Peking, Fudan, Nanjing, and Tsinghua off the top of my head. But you're not comparing apples to apples here. Since we're talking about the U.S. applicant pool, let's keep schools inside the U.S. - otherwise you'd have to take into account the hypothetical opening of universities to the entire Chinese pool of students and I don't think you want to do that. Yes, Berkeley is more famous than many schools that are tougher to get into but Berkeley is pretty tough to get in if you don't live in CA. I don't think how tough it is to get into a school should be a measure of that school's prestige.
Turned down BS/MD for HYPSM. Now I'm a reapplicant
- Thread starter salemstein
- Start date
-
- Tags
- advice reapplicant
Peking, Fudan, Nanjing, and Tsinghua off the top of my head. But you're not comparing apples to apples here. Since we're talking about the U.S. applicant pool, let's keep schools inside the U.S. - otherwise you'd have to take into account the hypothetical opening of universities to the entire Chinese pool of students and I don't think you want to do that. Yes, Berkeley is more famous than many schools that are tougher to get into but Berkeley is pretty tough to get in if you don't live in CA. I don't think how tough it is to get into a school should be a measure of that school's prestige.
HERE'S THE THING. This is an argument of the haves and the have nots. I went to a HYPSM school so obviously I have biases. Others have gone to non-HYPSM top schools and they obviously have biases. Nobody can speak to this entirely objectively unless they have two bachelor's degrees from a HYPSM school and a non-HYPSM top school. So we're all just going to have to agree to disagree.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
Huh, this is def at odds with how everyone views college admissions, in my experience at least! Eg schools like Williams are prestigious because they're selective and have been for a long time, not because any supreme court justices or a large number of Nobel prize winners and billionares went there.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
I do recall seeing a recent breakdown by @Lucca of MSTP data that showed HYPSM, and Ivy caliber schools more generally, provided insane numbers (like 30+%) of total accepted students. Even if we were free of our own biases I'm sure these kinds of discussions are doomed because different reviewers at different universities for different graduate programs are all going to differ in how much they respect a given name. But, it does look like in general the favoritism of famous names is alive and well in some admissions processes.
If selectivity was what made a school prestigious, don't you think schools would put huge admissions statistics on all their brochures? Their brochures typically advertise other things like what students have gone on to do. I don't think selectivity grants prestige. You could test this using a simple thought experiment. Take your state school and cut down the number of seats available to 100. Overnight, it'll become the most selective school in the nation. Would it become the most prestigious?
I'm not bringing it up in conversation so I don't know who you're talking about. Perhaps OP? The real world? I don't know what world you live in but I'm talking about the consulting and finance world. I keep saying this but it keeps going in one ear and out the other. I held from the beginning that for med schools, HYPSM doesn't matter that much (except for top schools where pedigree matters) and that the degree gives OP many opportunities if he/she decides not to pursue med.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 217
I didn't anticipate this to turn into a huge debate over names, but its interesting to see what you guys think. If I sounded a bit pretentious, my b- this is a pretty sensitive topic for me and I might have gotten carried away. Some of you were wondering about my background: though I got really good grades in high school, my high school was only average compared to some of the elite prep schools a lot of my classmates went to. I didn't feel adequately prepared to tango with the internationally recognized geniuses in my class (who consequently got the limited amount of As given per class). Now that I'm doing a post-bac at a local school, I've actually had more time to improve my app from a reapplicants standpoint- more clinical hours, community service, retook the MCAT, etc. Time for Round 2-- Lets go!!!
Some of you were debating about just how much a school's name carries in weight. I've never done OCR so can't say anything about campus recruiters, but I did manage to look at school specific data for med school admissions for people coming from my UG (they have it in our career library). Its been a while since I looked at the data, but from my impression there was a high rate of acceptance to the top 10 med schools (15%+). However, its also the same amazing people getting into the same amazing schools. Given how competitive it is to get in, theres a higher proportion of classmates who have achieved something really significant.
Imagine this: you have HYPSM on one hand, with every applicant having the noble prize under their belt. Then you have low-rank state school, with every applicant also winning the noble prize. They all apply to Harvard med. Who is Harvard gonna take? I would say all of the above. That's because they've accomplished something worthy enough to be granted admissions. Granted, this scenario is unrealistic, but my point is that people are confusing prestige with achievement. The name alone will not get you through any doors (just look at me). What we do have are more opportunities to get to a point where said doors can be opened easier. My shortcoming was not being able to take advantage of as many opportunities as I had hoped to during my 4 years.
Some of you were debating about just how much a school's name carries in weight. I've never done OCR so can't say anything about campus recruiters, but I did manage to look at school specific data for med school admissions for people coming from my UG (they have it in our career library). Its been a while since I looked at the data, but from my impression there was a high rate of acceptance to the top 10 med schools (15%+). However, its also the same amazing people getting into the same amazing schools. Given how competitive it is to get in, theres a higher proportion of classmates who have achieved something really significant.
Imagine this: you have HYPSM on one hand, with every applicant having the noble prize under their belt. Then you have low-rank state school, with every applicant also winning the noble prize. They all apply to Harvard med. Who is Harvard gonna take? I would say all of the above. That's because they've accomplished something worthy enough to be granted admissions. Granted, this scenario is unrealistic, but my point is that people are confusing prestige with achievement. The name alone will not get you through any doors (just look at me). What we do have are more opportunities to get to a point where said doors can be opened easier. My shortcoming was not being able to take advantage of as many opportunities as I had hoped to during my 4 years.
Still disagree. Name recognition does not mean much. How many people do you think know what WashU and UCSF are even though they are huge players in the medical field? Especially since many significant contributions come through academics, which the average person will not know anything about. If you go abroad, especially Asia, they will recognize mostly all the top schools. The foreigners I've met know our school rankings much better than the average American.
Major contributions to economics have been made by UChicago and MIT. Major medical advances have been made by really a ton of places. Do you think Harvard outshines WashU, Hopkins, CC, Mayo, Stanford, UCSF in terms of medical advances?
In terms of nobel prize it goes: Harvard, Columbia, MIT, Berkeley, UChicago, Yale, NYU, Caltech.........7 schools later Princeton ties CUNY City College
We can wax on, but all these schools have all made significant contributions and they are peer schools. HYP peer schools aren't "catching up," they have always been major contributors.
@piii If you thought OP was pretentious, look at us! Hahah
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
Depends what they're after with the brochures. If it's getting someone to apply (sweet app fees), then telling them they have a 5% chance and that the average accepted student has a 99th percentile ACT might not be wise. You do see schools show off US News rankings a lot though, both for high ranked undergrad and MD programs.
I do think there is prestige associated with things there are only a few slots for at state school level, like full ride scholarships or admittance to honors colleges relative to the general university. Can you name programs that are highly prestigious without being highly selective? I can't. It's not that I think selectivity grants a school reputation, but rather that there's a positive feedback loop with "hard to get in" feeding into "impressive to go here" which in turn attracts top applicants and makes it hard to get in, and so on. You need a big presence and a lot of people being attracted to it. As a counter thought experiment, I think if suddenly Princeton purchased 10x the facilities and the admit rate shot to 70%, the impact of the Princeton name on a resume would diminish immediately.
You mention an MCAT retake - what's the deal there, did you not prepare fully? Would perhaps explain your situation moreso than your choice of undergrad! I do think you're describing a common phenomenon though. I think a good number of people that struggled academically at their school full of valedictorians would have been just fine at the state program next door.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,691
- Reaction score
- 13,035
Here's my two cents:
HYPS+/-M grads are overrepresented in all the high powered high prestige fields (finance, consulting, etc - not going to talk about tech or engineering because I'm not as familiar with them) and at top professional schools (medicine, law, MBA). All top schools (esp. Ivies, MIT, Stanford but certainly Duke Chicago etc) are overrepresented in these fields but HYPS is even more overrepresented.
HYPS+/-M grads are overrepresented in all the high powered high prestige fields (finance, consulting, etc - not going to talk about tech or engineering because I'm not as familiar with them) and at top professional schools (medicine, law, MBA). All top schools (esp. Ivies, MIT, Stanford but certainly Duke Chicago etc) are overrepresented in these fields but HYPS is even more overrepresented.
I'm talking about the ones given to admitted students on visit weekends to convince them to matriculate. I'm not sure about advertising brochures because I don't recall receiving many.
I agree there's a positive feedback loop but rotating in the opposite direction you believe. A school, due to its history, churns out a lot of students who go on to do great things, making that school look good. Not only that, but top faculty get attracted to those schools because of the work being done there. Top students then want to apply there due to some mix of expecting that the school will help them achieve greatness (whether it actually does is not of essence here) and getting to work with the best faculty. Then, as the school's legend grows, more and more people want to apply there, driving down the acceptance rate. Arguing that the acceptance rate is going down because the school is receiving more applications is a circular argument. The school is receiving more applications because of the accomplishments it can boast about, not because of its inherent selectivity. Selectivity is secondary to that. That's why schools like it when princes, sons of presidents, big name people, etc. go there because they can connect themselves to those people. Saying "We graduated the prince of Britain!" is more important than saying "We got 40,000 applications and only accepted 100 of them!"
If Princeton expanded (which it is doing) and admitted more students, I would bet that it will remain just as prestigious because of the top-rank faculty there and its historical accomplishments. Even after 50 years, as long as that tradition of excellence in its students continues, it will remain prestigious is my wager. But that's speculation so neither of us can prove or disprove that.
I thought we were talking about undergraduate rankings here so I'm not sure why we started discussing medical achievements. Focus on undergraduate name. WashU isn't top 10 in terms of university rankings.
A school is the sum of its alumni achievements, faculty achievements, and history of excellence. Nobel laureates from people who went there for undergrad is one part of the equation. Another factor is Nobel laureates from faculty at the university. That's a completely different ranking. And then there's more than just science in the world, you know. There are leaders in politics, leaders of nations, and leaders of business, among other things. All those things matter.
S
Sardinia
@salemstein I understand where you are coming from because one of my classmates who was a graduate from Swarthmore told me the same exact thing. They over complicate the material and require you to have a higher level of applied learning in order to earn your A in some classes. She was telling me how the material in our state school was much more centered around the material that was taught and you didn't have to go into an exam thinking that you had to hit 3-pointers like Stephen Curry. I don't think you were pretentious and I think it's not logical to make that assumption unless you were someone who has had the experience of coming from an HPYSM school and a state school taking similar level courses. Also I don't think that many people took Physical Chemistry which also tends to be a rigorous course requiring more applied learning than most introduction courses if it's not within your forte of knowledge.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
So what has Vanderbilt done between 2006 and 2016 that drove its acceptance rate from 35% to 9%? In the same timespan, its SAT interquartile range went from 1280-1470 to 1430-1590. I don't think it's suddenly become a household name or had a decade of churning out billionares, high ranking government officials or Nobel prize winners. Rather, it's been heavily selecting for high numbers and ranking gains, and it's worked. They're now commonly on the app lists for impressive high schoolers because they filled themselves with impressive high schoolers, and their graduates are as common among top medical classes as Ivy league schools. When a student sits down to build their application list these days, they pull up a US News chart of ranks or test scores or admit rates, they don't ask around for what universities are best regarded in the field! I really do think it's the intensity of competition for a seat that drives the prestige of winning a spot, but we will have to agree to disagree!
S
Sardinia
@aldol16 @efle @Mansamusa I think a better direction for this conversation is to follow the results of the Terman test. A test that was broadly covered by Malcolm Gladwell where he explains on general principle that people who hit a generally high IQ marker can achieve the same level success as people with a markedly higher IQ level because IQ becomes negligible at a certain point. And no, I think we can mutually agree that the IQ marker is not solely indicative of HYPSM acceptance, however a greater majority of the students that make up of a HYPSM student body go on to achieve higher results and have more prolific careers due to them being reared in an environment that fosters an environment centered around applied knowledge and valuing intelligence over the majority of staple careers that many students segue into following college.
The poster I was quoting talked about medical advances and talked about Yale's connection to Supreme Court justices (which Yale Law is where you wanna go if you want to be in Supreme Court, not undergrad).
We will just agree to disagree.
Yes, agree to disagree. But I'll address Vandy first. Vandy has become more selective as a function of their increased number of applications (here's the data to others who are interested: https://virg.vanderbilt.edu/virgweb/fb.aspx?show=2). But have they become more prestigious? In 2006, the US News ranking was 18th (http://theairspace.net/commentary/u-s-news-best-college-rankings-1983-2013/). The 2013 US News ranking was 19th, even though by that time, their acceptance rate had decreased to 13% from >30%. The most recent US News ranking has Vandy at 15th. If a student builds a list based on US News ranking as you imply, then not much has changed between 2006 and 2016 even though the number of applications has almost tripled. So it can't be that Vandy has become more prestigious by becoming more selective (if one measures prestige by US News ranking - I don't know how else a high schooler would measure prestige). There must be another explanation.
Oh, I see. There is an overrepresentation of top schools in the top law schools. One should go to Yale if one wants to go to Yale law, if one ones to be in the Supreme Court (which has more Harvard law graduates, I believe - and 3 Princeton undergrads). It's no coincidence that top schools feed into top professional schools. And by top professional schools here, I'm specifically referring to law school.
And being able to work with world-class faculty. In no graduate program ranking could I find Brown in the top 10. Working with world-class faculty gives you more career opportunities in academia and industry (for scientists) after that. Nature vs. nurture all over again.
I agree. And there are more tops schools than HYP who all are overepresented at these top professional schools
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
In the US News ranks only a small fraction of the position is determined by reputation, but luckily they provide a reputation score metric by high school counselors so we can try to isolate that bit.
Vanderbilt currently scores a 4.7/5, while for comparison Yale is 4.9, Duke and Penn 4.8, U Chicago 4.7, Caltech 4.7, Berkeley 4.7. Clearly it is considered to be among schools it certainly wasn't a decade ago. The acceptance rate falling fourfold and SAT interval rising to rival HYPSM doesn't happen without the school's reputation climbing significantly, but that climb certainly isn't coming in that short of a timespan from the works of graduates out in the world. These days it is impressive to get into Vanderbilt as a highschooler - you beat out 90% of applicants to join a student body where 99th percentile is average! - and that came from who they were letting in each year, much more than what their graduates in the 2000s have done during their 20s.
There are. But of HYPS are more overrepresented than those schools. It's a spectrum. Not black and white. Check out the Wedge's comments above.
You're picking out statistics that suit you now. Are you equating reputation with prestige? If so, then I have no argument with you. Because I don't think prestige comes from reputation alone. I think prestige comes out of many of the factors the US News uses to construct rankings. You also realize that reputation rank by high school counselors is more of an expression of their own beliefs than it is of their students and not only that, but you yourself say that the US News ranking is what students use to decide which schools to apply to. They don't sit there and pick and choose statistics to match a school list they already had in mind.
I'm not arguing that Vandy has gained prestige because of what its recent graduates have been doing. No, my argument is much more fundamental than that. I am arguing that Vandy is not considered prestigious vis-a-vis Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT. I say that because of the US News rankings - rankings that most high school applicants take at face value, as you implied earlier.
You mean anecdotal comments and no evidence of a statistically meaningful difference?
Harvard is also known as the biggest culprit of inflation, so we also compare student outcomes in applicants with similar gpas (eg. There usually aren't more than maybe 10 students applying to med school from my school with a 3.8+ and they normally get into top school. If Harvard has 3x the number of 3.8+ that could explain the increased representation as much as a difference in perceived prestige)
*Sigh. See first post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48746, copied straight out of a Yale publication. You could argue, of course, that since the bulletin was from '08 and is no longer available online, that poster confabulated the data. Or you could argue that a difference of 31 and 13 is not statistically significant. Shall I find another source for you?
Edit: Here, here's 2015-16 about '14 statistics. http://www.yale.edu/printer/bulletin/pdffiles/law.pdf. Start on pg. 157. I'll rank the top 3 for you. 1. Yale (78) 2. Harvard (66) 3. Princeton (37). Columbia followed that with 29 and Stanford after with 25. Columbia's rise has been recent, as Stanford has surpassed even Princeton up until very recently. I wouldn't expect MIT to be represented well here because those students typically don't enter law as much as students from the Ivies.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
I really did think it was a better metric of which universities are most impressive/respected than the outright rank. Do you really think things like alumni giving rate, finance packages, or student retention between years make up a large part of prestige?
I think we're mostly arguing past each other at this point! You're speaking of what makes an institution respected - decades (or centuries) of alumni doing great things. I'm speaking of what it is about a school that makes me impressed with someone when I found out they attend(ed) it - a whole bunch of smart kids want to go there every year and they were one of the ones admitted. Apples and oranges!
Not necessarily but I do think that assessment by administrators at peer institutions, faculty resources, student selectivity (I would think you would focus on this one), and financial resources play a role in prestige. It's no coincidence that the top schools have huge endowments and a strong history of alumni giving.
Yes, we're arguing apples and oranges now. What do you think of the law school data I posted above?
In that thread, posters talk about how Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law tend to be more elitist when it comes to selecting applicants. We also do not know the # of law school applicants coming from each school. Yale is obviously showing bias towards it students.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/prospectives/class11.htm UVA didn't hold the same trend as Yale law. UVA is showing bias towards its students and probably some regional bias because there are good number of Duke students.
A more telling statistic would be the percent of law school applicants that get into T14 schools from each school. That number would better account for individual school biases, minimize the role that grade inflation plays, and may minimize regional bias
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
This is the metric I avoided emphasizing this whole time because it makes it very hard to parse out who is actually among the top dogs. You might be surprised to learn for example that the test score ranges of WashU and Vanderbilt beat out places like Stanford and the Ivies outside HYP, despite being much less well known
About what I expected from having looked at Yale's med school composition over two recent years:
In 2014-2015, numbers were:
Yale 13%
Harvard 12%
MIT 5%
Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth 4%
Hopkins, Penn, Stanford, WUSTL 3%
Columbia, Emory, Rice, UC Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Wellesley, Williams 2%
~30 places sending only 1 person, including names like Duke, Northwestern, Bowdoin, Amherst, Vanderbilt, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Vassar, along with state schools and a few foreign universities. Nobody from Princeton or U Chicago.
For 2013-2014
Harvard 16%
Yale 8%
MIT 5%
Hopkins, Stanford 3%
Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern, Penn, Berkeley, UCLA 2%
Many others sending only one including names like Princeton, U Chicago, Amherst, Emory, Michigan, UVa, USC etc. WUSTL absent, Dartmouth absent.
To me: Huge love for their own undergrad, massive representation from Harvard, constant representation from MIT and Stanford but also a grab bag of pretty much everyone you'd think of as full of good students, often doing as well or better than Stanford and bunch of Ivy. I'd guess the bias for law might be stronger than in medicine?
It's not just bias towards its own students. It's biased towards HYPS students (and Columbia, to an extent). Look at last year's statistics, for example. Harvard getting 66 seats and Princeton getting 37 while schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell get <20? Does that tell you anything at all about tiers of Ivy League schools?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
Devil's advocate: Could be selection on the student side, you don't get to see how many applied. My guess is that the number of Princeton grads aiming for law is probably much higher than, say, Brown. Similarly someone interested in premed might be a lot more likely to choose Stanford over MIT or Princeton, etc.
I'm not claiming that prestige matters for med as much as for law. I'm saying the HYPS name matters more for graduate schools, law, consulting, finance than even other Ivies.
Also, mind citing where you got those statistics? I'd be interested in looking.
There's not only selection on the student side but accepted does not equal matriculated and while 10 students might be accepted to Yale med, these are the same students who are likely to be admitted to Harvard, Penn, Hopkins, WashU, Stanford, etc. and 8/10 of them might choose to go to those places (not the least because of Palo Alto!). So it would be more informative to have data on students from a particular school admitted to top 10 med schools but that data is usually kept hidden from the public eye by the universities (I don't understand for what reason since it would make sense to boast of how many students you send each year to a top 10 program).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
Sure, here's the list of graduating students which shows alma maters for those years:
http://www.yale.edu/printer/bulletin/archivepdffiles/Medicine/Medicine_2014-2015.pdf#page=209
http://www.yale.edu/printer/bulletin/archivepdffiles/Medicine/Medicine_2013-2014.pdf#page=209
Ah, so these are graduating statistics. I personally know several current Yale med students from my undergrad. I think I heard over the past 4 years, Yale has accepted >30 students from my undergrad. How many matriculated I do not know.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,779
I'd guess location plays a HUGE role - maybe Yale loves their own undergrad so much because the yield is way higher on people already known to tolerate New Haven! Can't imagine a whole lot of grads from places like Stanford or the UCs are willing to leave California unless they have to.
There is more that goes into it. And that is looking at Yale's bias of how schools rank (I also don't put Brown and Cornell in the same level as HYPSM etc). Brown has 125 students applying to law school, so half of their applicants would need to get into Yale in order to match Harvard's 66. Brown's average LSAT was 166, which obviously the score ****** won't go for- how do you know it is the prestige of Brown and not their low # of applicants and low average LSAT that makes them less represented?
I would like to see the percentage of applicants in discrete gpa and LSAT brackets who get into t14 law schools from each undergrad school in order to compare. I want to see that Yale grads with lower gpas consistantly get into t14 schools over Columbia grads with better stats or that Yale grads are more likely to get into a T14 than a Duke or UChicago or Columbia or Stanford grad with a similar gpa and LSAT. That would suggest that a prestige difference is at play. Even seeing the percentage of law matriculants from each undergrad who were accepted to t14 schools would be more telling than the undergrad representation at Yale Law.
Just so we're clear, this was the only reason I cited undergraduate representation at a top professional school. If you want to see more, that's perfectly fine but those stats are not readily accessible by the general public.
Even your experiment would not suggest a prestige difference is at play. You would need to equalize the educational opportunities available to students from Yale (I would prefer to compare Harvard to rule out the confounding factor of Yale favoring its own undergrads) and Columbia in your experiment. The connections, opportunities, etc. available at these places are not the same - that's part of the reason why Harvard and Yale are generally considered to be more prestigious than Columbia. So the situation gets hairy quite quickly - not to mention impossible. All the data tells you is that HYP are overrepresented at Yale law whereas "more top schools than HYP" are overrepresented relative to state schools but not relative to HYP. Which is why I say there is a difference between HYPS and non-HYPS Ivies.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,865
- Reaction score
- 874
I think you made the right choice. My friend got accepted to Sophie, ended up dropping out her 2nd year. At HYPSM, you'd still have that degree. You could be hired basically anywhere (as long as you actually utilized all the connections you made)
Plus, a combined program has you constantly working. You'd have almost no time to actually enjoy the college experience, which is what college is for.
Plus, a combined program has you constantly working. You'd have almost no time to actually enjoy the college experience, which is what college is for.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,865
- Reaction score
- 874
Schools with t14 laws schools can be generalized as having similar resources and opportunities for the sake of simplification (though obviously each school has its own area of law expertise)
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/prospectives/class15.htm And that HYP theory is not the case for this t14. And don't forget regional biases
I'm going for a run and won't be coming back to this thread, so thanks for the discussion!
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 217
@aldol16 Hey I see you have experience with finance/ consulting. Tho medicine will still be my plan A if I dont get in this cycle, I was thinking about going corporate for a couple years before applying for a third time (gotta pay my bills, ya know). Problem is I have large gaps in my employment between when I graduated and now (unless volunteering counts). How will that impact me in terms of getting a job?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,166
- Reaction score
- 1,216
Sorry it didn't work out, OP. Do your best as a reapplicat and don't look back.
I'm not certain how it will impact your job prospects because most of my experience has been with jobs immediately following graduation and not with big gaps in employment. So if you don't mind me asking, what have you been doing since graduation? You have to be feeding yourself now too, don't you? If you came from HYPSM, then you should check out your career services website. Most consulting firms (Big 3) and big i-banking banks recruit during the fall and fill most of their class then. They do a lot of on-campus recruiting and as an alumni, I'm sure there are ways you can take advantage of that. Pedigree matters to them a whole lot. After that, it's how you do on your case interviews (for consulting). I would recommend getting Case in Point and going through that with a friend.
Oh, and it's very important that you have strong analytical skills for consulting. They love engineers and physical scientists. If you were a bio major, you might not have much luck there. I-banking, on the other hand, values experience more (have you had any internships or any experience with it?). But if you were a math or physics major, you have your choice.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 217
I had some money saved up from doing bench research full-time, but had to end that last year because I decided to take on more classes @ DIY postbac. I actually did Americorps 2 years (my original "gap year" plan) back so my school money comes from there. As for the other things you've mentioned...Yea unfortunately I'm a bio major so it'll be hard to break into consulting/IB. From what I understand fall recruiting is mostly OCR for current students.
There are companies that recruit alumni as well. It depends on how far away you are from campus because it would be best if you went to one of the career fairs. I wouldn't go out of my way to go though. If you aren't a quantitative major and didn't do any work in quantitative bio, then it might be hard to get a generalist consulting job but it wouldn't hurt to try. You can always try the boutique specialist firms that specialize in biological subjects like immunotherapies, pharmaceuticals, etc. Lot of opportunities there as well and the HYPS name opens doors.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,691
- Reaction score
- 13,035
Hey guys, not that this isn't an interesting discussion or anything, but lets try to keep it as relevant to being a premed as possible (I understand that requires tangential discussions, but if we've moved on to talking about things that might have nothing to do with pre-allo, we should probably find our way back)
