IBanking Target Schools - Official LinkedIn Version
https://www.linkedin.com/edu/rankings/us/undergraduate-investment-banki…
"Here's how we found the top schools for investment bankers:
First, we identified the top companies where investment bankers are choosing to work.
Next, we found people on LinkedIn who work as investment bankers and saw where they went to school.
Finally, for each school, we found the percentage of these alumni who've landed investment banking jobs at these top companies, then compared the percentages to come up with the list."
Seems like people don't need to fight for target/semi-target/non-target anymore
Here is the top 10 list if you want to save time:
1. Georgetown University
2. University of Pennsylvania
3. Yale University
4. Duke University
4. Columbia University in the City of New York
6. Princeton University
7. New York University
8. Wellesley College
9. Cornell University
10. Dartmouth College
Canadian rankings are up too for anyone interested. Just click OP's link and change country to Canada. Top 3 according to LinkedIn are Queen's, McGill and Laurier - odd, I know.
Not odd at all - Queens has a ton of bankers on Bay Street while McGill has a ton of bankers across the world. They likely got 2 / 3 correct, replace Laurier with Ivey and it's probably accurate.
That's an awful methodology for a variety of reasons.
This methodology has some pretty serious holes and it really starts to show when you look at some of the other categories. RISD is 11th for Design? USC is 19th for Media? Stanford is 9th for regular Software Development? BYU isn't even on the Accounting list?
I typically enjoy when you can have a data-driven output like this, but I feel like something's off here.
That's exactly why we need those data. Our perception about school ranking in particular fields may be outdated or simply wrong. Data (usually) won't make such mistakes.
At least I have explanation about some of your concerns:
Stanford grad less likely work in those big IT corp because they prefer startup. They are no.1 in startup software developer.
If you check RISD's employment detail and CMU (no.1 in design)'s employment detail, you would see RISD grad most likely go to traditional firm for design and CMU grad go to IT firm for design. Based on current job market, design job in IT/Internet is more "prestigious" than design in media/traditional industry (pay is not in same scale).
the percentage of students go to certain industry is very different than absolute number of student go to certain industry. USC may have a lot of alum in media industry but that may caused by the fact many USC students want to do media and not necessarily mean it is easier to get a media job as USC student (more competition etc).
Anyway, I think it is very smart move for LinkedIn.
Does this surprise you? Look at the other schools in front of Stanford on that list
The methodology is intuitive
Nothing like a good old fashioned rankings battle, we need a Brady comment in here asap
"They just ooze success, confidence, swagger,..."
I feel like Columbia and Wellesley are little bit too high up on this list.
That fact that schools with large undergrad populations such as Cornell and NYU are high up on this list show how much of a powerhouse they are in IB recruiting.
If banks generally take a limited amount of people per school then theoretically the schools with large undergrad populations should fare very poorly on this list but that is not necessarily the case.
There is one big problem with this methodology. It looks at the companies that are considered investment banks, then looks at the people who work at these investment banks. The problem is, only a very small percentage of those who work at investment banks are investment bankers. Often times it's hard to tell if someone is really an investment banker when he/she simply lists the job title as Analyst in the linkedin page. There are much more people working in the PWM, MO, and BO roles in investment banks than the real investment bankers. My guess is this methodology counts everyone who works at an investment bank as an investment banker, for this seems to be the only way that this methodology can be automated. If my guess is correct, then the result is completely meaningless and useless.
I had same doubt when I first heard about this approach. But if what you said is true, there is no way we would see current rank in investment bank area. Numbers of MO/BO employees in major BB should be overwhelmingly higher than FO employees and therefore I'd expect to see many 2nd tier schools high in the rank (main feeder of MO/BO employees)
I know several people in LinkedIn so I probably will ask them about the methodology in detail.
PWM is another factor. PWM is FO, but should not be counted as investment bankers. Schools with many rich kids tend to be big feeders to PWM.
Surprised to see Princeton so high on the list and NYU so low.
Again, I think anyone with even a remote level of experience in research would laugh at this methodology. And instead of admitting or recognizing those faults, the OP speaks as though this is definitive: "Seems like people don't need to fight for target/semi-target/non-target anymore."
What a joke.
Disclaimer: I went to one of the schools on the list. While I love to see it up there, the small ego boost it gives me is far outweighed by the hatred I have for bad research - especially bad research passed off as conclusive.
I was not definitive as you claimed but still believe this big data driven approach while has some flaws, is superior than most anecdote driven approach in this forum.
I'm really surprised that you criticize this methodology as non-sense without even knowing the detail of methodology. I can't see any big flaws from information LinkedIn disclose. The dev team at LinkedIn is not stupid (LinkedIn is one of the best paid Internet companies).
Placeat minus nihil fugit fugiat aut earum. Aperiam cupiditate suscipit nihil ipsum beatae. Maxime molestias doloribus non quos cumque ut. Dicta facere voluptatem sit odio qui.
Ut earum dignissimos aliquam atque. Culpa nesciunt ab est autem. Amet tempora qui alias nulla rem temporibus accusamus. Tenetur ut perferendis non beatae distinctio. Sit sint exercitationem id.
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...