3 ms·
Why? That seems like a dumb way cutting of potentially very talented candidates. Seriously it removes over 90% of candidates, if not more. That seems unsound.
by mrweasel 4y ago
Why? That seems like a dumb way cutting of potentially very talented candidates. Seriously it removes over 90% of candidates, if not more. That seems unsound.
- mamonster 4y agoYou know there's a very well known joke that it's hard to get fired as a trader for underperforming the market by buying Apple, well it's hard to get blamed for hiring a bad intern if you hire him from MIT.
- gumby 4y ago> well it's hard to get blamed for hiring a bad intern if you hire him from MIT. Whew! I had four paid internships while I was at MIT and for two of them I got nothing meaningful accomplished. I learned a lot from that but for those two I was of no use to the companies. Even decades later I still feel bad about that, so it's nice to think that nobody suffered as a result.
- YetAnotherNick 4y agoTheir aim is not to hire every good candidate. Maybe they are fine with just 10% of the candidates if they could be top choice of good enough chunk of candidates.
- esoterica 4y agoThe goal is to hire efficiently, not hire every single qualified candidate. If 10% of MIT graduates are qualified but only 1% of graduates from a no-name school are qualified, why spend 10x the effort to try to recruit from the latter?
- mrweasel 4y agoGiven that they may only hire a handful of interns each year, then that actually makes sense.
- 22SAS 4y agoJane Street gets a shit ton of applicants. Every slightly ambitious college grad applies there. Same for experienced roles, it's full of FAANG folks hoping to get in.