balk14;792394 wrote:i cant and probably will never understand why people put so much weight into class rank and GPA and other metrics of that sort when determining the quality of a candidate. I almost feel like school rank falls into that same breath (not so much for law though). Just like anything else, the schooling system can be cheated and i personally can show you examples of 3.8 GPA students, from a respected school, who cannot perform basic mathematical functions or construct a well thought out sentence.

im young, but ive been part of a few hiring processes and feel like length of time to complete the degree, combined with what fills a resume and how well those things are articulated go a long way into giving an accurate snap shot of the quality of a candidate.

to get back on topic - the more and more i think about it, relationship building and connection making aside, the educational aspect of college seems pointless, outdated, and obsolete...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this post seems contradictory. At the start, you harp on the ineffectiveness of the actual education process as it currently exists, but at the end, you suggest that the educational aspect of college is pointless anyway.

On the latter, I'd be curious why you think so. Why do you think that the educational side of university is pointless, outdated, and obsolete?

balk14;792394 wrote:i cant and probably will never understand why people put so much weight into class rank and GPA and other metrics of that sort when determining the quality of a candidate. I almost feel like school rank falls into that same breath (not so much for law though). Just like anything else, the schooling system can be cheated and i personally can show you examples of 3.8 GPA students, from a respected school, who cannot perform basic mathematical functions or construct a well thought out sentence.

How else are you supposed to weed through thousands of applications to hire 25 people? No one is saying that class rank/school rank are perfect metrics, but for an initial cut, they really do the job well.

Put another way, I'm certain that there are people with an IQ of 120 who are very well-rounded and will outperform some people with an IQ of 140. But if you have thousands of applicants, why not just give them an IQ, narrow it down to the 400 people with IQs above your cut-off, and then pick the best people from that? It's possible that from time-to-time you'll miss out on someone, but I tend to think the Rudy's of the world are overrated; truly exceptional people tend to be exceptional at virtually ever level.

If I'm an employer, and I can choose between hiring a person who seems smart but hasn't worked hard or done anything worthwhile, and a person who seems smart who has excelled at everything they've done, I'll hire the latter, even if I may occasionally pass up a diamond in the rough. Class rank and school rank are a pretty good way to go about an initial cut.

Balk, it's certainly not perfect, but a GPA and class rank are about only impartial measures of a candidate who has little actual work experience in the profession. Hiring new talent is always something of a risk - that's why even quality college graduates are having a terrible time finding work in their chosen field right now. When your ability to hire is limited, it's much less risky to go with someone who has a degree and several years of experience. This will probably ease up in the next couple of years as worst of corporate downsizing at the professional level seems to have eased.

GPA/rank is only relative, but a 1.0 or greater difference in a GPA likely means something. And I completely agree about the 3.8 students with questionable skills - it's one of the reasons why we consider your school so heavily. We know that a Economics major from "Wahoo U" will have to have turned a significant number of serious case study papers that required quality work over long period of time - and they'll know solve a differential equation.

BTW - about the five year rule - as noted a couple of posts ago, military service is considered a highly significant plus, especially those who do their time and then use the funding in focused pursuit of their degree. A young man or woman who can execute that plan pretty much sets the standard for setting goals and following through.

fan_from_texas;792314 wrote:Speaking as someone who graduated with similar levels, that's an awful lot of debt, and it can really affect your QOL.

Over 10 years @ 6.8%, you're looking at $2,071/mo. Amortized over 30 years @ 6.8%, you're looking at $1,173/mo. In other words, after taxes, you're looking at subtracting ~$35,000 from your salary for the next 10 years just to pay off your debt.

It'll average out to an even 6% for mine, and after a lot of thought I decided I'm willing to take that salary cut because of the rewards it'll provide in the long-run. I've also got a girl for my future in the same situation but with about $100,000 of debt so together we'll be living pretty comfortably.

Commander of Awesome;792327 wrote:That's insane. Should get a job then get your employer to pay for your grad school.

This is still an option for me, as well, which I very well might go with.

GOONx19;792294 wrote:I'll be about $180,000 in debt when I graduate.

But I'll also have a Doctor of Pharmacy and an MBA or MPH at the age of 23.

It's worth it to me.

Serious question: What is the point of the MBA? I mean Pharmacists can start out making 90-100k, which I'm sure you will, but what is the point of taking extra classes to get an mba? An MBA from a school that doesn't require prior work experience and isn't top 15-20 doesn't go too far, imo. Also, are you in a 6 year program like Ohio Northern used to have? If only I liked science more I would have went that route. My cousin is banking all sorts of money working at Rite Aid.

Really it's just because I like the challenge. I go to the University of Kentucky, which is usually a 3+4 program, but I'm doing as 2+4. They're one of few pharmacy schools that offer a dual degree program. I can get either and MBA, MPA, or MPH for the same tuition and time, and I've always loved to push myself. I just think it would be cool to be able to say I did it. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure of what direction I wanna go within the field so I still may change my mind. I won't have to apply for one of the dual-degree programs until next spring.

An MBA is a good idea for career diversity purposes. There are practically no guaranteed careers anymore, and that includes pharmacy where 20 years ago you were guaranteed a job for life. That isn't the case anymore. The medical industry in general is dynamic, and look for additional factors such as consolidation (growing up in my hometown of 5,000 people there were probably 10 pharmacies, now there are two), government regulation and innovation to continue to affect career prospects for pharmacists.

At this point I would agree. I have 2 degrees in Computer technology and because there are no jobs around here, I am going to have to find something completely irrelevant and make close to minimum. Once the economy bounces back I will be fine though. Anyone out there want to hire a computer guy lol.

GOONx19;792535 wrote:Really it's just because I like the challenge. I go to the University of Kentucky, which is usually a 3+4 program, but I'm doing as 2+4. They're one of few pharmacy schools that offer a dual degree program. I can get either and MBA, MPA, or MPH for the same tuition and time, and I've always loved to push myself. I just think it would be cool to be able to say I did it. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure of what direction I wanna go within the field so I still may change my mind. I won't have to apply for one of the dual-degree programs until next spring.

In that case, good for you. A background in business is always good to have.

Manhattan Buckeye;792536 wrote:An MBA is a good idea for career diversity purposes. There are practically no guaranteed careers anymore.

This, with a bullet - and it's true for a college degree as well.

I got my first undergrad degree in Transportation/Logistics management, and worked in transportation management for 12 years before the hours drove me out and I moved over to a management training position with a health insurance company. I never would have gotten an interview if I had not had the degree.

This is why the old adage still holds true no matter the economy: It doesn't matter what you know, it matters WHO you know.

I will say that it does suck for recent and soon to be college grads. Companies are looking for people with experience...well how the hell is one supposed to get experience if he/she can't get a job? It's a vicious cycle. Networking is more important than ever in today's world.

bo shemmy3337;792544 wrote:At this point I would agree. I have 2 degrees in Computer technology and because there are no jobs around here, I am going to have to find something completely irrelevant and make close to minimum. Once the economy bounces back I will be fine though. Anyone out there want to hire a computer guy lol.

Computer science? Where are you looking for work?

My programmer friends from U of M are having a great time of it, at the moment. Not sure how long it is going to last, but they've been telling me that it is like the ".Com" boom all over again, in some areas.

cbus4life;792838 wrote:Computer science? Where are you looking for work?

My programmer friends from U of M are having a great time of it, at the moment. Not sure how long it is going to last, but they've been telling me that it is like the ".Com" boom all over again, in some areas.

I'm convinced he probably got his "degree" from ITT Tech or something. The "advice" he offers on some of the computer threads is questionable, at best.

O-Trap;792405 wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this post seems contradictory. At the start, you harp on the ineffectiveness of the actual education process as it currently exists, but at the end, you suggest that the educational aspect of college is pointless anyway
On the latter, I'd be curious why you think so. Why do you think that the educational side of university is pointless, outdated, and obsolete?

I feel strongly that the ease with which cheating can happen makes anything short of an engineering/medical/science degree irrelevant...that's the angle I'm coming at when thinking about the educational process. I'm my eyes, a vocational program where you spend 6 months or so learning in the exact environment in which you would be working would give you real world experience while letting you try your hand at different occupations so you don't pigeon hole yourself with a degree you spent 100k on. Of course I have no idea of the feasibility of something like that...maybe that's just the wanderer in me...I've been out of college for 2 years and have had 3 jobs in that time and still feel lost...

fan_from_texas;792406 wrote:How else are you supposed to weed through thousands of applications to hire 25 people? No one is saying that class rank/school rank are perfect metrics, but for an initial cut, they really do the job well.

Put another way, I'm certain that there are people with an IQ of 120 who are very well-rounded and will outperform some people with an IQ of 140. But if you have thousands of applicants, why not just give them an IQ, narrow it down to the 400 people with IQs above your cut-off, and then pick the best people from that? It's possible that from time-to-time you'll miss out on someone, but I tend to think the Rudy's of the world are overrated; truly exceptional people tend to be exceptional at virtually ever level.

If I'm an employer, and I can choose between hiring a person who seems smart but hasn't worked hard or done anything worthwhile, and a person who seems smart who has excelled at everything they've done, I'll hire the latter, even if I may occasionally pass up a diamond in the rough. Class rank and school rank are a pretty good way to go about an initial cut.

I'm not discrediting where you're coming from at all and realize your candidate pool dwarfs the hell out of mine. Most of the time what you said will and does hold true. But what happens when you see a candidate from a school you've never heard of? Does that automatically eliminate them from contention? What about putting an aptitude test of some kind online that all applicants have to take - automatically grading and eliminating those candidates who can't perform at a certain level...much less arbitrary than a class rank or gpa

"But what happens when you see a candidate from a school you've never heard of? Does that automatically eliminate them from contention?"

FFT can respond and speak for himself, but at the last firm I worked at we hired from the following law schools: UVA, Washington and Lee, William and Mary, George Mason, Richmond, Duke, North Carolina, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you weren't in that group, your chances of getting hired were low. There are too many candidates in the aforementioned group to even deal with candidates from other schools....we had over 1,000 applicants for a 12 spot position. If someone from outside the group, even if it was from a top school (Stanford, NW, Berkeley, etc.), unless they had major ties to the area, no chance of an interview, let alone a position.

It might not be fair, but that is the way it is.

FatHobbit;792335 wrote:Just curious, how can you tell someone took more than 5 years to graduate? Are we talking about people fresh out of college?

They don't have much work experience, so they will list college and a range of years on their first resume, yes, we are talking those right out of college.

I think everyone who has been in business for awhile realizes that college gets you your first job and your work experience after that gets you every other job. After your first job most employers could care less about what you did in college.

like_that;792366 wrote:Without knowing what field your organization is in, what type of things stick out positively on a resume? Would an MBA look good, or any other grad school work?

Out of the 200 resumes that are sent in, how many of these people do you contact for an initial interview?




I agree. Pretty legit he is getting an MBA and Doctorates at 23 years old, but man 180k...

I am an engineer, I work in the furnace/combustion industry.

If you are hiring someone right out of college a high GPA is one thing that sticks out, but also what team projects/competitions (common in engineering) or research projects did the applicant work on. Did they work through college or just go to school full time? Did they take any extra coursework above and beyond just the degree?

Working through school while going full time through a tough major like engineering shows either the person is extremely smart or extremely organized with their time management. Both of which are good qualities to have.

balk14;792844 wrote:But what happens when you see a candidate from a school you've never heard of? Does that automatically eliminate them from contention?

Our offices hire from the same list of 15-20 schools, along with the local flagship. So in Milwaukee, we hire from:

Columbia University Law School
Cornell Law School
Duke University School of Law
George Washington University Law School
Georgetown University Law Center
Harvard Law School
Marquette University Law School
New York University School of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
Stanford Law School
University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law
University of Chicago Law School
University of Michigan Law School
University of Pennsylvania Law School
University of Virginia School of Law
University of Wisconsin Law School
Vanderbilt University Law School
Washington University School of Law
Yale Law School

If someone doesn't attend one of those schools, we don't hire them (unless they come up through one of our minority hiring fellowship programs). I'm not aware of anyone we've hired that didn't attend one of those schools. So basically, it automatically eliminates them from contention.

I imagine it's different in other disciplines, where there's a better chance that you'd have a good student who took in-state tuition somewhere and knocked it out of the park. But for law, really good students go to really good law schools, and we hire from those really good law schools.

To give you an idea, we have about 1,000 attorneys, primarily based in the midwest. I did a quick search, and we only have two attys who attended Ohio State, which is a solid, tier 1 law school. One of those two graduated in 1962, so he's not really fair to include since our hiring practices have changed dramatically since the 1960s. In other words, despite being a midwestern firm with a ton of attys, we've only hired 1 Ohio State grad in the last 45 years. Obviously, tOSU is a solid law school, and it has smart students. But we don't recruit there, regardless of pretty much any other factor.

What about putting an aptitude test of some kind online that all applicants have to take - automatically grading and eliminating those candidates who can't perform at a certain level...much less arbitrary than a class rank or gpap

We already do that, in a sense. Everyone going to law school takes the LSAT. Their LSAT score determines which law school they can get into. If someone has a great LSAT and then goes to a bad law school, this reflects poorly on their judgment, since anyone with a pulse and 20 mins on the internet can find out that big firms only hire from a small subset of schools.

Like I said, maybe it's different for other professions, but for law, our hiring decisions are primarily driven by school rank and class rank.

^^^ good points...i didnt even think about the LSAT - and i would agree that law is probably a little different in terms of clear differentiators between tiers of schools

i personally struggled to land a job coming out of college due to a lowish GPA at a school that isnt a "big name" outside of a 50 mi radius of pittsburgh, pa. i actually had numerous interviews where i was asked why i went to community college (which was a stupid assumption on their part based on the name of my school) and how i managed to even land said interview...it was insulting to say the least

balk14;792841 wrote:I feel strongly that the ease with which cheating can happen makes anything short of an engineering/medical/science degree irrelevant...that's the angle I'm coming at when thinking about the educational process. I'm my eyes, a vocational program where you spend 6 months or so learning in the exact environment in which you would be working would give you real world experience while letting you try your hand at different occupations so you don't pigeon hole yourself with a degree you spent 100k on. Of course I have no idea of the feasibility of something like that...maybe that's just the wanderer in me...I've been out of college for 2 years and have had 3 jobs in that time and still feel lost...

Don't feel bad. I've been out for four years, and I've had three jobs as well (4 if you count my own business). None were related to my major, and none have required a degree for employment (I'm sure it helped), but I would still get a degree if I had to do it all over again. To me, education ought to be an ends as much as a means. The grades, though reflective of education in some ways, should not supercede the actual learning experience in my opinion.

One thing that I think is a detriment to our society is that it seems as though a good portion of the population has lost any desire to learn unless it is a means to some other end (better-paying job likely being the most common).

I personally think that there is a morality attached to learning and being a life-long student of the world and how it works.

In an article called Boomer Blues a few years ago in Psychology Today Magazine, Martin Seligman revealed a new personality disorder called the 'empty self', and I genuinely believe there is a connection between a lack of desire to better oneself and the "chronic emotional hunger" that Seligman suggests is a symptom of empty self, so I even think it's unhealthy to not treat education (both when taught by others and when self-taught) like an ends, in and of itself.

But I digress, it is impractical to suggest that the population will agree, and we will likely always have people who want a career, but not an education. As such, I actually like your idea regarding vocational programs, apprenticeships, associates education, etc. It is more cost effective, and it can adequately satisfy what someone is seeking if they would otherwise go to college solely for the career leverage.