Advice for undergrads going into IB interested in PE
This might be hard to hear but as long as you're at an NYC EB/BB, your group/bank doesn't matter for PE recruiting. There's a few exceptions like PJT RSSG, GS TMT, MS M&A, and a couple of more. In general, it comes down to the other factors. I'm at an UMM(turned down an MF offer) and have spoken about this at length with our hh. I can guarantee that the kid from GS IND would have had the same outcome from CS IND, especially for on cycle.
Seriously, go somewhere where you won't be miserable. If you want generalist PE, just avoid FIG/RE/Natres (exceptions are MS GPUG, GS/JPM FIG) and find a group where people are reasonable, you fit in, maybe a few college alumni, and ideally senior people invest in you. If it's at DB, go for it. Contrary to belief on wso, DB IB is not going to shut down and fire all of its analysts next year.
This is great to hear as someone in RBC!
There are three hurdles to pass through when recruiting for PE. Basically every candidate from a BB or EB will get connected to the same headhunters (CPI and HSP are the two biggest) and the first hurdle is impressing them. The second step is getting through the actual fund's screening. Then the third step is when recruiting kicks off (if you go on-cycle, otherwise its the same thing but for off-cycle). Being in PJT RSSG or MS M&A allows you to basically skip the first two steps -- unless you are extremely unsociable and unable to talk to the HHs at all, you are very likely to be recommended to the funds you want to interview with, and the funds you want to interview with are very likely to give you a chance. If you are from another group that is very good but not one of these above-mentioned groups, say BAML industrials or CS healthcare or even MS transportation, you need to get the HHs to recommend you and for the funds to pick you from a pile of resumes. This is why undergrad / gpa are important -- they are two indicators of intellect and academic horsepower which make PE firms and HHs more comfortable selecting you. Additionally, there are a select few firms which basically only hire from a select group of firms. Blackstone, Crestview, H&F, and KKR are notable for hiring from a very small group of firms year in and year out, although I do know they have interviewed people from outside those firms. It is important to note that once you make it to an interview it is 99% down to performance (again, when comparing someone from PJT RSSG and Princeton versus someone from DB and UMich in an interview who performed equally, it is likely the PJT kid gets the offer).
Non-target is not an auto-ding. I would classify schools in sort of the same way as I would groups, with the caveat that tier three schools are not an auto-ding from generalist buyout PE (unlike say ECM, which is almost impossible to move to generalist buyout PE). I would classify it in three tiers: 1. Schools that unquestionably are a huge help to recruiting and will actively help your recruitment process; 2. Schools that help at most places but some places may look down on; 3. other schools, where you have more to prove. Another note: like groups, some firms may have specific schools they like (like Berkshire Partners and Crestview seem to hire exclusively from HYPS).
HYPS, basically. I also think there is a 1b and 1c, where 1b is just Wharton while 1c are the other ivies and MIT. Duke and Chicago might be in this tier too. I think my Wharton placing will be controversial but for a lot of reasons I don't think it is quite considered at the same level as HYPS in associate buyside recruiting (different for undergrad recruiting)
Duke and Chicago could also be considered top of this tier, but other schools definitely in the second tier are UVA, NYU Stern, Michigan, UCLA and Berkeley, Williams and Amherst and other top LACs, etc. Basically a lot of schools that are either semi-targets or targets that don't quite have the same level of general prestige. Exceptions for schools like Williams at certain firms, since LAC alum are very likely to pull for their kids
Everyone else.
This is way rougher in terms of tiers, but I would generally say that at any firm HYPS helps, but even a school like Brown at a firm like KKR isn't exactly a positive (even though Brown is a great school). Some firms will really like certain schools as well (if there Is a senior person from say, Northeastern and cares a lot about the school sometimes they will push for their kids). Generally for associate buyside recruiting the general US News ranking is more applicable than IB / undergrad recruiting, since the advantage of undergrad business schools is diminished and top Liberal arts schools are seen in a better light.
Agree with this post fully and would like to stress group selection. If you really want generalist PE, don't go to MS RE, GS Natres, or EVR FIG because they're "prestigious". Same goes for capital markets groups, but LevFin is a special case(do your due diligence on the specifics of the LevFin group you join).
TMT/HC/IND/C&R/Sponsors/M&A at any BB or EB is usually a safe bet.
Hopefully this post also helps to convince you not to renege. With how timelines look now, nobody is faulting the candidate that wanted to sign Citi in February instead of JPM in October.