just how much more difficult are NY positions to get

Most banks are based in NY. If you want to be in the center, that's where you have to be. Also, deal flow is key. I read in NYTimes that London is a great place to work.

Oxbridge = Harvard

There are early on-campus interviews. Competition is fierce. Because of the grading system--only predicted marks are given-first, 2.1, 2.2, etc. Lean heavy on EC and prior work experience.

Also candidates go to an AC where additional testing, interviews, group discussions, presentations take place.

I actually think IB in London is more difficult, more competitive to get into. Also being EU, you have many bright, talented candidates.

Your friends are fortunate and at the right school for entering IB. Plus Brits have a different cultural attitude,with the stiff upper lip, about the entire process and their fortune/ misfortune of landing a position.

"I actually think IB in London is more difficult, more competitive to get into. Also being EU, you have many bright, talented candidates"

Candidates from overseas (EU non UK citizens) are only considered for a couple of positions at each bank.. As a Brit it is much easier to get a position compared to EU citizens..

The total amount of applications from the UK is probably much lower when comparing the to the US..

If you look at the resume books for London banks there are many more than just a couple from HEC, Bocconi...

I also suspect that London is preferred over ny by IIM and IIT students.

Commenting on the 'total amount of applications' does not mean anything. You need to consider the total no. of places and the quality of applicants.

tallon, I agree. There are so many qualified internationals recruited. As well as UK Unis with large number of very talented applicants...

I asked HR at my BB bank this very question, and they told me the London numbers were more competitive. I do take this in stride though, this is the London-based HR.

student22 - 'As a Brit it is much easier to get a position compared to EU citizens'

what matters is not your nationality but your qualifications. as i have mentioned there are many strong european universities. european students also have the advantage that they speak french/german/italian in addition to english.

Qualifications don't matter, ask your hr.. my friends in europe asked hr.. hr of all major banks told them that overseas people (non UK Europeans) are only considered for specific teams in which they need the language skills which means max. 5 persons per country per year for the full time class

if you categorize all full time starters in london per bank you willl see > 75% is UK citizen...

You originally say 'a couple' now 'max. 5' but I believe that the number is even higher. Yes, off course it is harder for a french guy to get into London than Paris but my point is that your numbers are wrong.

Full time class at London BB for IBD ~60 I would say: Around 10-15% (~7) are non UK Europe An additional 5+% (3+) are from India And 5+% are from US

Ok, fair enough, the numbers might differ slightly, but the point is , it is not harder because non-UK lack qualifications.

To be honest I think non-UK have far better qualifications, they all have masters in relevant fields such as finance or difficult fields such as engineering whereas UK people even with a bachelors in history or languages can get a job in IBD (this is not possible in the non-UK countries, those kind of people with those kind of degrees usually get jobs such as becoming a teacher at a high school or end up in HR)

It is much harder because you are simply not considered for the position because you are non-UK. UK citizens only compete with UK citizens for a job in London, French only with French...

i agree oconnor - student22 does seem to come up with a lot of rubbish.

Just to clarify on my post - the 10-15% does not include europeans studying in the UK at oxbridge, lse etc, just those studying at european universities.

It depends on the role etc.

You get a lot of french in london due to the work conditions / tax rates in France. So for certain areas it makes sense to be French!

Is it easier to get into IB in London?

No

But...

If you are an american from Harvard, Princeton etc. you will stick out as someone very different compared to the typical Oxford, HEC, Cambridge etc.

how are Harvard/Princton people different from Oxbridge types?

I didn't meet a single british person during my interviews. When I asked about this, the interviewers said that they only hire people who speak another language (in addition to English) fluently.

However, only about 25% of the analysts I met were non-UK. So, perhaps there is now an increasing tendency to hire multi-lingual candidates? Or maybe just a larger proportion of the UK candidates who get to 2nd round interviews (ACs) are taken. Perhaps banks have more difficulty sorting "foreign" candidates by the online applications and therefore interview a larger pool of applicants for a smaller number of places, just to make sure they get the perfect fit?

Just a few thoughts. I have no idea. Personally, I'm a non-UK citizen, studying in the UK, at a non-target and got a summer internship in London. So, no actual experience of banking.

I think he meant Harvard types are different purely in that they would be uncommon at a London interview day vs oxbridge who are ten a penny. As for the comment above, yes I feel the languages thing was the main issue why there are so few british, the other british guys there (apart from ethnic minorities who get an easy ride with everything) all spoke some other european language.

First of all Harvard is WAY better than Oxford/Cambridge. I work with a tonne of Oxford kids, and seriously, it's a fucking joke. 45% of private school kids get into Oxford or Cambridge. Not much selectivity. HYPSM, Cal-Tech are all easily better.

ratul thats crap - the combined intake of oxford and cambridge (from uk schools) is around 7,000. Are you telling me that there are only 16,000 private school pupils in the uk. you are a complete joke.

The only individual private schools which do get anywhere near 45% are schools like St Pauls and North London Collegiate. I believe St Pauls admission rate is actually lower ~1/3 (NLC is probably even lower). Similarly, in the US I expect schools like the Phillips Academy also have a very high HYPS admissions ratio.

I do agree though that Harvard>OxbridgeYPS

why is harvard better than the rest? additionally, what are the differences between US trained and UK trained people in the work place?

Just to throw this out there - I thinks it's hard for US citizens studying at US colleges to get jobs in UK banks straight out of undergrad. I applied to Greenhill, Goldman, JPMorgan, Rothschild, and Lehman in London for an internship and the only bank that offered me an interview was Lehman (I got rejection e-mails back from the other 4). Yet I received interviews from the US based offices of all of the above firms.

About me: US citizen, studying at US target school (ivy), high GPA (3.8), white male

The OP's oxbridge friends are either exceptionally brilliant or joking. The process in Europe is just as difficult and competitive. Speaking a second language is a definite bonus, but I know of quite a few bankers that can only speak english. There is a fair mix of Brits, EU citizens, and a smattering of Indians, Chinese (all seem to be from HK), and Americans.

Of the few americans, most have completed studies, usually a masters, from oxbridge/LSE. dav3100 why are you interested in the UK?

I used to live there (middle school). I'd second that the process in the UK is more extensive than in the US - they have Assessment Centers where you actually have to take written tests. I don't necessarily think this would be a bad idea for the US banks to implement (a good way to objectively measure intelligence).

the U.S. could never implement tests. Just look at all the controversy surrounding the SATs - people accuse the test of being racist, sexist, and all that. I'm sure the second the BBs implement these tests, feminist/minority groups will start protesting.

I don't see why the tests couldn't be implemented in the US. It'd just be that different people are expected to get different scores in order to get the job and you'd effectively be competing against people in your own "group" (pretty much the same way SAT scores work).

I still think it'd be useful to have some objective measure of intelligence within groups..for example, it'd be useful to know which white people were the smartest within the white group (not that this should be reason to hire him/her..but it'd still be quite useful in my opinion). Lots of professions in the US give written tests as part of the interview.