4 ms·

One example i can speak to is analog chip design. In a more civilized age, an analog hiring manager chose students based on some mysterious Force, mentored the

One example i can speak to is analog chip design. In a more civilized age, an analog hiring manager chose students based on some mysterious Force, mentored them - and they worked in that company for a long time, often on several generations of the same chip. The scenario today is different. Hiring managers designing a chip product are in a prisoner's dilemma situation - they follow the 'hire from XYZ school' formula precisely because they don't want the risk of a "contrarian hire" to be found useless for the current chip tapeout. The XYZ universities that have higher 'analog chip design reputation' also offer more immersion: star faculty, elective courses, exposure to tools and labs, sending project chip designs for fab in a foundry shuttle. An XYZ hire - even with lower GPA - can be put to productive use immediately, no learning curve with tools etc. The learning happened in school, talking with other students while doing projects. Contrast with a student from ABC school that offers only one proforma analog course, has better grades but needs at least a quarter to ramp up. The short-term costs in this field of statistically proving the lack of a long-term correlation may be too high - no matter the quantitative evidence from other fields such as software.

dalke 13y ago
I think I read a different interpretation of your original post than you suggested, but I think you have the wrong emphasis, to the point of distraction. You talked about the "'reputation' of a particular college or university" when you probably meant "'reputation' of a specific degree program for producing graduates with the training needed for a specialized field." This is a much more constrained and much less actionable qualifier. To express it in more words, I thought in your original statement you were saying something like "Harvard has a good overall reputation so a 3.25 from there is better than a 3.75 from a school with a (sufficiently) lower reputation, all else being equal." Now you're saying something like "Missouri University of Science and Technology's EE program has a good reputation in vacuum power engineering, so someone with a 3.25 from that program is better than a 3.75 from the EE program at Harvard, all else being equal, if you need someone with vacuum power engineering skills." I assumed you implied an "all else being equal", because it's meaningless to say that someone with a music degree from Stanford is a great hire when you're looking for someone to work with x-ray crystallography, just because Stanford has a great biophysics program with lots of world-famous x-ray crystallography work being done there. No, I think you should be saying "if you have two candidates, both with EE degrees and similar coursework, then the reputation of their corresponding EE programs should also be factor, and not just GPA." But your scenario just now has the student from XYZ (the better school) also taking more courses in the specific field of interest, while the person from ABC only took a single pro-forma course. So I'll invert it. Let's say that student X from college ABC, which has a second quartile ranking as an EE program, graduates with triple major in EE (with a focus in analog chip design), physics, and English, with a 3.75 GPA. While student A from college XYZ (which has the best analog chip design training reputation in the world), graduates with an English degree with a 3.25 GPA, and a EE minor, with a single analog circuits class. (Student A came in thinking to be a EE grad, then in sophomore year switched to English.) Who would you rather hire - the student with a higher GPA and with more training and interest, but from a lesser reputation program, or the student with a lower GPA and not much interest or training, but from the school with the higher reputation program? BTW, the hiring manager is not in a 'prisoner's dilemma situation'. That requires two people who can make a choice, where the payoff matrix depends on both choices, but there's only one here. The scenario you describe is much closer to the FUD of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment."
- quarterwave 13y ago
  The inverted scenario got me thinking. I would prefer to hire the triple major with interest and training, putting interest ahead of training. And you're right - the hiring manager isn't a case of prisoner's dilemma. Thanks for calling that out. I've learnt several new things from this discussion, especially the references to scientific studies of selection bias. Thank you.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Cheers!

dalke 13y ago

I think I read a different interpretation of your original post than you suggested, but I think you have the wrong emphasis, to the point of distraction. You talked about the "'reputation' of a particular college or university" when you probably meant "'reputation' of a specific degree program for producing graduates with the training needed for a specialized field." This is a much more constrained and much less actionable qualifier. To express it in more words, I thought in your original statement you were saying something like "Harvard has a good overall reputation so a 3.25 from there is better than a 3.75 from a school with a (sufficiently) lower reputation, all else being equal." Now you're saying something like "Missouri University of Science and Technology's EE program has a good reputation in vacuum power engineering, so someone with a 3.25 from that program is better than a 3.75 from the EE program at Harvard, all else being equal, if you need someone with vacuum power engineering skills." I assumed you implied an "all else being equal", because it's meaningless to say that someone with a music degree from Stanford is a great hire when you're looking for someone to work with x-ray crystallography, just because Stanford has a great biophysics program with lots of world-famous x-ray crystallography work being done there. No, I think you should be saying "if you have two candidates, both with EE degrees and similar coursework, then the reputation of their corresponding EE programs should also be factor, and not just GPA." But your scenario just now has the student from XYZ (the better school) also taking more courses in the specific field of interest, while the person from ABC only took a single pro-forma course. So I'll invert it. Let's say that student X from college ABC, which has a second quartile ranking as an EE program, graduates with triple major in EE (with a focus in analog chip design), physics, and English, with a 3.75 GPA. While student A from college XYZ (which has the best analog chip design training reputation in the world), graduates with an English degree with a 3.25 GPA, and a EE minor, with a single analog circuits class. (Student A came in thinking to be a EE grad, then in sophomore year switched to English.) Who would you rather hire - the student with a higher GPA and with more training and interest, but from a lesser reputation program, or the student with a lower GPA and not much interest or training, but from the school with the higher reputation program? BTW, the hiring manager is not in a 'prisoner's dilemma situation'. That requires two people who can make a choice, where the payoff matrix depends on both choices, but there's only one here. The scenario you describe is much closer to the FUD of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment."

quarterwave 13y ago
The inverted scenario got me thinking. I would prefer to hire the triple major with interest and training, putting interest ahead of training. And you're right - the hiring manager isn't a case of prisoner's dilemma. Thanks for calling that out. I've learnt several new things from this discussion, especially the references to scientific studies of selection bias. Thank you.
- dalke 13y ago
  Cheers!