<p>I'm overwhelmed with sakky's words as usual. Forget it that was too long.</p>
<p>to jmilton: easy solution, use ignore list, cuz you know what's sakky's gonna say anyway. :p</p>
<p>to OP:</p>
<p>the benefit of going to good engineering school are:
-tons of good companies recruits at your school
-sometimes company HR people actually email you asking if you're interested interviewing with them (instead of the other way around)
-when top companies come to your school, they'll attract people with free food, raffles and prizes
-top companies do lots of talk, current technology, research and stuff and sometimes encourage people to work for them :p
-your faculty advisors most often will have golden Rolodex :p you are 2 degree separated from some VC or Angel investor (or your own advisor might be a VC or angel)
-chances are you might room/befriend someone who will become a millionaire in the next 4-5 years or/and billionaire in the next 15-20 years :)
-classes are usually taught at faster pace so you'll learn more for your money
-more variety of courses
-etc,etc</p>
<p>If you're thinking about this from a pure return on investment point of view, going to a top school is not worth it in terms of work and money spent. Even if you take sakky's example about startups, chances are you won't ever join a successful startup. You're essentially taking a risk (but I'm not saying this risk is bad, only that it exists and it is significant). Some people can afford it, some can't, and some don't want to. Me personally, I'm looking at paying college tuition 4 years from now, not for myself, but for my sister. I have a few friends who got married at 22, and some even have families now. Then again, if you're 22 and are not responsible for anybody other than yourself, it's definitely a risk that you might consider if given the opportunity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, the presumption is that you are actually going to be working in a field that is directly related to what it is that you are majoring in, an assumption that I have been combating here on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The presumption that you are making is that people would be interested in working on something other than what their major was. Of course, there's a significant percentage of people that this is true for, but there are also many who would much rather work on what they like, which I assume would be their major. </p>
<p>The good thing about good engineering schools is they do tend to attract better professors. This past semester, I took 4 courses, and 3 of them were taught by high-ranking people in top companies in my industry. These people have a wealth of information to share, and you might not have access to them at a third-tier school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
to jmilton: easy solution, use ignore list, cuz you know what's sakky's gonna say anyway
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I've always said, if you don't like what I write, fine, don't read it. Nobody has a gun to your head.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're thinking about this from a pure return on investment point of view, going to a top school is not worth it in terms of work and money spent. Even if you take sakky's example about startups, chances are you won't ever join a successful startup. You're essentially taking a risk (but I'm not saying this risk is bad, only that it exists and it is significant)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can think of only one possible career that is truly risk-free, and that is to become a tenured professor (but then the process of getting tenure is highly risky). Let's face it. Working for a large, established, successful firm is risky too. For example, Intel laid off over 10k people in 2007. </p>
<p>Now, certainly, I can agree that working in a startup environment is more risky than working for a large company. But it is precisely when you're young and have no attachments is when you should be taking on risk, because later on in life you probably won't be able to. Let's say you join a startup at age 22 and it goes bankrupt. So now you're 23 and broke. Honestly, so what? Most 23-year-olds are broke. At least you took the chance. </p>
<p>Risk and reward are highly correlated. Startups are risky, no doubt. But the rewards are so astronomical as to make them easily worth the rewards, if you can assume the risks and you have an entrepreneurial personality. </p>
<p>But like I always said, I never said that everybody should work for startups. In fact, I would surmise that perhaps most should not. They just don't have the right personality. What I am saying is that if you do have the right personality, then you should seriously consider a school that is strongly tied to the entrepreneurial community. Of course, if you don't, and you're just looking for a regular engineering job, then this whole discussion doesn't apply to you anyway.</p>
<p>Yes, working for a well-established company is less risky. It seems as if we're arguing over semantics. Life itself is risky. As you're reading this right now, a meteor could hit your house, but I wouldn't consider sitting in front of a computer risky. </p>
<p>Yes, joining a startup at age 22 is probably the best time to do so, <em>if</em> you only have to look after yourself. Regardless of personality, I only know a handful of people who can afford the risk to join a startup. Maybe all my friends grew up too fast...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, joining a startup at age 22 is probably the best time to do so, <em>if</em> you only have to look after yourself. Regardless of personality, I only know a handful of people who can afford the risk to join a startup. Maybe all my friends grew up too fast...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're not the only one. </p>
<p>Yeah, a start-up would be nice 1) if I got the opportunity and 2) if the risk were warranted. It's not my <em>personality</em> that can't handle the risk, it's my husband's student loans that can't handle the risk, and our car payments, and our insurance payments, and our rent payments, and health coverage, and the payments from when the cat fell off the counter and broke his hock joint and ran up 1500 in vet bills, and that pesky need to eat two to three meals a day...</p>
<p>So sure, if you have no health problems to attend to and are single and have no pets or children and no student loans being called in and no car to drive, and you're equally at home eating lobster tail or ramen, or living in an upper east side condo on the park or in the Greyhound Station next to the vending machines, then a startup is a good thing to consider.</p>
<p>The reason for going to a top college is advanced job opprutunities with major companies. When people say that it doesn't matter once you get a few years of experience they are fooling themselves. The chances are that you will not have been in the position or have the type of experience a major company is looking for. Additionally employers want to hire people that they know will stay with their company for numerous reasons; working for a smaller company for a few years and then bailing out looks doesn't look good. If you have the opportunity to go to a top school and can take advantage of that opportunity, then do it.</p>
<p>^ Just wait till you get into industry bro. Your alma mater matters little.</p>
<p>I agree that large universities are more heavily recruited though. But I think to imply that the college you went to "defines" you for the rest of your career might be a little exagerrating... I understand you want to feel proud to get into a good school. I'm at a top school for grad right now. But there is literally no advantage once you hit the workplace other than the occasional wow if you goto like a top 5 school (HYSPM). But outside of those schools, it's pretty much even playing field in terms of the "prestige" factor. And even if you did get into HYSPM, people don't really care that much ..literally. Most level-headed managers and professionals hire based on what you accomplished during your career.</p>
<p>I never suggested that what school you get into defines the rest of your career; only that the conception that it doesn't matter once you get a few years work experience is a fallacy. I guess i was unclear when i said a top college; i was referring to top engineering colleges and not necessarily prestigious ones. I still disagree that it does matter what college you go to when you're starting off in your career. I would also argue that you could show a strong correlation between the college attended and the type of job placement based on that college.</p>
<p>I'm interested in how a rank 15 school in say chemical engineering compares to a rank 25-30 school in job placement or even rank 40.</p>
<p>My original reply was for the OP who wanted to know what the advantages were of going to one of the highest ranked biomed schools and any other school after hearing it made no significant difference after a few years of work experience. There's not going to be a significant disparate between a school that's ranked 15 and one that's ranked 25-40 which makes it difficult to argue. Nonetheless, there is a difference and again i can assure you that you can show a correlation between college level and job placement early in your career. If you would like to go on believing otherwise, go ahead.</p>
<p>Good thing I'm at rank one then. I don't have try and jobs offers will just come down from the sky and land on my lap. College kids these days..</p>
<p>If you're at the number one ranked school in your field and are doing good and you don't have job offers falling into your lap when you go out, something is seriously wrong.</p>
<p>Now would be a good time to point out that being smugly sarcastic during your interview is a good way to negate any job-gleaning advantage you might've had as a result of graduating from a top program! ;)</p>
<p>Would u consider the following schools good for mechanical/aerospace engineering:</p>
<p>WPI
CASE
BU
UMASS AMHERST
U DELAWARE
SUNY BINGHAMPTON AND STONY BROOK</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless of personality, I only know a handful of people who can afford the risk to join a startup. Maybe all my friends grew up too fast...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, frankly, I think maybe they did. Because honestly, if it's too risky for you to try at 22, then when in their lives is it going to NOT be too risky? In the case of your friends, it seems to me that the answer is never, meaning that they will never be able to join a startup in their whole lives. If that's the case, then just say so. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, a start-up would be nice 1) if I got the opportunity and 2) if the risk were warranted. It's not my <em>personality</em> that can't handle the risk, it's my husband's student loans that can't handle the risk, and our car payments, and our insurance payments, and our rent payments, and health coverage, and the payments from when the cat fell off the counter and broke his hock joint and ran up 1500 in vet bills, and that pesky need to eat two to three meals a day...</p>
<p>So sure, if you have no health problems to attend to and are single and have no pets or children and no student loans being called in and no car to drive, and you're equally at home eating lobster tail or ramen, or living in an upper east side condo on the park or in the Greyhound Station next to the vending machines, then a startup is a good thing to consider.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And to continue the discussion, you think it's really going to get better later on in life? As you get older, you inevitably pick up more and more responsibilities, i.e. children, mortgages, etc. Financial needs generally tend to increase as you get older, they hardly ever decrease. In other words, if a startup is already too risky for you at age 22, imagine how risky it will feel at age 32 or age 42. </p>
<p>Frankly, I am shocked at the conservatism that I am finding here. Imagine the kind of world would we live in if everybody thought that startups were simply too risky. There would be no Google, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Ebay, Yahoo, Amgen, and Microsoft. (Ok, maybe we might be better off without the last one, but the point still stands.) Imagine all of the advances that we would not have because everybody thought startups were just too risky. Imagine how much poorer the world would be. Heck, most of the commercial advances on the Internet have sprung from startups (relatively few were actually advanced by incumbents). </p>
<p>Furthermore, I think I need to stick up for what it really means to work within a startup environment. You join a startup and it goes bankrupt, honestly, so what? You just join another one. That one blows up too, so then join another one. That sort of 'serial entrepreneurship' is not really that risky because, if you do it right, you always have a job. Sure, the company changes, but you still have a job. Silicon Valley is replete with stories of people who lose their job in the morning, and then find another job in literally that same afternoon. Heck, I know a guy who not only did precisely that, but his new job was actually in the same office park, right across the parking lot from his old job. </p>
<p>Now, granted, there is the chance that a startup will blow up and you won't be able to find another startup to join. Sure. But I don't see that that's any different from joining a big company and getting laid off and not being able to find another job. If you've actually been a useful and productive member of a startup, even if it blows up, it should take you very little time to find another job. On the other hand, it is very easy at a large firm to end up doing work that is just not very portable because no other company really cares about what you do and hence nobody wants to hire you. For example, I know a girl who worked as an engineer at Intel on a very specific high-end chip fab process that only Intel and maybe 2 or 3 other companies in the world actually need (for there are very few chip companies that are of Intel's size). Hence, when she got laid off, she had great difficulty finding another job because nobody needed what she knew. </p>
<p>Regarding the notion of salary, I have to take exception to the notion that startups really do "pay less", such that you can't afford lobster vs. ramen or whatnot or can't afford health insurance or whatnot. Plenty of startups actually pay more than do established firms, in terms of either salary or benefits (or both). That's because there are so many startups, that if you're really looking to maximize your compensation, you are almost certainly better off working for a startup. To be sure, most startups do pay less then the average. But there are so many startups, that that still leaves many left who will pay more. This is particularly true when a startup has just received venture funding and is therefore looking to hire a bunch of people very quickly. The fastest way to do that is to simply offer outsize salaries and benefits packages.</p>
<p>I'll give you an example. I know a bunch of MIT engineers who got offers from large established firms like Apple, Sony, IBM and so forth. All of their offered salaries were about the same. But their highest paying offers by far were not from established firms. They were from startups. One of them, which shall remain unnamed, was offering almost double the salary of any of the large firms, and was offering a gold-plated benefits package. The reason was simple - this firm just got Series A funding and hence was looking to scale up headcount quickly, and what faster way to bring people on board but to just pay a whole heck of a lot? </p>
<p>Again, none of this is to deny that working for a startup is risky. (But again, established firms are also plenty risky - look at what happened to Bear Stearns). But the risk needs to be properly bounded. Working for a startup does not necessarily mean that you will be giving up salary or benefits. In fact, many startups actually provide better salary and benefits. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, a start-up would be nice 1) if I got the opportunity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I think that right there captures my point about startups. Most startup opportunities are "hidden", meaning that they are available only through social networks. Certain schools, notably Stanford, are unusually helpful in providing students with access to the proper social network.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, frankly, I think maybe they did. Because honestly, if it's too risky for you to try at 22, then when in their lives is it going to NOT be too risky?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, I agree. Some people will <em>never</em> be able to afford the risk to join a startup. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, I am shocked at the conservatism that I am finding here. Imagine the kind of world would we live in if everybody thought that startups were simply too risky. There would be no Google, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Ebay, Yahoo, Amgen, and Microsoft.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying it's too much of a risk for <em>everybody</em>. My point is that the ability to join a startup depends not only on personality, but life situation as well. The ideal candidate to join a startup would have the following characteristics:
- single
- have no kids
- be the youngest child in the family
- both parents in good health
- family is middle class or better
- have a place to live in case one can't pay the rent</p>
<p>For people not having one or more of the above characteristics, job security is pretty important, and it may not be worth the risk to join a startup. One of my friends graduated a year ago, and is now the only one in her family of 5 with an income. Her parents are unemployed and sick, and one of her brothers is about to go to college. Going bankrupt would be disastrous for them. For others, I see no reason not to join a startup if given the opportunity. </p>
<p>I think a good comparison would be investing in the stock market. Those with some extra money would be able to invest, and would be able to withstand a short-term loss. Those who need every paycheck to provide for his or her family may not be able to do so, even though a long-term investment in a variety of sectors is generally a good idea. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And I think that right there captures my point about startups. Most startup opportunities are "hidden", meaning that they are available only through social networks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another necessary characteristic that's implied in the above quote is the ability to shmooze. Some people are introverted, so it's unlikely they will be know somebody who is creating a startup. So going back to the original question, attending a "good school" may not get you any of the special perks sakky mentioned if you're not social enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying it's too much of a risk for <em>everybody</em>. My point is that the ability to join a startup depends not only on personality, but life situation as well. The ideal candidate to join a startup would have the following characteristics:
- single
- have no kids
- be the youngest child in the family
- both parents in good health
- family is middle class or better
- have a place to live in case one can't pay the rent</p>
<p>For people not having one or more of the above characteristics, job security is pretty important, and it may not be worth the risk to join a startup. One of my friends graduated a year ago, and is now the only one in her family of 5 with an income. Her parents are unemployed and sick, and one of her brothers is about to go to college. Going bankrupt would be disastrous for them. For others, I see no reason not to join a startup if given the opportunity.</p>
<p>I think a good comparison would be investing in the stock market. Those with some extra money would be able to invest, and would be able to withstand a short-term loss. Those who need every paycheck to provide for his or her family may not be able to do so, even though a long-term investment in a variety of sectors is generally a good idea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To this notion, I still have to take exception, for what you are talking about is a level of risk-aversion and/or need for money that is so high that it is a wonder that this person could have even gone to college at all (and, after all, I thought we were restricting this discussion to only college graduates). After all, you don't earn any income from college, except for the rare cases of guys on full scholarships + stipends. The vast majority of people have to pay to go to college, and with no guarantee that they will actually get a good job after they graduate. Heck, many college grads end up with mediocre jobs with mediocre pay that hardly compensates them for what they paid for their degree. I would say that if you and your family really needs money that badly as you have described, how the heck did you even manage to go to college at all? Why didn't you just go straight to the workforce? Then, at least, you'd be making money. </p>
<p>The presumption here, I thought, was about people who could afford to take the time and money to go to college for 4 years. If you can afford that, then I think you can probably afford to try out a startup, at least for a year. Like I've explained, I think the risks are highly exaggerated, for if the startup blows up in a year, so what? You just get another job. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to say that you can't even afford to try a startup for a year, then I have to wonder how the heck you managed to afford college for 4 years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Going bankrupt would be disastrous for them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that is where I take specific exception. Who ever said anything about you personally going bankrupt? Yeah, the startup goes bankrupt. So what? I don't see that as any less disastrous then working for a big employer like Intel and then getting laid off, which is precisely what happened to more than 10k Intel employees last year. </p>
<p>Like I've been saying, whether you were at a startup or a big company, if you lose your job, you just get another job. That's not that hard to do if your skills are topical and the economy is decent. Now, granted, if your skills are not topical and the economy is bad, then it's harder to find another job, but that's true regardless of who you used to work for. </p>
<p>Again, I do not deny that startups are riskier. But I don't think we should exaggerate their risk. Working for a big company is also plenty risky; you can be laid off at any time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another necessary characteristic that's implied in the above quote is the ability to shmooze. Some people are introverted, so it's unlikely they will be know somebody who is creating a startup. So going back to the original question, attending a "good school" may not get you any of the special perks sakky mentioned if you're not social enough
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would argue the opposite. Google co-founder Larry Page ain't exactly the most gregarious person in the world. (Sergey Brin is outgoing, but Page, not so much). In fact, much of the initial Google engineering team consisted of introverts. The same could be said of David Filo and much of the initial core Yahoo engineering team. I could make the argument that introverts actually need to go to a startup-heavy school more so than do outgoing people, precisely because introverts need more help in building the proper social network. An extroverted person may be able to build a good network regardless of where he goes to school.</p>
<p>Perhaps we're thinking of startups at different stages. I was thinking of it in its initial form, where it requires a time <em>and</em> money investment into the company. It seems that you're suggesting joining after there's already a source of funding and after it's been somewhat organized.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say that if you and your family really needs money that badly as you have described, how the heck did you even manage to go to college at all? Why didn't you just go straight to the workforce? Then, at least, you'd be making money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Financial aid...and borrow as much money as you can from wherever you can. My logic is the same as your logic, but with a lower risk. If you're smart enough to be at an institution such as an MIT, I'll bet you anything that you will have the skills to get at least a halfway decent job by the time you graduate. And many things can happen during college and in the year or two after college, such as getting married, having kids, etc. </p>
<p>I'm not familiar with how google and yahoo were formed. If they were introverts, was it by pure chance that they came together to form those companies? If these people lived on opposite ends of the campus (did they?), would the same group of people still be the founders?</p>
<p>Again, the most important question here is how are you defining a startup? A company with 1-5 employees? Less than 10? Less than 50? Something that was created in somebody's head last month? Last year? Something that already has a steady stream of income?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps we're thinking of startups at different stages. I was thinking of it in its initial form, where it requires a time <em>and</em> money investment into the company. It seems that you're suggesting joining after there's already a source of funding and after it's been somewhat organized.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I think that's been pretty clear that that's what I'm talking about. Nowhere in this entire thread have I actually talked about founding a startup. (I have probably talked about that in other threads, but not this one). In fact, I specifically talked about startups in the context of how particular schools can help you get recruited into startups, but if you're a founder, you obviously don't care about that because you don't need to recruit yourself. (At least, I hope you don't). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Financial aid...and borrow as much money as you can from wherever you can. My logic is the same as your logic, but with a lower risk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Financial aid, maybe, although I will deal with that below. But borrowing money? How exactly is that a low-risk strategy? Student debt puts you closer to destitution. Heck, it's worse, because, by law, student debt cannot be wiped out if you declare bankruptcy. Other debts can be wiped out, but not that debt. You can be legally bankrupt, and you'll still have to pay your student loans. </p>
<p>
[quote]
f you're smart enough to be at an institution such as an MIT, I'll bet you anything that you will have the skills to get at least a halfway decent job by the time you graduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And now let me deal with the topic of financial aid. To continue your train of thought, I would argue that if you're smart enough to get into MIT, then you're probably smart enough to get a job right out of high school that will pay you just as much as a financial aid stipend will. After all, how much is a stipend these days? Maybe $22k? I know guys working at UPS right out of high school who make $12.50 an hour, which equals $25k a year if you work fulltime. And trust me, these guys aren't anywhere near as smart as guys at MIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And many things can happen during college and in the year or two after college, such as getting married, having kids, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which gets back to what I was saying before. So, you can have the financial resources to get married and have kids, but you don't have the resources to assume the risk of joining a startup? Really? I don't know about you, but most people that I know won't actually marry and have kids unless they're actually financially stable. This is particularly so for kids who are purportedly smart enough to get into MIT. </p>
<p>To be sure, I suppose that some people will indeed 'accidentally' have kids (although I still can't see how somebody can 'accidentally' get married). While I don't want to be uncompassionate, that speaks to a level of personal irresponsibility. Look, if you're really worried about your financial situation, then you really shouldn't be engaged in unprotected sex. </p>
<p>Maybe even more importantly, I really don't think there is a huge baby boom of unwanted pregnancies at top schools like MIT. Hence, even if this is a problem, it's a problem that affects only a small minority of the student population at schools like that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not familiar with how google and yahoo were formed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Google and Yahoo are just 2 examples of a general theme. Look, the fact is, most tech guys are introverts. That's where the 'geek/nerd' stereotype comes from. A common joke is that tech guys are that way because they are more comfortable interacting with computers than they are with other people. Bill Gates, for example, is a prime example of a tech introvert, in fact, so much so, that many people believe that he actually suffers from Asperger Syndrome. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If they were introverts, was it by pure chance that they came together to form those companies? If these people lived on opposite ends of the campus (did they?), would the same group of people still be the founders?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The answer to your last question is almost certainly no, which speaks to the importance of social networks in startup hiring. Larry and Sergey not only met at Stanford - in fact, they were assigned to the very same Stanford research project that eventually became Google. I think it's quite clear that without that serendipity, Google would not exist today. Yahoo was not an official Stanford research project - indeed, it was a 'renegade project' run in their spare time by 2 Stanford students who were bored with their actual projects - but these were students who shared the same general lab space and hence knew each other that way. </p>
<p>In fact, that speaks to the very genius of schools like Stanford. If Larry and Sergey had gone to different schools, they obviously would never have met each other. But Stanford somehow has a knack of connecting like-minded people. It's as if Stanford is the eHarmony of startup recruiting.</p>
<p>In fact, we can explore the online dating metaphor even further. Let's face it. Handsome and charismatic guys and beautiful women don't need any help finding dates. But antisocial nerds do need help. Schools like Stanford and MIT can serve as that help. So, sure, if you're an outgoing, extroverted person, you don't really need a school like Stanford or MIT, because you're going to find opportunities anyway. But what if you don't have that personality? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, the most important question here is how are you defining a startup? A company with 1-5 employees? Less than 10? Less than 50? Something that was created in somebody's head last month? Last year? Something that already has a steady stream of income
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Any company that is still living on seed/venture financing. Facebook, for example, is still a startup because they're still living on venture financing, even though they have a theoretical market cap of over $15 billion now, and Zuckerberg is therefore already a paper billionaire. </p>
<p>In fact, let's explore the idea of Facebook further. Are you really taking a risk by working for Facebook? Facebook is actually offering higher salaries to Stanford CS students than they would normally get (Facebook is purportedly offering $92k to Stanford BSCS holders just to start; I believe the average starting salary for Stanford BSCS holders is around $75k). Facebook's benefits are legendary - in fact, arguably even better than Google's legendary largesse. For example, in addition to very high salaries, Facebook also provided a $600 monthly housing subsidy. Not even Google did that! {Now, granted, Facebook no longer offers this subsidy to new hires, but existing employees still get it.} </p>
<p>Google</a>, Facebook Battle For Computer Science Grads. Salaries Soar.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Facebook's brand name, in terms of building one's resume, is absolute gold now - frankly, better than Google's. It used to be the case that having the Google brand name on your resume was seen as a sure ticket to getting prime access to top jobs later in your career (as was the case maybe 5 years ago of having Microsoft or Intel on your resume). Now, Facebook is seen as the new hot resume builder from which you can jump to another top job, and in fact, there has been an exodus of people who have quit Google to work for Facebook. </p>
<p>And of course the biggest perk by far of working for Facebook is the opportunity to become an instant millionaire. If you join now, and they have an IPO that is even moderately successful, or they sell themselves at even a fraction of their purported market cap, then you're going to set for life. </p>
<p>So just think about what we're talking about here. Facebook will pay you *far more * than the average. The benefits they provide are simply ridiculous. You have the chance to become filthy rich. You can add a gold-plated name to your resume. And even if Facebook falls down, you still were able to make a very high salary in the meantime, and you can almost assuredly use the Facebook brand name to find another top job. I don't see the downside. </p>
<p>Now, to be sure, there is only 1 Facebook. Facebook is clearly an extreme example, and to get hired there often times means that you had to have personally known Zuckerberg (which means that you probably had to have gone to Harvard). But that simply illustrates the fact that startups come in all manners of shapes and sizes. Surely there is one out there that matches your risk profile. The question is are you going to be able to find it.</p>