<p>this is the business forum not the debate forum or the philosophy forum.... dont bring up points for the hell of it..... no one is interested ..... pasadena lets just stop responding to him we're giving him some leverage by constantly replying so he can keep coming up with ridiculous things to say.</p>
<p>A fact is a fact. It we could harness the power of the sun for 1 second, we would have recieved enough energy for 1 million years, or the equivalent of one billion billion billion watts. That is a fact, but the likelyhood of us capturing the suns energy for the time span of one second is zero. Does that make this an illogical statement?</p>
<p>TheMK99: I don't bring up points for the hell of it. I was trying to provide the best possible advice to the original poster. It just kills me to see people doing otherwise.</p>
<p>Southpasadena: Bad analogies don't help what you're trying to say because there is no basis to your use of a bad analogy. Critical thinking 101, can you say get some?</p>
<p>well jpnguyen i told myself i wouldn't reply to you but i guess i broke my own rule in having to respond to this - NOBODY ASKED WHAT SCHOOL TO GO TO GET IBANK JOB. SOME IDIOT SAID IBANK JOB'S SALARY FLUCTUATES WITH UGRAD INSTITUTION AND ME AND PASADENA TRIED TO HELP HIM. THEN YOU STEPPED IN WITH THE HIGH AND MIGHTY ATTITUDE AND ARGUED THOROUGHLY USELESS POINTS.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>TheMK99: So IBanking positions have no basis in this post? But wait wait wait a minute, the original poster wants the highest salary possible upon undergraduate completion. errrr? Am I missing something or is you? =) ROFL means "Rolling On the Floor Laughing." Guess who i'm laughing at?</p>
<p>Don't get so flustered, we can have a civil debate!</p>
<p>nothing said by me or pasadena has to do with the original poster it has to do with the guy who said "you can only get that salary out of wharton". learn2read pls. debates stop being civil after you argue for 2 pages and people are too thick-headed to listen.</p>
<p>TheMK99: So I guess you're the one with all the reading skills. I was replying to SouthPasadena's post: "so in essence, you are still saying school doesnt determine salary, company does" </p>
<p>After he replied to my post:</p>
<p>"School plays a large part in salary upon undergrad completion recruitment. Top schools include top companies that recruit at these schools. So for the most part, going to a top school is a bigger chance of landing a top salary as compared to a middle/bottom tier school."</p>
<p>TheMK99: don't meddle in when adults are speaking. (I don't like to deflame people's characters but when you try to bring me down, i'll make you bend over and take it from behind). I have always been talking about the chances of landing a top salary. </p>
<p>"Whereas, other people keep bringing up the theory that if two students(one from say harvard and one from new brunswick state) get equal jobs, they would get equal pay"
(that has absolutely nothing to do with the original post because it has no relevance to the original poster's request of "THE HIGHEST SALARY".) </p>
<p>I was simply replying with "same salary if they got the job, but what's the liklihood? And why would anyone use that model as the basis of a recommendation"</p>
<p>It wasn't I that got into a squabble about Wharton Grads, I was trying to help the original poster with his education decision. And I was faced with immature deflamation by individuals who have put extremely little thought into the art of education and careers.</p>
<p>Ok lets look at everything</p>
<p>My first response was
[quote]
more like 150k including bonus, 65-70k base
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and then ns347 responded with
[quote]
^^^^ if u went to wharton.</p>
<p>atleast I think thats the way it works
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and then i responded with
[quote]
school does not determine salary, company and position does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And then you JP brought about the idea of recruitment in relation to salary. Nothing before was mentioned about recruitment.</p>
<p>And if we further meddle with your so called premise, you in no way answered the op's question. Please refer back to post #1 in which his question asked very specifically which business major will allow for the highest possible compensation. He in no way asked for a school recommendation. Every poster excluding one has pointed out that we are both right, but are debating two different points. Do you not understand? Seriously, the syntax of every poster's post is ordered in a way every one else seems to understand, but at the same time the posts seem to breeze by you.....what is happening?</p>
<p>Of course he didn't ask for a school. Which is why my initial post provided the basis for my recommendation. Durr?!?!? I like to provide evidence for my suggestions besides saying "well if two got the same job, they would get the same salary." Umm Durr? </p>
<p>"School plays a large part in salary upon undergrad completion recruitment. Top schools include top companies that recruit at these schools. So for the most part, going to a top school is a bigger chance of landing a top salary as compared to a middle/bottom tier school."</p>
<p>Notice the flow of the paragraph. First I stated my opinion. Then I provided support for my opinion in hopes that the original poster would understand my reasoning. Notice how I finished with top salary. By finishing with the closing statement, I was trying to provoke a thought or memory so to speak in order for the poster to be enlightened. But you're the english/psyche/marketing guru.</p>
<p>Heh, did it take that long for you to reorder the posts in hopes to think that you could alter the perception of your words? If you were really talking to NSD, you would have used the keyword out of his sentence "Wharton." However, you did not use Wharton. Instead, you used the word "School." A word that I stressed heavily in my post. The automatic psychological thought you are provoking by the use of a keyword that I used in a directly previous post only acknowledges your direct expression to me. Or is it that you have bad communication skills, so poor that you can't even address the right person properly. I'm just using long sentences because I know your little brain cannot absorb the amount of thoughts that are needed to visualize my statements. So go ahead and call me ridiculous. </p>
<p>By the way, mister english dude, you used the word syntax incorrectly. Unless you call posts out of order to be in order. But is not order, the formation of an absolute order? Hitherto, the order of ABCs? ROFL.</p>
<p>A wise man once said, "You won't sound smart when you're using words incorrectly."</p>
<p>Can you count, the posts are in order, the order being post 9 first, then 10, then 11. Last i remember, that was correct. And the basic definition of syntax includes the grammatical structure of a sentence, in which case, i was pointing out that every poster has given a response that was perfectly understandable, but you still cant seem to distinguish the fact that we are arguing to different points</p>
<p>I am debating that in a corporate environment, pay will not reflect school, rather pay will reflect the company, position, negotiating abilities and year end review</p>
<p>You are debating the CHANCE of one getting a job, the change being higher for a top ranked school, slim for an unknown state school. Due to this, salaries are dependent on the school.</p>
<p>Two different arguments, i don't see it as difficult to distinguish the two. We are both right in our points, yet you still argue. Seriously what is wrong with you.</p>
<p>I am not arguing and You aren't going to turn this into a battle of who's the bigger man. You're the one that started the namecalling first. You're the one that spoke like you're the dumass genius. If anything, all fingers point to you. Quit trying to cover up your ass. Is there counselors or professors on this forum that you're trying to impress? Admit defeat and move on. It has taken you too long to understand that your argument has no relevance to the original poster. And everytime I must break something down for you is time I'd rather be paid working. Go to your Hawkingson Institute for 5 students placed in IBanking. I never knew of a school being proud of placing a student at Kraft foods(especially when Kraft is throwing out internships to high school/community college students with 3.0gpas). But its the greatest school in the world by your standards, so go there and shut your mouth next time someone gives you some detailed critism because you can't take it.</p>
<p>Your tangent is your tangent. Don't make it ours.</p>
<p>I notice that you edit every post, perhaps trying to craft your way out of your idiocy. I have been explaining for nearly 4 pages that we are arguing two different points. You seem to believe you actually answered the op's question. You seem to believe that you can read. All in all, i am done with this thread. I will not be responding to anymore of your retarded posts nor will i comment on the fact that you cant even look at the hawkinson institutes list and determine which firm provides investment banking, and which does not, or the other scenario being that you just cant count.</p>
<p>"TheMK99: don't meddle in when adults are speaking. (I don't like to deflame people's characters but when you try to bring me down, i'll make you bend over and take it from behind)."</p>
<p>If only you knew my real age young high school IB wannabe. You talk about I'm a child and you talk about bending me over and taking it from behind ?? Besides that being at best a 7th grade insult and a ridiculously homosexual comment that was uncalled for, it just shows you are such a hypocrite. Go study for a geometry exam or something because your a high school sophomore at best.</p>
<p>ok remind me to never invest my money with half of the people on this thread. u would probably criticize me more than help me out in anyway.</p>
<p>can we get back to the topic?</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>"I am debating that in a corporate environment, pay will not reflect school, rather pay will reflect the company, position, negotiating abilities and year end review"</p>
<p>If that's your position,fine, but you're wrong. What, do you think that corporations will pay only x dollars for a certain position and won't budge whatsoever? There's no wiggle room? That's just plain silly. Companies have an idea as to an individual's market value, and that value will be tied into that individual's other options, etc, which is tied into one's undergrad institution. Regardless of whether or not you want to face the facts, ceteris paribus the market demand for a Harvard graduate will be higher than that of graduate of a TTT. Period. End of Story.</p>
<p>If you've got any doubts, perhaps you should read:</p>
<p>WOW HARVARD PUBLISHED RESEARCH THAT SAID IT IS WORTH IT TO ATTEND MORE SELECTIVE COLLEGES? OMG IM BLOWN AWAY !!!</p>
<p>i really thought harvard would post stats about how it is a waste of time and financial resources !! they really threw me a curveball !!</p>
<p>You DO NOT have to go to Wharton, Harvard, or any ivy league school to land a job that pays $150k all in. It makes it easier, I'll give you that, but once you get the interview, school suddenly doesn't matter.</p>
<p>I am wrong. Can you not relate negotiation to wiggle room? Hard to comprehend? We are not dealing with the idea that top colleges have access to a broader, better paying job market. That is true in fact and is the basis of your linked article. I have no doubts that this is true. </p>
<p>However, the article that you posted presents the difference in total return between an ultra elite and a selective college. </p>
<p>But that has nothing to do with the question at hand, the question that was brought up on the first page of this post. Obviously you have failed to read the entire thread, or you have skimmed through. </p>
<p>Its a simple question, is KPMG going to pay a premium for a Harvard grad over a state college grad, excluding the pay grades. No, Is Goldman going to pay more. No. Base pay will relatively be the same. Opportunity is the variable between the two. But opportunity is not what the question asked. </p>
<p>And extraordinary case, such as experience one has over the other is practically irrelevant as we are discussing undergrad where the majority are unaccomplished and are entering the job force as either an intern or full time employee</p>
<p>"Can you not relate negotiation to wiggle room?"</p>
<p>No, as the wiggle room is on the side of the employer who lays out a budget, and the negotiation abilities are of the applicant. Two separate animals. And if the company has no wiggle room -as can often be the case - negotiation skills will be of little to no use. </p>
<p>"However, the article that you posted presents the difference in total return between an ultra elite and a selective college."</p>
<p>Really? Since when is a school along the lines of "grade point averages of C at least and who rank in the top 75% of their graduating class. These colleges typically report median SAT scores below 425," considered selective? Hard to comprehend, or perhaps you should have taken more than a cursory glance at the article? </p>
<p>"But that has nothing to do with the question at hand, the question that was brought up on the first page of this post. Obviously you have failed to read the entire thread, or you have skimmed through."</p>
<p>No. I can read just fine. However, you made a point to which I responded. Yes, your point was OT, but I thought I'd jump in at that juncture.</p>
<p>Again, your thesis is, as you've conveniently summarized:
"I am debating that in a corporate environment, pay will not reflect school, rather pay will reflect the company, position, negotiating abilities and year end review</p>
<p>Which, is, as I and others have pointed out, wrong. You are trying to separate school from "negotiating abilities", when in fact you cannot.</p>