Street Prestige1. Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Wharton/MIT/Stanford2. Penn/Columbia/Cornell/Dartmouth/Chicago/Cal Tech3. Brown/Berk./Duke/Hopkins4. Northwestern/Georgetown/UVA
yes 50% of lse is international but they attract a hell of a lot of qualified intl applicants per offer.
many uk students turn down lse offers so they hand them out liberally.
top us universities are better funded than oxbridge but prestige is more than just endowment.
plus at harvard do you actually have access to the top professors? at oxbridge the top professors actually lecture undergraduates. when i was an undergrad at oxbridge i was tutored by a number of fellows including a professor who had a knighthood and was a member of royal society etc. not some 1st year masters/phd student.
IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +
30,000+ sold & REAL questions.
Land More IB Interviews.
Realistic IB Mock Interviews.
duke and brown have better reps than chicago, at least for undergrad. nu should be one tier higher and cal tech is top tier. nyu stern should also be somewhere.
I beg to differ. Street cred is similar to academic cred. Normally you would lump together Cornell, Columbia, Penn and Brown, however Cornell and Columbia et al are research powerhouse and Brown simply isn't. I went to Yale and I am tempted to knock Yale down below Cornell b/c Cornell is a research and science powerhouse. However street cred is a little different. Yale simply has more prestige b/c of admissions.
how about non-US schools on wall street, where would they rank with those schools above? say oxford or LSE?
UVA should be ranked ahead of Duke. Duke is horrible...an unbiased opinion.
OxBridge would go on the 1.LSE would go 2.Westpoint,Navy go 3.Coast Guard, Airforce, Sandhurst (Brtitsh) go 4.Yes, I made an error, Duke should go down to the 4 space.
I. Caltech, MIT.(gap)II. Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Oxbridge, Columbia, Chicago.(gap)III. Other T25s. (Including Wharton; it places very well on account of preparation, but is generally considered less prestigious than HYP.)(gap)IV. Respectable state schools (though Berk and Mich go into III).(gap)V. Everywhere else.
I disagree.Refer to above
yea i would say this first list is pretty legit, however i think hyp gets slighly more prestige than wharton mit and stanford
Don't discount Michigan's B school, it is one of the best in the country, undergrad is top 5 and grad was number 1 last year. It's highly regarded over a lot of iveys because most of them dont have b schools.
michigan is a state school. its pretty good and i think its probably better than some ivys cause they have some amazing faculty members but our world is biased and people simply prefer private school students with similar or slightly lower academic credentials over public school students
i think mit and stanford stay, but wharton goes down to 2
do people really care what school you went to after a few weeks into the job? i imagine new friendships irregardless of where you went to school are made, and your bosses won't really care where you went once they see who is really performing? or does going to harvard help overcome deficiencies even on the job?
once you start it doesn't matter so much. if you when to a shitty school and outperform the stanford kid, you will be given more responsibility and eventually people won't care.
We care because individuals from state schools tend to use words like "irregardless".
This list needs some work.
I agree Georgetown kids get some opportunity but the majority of kids coming out of there - idiots. Quality of education is horrible and the business school is worse than any of the top 10 public schools with a u-grad business program.
what about Stern people
What about the liberal arts colleges? lol
"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-
there is no way in one of those lists above that chicago and columbia are more prestigious than wharton.
does anyone know how does finsia - securities institute australia rank?
how would lse rank compared to top US schools eg Wharton, HYP?
in the UK itsOxBridgeLSEImperial ,kings...
oxbridge goes up to 1 on the 1st postlse 2 or 3
there are liberal arts colleges that are recruited. Pomona college comes to mind.
i think in the UK recruitment it is first LSE, then oxbridge and then everything else. in the US its probably oxbridge and lse at the same level or LSE being slightly lower but i think oxbridge and lse all go in to 2 on wall street.
really? lse is ahead of oxbridge in the uk? is lse well represented on street?
OF COURSE lse is represented well.
as far as all this meticulous ranking, it seems like something paranoid asian parents would do.
yes, i'm paranoid: do any alums know where i can find stats about lse grads in BBs?
not so sure about hopkins being on the first list..isnt that place more of a great place to go for medical school
you can't get a list which everyone will like... everyone has different opinions. With that said, I think the OP's ranking is pretty good.
caltech at #1....
cung9263, Finasia is not a university but a professional qualification, like CFA. On that point, CFA is much more worthwhile and more highly regarded.
I take a kid who is willing to work hard from a public school over a silver spoon private school kid any day of the week...
think it comes down to really who's smarter/works harder. A lot of this industry is about connections and esp. who's going to 'take care' of you when you get there (i.e. the alums). If you have a strong alum connection at banks and whatever, it makes your transition alot easier. hate to say it, but alums from my school (especially ones who are in MD positions) love to meet the first year analysts and take them under their wing(s?) particularly when it comes to placement in product groups, exit opps, showing the analysts the ropes and whatnot. It's a pretty nice deal. So while you may be willing to work harder than the ivy league kid, luck and connections is a huge part of it. I'd take luck over being 'good' any day. You can be fantastic but if you're in a sucky group, you might get nowhere. Or, if you're a great group but you're just average or mediocre and do the bare minimum, you often reap the benefits of what's going on in the industry.
Done with rant. carry on.
Wheres UT on the list?
You are right, We had a few state school kids, like UT Austin, UWashington, UC Berkeley, and they were rockstars, they all went to tier 1 Private Equity. The stanford kids couldn't even land a gig after two years, The Harvard history major couldn't even calc EBITDA.
--Interview GuidesGMAT TutorsWSO Resume Review---Current:Senior Analyst - Hedge FundPast:Associate - Tech BuyoutAnalyst - Morgan St
What about some of the southern ivies like Vandy, Tulane or Rice?
Jude84:What about some of the southern ivies like Vandy, Tulane or Rice?
As good as those schools are, not sure we should be referring to them as a part of the Ivy League. Kind of reminds me of the guy who, a few months ago, asserted that there were five Ivies in Texas alone.
Vandy, Tulane, Rice, and Emory are all viewed with a modicum of respect, but a student from that league of schools still has to work extremely hard to get noticed in an applicant pool.
in my opinion, you're better going to utexas instead of rice if you live in texas. there are more banks (especially for NYC) that come to campus....if you're in the south, emory is decent, but not great for placement. duke/unc/uva are probably the 3 best schools in south for placement.
Well out of the ones that were listed in the South (Vandy,Tulane, Rice, Emory). Which one is the one that gets the most respect. Im leaning towards Vandy.
So you have seen more UT grads make it than Rice grads?
more UT grads definitely. However, realize that UT is much larger and many more people want to get into banking. Most UT grads are in Houston office, but fair number are going up to NYC over the past 3-4 years.
In Houston, Rice is best. Overall and NYC in particular, I'd say that Emory gets the most respect. It seems like half the school is filled with rich kids from Jersey and Long Island with lot of connections. Seriously, the school has a strong business program and has Atlanta to back it up.
So Emory over Vandy and UT over Rice when it comes to Texas, but not NYC.Well I already worked up an easy ride into Vandy's Graduate Econ department and was ready take some finance courses from Owen, but I also have a shot at Emory. And if Emory commands more respect on the Street then I might as well shoot for Atlanta.
I can confirm this. I've seen more Emory grads on the street than Vandy grads, and more UT grads than Rice grads.
Not sure whether I've seen more UT than Emory. Perhaps about equal.
Em-who? You mean Embry-Riddle Aeronautical?
Obviously there are less overall b/c of graduating classes with 350-650 kids but it seems as if there is a high relative % of Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Colgate, etc.
varying in prestige but probably finding themselves upwards of tier 2-4 because of very strong alumni networks.
Emory? You mean the school that ivy rejects from Long Island go to? That school gets more cred than Vandy? People actually want to go to Vandy vs. Emory. I can understand UT becaue more kids want to go into IB there than at Rice.
what about Notre Dame?
How about the University of Miami?
While a great, great engineering schools, I have yet to come across a Cal Tech banker. Obviously, the main reason is they want to be engineers and scientists with creativity, not us banker monkeys.
Scott, what about Notre Dame. And what's the deal with Emory?
If we're talking about undergrad, Berkeley should be knocked down a tier. And along the same lines as what scott said regarding Cal Tech, Hopkins, while probably being one of the most difficult schools on that list, does not regularly place a significant number of its graduates into the analyst ranks of the BBs.
does well in Chicago b/c of strong alumni network and ties. Not sure about NYC.
Emory is decent, but you'll see more its grads at banks like B of A, DB, BS, etc. rather than GS/MS/Lehman.
And I agree that a couple of liberal arts schools should be added to the tier four spot. Williams and Claremont McKenna certainly place more people on Wall Street in absolute numbers than Georgetown, let alone relative to their student body sizes (2,000 and 1,000, respectively, compared to G-town's 7,000). For Williams, think Herb Allen (founder of Allen&Co) and Joe Rice (co-founder of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice), and for Claremont McKenna think Henry Kravis, George Roberts, and Peter Weinberg (KKR and Perella Weinberg).
Which has more of a Street presence, Harvard or Stanford?
In the OP , I assume that "Penn" in the II bracket is talking about the other schools besides Wharton at Penn, is this correct.
i dont think Notre Dame would be a target school
What about Vanderbilt?
Vanderbilt gets decent recruitment but not great. More so than Emory I think. In all of my interviews I have seen only 1 emory student.
From what I know, GS, ML, MS, BoA, DB, Leh, Wachovia, and ST and some MM's recruit at Vandy for internships and a whole lot MM's and all of the above + Lazard public finance and some others recruit for full-time. What I am trying to say is that, if you are a good student at Vandy (3.6+) with some decent credentials, you will be getting interviews for an internship for a BB, guaranteed
Vandy: NO, just no... Vandy is a MED SCHOOL!Notre Dame: no...Emory: eh, okay recruitment...Cal Tech: HELL TO THE NO! Wall Street doesen't need any nerdy engineers/scientists running around...
What about University of Miami?
They do get all the big name ibanks such as Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Citigroup but it is mostly for back or middle office internships and FT.
Why no Vandy, Greedy?I thought Notre Dame was up there as well.I thought that with all the Long Island kids Emory would be a sure thing.I can understand Cal Tech.
Elaborate a bit Greedy.
Greedy you are just plain wrong. I went to vandy and I know who came and how many people they called for second rounds. GS - 5, DB - 6, SunTrsut - 3, Wachovia - 3, should I go on? Vandy doesn't get Harvard type of recruitment but it gets decent opportunities and also fewer people at Vandy apply for internships than at Wharton etc., so it is less competitive
Greedy Gilmore:Vandy: NO, just no... Vandy is a MED SCHOOL!Notre Dame: no...Emory: eh, okay recruitment...Cal Tech: HELL TO THE NO! Wall Street doesen't need any nerdy engineers/scientists running around...
ur an idiot
Well they are no where near Wharton, HBS, Ross, Tuck, Yale, Princeton, Kelley, Stern, Darden/McIntire, Sloan, Haas, Tepper, ETC...
Gouzieta is a great school, but being in Atlanta hurts recruitment.
BTW: I'm semi-drunk right now, so keep that in mind...
Roller4Life:How about the University of Miami?
Is this a joke? Obviously they, plus other schools in that tier, get recruited for back office positions (IT, Operations, etc.) at banks (someone needs to do these jobs). But if you want to do banking from U Miami, you better have a very well connected dad or be a minority.
Also, what is with all this talk about "middle office" positions? There is no such thing as middle office. There is front office = generates P&L and back office = doesn't generate P&L (provides support activities to the front office). What the heck is middle office?
I've also visited Vandy many times... The last time I checked, they mostly cared about medicine and law. didn't really notice the finance side...
good school for banking. You will get jobs in Charlotte at Wachovia or NYC at Bear Stearns/DB. I doubt MS/GS/Lehman hire more than 1 person max. I know that MS didn't hire anyone a few years ago. Emory is definitely better b/c it has undergrad business school. Both schools are hurt by being in the south and are way below ivy leagues/top public (UVA, Cal, Mich, UNC), and top private (NWU, Chicago, MIT, Duke, etc.)
cough KELLEY! cough
Kelley is good but not the best for IB placement
scotttwibell:good school for banking. You will get jobs in Charlotte at Wachovia or NYC at Bear Stearns/DB. I doubt MS/GS/Lehman hire more than 1 person max. I know that MS didn't hire anyone a few years ago. Emory is definitely better b/c it has undergrad business school. Both schools are hurt by being in the south and are way below ivy leagues/top public (UVA, Cal, Mich, UNC), and top private (NWU, Chicago, MIT, Duke, etc.)
False. But I don't feel like arguing with you. All I know is that if people at Vandy are qualified, they will have a shot at the top jobs
vandy sucks a nut (my left one, the bigger one).BOOM! Crabcakes and football, that's what Maryland does!
I hear Vandy is good, but not great. I wouldnt say it sucks a nut.
Duke's in the south.
Exactly, which is why I don't understand why other schools like Emory and Vandy are "hurt because they're in the south"
I personally think Duke is overrated. They've seen a meteoric rise in rankings because of their highly successful basketball team. That translates into a higher alumni giving rate and a higher applicant pool. These are two criteria that US News uses to rank schools. A bit misguided, but it is what it is.
Yeeah:I personally think Duke is overrated. They've seen a meteoric rise in rankings because of their highly successful basketball team. That translates into a higher alumni giving rate and a higher applicant pool. These are two criteria that US News uses to rank schools. A bit misguided, but it is what it is.
Duke, Vandy, Emory, Rice, Tulane...they're all pretty good schools and are recognized nationally despite being in the south. Granted they dont rank as high as thier northern counterparts (minus Duke) but they shouldnt be spat upon. Damn, WUSL and CMU arent so grand and they're not in the south.
school prestige on the street meaning what do most of the monkeys in the cubes think of these scools and what reaction do they form when they hear you are from that scool
1. H/P/Stanford Y/Wharton (douchbags)2. COlumbia/Penn/Cornell/Duke/Darmouth/Cal/Brown
i know i missed a bunch..this is IMHO
livin large in miami
Williams, Amherst, Swat, Wellesley and Middlebury (only if you are really smart).
I actually think kids in these schools do better than Wharton or bskewl undergrads.
I mean Goldmans giving us 15 spots alone...
what about the U of C schools?
AWS are recruited heavily by almost every top firm. the alumni networks are strong and welcoming - i think they work harder to bring in kids from their schools than other alumni groups (this probably holds for all LACs). Plus, there's less competition on-campus for those spots.
who said you need to learn finance in college anyway? why shouldn't you learn poetry and math and philosophy (and other things that will make you learn how to think well)? you can't learn those things from top professors when you're working at GS, but you can learn finance on the job.
indiana university-kelley school of business?
What about BC?
NickCarraway:What about BC?
I'm assuming you are referring to Boston College. While their arts and science school wouldn't stand a chance, they have a strong school of management. They have previously scored poorly because of their affiliation with their MBA program, which is terrible in comparison to their UG. They get great placement at UBS and Citi because of alumni affiliation (around 6 placements each for IBD). They don't do well in tier 1 BB.
Let us make this easy..follow steps:
i.) Copy/paste current/posted prestige list(1-4) ranking into the word processing program of your choice err..i mean excel.
ii.) Add the following 2 lines:
5. _______________ 6. _______________
iii.) Fill in according to your own personal preferences and save to documents.
School doesn't matter. I'm at FSU and going to top NY boutique, and some of my other classmates broke into BB with a little tenacity. Enjoy your life, and work to live, not live to work.
Greedy Gilmore:Cal Tech: HELL TO THE NO! Wall Street doesen't need any nerdy engineers/scientists running around...
Cal Tech: HELL TO THE NO! Wall Street doesen't need any nerdy engineers/scientists running around...
Are you joking? They might not end up (or want to be) in m&a advisory, but there is defintely a place for top quality engineers and scientists on wall street. Quant work/derivatives/black box trading...
How about W&L? I've seen a lot of people come into banking from this school... anyone know it?
How can Chicago be so much higher than Northwestern? Northwestern is at least tier 2!
I'm a Brown student and a first-time poster and I was wondering why there seems to be such a lack of respect for Brown students. I mean, I get the lack of respect, but all the big banks still come and recruit hardcore here, so I'm not sure why you guys discount it as much as you do.
In the UK, it's probably
1. LSE2. Oxford3. Cambridge
LSE fucking runs banks now for some reason. All this derivative shit is their bag.
Tier 1 is as follows (in order):
Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale
U Penn (including Wharton), Duke, etc.
PETillIDie:Williams, Amherst, Swat, Wellesley and Middlebury (only if you are really smart).I actually think kids in these schools do better than Wharton or bskewl undergrads.
out of 550 students in the middlebury class of '06...
22 students employed ft at these 3 firms alone plus many more at other firms(ms,jpm, db, etc.). how do these numbers stack up to the top state schools/ivies in terms of relative percentage?
lol ratul - we are talking prestige right.
everyone i know at oxbridge who applied to lse got in.nobody i know who is at lse got into oxbridge.
I think that speaks for itself.
tallon123:lol ratul - we are talking prestige right.everyone i know at oxbridge who applied to lse got in.nobody i know who is at lse got into oxbridge.I think that speaks for itself.
One of my best friends went to Cambridge--didn't get into LSE. It's harder to get into LSE Economics than it is to get into a number of less competitive subjects at Cambridge.
lse economics is piss to get into, especially for uk students.
off course its also piss to get into cambridge for land economy and other token subject but my point is that those with a choice go to oxbridge (we're talking about the same subject at both universities).
i would place oxbridge in the hyps 1st tier in the us and lse in the u.penn/other ivies 2nd teir in the us.
lse, like penn is highly represented on the street. however, in terms of undergrad prestige both unis are clearly tier 2.
Don't you mean it's easy for international students? LSE loves the foreign tuition fees. Honestly even Oxbridge are near the bottom of US tier 1 if at all. US universities are way better funded and have better facilities. And better profs as they pay way more than in the UK.
tallon123, did your prof teach you how to joust and drink mead?
Where would you rank Wake Forest?
Look, London is growing faster and already bigger than wall street right now. That is fact. The school that places most in Front Office IB in London is the LSE - it is the hardest place to get into at the moment, despite not being 9 billion years old like Oxbridge. Those are for for your Yalie silver spooners. I'd easily put LSE in the first tier.
LSE - it is the hardest place to get into at the moment
Anyone who believes that is seriously deluded. LSE is full of oxbridge rejects, not the other way round.
The reason it places well into the city is because it (like wharton) is a glorified vocational center.
It's true; this year, LSE had the most applicants per place of any university in the UK. It is also ranked #3 in the world for social sciences; hardly a "vocational center."
Anyway, LSE is 50% graduate students, and the total student body is 50% foreign. It doesn't even make sense that the school could be full of Oxbridge rejects. You must be confusing with Durham.
I respect LSE graduate school. Its graduate programs are a hell of a more respected and prestigious than its undergrad programs.
fp175 - Even though the student body is foreign and so on it doesn't mean they aren't Oxbridge rejects.
Collectively Oxbridge rejects around 20,000 people a year so its fair to say that a good number of them end up at LSE.
Applicants per place doesn't tell the whole story - you need to know the offer acceptance rate (i.e. how many offers LSE has to hand out to fill its places) and the quality of the applicants.
Also note that, for most subjects, LSE graduate school is easier to enter than Oxbridge graudate school.
Many of the Chinese/Indian undergrads chose LSE as their first choice; they didn't apply to Oxbridge because they don't speak English well so didn't want to do the interview process. But they are beasts at math, econ, and statistics, which is why there are so many traders with LSE degrees.
Of course LSE grad school is easier to get into than Oxford; its masters programs are larger and there are more of them. The LSE IR masters takes 100 students and lasts one year; Oxford takes 25 and it lasts 2 years.
The whole "Oxbridge reject" thing makes no sense anyway. Not everyone gets into Oxbridge, and almost all of its rejects have AAA at A-Level. Investment banks cannot fill their offices with Oxbridge graduates; not only are there not enough interested and qualified people at those universities to fill the graduate classes, it would be a terrible strategy to rely on just 2 universities to educate an entire industry.
And of course you don't know anyone at LSE who got into Oxbridge. Sure, some didn't get in. But if you know you don't want to go to the countryside for three years and live in ancient buildings, why would you bother to apply? The Oxbridge application process is a bitch.
Anyway, you have a right to your opinion. But for the sake of people who use this website to get information about which universities are targets, please make it clear that those are your opinions, not fact.
FACT: LSE places at least an equal number of students in the City as Oxbridge, despite having half as many students as either Oxford or Cambridge.
FACT: LSE is ranked #3 in the world for social sciences.
FACT: LSE is ranked #1 in the UK for undergraduate economics.
FACT: LSE is THE target university in London.
FACT: 33% of LSE graduates are in careers in banking, financial services, or accounting as their graduate job.
Fp175 my point is that lse is not on par with oxbridge in terms of prestige. Do you actually disagree with me as your post does not really make it clear. I am not saying LSE is rubbish, its just not as prestigious as oxbridge. As I have said before LSE is highly represented on the street.
Many of the Chinese/Indian undergrads chose LSE as their first choice; they didn't apply to Oxbridge because they don't speak English well so didn't want to do the interview process.
Exactly, the best bankers top quants and top communicators. The Chinese and Indians with poor communication skills end up at LSE the ones who are genuine all rounders go to Oxbridge.
The whole "Oxbridge reject" thing makes no sense anyway.
Yes it does. Oxbridge has a far superior offer acceptance rate and picks off the best students. Hence, the average calibre of an oxbridge student is higher.
it would be a terrible strategy to rely on just 2 universities to educate an entire industry.
I completely agree - I have never suggested that they should only rely on Oxbridge. What I AM saying is that Oxbridge is more prestigious when it comes to recruiting.
go to the countryside for three years and live in ancient buildings
Sounds like sour grapes to me - someone sounds like they are still bitter. lol.
Brownie21:I'm a Brown student and a first-time poster and I was wondering why there seems to be such a lack of respect for Brown students. I mean, I get the lack of respect, but all the big banks still come and recruit hardcore here, so I'm not sure why you guys discount it as much as you do.
Dude - there is no reason to bring race into this debate.
tallon123:Fp175 my point is that lse is not on par with oxbridge in terms of prestige. Do you actually disagree with me as your post does not really make it clear. I am not saying LSE is rubbish, its just not as prestigious as oxbridge. As I have said before LSE is highly represented on the street.
My point (and ratul's) is that in terms of investment banking, Oxbridge and LSE are in the same tier as regards prestige.
And I don't have sour grapes; I'm a grad student and I concern myself with many things other than general prestige when looking at universities. Plus I'm not even British and did my undergrad in the States.
Bucs47: Brownie21:I'm a Brown student and a first-time poster and I was wondering why there seems to be such a lack of respect for Brown students. I mean, I get the lack of respect, but all the big banks still come and recruit hardcore here, so I'm not sure why you guys discount it as much as you do.Dude - there is no reason to bring race into this debate.
That is hilarious
in terms of economics, LSE's economic faculty and research are better than oxbridge's by a mile now days. LSE has always been ranked as the best school for economics outside of the US. http://www.econphd.net/rank/nrallec.htmhttp://ideas.repec.org/top/top.inst.all.html
i mean i think oxbridge and lse in terms of prestige are getting closer each year. i mean for god's sake the thai pm's daughter, prince of belgium, daughter of zimbabwe president, john kerry's daughter, grandson of the former french president, and the greek president's daughter are here at the same time and its the only school on earth with 5 current head of state/government as alumnus. i mean i think at the end of the day, its stupid and trivial things like this that drive a school's prestige. but having said all that, i would choose oxford over it anyday, cause being an "oxfordman" sounds sexy
and the newly rich here at the LSE are disgusting, when i was opening a bank account at HSBC, the guy was like "all these oriental kids from the LSE are opening student bank accounts here with 1-2 million pounds and buying flats in london"
Fact 1. LSE is not filled with Oxbridge rejects.Fact 2. Neither is Durham.
LSE is better than Oxford in most finance/economics related subjects and the University of Durham is the best in the country for history.
LSE is better than Oxford in most finance/economics related subjects
In the UK finance degrees in particular are not seen as prestigous. Bright kids at Oxford do PPE not E&M.
Would anyone seriously go to lse rather than Oxford because of perceived difference in finance rankings? Oxbridge is elite LSE is a vocational college for those with no people skills.
quinn:LSE is better than Oxford in most finance/economics related subjectsIn the UK finance degrees in particular are not seen as prestigous. Bright kids at Oxford do PPE not E&M.Would anyone seriously go to lse rather than Oxford because of perceived difference in finance rankings? Oxbridge is elite LSE is a vocational college for those with no people skills.
Are you seriously stupid?
You can have an opinion on whether Oxford is more "elite" than LSE. But to say it is a vocational college for people with no skills is bullshit. Besides: who has skills when they are 17/18 years old and applying to university? And do you really think that Oxbridge provide any kind of employable skills? Those universities are the most anti-preprofessional anything that I've ever come across.
fp175:do you really think that Oxbridge provide any kind of employable skills?
do you really think that Oxbridge provide any kind of employable skills?
lol, you're really not doing your credibility any good here.
Hmm well given that I have studied at Oxbridge, I think I'm pretty credible. Thanks for the concern though.
fp175:Hmm well given that I have studied at Oxbridge, I think I'm pretty credible. Thanks for the concern though.
No doubt as one of those summer students.
Sure...or Marshall, Rhodes, Gates...whatever.
Anyway, all I'm saying is, general prestige-wise, yes Oxbridge has the edge. But for banking they are on the same level. Bankers don't care about who studied with a knight in Balliol College. A significant % of LSE students start from day 1 with the goal of getting into banking. They fantasy trade, they do consulting projects and business plans for fun. You walk around the campus and there are copies of the FT everywhere. I'm serious. The undergrads at LSE are like nothing I have ever seen. And they make damn good employees because they are practically living and breathing finance.
At Oxbridge they are doing tutorial work in the library by themselves, then going to balls or formal hall dinners or punting on the river. There is much less of an emphasis on pre-professional activities there.
WHAT ABOUT LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL (LBS)????????
IS IT LSE A LOT BETTER????????
I'm assuming most Brits work in London, and I think original post talks about Wall Street.
I'd take LSE/Oxbridge the same way I'd take a non-Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Wharton Ivy student.
to the original post: your ranking sucks.
This topic has been dead for like 2 months...
wash u in stl undergrad b-school has second highest sat score avg in the nation, behind mit and ahead of wharton. great faculty and community too.
Hahaha WashU biz.Their placement doesn't hold a candle to MIT or wharton.http://www.olin.wustl.edu/wcc/pdf/AnnualReportBSBA...
i agree with the original list....although I think Cornell should be slightly higher....I've had many friends who were recruited by Morgan Stanley right on campus.
what do you guys think of Fordham?
showmewhatyougot:i agree with the original list....although I think Cornell should be slightly higher....I've had many friends who were recruited by Morgan Stanley right on campus.
Eh, relative to its size, Cornell has little representation on the street. I've met more Dartmouth and Brown grads, even though Dartmouth is less than a third the size of Cornell.
undoubtedly, harvard/wharton occupy the first rung on the ladder
certain firms, different top tier hedge funds and PE shops (e.g. citadel and blackstone), only recruit at those two schools.
not true about the PE/hedge fund thing...
Mr. Determined:what do you guys think of Fordham?
Not too highly of it, as far as I know.
Banking > VC > Tech PE; PM me if you would like any advice I'm happy to help
undoubtedly, harvard/wharton occupy the first rung on the laddercertain firms, different top tier hedge funds and PE shops (e.g. citadel and blackstone), only recruit at those two schools.
Princeton, too, actually.
How about Columbia?
Chuck Norris:Where would you rank Wake Forest?
I think WFU does pretty well, especially in Charlotte and ATL. Wake kids get interviews at all the big names, especially if you're in the 5yr FIN/ACC program (though all Calloway grads do well).
However, if you're not in Calloway (Wake's undergrad B-school), you'll have a much tougher time at it...
- Capt K -"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
sgh:undoubtedly, harvard/wharton occupy the first rung on the laddercertain firms, different top tier hedge funds and PE shops (e.g. citadel and blackstone), only recruit at those two schools.
I go to the University of Illinois and Citadel recruits on-campus.
while I agree with most ppl's lists, there is a bit of east coast bias here just like in football. i understand that we're talkin about wall street, but not everyone wants to go to wall st. many west coast elite students choose to stay in the west coast. If we're talking about banking in San Francisco, I have no doubt Stanford and Berkeley would be ranked 1 and 2.
I've met plenty of bankers from top tier liberal arts colleges particularly Williams, Amherst, Carleton and Pomona.
Citadel hires very aggressively at CMU from the CS and ECE programs. Blackstone does not, in-spite of a senior MD getting her MBA there.
What about University of Houston. Have you ever seen anyone from there?. We have some folks here in Houston offices but don't know about NYU
UT austin is the place to be ... top 10 undergrad b-school, good recruiting, sick college town, the best sports teams and the hottest girls in America
Wow... I wish I had been around for the LSE/Oxbridge debate.
I am currently in Finance at LSE and gained a full-time admit to Oxbridge. I guess I don't qualify as an Oxbridge reject at LSE, huh? LSE hands down has the best recruitment in London. It places extremely well, but clearly, you need to be personable. I don't think LSE is on par w/ HYSP in terms of prestige; but in terms of placement into banking, any day of the week.
What about University of Florida? #1 Party School, yea!
This thread is meaningless, use the search function.------------------------------------------------------------http://modernyuppie.blogspot.com/
The musings and antics of a Meathead college wrestler turned asset backed securities trader.
GirlBanker:What about University of Florida? #1 Party School, yea!
Apparently you have never visited Tallahassee and Florida State University...probably an unmatchable experience, party wise. UF is no doubt fun, but it isn't FSU, not by a long shot. Then again, you are a female. If you're hot, you are one of a few in Gainesville, so you probably have that town at your fingertips, lol. UF definitely excels as far as academics are concerned.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."- Ronald Reagan
When it comes to partying, Arizona State is the tops. Bar none, best party school. Amazing weather, UNBELIEVABLE girls, and the campus location is way better than somewhere on the Florida panhandle.
gomes3pc:When it comes to partying, Arizona State is the tops. Bar none, best party school. Amazing weather, UNBELIEVABLE girls, and the campus location is way better than somewhere on the Florida panhandle.
I have to agree...honestly, some of the most beautiful girls in the world go to ASU - a lot of skinny, tan blondes. The attractive guy/girl ratio is so uneven that average guys that would have no chance anywhere else in the country are somehow ending up with gorgeous girls... plus most people choose to go to ASU b/c of the parties and perfect weather and pretty much everyone is just looking to have a good time (basically Spring Break cancun style all year round). Being so close to Scottsdale doesn't hurt either. Overall, amazing party school and an unbelievable amount of fun.
i think some of you are missing the important discussion for UK universities. if we just speak of UK universities (setting aside their relationship with IBD) no doubt oxbridge will be considered tier 1.
some history. oxford came about before cambridge. oxford is arts focussed school. ppl found ox's lack of focus in the sciences then came cambridge... these two schools fundamentally were not created for training business students not that they're bad schools but just judging them from their college systems and their famed tutor group systems. eg. a professor will "grill" students hours on intellectual topics.
another insightful eg. a friend of mine reads accounting at oxford. for her accounting exam she gets an essay topic state the relationship of XYZ accounting principle to God... somewhere along the lines like that..i swear im not BS-ing... the schools were meant to be for intellectuals... not down-to-earth business ppl. oxford has similar culture to princeton for you folks in US. cambridge is similar but more focus on the sciences.
so back to the main discussion. for ibank recruitment i would say at undergrad level LSE is king for two main reasons: location and alumni presence, both on continental europe as well as wall st. when we go to graduate level LBS comes into picture as well as other european business schools...
hope this helps...
Duke has a $hit laod of people in Goldman ...
Spot on skotumk, Oxford and Cambridge are great all-around schools. But they are just not schools that you go to for accounting & finance...
eecs:Duke has a $hit laod of people in Goldman ...
Well this clearly makes it the best then
Dan Bush wrote:
I'm just curious, why would Air force and Coast Guard not be on the same level and West Point and Annapolis?
I'm biased because I went to USAFA, but I always kinda figured at least AF was in the same category as Army and Navy. Is it just because not as many in the Air Force end up in banking? I know we are talking purely about prestige on the street, so maybe thats what Dan Bush meant. Just curious. In my personal opinion Coast Guard is the toughest of them all.
West Point and Annapolis are a cut above the rest of the armed services, although you're no slouch going to the AFA or CG.
Tier I-UPenn Wharton-Harvard-Princeton-Yale-Stanford-MIT
Tier II-Columbia-U of Chicago-Duke-Northwestern-Dartmouth-Brown-Cornell-NYU Stern-UVA-McIntire-UC Berkeley Haas-Michigan Ross
Tier III-Emory-UTexas-UNC-USC-Notre Dame-...you get the point
Considering that Rice has 13 times less undergrads than UT, its not surprising that there are less kids on Wall Street from Rice than UT.
Will someone, for the love of god, please kill this thread.
gomes3pc:West Point and Annapolis are a cut above the rest of the armed services, although you're no slouch going to the AFA or CG.
How exactly do you figure that? Especially considering that West Point's average SAT score is the lowest of the 4...
ND would be in a 5th tier. that opens up a whole nother can of worms
NU is not by any means less prestigious than chicago. IB recruitment is equal, acceptance rates at NU have been historically lower. just becasue it got a little bump in the US News rankings a couple years ago doesnt make it at the same level as columbia/penn
northwestern is also significantly harder to get into than georgetown or UVA. it should be in the third tier and so should chicago
Everyone here is going to rep their school and there are so many other factors such as core course backgruonds, location, and flucuations from year to year that i think it's hard to rank schools beyond a very general grouping.
"northwestern is also significantly harder to get into than georgetown or UVA. it should be in the third tier and so should chicago"
You don't know what you're talking about at all.
wavelink12:"northwestern is also significantly harder to get into than georgetown or UVA. it should be in the third tier and so should chicago"You don't know what you're talking about at all.
i just took a second look at the acceptance rate and youre right. georgetown (21%) is marginally more selective than northwestern (27%) which is marginally tougher than uchicago and uva (35%). these are indeed all around the same range.
i do go to northwestern, but i have a tough time seeing it as not one but TWO tiers below uchicago. while uchicago has had a little boost in the USNews rankings these last couple years, i feel that for ibanking in particular, firms recruit just as much from NU as UChicago, if not more from NU due to UChicago's generally pathetic communication skills.
plus, they vandalized our south campus painting "UCHICAGO MOCK TRIAL > NORTHWESTERN" everywhere, which pretty much made me lose all respect for their student body. mock trial... really?
1. Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Wharton/MIT/Stanford2. Penn/Columbia/Cornell/Dartmouth/Chicago/Cal Tech3. Brown/Berk./Duke/Hopkins4. Northwestern/Georgetown/UVA
I would agree, except JHU and NU should definitely be switched and Duke shouldn't be so low.
LSE ranks #1 for finance in the Good University Guide 2009. That clearly makes it better than Oxbridge... Or it could be the fact that I am going to LSE haha
This thread is retarded. Are you all really that insecure about where you go?
Western IveyQueens CommerceMcgill Desautels
chaunceybillups:Western IveyQueens CommerceMcgill Desautels
soulsearching:Tier I-UPenn Wharton-Harvard-Princeton-Yale-Stanford-MITTier II-Columbia-U of Chicago-Duke-Northwestern-Dartmouth-Brown-Cornell-NYU Stern-UVA-McIntire-UC Berkeley Haas-Michigan RossTier III-Emory-UTexas-UNC-USC-Notre Dame-...you get the point
This seems about right, in terms of wall st prestige/job placement/finance academics strength.
If we are looking at general prestige, not only on the street, then the ops list is pretty good.
I have never heard of anyone getting an mba from hopkins or caltech, but they still have some of the most brilliant minds in the world going into engineering and medicine, but i doubt their "wall st prestige" is very high.
This thread is retarded. People are arguing about completely different things. Getting way insecure about their schools and defending it.
Take it for all it's worth.
is someone going to take the ruler out?
So how have reputations changed over the 2 years this thread has been up? I'm a freshman at Brown, we just dropped lowest Ivy on US News. Not that I care from a job applicant perspective, but more from a school pride perspective.
THE BEST SCHOOLS FOR IBANKING ARE, IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER:
Harvard,Princeton, Yale, Wharton, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth, Oxbridge, LSE.
Wow, I never knew there are so many insecure kids at Ivy Leagues/Tier 1 schools. A bunch of spoiled undergrad brats arguing whose school is better/more prestigious. IBanks don't hire your school, your professors, or your alumni, they hire YOU. As long as you go to target school, I see no problem of getting in.
A lot of people have misconception, "IBanks hire most of their kids from Harvard/MIT/Stanford, I need to go there." No, you are wrong, IBanks hire talented kids, and it just happens that elite schools have a higher concentration of talented students.
P.S.: I go to non-target and unfortunately average student at my school is pretty f**king retarded...
1. Wharton, Harvard, Yale, Princeton2. Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Chicago3. Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, NYU4. Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern5. Crap, Crap, Crap6. shit, full of shit...9. Kelley School of Business, BU, BC, Baruch, Penn State, UNC...
LondonE1:1. Wharton, Harvard, Yale, Princeton2. Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Chicago3. Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, NYU4. Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern5. Crap, Crap, Crap6. shit, full of shit...9. Kelley School of Business, BU, BC, Baruch, Penn State, UNC...
I'm glad you shared London. Do you possibly think we could get this carved in stone so no one forgets their place? God knows, I hate when those damn BC kids forget they're lower than shit.
Duke should be placed in the second line with chicago