<p>@BenFranklin: please, if you can offer proof that you are right and I am wrong, go ahead. In my experience, the origin of a prospective employee’s degree matters far less than that person’s demonstrated capabilities–ESPECIALLY after the first job. Kids from a wide range of institutions get good summer internships and have other opportunities that look impressive on a resume. And again, just simply “having heard of” a university does not mean the hiring manager knows anything about its overall quality of faculty, students’ entering stats, retention rates, and so on. Experience is much more important, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>please review the title to this thread - we are talking about the Stanford, MIT, Ivies of the world when referring to “prestigious/top schools”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are assuming that the non-prestigious school applicant has better qualifications. What happens if the qualifications are the same but one student is from Stanford or Harvard and the other from a middle level state school - who gets the job?</p>
<p>^No, I’m not assuming that at all. And to answer your question, I’d say it depends. If you’re talking about some huge national or multinational corporation, the Stanford or Harvard grad would likely have an edge. I don’t dispute that. But those are not the majority of organizations employing people in this country. </p>
<p>Let me ask you this: you are the hiring manager for a tech company. You have two finalists for an entry-level position: one from Princeton and one from University of Texas. The Princeton graduate did various interesting things each summer and during the school year, but nothing related to CS. The UT grad had an internship at Dell and also a work-study position on campus in the student technology services department. Who would you hire?</p>
<p>Or: you have two candidates, one with a 3.2 from Stanford and one who graduated with a 4.0 and numerous academic awards from Gettysburg College, which you were entirely unfamiliar with when the resumes came across your desk. Other than their college origins, they had about the same qualifications. Who would you hire?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you are giving the better experience to the non-prestigious school. If both students had the same experience, then the decision would be easy, it would go to the Princeton student, particularly because of Princeton’s superiority in computer science over Texas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a really easy decision - the job would go to the Stanford student. I probably would never even interview the Gettysburg student.</p>
<p>Really? I RANDOMLY picked those two schools (Princeton vs. UT). That’s kind of funny. And then you might be right.</p>
<p>I meant to add in my example that the tech company was in Texas. Then would you agree? I do believe hiring is by and large local and that companies favor graduates of schools they have personal familiarity with.</p>
<p>In the second example, really? For sure the top tech company in my area almost always values GPA over pedigree. (And as an aside, some companies have a preference for students from LACs.) So I guess from our sample of two–you and I–both kids would have an equal chance.</p>
<p>Re: post #53</p>
<p>I would agree that the top or elite universities offer significant advantages over most of the rest. Given the choice of admission to an Ivy vs. on-elite university, it’s a no-brainer as to which is the best choice. I think, however, if “cherry-picking” comes into play, it’s when the comparison is between the top private universities and all the rest, as it often is in these CC threads (though clearly, you usually make the appropriate distinctions). There are lots of good options in between. The truth of the matter, however, is that many qualified student will not win acceptance to the very top handful of private universities and/or might not be able to afford them or be willing to take on significant debt (yes, a few offer really generous FA). For many those students, a public flagship might be the best option. I would maintain that for a motivated, serious student, he or she can obtain a education across any number of fields that is as good as or better than he or she would have received at a top/elite private university. It might not be as easy to do so, and he or she must take steps to mitigate certain factors, but it is commonly feasible to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would take a 3.2 GPA from Stanford, the top CS university in the world, any time over a 4.0 GPA from a middle level LAC such as Gettysburg.</p>
<p><gulp> Haha…I REALLY chose badly with my random selections, both in colleges and business fields. Clearly I know nothing about computer science. :)</gulp></p>
<p>^^^^Ha!..Stanford is at the top of “The Group of Five” in the Computer Science field, namely Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley and Princeton.</p>
<p>Benfranklin, you’re not even in college yet. What gives you insight into hiring that those of us with 25 years experience and managing hiring don’t have? With all due respect, high school seniors and college freshmen are in no way equipped to decree “what hiring managers” look for.</p>
<p>Nor are they equipped to decree what are “good jobs” and what aren’t. You all over privilege consulting and banking – without even realizing that banks and consultants wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for clients who actually make things. And golly, they employ people too! And they aren’t always elite-school grads!</p>
<p>“You are assuming that the non-prestigious school applicant has better qualifications. What happens if the qualifications are the same but one student is from Stanford or Harvard and the other from a middle level state school - who gets the job?”</p>
<p>Whoever presents himself better in the interview. That’s a big fat duh.</p>
<p>“However, people that run companies certainly do know the elite schools. Obviously this depends on the company, as the people at your local supermarket or shopping mall probably won’t know the first thing about colleges. But to think that employers don’t know elite institutions is pretty ridiculous”</p>
<p>Nope, it’s reality. It’s very regionally driven and driven by familiarity, not true knowledge.</p>
<p>I think the student body, the atmosphere, the professors and the general opportunities. You can probably do fine anywhere if you’re reasonably intelligent and hardworking, but from my personal experience- the student body really affects me and it’s important for me to be in places where there are people who share my interests.</p>
<p>Due to a move, I now attend a small school where kids are fixated on academics (but in an “annoying” way- comparing grades 24/7) and have known each other for more than 10 years. Furthermore, the school is broke and I really resent the administration’s attitude towards things. This might just be a cultural difference, but I really do not like it very much and I would absolutely die or become depressed if I had to go to schools that graduates of my HS attend. On the other hand- kids who attend/graduate from my old high school, which sends lots of students to top schools are a lot more fun to be around. My old school was also significantly wealthier and had many more resources and was really an environment I liked. </p>
<p>Also, top schools (obviously depending on the school), have many amazing departments. For students that are fixated on one certain profession/have a deep passion for something, the top tier schools will be better knowledge wise and may even aid in professional/graduate school applications. I personally would like to go into academia, so this is important for me.</p>
<p>So tl;dr- atmosphere matters.</p>
<p>Again, both statements can be true - elite schools offer great opportunities, and people can and do succeed without them, and more than just “once in a blue moon.”</p>
<p>^I agree.</p>
<p>But if you read what the OP was saying, he is choosing to go to a “lesser” school because it has better parties (without having any idea if this is true), a bigger sports scene, and more people. Which is undeniably ridiculous.</p>
<p>There are smart kids at every school. Someone in every class has a 4.0, is personable, and works hard. And no matter what school these kids go to, they will probably be successful in life. I saw a great analogy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually don’t enjoy drinking or traditional college partying- so another reason I am interested in the top schools.</p>
<p>^ecouter, if you think there isn’t drinking and partying at “top” schools, you are in for a shock.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the tech company is in Silicon Valley, it is more likely to recruit at Stanford because it is local. Gettysburg is unlikely to be on the radar due to distance, small size, and not being especially known for CS.</p>
<p>However, if experienced people apply, then the colleges fade in importance compared to actual experience.</p>
<p>A better example would be San Jose State versus Dartmouth – where is a Silicon Valley computer company more likely recruit for CS graduating seniors and interns?</p>