Yes but for many the reason they were at Google was because of the MIT degree. So not only do you get a great education, but then you go on to do solid work (hopefully) and get good experience. It's acceleration on ROI of the degree.
Corporations are not good at identifying promising talent outside of their traditional (Ivy League, etc.) recruiting grounds so they stick with their traditional recruiting grounds and then they'll favor "diverse" students from their traditional recruiting grounds. That's why they (corps) haven't made any substantial progress in "diverse hires" IMO.
For example if "Google" wanted to make a difference it would actually ban hiring from Ivy League or top-20/30 universities (wiggle room on details here) and instead focus on universities that have higher admission rates (50% or so), large public universities, big time diverse populations relatively speaking.
And honestly, I really don't think you understand how hiring whas changed at a traditional corporation.
For management track roles, these companies (eg. Danaher, Abbvie, P&G, Coca Cola) would hire undergrads from regional schools for management track LDP programs.
Traditionally (aka the 70s and 80s) they would recruit from Ivies only, but that basically ended by the 2000s when they saw they couldn't compete on the package.
CMC has no reputation out East, but has a massive west coast PE/IB alumni network.
Danaher's GM Development Program (leadership track program) targets Carnegie Mellon
You need to attend an elite university to succeed, but an elite university doesn't have to be an Ivy. Selective public schools like Cal, Mich, UVA, UT Austin, UCLA, etc are feeders as well as Selective Privates like Tufts, UChicago, BYU, CMU, CMC, NYU, USC, etc.
UIUC, Wisconsin (CMU as well for example) have really strong engineering programs and "fit the mold".
UCSB (UCI too for example) and Oregon State are based on the west coast. You can get the kids who didn't get in to Stanford or Cal for one reason or another here. I'm guessing UMass fits this profile as well but for MIT/Harvard/etc.
Iowa State is the only one here that's surprising and I'd be curious to find any sort of info online about Google attending their career fairs. It's probably an experiment on Google's part. They typically do not recruit at these types of universities or the footprint is minimal.
Overall the point isn't "has Google ever sat foot on this campus? I guess they recruit there!!" it is "Google primarily recruits at Ivy League Universities (and of course the top 10 or 20 or so universities including public) and that is their bread and butter so to speak. Are you suggesting that Google recruits Harvard the same way it recruits Iowa State?
You initially said "Google didn't recruit my four friends", but Google still goes to campus in-person and recruits there. Google didn't show up at any of the career fairs for my big public universities in Ohio, though I've interviewed a few times based on my own sheer will and luck.
(just to be clear, I'm not picking on Google specifically and these comments can be applied generally to all the top hedge funds, tech companies, non-profits, etc.)
Iowa State has a strong STEM program because of Ames National Lab.
They also have on campus recruiting at UTD, UMinn, Purdue, BYU, ASU, and Stony Brook.
And when did you attend college?
And, to be fair, if it wasn't Ohio State I doubt they would have been there.
> (just to be clear, I'm not picking on Google specifically and these comments can be applied generally to all the top hedge funds, tech companies, non-profits, etc.)
What school you go to does matter, but it's doable for most students to attend a semi-selective program and still have plenty of doors open. Indiana Tech or Wright State aren't one of those and probably won't be.
It's going to be very hard to convince me that Google puts the same amount of recruiting resources into Iowa State or similar as it does Harvard, MIT, Michigan, etc. It's not a matter of "they went to campus at least once, therefore it's the same thing" which is what you're implying here.
> And when did you attend college?
I went to Ohio University (close to the same enrollment numbers as Iowa State actually) 2012-2015, and then went to Ohio State 2018-2020. I did a fair amount of campus recruiting on behalf of my employer, helped Ohio University some with getting companies on campus, and created a hackathon with a career fair element to it as well.
> Indiana Tech or Wright State aren't one of those and probably won't be.
Yes... which further strengthens my original point.
Google won’t pick them up, but the public sector and adjacent industries will, provided a passable background.
Depending where those people land, they may end up somewhere that’s on par with if not better than Google.
That aside, I’d like to know what purpose Indiana Tech and Wright State (and their equivalents) fill according to you wrt careers.
I would love to see a company do this experiment. It would really put their self-proclaimed focus on diversity to the test! Too many companies helplessly say "Oh, we really want to hire a diverse workforce, but by golly it's so hard and we just can't find diverse candidates from our candidate pipeline of only Ivy-league and top-tier schools!" Focus on hiring from mid-tier state schools and see if that's still true.
For a person who strongly believes in meritocracy, I really picked a stupid career.
If the goal is just to get in at FANG, well, better show some astounding grades, a grab-bag of portfolio items, a knack for communication, among other things. That isn't contingent on Ivy league.
I would like this to be true, but I think it varies a lot. I have seen execs be very excited by name-brand degrees well past that point. And then do the same thing with name-brand companies, without inquiring much as to what a given developer did at, say, one of the FAANGs.
When I've asked, the stated theory was that those places were good at filtering for smart people, so we didn't really have to evaluate actual competence. And that is one of the theoretical functions of things like degrees, so I get what they're saying, however horrifying I find it personally.
We make it all about smarts, but smarts aren't everything in the corporate grind.
I have seen executives (in startups and small, private companies) effectively stable PhDs and others with graduate degrees because of where their degree was printed. They pay these people a lot of money to keep them on payroll because it is, whether true or supposed, a strong signal to potential investors, etc.
but it does matter for a first job, which then has trickle down effects. If you have a better shot at a high-paying company with a good brand name and/or a better shot at "prestige" teams on those companies, that influences the next few years.
Nothing is guaranteed, but these marginal gains snowball.
Because Google is similarly valuable to MIT in your scenario.
But if you worked at a random startup after college, or three in a row, it's very likely that MIT on your resume will still be the thing that gets you in the door for an interview for your next job.
Anecdotally that isn't true. I am not trying to come off like a dick here but hiring manager is (probably) rarely on the level where people care about this stuff.
I was well over a decade into my career as a software engineer before HR types and executives stopped (openly, outwardly) giving a shit about the fact that I didn't have a degree. I made it through the front door based on my network, which I sincerely lucked into.
I absolutely believe (based on analyzing conversations and remarks made with these HR types and executives but also managers over the years) that I was passed over for promotions and given smaller starting salaries and pay bumps because of this. Yes, that did eventually stop. Where I am today, I know for a fact (if you can trust Blind, levels.fyi, and personal anecdotes, etc.) that I out earn some of my peers with equal education and tenure because of my specific experiences and skills, but it came at a cost for a long, long time.
I can really only think of two professions where your school matters: law and medicine. With Law I think it's the most important as it's crucial to your "personal brand" (A "Harvard trained" lawyer). With doctors it seems less important and with most other professions it seems almost irrelevant.