Hi, I am a rising second year at the University of Chicago studying Econ. I have wanted to go into I-Banking since high school. I was fortunate enough to have gotten into my dream schools, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia. However, I turned down these schools and a full ride to UF for UChicago for two reasons: 1) Chicago offered me a substantial merit scholarship and 2) I was told that they had one of the best Econ programs in the country.
After a year at Chicago, I now severely regret my decision. The workload at Chicago was harder than anything I had done before and my GPA has fallen from a 4.8 (weighted) in high school to a 3.2. I have been Harvard-bound all my life, but now I am worried that I have completely destroyed my future prospects. With my SAT score, I have a good shot at transferring to Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke, but would the increase in prestige be worth the trouble of transferring? What are my prospects like if I end up with a, say, 3.5 at Chicago as an Econ major? I want to work on the East Coast, btw, not Chicago (preferably NYC or Boston). Thanks.
u chicago's econ department
u chicago's econ department is top notch... and you would need a better gpa to transfer, i imagine.
I often feel like I made a similar mistake, choosing wharton over mit... but you gotta make do with what you have. good luck
Honestly, you clowns need to
Honestly, you clowns need to lighten up and enjoy the college experience. Work hard, party hard, get a few relevant internships, but most importantly get laid. You have your entire life to worry and stress out please do all you can to enjoy the "best" four years of your life.
Chicago isn't "one of the
Chicago isn't "one of the best" programs, it is THE program in Econ. There is some ridiculous statistic that if the University of Chicago was its own country it would have the second most Econ Nobel prize winners after the rest of the US (or something like that). Seriously a 3.2 in Chicago Econ shouldn't put you out of the running but honestly you would be better off if you were at Harvard.
If I were you I would transfer out, not so much for the job prospects but because the social life there sucks.
Transferring to
Transferring to Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke is not an increase in prestige and would be difficult with a 3.2.
Chicago has a good track record in placing students into IB internships and full-time positions plus you would be competing against other UChicago students. Don't count on a 3.5 with Chicago's reputation for grade deflation.
Even a 3.2 would not necessarily make you non-competitive. Also participate in some EC activities that show leadership
Don't look back and linger
Don't look back and linger on your choice of schools. Chicago will give you a solid platform to jump into IB. A 3.2 is solid in such a grade deflated program and you're only a rising 2. You have plenty of time to make up ground if you need to.
Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke =
Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke = better than Chicago on Wall Street (read up on some of the threads, all three are targets). Chicago is better in Chicago and good for getting into a great grad school. Chicago's Economics nobel prizes are all at the graduate level, not undergrad. For undergrad, the kids at Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke are smarter. Plus the social life is better at the latter schools.
Also, you won't get that much favoritism for having a 3.2 because of the grade deflation - maybe .2 or .3 leeway.
Basically, I think transferring is definitely the right decision for you. A 3.6-3.7 at one of the lower Ivies like Dartmouth or Duke or Columbia is solid - and since your GPA resets you might even pull off like a 4.0.
Thanks for the replies; I am
Thanks for all of the responses. I am now worried that I might not be able to transfer out so easily with a 3.2. What do you mean Chicago is not a 'target'? How does it rank among its peers?
Also, how do I prove that I am smarter than other UChicago students? Do I-Banks look at SATs? Will they give me some leeway if I explain to them UChicago gave me a huge merit scholarship and I was accepted at Harvard?
Thoughtman, you are so full
Thoughtman, you are so full of shit.
A 3.2 from Chicago is solid. I-banks do look at SATs. They will not care that you got accepted to Harvard as it is completely unverifiable and pretty immaterial.
Just my opinion here. If you
Just my opinion here. If you can stand the lack of exciting social environment at Chicago(this is just what I heard, but I think most ppl here would agree), then stay there. It's a highly respected school, and you're in their econ program which is the best. Also, Chicago is very finance-centric and places people well into finance. If you pull off a 3.4, which should not be too hard for you, then you're golden. Banking is definitely a possibility for you. Then do some community service, gain some international experience,etc. Apply to a top notch MBA after 3 years. You can probably get into Harvard/Stanford/Wharton/MIT/Columbia.
That would be a better route in my opinion than trying to transfer with a 3.2 right now.
boozer, why? Look at the
boozer, why? Look at the facts and you'll see the students are stronger at the schools he's trying to transfer to. I-banks know that too. Check out any thread regarding SA classes and they'll tell you that Dartmouth, Duke, and Columbia (lower Ivies) have more kids than Chicago.
Also, stop saying Chicago's Econ is the best. Its the best for graduate level. He's in undergrad. You learn the same stuff at undergrad as every other school. If Chicago undergrad Econ was actually the best, all those kids who got into Ivies would go to Chicago instead.
If you think a 3.2 from Chicago is weighted significantly more just because its from Chicago, you are kidding yourself and probably screwing him over. Saying he's "golden" with a 3.4 is a joke too - tons of kids at HYPSM and other top 10s are applying with 3.6's and 3.7's.
They will not give you any leeway if you say you got into Harvard - I think you should transfer and try and get a solid GPA at your new school if you get in. A 3.2 is kind of low for a transfer but worth a try.
Re: boozer, why? Look at the
boozer, why? Look at the facts and you'll see the students are stronger at the schools he's trying to transfer to. I-banks know that too. Check out any thread regarding SA classes and they'll tell you that Dartmouth, Duke, and Columbia (lower Ivies) have more kids than Chicago.
Also, stop saying Chicago's Econ is the best. Its the best for graduate level. He's in undergrad. You learn the same stuff at undergrad as every other school. If Chicago undergrad Econ was actually the best, all those kids who got into Ivies would go to Chicago instead.
If you think a 3.2 from Chicago is weighted significantly more just because its from Chicago, you are kidding yourself and probably screwing him over. Saying he's "golden" with a 3.4 is a joke too - tons of kids at HYPSM and other top 10s are applying with 3.6's and 3.7's.
They will not give you any leeway if you say you got into Harvard - I think you should transfer and try and get a solid GPA at your new school if you get in. A 3.2 is kind of low for a transfer but worth a try.
Bingo.
Sorry to break it to you kid, but Chicago kids get little-to-no GPA bump. In fact, they'll take a 3.7 from Dartmouth or Columbia over a 3.7 from Chicago.
If you had a 3.2 at HYPS, that would be a different story. I know, it's perverse, but the brand-name counts more than the GPA or perceived difficulty.
Plus, I know more than a few 3.5+'s from Chicago who applied for banking jobs. You aren't even distinctive in your own peer group.
Most of the major IB's
Most of the major IB's recruit at Chicago. In most cases, Chicago students are competing against other Chicago students and will not get any GPA "bump".
I can assure you that UChicago has a major presence on the street.
I can see selecting Chicago over Columbia, Dartmouth, UF and even Yale. Your major mistake was not going to Harvard.
Also, job offers are made not just on the basis of "target schools" and GPA, but also by the rest of the resume. It is not a "GPA" numbers game alone.
Re: Honestly, you clowns need to
Honestly, you clowns need to lighten up and enjoy the college experience. Work hard, party hard, get a few relevant internships, but most importantly get laid. You have your entire life to worry and stress out please do all you can to enjoy the "best" four years of your life.
-couldn't agree more.
Re: Econ at the University of Chicago??
Hi, I am a rising second year at the University of Chicago studying Econ. I have wanted to go into I-Banking since high school. I was fortunate enough to have gotten into my dream schools, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia. However, I turned down these schools and a full ride to UF for UChicago for two reasons: 1) Chicago offered me a substantial merit scholarship and 2) I was told that they had one of the best Econ programs in the country.
After a year at Chicago, I now severely regret my decision. The workload at Chicago was harder than anything I had done before and my GPA has fallen from a 4.8 (weighted) in high school to a 3.2. I have been Harvard-bound all my life, but now I am worried that I have completely destroyed my future prospects. With my SAT score, I have a good shot at transferring to Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke, but would the increase in prestige be worth the trouble of transferring? What are my prospects like if I end up with a, say, 3.5 at Chicago as an Econ major? I want to work on the East Coast, btw, not Chicago (preferably NYC or Boston). Thanks.
Why would you ever want to transfer from Chicago to Duke?
Re: Thoughtman, you are so full
Thoughtman, you are so full of shit.
A 3.2 from Chicago is solid. I-banks do look at SATs. They will not care that you got accepted to Harvard as it is completely unverifiable and pretty immaterial.
Not all banks look at SAT scores. In fact, a great majority do not.
Thoughtman- I personally
Thoughtman- I personally know 2 people who got into better schools and chose to go to Chicago specifically for the Economics department. They tell me there are a lot of people like that. True, at the grad level is where all the stars are but even at upper-level undergrad courses you can still have access to them. Besides that, the whole undergrad/grad thing is true in any department. The point is Chicago is it for Econ, there is no better place to be. As far as the GPA thing, by "solid" I mean that he won't be automatically rejected for having a 3.2, he will need other stuff.
zk- When I was interviewing for FT, I didn't have my SATs on my resume. I interviewed with CS (S&T not IBD), LB and GS, all 3 asked for my SAT. Maybe the others do not but I was going off of that experience.
I would argue that at the
I would argue that at the undergrad level, MIT's program is much more intense.
I am pretty sure that
I am pretty sure that Chicago is a target at CS, not sure about other banks. A target school is one that a bank actively recruits from.
In my experience, most of the time the first thing they ask you in an interview is why you choose the school you did. Sounds like you have a great story to tell, so I wouldn't worry about it. People definitley understand that there are financial considerations involved in choosing a school.
You probably won't have it as easy as Harvard students during rectuitment season, but worrying that you have "completely deystroyed" your future prospects is a joke. My advice is to stop worrying, focus on getting your GPA up, and take a little time to enjoy your college years.
On what basis is MIT more
On what basis is MIT more intense?
GS, MER, UBS, CS, Lazard,
GS, MER, UBS, CS, Lazard, BofA, LEH, Greenhill, JPM, etc. all recruit actively at Chicago. MS only recruits for its Fixed Income division but that may change.
Chicago is a solid school if you want to get into banking, and yes, it does have the best undergrad econ program in the nation.
you have to completely on
you have to completely on drugs as a recruiter to not go nuts for a Chicago econ grad - sorry, I'll take that kid over any Yalie any day of the week (provided he's not a complete loser).
Re: Transferring to
Transferring to Columbia/Dartmouth/Duke is not an increase in prestige and would be difficult with a 3.2.
agreed
Re: Econ at the University of Chicago??
Why would you ever want to transfer from Chicago to Duke?
better weather, prettier girls.
Re: you have to completely on
you have to completely on drugs as a recruiter to not go nuts for a Chicago econ grad - sorry, I'll take that kid over any Yalie any day of the week (provided he's not a complete loser).
I guess pretty much every recruiter in the world is on drugs.
Fact is, the average quality of students are Chicago is much lower than HYPSMitWharton. It's even lower than at Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, and Duke. Might be closer to Brown/Cornell, but still lower.
Why? Easily surmised from comparing average SAT scores/GPAs of both applicants and admits. In addition, most students, if they get into an Ivy or comparable, pick that school over Chicago. Sure there are a few outliers, but not many. In fact, I'd say not only the mean, but the variance is likely higher at those other schools.
Plus, theoretical economics isn't terribly useful in banking and consulting. How much econ do you think analysts use in their jobs? If you know the concepts, you're fine. With that fact in mind, recruiters choose to get smarter kids from more selective schools. If they only cared about how good your econ was, they wouldn't take any liberal arts majors at all.
Chicago econ, at the undergrad level, is overblown. Undergraduate econ is the same everywhere, it's just that grades at Chicago are perhaps a little lower. Even at the graduate level, almost everyone recognizes that Harvard and MIT are the top departments and Chicago loses the cross-admit battle against both those schools.
It's a good school, but you guys are venerating it out of proportion.
Re: you have to completely on
I guess pretty much every recruiter in the world is on drugs.
Fact is, the average quality of students are Chicago is much lower than HYPSMitWharton. It's even lower than at Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, and Duke. Might be closer to Brown/Cornell, but still lower.
Why? Easily surmised from comparing average SAT scores/GPAs of both applicants and admits. In addition, most students, if they get into an Ivy or comparable, pick that school over Chicago. Sure there are a few outliers, but not many. In fact, I'd say not only the mean, but the variance is likely higher at those other schools.
Plus, theoretical economics isn't terribly useful in banking and consulting. How much econ do you think analysts use in their jobs? If you know the concepts, you're fine. With that fact in mind, recruiters choose to get smarter kids from more selective schools. If they only cared about how good your econ was, they wouldn't take any liberal arts majors at all.
Chicago econ, at the undergrad level, is overblown. Undergraduate econ is the same everywhere, it's just that grades at Chicago are perhaps a little lower. Even at the graduate level, almost everyone recognizes that Harvard and MIT are the top departments and Chicago loses the cross-admit battle against both those schools.
It's a good school, but you guys are venerating it out of proportion.
Really? It's a fact? Wow, must be the case because consultant 16180 said so. It must totally be the case that a Chicago Econ grad is vastly inferior to a yalie history major from andover via the cape.
Also, you don't think theoretical economics is relevant in banking?
I suggest a little wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes
The only reason I think that Chicago isn't better represented on the street is b/c the majority of Chicago grads are giant fucking losers.
Re: you have to completely on
Fact is, the average quality of students are Chicago is much lower than HYPSMitWharton. It's even lower than at Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, and Duke. Might be closer to Brown/Cornell, but still lower.
.
In my experience the chicago grads I've worked with have been excellent. I'd take them over any school except MIT pretty much any day.
Jimbo,What kind of
Jimbo,
What kind of experience have you had with Chicago graduates? Did you graduate from Chicago?
Consultant16180,
I'm glad you think that you are a good judge of student quality. There is a difference between the quality of a student entering a university and the quality of that same student graduating. It's called Education. Chicago matches up favorably to any one of the Ivies.
Ratul,
You're pretty judgmental in calling a lot of Chicago students "fucking" losers. I suppose that you speak on good authority. Methinks that you are the loser.
Re: Jimbo,What kind of
Jimbo,
What kind of experience have you had with Chicago graduates? Did you graduate from Chicago?
Consultant16180,
I'm glad you think that you are a good judge of student quality. There is a difference between the quality of a student entering a university and the quality of that same student graduating. It's called Education. Chicago matches up favorably to any one of the Ivies.
Ratul,
You're pretty judgmental in calling a lot of Chicago students "fucking" losers. I suppose that you speak on good authority. Methinks that you are the loser.
Chicago compares favorably with any ivy. Ranking the ivys and other TOP institutions is like comparing BMW to MB to Audi. Yes, HYP are considered the most prestigious. But is there really a difference between the Yale pol sci dept and the Columbia pol sci dept? Does a Princeton bio major get a better education than a Brown bio major? - Of course not. Just relax, enjoy your ed., and appreciate your fortune.
I have absolutely no vested
I have absolutely no vested interest in pumping up Chicago (I didn't go there, didn't apply there, didn't get rejected from there, don't have any relatives going there, etc.) but I have a lot of respect for that school. Everyone I've talked to who's opinion I respect has consistently said that Chicago is one of the most academically rigorous schools out there (more so than HYPW, etc.), and the graduates are smart/hardworking,etc.
However I do agree that most of the kids there are losers. I stopped by for a 3 day weekend on a road trip, stayed with a friend of mine who goes there; the kids there are just boring, nerdy kids. That's great if you are a recruiter but not if you want to party.
I also think Duke is probably the most overrated school in the US.
Re: Jimbo,What kind of
Jimbo,
What kind of experience have you had with Chicago graduates? Did you graduate from Chicago?
Consultant16180,
I'm glad you think that you are a good judge of student quality. There is a difference between the quality of a student entering a university and the quality of that same student graduating. It's called Education. Chicago matches up favorably to any one of the Ivies.
Ratul,
You're pretty judgmental in calling a lot of Chicago students "fucking" losers. I suppose that you speak on good authority. Methinks that you are the loser.
First of all, anyone who writes 'methinks' is probably riding the nerd train and has an all day pass.
second, I'm defending Chicago - what makes it good is also can make it bad. It's highly insular and incredibly academic/rigorous. The type of application system they have is self-selecting for highly academic, nerdy people. The reason they don't slam the street harder is b/c they a) could give a shit - shocking and b) lack the social skills to impress the all-important sell-side HR recruitment team.
Re: Jimbo,What kind of
Jimbo,
What kind of experience have you had with Chicago graduates? Did you graduate from Chicago?
.
I've worked with a few and there were a few in my analyst class back in the day. I've only been to chicago like 3 times actually, so no I didn't go there. It's a very rigorous program. I have a quant friend who went there undergrad.
I knew a guy who was one level below MD by the time he was 21 or 22. He went to chicago.
Subtle Duke trolling.
Subtle Duke trolling.
boozer - i'm not sure why
boozer - i'm not sure why you think duke is overrated - I think Chicago is overrated because of people saying its undergrad econ is the best in the world.
If you check out SATs and similar stats you'll see that tons of schools have kids smarter than the ones at Chicago. Plus the only thread on this site with an SA undergrad list shows that Chicago is behind the schools he wants to transfer to.
Just because Duke has a party school reputation and Chicago has a nerd reputation doesn't mean Chicago kids are smarter. Same with Dartmouth, which has the "Animal House" aura over it. Plus working 60+ hours a week with an anti-social geek versus a partier with the same GPA/finance experience is an easy choice.
Either way, I think the kid with the original question should definitely transfer - the schools he's looking at are more fun and have high quality students/recruitment. Most importantly, he can reset his GPA.
Chicago is an extremely hard
Chicago is an extremely hard school to pull anything over a 3.7. A friend of mine who ended up coming to my school was accepted to a number of schools as a transfer with only a 3.5-6 or so.
That being said, UofC is not really much of a target for the BBs; mine in particular did not take anyone this year. I think the problem is that most Chicago kids historically have desired something a little more intellectually stimulating and therefore go onto work at the Fed or complete graduate programs in econ. This in turn leads to a lack of any significant alumni presence on the Street, which normally would be what students interested in banking would turn to if their GPA were lacking. And yes, Chicago unfortunately has a great deal of grade deflation, so I would say students there are at a pretty significant disadvantage compared to the Ivy League when it comes to getting into banking.
Thus, my end advice (if you truly have your heart set on banking) would be to work your ass off and pull your GPA up, then come spring semester apply to transfer to some other schools that are both within reach of your GPA and have more of a presence in banking (e.g. Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown).
I don't have anything
I don't have anything personal against Duke (again didn't apply there, didn't get rejected, didn't get sexually abused by some guy who went to Duke, etc.) but just talking to people who went there, they don't have a great deal of respect for it, the way you will hear from someone who went to say MIT or Harvard or someplace. It is definitely a good school, definitely has some great professors, some smart kids, etc. but no way does it justify being ranked the same as Stanford in US News or in people's general perceptions.
Had the opposite impression.
Had the opposite impression. Found them to love their alma mater as opposed to other schools I can think of where the kids were scampering to transfer out and/or feel like they missed out on their undergrad years.
Not to mention their undergrad recruiting is very, very good. (GS was #1 employer of grads in 04 and 06, MS #3 after teach for america which got something like 50 kids this year). (Link: http://career.studentaffairs.duke.edu/employer/recruit/stats/2007.html
So, your perception isn't shared by recruiters or the alumni at the banks who come out to hire these guys.
As for the OP> Chicago is definitely top notch. I don't think you will be hindered because you go to that school. For IBD it seems good but Chicago grads really take the spots in quant/trading desks (BBs and the big funds..citadel, DE Shaw, even SAC) recruits them aggressively.
Yeah they definitely do love
Yeah they definitely do love their school, had a great time etc., but they didn't have a great deal of respect for the academics or their fellow classmates. To be sure there are a lot of kids who go there who are really smart, but I think there is a disproportionately high number of kids who get in, for such an elite school, who got in because of donations, connections, and other non-academic considerations. I also understand that the Ivies also suffer from grade inflation, just to preempt that inevitable post.
Well, the grade deflation of
Well, the grade deflation of Chicago really hurts - but think about it - if he can pull of a transfer his 3.2 wouldn't matter, since he would just calculate his GPA out of the courses he took at his transfer school.
Boozer - I'm not talking about academics or quality of professors per say, which might be better at Chicago, I was just talking about how good the schools are in recruiting and having smart kids enroll. The BB's go wherever their are smart kids - not necessarily because of the quality of professors.
By the way, I'm just an SA - but still have a good idea of number of kids and from what school just by reading posts on this site out of people working at BBs.
The kids at Chicago, I
The kids at Chicago, I guarantee you are just as smart as another school in the nation. Chicago students are notorious for being self-selective as Chicago is famous for being intensely intellectual for its own sake. From what I've heard, the recruiting at Chicago is pretty good but maybe someone has better information.
I wouldn't trust this site to be a definitive source.
Hey guys. I am also
Hey guys. I am also wondering how come people on this board don't seem to really respect Chicago? I have absolutely no relations to Chicago, but have always thought it was a really good school, an ivy-equivalent? Also, Chicago (along with MIT and Berkeley)are supposed to be the hardest graders (grade deflation you call it?)so it would seem that the top students really earn their grades? Many of their programs are top notch also.
Is there something about Chicago that I don't know about?
boozer - I agree Chicago
boozer - I agree Chicago kids are probably just as smart as kids at Duke/Dartmouth/Columbia. But being self-selective doesn't make you a better school. The average SATs at Duke and Dartmouth are higher than the ones at Chicago. So even though they have more applicants, it doesn't mean they take the worse students any more.
And the latter schools are more fun in my opinion.
And the kid can reset his GPA if he transfers, which is like not counting his first two semesters which he didn't think he did well in.
Think about it, if he transfers and pulls off a 4.0, he'll have a 4.0 instead of a 3.6 (which he would get if he got a 4.0 for the next two semesters).
Re: boozer - I agree Chicago
boozer - I agree Chicago kids are probably just as smart as kids at Duke/Dartmouth/Columbia. But being self-selective doesn't make you a better school. The average SATs at Duke and Dartmouth are higher than the ones at Chicago. So even though they have more applicants, it doesn't mean they take the worse students any more.
And the latter schools are more fun in my opinion.
And the kid can reset his GPA if he transfers, which is like not counting his first two semesters which he didn't think he did well in.
Think about it, if he transfers and pulls off a 4.0, he'll have a 4.0 instead of a 3.6 (which he would get if he got a 4.0 for the next two semesters).
The average SAT at Chicago: 1350-1500, at Duke, 1370 - 1560. Not that big of a difference in mind, esp not enough to say one school is better than another.Most stats at Chicago vs top schools are very similar so dont state the quality of students is worse.
Look I would transfer if I
Look I would transfer if I were him, but like I said it would be for the social reasons etc. not because I was ambivalent about my recruiting opportunities.
I think the grade inflation
I think the grade inflation and new GPA is the biggest reason...
Look, if Grade deflation is
Look, if Grade deflation is such a problem, then MIT and Chicago Students wouldn't get into grad school, law school, medical school and IB - so where the fuck are the these grads going? Just working for NASA and trying to be the next beautiful mind?
Also, what happened to a good education? Shudder at the thought that this kid transfers out of Chicago to Georgetown so he can get a 3.65. What a waste.
It's hard getting in - sure - but it's not like they don't recruit at Chicago or that you can't easily move from a Chicago office to a New York office.
Everyone also assumes recruiters are stupid too - for some reason I don't think they are. Also, wasn't the former president of Goldmans a Chicago grad?
Ratul...
Ratul...
My point is that his GPA completely starts over if he goes to a new school. He has a 3.2 at Chicago - tons of his fellow Chicago students have higher GPAs than that.
If he goes to Dartmouth or Duke then his GPA is reset, and he might be able to get a 4.0 or something as a sophomore. It'll be a fresh start. And he'll receive the same quality education or whatever at one of those schools as he would at Chicago.
No one ever said Chicago was bad at anything. Putting it in the same category as MIT is a stretch though.
Re: Ratul...
Ratul...
My point is that his GPA completely starts over if he goes to a new school. He has a 3.2 at Chicago - tons of his fellow Chicago students have higher GPAs than that.
If he goes to Dartmouth or Duke then his GPA is reset, and he might be able to get a 4.0 or something as a sophomore. It'll be a fresh start. And he'll receive the same quality education or whatever at one of those schools as he would at Chicago.
No one ever said Chicago was bad at anything. Putting it in the same category as MIT is a stretch though.
You explictly stated that the quality of students at Duke, etc were much better than at Chicago. Yet, you assume this kid could leave Chicago and rock a 4.0 at these other schools. Kinda makes you wonder about the quality of students argument.
And I would put Chicago in the MIT category outside of the engineering program.
Re: Ratul...
Ratul...
My point is that his GPA completely starts over if he goes to a new school. He has a 3.2 at Chicago - tons of his fellow Chicago students have higher GPAs than that.
If he goes to Dartmouth or Duke then his GPA is reset, and he might be able to get a 4.0 or something as a sophomore. It'll be a fresh start. And he'll receive the same quality education or whatever at one of those schools as he would at Chicago.
No one ever said Chicago was bad at anything. Putting it in the same category as MIT is a stretch though.
Fair enough.
Harder workload doesn't
Harder workload doesn't correlate to stronger student bodies. Reed College and Cornell are examples. Granted Cornell is a top notch school but you can't say the quality of students there is as good as say HYP..and yet they are supposed to have a ridiculously hard workload (apparently the kids brag that while the school is the easiest to get into, its the hardest to get out of).
And yea, Chicago recruitment is good (as I had already noted) but its not near the top. The number of kids that get recruited there is less than Dart/Duke/Columbia (although they have a strong representation for quant/trading).
Re: Harder workload doesn't
Harder workload doesn't correlate to stronger student bodies. Reed College and Cornell are examples. Granted Cornell is a top notch school but you can't say the quality of students there is as good as say HYP..and yet they are supposed to have a ridiculously hard workload (apparently the kids brag that while the school is the easiest to get into, its the hardest to get out of).
And yea, Chicago recruitment is good (as I had already noted) but its not near the top. The number of kids that get recruited there is less than Dart/Duke/Columbia (although they have a strong representation for quant/trading).
Gosh, this is really horrible logic - no offense.
MIT has a hard ass balls on the wall curriculum and would be the most sought after graduates in the world had they not been giant fucking losers - the same applies to Chicago. I'll take a Chicago kid with a 3.5 over a Dartmouth kid with a 3.9 any day of the week and twice on sunday.
The problem is soft skills. Chicago and MIT are to some degree, self-selecting for highly academic nad nerdy kids. Why would these nerdy pants want to be doing ECM at Citi when they could be doing some real nerdy shit like working at NASA and the CIA and crap like that.
They don't make the street b/c they could give a fuck about banking - i mean, honestly, who would want to go to the street after being taught by a dozen laureates only to get shit from your bald smelling MD who is worried that pg 49 of your pitch book isn't cranked enough. I mean, if we weren't getting paid the money we are, the shit we do is a waste of academic talent. I suppose Chicago and MIT students would feel the same.
Lots of reasons other than 'Well, there's not as many Chicago as X mid-level- ivy league school kids represented on the street, therefore X midlevel ivy league school must be totally better!'
Also, to be honest, you knocked yourself in the balls with your logic. You're like 'harder workload doesn't correlate to stronger student bodies' and then say chicago is better represented in quant/trading roles. Generally that is the hardest shit to do in banking - so obviously their academic rigor helps.
Anyway, just adding to this obviously important debate.
Subscribe