Who needs Harvard?

[FinancialWorld]

I ran across this article on the internet. Its a few year old, but I believe its still relevant today. I think its an interesting article. A friend of mine really wanted to attend an ivy league school. He wanted to go for graduate study. I just don't think it'd be worth it.

So, are Ivy League school valued in the career world anymore? Maybe, but a lot less now. What do you think about them? As an employer, would you pick a big 3 school grad (or one of the other good online colleges) over an ivy league school grad? I know this subject has been beat to death around here a little, but I thought I'd approach it from the employer's perspective. Which one would I hire? I already know what I think, so I'll chime in later. What's your take on this?


[SIZE="4"][SIZE="2"]Who Needs Harvard?[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Why big corporations are hiring fewer Ivy Leaguers.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2005, at 3:50 PM ET

A coveted undergraduate admission to an Ivy League college is a ticket to success, right? But a recent paper by Peter Cappelli and Monika Hamori, both of the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that the prestigious degrees aren't as valuable at America's largest corporations as they were a generation ago. If you want to run GE, you might be better off attending the University of Connecticut than Yale.

Cappelli and Hamori compared the rÃsumÃs of the top 10 executives at Fortune 100 companies—the 100 largest companies by revenue in the United States—in both 1980 and 2001. These were so-called "c-level posts"—CEO, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief technology officer—plus division heads and senior vice presidents.
The figures tell a story of American business dynamism. In Joseph Schumpeter's great formulation, the top ranks of American business are like a hotel where the guests are always changing. Only 26 of the 1980 Fortune 100 companies retained their status in 2001. By 2001, the executives had also grown younger (the average of the sample fell by about four years). The executives were also much less likely to have been educated at an old Eastern university where pride in high SAT scores compensates for pathetic athletic teams and lame parties.
Advertisement

Between 1980 and 2001, the percentage of top executives whose undergraduate degrees came from Ivy League schools fell by nearly a third from 14 percent to 10 percent. Others who paid through the nose for their sheepskins also lost ground. The percentage of top execs who attended private non-Ivy schools (Williams College, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.) fell from 54 percent in 1980 to 42 percent in 2001. Meanwhile, the proportion of those who attended public universities soared from 32 percent to 48 percent. A similar dynamic was seen in graduate degrees as well: far fewer on a percentage basis from Ivy League schools and far more on a percentage basis from public universities.
At some level, this is a numbers game. While the Ivy League schools remain small and exclusive, public universities have been expanding rapidly, establishing new programs, and pumping more minnows into the corporate stream every year. Several Ivies don't have MBA programs, and there are top-notch business schools at Northwestern, Stanford, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, and University of Virginia. But the authors conclude that the shift has less to do with demographics and more to do with corporate practices. In other words, the bosses aren't as snowed by polished young Ivy grads as they were in the past.
I'd offer a couple of other, less quantifiable explanations. Something has changed about the character of the student bodies at many Ivy League schools in recent decades. With the rising ability of the wealthy to smooth the path to admission by paying private-school tuition and hiring college advisers and SAT-prep tutors—and with college tuition far outpacing financial aid growth—rich kids are more likely to get in, and to attend, Ivy League schools than in the past. A widely quoted study from the Century Foundation found that 74 percent of the students at 146 selective colleges surveyed came from the top socioeconomic quartile, while only 10 percent come from the bottom half! Harvard President Larry Summers devoted his 2004 commencement speech to this phenomenon. On a percentage basis, fewer Ivy League graduates than public school graduates today need to find stable, high-paying jobs at big companies. More of them can afford to traipse around Asia for a year or pursue a career in film-making. It could be that the already rich and comfortable are simply less interested in pursuing careers in large corporations than their less-comfortable public-school peers for purely economic reasons.
And for those Ivy League graduates eager to make their mark on the business world, things have changed as well. The Ivy League may no longer be the gatekeeper for management trainees at General Electric and Chevron. But it is most definitely gatekeeper for other elite employers: McKinsey & Co., Goldman, Sachs, private equity firms. A sharp kid with a degree in economics from Dartmouth is far less likely to seek a career at General Motors or American Express and far more likely to sign on with a venture capital firm or a hedge fund. An ambitious smoothie seeking to trade off reputation and old-school connections won't interview at Philip Morris or Wal-Mart, she'll interview at Boston Consulting Group or Morgan Stanley.
The numbers crunched by Cappelli and Hamori suggest that big-time corporate America is less interested in Ivy League students today than it was in the past. It could also be the other way around.

Here is the original link: Corporations shun the Ivy League. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine

[MA2]

I think I'd still stick with a Harvard business degree if given the chance

[Maniac Craniac]

I'm not impressed with the article. It makes sense that there would be a lower percentage of Ivy Leagers hired since the Ivy Leagues haven't grown much (by design), but public and for-profit colleges have boomed tremendously since 1980. No matter how you look at it, they will be in the minority of percentages, but they may still be in a much better position as far as individual professional opportunities.

[FinancialWorld]

I'm not impressed with the article. It makes sense that there would be a lower percentage of Ivy Leagers hired since the Ivy Leagues haven't grown much (by design), but public and for-profit colleges have boomed tremendously since 1980. No matter how you look at it, they will be in the minority of percentages, but they may still be in a much better position as far as individual professional opportunities.

I agree MC.

Also, the last paragraph in the article makes absolutely no sense.

"The numbers crunched by Cappelli and Hamori suggest that big-time corporate America is less interested in Ivy League students today than it was in the past. It could also be the other way around"

Ok, so which is it. One way or the other. I guess they're saying the numbers could go either way. idk

[Maniac Craniac]

I agree MC.

Also, the last paragraph in the article makes absolutely no sense.
Ok, so which is it. One way or the other. I guess they're saying the numbers could go either way. idk

It's poorly worded, I agree, but I think it is saying that Ivy Leaguers may be less inclined to work for the big corporations, rather than the corporations being less inclined to hire them.

[burbuja0512]

Ok so first of all, let me say that I agree with Maniac and MA2.. yes an Ivy League degree sounds better than others.

However, I have a question about this that I've always wondered. When I hire people, I won't hire someone who I think is way over-qualified for the position. Even though the jobs I've hired for pay well, I want someone to really appreciate the job they have for at least a year and work hard to get promoted, with a possible promotion goal of 18 months to two years for a hard worker. I don't want to hire someone who feels like they are taking a big step down or someone that feels like they're better than their peers, lol or me for all that goes!

If I were to interview someone with an Ivy League education, I'm not sure how I would feel about hiring them. I would wonder if they were perhaps too well-connected or too well-educated to start at an entry or mid-level job, yet if they were fresh out of school, they wouldn't have enough experience to be hired at a higher level.

Does this make sense? I've also seen that many insecure hiring managers won't hire people that they think are going to be gunning for their job. I don't feel this way because I want to hire the best candidate, and of course the best candidate wants my job, or my bosses job.

Anyway - I guess the question is, does having too good of an education make you less likely to be hired because you're too smart for some jobs or could you make your boss insecure?

[CLEP101]

However, I have a question about this that I've always wondered. When I hire people, I won't hire someone who I think is way over-qualified for the position. Even though the jobs I've hired for pay well, I want someone to really appreciate the job they have for at least a year and work hard to get promoted, with a possible promotion goal of 18 months to two years for a hard worker. I don't want to hire someone who feels like they are taking a big step down or someone that feels like they're better than their peers, lol or me for all that goes!

So where do I send my resume so you can review. I'll be needing a job in a few years. Unless the hunting and fishing trips get in the way. I'm gonna need to keep busy when I'm done with this Army gig.