Engineering and nursing are two areas that if you don't go to a top school, it's okay..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

This person gets it.

PP, just admit that kids have more varied career options from top schools…and yes, it is specific to both the school and what they are studying.

It’s not expensive insurance because insurance would just be getting a job somewhere…it’s more like a highly valued call option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. If one wants to work at the highest levels of Engineering(top tech consulting, tech startup culture, R&D that requires a PhD), then you need a top school especially in a down economy. School matters more when the job market is slower. Look what is happening to CS: hiring has significantly slowed and unemployment is up...at all but the prestigious names (top privates such as 6 of the ivies, stanford, CMU, MIT and very top publics, UCB, GT, Mich, UIUC...). The same group of schools produces the highest chance of top tier engineering jobs.

Not in my experience. Some of the most successful engineers I know (making 7 figure salaries at faang type companies) have degrees from little known state schools.

Success is not always the highest pay. The tenured profs with patents at the most prestigious schools as well as CEOs, VP, of multiple startups and leaders of national labs often carry degrees from the same 20ish schools. These same schools are overrepresented at the most prestigious levels of engineering, medicine, basic science research and development. It is not some accident. Being a student at an undergraduate institution where the expectations and possibilities are endless is part of what makes these places high demand. It is not just ivies there are several top privates and a few top publics that are on a similar level. One can get to the top from other schools but it is much easier when surrounded by the highest level of peers and faculty as well as undergraduate resources that promote early entry into science research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

Yes yes and yes. We were given similar advice by family in the field of engineering, and they strongly encouraged top schools for this reason, even helped us evaluate stem curricula

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

I wouldn’t group all “publics” together here. Two or Three are in the Top 5 of all engineering colleges. Just sayin.

You're absolutely right and that's exactly the point I was trying to make. With three publics in the T5 who needs Ivy League or other private colleges for engineering. If you can get into Cal, GT (even OOS for GT) or Michigan, or any of the other top-tier public engineering programs, paying private tuition becomes even harder to justify.

These top public programs consistently outrank Ivy League schools in engineering rankings, have stronger industry connections, more comprehensive research facilities, and alumni networks that are often more relevant to engineering careers. Why would you pay $60k annually for lesser programs at private schools?

Because the peers are a much higher level, the faculty have more resources to have undergraduates in the lab in paid positions, there are increased chances for top stem internships, and the prestigious schools open a wider variety of top-level doors in the stem world.
DS is a rising junior at an ivy with engineering. He got accepted to a prestigious lab research program for 10 weeks of paid cutting edge research. There are ties to industry as well as phD as well as DOD connections. 30% of all students selected are from elite private or top-5 stem publics. That is overrepresentation considering they are required to have some from primarily undergraduate institutions. Furthermore the students in his program are 2/3 rising seniors, 1/3 rising juniors. The rising juniors are almost entirely ivy/stanford/JHU/UCB/GT type schools. Selection is based on courses taken and some prior experience in colleges with research and lab techniques.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

Exactly. The reason IB and Consulting value engineering students is because of the trained thinking. Engineering necessitates real world solutions to real world problems. And engineers tend to be both the best educated and the most practical. It's very valuable - both as a skillset and a mindset. Now as to why a Princeton engineering grad is more valuable than a UIUC engineering grad? They're not really. But Wall Street and consulting remain very antiquated in where they recruit. It is always 1955 in finance. But it does give those who graduate from T20 schools with good engineering programs the option of pursuing interesting and very lucrative options on the money side of engineering.

I have an engineering student at one of these schools. I always tell DC if Space doesn't work out, there's always Titan of Wall Street to fall back on. And like every genuine aspirational engineer, that's met with dismissive eye rolling. Natural engineers want to build things and figure things out. But with NASA being devastated and all the drama with SpaceX and Musk, maybe helping private investors find good opportunities in that field would be an interesting thing to do. And that's an opportunity DC might have - entirely because of the school brand. So in that sense the degree name is valuable, because it maintains options in the very oldfangled and archaic world of IB/PE/MBB recruiting. And those are potential opportunities that are not there for equally talented students at non-T20 schools. It's the dinosaur mentality of Wall Street that gives engineering students at certain schools more opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nurses can graduate as an RN in 2 years from a community college.

No.

Agree. No one’s 18 yr old should be going this route unless they absolutely must bc they can’t afford a 4 yr degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

Exactly. The reason IB and Consulting value engineering students is because of the trained thinking. Engineering necessitates real world solutions to real world problems. And engineers tend to be both the best educated and the most practical. It's very valuable - both as a skillset and a mindset. Now as to why a Princeton engineering grad is more valuable than a UIUC engineering grad? They're not really. But Wall Street and consulting remain very antiquated in where they recruit. It is always 1955 in finance. But it does give those who graduate from T20 schools with good engineering programs the option of pursuing interesting and very lucrative options on the money side of engineering.

I have an engineering student at one of these schools. I always tell DC if Space doesn't work out, there's always Titan of Wall Street to fall back on. And like every genuine aspirational engineer, that's met with dismissive eye rolling. Natural engineers want to build things and figure things out. But with NASA being devastated and all the drama with SpaceX and Musk, maybe helping private investors find good opportunities in that field would be an interesting thing to do. And that's an opportunity DC might have - entirely because of the school brand. So in that sense the degree name is valuable, because it maintains options in the very oldfangled and archaic world of IB/PE/MBB recruiting. And those are potential opportunities that are not there for equally talented students at non-T20 schools. It's the dinosaur mentality of Wall Street that gives engineering students at certain schools more opportunities.

Non Ivy parents will never understand. It is ok.

[Anonymous]

If it was about trained thinking instead of prestige schools like Georgia Tech would have good IB placement, which they dont. Even MIT is subpar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you can't get a job in investment banking with an engineering degree from Illinois. This seems to be the common fall back of someone who themselves or their kids sacrificed so much to squeeze a bit extra out of their GPA or test scores to be admitted to the most selective schools.

People who insist you need an engineering degree from a top private college to get hired at top companies are basically stuck in their own heads. They only notice the MIT grad at Google or Apple while completely ignoring all the state school engineers killing it at the same companies. Even when you show them that Apple and Tesla hire from everywhere and care way more about what you can actually do, they dig in deeper.

Admitting a state school grad might be just as hireable feels like their sacrifice was pointless. So instead of dealing with that uncomfortable truth, they just keep insisting the elite private college degree matters more than actual engineering skills and problem solving ability. And when called out on this, they throw out a red herring about IB and private equity hiring from top privates while completely ignoring that finance firms hire for prestige and connections, not engineering skills

I don’t think anyone has dug in…you seem to not be able to understand what multiple posters have said…that the top schools provide a ton of optionality in your career, which again is why nearly 50% of grads from top schools don’t end up working in engineering.

The top IBs, PEs, etc particularly love engineering and other STEM majors at those schools which is why the engineering schools are able to place so many grads into those jobs.

I think others also agree that if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company and you really know that’s what you want…then save the $$$s.

I agree with: "if you just want to get an engineering job at a large company...then save the $$$s." That's exactly what I've been saying. The optionality you're describing is just expensive career insurance that most engineers don't need and probably only valuable at career outset as I'm sure a transition to IB mid-career is tough or impossible regardless of school attended.

If nearly 50% of engineering grads from elite schools don't even work in engineering, which suggests the engineering education isn't what's valuable, it's the schoolsl brand and networking. Furthermore, this makes the engineering degree even less valuable to practicing engineers from these schools as you will have a tiny alumni network in your field.

When you say IBs and PE firms love engineering majors from those schools, you're conflating correlation with causation. Goldman Sachs isn't recruiting Harvard engineers because they mastered thermodynamics, they're recruiting them because of prestige signaling, alumni networks, and credential screening, meaning it's just easier to recruit from a few elite schools than evaluate talent broadly. The engineering degree is incidental, and physics or maths would work just as well.

As an engineer (mechanical) with a dual degree in Math and Engineering, and 20 years in IB, you’re close but missing a key point. The engineering degree is not incidental. I specifically go after engineering grads from top schools because they’re usually better at applied problem solving in the real world compared to physics or math majors.

Most (not all) physics/math programs are highly theoretical. Engineering programs, on the other hand, force students to apply their knowledge where internships, labs, and team projects are the norm. That practical, systems level experience translates directly to the kind of fast, real-world outside the box problem solving we need in IB/PE. So yes, prestige and networks matter, but the training does, too. If I wanted pure theory, I’d hire math PhDs. And we do. We do hire Math PhDs, but not for what we are discussing here. For entry level IB/PE jobs, I will take an Engineer from a top schools over any other engineer at a lower school or Math/Physics majors at the same top schools.

Yes yes and yes. We were given similar advice by family in the field of engineering, and they strongly encouraged top schools for this reason, even helped us evaluate stem curricula

So the engineer was hired for IB/PE job because he worked in a soil engineering lab? Ok , whatever works for you .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

They don’t have equivalent career outcomes. Top privates have better outcomes because they are smaller and have higher caliber graduates.

I don’t even understand your point. Small may be great for liberal arts but not for engineering. Think about it. GT, Cal, and Illinois aren't producing great engineers despite their size, they're producing them because of it. When you have 50 faculty members in one department instead of 5, you get cutting edge research, diverse expertise, and opportunities that small programs simply can't match.

This is why the truly elite engineering schools, whether public like Cal and GT or private like MIT and Stanford, are all substantial in size. Even the small elite privates aren't actually small. MIT has more than 11,000 students and Stanford has more than 17,000.

Small programs often mean limited options. Want to switch from mechanical to aerospace? Sorry, we don't offer that. Interested in AI applications in civil engineering? Our one CS professor is already overloaded.

The alumni networks at large schools aren't weaker, they're exponentially stronger. There are more GT grads in engineering leadership roles than graduates from most small programs combined.

Are you arguing MIT, Caltech, and Stanford are bigger than public schools? We are talking about undergraduates here.

Top privates simply have better students on average. That’s a fact.

Just stop. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it was about trained thinking instead of prestige schools like Georgia Tech would have good IB placement, which they dont. Even MIT is subpar.

No, it’s just that they attract a different set of kids with different goals.

MIT does extremely well with finance placement which is a large industry beyond just IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it was about trained thinking instead of prestige schools like Georgia Tech would have good IB placement, which they dont. Even MIT is subpar.

You are so off base and wrong with your bogus made of facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was about trained thinking instead of prestige schools like Georgia Tech would have good IB placement, which they dont. Even MIT is subpar.

No, it’s just that they attract a different set of kids with different goals.

MIT does extremely well with finance placement which is a large industry beyond just IB.

Bingo!