunk of its students from harvard</p>

<p>Grad school definitely that is where you learn how to apply your knowledge to a job. undergrad only gets you to a grad school.</p>

<p>I think this example is closer to what Prohasi is asking -</p>

<p>Say your running a Bay Area semiconductor company and you have these 2 applicants for a project manager position:</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford EE - Santa Clara MBA</li>
<li>Santa Clara EE - Stanford MBA</li>
</ol>

<p>Everything else being equal, who has the edge?</p>

<p>Stanford MBA cause then they had to have done well at Santa Clara to get there.</p>

<p>Yeah, that's what I mean tactics. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks.</p>

<p>My dentist went to UCRiverside n then got her dental degree or watever at USC. She only mentioned that she graduated from USC n barely any1 even knows she went to UCR.</p>

<p>"Stanford MBA cause then they had to have done well at Santa Clara to get there."</p>

<p>not necessarily; most MBA students have had some years of work experience under their belt to be competitive for admission to a good grad school (there -are- people who go from undergrad straight to business school but they're a minority, i think). it really depends on the type of work experience you have. some companies are "feeder"s for business schools (e.g. McKinsey, Bain, etc - basically if you get into one of those firms after your undergrad, your chances of getting into a stellar business school are extremely high). correspondingly, "feeder" companies tend to focus on recruiting from some schools more than others. this isn't to say that your chances are dead once you miss getting into a feeder undergrad that will get you into a feeder company that will get you into a good business schoo - rather, that's just a more guaranteed sort of route. there ARE people who have gone to mid-tier undergrads, become successful in business in amazing ways, and thus gained admission to top business schools. sometimes the individual just has to take more initiative if the opportunities don't present themselves as easily.</p>