IBD FT recruiting at Ivies - 2011
I am a senior at lower tier Ivy going through On Campus Interviews... and, to say the least, the results so far have been very disappointing. This year's recruiting has been brutal in my opinion, as like 2 of the Bulge Brackets didn't even show up to recruit this year at my school. I am kicking myself in the butt for not going for SA recruiting back in my junior year. Last year, I didn't know I wanted IBD and did Consulting internship. (which, unfortunately, didn't lead to permanent offer) This year, like 500 kids from my school applied for like 3-4 analyst jobs at GS. I was wondering if anyone else out there going through interviews have tough time at their school. (I hope my school's not the only one that has a bitch recruiting season...) To those who aren't getting IBD offers: what is your next plan?? What do you plan to do after graduating?
I have 3.5 GPA in Econ at low tier Ivy and got dinged by all IBD shops and didn't make it to any of their second rounds. I realize I am not the most competitive candidate as there are kids with better GPA and more finance-related resume, but, I expected to at least land several interviews, which wasn't the case. (I got 1 on-campus interview after pre-select and didn't make it to second round)
Is this year's FT recruiting for IBD one of the worst ever in history? What's the deal.
did you think that going to a SUNY entitled you to an IBD job?
Dude. Plenty of kids from my school in previous years landed IBD with 3.5+ GPA as long as they had good resume and studied Vault interview prep guide. This year seems to be worse than any other recent year. Or, is it just me that is going though this shit.
Yes, I hear recruiting is pretty bad at my school as well. You can extend your graduation and apply for SA this winter if you really want to be an analyst in investment banking.
Yea, its been pretty rough at my school as well. We aren't ivy or a BB target, but we are semi-target for firms such as Wells, SunTrust, Raymond James, and R.W Baird. This year we placed 4 undergrads and 7-10 out of the MSF class when it is usually much higher. The problem is that most banks are really raising the bar. When I went to the Wells superday I was shocked to see guys from Harvard, Yale, MIT, and U Penn as my competition. All 6 of my fellow university super dayers were wait listed, but none of us are bad candidates. (A friend of mine accepted an offer from Jefferies).
It's really just a touch game out there, and it is extremely hard to break in if you don't have a connection or haven't done extensive networking. I didn't make the cut from 2 different superdays, but I was fortunate enough to get an offer from my third which I had networked with for several months.
If you can't break in for FT, then I would look for a summer IB analyst role and do MSF. This should allow you time to ride out this storm, develop your resume more tailored to banking, and give you time to start some strong networking initiatives.
Best of luck and I hope everything works out! Hang in there!
Congrats on your offer. I am jealous. And, thanks for your suggestion. My fear with doing an MSF program is that IBD recruiting may not get any better anytime soon and I might still strike out on IBD, even if I go to MSF. I would hate to spend all that money and time to come up short again.
I do agree with your observation that landing IBD gig this year is a bitch. I have 2 friends at Harvard and they tell me unless you landed SA position for internship your junior year or have some contacts to bank on, you are pretty much fucked for IBD recruiting, even coming out of Harvard with good GPA. So, I guess going into FT IBD recruiting without SA IBD internship background is really the kiss of death. (I wish I knew this fact earlier...)
By the way, do banks still recruit MSF kids who did not have IBD internships in the past before the master's degree?? And, what are some MSF programs that place well into IBD. Thanks in advance.
a lot of banks just froze ft hiring and gave out crazy return offers to their summer interns, and most interns are going back.
i'm sure this is not as bad for 2009/2010 graduates, but it's pretty shitty
Why do we feel bad for the Cornell kid that didn't even decide he wanted to go into IBD until his senior year..? OP is really at a huge disadvantage I don't know how he will manage..Your classmates are going into corporate finance with the f500's they lined up as their back up options. You probably should have worked harder.
I am not asking for your sympathy. I am interested in hearing about others' advice or their courses of action if they find themselves in similar situations as myself. I wanted to go into Management Consulting initially but after talking with several bankers and interacting with my kids who were in IBD, I decided IBD fits my interest and career goals better. FWIW, until last year, I thought I could try out consulting for internship and still land a banking job at FT recruiting in the fall. I just had this misconception that having management consulting internship on my resume would enable me to break into high finance and other consulting shops, too. (this is what the career services lady told me)
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "being at huge disadvantage".
I'm at a target, and agree FT recruiting has been pretty difficult. Only 10ish banks are coming to campus for FT recruiting, and it seems most are only hiring one or two more analysts total, not just from my school.
Holy shit... where did you get this information? Did you have any luck in IBD so far? FT recruiting this year really is the kiss of death...
Also I just want to point out that relying strictly on OCR has always been a terrible idea.
If you say "like" as anywhere near as often as you write it, then I like totally understand why you like couldn't get hired.
This was my first thought exactly. If you use it this much in text, I can only imagine how much you use it automatically while speaking.
you wrote that you go to Cornell in your profile. No point in saying that you go to a law tier ivy. People can easily find out. also, i'm not sure what you are talking about. i have numerous senior friends who have gotten offers at good banks and hedge funds. You probably are just not a competitive applicant. and that is your own fault
It's not the end of the world if you can't land a full-time offer, just go to business school in a couple of years and switch in as an associate. I would avoid MSF.
Thanks for your suggestion.
I was thinking of going this route in case nothing pans out. Do you know if I will be at significant disadvantage at MBA recruiting for IBD, because I did not have pre-MBA IBD analyst work experience?
I am wondering if I can just do non-IBD job for 3-4 years, go to MBA, and still land an IBD associate gig.
One thing I am afraid of is that even if I go to a top MBA, I may not walk away with that IBD associate job that I want. My brother went to Harvard MBA (he graduated last year) and he told me recruiting was tough as shit. He told me that the problem he had was that there are way too many ex-I-bankers at Harvard MBA/ other top MBA programs and all of them want to go back to banking. And, as we know, the economy is a piece of shit now. He didn't land IBD or MBB consulting and he is working at a F500 corporate finance.
Right now, I am trying to evaluate different options and I would like to maximize my chances of getting IBD down the road.
Finance job market this year for top MBA's is actually worse than last year. Ex-bankers who wanted buyside are either going back to banking or doing something different. Lot of second-years I've talked to are getting pretty scared.
I think us non-target folks have done a lot of damage to the target-school system over the past five years. Recruiting shouldn't be based on which school you went to but what you've done with the cards you've been dealt over the past few years.
Just submitted a 3.99 GPA from a kid studying engineering at a Top 20 US News Engineering school (non-target). His resume is now on our head trader's desk and he is looking at a first-round interview. Five years ago, he would have been beaten out by a kid from Cornell, but since the non-targets have done a better job of surviving the recession, the target school system is losing some spots. By banking standards, 3.5 in Econ at Cornell has become a bit subpar when you are competing against Math majors with 3.7s.
Also, it is a tough economy for FT recruiting. Maybe this is a good time to readjust your expectations and look for work at an F500 firm.
Really? The cornellians I know all have massive insecurities about being at Cornell and not getting into a better ivy and then try to put down all other schools by acting like their ivy status inherently makes them better than schools like Northwestern. The title of this thread kind of confirms that. Instead of saying at target schools he limited it to ivy schools thus excluding other targets that are likely at least as targeted as cornel.
I dunno. My experience is that the Arrogance/Intellect quotient is lower than nearly every other Ivy. Slightly higher denominator, much lower numerator. It is much more consistent with that of UChicago, Northwestern, and Michigan than that of Brown, Columbia, or Dartmouth. When is Cornell going to leave the Ivies and join the Big Ten?
Cornell kids are extremely insecure. They all got dinged at the other ivies and having to live in ithaca exacerbates their misery.
LOLOLOLOL toooo much fail in this thread for me to comment.
What's up with all the ivy league bashing and hate? What did we do to you guys?
If you are a liberal arts major from an Ivy League school, you probably don't make the cut. The goal here is not to put down Ivy Leaguers; merely to put the more arrogant ones in their place in light of who's getting placed on the street, who's doing well in the interviews, and who's doing well in the US News rankings.
Sure, but our band could beat Cornell's or UPenn's football team. Do you really want to go there?Cornell, UPenn, and the other "lesser" Ivies are great schools with a lot of smart people. Just like Michigan and Penn State. You should be proud to have gone to school there.
Plenty of really smart kids go to ivies and study liberal arts because that's what they want to study. On average, do I think a math major at harvard is smarter than an english major at brown? Yes. But I was never one to believe that engineering or the hard sciences have a monopoly on smart accomplished people.
+1
well stated. i'd rather work with smart engineers from state schools than bullshit artists from "top targets" any day of the week.
here's a secret to HYP: yes, a lot of kids in there are fucking smart, but a lot of them lied and cheated their way in, so their admission is more a function of their mendacity. do a survey on how many of them got special status as learning disabled so they were able to get extra time on SATs, APs, regular exams, etc.
dig a little more into how many of them flat out lied on their ECs and activities. having interned in the adcom for 1.5 years i have much less regard for the admissions process now than before.
I don't think people realize that networking is THE MOST important part of getting a job (far more important than technicals or brainteasers, those are the easy parts...)
Even if you have an impressive resume, it's one resume in a stack of ~300 to ~500 for every OCR job at a target (heard this straight from several recruiters).
They give out first rounds to 10-20 people, then second rounds to ~1/3rd of those, and end up hiring maybe ~3-5.
The hardest part is going from the resume drop to getting a 1st round interview, at which point your chances are significantly improved... talk to alums, frat brothers, family friends, etc... talk to ANALYSTS because analysts from your alma mater (or in the case of non-Ivys, they have a non-core school resume team too) will be weeding out the resumes. The best way to get an interview is to have an analyst pass your resume straight through to the "interview" pile without having to pass through the resume gauntlet.
Once you get the interview, it's all a game of numbers--assuming that you're a reasonably-qualified candidate.
I think networking can be quite important for banking jobs. But for hedge funds, private equity, and prop trading, I'm not quite sure it matters that much. Usually companies like citadel/de shaw/jane street, etc., could care less who you know. They want smart kids with high gpa's in quant majors, who can rock the technical questions during the interviews.
Hell, at an Ivy/target, your ROIC on networking will be fucking incredible compared to a non-target. If a kid from my school with a 3.5+ in econ/stats/math/finance, 2200+, and a demonstrated interest in finance took the initiative to network me 3 months before recruiting season, hell yea I'm telling HR to give him an interview.
My point holds true for a lot of PE and more fundamental, value-oriented HF's as well. And ceteris paribus, a guy who networks still stands a better chance of landing a job at DE or Jane Street
I want to see a kid who's not exactly a networker but who's got a certain level of technical skill, work ethic, and bravery/toughness. And to be fair, it's a lot easier to test the bravery/toughness in a kid who started the game late than started it early.
Must be nice to have OCR
I don't care how competitive OCR is. The point is that you actually get a first round, you get a chance however 'slim' it is, non-targets have to work 2x-5x-10x-20x times whatever the hell it is harder to even get that chance that 5/10 times never comes anyway. Don't be ignorant of recruiting reality.
Funny... just had a conversation about that. I've met some people in grad programs at Harvard and they rarely tell anyone they just met that they go to Harvard. It's always, "a [insert program here] in Boston".
Although, I did also hear a guy hitting on some chick in line for a bar and said he's getting his mba/md from Harvard and he's going to be "mother fucking rich". Girl turned around and called him a dbag to her friends. It's these types of people IP is referring to...
Edit: I can't write anything coherent, but you're wrong.
To be honest, banks go to target schools because they're lazy. They would rather have the schools that do the filtering based upon high school accomplishments and removing responsible upper-middle-class parents who've paid down their mortgages so they have home equity that FAFSA thinks is available for tuition payments. This way, no matter how badly they screw up the interview process, only 30% of the entering class will have to be dumped in the next two years.
Frankly I think a kid who goes to a lower tier school because he gets a scholarship or in-state tuition is pretty darned smart if he's got the brains and discipline to back it up and get a strong GPA with a few strong extracurriculars and a polished interview.
So why not just have a better-run recruiting process? The top 50 students at Berkeley out of a class of 10K are a heckuvalot smarter and more driven than the top 50/1000 at Harvard. The non-target folks are forcing the banks to reduce the difference between the two bars that target school kids and non-target kids face by providing more information about these schools and where to find the smartest candidates. Eventually we'll be rid of the target school system and yes, there will be disproportionate numbers of people from Ivies at banks, but everyone will clear the same (now much higher) bar. We'll take the top 0.5% from community colleges, top 2% from state schools, top 5% from lower-tier Ivies, and top 7-10% from H/Y/P/W/C/S. It's not what you did in high school but what you've done lately that counts, anyways. Why should we take the bottom 90% from ANY school?
I go to Georgetown, and while it used to be the case that banks universally preferred to recruit kids from the School of Foreign Service over kids from the undergrad business school, recent years have shifted that trend a little bit. This year OCR has been pretty thin, but it seems like just as many, if not more, business school kids have bulge bracket or elite boutique jobs.
The undergrad business school has become more selective, but not quickly enough to justify the sudden shift in recruiting success from SFS to business school. It seems like banks are starting to prefer kids that have shown interest in Finance and Accounting (or other related fields) in their major and their extracurriculars over the students in the more prestigious programs like SFS, or liberal arts majors at Ivies, even though admissions stats would suggest that, on average, those kids are smarter...
Wow. This thread has spiralled quickly out of control. Why are two Ivy Leaguers acting so foolishly? I thought you guys were supposed to be smart or something.
I came here to hear others' advice and their stories as to how recruiting is going for them. I am a long-time lurker of this forum and found many posts useful.
I did not expect to hear that 3.5 in Econ at Cornell would warrant someone calling me a 'retard' or 'pussy'. And, I did not even ask for this guy's feedback, but he kept mentioning that I am a retard or pussy. I think this particular person in question is a faggot gunner with 2-inch dick pissed he never got laid and resorting to calling anyone below 3.7 GPA a 'retard'.
I don't understand what is wrong with you. I never mentioned anything about you until you said something to ME. You asked if it was the recruiting. I said no, YOUR GPA is not good enough to warrant interviews with no experience. But for some reason your reading comprehension is lacking and you interpret that as a ad-hominem attack.
Take accountability for your own problems, don't blame it on the recruiting.
Grow up guy.
A 3.5 does not make you a retard, but it doesn't make you a competitive candidate for banking at Cornell. Try to find a job at a Fortune 500 firm and see if you can transition into banking later.
It's a tough market. That GPA would have cut it five years ago. Not anymore.
Thank you for your feedback.
I got interviews with some top consulting firms last year with my GPA, so I figured I would stand a decent chance of landing interviews for banking roles.
What kind of jobs should I be gunning for?? And, do you have any advice as to how I can lateral to IBD later?? Thanks for your advice.
It's great experience and the competition is a bit less extreme.
Enrique, were you unable to get a consulting job? Consulting to top mba to IBD seems like your best bet.
You were unable to get interviews from ibanks with MBB on your resume? I find that kind of surprising, not that anyone cares about my opinion. Do you have anything specifically finance related on your resume? If not, the banks could just be assuming you're applying as a backup...
If your goal is to get into IB asap, then maybe consider an MSF, and go for SA recruiting this year (but be sure to check with HR at banks to see if you can do this). In any case, networking will land you far more interviews.
Yeah, I got just one first round interview after pre-select. I am now doing some research on MSF programs that may be worthwhile to attend.
So, if MSF program is 1-year program (i think a lot of MSF programs are 1-year, right?), I should really strive to score a SA internship before MSF starts, right? I have the feeling that MSF FT recruiting is going to be not too pretty without SA IBD experience just like FT recruiting isn't going so pretty for undergrad. Or, I am thinking of taking a non-finance job, working 1-2 years and try to lateral into IBD. But, I am not sure how realistic that approach really is.
You really need to network. If you don't have a background in finance or something that otherwise demonstrates your interest in finance, then it's time to hit up your alumni network since at least this way you get to explain your story to someone, who, if they believe you and like you, would likely help you out.
In my opinion going from cornell to MSF program will look like a pretty major step down
why dont you just go run a hotel in some exotic locale?
It's a tough market. Good ideas are cheap and cash is very expensive. IMHO, the best move is to land the job you can and pay cash for school.
OP, I'm glad you didn't get a job in banking. I can tell just by reading your posts that you don't deserve it. Have fun getting anywhere in life.
You are just a whining baby.
Yo internet tough guy. You're cooooooool
I wouldn't want someone hiring you and then seeing how much of a baby you are and then having them get a bad impression of Cornell.
Also, I will never have to work with you. Automatically makes my life better
UBS is still recruiting for sure lol
If you're desperate, PM me your resume and I'll FW it to the staffer that I know
Wait, is this a joke?
I am desperate at this point, and I have a contact there, but he told me like in September they were still waiting on summers. I figured with all the stuff going on UBS wouldn't be recruiting at all regardless after that. Should I email him again now? Or you were joking right?
All those banks came to your school?
I hate you all....
That's actually a pretty decent ratio, considering every superday (5) I went to this year, I've been the only kid from my school there.
This has to be the dumbest thread I've seen on WSO yet.
Moderators please lock this thread.
No....I can see that. Not necessarily smarter, but definitely able to compete with the top 50 from Harvard. I don't see why not...??
And wow...people are very sensitive about where they went/go to school. Internet fights are always a no no.
are you kidding me? do you know anything about standard deviations and sample selection? lol
if you use standardized testing as a proxy measure for "intelligence", I guarantee that the top 50 students at Berk > top 50 students at Havard
I don't think you have any ability to comprehend how intelligent the top 50 students at Harvard are.
If the top 50 students at Berkeley were so amazing, most of them would be at Harvard.
making a lot of generalizations. I both agree and disagree with some of your points.
When you talk about top talent at a target vs nontarget, it really depends on what kind of nontarget you're talking about. I believe top talent @ Illinois can compete with top talent at targets. We have some pretty smart people...even in our business program. Now schools like Baruch (sorry guys - just my experience with Baruch students) then yes...maybe/probably.
Most target students may get jobs from outside OCR, but you have to understand that recruiting at a target is SUBSTANTIALLY greater than at a nontarget. More firms recruit AND take more students. Your chances are extremely higher PLUS targets have more alumni on the street, thus making it easier to get a job/break in outside of OCR.
Just a couple of things I wanted to point out. And yes, I do agree when you say if you have the smarts and are willing to make the sacrifices, you will break in.
we're not talking about SAT ya artard
ARML / USAMO / S-B IQ
I agree with your points but that statemenet was retarded
I got into a HF with a 3.3 from a target, so anything is possible if you continue networking.
push your contact, a lot of their summers didn't want to take the return offer from what I heard--but this is just for one group... and regional offices are also recruiting on an ad hoc basis (Houston specifically, but they may be filled by now)
and lol just b/c of this circle jerk, I checked... Harvard's 25-75% SAT math range doesn't even hit 800 haha... shamed by Harvey Mudd
How about nyc?
Leo you're romanticizing the target student that breaks in as someone that's always harder working, smarter or talented when that's definitely not true. There are target students that aren't always qualified that break in, it was never strictly merit based.
Second, brand name and alumni base make a huge difference so XYZ firm is probably going to be more likely to hire their kids from their school vs. no-name non-target.
Third, you're still not addressing the fact that there is OCR at targets, it's what makes them a target. Whether or not a non-target would have the same 'chance' at securing a 1st round interview at a target doesn't even matter b/c it's all hypothetical. Do stop saying it's hard or no one realizes how hard it is, breaking into IBD is hard and everyone knows it both target/non-target. But you can bust your ass at a non-target, have 2-3 connections fall through and you're back at square one. At a target you can bust your ass and have those connections, but also have OCR and still make it to a 1st round. So I'm not talking about the morons I may or may not go to school with, I'm talking about the guys that would/should have a shot that aren't getting one b/c they don't have OCR. The playing field isn't level so stop trying to say it is.
Do people actually think that going to a target impressive? Or is working at an entry level banking position is somehow great? I did both. Oh, and I had high SAT scores and a high GPA. And my school had a lower acceptance ratio than most of the "top-targets."
Saying "a school in Boston" or a "school in the Bay area" is a thinly veiled attempt at eliciting the next question "which school." Just say what school you went to rather than feign humility.
And for goodness sake, getting into finance at the entry level is NOT impressive. IP would say the same. He is just as unimpressed with his job and relatively low position as he is with his alma mater or someone who went to Harvard.
There are more important things in life and better career paths.
Ouch Mr Douche. But yes. There are much better things to do with your life.
The problem with life is that you have to pick something to worship. Most folks on Wall Street worship money and power. And they aren't very good gods. They don't keep their promises and they demand a dozen hours a day for decades of your life. Suddenly you are old and would give the entire pile of cash you made just to get half your time back. Other folks worship different stuff that revolves around the self, and they are all just as bad. People wind up the same- wishing they could get that time back.
The funny thing is that the jesuits, franciscans, and buddhist monks don't have this problem when they hit 40. You have to figure out what you can depend on in life and what the real priority is. It's probably something bigger than you.
I just don't get it. It's impossible to go to an Eastern liberal arts school without reading Death of a Salesman, Great Expectations, Our Town, or Walden. Money and success may be nice to have, but you have to be delusional to think they are a priority. Us state school engineers can be forgiven to an extent since our required reading was mostly math books and maybe a thousand year old book or two if we were religious. But there's no point in spending an extra hundred grand on a liberal arts school if it doesn't help you.
Isn't the answer that the only things you can count on in life ate death and taxes?
And The Northwestern Mutual Insurance Group.
"Call me crazy but the fact that I have 500 posts on this site (not even counting the 400+ on my other account that I don't use) means I know alot more than you. "
wow
My personal experience is that the one guy who went to Yale from our school had his psychologist Dad diagnose him with ADD and got extended time on every exam. Daddy was also a headcase and got into a number of political battles about sports which included a slugfest with a coach at a little league game. A kid who got into Princeton got into a fight with a coach about relay placements at state and eventually had to switch schools after Mom and Dad gave the coach a nasty T-shirt in front of 50 members and parents on the team. He claimed the school "had a really good math program" as he was leaving, which we all found hilarious.
Not going to say the kids are liars or screwed up, but there are a lot of headcase parents out there. If we did a psychological screening on H/Y/P parents, my hunch is a good 10-20% of them would require commitment or at least some SERIOUS outpatient work. I honestly felt bad for the two going to Yale and Princeton. I'll take SANE parents with money for in-state tuition, thank you.
Thank God you don't have to deal with that to be successful on Wall Street. And thank God success and money are not foundational to our purpose in life.
LMAO. This is so goddamned true.
You want even worse than that? I went to one of those " elite small liberal arts schools." Those kids are the same stock as the nuttiest of the ivy leaguers but dumber. And usually more fucked up on drugs. That's where the black sheep that couldn't even get into Brown go.
Well, the kids who went were a little screwy and I could see how they might eventually turn into their parents, but nearly all of the shenanigans came from the adults. How do you tell your Dad not to start a lobbying campaign to get the coach fired so you can be a starter? How do you tell your parents not to sue the school because an AP US History teacher changed the final exam at the last minute? Some of these parents brought new meaning to the term "functional psychopathy", and the kids were almost as much the victims of the parents as the teachers, coaches, and administrators. The Princeton kid referenced above was known as "T-shirt guy" throughout the school for his last two months, and he was totalled mortified of what his parents had done all the while also trying to downplay it. Awkward situation trying to defend parents you love for doing something indefensible.
One of these guys married the daughter of a disgraced politician a few years ago. PPKs (Psycho-parented kids) seem to attract one another. Let's hope they've learned from their parents and can bring up healthier kids.
Also, there were a lot of kids that went to strong schools like MIT, Wharton, and Stanford who had sane parents and were relatively sane themselves. And most of the kids who wound up at the more normal Ivies like UPenn and Cornell were pretty chill and had pretty chill parents, though there were still a few nutjobs out there.
A lot of the stuff that went on was much bigger than the kids involved and it wasn't applicable everywhere. But the most memorable fiascos at my high school were driven by crazed parents desperately trying to get their kids into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton just like Mommy or Daddy at any ethical, moral, or financial cost.
To the public at large- this is how many of the people who now run our government and financial system were created. And you thought The Manchurian Candidate was a silly fairy tale devoid of reality. Scared yet?
I don't know why this thread is evolving into discussions of schools.
People in the real world don't really care which school one went to. People could care less that you went to Harvard or a State U. That said, I know several people at Harvard right now who are struggling to make it to a first round interview from IBD. And, I know tons of people at Cornell who couldn't cut it in IBD. (myself included...)
I think the credited move is to go into accounting. I know many, many kids from second, third tier state schools (not even state flagship) who got nice cushy jobs at Big4, with minimal debt while they partied their high school and college years. I was literally shocked that my friend who graduated dead last in our high school with 22 on ACT went to a college that I've never heard of, he managed to get a job at PwC audit with 55k + bonus, after he sported a 3.5 GPA at his laughable directional state college.
My cousin graduated with 3.4 GPA in Econ from Princeton 2 years ago, but couldn't get any job out of OCR. He ultimately went to law school because he could not get any job at all, coming from Princeton. If one tries to attend an Ivy with the specific intent of scoring a banking job, I have some bad news for you: it may not be worth the debt, all the trouble, and the social sacrifices you are about to incur for 'marginally' better shot at a banking job. And, as some other posters indicated, OCR at target is competitive as shit. Even if some random dude with 24 ACT gets lucky and goes to Princeton, I doubt he will score a banking job just because he is at target.
And, IllinoiProgrammer: I am not sure why you are saying U of I is non-target. I have a lot of friends at U of I and they told me banks from Chicago recruit there heavily. In hindsight, I wish I had gone to U of I since I was in-state for U of I. I would have partied with much hotter girls there, watch some legit sports, have a much easier time pulling 3.7+ GPA, get decent recruiting from banks in Chicago, and my savings account would be much fatter now.
couldn't agree more
Fuck yeah, we have decent recruiting and we party hard! But seriously, UIUC is definitely a semi-target...I got first round interviews with a 3.4-3.5 GPA even without prior banking experience...this was last semester though. (btw, they were 2 top BBs, 1 solid MM, and few boutiques)
IP:
Why are you even languishing in finance? Go get a PhD for fun or start your own thing. That's my life and it makes it easy to make fun of bankers (associates and other people at the entry level) when you see them in person. They literally will have nothing to brag about, whether it's education or money or responsibility and you can be oh so condescending to them when they start to brag. I've started a few companies now, 1 in HS, 1 in college, 1 before grad school and 1 after. All four have been successes. It's really not hard and you'd be far more successful than me with your maturity, intellectual curiosity, aptitude, tact, and level-headedness.
Stanford was not like this. Many of the people I spent time with learned to read well and took advanced math at a young age, so they didn't really worry much in middle school and high school. They just enjoyed learning and were smart enough not to have to work from 6:00-1:00 with undue pressure like this somebody who's impressed with his introductory target degree and mediocre consulting/finance job.
But, of course, I did get rejected from Harvard. So I must suck.
Damn. It is tough being part of the so stupid that I have to work really hard to achieve anything group.
yeah maybe a little more work ethic would have brought the fat envelope from harvard for self declared genius
The world has a lot of challenges revolving around resources and energy over the next 30 years. I think I have something that can help with that, but it's going to cost half my savings to get to a prototype and tens of millions to implement. It's also a clunky and unsexy system and you can't patent an idea. I guess I suffer the bias of having worked in an extremely competitive and commoditized market. You as an individual are not an effective barrier to entry. You need patents or hundreds of millions in cash to build the barrier.
New thread title: the preftigious v. Too smart to care about preftige
Citi considers UIUC a target. GS sends recruiters out and takes 1-2 kids every year, but they send recruiters just about everywhere. Then there's RW Baird and William Blair as well as a number of hedge funds and prop shops. We also used to get Lehman and Merrill recruiters in Engineering.
It's clearly a respectable school, and if it got the same consideration from the BBs that NYU and Penn got, it would be a target school for Accy, Actuarial Science, Math, Physics, and Engineering.
Why are we talking about this anyways?
We still get BAML. Also, DB and Lazard both target UIUC as well. We have a couple going to Greenhill this year too.
I go to a midwestern target and I'm pretty sure FT recruiting this year was probably stronger at UIUC than at my school; out of the 5 superdays I went to, I was the only student from my school at all of them. However, for SA recruiting, I'd wager that more banks probably came to my school, so there's that.
In any case, with regard to the target vs. semitarget vs nontarget argument, I definitely think that going to a target helps in terms of a larger alumni network in finance, but that being said, a competitive applicant at my school would probably be a competitive applicant at say, UIUC, but I'm sure the opposite would be true as well.
It's funny applying to colleges in high school everyone cared where people got in and what type of school it was. Now, as I'm in college and getting older, no one gives a shit.
Edit- but it does suck going to a "second tier" school.... you get plenty of the bitter top Ivy rejects.
Its never really where you go, but what you do that matters...
Plus the girls at these "second tier" schools are waaay hotter...and yes, that actually is a huge factor.
sigh I read this thread hoping to find useful information for myself about the situation at targets and instead it's built of fail...
Recently sat in on a talk from an MD for Credit Suisse. He said that because of new government regulation and adjustments in business practices hiring will of course be a little less as well as compensation.
But he also said you shouldn't worry, because as the industry goes through these changes companies will need new ways of making money that will work well under the new set of rules - and that means hiring more fresh, young grads.
Also, he said asset management and investments will be nice industries for new grads to make a mark on.
make of this what you will
Couple points I wanted to add:
1) In my experience I've found that ivy leaguers in general tend to be more thoughtful and polished than state schoolers, though on the flipside math/science/engineering majors tend to be less obnoxious than athletes/frat guys...just a sweeping generalization, take it as you will.
2) No way that the top 50 students at Berkeley are smarter than the top 50 at Harvard, Princeton, or MIT. I'd love to see any proof on that. That really doesn't make sense to me - the top guys at Harvard are probably the brightest in the world, let alone the US. Mind boggling intelligence to the likes of international olympiad winners, etc. That doesn't change just because Berkeley has a larger student body.
3) People who do engineering are those who really enjoy pain and abuse. I know from experience...
Maybe, but they have to compete against other schools like Oxford, IIT, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Technische Universitat Munchen, several others in China, South Africa, and South America, New South Wales, etc, etc. Harvard has no monopoly status, and sure, it gets some pretty bright cookies, but it has to share.
Berkeley doesn't have to compete. It is the flagship state school and gets every thrifty middle-class family who doesn't qualify for student aid out of the ~60 million people in the state of California. The best kids at Berkeley never had the opportunity to go to Harvard because they didn't have the money, and this is out of a class of thousands and thousands of students selected out of millions of middle-class kids who got no aid and don't have $250K to go to school.
Perhaps most importantly, being top 50 at Berkeley gives us more recent information about your performance than being top 50 at Harvard. Obviously you have probably TA'd a 400+ level PhD course, worked on some pretty incredible research, had some amazing leadership experience, all while getting a 4.0 GPA. The bottom half of the top 50 at Harvard hasn't had the same opportunity to pull all of that off simply based on ratios of other students and professors to their size. Maybe they are still capable of pulling off what they did in high school when they had parents to push them. Maybe they're not. The Berkeley kids have more recent and relevant information about their success as adults without parents looking over their shoulders.
I'm not sure it matters that much who's more polished. I remember watching Caddyshack when I was 14 and seeing Rodney Dangerfield driving over the golf course, crashing into boats, and telling jokes while Judge Smails was trying to swing, and telling myself, "That's my kinda guy." The trading floor is FILLED with Rodney Dangerfields and they are hardly polished excepting some guys in sales. It's really a personality kinda thing, and I think those who reject conformity take joy in having a few rough edges.
Firstly, it's not obvious to me that Berkeley is the "best" state school - Michigan is great too for instance, and so is UIUC for that matter... But let's assume Berkeley is the best state school. You're basically saying that the best of population X is better than the best of population Y, where X = students in the state of California who can't afford private college tuition (or didn't get aid), and Y = students all over the world who can afford private college tuition (or did get aid) and choose to go to Harvard vs similar schools (and for the record, I don't think a school like IIT gets many students from outside India or the surrounding region, and I bet the same goes for schools in China, etc). I really find all this hard to believe. You're essentially comparing the state of California to the whole world, and using the numbers aspect to make the point (using flat 50 people instead of a percentage, since Berkeley has so many more people). And if your view is biased towards math/science/engineering (which is technically a certain kind of intelligence), compare Berkeley to MIT or Princeton. I just don't see it. I do agree with your point about parents though - parents of ivy leauge kids are much more likely to be batshit crazy.
I remember when I visited Princeton there was one Asian dude whose father kept smacking him to stand up straight and pushing him towards the tour guide. The kid couldn't even check out the place. Needless to say, my dad and I were pretty speechless.
I have a lot of respect for berkeley undergrad. My best friend went there, and I know some really smart kids who went there. But the top 50 at harvard is pretty fucking impressive, so your argument is really stretching it. Do I think the top 10% at berkeley is better than the average student at harvard? Yeah most likely. But the top students at harvard undergrad are literally the best and the brightest that this country has to offer.
Illini, enough with the ivy bashing. You're successful in your own right and don't need to discuss this. You're starting to sound like those other insecure midwestern Big 10 alums I know in Chicago who constantly justify their school by saying "oh the ivies are overrated, at least my college had hot girls and a good football team."
^ nailed it. SB for you.
I am hearing that at wharton undergrad this year, blackstone got like 300 resumes for the PE analyst job and are planning on extending like 2 or 3 offers. Similar numbers for gs pia, gs ssg, apollo, citadel, etc.
Berkeley is a target and Harvard is a target. If you are California resident, the real question for you is whether you'd prefer to spend $20K/year on school or $60K. So my hunch is that the top 50 students out of 10000 at Berkeley are going to be a lot stronger than the top 50 out of 1000 at Harvard. And that's proven generally correct over the past three years as Harvard's been deemphasized in recruiting while schools like Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, UVA, Ga. Tech, and Minnesota have enjoyed more recruiting.
I went to a private school, and I personally knew people who were going there practically free. These kinds of schools have such large endowments and as far as I know make a concerted effort from a financial aid perspective to charge people how much they can afford. I remember reading a while ago of a homeless girl who went to Harvard. What you're really referring to isn't the families who can't afford it at all (because they will get aid), but rather a certain region in the middle that's a gray area in the sense that they probably could afford it after stretching savings, taking loans etc., but simply don't want to bear the financial burden. That's a smaller segment than people who really can't afford it, just being clear on that.
Also, in general recruiting in the finance world is not a great process at all. A lot of it is based on nepotism or some other forms of connection, which might be more blatant for alumni of schools that aren't traditional targets (because there are less of them on the street), which may explain why some state schools and such have gotten more recruiting.
Firms should hire more math/physics/engineering majors from Berkeley, absolutely. I'm sure many of them are very smart. I just don't think they're necessarily smarter than MIT or Harvard kids, because ultimately if they valued education above all else they would find a way to get there.
So a lot of parents are telling their kids to go to school in-state. The tuition is fairly low and isn't contingent on scholarships and the like. And your parents don't have to take equity out of their house to pay for it.
If you or your parents have to take a loan out to pay for college, YOU CAN'T AFFORD PRIVATE SCHOOL, and the class of folks whom the colleges think can afford it but really can't is about 50% of the country. More importantly, it encompasses the vast majority of the class of families earning between $100 and $300K/year where you often see somewhat more driven personalities. My experience in trading has been that our non-target traders tend to take on more responsibilities sooner and perform better. Yes, there's a certain level of nepotism everywhere, but of those who didn't get in on that, the bar's a lot higher from non-target schools. There's 50 flagship state schools in the country and thousands of community colleges. I'm pretty darned sure there's kids out there who are a lot smarter than the best at MIT just based on the numbers.O_O
Since when is Wharton a university?! lol
^grade deflation at ivy STEM, but definite inflation in other departments. 55% of harvard's non-STEM have an A-average, for starters.
^ Well, a third of my Ivy class are Economics majors, a fifth are pre-meds, and about a quarter are Engineers (added = almost 80%). Add to that another 5% of students who are Physics/Linguistics/Math etc. majors, and you begin to realize how a VAST MAJORITY never see a hint of grade inflation, but actually grade deflation due to the brutal competition.
I don't know about that...a measure of grade inflation isn't based on people or declared majors but can be based on classes. 80% of the classes at Columbia aren't math/science/engineering/economics. You can put all these competitive people into the same art history class, and at the end of the day...it's still an art history class.
Honestly Ivies are worth it if a student gets a ton of financial aid to attend and thus can attend with affordable price tag. For others who come from upper middle class (whose parents make over 200k/ year) or even lower high class, the decision to attend an Ivy vs a state flagship becomes much more complicated. To me, an Ivy degree ain't worth 30k more per year to attend over a top public state school, if in-state tuition is available for top public schools such as U Illinois, U Texas, UNC, UVA, UCLA, or U of Michigan and if I am not getting much financial aid from Ivies.
There are pros and cons of attending Ivy vs State flagship. Ivies give you better recruiting and supposedly 'better' education, but you can still get a very good education at schools like U Illinois or U of Texas. And, girls at U Texas or U Illinois are 100 times hotter than girls at Ivies. I am getting sick and tired of many stuck-up girls at Cornell who think they're hot, but in reality and by state school standards, many of them would be lucky to be considered to be 5's and 6's. It is like a person who drives a Honda Civic in Afghanistan thinks he's the shit because everyone else there is poor as fuck and no one else has a car.
That said, I think Harvard is a different beast altogether. The life-time prestige and social benefits of having gone to Harvard may make it all so worthwhile. Honestly, I would still go to Harvard even if I have to pay 200k to attend. My brother graduated from Harvard MBA last year - and needless to say - he reaped huge benefits by dropping "I went to Harvard" bomb to many fine looking girls at parties, bars, clubs, and even at work when he was flirting with girls in HR or other departments. Harvard is in a class of its own when it comes to prestige and Harvard brand gives you instant credibility and desirability in front of many gorgeous women. Last time I saw my brother, he hooked up with one of the most gorgeous and exotic looking brunette hotties I've ever met in NYC and they've been going out for few weeks now.
What is funny is that during his time at Harvard MBA, my brother openly admitted that he didn't really learn anything and he probably went out to drink at clubs and 'network' much more frequently than he spent time studying. Hell, he even told me that he worked much harder and learned more in high school compared to Harvard MBA. Still, what matters is the brand, recruiting, and alumni network of Harvard MBA. His girlfriend thinks my bro is a fucking genius because he went to Harvard.
I don't care if Berkeley physics majors are smarter than English majors at Harvard. At the end of the day, you ain't gonna impress any fine ladies by dropping "I went to Berkeley, and I got 3.9 GPA in electrical engineering, which is the most fucking difficult major out there."
Many hot girls haven't even heard of Wharton, Stanford, Dartmouth, or Columbia, but they all know Harvard. Hell, many hot girls don't even know what I-banking is. Fair or not, being able to drop that "I went to Harvard" bomb is one of the most dangerous weapons of destruction for one's successful dating strategy.
I agree with this almost entirely. HBS is an unparalleled 2-year experience; there's simply nothing like it. Heck, I would gladly give up my entire net worth and take out massive loans for a chance to go there.
The HBS guys I know absolutely dominate the social scene in Boston. Some of the stories I've heard about their partying and travelling are pretty insane.
^ please refer to this thread http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/how-do-i-become-better-than-other…
I went to public high school in Michigan, and now attend UMich - Ross. I am part of an ethnicity that is "over represented" at Ivy schools. Let me tell all of you Ivy bashers something - your perspective is completely wrong. The very top kids at Michigan, the ones consistently getting the A's and being recruited for ibanking/consulting, would be mediocre at Ivy league schools. I have numerous friends at better schools than UMich, and there is zero doubt they would ace any business/econ class at UMich or any other top public school.
UMich is a great school with a great atmosphere, and a target for Wall St because many smart and hardworking students are here. But the smartest and hardest working students are at better schools, period. If you think many of the most elite high school kids choose their state university over top private schools, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, Harvard or whatever would be cheaper to attend than UMich. You really think Harvard or MIT lets the most talented math/science students attend UC-B or UIUC or UMich because of a couple grand? Ivy league endowments are in the billions, and they could provide free/almost free tuition to every student if they wanted to (and basically do for every student that needs it). My sister just graduated from a top private school, and though I come from a upper middle class family with zero debt, paid less than I do. Don't be fooled by high sticker prices, they are completely meaningless for 80% of the kids who aren't very wealthy.
It's laughable to think the top 50 kids at UMich or UC-B are comparable to the top 50 kids at Harvard. A 2400 SAT/4.0 GPA kid is a superstar at any public school. Guess what? Harvard rejects significantly more 4.0/2400 SAT kids than they accept. Even if I grant you that GPA/SAT metrics are comparable among these two groups, that is only because GPA/SAT have maximum caps. Take away these variables, and Ivy kids remain clearly distinguishable on other factors. For instance - the only kid from my high school (large and upper middle class) accepted at Harvard was extremely likable (HC king), top athlete (football captain), and top math/physics student.
The top 50 kids at Harvard are the best of the best in whatever they do, and driven/ambitious as hell. Do you really think these types of kids, as a whole, would settle for public school when they can get a superior environment for cheaper? Take out the best handful public schools, and you can see why the top 50 at your run of the mill state "flagship" would be average at top private schools.
Good post
I gave you a silver bananna for this. It's one of the best posts I've read in a while.
I think state school kids drastically underestimate how tough it is to get into top ivies as a non-athlete/non-legacy/non -URM and the intense competition for top grades, jobs, and grad schools once you get there. I just talked to my cousin who's a senior at Princeton with awesome grades in economics and internships at both MBB and BB under his belt. He only got ONE full-time offer. He said the level of talent at Princeton and the competition is ridiculous. And this is a kid who graduated first in his class from one of the best magnet high schools in the country.
HYPSM is on a different level altogether. With generous financial aid and aggressive outreach, the elite schools are truly getting the brightest high school kids out there.
I agree with this post. Many people out there have no idea how tough it is to get into Harvard or Princeton. And, people talking about grade inflation at Ivies are straight-up misinformed.
I have no doubt that someone who is capable of breaking 3.5 GPA in Econ/ Math at Princeton or Harvard would just coast through Berkeley or Michigan and manage 3.8+ no problem. The talent pool and level of competition at Princeton/ Harvard vs. state school is not even close. Also, this proves that just because some random Joe with 25 ACT gets lucky and goes to Princeton rather than a Non-target that would fit his intellectual level better, competition for top grades and scoring that top banking job out of OCR at a top target is really intense, hence, this random Joe at Princeton wouldn't benefit from OCR at Princeton and would not end up with that top banking job at Goldman Sachs IBD.
Somehow, I think that there exists some really wrong perceptions of Ivies from others outside. Some people just assume that Ivies hand out A's like people hand out Halloween candies to kids. Or, some people think that banks would hand out banking jobs to anyone with a pulse who happens to attend Harvard or Princeton. All these are flat-out wrong assumptions and nothing but unfounded speculation.
100% true - silver banana. it's also true that the smartest kids at lesser ivies (and I went to one of them) are not as smart as the top of the crop at the best ivies. The hierarchy holds and is there for a reason.
IP:
At the risk of disagreeing with you, I think you are slightly overstating the difficultly of paying for HYPSM. My experience tells me otherwise.
Brady4MVP: Having done the target school and entry level finance thing, I think that you are drastically overestimating the prestige factor. We're talking about college and entry-level finance. Even IP would say his job is neither special nor limited to intelligent people. He is not bragging about having a finance job--one would hope--to validate his intelligence (since it's not a validation) and by extension state school kids.
Sure it's difficult in a narrow sense, much like going to community college is difficult for some people, but in the broad sense it is nothing special. I am non-legacy, non URM, and non-athlete. I just learned to read well at a young age and enjoyed math. I didn't work especially hard, but just happened to enjoy learning.
Ehh, I come from the school that thinks the only "good debt" is stuff secured at 2/3 equity and used to pay for hard assets with fairly stable prices (property plant and equipment, land, and other resources.)
If you can go to Stanford and pay only $25K/year, that's frigging awesome. But once we start talking about more than a $10K/year spread over Berkeley, I'm not sure it's not worth it. They both have top notch engineering programs, and I personally would much rather graduate from Berkeley debt-free or with $50K in debt than graduate from Stanford with $50K or $100K in debt. Saving about $40K/year, it would take 15 months to pay that off. Meanwhile at 8%, you've got student loan interest of $300/month working against you, and you don't get to deduct it on your taxes beyond $2K or when you spend your first year in NYC as a white-collar professional.
If you come from a middle class family and can spend your first year saving that $50K and stick it into savings and investments and get 10% returns, that's $3 Million when you hit 65. It's the lower risk choice, and if you change your mind, you can always use that $50K (or $150K) to go to grad school or do an MBA.
I think there's a student loan bubble forming as it stands with liberal arts majors graduating school with $100K in debt and not finding jobs. But meanwhile, tuitions will keep rising at 6-10%/year until four years of private school costs the maximum you can borrow from the Feds + $7K/year earned from part-time jobs.
I think that's ultimately what this boils down to: risk. Taking an investor's perspective and considering college as an investment, you're only going to take the 'risk' (ie pay the high college tuition) if your expected return from that investment corresponds to high sharpe ratio / lies on efficient frontier (if you will), relative to that risk. So I think that's basically the fundamental disagreement here - the expected return from college. If you're really smart and dedicated and fiercely driven you might be able to do well anywhere, so I guess it depends on the person to some extent. But how many hurdles do you want to have to cross, and what type of hurdles. And that's touching on the more tangible benefits from your investment (job prospects, alumni network, quality of professors, etc)....that's not even accounting for the more intangible benefits. But alas, I don't think any amount of data will prove expected return...it really depends on your perspective and future outlook.
I disagree with Harvard being on a whole other level. There's a huge prestige factor, of course. But saying that the top 50 is "on another level" compared with the top 50 from say a top state school is naive. Personally, I have a good amount of friends who go to Harvard from my high school. And they do fairly well. And I know all about the competition at these top ivy league schools.
But, I also personally know a guy, valedictorian at my HS, who is at MIT with a 5.0GPA (yes 5.0) majoring in computer science. Now, HE is on another level. (he works on wall street now) Now, there are some solid, top-notch engineering schools on par with MIT, such as Caltech, GATech, Illinois, etc. You really don't think there are 50 guys in the engineering school alone that is on par with the top 50 at Harvard? I, myself, know a handful of engineers with a 4.0GPA at Illinois.
Point is...this is dumb to compare the top 50 at an ivy vs the top 50 at a state school. It's basically comparing smart people to smart people and saying who is smarter? It's almost like we're in 3rd grade...But really...who really gives a fuck?
The top 50 at harvard are kids who were intel finalists, USAMO winners, IMO team members, prize winning musicians, authors, and other super gifted types. If that's not "on another level," then I guess you have much higher standards than me.
But yes, arguing over this is pretty pointless. It's just annoying that whenever ivy league schools come up in a thread, Illini has to jump in with his whole "state school kids are just as smart as those at harvard!" meme. I like the guy a lot, but it really reeks of midwestern big 10 insecurity.
I was third in the whole eastern coast for playing a musical instrument. (won't say which instrument...but it's a competitive one....not like the triangle or some shit). And I don't consider myself "on another level." I did well on my SATs (2200+). But then again, my GPA (in HS and college) has always around a 3.4-3.5. I do think I'm a smart person...but top 50? No way. But can I compete with ivy league kids? I think so...Anyway. point is...there are a lot of mediocre students(like me) that have done some impressive things in HS. Just saying, it's not only an ivy league thing.
You may attend Columbia for free if your parents don't have a whole lot- and you made a smart move if your alternative is taking out loans to go to state school. My parents made the mistake of paying off their house and saving for retirement, so FAFSA put our expected family contribution well above Columbia's tuition. I think they offered me a couple scholarships to get the cost down to $35K/year, but I looked at US News and World Reports and realized I could move 20 up in the Engineering rankings by going to $20K/year Wisconsin after scholarships. And then I got the in-state admit which worked out a little higher in the rankings for a little less.
Education is a very important priority, but you have to be smart about it. A community college education that allows you to practice as an engineer or a CPA may be worth killing for vs. not getting that education, but beyond that, the prestige isn't worth tripling your college costs. You make your own success through hard work and competence.
Also, why is Columbia getting lumped in with H/Y/P? Honestly Columbia strikes me as a Wash U just with a serious inferiority complex based on a number of attitudes I've seen from students. It's a respectable school, but I don't think it makes the Chicago/Northwestern/Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Wharton level.
You're just a troll aren't you?!
P.S: Wharton isn't a university, genius.
Why is Northwestern on the same level as Harvard. That is laughable. I grew up 10 minutes away from Northwestern and many kids at my high school didn't even know that Northwestern was a good school, while everyone practically worshiped Harvard. And, Columbia >>> Northwestern, in terms of selectivity and caliber of student body.
This is anecdotal evidence, but my friend transferred from Berkeley to Columbia for Econ last year. He told me that Columbia is much more rigorous than Berkeley and getting a top GPA at Columbia takes much more work and intelligence. He also mentioned that overall, the intellectual horsepower of kids at Columbia blows Berkeley's out of water.
What I think about this issue is that at Berkeley or Michigan, there is a very big variance of intelligence and talent among student body. I would wager that at least 35% of kids at these schools are no where close to as intelligent as average kids at Columbia. But, top 15% of kids at Berkeley may indeed be as good as kids from Columbia or Dartmouth. Let's not forget that UC Berkeley and University of Michigan accept tons of retards transferring from community colleges who didn't even take SAT back in high school and barely graduated high school. Where as at top Ivies like Harvard or Princeton, such kids would stand no chance of getting in within a million years. Hence, the variance of intelligence and talent among top Ivies is much smaller compared to top public schools, and we can assume that 'most' of kids at top Ivies are pretty darn smart. But, I wouldn't make the same assumption for kids at Berkeley or UCLA. Are there people at Berkeley as smart as people at Harvard or Columbia? I think so. On average, are students from Berkeley comparable to students from Columbia? Hell no.
my experience is that the average intelligence of a state school kid and an ivy kid is not far off, but the ivy kid's savvy with gaming the system crushes the state schooler's.
i personally know a HYP premed who got a 36MCAT and some terrible ochem grades but still got into harvard MD-PhD. i wouldn't call this person brilliant but (i) pleasing authority and (ii) concentrating whatever talent one has down into one hard point consistently takes some folks pretty far in the System
this person would never have the balls to do anything independent, like make a black swan scientific discovery or start a great business, but is golden within the System
even harvard was too much of a straightjacket for Marky Sugarmountain and Billy Windows
I remember when they handed out the resume book for the analyst program I was in. Some of these kids were dumb as rocks- I had to spend an hour trying to explain exponents and the difference between simple and compound interest to one of them. This was a clear departure from the graduate students I was teaching NP-completeness reduction to, but his resume looked amazing. 4.0 GPA, honors student council president, etc. etc.
There is a bit of an intellect gap between the medians, but the real killer is the marketing factor, IMHO. Does anyone honestly believe there's a $500 difference between the quality of a Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss suit? You pay $250 for quality of the Ralph Lauren, $25 for a picture of a guy playing polo, and that's it. For the Hugo Boss, you pay $275 for the quality of the suit and $500 for pictures of people leaning weird ways and making funny faces.
Hugo Boss takes a cynical view of consumers, and some private schools take a cynical view of hiring managers and students. There needs to be a stronger focus on delivering cost-effective quality. As it stands, post-secondary education is one of the few things government does well.
My friend's brother got a 41 on his MCAT...he went to Rutgers.
Is that how we refer to young billionaires these days?
There's simply a lot more opportunities to differentiate and prove yourself as an intelligent and driven adult at a larger school.
look all maybe we can summarize all this by saying that going to a top target might have some advantages
none of this makes you a superior person to a state school person. if you are putnam or IMO caliber you're better than us all but going to school with putnam-types doesn't transfer his glory onto you. and being a name-dropping, arrogant fuck will get you hated everywhere, even among your fancy alumni chums.
Actually, I doubt Harvard has more USAMO and Intel Challenge winners than Berkeley
Math-oriented people don't really give a shit where they go... one of my buddies went to Berkeley and another to Duke (both actually made money in college between the generous aid and scholarships). They turned down Harvard and MIT, respectively. Now one works at Amazon and the other at a startup in SF working great hours
Point being, if you're smart enough, quality of education and faculty trumps prestige by a wide mile... If you're programming in multiple languages by age 14, why go to some stodgy school in New England when you could be in NorCal working on the cutting edge of innovation?
^ well said. my only point was that berkeley has larger classes as a rule and have a mix of fucking smart and smart. hyp has smaller classes where it's concentrated with fucking smart. example: berkeley teaches E&M at the junior level over 32 weeks with griffiths (physics people will know this) as a two-semester course. princeton does it over one semester in 14 weeks. sophomores regularly take grad quantum field theory, etc. the advantage of berkeley is that i think you have more room to grow as a late bloomer. if you aren't fully formed by your first semester at HYP you will get steamrolled.
but there is a natural justice here. all the dickheads you knew in HS who slimed their way into reputable colleges got clocked when put to the test.
Don't you guys have work to do?
Well, there's a lot of smart people everywhere, and the concentration of smart people at Harvard does happen to be a lot higher. That doesn't mean I haven't met a number of people from random schools who can't walk circles around folks in the top 5% at Harvard. I'm also not sure having 30-year-olds posting "Ridiculous resumes" from 20-year-old college students and then proceeding to drool over them sends a healthy and mature message to folks.
Prestige isn't something that's gotten. It's something that's built. Over the long run- and assuming you spend 1/20th the effort you do marketing as you spend working- it naturally tracks to the consistency and quality of your work and becomes a brand unto itself. Eventually folks in industry have trouble categorizing you and see you as you rather than Bank X Employee or College W Graduate. That's the goal in whatever career you set out in, and your ability to hit that point- and the time at which you hit that point- is ONLY influenced by the quality of your education and experience, not the reputation of the school you went to or the firm you work at.
I have no opinion on whether the top kids are smarter at Harvard or Berkeley. But for you people supporting Harvard, I think your assumption that the best kids must be at the best schools is a little overblown. There are a lot more brilliant people at Harvard than Michigan. But there are certainly some brilliant kids at Michigan who could have went to Harvard under other circumstances. I doubt the talent-school rankings correlation is as high as you people are making it out to be. If we take the student bodies as a whole, sure. But if we are talking about the most talented individuals, I can't imagine you will find much of a difference between any good school.
Did I ever call it a university?
^ Yes, yes you did, by lumping it together with only other universities. It's just a program, much like Stanford Engineering or Northwestern MMSS. But then, what point is there in explaining facts to trolls?
I find it hilarious that I'm getting called a troll for this. Wanted to specify Wharton rather than UPenn as a whole which is a good school but is not at the same level as Harvard.
Sure. We also take folks exiting the military and other folks who went straight to work after graduating high school during the dot-com boom- folks that Harvard and Princeton would never consider. And the funny thing is that these are often the very kinda folks that beat out the H/Y/P crowd for seats on Wall Street.It's not what you've done in high school; it's what you've done lately that we care about. Colleges don't care what you did in junior high and banks don't care what you did in high school to get you into school X.
^ No school is at the level of Harvard. Harvard is in a league of its own. I never even got the term HYP. Yale and Princeton absolutely suck compared to H. Literally every student I know at Y and P would leave for H the second they got the chance. Penn-Wharton's undergrad BS program has similar finance placement as Harvard (H blows it out of the the water in everything else though, including other business roles like consulting).
Also, lol at comparing Columbia, or any Ivy for that matter, to Northwestern. After I got into Columbia, I didn't even consider Northwestern or UChicago. Neither did my entire class. Doesn't mean that they're bad schools though. Just not as good as the others you mentioned.
Aut incidunt impedit autem aut reprehenderit incidunt nulla dolor. Doloremque reiciendis sit molestias deleniti ut cumque dignissimos. Adipisci voluptate fugiat culpa aut aut deserunt consequatur.
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...
Rerum mollitia quo deserunt eius nisi quos. Ab sunt non maxime minima quasi est deserunt.
Quibusdam nihil veritatis reprehenderit quaerat. Laudantium minus harum perspiciatis velit suscipit. Voluptas nihil beatae id quisquam quo. Eum quia ab aut eum voluptatibus voluptas. Est deserunt ut cum consequatur id sunt. Ut quis et expedita quo aut. Voluptas dolorem et fugiat autem laudantium eos sunt. Saepe dolore consectetur veniam accusantium optio.
Omnis tempora et explicabo ea et dolores blanditiis harum. Aut tenetur sed et incidunt sed. Culpa possimus aut tempore nisi qui odio distinctio. Dignissimos adipisci iste quos reiciendis. Aut dignissimos commodi placeat. Autem sed est est.
Quasi voluptates tempora hic est aspernatur. Eum explicabo eaque cumque deleniti. Nam aut est doloremque facilis. Voluptas aperiam ut et et.
Voluptate veritatis molestias unde. Molestiae ut vitae eos distinctio aut iure. Aliquid explicabo vel odit minima vel.
Aut voluptas rerum reprehenderit ea occaecati expedita. Nemo modi voluptatem dolorem repudiandae assumenda. Molestiae quia ab maiores voluptatem quia ratione sed. Consequuntur sapiente cupiditate neque rerum inventore qui voluptatibus.
Quo nisi eos officia nesciunt ipsum. Rerum numquam quos voluptate officia consectetur assumenda.
Esse quibusdam nulla nulla sunt omnis sit nihil aut. Quidem molestiae exercitationem quia ex. Fugiat nihil minima minima dolorem sed consequatur. Corrupti nisi quis magni.
Eligendi quidem qui explicabo debitis aliquid aperiam illo. Veniam nisi ut hic in doloremque sapiente molestias. Et dolorem nobis animi et sint. Laudantium non occaecati aut sit commodi voluptates. Et aliquam harum voluptatum.
Nobis aut rerum odio tenetur consequatur ut ut ut. Officiis maxime ut et nemo. Alias eveniet sint quibusdam qui.
Et quia quis sunt odit veritatis. Blanditiis quisquam occaecati rem exercitationem sit corrupti blanditiis consequatur. Perferendis consequuntur ut dolorum ratione eaque qui. Perferendis in dolores error nihil dolor ad rerum soluta. Eveniet omnis eos sit.
Et tenetur quisquam non voluptates tenetur et. Autem nemo soluta sapiente doloremque. Voluptas nisi consectetur deserunt voluptatem. Placeat dolor ut rerum.
Dolorem nisi distinctio unde doloribus. Dicta illum praesentium et quis non et. Illo quia culpa facere rerum velit. Alias rem et ut voluptatem exercitationem voluptates. Deleniti dignissimos perferendis animi aut.
Facere consequatur ea exercitationem molestiae porro quos. Consequatur exercitationem iste voluptatem repellat neque minus. Laborum suscipit tempore doloremque voluptatem aut. Libero amet dolorum qui ut voluptas enim alias.
Non earum ut natus temporibus hic deserunt voluptas vel. Sit possimus est id explicabo. Et et et est ducimus facilis.
Voluptate asperiores porro voluptatibus nesciunt rerum consequatur enim. Ut ullam tempora recusandae est omnis.
Mollitia assumenda atque voluptatem est enim officiis vel distinctio. Sit voluptatem repudiandae ea. Iure delectus quia autem quia magni laborum inventore.