[flyingfences]

The real core gist I'm getting from this article is that "the case against hiring people from Ivy League schools" is that ivy league grads don't want to work ridiculous overtime for someone else's dream -- not exactly a scathing indictment in my view.

[rednerrus]

It's more that they don't want to go the extra mile. They think they're owed something so they don't have to hustle for their spot.

[sushid]

The article literally states: > the people we brought in were working such grueling hours that eventually the money wasn’t worth it to them and we’d lose them.

So the author wants to find workers that somehow look past this risk/reward imbalance and determined that Ivy grads are not it.

[haswell]

That one sentence made the whole piece rather confusing.

I tend to agree with the conclusions about mindset and attitude. These are far more valuable than a specific education in the long run. But these traits aren’t synonymous with a willingness to work grueling hours.

They also admit:

> The thing about desperation (mixed with exhaustion) is that it doesn’t lead to the best decision-making. We needed people so badly that we settled for the first ones who walked in the door

This was referring to the leadership team’s desperation and burnout. Essentially that they were making bad decisions because of how stretched thin they were.

It’s not clear to me that their goal is to find people who are willing to put in grueling hours, or if the mention of grueling hours was more about the need to change how they hire and operate.

If the former, it’s an incredibly hypocritical goal given their own direct experience with the counterproductive effects of overworking.

If the latter, they need to make that more clear in the writing.

I’ve worked with people who feel they’re entitled to everything without putting in effort. This is a very different dynamic than refusing to fall for the BS variety of “work hard, play hard” mentality which is really code for “we expect you to treat your job like it’s the most important thing in your life”.

All said, some good insights in the piece about the value or lack thereof in hiring based on prestige. But I really can’t get a read on their stance re: working long hours.

[zaptheimpaler]

If the extra mile means 100 hour work weeks then I'd say they are being pretty reasonable. I'll hustle at 2.5x my paid hours if you make it worth my while, otherwise it just sounds stupid.

[diag]

Have people been getting rewarded with hustling more than their peers? Promotions that aren't popularity contests are exceedingly rare from my experience.

[oh_sigh]

What's the value proposition here for the employee? Go the extra mile, and get absolutely zero benefit, except for slightly smaller odds that your employer will sever their relationship with you?

Maybe Ivy Leaguers are more used to actual partnerships and not exploitative labor relationships.