Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK -- keep pacifying yourself if you want to

Yea ok. Well I hope that your children are able to fulfill the path that you have chosen for them and they are happy doing it. I hope that your kid is one of the relatively low % of kids who gets into a "highly ranked" school. What some of us with more perspective are trying to say is that fit is more important than rank - that is if you care more about your child than their Wall Street employability.

GL

Not PP that made the comment you quoted and I do understand the importance of fit for sure, but at the same time as someone who has faced what recruiting is like the last 10-15 years through my siblings and myself and now younger siblings going through it...it is certainly true that more than a few career avenues get virtually shut-off for non-stem grads due to not attending a 'target' or 'semi-target'.

As much as admissions seems more egalitarian now than in the 70's or 80's, I also think many employers even outside of WS or Consulting have become bigger and bigger prestige whores compared to decades before.

Megan McArdle, Ron Unz, Charles Murray and even some writers on the other side of the political/philosophical spectrum have written about this phenomenon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK -- keep pacifying yourself if you want to

Yea ok. Well I hope that your children are able to fulfill the path that you have chosen for them and they are happy doing it. I hope that your kid is one of the relatively low % of kids who gets into a "highly ranked" school. What some of us with more perspective are trying to say is that fit is more important than rank - that is if you care more about your child than their Wall Street employability.

GL

Good response. Very measured compared to the brat you were responding to.

Anonymous wrote:OK -- keep pacifying yourself if you want to

Yea ok. Well I hope that your children are able to fulfill the path that you have chosen for them and they are happy doing it. I hope that your kid is one of the relatively low % of kids who gets into a "highly ranked" school. What some of us with more perspective are trying to say is that fit is more important than rank - that is if you care more about your child than their Wall Street employability.

GL

OK -- keep pacifying yourself if you want to

As a parent of 3 college students and a Talent Resource Officer at a Fortune 500, I will say that rankings are a resource to help target your search…..however...

I cannot say this enough, but you should send your kid to a school where they can be happy and successful and where they will not be overwhelmed.

With some exceptions, employers would rather hire a superstar from a good school (excellent grades, active on campus, interesting work experience) over a mediocre student from an elite school.

Let’s face it, all of our kids are not cut out for an Ivy. I remember the old adage that 50% of students will be in the bottom half of their class. So it is important that you realistically evaluate the cultural, social and academic fit for your kid. It would be great if that fit is an Ivy or “highly ranked” college – but it may not be and that is fine too.

Anonymous wrote:In some cases, what matters more is how the individual program is regarded vs how the school ranks as a whole. DW's school is down the list as far as US News goes, but she majored in accounting and her uni places in the top 10 in the country for pass rate on the CPA. She passed it the first time and had multiple offers right out of college. DD is interested in fashion design and as far as traditional 4 year colleges go, the highest ranked ones are Kent State, U of Cincinnati, and Oregon State. None of them make the USNWR 100 list, but for that major they are top picks.

+1. My DD attends a school that USNWR has in the lower quarter of the top 100. Yet the school is ranked Top 10 in her major and she is getting opportunities left and right. Honestly, for a kid who knows what they want to do, a higher ranking in major is MUCH important than overall ranking. Those schools have the networks in place to draw the top employers in those fields.

Most of the schools in that list are in the top of the heap of 3000+ colleges in the country. NYU, BC, Anerican, Pace, and of course U Chicago -- none of them are ivies, but I'd bet they're all in the top 100.

Also, given that each ivy takes 1000-2000 kids per class, and not all of these kids want to go into finance, it would be numerically impossible for all the financial firms on Wall Street to recruit just from ivies.

Anonymous wrote:

My advice was hardly "shit" (in your oddly offensive choice of terms).

Out of curiosity, I went to look and see where the top executives of Goldman Sachs went to undergrad. A couple of them did not list their undergrad degree, but the others were decidedly non-top brand names. The schools included University of Texas, Pace, American, University of Rome, Chicago, Boston College, and NYU. Paulson went to Harvard, but he was one of the few Ivy Leaguers ( although a few had Wharton MBAs). These are the cream of the crop and I suspect their success has more to do with what they can do, not which brand-name degree is on the wall.

The advice to go to the "highest ranking" school you can is more like the "shit" of which you speak. And don't get me started on starting out life $200,000 in debt chasing that brass degree.

I'm not the PP you're arguing with, but perhaps you can't see why it might be a big difficult to take you seriously. Was this a joke? Chicago is ranked #4 in the country; if that's not "top brand name," I'm not sure what is. Was your point that not every CEO comes from Harvard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some fields, if you want a job -- you need to go to a top-ranked school to even get an interview. In these tough economic times -- it is best to go to the highest ranked school you can get into.

This is truly terrible advice. What you do in college has a lot more to do with your future than where you went. Almost nobody hires people for their pedigree anymore. People get hired for what they can do. Now a lot of top individuals go to top schools, but it's not the brand name that puts a shine on them, it's their character, the same character that probably got them into the school to start with.

In these economic times, employers know that not everybody can afford an expensive top school. Many top students are now in state schools. Employers want to hire the best, not the most privileged.

which is why Princeton history majors that have never touched excel ever get positions at Goldman in M&A and IBD which is heavily excel modeling intensive while a finance major at UMD who can run a DCF and other valuation models RARELY if ever gets a shot a it.

Your advice is shit for non-stem, high finance/strategy consulting places.

My advice was hardly "shit" (in your oddly offensive choice of terms).

Out of curiosity, I went to look and see where the top executives of Goldman Sachs went to undergrad. A couple of them did not list their undergrad degree, but the others were decidedly non-top brand names. The schools included University of Texas, Pace, American, University of Rome, Chicago, Boston College, and NYU. Paulson went to Harvard, but he was one of the few Ivy Leaguers ( although a few had Wharton MBAs). These are the cream of the crop and I suspect their success has more to do with what they can do, not which brand-name degree is on the wall.

The advice to go to the "highest ranking" school you can is more like the "shit" of which you speak. And don't get me started on starting out life $200,000 in debt chasing that brass degree.

Do or Did you work on WS in the last 10-15 years? or f100/f500 Corporate Development (i.e. the internal "bankers" that develop in-organic growth acquisition strategy)...for example Disney, Nike, Google C.Dev/C.Strat?

The top WS execs now got into the game 20+ years ago. The recruiting landscape has shifted a hell of a lot in the last 10-15 years in terms of on-campus recruiting, target schools, etc. More and more companies have gotten more structured in terms of recruiting on getting in 'off-cycle' is brutally hard.

Furthermore even when you leave WS and want to go into industry into an interesting strategy position that's visible to execs, they ask for 2-4+ years of top IB/Consulting experience.

I'm not saying you can't get there without an ivy degree, but life is all about the odds and the way the game is structured right now in certain fields or positions within industry, the odds are heavily tilted towards 'target' schools.

Schools represented at the goldman team i interviewed at two months ago: D, YLS, HBS, Y, HLS, Chicago, MIT.

I just know way too many smart people who went to public schools at honors colleges in non-stem who have good jobs but could have got rockstar jobs if recruiting was more egalitarian from UG.

And conversely I know too many Ivy history and government majors who got picked up into trading, consulting, idb positions out of UG...while they might have only stayed for 2-3 years, it opened up the really interesting and cool jobs in industry that are high visibility and give great career growth trajectories.

In some cases, what matters more is how the individual program is regarded vs how the school ranks as a whole. DW's school is down the list as far as US News goes, but she majored in accounting and her uni places in the top 10 in the country for pass rate on the CPA. She passed it the first time and had multiple offers right out of college. DD is interested in fashion design and as far as traditional 4 year colleges go, the highest ranked ones are Kent State, U of Cincinnati, and Oregon State. None of them make the USNWR 100 list, but for that major they are top picks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some fields, if you want a job -- you need to go to a top-ranked school to even get an interview. In these tough economic times -- it is best to go to the highest ranked school you can get into.

This is truly terrible advice. What you do in college has a lot more to do with your future than where you went. Almost nobody hires people for their pedigree anymore. People get hired for what they can do. Now a lot of top individuals go to top schools, but it's not the brand name that puts a shine on them, it's their character, the same character that probably got them into the school to start with.

In these economic times, employers know that not everybody can afford an expensive top school. Many top students are now in state schools. Employers want to hire the best, not the most privileged.

which is why Princeton history majors that have never touched excel ever get positions at Goldman in M&A and IBD which is heavily excel modeling intensive while a finance major at UMD who can run a DCF and other valuation models RARELY if ever gets a shot a it.

Your advice is shit for non-stem, high finance/strategy consulting places.

My advice was hardly "shit" (in your oddly offensive choice of terms).

Out of curiosity, I went to look and see where the top executives of Goldman Sachs went to undergrad. A couple of them did not list their undergrad degree, but the others were decidedly non-top brand names. The schools included University of Texas, Pace, American, University of Rome, Chicago, Boston College, and NYU. Paulson went to Harvard, but he was one of the few Ivy Leaguers ( although a few had Wharton MBAs). These are the cream of the crop and I suspect their success has more to do with what they can do, not which brand-name degree is on the wall.

The advice to go to the "highest ranking" school you can is more like the "shit" of which you speak. And don't get me started on starting out life $200,000 in debt chasing that brass degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some fields, if you want a job -- you need to go to a top-ranked school to even get an interview. In these tough economic times -- it is best to go to the highest ranked school you can get into.

This is truly terrible advice. What you do in college has a lot more to do with your future than where you went. Almost nobody hires people for their pedigree anymore. People get hired for what they can do. Now a lot of top individuals go to top schools, but it's not the brand name that puts a shine on them, it's their character, the same character that probably got them into the school to start with.

In these economic times, employers know that not everybody can afford an expensive top school. Many top students are now in state schools. Employers want to hire the best, not the most privileged.

which is why Princeton history majors that have never touched excel ever get positions at Goldman in M&A and IBD which is heavily excel modeling intensive while a finance major at UMD who can run a DCF and other valuation models RARELY if ever gets a shot a it.

Your advice is shit for non-stem, high finance/strategy consulting places.

The person you quoted is correct.

Even in stem, it is becoming elitist...see the comments Marissa Mayer made regarding Yahoo and how she wants it to mirror Google (notorious for being prestige whores in comparison to other tech firms).

Anonymous wrote:In some fields, if you want a job -- you need to go to a top-ranked school to even get an interview. In these tough economic times -- it is best to go to the highest ranked school you can get into.

This is truly terrible advice. What you do in college has a lot more to do with your future than where you went. Almost nobody hires people for their pedigree anymore. People get hired for what they can do. Now a lot of top individuals go to top schools, but it's not the brand name that puts a shine on them, it's their character, the same character that probably got them into the school to start with.

In these economic times, employers know that not everybody can afford an expensive top school. Many top students are now in state schools. Employers want to hire the best, not the most privileged.

In some fields, if you want a job -- you need to go to a top-ranked school to even get an interview. In these tough economic times -- it is best to go to the highest ranked school you can get into.

I think there is a consensus among reasonably informed people on two points:

1) rankings have some influence on perceptions and thus help inform as to which schools might be appropriate

2) no one should rely heavily on rankings in making a decision.