<p>He just interviewed on Friday, so no news yet. :)</p>
<p>Totally agree that networking is open and available. and I am glad to see calmom believes that networking is real.</p>
<p>It seems that crum doesn't think it's relevant and another poster says engineers don't make subjective decisions or decisions based on networks either. Hiring and job advancement must be done all based on logical and objective reasoning in those bizs. LOL </p>
<p>my only point, from the get go, is that you have better and more networking opportunities the higher up the college ladder (loosely determined by the rankings) you go. so the OP might be spending good money to send s to H over CH, although the networking difference is smaller between the school</p>
<p>mollie's example of the world famous airplane designer advising her beau is perfect. he may or may not have made a call to the ceo, but if he did it goes a long way to landing the job. And that happens more at MIT than it does at cal poly because cal poly doesn't have the famous designer advising its students. and that guys networking call carries more weight than whoever is advising at cal poly.</p>
<p>take extremes: Harvard vs College of Charleston, which student has better opportunities due to the schools ability to network?</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that some people on CC are so resistant to this idea. Networking is not a small thing, it’s a huge thing for ones success in life, from college forward. 20 years after graduation who do you think will be in a position to better help you in your business, your classmates from Charleston or Harvard?</p>
<p>If you live in Charleston, networking possibilities for alumni of College of Charleston are probably great. :-) and actually, being PennState( or any other large state school) grad may work better some places than being a Harvard grad. Yes, networking is real; no, it doesn't get better the higher up the rankings ladder you go.</p>
<p>You misunderstand my point, appstressin -- you do have networking opportunities at prestigious universities, but they are not "better" or more extended. They are simply the SAME networking opportunities - perhaps with different individuals, but no better in terms of quality than what a kid might get from volunteer work or employment that puts him or her in contact with influential people, or from attending other colleges and universities where similar contacts might be made. It is likely that there are better networking opportunities at large state public universities, because they are bigger (thus more people and more potential to meet them). </p>
<p>So I agree with parabella -- and I think the fact that you feel that the networking opportunities are significantly better at elite schools only tells me that you don't know all that much about the art of networking. </p>
<p>I actually think that the relative lack of diversity at some elite colleges -- compared with public universities -- may reduce networking opportunities. It kind of narrows both the viewpoint of the student and the field of opportunities available if they are in too much of a homogeneous environment. That is, there can be an "ivory tower" effect that is disadvantageous.</p>
<p>"Better" if better means larger and more prestigious firms than up the ladder is important. I agree that the Charleston “network” serves the local community well, but let's say you want to network and build relationships with one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country (strike that) in the world, Stanford and UCSF. What’s better Charleston or Harvard? </p>
<p>This whole discussion is predicated on "top" or prestigious as the UG’s goals. But, hey I’m glad to hear you believe networking is real! </p>
<p>Also, I realize the hard sciences are very stat driven but ones path is not solely determined by stats, and having UG advisors/profs who can write you references and make calls may help you get in to a top medical school. So who makes a better reference a prof at Charleston or a prof at Rhodes, Rhodes of course! And two students with the exact stats at Rhodes but one develops a good working relationship with the prof, who gets the better reference letter?</p>
<p>Look if you guys don’t want to believe me that networking, even in medicine, is a lot more powerful than you think, that’s fine. The people who don’t get in, or the job, or the promotion are often non-believers and firmly committed to the ideal that life is fair. BTW: my definition of networking which is relationship building based on honesty, is “fair” in my view.</p>
<p>And Crum I’m very happy for your d at Rhodes. I’m a huge believer in LAC’s over large universities and tried hard to convince my d to attend Wellesley or a smaller univ Columbia, but the kool-aide they serve at SC these days is rather persuasive and that’s coming from a 2 generation Cal family (and yes I tried talking her in to any UC ). I think Rhodes ug, Duke grad, and Stanford intern would be an excellent path for your d. and I’m sure she’ll get there! </p>
<p>Calmom, you’re totally wrong, the opps are better at top schools. but you’ll be happy to know that life opportunities directly related to Cal networks are way better than say UC Santa Cruz or Charleston. Why? Because at top schools students go on in life to be owners or managers, aka decision makes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
let's say you want to network and build relationships with one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country (strike that) in the world, Stanford and UCSF.
[/quote]
For medical school, students from UCSF or any of the UC medical schools (Davis, Irvine, San Diego) would have a distinct advantage over Harvard. Obviously a kid at Stanford would also be in a good position. For an undergrad looking for an internship opportunity, then geographical proximity would be a big help -- so it would help to be at Berkeley, USF, Univ of Santa Clara -- even students at SF State or San Jose State might be better able to scout for opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calmom, you’re totally wrong, the opps are better at top schools. but you’ll be happy to know that life opportunities directly related to Cal networks are way better than say UC Santa Cruz or Charleston.
[/quote]
Actually, my daughter is at a prestige east coast school and finds that her networking opportunities for a summer internship on the west coast sucks. Great for NY, almost no leads or support whatsoever if she wants to come home for the summer (which she does).<br>
[quote]
Because at top schools students go on in life to be owners or managers, aka decision makes.
[/quote]
ROFL. Boy are you way off base there. The people who have the instincts to run things are far more likely to drop out of school -- like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs -- they tend not to have much patience for waiting things out or ass kissing to get what they want. See: <a href="http://www.inc.com/magazine/20040601/education_pagen_2.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.inc.com/magazine/20040601/education_pagen_2.html</a> -- and "Where the Fortune 50 CEO's went to College" <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html</a></p>
<p>But you don't get to be a CEO by "networking" -- you get by being a risk-taker with a lot of courage and imagination. These are the sorts of people the Ivy's are looking for when they say they want leadership -- but leaders are ahead of the pack wherever they are, and they make their own opportunities. There are many good <em>academic</em> reasons to choose a prestige college, but the future leaders don't need any "network" other than the one they invariably create for themselves. </p>
<p>And for anyone who aspires to leadership, it tends to be a little easier to rise to the top in environments where there is less competition.... so it can be a very smart move for the future-leader-type to opt for the kind of college where he/she is likely to stand out and gain attention.</p>
<p>calmom: Great posts. Excellent and valid points--all. Thanks for saying it, and saying it so well.</p>
<p>appstressin,</p>
<p>""Better" if better means larger and more prestigious firms than up the ladder is important. "</p>
<p>The OP's daughter is interested in astrophysics. How many astronomers do you know? In my experience, they don't give a rat's a$$ for prestigious law firms or a university's ranking in USNWR. They DO care about who's up to what in Department X, and whether or not Department Y got their NSF grant, and who's research is good and who's is bogus. If a student is truly interested in a specific department, that has a factor in the decision.</p>
<p>appstressin, I have been amused by your obsession with networking/college rankings and the benefits derived from these factors.</p>
<p>There may be some marginal benefit derived on that entry level job but that soon dissapates in the workplace where performance trumps almost everything else. </p>
<p>Your contention that the higher up the college ladder the more effective these benefits are. Well data speaks louder than general statements in my world so I looked at some. This is one sampling base on data which is available to me comparing salary data from Cornell and RPI during a common year and represents average salaries offered to BS/BA grads.</p>
<p>Overall average was $40,000-Cornell and $50,500-RPI. Now this nugget doesn't mean too much because most RPI grads are either in the sciences or engineering. How about architecture? Cornell-$34,933 and RPI-$34,475, essentially the same. Okay how about where the rubber meets the road and consider engineering graduates. Cornell-$54,204 and RPI-$53,560, again essentially the same.</p>
<p>Some will argue that more Cornellians go on to grad school and that the better students may not be included in these numbers. Point well taken and 49% of engineering grads and 47% of architects did go on to grad school in the year considered. Because Cornell is significantly more selective in its admissions, I contend that its BS job seekers are then on a par with RPI BS job seekers. And because the jobs offered seem to be of such a similar nature, the free market place works! Surprise!</p>
<p>app said
[quote]
and another poster says engineers don't make subjective decisions or decisions based on networks either. Hiring and job advancement must be done all based on logical and objective reasoning in those bizs. LOL
[/quote]
I guess you are referring to me? I guessing, of course, because I find it odd you'd take that from my posts. Engineers are not emotionless automatons who don't factor in intangible qualities such as personality & attitude when hiring. I was simply pointing out that the technical nature of their jobs allows them a very easy way to screen candidates: Pose a technical problem and see the candidate work through it. Evaluate their thought process. And assess their technical expertise (or lack thereof) as the problem solution unfolds. Haven't mastered AutoCad? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Doesn't matter if your diploma says MIT.</p>
<p>Tech hiring is a lot more cut and dried than the typical entry level liberal arts job. We don't EXPECT our liberal arts types to have specific skills that can be instantly utilized. The well-roundedness, wonderful communication skills, etc. are raw material to be molded. There is usually an understood learning curve on those type jobs. Not with hi-tech. You really have to perform on day one.</p>
<p>app: Nobody is discounting the value of networking. We just can't believe your naivete. Networks exist in all walks of life. To believe only elite schools have networks of value is just ridiculous. As calmom shows, the networks are just different. And the numbers are STRONGLY in favor of public universities. </p>
<p>Just in NJ there is a tremendously valuable network in place for Seton Hall graduates. They'll be considered over ivy grads every time. Yet the caliber of the universities are quite far apart by most accepted criterion. NJIT graduates account for over 25% of the enngineers working in our state. Our hugh pharmaceutical & hi-tech job market has pulled from NJIT for decades because the school works hand-in-hand with industry to develop programs and research that keep the cutting-edge developments right in state, while talent is developed and slotted into those firms. I'm sure that holds for many states, as well.</p>
<p>How about the Jesuit network? Are you aware of the fierce loyalty of thousands of movers & shakers who have received a Jesuit education? They'll hire a fellow Jesuit grad in a heartbeat, even if that education stopped at high school.</p>
<p>Networks are important. Duh!!! We know that. But if you believe only an ivy network will help snag the best opportunities, you are likely to be disappointed more often than not.</p>
<p>Everyone here is making waaaaay too overbroad claims about the relative merits of this or that type of institution, especially when it comes to things like getting jobs. For jobs, the individual candidate's personal qualities are awfully important, and 95% of that is going to be the same whether he or she went to Harvard, UNC, or Fordham. All decent schools have good reputations and good networks that a good student is going to be able to use. Since it's impossible to do a controlled experiment, there will never be a definitive answer about this. But the data I've seen suggests, in gross, that for kids of roughly equal pre-college intelligence and education (measured by SAT scores), between top-rank elite private universities and top-rank publics there is a very modest 20-year advantage in post-college earnings, but not really enough to justify any kind of significant cost differential. All this stuff about whose network can pee farthest comes out in the wash. </p>
<p>I think I said earlier, and I'll say it again, that I believe there are advantages to a top private, but they are not economic to any meaningful extent, i.e., they do not translate into earnings, and they are not a sure thing. It's perfectly rational for an individual kid or family to decide that it's not worth paying for them, especially if they have to pay a lot compared to their best public alternative, and especially if the best public alternative is one of the really great public universities we have.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I'll tell you what I got out of being an English/Comp Lit student at Yale in the mid-70s: Being at the center of the world in my field. Having personal relationships with the scholars everyone was talking about, and meeting practically anyone who was anyone in the field at that time. Having TAs who went on to become department chairs at Yale, Harvard, and Michigan, and peers who have had great careers as scholars and professionals. Getting assigned to tutor a visiting law professor on my teachers' work (and then having him recruit me to the top law school where he was the Dean-Apparent). Brilliant people everywhere. And fabulous support from the university to get 7 months of paying internships OUTSIDE of my field (working at a major New York financial institution where I was the only undergraduate intern in the building). My wife, in completely different fields (Psychology and American Studies), had almost identical experiences (one of her TAs went on to become a major public intellectual; both of her junior faculty major advisors became presidents of elite universities). </p>
<p>None of that has meant a thing to us economically (unlike our law school degrees, which we could easily have gotten without Yale). But if you asked me to go back and attend the best state university available then in my field (probably Berkeley), for an extra $500,000 in savings now, I'd tell you to go pound sand.</p>
<p>Appstressin wrote, "Better" if better means larger and more prestigious firms than up the ladder is important."</p>
<p>Appstressin, your posts do you no favors. They continue to reflect your lack of insight on this topic. Are you aware that most CEO's are graduates of state colleges and small non-elite privates? Are you aware that there are partners in most elite professional firms from similar institutions? Have you read the studies that show that students accepted at the "elites" but who turn them down for less selective schools do just as well as those who choose to attend? </p>
<p>I believe there are "benefits/advantages" associated with attending the elite colleges - the "networking opportunities" you choose to emphasize are the least important of these benefits - to me and my son. However, for those unable to afford such - these same benefits can be found at many other less prestigious institutions.</p>
<p>However, if your posts on this topic are an example of the way you interact with people and conduct business in the "non-cyber" world - all of the networking in the world won't help you.</p>
<p>JHS, you missed out. :)</p>
<p>JHS: Likely, a Berkeley grad of your identical age & field would say the following: "But if you asked me to go back and attend the best ivy university available then in my field (probably Yale), for an extra notch of prestige now, I'd tell you to go pound sand."</p>
<p>Most of us are quite content with our level of success & are not pining for a "do over." We've all had great experiences that shaped us in a positive way.</p>
<p>No study to my knowledge has been able to distinguish between the value of a certain school in career advancement and the value of family contacts that the candidtes brought with them. My son will have an enormous leg up on any candidate if he follows his dad into a biomed engineering career. 25 years of contacts & repuatation will mean a great deal. Can't any of us say the same about our own kids? If they follow us, and if we choose to lend a hand (or make a phone call,) won't that go a long way toward securing internships or interviews? Will any colleague say, "Gosh, sorry Joe. But I won't even CONSIDER a kid from sate U."</p>
<p>
[quote]
JHS, you missed out.
[/quote]
dstark proves my point!</p>
<p>Actually, dstark, I happen to have a good friend who is a Michigan grad and Berkeley grad student from that era, and one of the smartest people I know. He really wants his daughter to go to Yale.</p>
<p>My case is really no fair, though, because there really wasn't a state school that came anywhere near having the faculty strength in literary studies that Yale had in the 70s. Harvard and Princeton didn't come close, either, although in retrospect Harvard had some great young people then. I could possibly have had a similar experience at Cornell or Columbia, or in Paris.</p>
<p>My thing is, you shouldn't pay more than 50k for an undergrad degree. It's...really not worth it.</p>
<p>Hey! Princeton started its Comp Lit department in 1976. I know. I was there. And we had as the two new young assistant professors, a man from Yale and a woman from Columbia. The man is now the chairman of the Comp Lit department at Yale. The woman is now the chairman of the Comp Lit department at Princeton. The woman taught the most astonishing course I ever took, Theory of Literary Criticism, right at the peak of structuralism etc. The man was my advisor and used his fluency in Greek and Latin and Italian to point me to works I would never have found on my own that expanded my understanding of how to substantiate a literary theory of my own. </p>
<p>I will never forget those professors and those moments of learning. Now, has it helped me get a larger salary? Ha ha ha ha. Give me a break. I do marketing in the high tech industry. I threaten people with making them read Montaigne if they don't stop talking about their cellphones....Would I give those Princeton moments up and say, gee, wish I'd gone to Berkeley so I now had another million $$$ assuming of course I invested wisely?</p>
<p>Who knows? Who can say? It is my life. It is my identity. I don't know if I can put a price on my identity. Could I have gotten those moments at Berkeley in 1977? I have no idea. Maybe. How about this. I won't say that Berkeley can't deliver those moments if you all stop saying that my Princeton education was mere prestige. It wasn't.</p>
<p>In 1976, Berkeley had the best comp. lit. department in the country! On the other hand, I don't doubt that it was good at Princeton too...my dissertation director left Berkeley for Princeton around that time...</p>