You aren't where you went

College Search & Selection
21

<p>

</p>

<p>You hit on a key point there. Going to a prestigious school doesn’t mean you’re more qualified than somebody who went to a mediocre school. However, there are plenty of qualified people out there, and given two similar candidates you’d rather take the Yale graduate over the some-mediocre-school graduate. </p>

<p>Then you have to factor in the alumni connection. Once that Yale graduate gets into a position to be able to hire people, chances are that the new jobs will also go to Yale graduates, so this process kind of feeds on itself. The last company I worked for, as well as my current company, hired me because I went to the same undergrad as both VP’s. I’d say I’m qualified, but was I significantly more qualified than all the other people sitting in the room? Probably not. In the future, when I’m in a position to hire people, you can count on the fact that I’ll look for alums of my alma mater.</p>

22

<p>Silly me. A good job is definitely important. However the majority of people we know that OWN their own companies are not graduates of Ivies. Those people like to hire smart people, possibly from top tier schools, but that doesn’t mean those people have a clue what to do when they get hired. Everyone must get trained. That’s where the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Look, the smartest and wealthiest guy I know went to a small midwestern LAC, and his father had a 9th grade education and he is the second wealthiest person I know. We are talking billions not just millions wealthy. It is very true that the more you put into it the more you will get out of it.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>If you want to talk about entrepreneurship, there is a boatload of academic literature that specifically details the nexus between certain ‘gateway’ schools (i.e. Stanford, Harvard, MIT) and entrepreneurship. Facebook, for example, was founded by 3 roommates at Harvard. Google was founded by 2 Stanford students who were assigned to work on the same research project. Harmonix (developer of Guitar Hero) was founded by 2 guys who met at MIT. </p>

<p>Granted, Stanford and MIT obviously aren’t Ivies, but the general point stands. It has been proven time and time again that certain schools strongly foster entrepreneurship and new business creation. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know, does everybody need to get trained? Most of the early employees of Facebook were Harvard buddies of the founders. Exactly what training did those early employees? In fact, in the early days of Facebook, it was hard to find anybody at the company who was even old enough to buy alcohol. Similarly, most of the early employees at Google were Stanford pals of Sergey and Larry. Again, who trained them? </p>

<p>Look, the fact of the matter is that when a company is first started, especially a high-tech startup, you don’t really go out to hire the truly ‘smartest people’ per se. Frankly, you don’t even have the time or resources to think about that. What you really end up doing is hiring your friends because that’s who you know. After all, if nothing else, at least you know you can get along with your friends. Ever work with somebody that you know is smart, but that people in the office personally hate? I have (at a large company). Trust me, it sucks. It drains productivity at a large company. In a startup, it will probably kill the company, because startups don’t have margin for error. Hence, if nothing else, at least you know you don’t hate your friends.</p>

<p>And, the fact is, college is an excellent opportunity to meet new friends who will be going places. I still keep in touch with my old roommate, including one who is a millionaire from his high-tech startup that he founded. That’s the advantage of social networks. Surely we’ve all heard the phrase ‘It’s not what you know, it’s who you know’.</p>

24

<p>But you keep mixing up UG at Harvard/Stanford with graduate schools. Those people that started Google went to no namebrand UG.
And Bill Gates and the Facebook guy, Mark Z, are both Harvard drop outs. So the bottom line is entrepreneur is the way to go to make loads of money.</p>

<p>[#785</a> Mark Zuckerberg - Forbes.com](<a href=“Forbes List Directory”>Forbes List Directory)</p>

25

<p>Oh, if only it were so easy as just getting into the right school. </p>

<p>Yes, it can certainly be about “who you know,” but those networks are established in all sorts of venues, and some of the stongest have nothing to do with where you, or your connections, went to school. I consider myself very well connected in my field from coast to coast, but all of those connections were established through my professional work and associations. Not a single one is related to my college affiliation. </p>

<p>Bottom line is that those who can deliver the goods, have good social networking skills, and professional acumen, will do very well no matter what college they attend. </p>

<p>As a hiring officer I seek out the best performers, not those with the best college pedigree. If that person has both, great. However, proven ability trumps all. There are exceptions. Various forms of nepotism certainly exist, but it’s mostly about talent.</p>

26

<p>What are the implications of the “who you know” emphasis on kids who go to small, but prestigious liberal arts schools? I’m headed to a Top 15 (ALMOST Top 10) school this fall, and since it has a small student body, I don’t anticipate ever finding myself being interviewed for a job by a fellow alumnus. Would an LAC student’s luck with connections have to depend on his grad school? I understand that “who you know” isn’t everything, I just thought I’d toss another variable into the discussion.</p>

27

<p>superdigg,</p>

<p>There is no implication, because it doesn’t matter where you go! If you have the same intelligence (there are <em>many</em> kinds of intelligence), drive, discipline, as the students admitted to elite Universities, then you will do equally well in life.</p>

<p>P.S. I find the reduction of success to mean monetary success pitful.</p>

28

<p>Of course not! You will become homeless if you don’t go to an ivy-calibre school</p>

29

<p>My dad does hiring for a major Fortune 500 company. </p>

<p>He has told me countless times that where you go to school really doesn’t matter, as long as you have a degree and the right personal characteristics. During interviews, your future employer may bring up the topic of college, but it’s most likely just to make conversation and learn more about you as a person. Seriously, where a candidate went to school is not something they give much consideration to. In the real world, degree is a degree. Personal characteristics (such as drive, motivation, and integrity) are far more important.</p>

30

<p>^yea… I know someone who got an engineering ph.D from Duke University but is now working as the manager of his wife’s dental office (who went to Tufts Dental School)</p>

31

<p>Although it’s not about where you go… going where you want to be makes a difference.</p>

32

<p>…soo many flaws in some of the previous arguments. </p>

<p>Yes, it’s true that companies like microsoft, google, and the like all threw it, or still throw it, back to college buddies, but that’s just it. Management threw it back to COLLEGE buddies (I didn’t give a specific name did I?). </p>

<p>Well good job, we’ve made an astounding discovery: places like Harvard and Stanford are colleges (i.e. educational institutes). In the most forward way, you’ve proven the point of this thread right. There are plenty of successful firms that didn’t start from HYPS grads that also employed the “employ your college buddies” methodology, it’s not just exclusive to top schools. </p>

<p>So the true point is, obviously ignoring the losers who don’t even know what they’re arguing, it’s not where you go, it’s just that you went (and hopefully met some people).</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>No I did not. After all, many of the early employees at Google were Stanford undergrads. That’s the point. Furthermore, the entire idea for Google wasn’t spawned until Sergey and Larry met each other at Stanford. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, the bottom line is that, if you don’t have the business idea yourself, then the next best thing is to be buddies with somebody who does. After all, like I said, most of Facebook’s early employees were Zuckerberg’s (and the other cofounders) Harvard pals. </p>

<p>And Gates and Zuckerberg themselves reinforce the point even further: at least they went to Harvard. In fact, doing so almost certainly made them even more confident and risk-tolerant. After all, what was the worst thing that would happen to them? If their business fails, big deal, they would just go back to Harvard. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is it? The real question is, how do you know who has talent? How do you know who has proven ability? Remember, we’re talking about college kids with no work history. How exactly do these guys “prove their talent”? They can’t. That’s the point. They have to be hired through some other means.</p>

<p>Again, taking it back to the Facebook example, most of the early engineering team were former Harvard pals of the cofounders. Exactly what sort of work history could they have? Many of them weren’t even old enough to buy alcohol. Do you even think the company went through a formal hiring process? Almost certainly not. Most likely, it was just a case of one of the cofounders asking his buddies one day if they wanted to join their new business venture. That’s how startups are when they’re just starting up. </p>

<p>You say that social networks are established in numerous venues, and that is obviously true, but the question is, exactly how many venues do young college kids have? College is all they got. Sure, if you have decades of work experience, you can access a wide range of venues. But that fact doesn’t help the college student. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. At least you know you can get along with your friends. Just being able to work with people is crucial to productivity. It’s a heck of a lot better than working with somebody who is ‘talented’ but is also a jerk. Put another way, I would far prefer to work with an untalented friend than with a highly talented jerk. I think most people would agree. Now, if you want to call that nepotism, then so be it, but I would just say that it’s just good business sense.</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>And let me stop you right there. The presumption in your statement is that the person got the interview. Sure, I agree, once a person has reached that point, then college probably doesn’t matter much. But, for the most desirable firms, most candidates can’t even get an interview. This is especially true of new college graduates who have no prior work history. Whether we like it or not, for these people, college brand name is one of the most common screening factors for determining whether somebody will even get an interview.</p>

<p>Consider the hiring practices of Google:</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.</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>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, no, that’s not the true point. The actual true point is that some schools will expose you to a group of people with higher potential than will other schools, thereby increasing your chances of meeting that ‘special someone’. Certainly, no guarantees. But the chances are higher. </p>

<p>It’s like if you’re a woman who’s looking to meet an amazing man who will be your future husband, you have to go to where the men are. And not just any place where there are men, but a place where there are lots of men who are single and who are successful, tall, and handsome. That’s how you maximize your chances. </p>

<p>Now, don’t get me wrong. Nobody is saying that any college will guarantee success. Nothing can guarantee success. It’s all a matter of improving your odds.</p>

36

<p>I read an interesting article a few years ago that explored the link between the college one attends and future earnings prospects. It cited research that had been done on a large number of 1976 high school graduates and explored the relationship between the status of the college they attended and their future economic success. It wasn’t particularly surprising to read that the Ivy League cohort did better than the average (though less than I might have imagined) - yet the top future earners were the Ivy League Rejects. Presumably people of high ability and ambition but who, for whatever reason, just didn’t make the cut. Of course, for most of these disappointed High School Seniors, the choice they faced probably wasn’t between Princeton or Beautician School. I’m guessing that they generally found themselves at other top institutions. However, the article seemed to suggest that this group left college with a greater ambition to succeed than their Ivy-educated peers. Make of that what you will.
Another point. In my career I’ve interviewed and hired hundreds of people. I have to say that an Ivy degree is impresssive and likely to be noticed, but the key driver of any hiring decision has to be on 1) relevant experience 2) demonstrated career success and 3) the right personality fit between a candidate and the business. An Ivy degree will really only ever open the door to a first or second job. The playing field quickly evens out after a couple of years in employment.</p>

37

<p>sakky:</p>

<p>I’ll cut you a break, you’re probably tired after the flurry of posts that came prior to mine. </p>

<p>Perhaps you’re a wannabe-ivy-leaguer, or perhaps you think that talent can’t exist anywhere but, however the flaw in that assumption is fairly evident. You give the nation’s top 10 a bit too much credit, and you fail to recognize the other side of this forum: the one populated by the smart, talented, and driven kids who DIDN’T make it to the ivy leagues. </p>

<p>I agree that some while schools might give you a better opportunity to expose * yourself * to a group of people with a higher potential (i.e. a third-tier vs. a first-tier), no school will do all the work for you. </p>

<p>If you hang out with just athletes at harvard, you’ll most likely glean less than if you hang around the investment club at UW-Madison. </p>

<p>Maximizing your chances doesn’t just come from attending one of a handful of schools. With this generation’s college turn out, the amount of “first rate” institutions is growing quicker than anyone predicted (mainly because the original “top schools” don’t have enough space to admit all of the talented students that apply). Plenty of grads from my high school got admitted to top LAC’s and engineering schools, but went down to UIUC instead (why pay $50k/yr when you can get the same degree cheaper, and just do the grad work there later). </p>

<p>I’m not completely arguing against you, I’m just saying you have to open your eyes and realize the caliber of college student today is changing dramatically. Flagship state schools like UCB, U Mich, UIUC, UF are becoming ivy-prospects back-ups and, due to the selectivity of ivies, eventually where rejects will most likely matriculate. </p>

<p>I’m arguing that after a certain point (i.e. the perceived quality of an education), where you go no longer matters. This contention is obviously rooted on the assumption that once a student reaches the top of “tier-two” or enters the “tier-one” category, student bodies become, for the most part, homogeneous (in terms of talent). </p>

<p>Using your example of finding a husband, some could argue that just being in a place with great quantities, and subsequently diversity, places one in a better position. To assume a majority of men at school X (in your example) are handsome, smart, or whatever quality you’re looking for, is probably as crazy as an assumption as you can make. Plenty of schools deans of admissions go on the record saying that they aren’t trying to build a class of valedictorians, or student body presidents, they’re trying to build a diverse class. I visited my friend at Harvard, and can tell you first off: not everyone there is the next Bill Gates, or Zuckerberg (hate to break it to you). Some people there are just (sorry to say this as well, I know this’ll crush some people) regular students/kids who don’t know what they want to be but did well in high school. </p>

<p>I guess to recap because this was a long post (sorry):</p>

<p>I partially agree, some schools have more talented student bodies than others, however, I contend more school have high levels of motivated and talented students than just the few schools with ivy-rotted brick + stanford. </p>

<p>And though I won’t go completely on the record for this, flagship state schools might be the next-best place to meet future zuckerbergs (purely due ivy-selectivity). This point is fairly debatable, though, and in the sake of fairness, I think only time can develop it as false or true.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t recall anybody saying UCB, UMich, UIUC aren’t in the same league as Stanford, the Ivy’s, MIT, etc. because they are.</p>

39

<p>Yeah, sorry Sakky, but I thought the main point went beyond the acquisition of the first job. If it’s the ease of employment fresh out of college I might give an Ivy degree the edge depending on the region. However, for the long haul, beyond the first job, I stand by my earlier comments. There’s a limit to how far college pedigree can take you. I agree with drmambo that a few years out of college and it’s a moot point.</p>

<p>Moreover, I would hire the kid from State U. who has demonstrated aggressive interest and research related to my business over the one from an Ivy who is smart, but less accomplished relative to demonstrated interest or ability. The idea that the only thing that distinguishes college grads from one another is the school they attend couldn’t be more misguided. Your assessment is overly simplistic.</p>

<p>Also, what you completely overlook is that in some parts of the country employers are far more likely to seek out and hire a State U. grad. In my State, HYPS grads are not put ahead of the State flagship grads by any means. Using your theory, students that want to work here would be better off at State U --even for their first job. State U. has much stronger alumni networks and influence here than any Ivy.</p>

40

<p>I think what sakky is more interested in, considering the pedigree of most on this site, is the so-called “top employers.” Most people on this site are overly obsessed with being McKinseyites, Deloiteians, Microsoft Drones (get it? Borg reference? I’m clever ;)), or Northroputians. </p>

<p>In that regard, the Harvard degree does probably have a significant edge over the UNC degree.</p>