<p>Hey</p>
<p>So I have been wondering what colleges I want to go to, and I was wondering if my undergraduate school will count more to be getting into a better job than my graduate school or vice versa?</p>
<p>For example, if I went to University of Chicago for my undergrad, and then MIT for my graduate, will i be more likely to be accepted?</p>
<p>Or, if I went to MIT for undergrad and then University of Chicago for graduate. Will that look worse?</p>
<p>What makes you think these two schools are in different “tiers”?</p>
<p>They aren’t so much of different tiers, but MIT has a lower acceptance rate rather than University of Chicago</p>
<p>I can’t take this site seriously sometimes…</p>
<p>^^ Agree with the above - there are a very few notorious, but powerful, employers who historically demand an HYP undergrad degree. I don’t know if that is true any more, but it basically involves/involved New York banking and law firms.</p>
<p>Chicago? MIT? Third tier all the way. They’re not even Ivies, you might as well have gone to community college. Your resume would be round-filed. For the rest of the world, you would be duly noted as impressive either way.</p>
<p>@ warblersrule ^^ Agreed. I always thought the Graduate degree mattered more, once you obtained it. For example, earning a degree in a ‘soft skill’ like Psych, History, English, Communications, etc… and then proceeding ahead into Law School, or Medical / Dental school … the advanced degree will clearly matter more.</p>
<p>@MrMom62 ^^ I would agree that certain employers or other institutions look for the name of the school on the sheepskin almost more than they look for the qualifications of the student - the old-boy network, so-to-speak, where the guy in the suit on the other side of the desk from the interviewee was also a “Harvard man” for example. Those folks flying in such circles probably don’t have to worry about advanced degrees anyway … your comment “they’re not even Ivies” kinda took me aback for bit …</p>
<p>He was poking fun at OP’s cluelessness.</p>
<p>OP - Chicago and MIT are equally impressive for undergrad. Perhaps depending on what you are studying, one will win out over the other. For grad school, the impressiveness of the undergraduate college is not a factor. The reputation of that department in that grad school is. So for some areas, Chicago is the superior department and for others MIT is. There are other universities, state schools too, that can be superior to either, depending of the field.</p>
<p>“Chicago and MIT are equally impressive for undergrad.” - highly unlikely, especially when you meet the alumni of U of C’s college. However, Chicago and MIT are nearly equally impressive for grad school.</p>
<p>“Where you went for college usually does not matter once you earn a graduate degree.” - Especially in business, many people from top schools don’t bother with grad school. Anybody can get a masters as a paying student from some big name university (e.g. Columbia) which they would have had no chance of attending as an undergrad.</p>
<p>For anyone who’s interested, here’s a recent article on hiring and elite schools:</p>
<p>[Brown</a> and Cornell Are Second Tier - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/brown-and-cornell-are-second-tier/27565]Brown”>Percolator: Brown and Cornell Are Second Tier)</p>
<p>No link to the original article, and you can see in the comments that some are questioning the research, but this attitude no doubt exists in some places.</p>
<p>And in the law world:
[The</a> Pedigree Problem: Are Law School Ties Choking the Profession?](<a href=“The Pedigree Problem: Are Law School Ties Choking the Profession?”>The Pedigree Problem: Are Law School Ties Choking the Profession?)</p>
<p>Neither the Chronicle article nor the linked abstract explain what exactly comprises the “very best law firm, investment bank, or consultancy.” Are we talking about 3 firms? 20? 100? If this concerns dozens rather than thousands of annual hires, then the conclusion is pretty worthless. My friends who rose high in finance did fine with their degrees from Williams, Carleton, and even Big State U. That one must attend HYP is hearsay if we don’t have names & specific numbers.</p>
<p>Cornell grad here with a St John’s law degree. 25 years later, I still get interviews based on “Cornell”.</p>
<p>but MIT has a lower acceptance rate rather than University of Chicago</p>
<p>Oh brother…</p>
<p>lol…as if employers know or really care about that. I doubt most employers really know what the different acceptance rates are…certainly not down to small percentages. And I highly doubt that they know the acceptance rates for the grad schools. </p>
<p>good grief…do you really think that an employer would say, “hmmmm, this kid went to School A with a 5% acceptance rate, and this other kid went to School B with a 10% acceptance rate…so I need to choose the School A kid because he’s going to be better for our company because of his undergrad’s acceptance rate”??? </p>
<p>Do you really think an employer gives a rat’s patootie what some undergrad Adcom decided to accept as being some kind of benchmark for a better employee???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY the point, the firms in question use the admission committees at HYP as screening for their own firms. The thinking is “If they’re good enough for HYP, they’re good enough for us.”</p>
<p>It’s not too hard to find law firms and investment firms that are EXTREMELY selective in where their hires have degrees from, though none of the explicitly advertise it. Try Googling it, the names start to show up eventually, though you’ve likely not heard of most of them.</p>
<p>Unless you’re aiming for a masters at an elite school which accepts virtually anyone with money to blow, why do you think you’ll be able to get into a top 5 grad program? For that matter, the top 5 grad program in your field might be dramatically different than a top 5 UG school and will certainly be a dramatically different experience.</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY the point, the firms in question use the admission committees at HYP as screening for their own firms. The thinking is “If they’re good enough for HYP, they’re good enough for us.”</p>
<p>that’s lazy thinking.</p>
<p>An Adcom is evaluating a 17 year old child. An employer should be evaluating a 22 year old more mature adult. or in the case of the OP, a post grad school person…so maybe age 25+.</p>
<p>Besides, the OP’s issue is MIT vs UChi. Not Cal Tech vs Directional Univ. If an employer s going to be lasy, then if a student is “good enough” for Uchi then he should be good enough for his company. The employer shouldn’t be thinking…but hey, MIT is just a little bit better. Ridiculous…because better stats doesn’t mean better employee.</p>
<p>I think you’re missing the point. The point is not to hire the most qualified, the point is to hire the “right kind” of people. People that their clients will feel comfortable with. Note that this does not include all HYP grads, it is probably a select subset. You can guess who that includes. Yes, this type of thinking still exists. If you’re shocked or outraged, you’re not the “right kind” of people they’re looking for.</p>
<p>“but MIT has a lower acceptance rate rather than University of Chicago”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>For the Class of 2017, MIT had an acceptance rate of 8.2% and UChicago had an acceptance rate of 8.8%. Some of the irrational things people on here say are understandable, but come on…</p>
<p>point is to hire the “right kind” of people.</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>I know that. I’ve said that many times. </p>
<p>the point is to hire the right person. The goal isn’t to hire the person who went to the college with the lowest acceptance rate.</p>
<p>“For the Class of 2017, MIT had an acceptance rate of 8.2% and UChicago had an acceptance rate of 8.8%. Some of the irrational things people on here say are understandable, but come on…”</p>
<p>Chicago’s undergraduate college has absolutely no history or reputation of being elite. Not too long ago it admitted 40% of its applicants. </p>
<p>[Record</a> low acceptance rate: students still drawn by ?life of the mind? ? The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon”>Laureate discusses themes in contemporary poetry – Chicago Maroon)</p>
<p>[U</a> of C acceptance rate hits record low ? The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon”>From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon)</p>
<p>rhg3rd, back in the old days when universities were based on reputation, the College at UChicago was ranked something like #5 (early 1980s). It was absolutely considered an elite school. People like Carl Sagan, Kimberly Peirce, David Brooks, Andrew Alper, David Axelrod, Paul Nitze, John Paul Stevens, etc. would never have attended UChicago if it hadn’t offered an absolutely top class undergraduate education.</p>