4 ms·

I have three theories. 1. They are taking jobs at very early stage start-ups or starting their own companies as that culture seems to be more prevalent at many

by pmorici 14y ago

I have three theories. 1. They are taking jobs at very early stage start-ups or starting their own companies as that culture seems to be more prevalent at many of the top schools. On the other hand your typical university is much more focused on the traditional get a job at mega corp scenario. 2. In my limited experience working with recently graduated interns I've found that the ones from "top schools" tend to be worse. They seem to have a chip on their shoulder that certain things are beneath them, give up easier, and are hyper sensitive to feedback. Students from more normal schools seem to have much less mental baggage in those regards. 3. The info graphic is BS and however they collected their numbers was flawed.

michaelochurch 14y ago
I think these are all quite possible. I'm not as negative as you are on top-school students. My experience is that Harvard/MIT programmers and quants are no worse or better than anyone else. Now, Harvard/MIT PM peoples... different story. Programming kills that entitlement mentality because the compiler does not give a shit who you are. Bossing people around reinforces it. After a few years, though, the effects of whatever school the person went to are pretty much gone. What I think you are encountering is that, at a given level, the Ivy students who ended up there are going to be worse than the state-school kids who got to that same place. The best Harvard students are not going to be interested in a 0.02% equity slice of a mediocre startup, because they have the connections to be, if not Founders, VPs at least. Speaking of equity, I'll add a 4th likely element: 4. Salary in startups has a relatively thin band: currently, about $110-150k in SV and $90-130k in New York. The real variation is in equity, titles, and glory if the thing succeeds.
- pmorici 14y ago
  "at a given level, the Ivy students who ended up there are going to be worse than the state-school kids who got to that same place." Yes, I agree.
  - iaw 14y ago
    I must say, there are a lot of presumptions being thrown around about "Top 20 School" alum. There are numerous benefits (and draw-backs) to going to such schools but to make broad assessments about individuals who attended the schools is asinine, like any other stereotype. Essentially the argument here is that ivy-leaguers have better options when leaving college so, all things being equal, with an ivy-leaguer and a lower-tier school alum in the same job you'd expect the ivy-leaguer to be less skilled. The point that is neglected is that the screening process for top-tier schools is substantially more difficult, so much so that it is feasible to see a student from the lowest quartile of the student body at a top-tier school that would have performed in the highest quartile at a less rigorous school. (note: less rigorous is not meant to be a comment on educational quality, only a comment on the intensity of the academic assignments). In this context it's unclear to me why the above comment makes sense. Maybe there's some anecdotal evidence that was not included but, lacking a decent sample, assertions like this are more representative of the biases of those that post them than reality.

by pmorici 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

I think these are all quite possible. I'm not as negative as you are on top-school students. My experience is that Harvard/MIT programmers and quants are no worse or better than anyone else. Now, Harvard/MIT PM peoples... different story. Programming kills that entitlement mentality because the compiler does not give a shit who you are. Bossing people around reinforces it. After a few years, though, the effects of whatever school the person went to are pretty much gone. What I think you are encountering is that, at a given level, the Ivy students who ended up there are going to be worse than the state-school kids who got to that same place. The best Harvard students are not going to be interested in a 0.02% equity slice of a mediocre startup, because they have the connections to be, if not Founders, VPs at least. Speaking of equity, I'll add a 4th likely element: 4. Salary in startups has a relatively thin band: currently, about $110-150k in SV and $90-130k in New York. The real variation is in equity, titles, and glory if the thing succeeds.

pmorici 14y ago
"at a given level, the Ivy students who ended up there are going to be worse than the state-school kids who got to that same place." Yes, I agree.
- iaw 14y ago
  I must say, there are a lot of presumptions being thrown around about "Top 20 School" alum. There are numerous benefits (and draw-backs) to going to such schools but to make broad assessments about individuals who attended the schools is asinine, like any other stereotype. Essentially the argument here is that ivy-leaguers have better options when leaving college so, all things being equal, with an ivy-leaguer and a lower-tier school alum in the same job you'd expect the ivy-leaguer to be less skilled. The point that is neglected is that the screening process for top-tier schools is substantially more difficult, so much so that it is feasible to see a student from the lowest quartile of the student body at a top-tier school that would have performed in the highest quartile at a less rigorous school. (note: less rigorous is not meant to be a comment on educational quality, only a comment on the intensity of the academic assignments). In this context it's unclear to me why the above comment makes sense. Maybe there's some anecdotal evidence that was not included but, lacking a decent sample, assertions like this are more representative of the biases of those that post them than reality.