getting sick/tired of prestige-obsessed profesion Forum

[Anonymous User]

I can relate to your sentiment. I cannot think of any other graduate program that is so rank obsessed. Seriously, is there any other program where people actually break down the schools and put so much weight into minor and often arbitrary distinctions among students and ranks? I don't get why the #1 program is legendary, then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.? I feel like law hiring and law grades are often based on tiny distinctions without true differences. Do not understand why grades, school rank, etc. are taken as such a critical signalling mechanism, but I can see why the structure of the system would create such prestige-obsessed people. Why is the system structured the way it is? How can we, as members of such a system, not become so prestige-obsessed, and help fellow lawyers to be happier and less focused on rankings and bottom lines?

[rayiner]

I can relate to your sentiment. I cannot think of any other graduate program that is so rank obsessed. Seriously, is there any other program where people actually break down the schools and put so much weight into minor and often arbitrary distinctions among students and ranks? I don't get why the #1 program is legendary, then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.? I feel like law hiring and law grades are often based on tiny distinctions without true differences. Do not understand why grades, school rank, etc. are taken as such a critical signalling mechanism, but I can see why the structure of the system would create such prestige-obsessed people. Why is the system structured the way it is? How can we, as members of such a system, not become so prestige-obsessed, and help fellow lawyers to be happier and less focused on rankings and bottom lines?

Finance and consulting is even more prestige-obsessed. There are a dozen schools considered "top schools" in the country, varying depending on market. There are only three top MBA programs. Big law firms hire large numbers of people from 10-20 law schools. Pretty much only HYPS+Penn send large numbers of people into the big banks from undergrad. Google and Facebook have brought prestige-obsession to engineering too--they recruit heavily from Stanford and Berkeley.

Why do companies do it? Because frankly as 20-somethings with no experience we're completely fungible. Even if the school rankings are based on minor differences, those minor differences are the only cheap, quick sorting mechanism companies have to go on. People become prestige conscious because they understand how the game is played.

When I worked as an engineer, I used to help with hiring sometimes. When a resume crosses my desk, I have nothing to go on beyond school and GPA. Everything people do more or less sounds the same, and it's impossible to tell just from looking at a resume what experience is legit and what is bullshit. When faced with that, I'm just going to pick the resume that has "Berkeley" on it or "Stanford" rather than "Cal State."

[NYC2014]

Maybe you could stop being judgmental yourself. There's not a single person in my law school who I dislike; we're all in this together, as humans trying to get through our lives as best we know how.

[NYC2014]

Maybe you could stop being judgmental yourself. There's not a single person in my law school who I dislike; we're all in this together, as humans trying to get through our lives as best we know how.

Oh please, it's just law school.

I didn't mean "we" as "we, in law school." I meant we, as individual human beings, are doing the best we can - If someone has an "off" personality, deal with it with a shrug, not a frown.

[nyf]

then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.?

Easy there. The NYU - CLS differential is 100% negligible. If we do a "Sliding Doors" thing - same person - one goes to CLS and one to NYU - there will be NO difference in their career prospects. I pretty much got to do this by going to NYU and then my alternate self went to CLS at the same time. (We both got into both schools).

[sparty99]

I can relate to your sentiment. I cannot think of any other graduate program that is so rank obsessed. Seriously, is there any other program where people actually break down the schools and put so much weight into minor and often arbitrary distinctions among students and ranks? I don't get why the #1 program is legendary, then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.? I feel like law hiring and law grades are often based on tiny distinctions without true differences. Do not understand why grades, school rank, etc. are taken as such a critical signalling mechanism, but I can see why the structure of the system would create such prestige-obsessed people. Why is the system structured the way it is? How can we, as members of such a system, not become so prestige-obsessed, and help fellow lawyers to be happier and less focused on rankings and bottom lines?

Finance and consulting is even more prestige-obsessed. There are a dozen schools considered "top schools" in the country, varying depending on market. There are only three top MBA programs. Big law firms hire large numbers of people from 10-20 law schools. Pretty much only HYPS+Penn send large numbers of people into the big banks from undergrad. Google and Facebook have brought prestige-obsession to engineering too--they recruit heavily from Stanford and Berkeley.

Why do companies do it? Because frankly as 20-somethings with no experience we're completely fungible. Even if the school rankings are based on minor differences, those minor differences are the only cheap, quick sorting mechanism companies have to go on. People become prestige conscious because they understand how the game is played.

When I worked as an engineer, I used to help with hiring sometimes. When a resume crosses my desk, I have nothing to go on beyond school and GPA. Everything people do more or less sounds the same, and it's impossible to tell just from looking at a resume what experience is legit and what is bullshit. When faced with that, I'm just going to pick the resume that has "Berkeley" on it or "Stanford" rather than "Cal State."

There are only three "Top MBA" programs? Puh-lease....

[rayiner]

I can relate to your sentiment. I cannot think of any other graduate program that is so rank obsessed. Seriously, is there any other program where people actually break down the schools and put so much weight into minor and often arbitrary distinctions among students and ranks? I don't get why the #1 program is legendary, then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.? I feel like law hiring and law grades are often based on tiny distinctions without true differences. Do not understand why grades, school rank, etc. are taken as such a critical signalling mechanism, but I can see why the structure of the system would create such prestige-obsessed people. Why is the system structured the way it is? How can we, as members of such a system, not become so prestige-obsessed, and help fellow lawyers to be happier and less focused on rankings and bottom lines?

Finance and consulting is even more prestige-obsessed. There are a dozen schools considered "top schools" in the country, varying depending on market. There are only three top MBA programs. Big law firms hire large numbers of people from 10-20 law schools. Pretty much only HYPS+Penn send large numbers of people into the big banks from undergrad. Google and Facebook have brought prestige-obsession to engineering too--they recruit heavily from Stanford and Berkeley.

Why do companies do it? Because frankly as 20-somethings with no experience we're completely fungible. Even if the school rankings are based on minor differences, those minor differences are the only cheap, quick sorting mechanism companies have to go on. People become prestige conscious because they understand how the game is played.

When I worked as an engineer, I used to help with hiring sometimes. When a resume crosses my desk, I have nothing to go on beyond school and GPA. Everything people do more or less sounds the same, and it's impossible to tell just from looking at a resume what experience is legit and what is bullshit. When faced with that, I'm just going to pick the resume that has "Berkeley" on it or "Stanford" rather than "Cal State."

There are only three "Top MBA" programs? Puh-lease....

For finance and consulting? Yes, it's HWS, maybe + Columbia.

E.g. Kellogg in 2010 put about 13% into MBB or JPM/MS/GS.

[bilbobaggins]

Be polite, relatively friendly and then spend your free time doing whatever it is that makes you happy. Try to ignore the fact that there are a ton of people on this planet that get off on shit that you find boring/lame/reprehensible. Put some energy into helping people less fortunate than yourself and you'll find you have less energy to spend disliking people for having different values than you do. Realize that you probably look like a prestige whore to people less fortunate than yourself and reflect a little on that. All in all, don't let other people's motivation/desires/dreams/happiness get in the way of your own. If this means finding a new career path then do it.

[sparty99]

I can relate to your sentiment. I cannot think of any other graduate program that is so rank obsessed. Seriously, is there any other program where people actually break down the schools and put so much weight into minor and often arbitrary distinctions among students and ranks? I don't get why the #1 program is legendary, then there is a hierarchy such that going to the #4 school is in a different class than the top 3 schools, but still better than NYU, etc.? I feel like law hiring and law grades are often based on tiny distinctions without true differences. Do not understand why grades, school rank, etc. are taken as such a critical signalling mechanism, but I can see why the structure of the system would create such prestige-obsessed people. Why is the system structured the way it is? How can we, as members of such a system, not become so prestige-obsessed, and help fellow lawyers to be happier and less focused on rankings and bottom lines?

Finance and consulting is even more prestige-obsessed. There are a dozen schools considered "top schools" in the country, varying depending on market. There are only three top MBA programs. Big law firms hire large numbers of people from 10-20 law schools. Pretty much only HYPS+Penn send large numbers of people into the big banks from undergrad. Google and Facebook have brought prestige-obsession to engineering too--they recruit heavily from Stanford and Berkeley.

Why do companies do it? Because frankly as 20-somethings with no experience we're completely fungible. Even if the school rankings are based on minor differences, those minor differences are the only cheap, quick sorting mechanism companies have to go on. People become prestige conscious because they understand how the game is played.

When I worked as an engineer, I used to help with hiring sometimes. When a resume crosses my desk, I have nothing to go on beyond school and GPA. Everything people do more or less sounds the same, and it's impossible to tell just from looking at a resume what experience is legit and what is bullshit. When faced with that, I'm just going to pick the resume that has "Berkeley" on it or "Stanford" rather than "Cal State."

There are only three "Top MBA" programs? Puh-lease....

For finance and consulting? Yes, it's HWS, maybe + Columbia.

E.g. Kellogg in 2010 put about 13% into MBB or JPM/MS/GS.

Puh-lease. You do know there are more than 3 consulting firms in the consulting industry? Why do you limit your research to MBB? Consulting firms generally recruit at all the "Top 20-35 MBA programs," including Deloitte and AT Kearney who are just as respectable as MBB....

[ruski]

saying there are only three top MBA programs, is like saying there are only 3 top law schools. while both are technically true, they're kind of stupid statements as columbia, haas, kellog, even stern sends kids to ALL the top shops, just in lesser proportions than HWS. just like the top14 law students also can end up at Cravath, S&C etc, just in smaller proprotions than YHS

[kaiser]

saying there are only three top MBA programs, is like saying there are only 3 top law schools. while both are technically true, they're kind of stupid statements as columbia, haas, kellog, even stern sends kids to ALL the top shops, just in lesser proportions than HWS. just like the top14 law students also can end up at Cravath, S&C etc, just in smaller proprotions than YHS

This is very much TCR

[rayiner]

Puh-lease. You do know there are more than 3 consulting firms in the consulting industry? Why do you limit your research to MBB? Consulting firms generally recruit at all the "Top 20-35 MBA programs," including Deloitte and AT Kearney who are just as respectable as MBB....

There are also probably a few hundred law firms that pay six figures or near it, and recruit from the top 100 law schools. That doesn't mean the legal industry isn't prestige conscious. Heck, S&C/DPW/STB recruit from 20-25 law schools, but 2/3 of their associates still from from HYS+CLS/NYU. And LOL @ the idea that there are 30+ top MBA programs. Those programs are not putting more than half of their graduates into $120k+ jobs the way the top law schools and top business schools are. My alma matter has a top 35 MBA program. It's a great way to get an $80k/year job in Coke corporate.

[rayiner]

saying there are only three top MBA programs, is like saying there are only 3 top law schools. while both are technically true, they're kind of stupid statements as columbia, haas, kellog, even stern sends kids to ALL the top shops, just in lesser proportions than HWS. just like the top14 law students also can end up at Cravath, S&C etc, just in smaller proprotions than YHS

Fordham sends a few people ever year to Cravath, S&C, etc--nobody considers them a top school.

[sparty99]

An $80K corporate job at Coke sounds like a great job...I'll make that money go real far in da ATL. Where do I sign up, I'm jelly.

[ruski]

saying there are only three top MBA programs, is like saying there are only 3 top law schools. while both are technically true, they're kind of stupid statements as columbia, haas, kellog, even stern sends kids to ALL the top shops, just in lesser proportions than HWS. just like the top14 law students also can end up at Cravath, S&C etc, just in smaller proprotions than YHS

Fordham sends a few people ever year to Cravath, S&C, etc--nobody considers them a top school.

yea b/c sending one kid to cravath really counts. the MBA programs i mentioned all send a handful (which is a lot as classes sizes are often smaller in consulting/banking)

i actually agree that there is no such thing as top30 mba program, and if you noticed the mba programs i mentioned were all around top 10. comparing MBA HWS is equivalent to Law YHS, and mba top 10 is equivalent to law top 14. so yes it's ridiculous to say there are only three top mba programs. its the same as saying its only worth it to go to law school if you get into the top three. most business people will say its worth it to go to b-school if you can get into a top 10.

[sparty99]

Puh-lease. You do know there are more than 3 consulting firms in the consulting industry? Why do you limit your research to MBB? Consulting firms generally recruit at all the "Top 20-35 MBA programs," including Deloitte and AT Kearney who are just as respectable as MBB....

There are also probably a few hundred law firms that pay six figures or near it, and recruit from the top 100 law schools. That doesn't mean the legal industry isn't prestige conscious. Heck, S&C/DPW/STB recruit from 20-25 law schools, but 2/3 of their associates still from from HYS+CLS/NYU. And LOL @ the idea that there are 30+ top MBA programs. Those programs are not putting more than half of their graduates into $120k+ jobs the way the top law schools and top business schools are. My alma matter has a top 35 MBA program. It's a great way to get an $80k/year job in Coke corporate.

You sound too much like a prestige whore. You need a gf, bro.

[rayiner]

saying there are only three top MBA programs, is like saying there are only 3 top law schools. while both are technically true, they're kind of stupid statements as columbia, haas, kellog, even stern sends kids to ALL the top shops, just in lesser proportions than HWS. just like the top14 law students also can end up at Cravath, S&C etc, just in smaller proprotions than YHS

Fordham sends a few people ever year to Cravath, S&C, etc--nobody considers them a top school.

yea b/c sending one kid to cravath really counts. the MBA programs i mentioned all send a handful (which is a lot as classes sizes are often smaller in consulting/banking)

i actually agree that there is no such thing as top30 mba program, and if you noticed the mba programs i mentioned were all around top 10. comparing MBA HWS is equivalent to Law YHS, and mba top 10 is equivalent to law top 14. so yes it's ridiculous to say there are only three top mba programs. its the same as saying its only worth it to go to law school if you get into the top three. most business people will say its worth it to go to b-school if you can get into a top 10.

So the reason I say three top business schools versus a dozen top law schools is because of the lower level of consolidation and the regionalism in law. There are a couple of dozen law firms that might be said to have broad appeal as a top choice for someone who has a lot of options. These firms, in turn, have different sets of "core recruiting schools." All will universally take HYS people, but have quite different preferences amongst the remainder of the T14. I don't think the same is necessarily true for the top 10 business schools, especially at the lower end of that spectrum. Therefore I think there is a larger set of law schools considered "top schools" than b-schools.

That being said, even assuming "T10 b-school ~= T14 law school" I don't see how that suggests that finance/consulting are less prestige-conscious than law. There are roughly the same number of graduates each year at the top 10 business schools as the top 14 law schools (~5,000). However there are 150,000 MBA graduates each year versus about 45,000 JD's. That suggests that finance and consulting are more prestige conscious than law!

[rayiner]

Puh-lease. You do know there are more than 3 consulting firms in the consulting industry? Why do you limit your research to MBB? Consulting firms generally recruit at all the "Top 20-35 MBA programs," including Deloitte and AT Kearney who are just as respectable as MBB....

There are also probably a few hundred law firms that pay six figures or near it, and recruit from the top 100 law schools. That doesn't mean the legal industry isn't prestige conscious. Heck, S&C/DPW/STB recruit from 20-25 law schools, but 2/3 of their associates still from from HYS+CLS/NYU. And LOL @ the idea that there are 30+ top MBA programs. Those programs are not putting more than half of their graduates into $120k+ jobs the way the top law schools and top business schools are. My alma matter has a top 35 MBA program. It's a great way to get an $80k/year job in Coke corporate.

You sound too much like a prestige whore. You need a gf, bro.

My fiancé finds my prestige-whoring borderline intolerable.

[ninereal]

Well, at least you're not doing other kinds of whoring.

[bilbobaggins]

This thread turned into exactly what op hates.

[RVP11]

This thread turned into exactly what op hates.

Within two pages, people are talking about Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Yale, Columbia (sort of), Wachtell, Cravath, SullCrom, Davis Polk, Simpson, McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.

And big surprise: Rayiner is on the scene.

[rayiner]

This thread turned into exactly what op hates.

Within two pages, people are talking about Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Yale, Columbia (sort of), Wachtell, Cravath, SullCrom, Davis Polk, Simpson, McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.

And big surprise: Rayiner is on the scene.

You're attributing to correlation what should be attributed to causation.

[crit_racer]

Be polite, relatively friendly and then spend your free time doing whatever it is that makes you happy. Try to ignore the fact that there are a ton of people on this planet that get off on shit that you find boring/lame/reprehensible. Put some energy into helping people less fortunate than yourself and you'll find you have less energy to spend disliking people for having different values than you do. Realize that you probably look like a prestige whore to people less fortunate than yourself and reflect a little on that. All in all, don't let other people's motivation/desires/dreams/happiness get in the way of your own. If this means finding a new career path then do it.

+1

[HeavenWood]

In my experience basically everybody who is part of the rich upperclass is a prestige whoring snobby full of self son of a bitch. But it still sucks that you have to work with those people

There are quite a few exceptions...I have some nice rich friends....though money does tend to ruin people, especially people who didn't work for it. I know someone whose step daddy is an actual billionaire-money to him means drugs, partying and doing absolutely nothing with his life, despite having in my opinion more than enough talent to succeed. Then you have the idiot rich-I like these the best. It is so funny to me that complete morons who have "business sense" can become somewhat wealthy. Most often this business sense is being stingy, selfish, not caring about anything but money etc. They get very angry when I step on them intellectually which by the way is quite easy...The idiot rich and the smarter rich also get mad when I show no sign of being impressed with their money. My attitude towards other people's money is quite simple-They are not going to help me with their money, so what does it have to do with me? I'll make my own money.

The legal profession is infested with smarmy bastards who think the world of themselves. However just because a person is smarmy doesn't mean they won't help you. In fact it is good for these ego driven people to think that like The Barber of Seville, they are the pimps of whatever playground they inhabit. Figarooooooooooooo!!

Even this post is filled with horseshit, albeit a hair less than the OP's.

[Geneva]

Be polite, relatively friendly and then spend your free time doing whatever it is that makes you happy. Try to ignore the fact that there are a ton of people on this planet that get off on shit that you find boring/lame/reprehensible. Put some energy into helping people less fortunate than yourself and you'll find you have less energy to spend disliking people for having different values than you do. Realize that you probably look like a prestige whore to people less fortunate than yourself and reflect a little on that. All in all, don't let other people's motivation/desires/dreams/happiness get in the way of your own. If this means finding a new career path then do it.

+1

yes.