Why is it all about BB/EB on here
Let me start of by saying that I'm an analyst at a MM Bank in London, however I guess this is pretty much the same in US.
I've graduated from a good but not elite school (Durham, Warwick, European Targets like RSM or ESCP) pretty much the equivalent of schools like Cornell, Duke, Chicago. The same is true for the majority of my analyst class with some outsiders from Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE. I know plenty of other analysts and former interns from other schools + good experience at multiple different different firms such as Baird, SocGen, ING etc.
Yet the majority of people only mention BB/EB's here. I've made it into the AC a few EB's and 2 BB's and the competition was brutal. Almost everyone knew their shit and the decision often came down to "soft factors".
So why aren't more people talking about firms outside of the BB/EB space here? At a certain point recruiting is mostly a numbers game. Apply to as many firms as possible.
Because they offer better opportunities, pay, and prestige than other banks. While there are some exceptions, the better talent will tend to go to the better banks
Honestly I dont see why it’s so surprising. Every industry has firms like that. People in consulting want to go to MBB, people in tech want to go to FAANG, etc.
Lol those are not the equivalent of the US schools you listed. It works differently in the US, Cornell, Duke and Chicago are far more elite than Durham/Warwick and have really good placement into practically all BBs and EBs
I was about to say this as well. UChicago, Duke, and Cornell are elite and extremely competitive to get into. A better comparison would probably be UCL, LSE, and Imperial in the UK.
Wwk places as well as Bocconi...what are you on about?
Lol someone goes to Warwick. Sorry to burst your bubble but Bocconi also places much worse than Cornell, Duke, and Chicago. Just look at past threads on here. Ppl are only hired from Bocconi to fill an italian-speaking quota.
I'm sure they're killing it at the risk management desk!