Comment by parpfish
1 year ago
i think its interesting that for so many college kids, the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
it's not because they are any more prestigious or important, but because they provide a clear sense of achievement/external validation and kids that make it to the end of college are kids that have had decades of achievement/external validation being their primary measure of success.
and because of that, those places do an amazing job recruiting. i remember toward the end of my undergrad days there was huge sense of competition to get a "teach for america" position, even among folks with no interest in education. it was appealing simply because it was selective and provided a clear framework for 'next steps'.
> the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
Graduate school is a mixed bag when it comes to prestige. It's fairly well known that grad student lifestyle is a grind, highly competitive, and a financial sacrifice. You go into it for a love of academics, not as a default next step.
As for prestigious jobs like FAANG: I think you're downplaying the extreme compensation offered by many of these jobs. It's not just about prestige, it's about unlocking a level of wealth that is hard to ignore. It delivers on the dream people have when they imagine a university education unlocking incredible career options.
> Graduate school is a mixed bag when it comes to prestige. It's fairly well known that grad student lifestyle is a grind, highly competitive, and a financial sacrifice. You go into it for a love of academics, not as a default next step.
Sorry to be contrary, but almost every graduate student I have met was doing it for the prestige. The fact that they were doing a research degree, the chance of having their name on papers, the fact that they were "smarter" than people who couldn't get into graduate school.
I've worked with many people who directly stated that they went to grad school because they "didn't know what else to do". As well as several who couldn't get a job, so they went back to school.
It definitely isn't always for the love of academics.
grad school is definitely a prestige move. not a 'get rich move', but def a prestige move. prestige is not just money.
for med or law school, there are very clear hierarchies about who's better than who and next steps in your career. you get money AND intellectual status.
but for other sciences and humanities, it's a flex about pursuing abstract "truth" or "knowledge" of "beauty" or whatever and not caring about financial success. it is very monastic in that people make a show of forgoing traditional measures of status in service of their "calling".
... but as high-minded as these people are there is still a very clear hierarchy that lets you compare rank/compare yourself against your other recent grads so you can talk about who's doing well and who isn't even though none of them have money.
BUT grad school for CS and engineering is different because there's so much money and employability at the end of the rainbow. these aren't really a calling in the same way, and are closer to MBA degree becayse it's just a thing you do to get more money later. A comp sci PhD with a job in industry is lauded, but those folks don't understand the deep sense of failure that a non-CS PhD feels when they have to 'resort to' an industry job in the private sector
> for other sciences and humanities, it's a flex about pursue abstract "truth" or "knowledge" of "beauty" or whatever. it is very monastic in that people make a show of forgoing traditional measures of status in service of their "calling".
These comments are oddly cynical.
The people I know who went to grad school did it because they enjoyed the academic world.
That's all. There was no flexing or bragging. Those who went in for the wrong reasons very rapidly learned that it wasn't for them and dropped out.
14 replies →
I heard that quant finance companies target high-achievers by creating a sense of continuing tracks: recruiting based on high GPAs, an application process with a high-profile entrance exam, and so on. It creates an impression among their target group that such a company is where they "should" go to work, because it's at the top.
The weird thing with quant finance is that it basically started as a bunch of misfits from other disciplines. Mostly sub departments at banks and some funds no one ever heard of.
Now its a well trodden career path with specialized degree programs targeting it, online forums full of 16 year old aspirational hardos discussing which college to apply to in order to get into job 1 which leads to job 2 which leads to.. So again, train tracks.
Old quants are an interesting bunch to talk to. Guys who worked in plasma physics or are serious musicians or classically trained philosophy backgrounds, etc.
Now every grad resume I see for job openings looks exactly the same. I no longer deal with grad/intern programs thankfully.
Agree in spirit though I’m a bit doubtful of your details (exams or GPAs, etc). I think part of this is presenting the work as looking more like university and less like what students might imagine work to look like.
The flipside is that going off the tracks, you need to decide where you're going and you might get lost. Some people try to do something and then waste a lot of time just spinning their wheels. For them, some structure and some tracks might be necessary.
I guess we all need some amount of scaffolding in our life, at one point or another.
> the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
I think it's the other way around: the more prestigious option becomes the track.
> and because of that, those places do an amazing job recruiting
I think the absurd compensation helps a bit there too
I don’t see why that can’t be replicated in vocational trades.
Main challenge there is you don’t have a plumbing/electrical conglomerate like you have in tech to standardize recruiting.
Trade unions and apprenticeships provide some of this, especially in places where trade work is heavily unionized.