(09-10-2014 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 02:42 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 08:51 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, to be sure, the weight of the rankings depends upon the industry. As I've noted, the law school rankings (which are separate from what we're discussing here) mean a LOT for your job prospects. Investment banks tend to hire from Ivy League and Ivy-caliber schools. The large consulting and accounting firms tend to hire from the Big Ten and other regions' top flagships' business and engineering schools. That doesn't mean you *have* to attend those types schools to get into those jobs, but I can say from direct experience (as I've dealt with college recruiting at a few of these organizations) that the firm with higher paying salaries will hire lots of grads (sometimes dozens) from their specified "target schools" while only hiring 1 or 2 from the non-target schools (if any). Any competitive industry (architecture, advertising, etc.) is going to have their own lists of target schools. In this economic environment, companies are spending resources recruiting only at the handful of institutions that they "trust".

The deal with the Big 4 consulting firms is they don't pay much differently than the others for regular positions BUT they have all these "partner" positions that everyone is out battling for. I'd say total compensation is 200,000 for those positions which is good if you're just a business major. Engineering has more upside because those guys once they have experience under their belt can start their own companies.

It depends on the city and the market the office has, but Big 4 partner positions make a heck of a lot more than $200k in total comp. Caveat being, less than 5% of the people who start with the firm will actually become partner. Then again, most have no desire to.

As someone that worked at one of those Big 4 firms, I agree that (a) a Big 4 partner (at least in Chicago) makes MUCH more than $200,000 (close to or above 7 figures depending upon your book of client business) and (b) despite the potential money, most people have no desire to make partner because you're effectively sacrificing your life 7 days per week/365 days per year for a decade or more.

Instead, most people treat a Big 4 stint as the equivalent of grad school (only you're getting paid) - you spend a few years there and then you move to a company where you don't need to bill hours any more. The biggest advantage is really when you're a Big 4 alum since that effectively stays with you for the rest of your career (similar to where you graduated from college and grad school). If you look at listings of higher-level corporate tax and accounting positions, they disproportionately insist upon Big 4 experience. I still get calls from recruiters simply because I had a stint at a Big 4 firm even though it has been 10 years since I've worked there and I haven't worked in tax or accounting at all since then.

Sounds like its gone up a lot since I was there. I remember a new partner talking about taking a pay cut to become partner (because of required contributions). This was in the 80s and he was way below 6 figures before the contributions. Managers and Seniors tend to be underpaid relative to what they get outside the Big 4 except perhaps in the consulting end. There are a lot of accounting jobs that want Big 4 experience. At that point the college doesn't matter much.

The firms tend to have each local office pretty autonomous, so if you want to work in a particular city, it is best to be in the area. They really didn't want to have to do the recruiting work for other offices. The Houston office where I went to work recruited Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Houston, Baylor and Lamar. There were only occasional people from other schools. The rest of the firms (it was the Big 8 back then) had a pretty similar recruitment list, although we may have recruited Lamar because we had a couple of Lamar partners.

Partners at "Big Four" accounting firms make about $750k and work about 24/7.

New hire undergrads make 50's. Those w grad experience (MACC/JD) make in the 60's-70's.

MBA new hires (consultants) are looking at around 130k plus a signing bonus 20-30k.

Houston offices recruit SEC west, UH, Big XII, and some Big Ten. Really it's a aggies, horns, and UH game, though.

And yes, many jump after they make senior, and/or partner. They either go down to a smaller firm for a promotion, or they go industry for an improved quality of life.

(09-10-2014 11:43 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 10:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  . Well, I've since come across the following article that goes into great detail into exactly what steps Northeastern took to explicitly get their rankings up:

That's a great article, and explains the mentality of a lot of schools and the dangers for students and parents allowing a single ranking methodology to unduly influence their educational decisions. Because when you singularly focus on just advancing metrics, the true quality of the education and other experiences is seldom improved. The link was broken though.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/artic...-rankings/

That article is ridiculous. Makes me think that USNWR should start randomly changing its formula every year. It would probably lead to more accurate rankings.

Every top high school student in the nation that wants to go to the Ivy League or a top tier 1 school uses this as their bible in deciding what universities to apply to. It is a fact. I do not agree with its formula as 50 percent of the rankings are based on how the other universities rank/perceive your school and others agains there's. They never change this ranking because no one wants to give up their position/ranking.

(09-11-2014 11:37 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Every top high school student in the nation that wants to go to the Ivy League or a top tier 1 school uses this as their bible in deciding what universities to apply to. It is a fact. I do not agree with its formula as 50 percent of the rankings are based on how the other universities rank/perceive your school and others agains there's. They never change this ranking because no one wants to give up their position/ranking.

Even without US News, every top high school student already has an informal ranking in mind.

Stanford > UCLA > Cal State Long Beach.

If your ranking deviates from this general student consensus, then your system is just laughed at and discarded by the students themselves. You can come up with some statistical reasons why UCLA is better than Stanford, but any ranking that places UCLA above Stanford for undergrad is treated as some joke ranking trying to prove some kind of point.

It's like that computer poll that put Duke above Oregon. Even people who aren't Oregon fans wouldn't want to throw their weight behind such a weird ranking result. It would go too far against general consensus to be viewed as a viable ranking system.

College rankings need to take reputation into account so they don't veer too far from general consensus and get discounted as too wacky to be taken seriously.

(09-12-2014 12:00 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:37 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Every top high school student in the nation that wants to go to the Ivy League or a top tier 1 school uses this as their bible in deciding what universities to apply to. It is a fact. I do not agree with its formula as 50 percent of the rankings are based on how the other universities rank/perceive your school and others agains there's. They never change this ranking because no one wants to give up their position/ranking.

Even without US News, every top high school student already has an informal ranking in mind.

Stanford > UCLA > Cal State Long Beach.

If your ranking deviates from this general student consensus, then your system is just laughed at and discarded by the students themselves. You can come up with some statistical reasons why UCLA is better than Stanford, but any ranking that places UCLA above Stanford for undergrad is treated as some joke ranking trying to prove some kind of point.

It's like that computer poll that put Duke above Oregon. Even people who aren't Oregon fans wouldn't want to throw their weight behind such a weird ranking result. It would go too far against general consensus to be viewed as a viable ranking system.

College rankings need to take reputation into account so they don't veer too far from general consensus and get discounted as too wacky to be taken seriously.

A lot of high schoolers simply don't know what schools are out there. They're haven't had enough time on this earth to know much about more than 10-20 schools, let alone all of the 2800 4-year colleges in the USA.

My college selection process went like this: sort through the 300 schools that sent me info. Drop out any with more than 50% guys, more than 10 hours away, in the South, or didn't sound cool. That took 2-3 months of looking at rankings and reading about them. It left about 25, of which I applied to 3 (Marquette, Pitt, and Miami, and I have no idea why I chose those 3). Then a classmate told me he applied to Case Western. I asked, what the hell is that? He said it was a great school, so I applied there (even though it violated two of my original qualifications - it was 2/3 guys and didn't sound cool). I visited all 4 but refused to go on the dorm tours because I didn't want my academic future to be biased by something so trivial. Case gave me a scholarship that ended up making it cheaper than my other options so I went there.

As stupid as that sounds, I bet you my method was more methodical than 90% of high schoolers.

Kids can do some serious damage to their futures by relying too strongly on any ranking system. What makes it worse for many is that there is a societal pressure to choose school X, ranked 57th, versus school Y, # 128. You take one or else you are "stupid." The end result is the kid goes to a school and then often chooses what to study instead of there being a pressure to decide and then find a program to fit.

I firmly believe that these rankings have greatly contributed to this generations debt and unemployment issues.

(09-10-2014 11:18 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 02:42 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 08:51 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The deal with the Big 4 consulting firms is they don't pay much differently than the others for regular positions BUT they have all these "partner" positions that everyone is out battling for. I'd say total compensation is 200,000 for those positions which is good if you're just a business major. Engineering has more upside because those guys once they have experience under their belt can start their own companies.

It depends on the city and the market the office has, but Big 4 partner positions make a heck of a lot more than $200k in total comp. Caveat being, less than 5% of the people who start with the firm will actually become partner. Then again, most have no desire to.

As someone that worked at one of those Big 4 firms, I agree that (a) a Big 4 partner (at least in Chicago) makes MUCH more than $200,000 (close to or above 7 figures depending upon your book of client business) and (b) despite the potential money, most people have no desire to make partner because you're effectively sacrificing your life 7 days per week/365 days per year for a decade or more.

Instead, most people treat a Big 4 stint as the equivalent of grad school (only you're getting paid) - you spend a few years there and then you move to a company where you don't need to bill hours any more. The biggest advantage is really when you're a Big 4 alum since that effectively stays with you for the rest of your career (similar to where you graduated from college and grad school). If you look at listings of higher-level corporate tax and accounting positions, they disproportionately insist upon Big 4 experience. I still get calls from recruiters simply because I had a stint at a Big 4 firm even though it has been 10 years since I've worked there and I haven't worked in tax or accounting at all since then.

Sounds like its gone up a lot since I was there. I remember a new partner talking about taking a pay cut to become partner (because of required contributions). This was in the 80s and he was way below 6 figures before the contributions. Managers and Seniors tend to be underpaid relative to what they get outside the Big 4 except perhaps in the consulting end. There are a lot of accounting jobs that want Big 4 experience. At that point the college doesn't matter much.

The firms tend to have each local office pretty autonomous, so if you want to work in a particular city, it is best to be in the area. They really didn't want to have to do the recruiting work for other offices. The Houston office where I went to work recruited Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Houston, Baylor and Lamar. There were only occasional people from other schools. The rest of the firms (it was the Big 8 back then) had a pretty similar recruitment list, although we may have recruited Lamar because we had a couple of Lamar partners.

Partners at "Big Four" accounting firms make about $750k and work about 24/7.

New hire undergrads make 50's. Those w grad experience (MACC/JD) make in the 60's-70's.

MBA new hires (consultants) are looking at around 130k plus a signing bonus 20-30k.

Houston offices recruit SEC west, UH, Big XII, and some Big Ten. Really it's a aggies, horns, and UH game, though.

And yes, many jump after they make senior, and/or partner. They either go down to a smaller firm for a promotion, or they go industry for an improved quality of life.

The 750k figure for partners is what I was hearing 15 years ago but that is more for executives and those with Fortune 500 accounts. The average partner at Deloitte makes around 400k.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8732664_average...rtner.html

When I'm talking 200k I'm talking minimum partner level compensation, which again that is pretty good for BA/MBA but I wouldn't give up a career in Medicine, Law or Engineering for it.

(09-09-2014 09:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The only critique I have of Frank's post is that the industry recruiting standards tend to follow the types of industries that are located in certain states. For instance, Texas A&M, Texas, LSU, OU, and others through that area tend to be highly recruited for energy sector jobs, even more so than a lot of Big10 schools who also have a strong, albeit diminishing, presence in that industry. Even little UL Lafayette has a strong presence and places graduates in strong positions within the energy industry. Meanwhile, mining, main street banking, etc also recruit graduates of schools throughout the region they tend to serve. Birmingham is a banking city, once was a lot more important than it is, and recruited heavily from Culverhouse (UA) grads as well as Georgia etc. NASA recruits across the nation but the majority of the people that work their hold degrees from the SEC schools, particularly UA and Auburn, even UAH.

Essentially, it very much depends on the type of business that is going on in the region. There isn't many advertising firms in the South East, or even the rockies, or South West and thus not many advertising agencies are recruiting those kids.

If it is located there, it recruits from there, even on a nationally scale. The only variable is how wide the net gets cast. It still drags up most of its talent from close or relatively close by.

The key is more going to the right school for your major or area of interest that is relatively cost effective.

Its like the people who find a car or a house they really like. It takes some research to do so. Most people don't have the patience to find a really good fit.

(09-13-2014 09:08 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:18 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 02:42 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  It depends on the city and the market the office has, but Big 4 partner positions make a heck of a lot more than $200k in total comp. Caveat being, less than 5% of the people who start with the firm will actually become partner. Then again, most have no desire to.

As someone that worked at one of those Big 4 firms, I agree that (a) a Big 4 partner (at least in Chicago) makes MUCH more than $200,000 (close to or above 7 figures depending upon your book of client business) and (b) despite the potential money, most people have no desire to make partner because you're effectively sacrificing your life 7 days per week/365 days per year for a decade or more.

Instead, most people treat a Big 4 stint as the equivalent of grad school (only you're getting paid) - you spend a few years there and then you move to a company where you don't need to bill hours any more. The biggest advantage is really when you're a Big 4 alum since that effectively stays with you for the rest of your career (similar to where you graduated from college and grad school). If you look at listings of higher-level corporate tax and accounting positions, they disproportionately insist upon Big 4 experience. I still get calls from recruiters simply because I had a stint at a Big 4 firm even though it has been 10 years since I've worked there and I haven't worked in tax or accounting at all since then.

Sounds like its gone up a lot since I was there. I remember a new partner talking about taking a pay cut to become partner (because of required contributions). This was in the 80s and he was way below 6 figures before the contributions. Managers and Seniors tend to be underpaid relative to what they get outside the Big 4 except perhaps in the consulting end. There are a lot of accounting jobs that want Big 4 experience. At that point the college doesn't matter much.

The firms tend to have each local office pretty autonomous, so if you want to work in a particular city, it is best to be in the area. They really didn't want to have to do the recruiting work for other offices. The Houston office where I went to work recruited Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Houston, Baylor and Lamar. There were only occasional people from other schools. The rest of the firms (it was the Big 8 back then) had a pretty similar recruitment list, although we may have recruited Lamar because we had a couple of Lamar partners.

Partners at "Big Four" accounting firms make about $750k and work about 24/7.

New hire undergrads make 50's. Those w grad experience (MACC/JD) make in the 60's-70's.

MBA new hires (consultants) are looking at around 130k plus a signing bonus 20-30k.

Houston offices recruit SEC west, UH, Big XII, and some Big Ten. Really it's a aggies, horns, and UH game, though.

And yes, many jump after they make senior, and/or partner. They either go down to a smaller firm for a promotion, or they go industry for an improved quality of life.

The 750k figure for partners is what I was hearing 15 years ago but that is more for executives and those with Fortune 500 accounts. The average partner at Deloitte makes around 400k.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8732664_average...rtner.html

When I'm talking 200k I'm talking minimum partner level compensation, which again that is pretty good for BA/MBA but I wouldn't give up a career in Medicine, Law or Engineering for it.

It's 200-250k plus 400-500k in distributions equalling 650-750k in total compensation, plus other benefits (or maybe it's 400k plus another several k in distributions - I can't remember). Either way, I am exceedingly confident that my numbers are more accurate than anything that's public domain.

Where do the service academies rank?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(09-17-2014 09:08 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where do the service academies rank?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

They're #1 in the "kicking ass" category.

But seriously, they're ranked as "National Liberal Arts Colleges," which is a little ridiculous given the engineering classes they take, and the amount of math they learn in navigation courses. Navy is 13, Army is 24, and Air Force is 27.

That seems low to me. If I was a hiring manager, I'd prefer a West Point or Annapolis grad over an Ivy Leaguer, no matter what field I was hiring for.

(09-17-2014 12:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 09:08 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where do the service academies rank?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

They're #1 in the "kicking ass" category.

But seriously, they're ranked as "National Liberal Arts Colleges," which is a little ridiculous given the engineering classes they take, and the amount of math they learn in navigation courses. Navy is 13, Army is 24, and Air Force is 27.

That seems low to me. If I was a hiring manager, I'd prefer a West Point or Annapolis grad over an Ivy Leaguer, no matter what field I was hiring for.

100% agree.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2