Why isn't Philly seen more as a "cool" destination?

[dc_denizen]

them that has, gits, as they say.

[Hockeyfan85]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Let's take a poll on SSP:

"If you could exchange your current degree for an equivalent from Harvard, would you?" Care to wager what the results might be?

Beside that, you honestly believe HR departments for companies outside medicine and law don't care where a candidate graduated from? At a certain point in a candidate's career arch, where you received your degree matters quite a bit in fields like marketing, communications, advertising, etc. In some fields, it's less important. But to dismiss the name-brand value your alma mater brings or doesn't bring to the employment table is shortsighted and frankly not based in reality.

For many companies who receive lots of applications for limited entry-to-mid level positions, candidate degrees are the first screening item.

Absolutely do believe that. In this economy its driven by experience. Its also a numbers game. Save for the few professions that Harvard specializes in (unless you're going there for either, then why bother?), it doesn't matter where you get your degree or what its in.

Harvard only accepts a fraction of other colleges and universities as it is, so its not as if there's hundreds of thousands of applicants in a 5 year period with Harvard credentials looking for employment either. The vast majority of the population i'm willing to bet is middle class and also a graduate of a liberal arts school.

Most studies show that HR looks for experience over where you went. Sure, its easier to sort out for some professions but again, that's a fraction of the kids actually looking for work.

[Hockeyfan85]

Originally Posted by fflint

^Agreed. I've been hired twice over the years primarily on the basis of my alma mater.

It is possible to receive a great education from a no-name, unranked college like Kean University (had to look that one up) if one is sufficiently motivated, just as it is possible a person who is not motivated can gain very little from a name-brand university (like Dubya).

But the idea that a Harvard degree is all but worthless outside law and medicine is entirely divorced from reality, merely a combination of wishful thinking and resentment. It is ultimately an unserious assertion that is rooted not in thoughtful analysis of the facts, but rather in a scorched-earth approach to boosting a particular city by bashing all of the strengths of a perceived rival city.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you probably work in tech of some capacity then, especially since you live in San Francisco, but for the vast majority of others, thats not the case. I wouldn't be shocked to learn for every one candidate hired for education, another X amount are hired for experience, given the field of work.

You should mention scorched-earth again.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Hockeyfan85

Absolutely do believe that. In this economy its driven by experience. Its also a numbers game. Save for the few professions that Harvard specializes in (unless you're going there for either, then why bother?), it doesn't matter where you get your degree or what its in.

....

Most studies show that HR looks for experience over where you went. Sure, its easier to sort out for some professions but again, that's a fraction of the kids actually looking for work.

I don't work in law or medicine or tech. The first thing I ask HR to do when I hire entry and mid-management positions is to give me candidates who graduated from a list of 5 universities with a set of specific degrees. For mid-management, it's a list of 4 agencies, 3 industry companies, and depending on the position, a small list of developers or creative houses . . . all of whom pretty much hire grads from that same list of 5 universities I look at. Full disclosure: I graduated from one of those universities too.

HR departments work for senior management. They have a lot of input on candidates, particularly on entry-level and and mid-management candidates, but ultimately their job is to fill the staffing requests of senior management.

You're not accounting for the alumni networking effect. Or that there are more qualified people out there looking for fewer open positions. In many industries, employers can afford to be picky. Experience matters exponentially as you move up the management chain. But when you have two entry or mid candidates with the same levels of experience, you'll take the one with the most appropriate degree from the school which most reputably graduates the type of talent you're looking for.

I think we're really getting off course here...

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I don't work in law or medicine or tech. The first thing I ask HR to do when I hire entry and mid-management positions is to give me candidates who graduated from a list of 5 universities with a set of specific degrees. For mid-management, it's a list of 4 agencies, 3 industry companies, and depending on the position, a small list of developers or creative houses . . . all of whom pretty much hire grads from that same list of 5 universities I look at. Full disclosure: I graduated from one of those universities too.

HR departments work for senior management. They have a lot of input on candidates, particularly on entry-level and and mid-management candidates, but ultimately their job is to fill the staffing requests of senior management.

You're not accounting for the alumni networking effect. Or that there are more qualified people out there looking for fewer open positions. In many industries, employers can afford to be picky. Experience matters exponentially as you move up the management chain. But when you have two entry or mid candidates with the same levels of experience, you'll take the one with the most appropriate degree from the school which most reputably graduates the type of talent you're looking for.

I think we're really getting off course here...

hr departments are where rich men dumped their vapid daughters.
now it has grown into a monster. the only thing hr should have do with hiring people is having them fill out the paperwork. they should have ZERO involvement in selection.

[dc_denizen]

How does one sort out the legacy/money Ivy League entry level hire from the one with talent? It's an interesting informational problem for hr.

[miketoronto]

Funny to these posts. There are some companies who won't hire anyone from the top universities like Harvard. Going to a top school does not make you great.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I don't work in law or medicine or tech. The first thing I ask HR to do when I hire entry and mid-management positions is to give me candidates who graduated from a list of 5 universities with a set of specific degrees. For mid-management, it's a list of 4 agencies, 3 industry companies, and depending on the position, a small list of developers or creative houses . . . all of whom pretty much hire grads from that same list of 5 universities I look at. Full disclosure: I graduated from one of those universities too.

HR departments work for senior management. They have a lot of input on candidates, particularly on entry-level and and mid-management candidates, but ultimately their job is to fill the staffing requests of senior management.

You're not accounting for the alumni networking effect. Or that there are more qualified people out there looking for fewer open positions. In many industries, employers can afford to be picky. Experience matters exponentially as you move up the management chain. But when you have two entry or mid candidates with the same levels of experience, you'll take the one with the most appropriate degree from the school which most reputably graduates the type of talent you're looking for.

I think we're really getting off course here...

Wow seems a bit discriminatory of you to only select grads from the same 5 universities. That's slightly archaic thinking no?

[chris08876]

When they say they don't discriminate on the job applications, thats a load of steamy bs.

Its sad too because this is the land of opportunity. Experience and what they do at the job should be looked at versus school. Its naive to think that school type can provide the best talent.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by chris08876

When they say they don't discriminate on the job applications, thats a load of steamy bs.

Its sad too because this is the land of opportunity. Experience and what they do at the job should be looked at versus school. Its naive to think that school type can provide the best talent.

I'm just really surprised Shawn seemingly has that same mentality.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Wow seems a bit discriminatory of you to only select grads from the same 5 universities. That's slightly archaic thinking no?

It's extremely short sighted. Why limit yourself to just 5 universities? Many successful businessmen don't have a degree from anywhere.

Here's a list and includes many notable people:

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-1...-degree-2011-1

[chris08876]

I get what he's saying in a way though with respect to entry and mid level. School type tends to be a big aid when securing a first job or in times of high competition. Personally, best way is to try to avoid HR and talk to the actual person who can make the decision and say yes or no.

HR is kinda the gate keeper and it's the reason why the job hunt is difficult. But finding a job is incredibly easy if you know what events or where to meet certain people.

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Many successful businessmen don't have a degree from anywhere.

Some of the most intelligent people I know didn't even go to college.

Going to college does not equal a high intelligence. Actually, a lot of college graduates are just dumb. The worst is a candidate with no personality. You could have a 4.0, but if the personality isn't there, that's a big no-no.

[Crawford]

I think the advantage of university name lessen over time, because no one is hiring mid-career workers based on their alma mater.

That said, there's definitely a huge advantage to attending certain universities for early-career advancement. Certain job types, especially in investment banking and the like, essentially require applicants to have graduated from one of a handful of universities. There are plenty of hedge funds and private equity firms that will only consider like Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Columbia/Stanford/MIT , with maybe a special allowance for whatever university the manager attended (assuming it wasn't one of the previous six).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Hockeyfan85

Unless you're studying medicine or law (neither of which I'm involved with) it really doesn't matter where you go, so a big jerk off motion can go to Harvard for all I care. Lets not pretend like Harvard isn't ruled out for 90% of the population simply because of absurd costs either. Don't act as if everyone is clamoring to get in.

This is totally wrong. Harvard is free for the vast majority of American households. Unless you're upper middle class to rich, it's much cheaper to attend Harvard than local no-name state college.

Harvard (and its peer schools) has free tuition for households making less than 100k or so. It has deeply discounted tuition for households making less than 150k or so. Your local state college won't offer a penny in need-based financial aid for a household at that income level.

Harvard is ruled out for 90% of the population because applying is a complete waste of time. It has nothing to do with costs.

[corey]

One reason could be that the Philly parking enforcers are d-bags!

[mhays]

I like that show. Watching stupid people get justice.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

It's extremely short sighted. Why limit yourself to just 5 universities? Many successful businessmen don't have a degree from anywhere.

Here's a list and includes many notable people:

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-1...-degree-2011-1

I'm in Tokyo and I need to hire native-fluency bilinguals with degrees in communications planning, digital marketing, programmatic media, or cross-market branding, and who would be willing and able to work in a Western-style, horizontal office environment, with daily English interactions with regional teams outside Japan.

There are only 5 schools in greater Kanto which provide this. Plus Emerson, lots of Emerson staff.

New hires in my company get a whole lot of training their first six months and it's a substantial overhead cost. I have made the mistake of hiring new grads who after the six months and tens of thousands of dollars in Singapore training trips, are not retained because they're too uncomfortable with the working environment and pace. The 5 schools that now make up my go-to list have longstanding English language programs and are famous for using Western / Jesuit programs. It's not a hard and fast rule - we have close to 300 people, they all don't come from the same 5 schools.

Relevant to this thread: one of the schools is Temple University's Tokyo campus.

It's not always as nefarious as it might seem.

[fflint]

I find it laughable what Shawn has described is being colored as some bad sort of 'discrimination.' The overwhelming majority of job seekers are not suited for the kind of position he is looking to fill, and so he--like all employers--must discriminate between those who are and those who are not. If he has found the most efficient way to get (and retain) the right hire is to limit the pool of candidates only to graduates from a few particular university programs, then good for him. The only way that could be unfair to those who didn't go to such a school would be if everyone possessed some sort of right to be considered for every job. But there is no such right.

Look, I didn't go to Harvard either (and no, hockeyfan, I don't work in tech). I understand some feel vague resentment of people who did--I don't share it, but I get it--although the Harvard grads I know are all genuinely nice, smart and competent people. But it's really unseemly for people who went to unranked or low-ranked colleges to deliberately stoke rank resentment of those who went to really good schools on their own merits--that is just acting the sore loser. And that's no surprise since the legitimacy of a Harvard degree (and of college itself) was introduced not via thoughtful consideration of the facts, but rather out of a booster's compulsion to disparage and diminish the core strengths of a rival city.

There are many reasons why Philadelphia isn't widely considered a "cool" destination, but none of them revolve around a lack of abrasive 'versus' trolling on the forum.

[Shawn]

To add: my list isn't just the Top 5 schools in Japan. It's Waseda, Sophia, ICU, Temple, and Doushisha. Waseda and Sophia would be considered Japanese Ivies, and ICU would be a Mini Ivy like Amherst. But Doushisha in Kyoto would be like Northeastern or BU. And Temple? It didn't even have actual Japanese government accreditation until 4 years ago. But some of my best new grad hires come from there because the programs are all-English and they actually have a dedicated Digital Marketing degree, something no other school in Japan offers. These also happen to be the 5 schools I've successfully set up internship programs with. And at my alma mater, I guest instruct Digital units for their IBE and Marketing programs. I have a lot of faith in these schools' curricula and seminar / open discussion classroom formats. Most Japanese unis are lecture-only formats, which graduate kids who are great at taking exams and not much else.

Not on the list: Tokyo or Kyoto Universities (the only two which regularly make international Top 50 / Top 100 lists), Keio (#1 ranked private school in the country), Meiji, Osaka Dai, Tohoku Dai . . . this isn't the Japanese equivalent of "we only look at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale degrees." It's "these programs historically graduate the kids most qualified for my company's specific entry-level position needs."

My experience is typical for larger companies with a lot of specialized divisions. But if you think some mom and pop operation in Iowa, who sent their kid to Iowa State, doesn't give a fellow Hawk Eye alumn the nod over a non-Hawk Eye with the same general skill set and experience, then you don't understand natural human bias. And I would like to sell you some stuff.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think the advantage of university name lessen over time, because no one is hiring mid-career workers based on their alma mater.

That said, there's definitely a huge advantage to attending certain universities for early-career advancement. Certain job types, especially in investment banking and the like, essentially require applicants to have graduated from one of a handful of universities. There are plenty of hedge funds and private equity firms that will only consider like Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Columbia/Stanford/MIT , with maybe a special allowance for whatever university the manager attended (assuming it wasn't one of the previous six).

Yep. And the top law firms won't even consider you if you don't have a JD from a top 10 school.

You are also right about free tuition at the best schools if you are middle or lower class.