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.
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 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 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 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
agreed
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 = 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 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 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 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 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 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.
better weather, prettier girls.
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 undergrad level, MIT's program is much more intense.
On what basis is MIT more intense?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Subtle Duke trolling.
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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and new GPA is the biggest reason...
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...
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.
Fair enough.
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.
Look obviously Chicago kids are good, I have nothing but good things to say about them. But, to say they are stronger than the other schools would be stupid.
My point was not about IBD recruitment but about student body strength. People seem to think that just because a school is "intellectual" (aka the general student body lacks social skill and engages in philosophical discussions which generally lead to nowhere) that its better or more of a powerhouse than other institutions.
BTW> In general MIT kids are very diverse and you can't say that they are a bunch of nerds. That has no weight based on my interactions with them and is pretty antiquated. I have met quite a few MIT guys that have soft skills. Not saying they illuminate the world with their social graces but then again neither does the average student at a top school. The atmosphere is different from Chicago or Reed or Swat.
As for quant/trading, it has to do with the fact that A) they are in chicago so they get fair representation in trading roles B) they, as you pointed out, have no soft skill. It has less to do with Chicago's student body strength being better than others (there are plenty of people from HYP/Stanford/Duke etc in quant/quant intensive fields). I should know, I am in this field.
dude, the point of this thread was that people were suggesting that this kid transfer from Chicago to Georgetown. I mean, no way is Chicago entirely better, but it is definitely not worse.
Look at representation in law schools and medical schools - the quality there should be a more reasonable indicator of academic acumen.
I am thinking more in lines of Columbia/Dart/Duke. Gtown would be stupid. In general, transferring solely for recruiting would be a foolish move especially from Chicago (which I have already noted I believe). But yea back to the OPs question.
Chicago and MIT are to some degree, self-selecting for highly academic nad nerdy kids.
Dude, maybe Chicago and MIT are both self-selecting, but MIT kids are a ton stronger than Chicago and alot more people want to go there. So what applies to MIT doesn't apply to Chicago. I'm not sure why all the MIT Chicago comparisons - Chicago is ranked with Dartmouth Columbia and Duke, not Harvard and Princeton.
The kid is looking at Dartmouth/Duke/Columbia, not Georgetown for a transfer. Georgetown is a step below the other schools.
Anyways, the average GPA at chicago is like a 3.1 and the average at Dartmouth or Duke is like a 3.2 (or something like that, I'm sure its not more than .1 or .2 since lots of sites have data on grade inflation). Big difference.
I'm sure no recruiter would take a Chicago 3.5 over someone with a higher GPA from another top school. And the kid has a 3.2 which is why he should transfer anyways, so he gets a fresh start on his GPA, and have more fun, better weather, other stuff.
btw, http://gradeinflation.com/
Average GPA's in 1999:
Chicago: 3.26 Duke: 3.34 Dartmouth:3.31 Columbia: 3.36
In 1999 atleast, all four schools had average GPA's within a tenth of a point of one another.
Stop worrying about working for some BB slave shop...Chicago Econ is a target for great, established HF's (think D.E. Shaw, SAC, etc.). Enjoy school and get laid.
As a recent Chicago graduate, and working at a BB, it can be done there quite easily. Pretty much everyone recruits there with especially strong presence by GS, CS, and JP. As far as your GPA, you will struggle getting some interviews. Once you get in the 3.4-3.5 range, with evidence of finance on the resume, you will be fine. But after one year, you'll be fine. Chicago is famous for filling everyone's head with bullshit about taking the hardest courses to benefit yourself. Grades do matter, so look for classes your interested in, but that you can do well in. You probably figured out that honors calculus buys you nothing and lowers your GPA. Some classes are really interesting but they kill your GPA, take a pass on them. Tighten up and do some extracurriculars and you should be fine.
i'm gonna try to keep this short..thoughtman, if u weren't so damn repetitive w/ your posts, ppl might think you were being quite objective w/ all your stats, but it's obvious u're pretty passionate bout chicago not being up to your standards...u must've spent quite a lot of time looking up stats just to trash a school on an online msg board... i'm surprised that no one has called u out on using SATs & college rankings (from a single source) to measure the quality of a school...are u friggin kidding me? because clearly that's all anyone applying to college cares about... i'll be upfront...i graduated from chicago (econ/stat), going into my 3rd analyst year now...i'm not trying to defend nor spew superlatives about my school cuz that's just pointless...everyone who knows anything in academic circles (aka who doesn't base their existence on rankings) knows that chicago is quality but also not for everyone...but to say that kids from a particular school like MIT are stronger than kids at chicago, or any other comparable school for that matter, sounds like some crap some cynic w/ no real appreciation for what the college experience means to different ppl... one quick point on econ at u of c...true only the grad programs are actually ranked...but it's still the same friggin profs from the econ dept who teach the undergrad classes...what's your point? the top profs don't shy away from teaching undergrad classes, altho not all of them are good teachers anyways, but that's another story...u can also parade around avg GPAs and crap but time and again u will find instances where kids that go to chicago not knowing what to expect get a rude awakening when it comes to grades...i don't know abt u guys, but i haven't heard too many ppl at the other schools mentioned here talking about how freakin hard their workload is...at the end of the day, if u must raise your game to get a decent grade, that's what you'll do...and that's what chicago is abt... anyhow, there's been a lot of good advice given on this thread already...i'll just say that the OP should base his decision not on just on GPA (and what it means for his ibanking endgame) but on his experience so far...if he doesn't like it at chicago, he wouldn't be the first...but the dude has PLENTY of time of bump up his GPA and the recruiting opps at chicago are there...
kidxiao - your kidding yourself if you think a bank recruiting looks at MIT and Chicago in the same way. My point with selectivity was that banks won't look at a Chicago kid in the same way as better schools. I'm not talking about quality of education, I'm talking quality of students.
And he obviously doesn't like Chicago too much in the first place since he's already considering transferring.
Look, a 3.5 at Chicago won't help you anymore than a higher GPA from a higher ranked school just because its Chicago.
Wow, way to miss the point batman,
this isn't about Chicago being shittier than MIT - we all know that.
This is about the types of kids they attract. Brown and UCLA both attract dopeheads - doesn't mean they are academically equivalent dopeheads.
The point I was making was that Chicago isn't represented as well on the street is b/c they're fucking nerds. The same applies to MIT - they should own the street, yet don't b/c they're fucking nerds. Chicago as well, just to a lesser extent. To suggest that Chicago is not as good academically as Dartmouth b/c more Dartmouth kids are on the street is just plain ludicrous.
It's like saying MIT is worse than Columbia b/c there are more Columbia kids on the street.
Generalizations won't do you well. MIT kids are very well represented in banking and even more so in trading, which is more quantitative. They shouldn't "own the street" because these are by and large the same people who applied to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. You guys are making too much of the treatment effect of these institutions. The banks aren't looking for places with the hardest economics and math programs, they don't care. They're looking for place where the really smart kids from HS went to. They're hoping these schools have already weeded out the weak applicants for them. Like I said before, there's a good reason liberal arts majors are very well represented on the street: think logically, these people haven't been through the math/econ ringer and so if there is any treatment effect of the institution the attended in terms of preparing you for Wall Street, it is nil. Yet, the banks keeping hiring more LA majors. Why? Because they seem them intelligent individuals who can learn quickly.
Saying that Chicago is not well represented because it's nerdy is erroneous. It may well be that Chicago grads are prone to pursuing graduate studies and forsaking the corporate world, moreso than, say, Dartmouth students. Also, simply put, they aren't as academically gifted as the students at the Ivies. Chicago has lower SAT medians, lower percentage of incoming classes in the Top 10% of HS graduating class, and it CONSISTENTLY loses out to the Ivies in cross-admits. That means strong students who got into an Ivy or Chicago, overwhelmingly picked an Ivy. The yield at Chicago (percentage of students admitted who chose to attend) is close to 30%, compared to 80% at Harvard and over 40% at even Cornell. Recruiters can do the Math: if a kid is at an Ivy, it is much more likely that had he applied to Chicago, he would've gotten in and done just fine. But the other way around is not true. Since Chicago loses an overwhelming majority of its cross-admits, most students who attend Chicago didn't get into an Ivy. There are exceptions, to be sure, but the numbers simply don't support the assertion that most Chicago students could've gone to Ivy League schools and chose not to.
Hence the under-representation. It simply isn't as good.
Also, MIT has more representation than Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia, and Cornell on the street. Only HYPS and Penn (Wharton) have greater representation.
You're looking at only IBD, MIT definitely as more in Capital Markets, quant jobs at hedge funds in the like. Comparing withing IBD is erroneous since the alternativ isn't simply another IBD job, it is a PE/HF/S&T role in the industry. If you look holistically, MIT has great representation, even better when you control for the percentage of students who actually major in economics and management at MIT.
Suggesting people here have some kind of vendetta against Chicago is ludicrous. I never applied to Chicago, never planned to. Simply put, I got into better schools.
God, I would respond to that garbage, but it would be SUCH a waste of time - you even prove my point from time to time. Good luck at that mid level ivy (and it's obvious b/c the chip on your shoulder is didactic).
You can't respond because you have little to say.
I don't have any chip on my shoulder, I am giving you the facts. You can draw a pretty good relationship between school rank/selectiveness/prestige and representation on the street.
Hey mid-level Ivy, still better than Chicago.
Whatever, there's no point. Take the comments for what you will.
OP: Try to get that GPA up and apply anyway. Chicago is still very good and you'll certainly get interviews with a 3.5+. Despite what many on this site will lead you to believe, course rigor is close to irrelevant in interviewing and offers. GPA matters.
why is it that if someone points out why Chicago isn't all that, people say its a chip on the shoulder? Chicago's stats aren't as hard to get in as the schools he's trying to transfer into.
Btw, my buddy had a 3.3 at Amherst, transferred to Duke after his sophomore year, and got a 3.7 with the two semesters of classes he took at Duke, and had that on his resume. This is a similar situation.
I guess we are defining school quality by pure stats eh? Cause stats determine how much better I am than you are. So, I guess since I had perfect SATs, a 4.0 and was in the top 10% of my class graduating from HS, I am probably the greatest, most high quality guy ever. Get the hell out of here with that BS.
And what the hell is a consultant doing on an IB board - couldnt get a job in IB?
haha this is pretty amusing...all u kids who try so hard to prove a point that by nature is subjective anyways...relax yall...
look, there's no way that i can say this w/o sounding like someone who is biased towards his school, but chicago is self-selective in a way that most schools in that range are not, and u would never know exactly why that is unless u went there....i always wanted to go to chicago and that's why i went...and i know that many ppl have used that self-selective line already, but the fact is a great deal of kids fall in that category....and kids who go to places like harvard or yale don't exactly fall into the same kind of self-selective mold...
in this day and age, reputation in the general public (not within the academic world) still holds sway...consultantXXwatever used some more stats to "prove" his point, some new, some old....the cross-admit stat is thoughtful, but it really only says something about how we view general reputation than anything else....if a kid that gets into harvard chooses to go to harvard, true that shows that harvard is a good school, but it also shows that he knows the worth of the harvard name, and who doesn't?...at the end of the day, the harvard name still holds more cache in the general public...does it mean that it attracts better students because of it? maybe, maybe not, but that's not sometime u can just say based on that stat...i'm probably coming across as splitting hairs here, but i guess my stat major taught me something...there are other variables at play here, and u can't quantify all of them...that's what makes the whole college matchmaking process valuable to those who don't rely solely on rankings and avg SAT scores and shit (btw, if u're gonna make generalizations about the entire ivy league being better, 1) don't give other ppl shit for making generalizations, & 2) rankings are crap, but isn't chicago ranked on par or above half the ivy league these days? check your sources, even for your flawed logic)...i probably would've gone to harvard over chicago if i had applied and gotten in, but i didn't, because chicago was where i wanted to be (maybe i would've gotten in, maybe not, but that's a diff story)...there are a lot of unique aspects of the school that appeals to certain ppl...but if u're from chicago, or anywhere else for that matter, ask ppl whether they know about uchicago, and most of the time u'll get blank stares....the majority of ppl within the city of chicago think it's a friggin state school...i liked my school but i'll be the first to say that it's not exactly gonna get u the wow response from somebody off the street like an ivy name....that's the fact of the matter when it comes to general reputation, and yes, it does affect admissions stats...
also, i must've missed this the first time around, but i'm not so sure that uchicago is underrepresented on the street, at least in my experience...keep in mind that the undergrad student body is around 4000...smaller than most ivies, but around the same as MIT i think....
anyhow, it seems that the argument being made is that chicago kids are just not as generally bright as those at some other schools, whether it's relative to finance recruiting or whatever else...fine, watever...if u're so into that type of stuff, just ask your friendly neighborhood banking recruiter, or future colleagues, or do a study yourself if u're that interested...
i just think that, coming out of college, u cannot dismiss someone who applied themselves at chicago compared to anyone...the shit we've been through ensures that...anyways, agree to disagree...no big deal....
ratul...i noticed u mentioned something abt goldmans ex president just now....maybe u're talking abt jon winkelreid, who's a co-prez right now...he did undergrad & mba at chicago back in the early 80s...apparently there's rumors that he's the one who made the recent $100mm anonymous donation to chicago...
John Corzine was the CEO of Goldman from 1994 to 1999. He was a graduate of UChicago's GSB program.
Also, the current CEO of Credit-Suisse is a graduate of UChicago undergraduate and graduate programs.
Kidxiao11,
Your points are well taken. However, I disagree on the WOW factor. Anytime I mention UChicago there is plenty of acknowledement of what a great school it is.
I don't know what there is about the school that elicits such a response from the "Ivy worshippers."
I don't find the students to be a bunch of nerds at all. I suspect there is a certain amount of resentment toward UChicago for some reason.
As far as IB presence, the Metcalf program, a program for summer interships, placed approximately fifty students in major IB's. JP Morgan and Credit Suisse together have 21 graduates starting full time this year. I don't know the stats for other IB's but I suspect they are similar.
As far as student quality, people should stop getting hung-up on GPA's, SAT's and the like.
The quality of a student should be measured after college graduation not before.
The education at UChicago is as good as it gets and is certainly on par with any other college bar none.
coltreign...yo it's nice that u'd think uchicago gets respect everywhere, but that's mostly only the case in academic circles...and as much as i wish every random dude on the street was enlightened, that's not really the case man...
trust me man, i grew up in chicago and went to school there, and there are few other schools that have such a disconnect between reputation in academic circles and the general public...it's an old ongoing joke amongst u of c kids that everyone in the city thinks we're a crappy state school...and honestly, in a bizarre way i think ppl there like it that way...it's like they thrive on not getting respect like the ivies and whatnot..
Who cares what the common man in the street thinks of Chicago. My refereence to the WOW factor relates to people in the business community where it really matters.
By the way, I can't tell you how many people think that UPenn is Penn State. It's just the nature of naming schools after cities or states.
MIT isn't represented on the street? Ratul>I find it funny that its coming from a guy that lists on their profile that they are in S&T. MIT is probably one of the most recruited schools out there for quant focused position. They have a huge presence in the various S&T depts (and yes it includes sales), top prop firms, and HFs. MIT is even represented in IBD (of course not as much). Anyone who says otherwise has no idea wtf s/he is talking about.
yeah, b/c quant encompasses the entire street. MIT is arguably the best school in the world and you're talking about their quant representation? MIT should be the best represented but still lags behind Harvard, Princeton, Wharton and maybe even Columbia - that's b/c tonnes of nerdy kids go to MIT - doesn't mean MIT isn't better than these schools, it arguably could be. That's why the proxy for intelligence shouldn't be how many graduate douchebags are in ECM at Citi.
And homey please, I have never met an MIT salesman unless he's selling some insane exotic or a slavic languages major.
And homey, most of the money on wall street (in sales) isn't made by peddling vanilla derivatives and straight equities.
I didn't say the entire street was quant. I said if you worked in S&T you have to have seen a sizable population of MIT kids. I didn't say the proxy for intelligence is how many kids are at ECM at citi. I said MIT kids are represented and aren't as "nerdy" that they sit and masturbate to topology questions all day.
You guys sometimes stress me out when I read about how much you stress out over stuff like this and how much others stress out for you over stuff like this. Sigh.
Chicago_Banker, don't transfer just stay put at Chicago. The hardest years are the first two anyway, right? Aren't most of your core courses out of the way by now anyway? You'll probably be able to lighten up your coursework the last two years and raise that GPA and you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Don't fret over it anymore, enjoy your summer.
yeah but i pointed out that most threads on this site (especially the list of all SA undergrads for a BB) point out that Chicago has less rep than the schools the kid is thinking about transferring to.
coltsreign..u made a point about ANYTIME u mention uchicago, u get a WOW, like on this msg board w/ these "experts"...that's clearly bs....u've said some nice things abt the school and i appreciate that but don't talk down to me on the rep man....i went there...i know where and when it gets respect and when it goes unnoticed...but don't tell me that it doesn't annoy us when ppl in chitown think we're some crap school...that's the disconnect that u're not gonna see w/ the ivies and such...and don't tell me that the same applies if u say wharton instead of upenn...anyways, what's w/ ppl here never wanting to just let a fact be a fact? what you're saying about "where it really matters" is just an opinion dude...
thoughtman...look, at this point, after u've noted that the basis for pretty much all your comments come from this msg board and some fairly superficial stats, u've got to recognize that this is why ppl will not take you seriously...u've gotta take everything that's said on here w/ a grain of salt...this website is not a cross-section of the ibanking community or the best and brightest in school, it's mainly wannabe bankers who like to show that they're big shit by making opinionated and incendiary comments on a friggin website...anyways, i like how u keep dissing chicago as a school when the OP thinks he's getting rocked grades-wise at chicago but you're saying he should transfer to these "better" schools to get a higher GPA...am i missing the logic here? if anything, that speaks to the quality of students generally at chicago if the avg GPAs at these schools are roughly similar...anyways, at the end of the day, that's not the point...u guys need to wake up and realize applying to college is more than just comparing SATs and acceptance rates and shit, just like recruiting for finance is more than just comparing GPAs and how many banking internships u had...those things give little to some insight, but they're not even close to the whole picture...the sooner u realize that, the better your chance of actually breaking into banking if that's your goal...and gaining some f'ing humility along the way...
kidxiao - my point with him transferring is that he can work hard to get his GPA up at a new school and the 3.2 he got last year won't count towards his GPA.
dude, i get your point, you're assuming that he'll get a better GPA than 3.2 at the new school...but it's not just abt "working hard", u think the OP didn't work hard in his first year at chicago? the OP said himself the workload was harder than anything he's ever faced...my point is that if u assume some bs that the other schools are "better" and have higher quality students, then how the f are u gonna assume he's gonna do better there? shouldn't better school mean more challenging?...in other words, if he's getting rocked at chicago, don't tell me he can get a higher GPA elsewhere but then say chicago is not as good...if the OP goes to say dartmouth and then gets a 3.7, your logic says that b/ dartmouth is better, the OP would be better than a chicago grad w/ a 3.7, which clearly is bs b/ the OP could only hack a 3.2 at chicago...anyways, it's all splitting hairs...like the OP said, he's only a rising 2nd year, so he's still got 3 years of college left, and over 2 years to get his GPA up for fulltime recruiting...it's ridiculous that u college kids these days are panicking with a 3.2 at a target school after the first year...as long as the dude gets it up a tenth or two and lands some relevant internship, the interview opps will be there...
yeah but I don't think he likes Chicago that much in the first place...whatever.
Maybe he can pick up a second major in soc or something to help his gpa. When I went through SA recruiting in Jan-Feb most other people had 3.6+ (out of the ones I knew).
UChicago has great recruitment and has the best econ program for undergrads.
Coming from UChicago as an economics and mathematics major, I think 3.2 is a bit low for IB. All my friends' GPA are above 3.5, many above 3.9. And they got internships from every bank on the street.
Having friends from UPenn, Wharton, Harvard, and Columbia, I think UChicago students' soft skill are weaker. However, that is something you can improve.
I also chose UChicago over couple Ivies and Duke (I would love to go to Princeton if they accept me). I didn't regret coming here. I enjoy the economics class (I even went to take a phd class), and being friends with many incredible ppl here. I don't go to parties, but I go to many fine restaurants every week, and play a lot as well (bought a projector to play video game..)
I think it's important that you learn to relax in UChicago, and in the meantime, have confidence and determination to do well, of course hardworking is needed. and certainly this is something IB would value if you ever want to do IB.
Sorry, I just want to bump this because I'm curious as to what everyone thinks of this school now. A lot changes in five years, huh?
The only real change is the switch to the common app and an accompanying boom in applications and drop in admit rate. The culture has changed, as has the student body, and while I don't know whether it's for better or for worse, a lot of alums are unhappy with it.
Oh they built a new library, dorm, and arts center too, but nobody cares about that stuff.
How valuable is a UChicago Econ degree? (Originally Posted: 09/03/2008)
I'm a freshman at Uchicago an i'm just curious for now. How does it compare to, say, an Econ Degree from Harvard or Stanford or a Finance Degree from Wharton?
Also, do UChicago students get heavily recruited?
on the same note, can anyone comment on the difference b/w undergrad econ curriculum at uchicago versus ivies/stanford/etc? heard they take a much different approach towards macro
Online there is probably an interview schedule up...
But anyway, I'd think Chicago is definitely a target...especially for Chicago offices but I'd bet a fair amount go to NY as well.
if were interviewing, a standout uchicago econ major would go pretty far with me. that place is like the mecca of modern economics.
is uchicago really a 'modern' school of economic thought? I know they have some really good guys researching behavioral economics (ie - Levitt, Thayler), but aren't they still pretty neo-classical? My impression is that Stanford, MIT and Columbia are putting out the most groundbreaking stuff today - informational econ, neuro-econ/behavioral models, etc. No doubt Uchicago is the mecca of monetarism, but econ as an academic field seems to be headed in other directions.
yesman, i'm not completely sure what the difference in curriculum might be, but i do know that uchicago/stanford are on quarter systems as opposed to the ivies, which are on semester systems. that makes credits, hours, and how classes are broken up work a little differently.
cdw38, i checked the career planning site, but they're switching between software systems right now so a whole lot of the links aren't working right now.
haha thanks for the support CHelsea FC85
couldn't agree with you more Chelsea.
I looked over some of the course offerings for undergrads and it seems that the major allows you to take more economic history/thought courses than applied or theory classes. I studied econ at penn, and I found the curriculum and offerings sort of limited. i'd be interested to hear what uchicago econ majors have to say about the department.
can we please segue into a Northwestern vs UChicago discussion? i need to quell my feeling of inferiority and deep regret of not even considering applying to what is now the higher ranked (yet easier to get into) of the two. thanks.
on a side note, i think its funny when aspiring financiers (like myself) act like what you learn in school really matters. this Wharton sophomore reached out to me because he is interested in doing the ER internship im currently finishing up. he asked me "what courses" he should take to prepare for it. i nearly fell out of my chair.
please explain why a UChicago econ major would have any edge over a Northwestern econ major, or any other target school econ major. Chelsea mentioned that a UChicago econ major would go far in an interview... i really dont get why one's academic program matters post-interview, i thought it was all about your personality and polished answers to the questions at that point. someone please clarify this if possible
you're trying to hijack my thread :[
anyway, about chelsea's response, i think he means that a standout UChicago econ major would be very impressive, but that's not to say that other top undergraduate econ majors would not be just as impressive.
as for why uchicago econ is so highly regarded, a lot of it is based off of prestige and past contributions like the other 2 guys in this thread have pointed out. wiki says that "The University of Chicago department...has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university," so i guess that would definitely be a factor in evaluating uchicago economics (although i can't say how that would translate to the actual undergrad curric). furthermore, that uchicago has an entire school of economic thought named after it might also attest to its prestige. whatever the case, it's clear that northwestern girls have uchicago girls beat hands down!
btw, what internship are you talking about?
Economics at UChicago (Originally Posted: 09/15/2012)
What is economics like at UChicago as an undergrad? Does UChicago have good connections to top tier investment banks/hedge funds etc?
Stronger in the midwest than in New York.
Good thread about this a while back: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/non-econmath-major-at-the-univers…
Chicandtoughness, did/do you attend UChicago? and if you do, could you tell me a little about your experience there?
Consequatur vel voluptatem id iusto sequi maiores eius at. Quo ab odit et est. Ratione et tempora ea minus est.
Qui laudantium delectus veniam officia non quibusdam sequi. Sint architecto quis et mollitia quia reprehenderit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolorem dolor optio aut suscipit sapiente explicabo. Sed est quas qui doloremque. Quis sint facere beatae est est. Cupiditate deserunt sed voluptates voluptates corporis. Expedita eaque ipsa et id sint maxime aliquid alias.
Enim sunt expedita laborum vero est expedita nemo sunt. Ut ea aut aut dolorem eveniet omnis sit. Aliquam aperiam voluptatem dolor aut est. Ipsum eaque incidunt incidunt aut blanditiis possimus rerum. Architecto maiores et minima quo rerum. Ea sit beatae ipsum quos sint quia laboriosam maiores. Consectetur porro repellat molestiae omnis tempora dicta ratione fuga.
Dolore quo sint sit non. Error eum ut necessitatibus recusandae dolores. Voluptatibus eos reiciendis sit molestiae vel animi aut. Labore voluptas expedita velit eum quia. Odio ipsum et iste molestiae non.
Placeat molestiae illum perferendis corrupti eveniet aperiam enim. Illo cupiditate consequatur excepturi voluptatem qui et.
Officia veniam excepturi omnis quasi beatae. Nobis consequatur maiores optio. Voluptas pariatur voluptate et. Consequatur aut rerum pariatur cumque voluptas.
Architecto nesciunt nihil voluptas voluptatum cum omnis. Odio rerum et sit veritatis. Et distinctio et officiis quam quo repellendus. Sapiente exercitationem explicabo amet delectus.
Est consectetur id voluptas est optio. Voluptas dolore eos quibusdam eum.
Eaque hic consequatur quisquam autem modi et. Tenetur cum vel quasi est. Voluptas et sit sint earum praesentium. Quo non fugiat cumque id.
Eum hic eaque voluptatem vel quisquam. Repellendus aut explicabo fugit qui rem.
Quae animi ex nisi et mollitia et in. Sed voluptatem magnam distinctio voluptas ducimus quia quos. Aut tenetur eos dolorum et nisi voluptatum optio.
Suscipit error id occaecati quae sint. Rem rerum et eius reiciendis a dolorem ipsum. Quasi ut consequatur iste accusamus. Cumque non dignissimos optio deleniti a cupiditate.