Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who Needs Harvard?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the no-one-in-new-haven dept.

theodp writes "Slate's Daniel Gross explores why big corporations are hiring fewer Ivy Leaguers. Is it because today's bosses aren't as snowed by polished young Ivy grads as they were in the past? Or are today's Ivy League graduates simply so wealthy that they no longer feel the need to find stable, high-paying jobs at big companies?"

4 of 577 comments (clear)

  1. Other Schools... by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could it be that other schools are becoming better as access to information increases?

    --
    try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
  2. Ivy vs non-ivy... by lordbyron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being alumni of the ivy I can say I have had no real advantage in the direct job market because of my school but the network that I was able to develop while at school is second to none.

    There is a idiom of ivy arrogance that the only difference between the education you get at Harvard vs other schools is that at other schools you learn about history at Harvard you are taught by the people that made history and sitting in a room with others that will make history.

  3. Re:Education no longer matters by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Well, if you don't have at least a Bacholers Degree, we aren't even going to look at your resume. It takes a work ethic and motivation to get a degree. A BA/BS means that "hey this person had at least enough drive to get the degree, we can probably train them to do whatever we need".

    So to say that education is less desirable than motivation and work ethic is a fallacy since it takes motivation and work ethic to get an education.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  4. Re:The decline of generalism by hagbard5235 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, it isn't a decline in generalism, it's a decline in liberal arts degrees. If you really want a generalist, hire a physics major. Most liberal arts majors get almost no meaingful training in mathematics, or science. Mathematics and science background, and more importantly the kind of critical thinking they engender, is crucial today. Liberal arts majors don't have that.

    I interview lots of job candidates. While specialization that will make them applicable to the problem their being hired for is a plus, it's not the deciding factor, because I will need to use them on something completely different in 6 months to a year. Adaptability is key. Quick learning is key. The ability to flesh out a hard technical problem and come up with an innovative solution to it is key. I've never seen anyone with a liberal arts degree who could do those things. I see physics, mathematics, biochem, and engineering people do them routinely.

    The one kind of liberal arts major I've seen a general use for is history majors. They can pull together large quantities of scattered data and write a coherent explanation of what it all means. That's a niche, but it's a highly useful niche.