The problem here relates to the meaning of “or” in English. It has a broad field of meaning. In Latin on the other hand

>aut NOUN aut NOUN

means one or the other but not both

>aut Caesar aut nihil

means 

>either emperor or else death

but excludes “dead emperor.”

That is what logicians call an “exclusive or,” which means one or else the other but not both.

The Latin word “vel” on the other hand does not preclude both

>uxor vel amica

means 

>legal wife or female friend or both

That is what logicians call an inclusive “or” because your wife can be, and hopefully is, your friend.

In English, “or” can denote either an “exclusive or” or else an “inclusive or.” Some people make a rigid rule on whether a verb with a compound subject linked by “or” should be plural or singular. I do not. I use a plural verb if I intend an inclusive “or” and a singular verb if I intend an exclusive “or.”

**EDIT**: A comment below indicates that my meaning was not clear.

The grammar should accord with the intended meaning. In this case, the intended meaning seems to be that being hired by a well known company is an example, being accepted by a prestigious college is an example, and presumably being accepted and then being hired is an example as well. We are talking about an inclusive “or,” and thus the meaning calls for a plural verb. 

So both versions of the sentence will be understood and will seem natural to a native speaker.