Entry-Level Jobs that require bachelor's degrees

Post Reply New Topic

Lets' be clear about a few distinct ways this can play out, and the differences between them.

One instance is that a person picks a fellow graduate over other applicants, but the college friend is also a qualified applicant, and can actually do the job.

Another instance is that a person picks a fellow graduate over other applicants, even though their college friend is not qualified, and cannot actually perform the job.

A third instance is that a person picks a fellow graduate over other applicants, believing that they can do the job, but it turns out they can't.

In the case of the first instance, it could also be argued that the Ivy League Graduate doing the hiring, genuinely believed that their choice was the best pick, not only cos they were qualified, but also cos they could vouch for the quality of the students from that school, not just cos he's a "fellow muskrat" or w/e.

In the second instance, it's a bit more overt that the decision was more cos of the association than the skill set - but once the person is put in position, and they fail to do their job, that gets noticed eventually. If a higher up notices the drop in performance, action gets taken. If the hiring manager keeps making excuses for their friends bad performance, and doesn't change things, eventually that manager stands to lose their job, too - for their department's inability to perform.

In the third instance, it's an honest mistake, and could have been made in good faith - but once it's revealed that the individual can't actually do the work, the outcome is the same as the second instance. Somebody notices, somebody takes action, the problem gets removed eventually somehow.

If you think nobody will notice these things, let me share an anecdote of a time, 25 years ago, when my manager got in trouble because I was out-selling him as a part time employee. He was still selling above his quotas, but I was selling more than him, and the district manager didn't like how that looked. They pulled him aside and told him to sell more.

I've definitely worked at places where at least half the staff came from the same school - but it was also the best school in the area, for those types of degrees, and all of them were extremely competent. As such I'm pretty sure that most of the engineers came from the same engineering school cos it was a really good engineering school, local to the area - and not cos "hey I went there too!"...

I've also worked at places that hired complete muppets incapable of doing anything, but they were also kept out of the way, and usually the CEO's son or nephew or something, being given a "job" on paper - make them a "junior assistant" at a law firm and pay them to run mail and fetch coffee - not a fellow college buddy. Definitely seen it does for family - never seen it done for an "old pal" or a "fellow aardvark".

I've honestly never seen the type of fraternal loyalty you describe outside of movies and tv shows. Maybe it used to be the case, once upon a time - and maybe in certain small pockets of affluence where the owner of a private business can afford to do an old friend's kiddo a favor - but I daresay it's unlikely to be the norm, and not for reasons as casual as a fellow graduate of the same school.

Who-you-know might open some doors, but it generally doesn't stop you from being shown the door if you can't perform.

An interesting and relevant piece of research - they found that among Nobel Prize winners, there was no significant correlation between the prize winners, and the source of their education. That is, a Nobel Prize winner is just as likely to be a graduate of a community or state college, as from a high level private university, or anywhere in between. What mattered more was their level of advancement, and what mattered most was their practical experience.

I just know it happens but I can't put a figure on it. As I said it open's doors
https://fortune.com/2023/07/28/vy-plus- ... stige-job/

Again, for the sake of clarity:

The article indicates that having an Ivy League degree can open doors, by proxy of being an Ivy-League degree - but NOT because the recruiter or hiring manager is ALSO a student of that same school. So it's still not a fraternal brotherhood decision, it's a "you went to a really good school" decision.

Additionally, article makes it clear that the degree doesn't grant a better job, it just meant a slightly higher probability of getting any given job - a job that you're already qualified for, but the school you went to makes you look better than other applicants.

Cos again, getting in the door, and being asked to stay, are still different things.

Does an Ivy League degree get stale?
I don't think so.
If you have one, even that is decades old, it still draws attention.
Sort of like a red dress among dozens of black suits.

What this means is that you may be able to gain the experience you need after you get that degree to get the job you want.

^^^ Yeah probably

As UD says, in some professions the degree becomes moot point. I don't think many middle aged doctors or dentists reassure patients that because they studied in Harvard or Oxford they guarantee the patient will get good treatment. Patients rather want good recommendations the aforementioned medical person can do their job.

Any degree can go stale over time. Times change, and so does information. Skills and knowledge are both perishable, and a sufficiently old degree without additional training or experience loses it's edge. The degree only carries weight if the individual has remained active in the field of their degree.

The main reason people think ivy league schools are better, is cos the schools want you to think they're better, and they spend a lot of money pushing that image - and that image is why they get more resources, which then bolsters their image, rinse and repeat.

But remember, Nobel Prize winners come from any school. If ivy league schools were really so much better in result, you'd think more prize winners would be from those ivy league schools - but they're not. Nobel Prize winners are just as likely to be from a state college as from an ivy league university. Same goes for many industry giants.

The average person might hear "Harvard" or "Yale" and go "ooohhh!" and "aahhhh!" - but in the grand scheme of things, it's not actually that impressive in and of itself. There are so many good schools to pick from, and different schools are known for different things. Harvard and Yale might be well known for business and law, but MIT or Princeton are better options for a science or engineering degree, while John Hopkins is more suited for a medical degree.

And still, what level of degree, and the subject of the degree, as well as any work history related to the degree, are relevant considerations. A Harvard graduate, with a bachelors degree in art history, and no work experience, isn't going to look that impressive just cos they went to Harvard, when applying to a bank, or as an engineer, or as an accountant.

OTOH, someone with years of management experience, and a bachelors degree in business management - both of which involved things like leading a team, and accounting, and how to run a business - even if the degree is from a school you've never heard of, they're going to look a lot better qualified than the "harvard" person with the art degree, when applying for that bank or accounting job.

Most current nobel prize winners are affiliated with an Ivy league institution. A few might work in less prestigious institutions but as a student you would be exposed to more Albert Einsteins in Harvard or Yale > UCLA or texas A&M > University of Mississippi or University of Alabama. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Second Ivy league endowments are so huge they can basically fund a small country
https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/04/i ... tax-report
Effectively they don't even need government or industry support

Industry grants are spread around but they tend to go to older established institutions which include both Ivy league and 2nd tier institutions underneath Ivy League.

Yet another point of clarity - There's a difference between where someone is employed, and where someone is educated. A Nobel Prize winner might gain employment at an ivy league institution, but that's not where they were educated. The ivy league employment was a result of the award, not the other way around. Your own phraseology seems to recognize this, as you speak of where they WORK, not where they were educated.

Older schools had an advantage in that they were here first. Back when there were only 5 schools to choose from, they'd be the only schools to receive additional funding, from whatever source. This gave them a head-start vs other schools that started much later. The main selling point of the old schools is, they're old. The implication is, we've been doing it for so long, we must be good at it.

Additionally, the acceptance rate for ivy league schools is so low, and the standards are so high, maybe it's not that the school is so good, but it's just that they poach the highest quality of students. It's easier to finish with the best if you started with the best. And they only get the highest quality of students cos of their reputation for being a good school - a nice little feedback loop.

So they get a head start by being one of the ONLY schools, and a reputation for making better students, because they're one of the ONLY schools, so they get more money, and get better applicants, which makes them look like a better school, which gets them more money and better applicants, which makes them look like a better school, which gets them more funding and better applicants etc etc etc...

Let's also acknowledge the reality that sometimes, some people get ivy league degrees, not because they're very smart, worked very hard, and earned one, but rather cos their daddy paid for a new science building and their mommy is on the board of directors.

And all that aside, theoretical knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge, and as such, a degree by itself still doesn't carry much weight without some practical experience to back it.

Admittedly, I've only skimmed this thread. It can definitely be difficult. I was able to get my first job in the subject I studied but it took a long time. Granted, I graduated while Covid was still quite bad. Companies hadn't found their footing. A lot of them had closed their doors and I was trying to find work in a ghost town. The only reason I found work was I found a place so awful, so desperate for someone that they hired me. It was so understaffed that they weren't able to give someone any holiday leave until I was signed on.

I knew it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Still, I agreed to it in desperation and paid in my mental health. I then ended up in a very weird situation where I was underqualified for some places but overqualified for others. One interview actually told me that they had three freaking departments that were responsible for what would've been entirely my workload. I learnt to talk down my past workload to something more expected. Although it was certainly validating to know I was overworked rather than I just couldn't hack it in the industry.

Ultimately, I went into volunteering. It gave me a reason to regularly leave the house and I figured it would help my CV. They keep trying to beg me to come back because I was quite good with the software they used and I sped up the process considerably. They won't hire me for a paid role though (I've tried multiple times) so I'm not coming back.

I did recently get an interview with a different company because of my experience with the software but they had far bigger issues than needing an employee. Their ceiling had so much mould that it was curving inwards, had multiple leaks and was not at all structurally sound. I'm fairly certain some of that was black mould. They told me that they were going to fix the ceilings before hiring someone. However, while I'm no expert on mould, the fact that it was curving inwards suggests that the support is likely compromised and I think it's going to take them a while to fix that building. Maybe fix that first before interviewing someone? Anyway...

The volunteering did greatly help me land a McJob as you call it. I worked a seasonal retail job over the Christmas period. Which was extended a bit but then it ended.

I went to an interview for a position that I was not at all qualified for but sometimes I like to apply for things that are far above me just for the bants. I wasn't actually expecting to be interviewed. Turns out we'd all worked for the same McJob. I was half expecting them to throw me out of the interviewing room after realising that I'm an absolute no one. Yet they had me do the full hour interview and actually complimented some of my answers. They said I'd be a good fit for the company but in a lower position and that I should keep a look out for future job opportunities with them. I've seen that they've put up a new job that fits that description, so I'm going to apply to that today and see if that develops into anything.

I knew a guy who used to work a McJob but he was still advertising his skills online and his dream job actually reached out and offered him an interview. He got the job and moved to Scotland from England and is doing very well for himself. I am incredibly jealous.

Unlike the OP, I actually have two work coaches through my job centre. However, since I keep getting interviews they've told me 'Eh, you've got this' and I've been left to my own devices when I don't know what I'm doing at all. A big reason I've been struggling is limited public transport. I spent months and months trying to learn how to drive but I wasn't getting anywhere. Recently I switched to a different instructor and I get it! I thought maybe I was unteachable but after switching to a new instructor, maybe I just had the wrong instructor.

Thank you for the above post, Lost_dragon.

A lot of what you have described resonates with me personally in my job history and in the search for jobs and some of the failures associated with job hunting.

You seem like a bright woman, I'm sure you will get at least a reasonable job eventually and I hope that your learning to drive works out for you. Having a driving license can often be the reason why one person is hired and another person without one, isn't - regardless of other attributes.

I may seem bright but I am, in fact, an idiot.

At least I have fun.

Having a Driver's Licence definitely helps.

I think you have more of an issue with confidence based on what you just said, rather than a lack of ability? But hey, what do I know?

I understand, these are what are known as legacy students right? I don't think they are as numerous as once upon a time though. Case in point MIT, 47% of their intake is Asian. I doubt they all fit the stereotype, more likely they are book smart, studied very hard and earned their place.

It's easy to dismantle the bona fides of older academic institutions, but there is also a history and source of pride that's difficult to erase and easy to become desirable to be part of.

You are incorrect. A Legacy student just means that a parent attended the same school before them. It does not imply that they didn't earn their place. A person of asian heritage can still be a Legacy student, if their parent was also a student of that school. It seems like you're mixing and conflating different concepts, without fully understanding what they mean.

People who didn't earn their positions are a minority - but they are a thing that occurs, sufficiently that most people won't just blindly put faith in a degree - even a really fancy one.

Fancy baubles will always appeal to some people, whether it's a fancy degree, or a fancy car - in both cases, the bauble-holder tends to over-estimate how impressed OTHER people will be with their shiny fancy bauble.

What exactly I am incorrect about? I am trying to have a discussion not an argument. MIT, unlike many other universities, does not consider legacy status in its admissions process, meaning there is no specific percentage of Asian students at MIT who are legacies. Without white legacy students standing in the way the institution is dominated by Asian enrolements (on a side note it indicates the argument used by "Asians for fair admission" to remove DEI was a false flag initiative). the majority of Asians students are first gen applicants to ivy league, only a small percentage had parents who were former students and probably even smaller percentage who were benafactors etc.

In any case I am correct, legacy students are a thing of the past
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltni ... ort-finds/

Not sure why you are fixated with incorrect information yourself. Move on.