<p>Hi!</p>
<p>I was wondering, what are the outcomes in terms of salaries, job prospectives etc to go to an average state university and be a top student there, instead of going to a top university and not doing very well?</p>
<p>Is all the hard work at the state university going to be washed out by its ranking?
Is not doing very well at a top university going to be overshadowed by the very fact that it is a top university?</p>
<p>Thanks! :D</p>
<p>Don’t you think that this question depends on where you are in the country? In the Midwest, the flagships are highly regarded in their respective states; they may not have a high national ranking. The top ranked–whatever source you want to use–universities are more novelties. </p>
<p>In life, most people don’t ever know your GPA or even for sure that you graduated. Your university may help you get your first job, but with a very few exceptions, your undergrad doesn’t carry a lot of weight after that. </p>
<p>I think ambition and drive trump everything when it comes to making money.</p>
<p>I agree with MD mom. As is the extremely annoying general consensus that you will hear repeatedly on CC if you’re here for a while – engineering in general is not as dependent on the school you go to as are some of the other majors. Yes, there will be benefits to going to a school with name recognition; however, if you’re looking for an engineering job title you will be fine graduating from the average state school.</p>
<p>Salaries, promotions, and a whole host of other career related interests are generally not dependent on where you went to school. Where you may find some discrepancy is in the number of opportunities that you have for your first job. For a reference, even in this economy the Purdue engineering career fair draws 230ish companies here to recruit. In other words, even in these times a mid-level student has quite a few options which may not be the case at a lesser known school. With that said, 95% of the time I actually think it’s beneficial to just go to your normal in-state school and do as well as you can rather than paying OS tuition to get some name recognition. </p>
<p>I think this may also be slightly dependent on which state school you’re talking about. A complete unknown really might be a disadvantage whereas just your average school probably won’t matter as much.</p>
<p>And to add to MD Mom’s comment - even in school ambition and drive trump most other things.</p>
<p>Not to sound elitist, but I’d also like to add that truly exceptional students at some average schools (depending on which schools) are treated like royalty, and presented, many, many opportunities to do very well.</p>
<p>I hate the “all engineering schools are the same” myth. Though, it fits well with the “everyone is a winner” mentality these days… the fact is that the higher ranked engineering schools teach more material in a more rigorous manner than the lower tier schools. But regardless…</p>
<p>Your career opportunities will depend on what you want to do after graduation. If your goal is “traditional engineering work”, then MD Mom and purduefrank are correct. The salaries aren’t that much different (after adjusting for location). Also, both traditional engineering schools and top engineering schools will have plenty of companies that recruit. In my experience, the top student at a lower-tier school will have as many or more opportunities than an average student at a higer-tier school (in terms of “traditional engineering”. From that perspective, I don’t see the value in being an average student at a top tier school.</p>
<p>However, there are two cases where there is a big difference between the top Kentucky student and an average MIT student (for example). The first is when you have to go to a company in search of a position. Let’s say that, for whatever reason, you can’t find a job (e.g. you really want to live in a certain city and companies from that city do not come to your school). In that case, a degree from a top school goes much further than your GPA at the state school. People will interview an MIT student even if there are no job openings (and this increases by an order of magnitude outside of the US). The same can’t be said for the power of a Kentucky degree.</p>
<p>The second case is when you want to leave “traditional engineering”. If your goal is to go into banking, consulting, VC, etc., the top schools will be targeted by those employers, while a lower tier school will not. An average MIT student with some personality and interview skills can land a 6-figure salary at graduation in a non-traditional role. Even the top Kentucky student will have a hard time doing the same.</p>
<p>A top student at an average university will be first in line for internships, coops and jobs during undergrad and it will look quite nice on the resume. If you need further credentials, then go to grad school.</p>
<p>^^ I doubt the top Kentucky student has any chance at all at a prestigious banking/consulting firm. I’ve noticed such firms solely recruit from top prestigious schools.</p>
<p>GP Burdell - I agree with everything you said. Thanks for typing it out - I was about to do the same.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the obsession with banking/consulting firms on CC</p>
<p>$$$$</p>
<p>When you’re young, you have no life experience and can’t value the future accurately so you go after what you think is valuable. When you are older, you might change your mind. Money is helpful but it is not a god.</p>
<p>“Money is helpful but it is not a god.” - Awkward statement. So, something is ultimately at its greatest value when one can worship it?</p>
<p>G.P. you’re elitist, and your posts are full of condescension. It isn’t that everyone is a winner; but that there are those of us that believe in a meritocracy. Hard work, a little bit of talent, and a little bit of luck can get a top Kentucky wherever he wants to be. MIT (and schools like it) are generally more congested than go-getters than schools like Kentucky, but students ought (and usually are) analyzed on an individual basis.</p>
<p>I think the general consensus is that while, yes, top engineering schools may have a more rigorous curriculum, students are not limited by the schools they go to. Plenty of great engineers and scientists come from schools come from tippy-top schools. Sure, you can get into I-Banking more easily if you go to MIT or Caltech - but I don’t think that’s the question. A state school doesn’t limit you from going to med school to become a doctor and make tons of cash, or being innovative enough to make a new invention.</p>
<p>Being a top (well, at least good) student at an average (does Auburn count as average?) school, I can say it has its benefits. Then again, so does being at a better school.</p>
<p>One guy in our group went to a decent state school for undergrad and then a top school for his graduate degree. I asked him about the transition and he said that the move to the top school was a bit of adjustment to a higher level of work but that could have been the adjustment for graduate school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I am a realist. We are not debating intelligence or long-term success based on the school one attends; the question was with regard to starting salaries and opportunities immediately upon graduation. That is highly dependent upon the school attended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry - I wasn’t aware that we are using one-off examples. Maybe I should add conditions: “The school attended makes no difference, as long as you invent a device that produces cold fusion” or perhaps “the school attended makes no difference, as long as you are able to successful found a multi-billion dollar international corporation in your garage” or even “the school you attend does not matter as long as your father is elected POTUS” </p>
<p>However, the reality of the situation (remember: realist) is that the vast majority of students will not produce a remarkable invention in their undergraduate program. As a result, their first job will be heavily dependent on the school attended, and as we all know, the first job typically frames a person’s career (notice the phrase “typically” - I am not going to list the potential rare scenarios that result in a non-general case). </p>
<p>Students frequently perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine which school to attend. I know I did. In order to perform that analysis, students need to know the cost of attending a top tier program vs a lower tier program, and they need to know the benefit. The cost is fairly straightforward; however, if you lie about the benefit by pretending there is none, you are performing a disservice by leading the student to make a potentially suboptimal (and perhaps even just plain wrong) decision. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but the quality of your undergraduate program will have an impact on grad school admissions.</p>
<p>let’s say that a student does really good in an engineering program at Dartmouth (not among the top universities for engineering but is still solid) and another student does average at a top 5 engineering college like Georgia Tech…who gets the advantage?</p>
<p>There is a whole heck of a lot more that goes into it than that, pierre0913. For grad school, there is still LORs, GRE scores, research experience and all of those sorts of things. For jobs, there is still things like internships and experience and interviews. All else being equal, it then comes down to the type of job. The Dartmouth guy is going to have a little more weight with the financial sector jobs, while the GT guy is going to have more weight at a purely technical company, depending on what degree of average he is. At least that is my experience.</p>
<p>And as for this quote:
</p>
<p>I would offer up UIUC, UMich and Purdue as counterarguments to that statement. All state flagships, all highly regarded nationwide and worldwide. To a lesser degree, you also have Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado.</p>
<p>
For engineering work, I’d say Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech probably has better pull in every geographic area of the US other than the Northeast for engineering.</p>
<p>
What time horizon does this stay with you? I’d assume after 5 years “school” is maybe ~10-15% of the equation (of getting past the gate keepers).</p>
<p>
But will they interview an MIT grad with comparable work experience to a UK grad 5 years out?</p>
<p>
In which case, it’s likely better to go to a top school that’s not engineering in order to preserve GPA.</p>
<p>Also, lets be realistic, there are very few people who pass up MIT for UK. More likely we are talking about the difference between MIT & UMich/Cal. Or passing over Cal to go to UCSD. Simply put, the majority of the students in the US, if they can get into MIT can actually get full rides at schools 2 tiers below MIT, and significant aid at schools 1 tier below MIT.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We’re hiring top MIT students and they’re not making close to six figures. Did you read the thread on MIT students actually working in their intended fields due to the recession?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are changing the the question. The more experience you have, the more heavily that weighs on the career. Keep in mind, though, that the college attended will impact the first position, which impacts the second position, etc. However, the question wasn’t in regards to the value of attending a top school vs. a lower tier school X years later after identical work experience. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re changing the question. The OP didn’t ask about the value of attending a Top 5 school instead of a Top 3 school or a Top 15 schools vs a Top 5 school. The difference between Stanford and Berkeley will be minimal.</p>
<p>The OP specifically asked about a top school (top 10 or so) vs. a lower tier school (somewhere in the 50+ range). Do people pass up MIT for an in-state school? Many students do based on financial considerations. Do you want to go $250,000 in debt to attend MIT with no scholarship or attend Kansas for free after scholarships? Some students are willing to take on the debt, some are not. To determine whether or not to pay that $250,000, student need to be informed of what that money “buys” them. If there is no difference in salary or opportunities (as some want to claim), then why would anyone every pay that sort of money? Just stay in Kentucky and buy a house (or a Ferrari F430) with the savings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not take the post out of context. First, a high school senior this year probably isn’t too worried about the current recession, since history has shown that the economy will almost certainly be very different in 5 years. Second, the point still holds that MIT students (or Stanford students or Michigan students or UIUC students, etc) have more of a probability of finding a position in a non-traditional role and earning large salaries than students in lower tier state schools. Why? Because the companies looking to hire engineers in non-traditional roles go to those top schools. I’m not stating that every student that attends MIT will start in the 6-figure range, just that they have more of an opportunity than a student in a lower tier school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I have to agree with GP Burdell on this one. The fact is, many companies - especially the most desirable ones - do indeed recruit from only a small and circumscribed bundle of schools, and if you don’t attend one of them, you won’t receive an offer from those companies. Let’s face it: if you go to Arkansas State, even if you’re a top student, you’re not going to receive an offer from McKinsey without perhaps a detour at a top-flight grad school such as…MIT. </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong: I wish it wasn’t true. I wish the system was indeed entirely meritocratic such that the star student from Arkansas State really did have the opportunities that he deserved. But that’s not the system in place today. So if GP Burdell is being elitist, it’s only because the system itself is elitist. </p>
<p>Consider the hiring practices of Google, circa 2003, during the pre-IPO days, which was precisely the most desirable time to work for Google. Practically everybody who got into Google before the IPO became rich. </p>
<p>For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon–America’s top engineering schools–even to get invited to interview. Brin and Page still keep a hand in all the hiring, from executives to administrative assistants. And to them, work experience counts far less than where you went to school, how you did on your SATs, and your grade-point average. “If you’ve been at Cisco for 20 years, they don’t want you,” says an employee. </p>
<p>[Can</a> Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/12/08/355116/index.htm]Can”>Can Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003)</p>