Nontarget PE recruiting at UMM/MF
If you go to 4:19 of this video, the Peak Frameworks guy said even coming from Evercore M&A tech and Western Ivey (the best business school in Canada), he got way less interviews than Ivy League kids.
My question is, why do MF/UMM firms care so much about prestigious undergrads? And why do they make it way easier to get into MF/UMM if you're from an ivy even compared to a semi-target?
bump
I don't work at a UMM/MF but imagine you're in their shoes. You have one candidate from a top group BB/EB with a 3.8 GPA from a top undergrad program and you have another with the exact same profile but from a great school but not top undergrad. Why would you hire the kid who went to a "worse" school? It's just another selection criteria unfortunately. I know there are different permutations of the above and nepotism etc but at it's core I think the above is really the logic.
No i actually went to a target school, just curious about why PE firms do this.
I thought at that level of bank/group (evercore m&a) school wouldn't matter but ig it still does a lot?
Yes it does
It's supply and demand really. All of the analysts at those top groups are competing for the same limited number of jobs. Given that on-cycle happens before analysts can really have any experience, what is a MF supposed to judge all these top group analysts on?
As someone who went to a target and then started at GS/MS/JPM - bank hiring is pretty whack. There’s a lot of leeway given to guys who are chill, girls who are hot, then the whole diversity push thing. You barely get any work experience before on-cycle recruiting starts so all PE firms can go off of is the bank or the school and schools generally don’t let through as many clowns (there are a ton, but at least they don’t have 22 year olds screening resumes at Harvard).
If the demand/supply dynamics are so lopsided, doesn't that suggest that a lot of highly overqualified people wind up working in PE when they could be doing bigger things?
Ie. I have to imagine if you have a resume with Andover/Harvard/GS/BX/GSB and you've legitimately worked hard to earn that pedigree on your own (rather than relying on connections) then you're probably capable/disciplined enough to build a $100mm+ startup with the upside being potentially billions instead of frantically trying to claw your way up to partner.
seems like a lot of these people with highly pedigreed resume are so myopic in chasing prestige that they might even lose out on the big picture (ie. cashing in on your true potential)
I know it sounds cliche but it seems like there's a ton of randos on shark tank that sell magnetic socks or some dumb shit with a couple million in sales along with most of the company equity and I have to imagine that they're out earning your typical sr asso/vp despite a lack of pedigree
That's a nice deep philosophical question on whether the incentives of a capitalist system drive talent allocation in the most optimal way for society...
Part of the answer (and obviously not true for everyone you described) is that they're on "the path" because they need 1) stability and 2) direction. Those individuals might not have the ability to create the next great startup because they can't stomach the risk or don't have the vision / creativity. Those are generalizations of course, but part of the reason the cliche of a startup founder is a college dropout is because they've taken the risk to get off the stable path they might have otherwise been able to follow.
Just because someone is smart and hardworking doesn't necessarily mean they have creativity or balls to potentially fail.
If all else equal, wouldn’t you rather have a group of kids from Harvard / Wharton vs. semi-targets? Yes, there are exceptions, but at the end of the day, it’s all about perception and firms are perceived to be more prestigious / selective if there hiring standards are set a certain way. Do I agree with this? Probably not, but I see why this is the reality and I think all of the non-targets with a chip on their shoulder bashing target school kids is the wrong way to go about it. Of course there are cases where the target school kids may be “less hardworking” or “born into the job”, but for the most part, I’ve found them to have as much work ethic as someone from a lesser known school. You simply can’t use blanket statements in this industry, but even as a non-target working in PE, I would much rather work at a firm with more people from well known schools / banks than the latter.
id hire stanford/mit/harvard over all but i get ur point
You also have to think from a candidate’s standpoint. If you were choosing between firms, would you rather go to the firm where they exclusively recruit from the top tier schools (e.g., Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, MIT, etc.) or the firm with a ton of non-targets? Even if returns were somewhat better at the latter shop, most people would choose the firm with top tier backgrounds b/c it just seems more exclusive. The return differential can’t be so far off that it doesn’t make sense not to choose the second firm, but just a thought.
Frankly its because there is no real diligence on talent, nor do you need any skills beyond algebra to work in PE at a MF/UMM. When you have no tangible skills to go off of, you rely on societal signals as a filter for talent and that’s closely tied school.
Success in finance/investing is as much about who you know as it is about analytic chops.
As a non-target you have to accept this and move on, life is not over if you don’t get MF/UMM.
Funny thing is the OP keeps saying he is from a target with no bias, but he is clearly fishing for answers here lol
I did come from a target, which is verified by my old comments and posts. Go scroll back and find them if you want.
OP is clearly from a target, evident by his vehement responses to being a filthy non-target. Only target kids would stress about someone questioning their prestige level on an anon internet forum.
Aut eius fuga nihil quia temporibus qui. Distinctio quasi fugiat quo. Nobis omnis quia voluptate repellendus sit sit maiores temporibus. Eos voluptates in natus sed asperiores deleniti velit. Autem voluptas voluptatem assumenda est ab quo qui.
Optio est quo enim molestias ut maiores delectus. Vero aut rerum amet at. Nihil quo corporis quaerat mollitia dolorem.
Et enim repellat qui non qui quasi. Ut sit eum voluptatem ab. Nesciunt et et consequatur iusto. Aut vitae animi id ullam. Aut aut sapiente libero dolorem culpa voluptatem.
Consectetur non in vero nisi nesciunt. Distinctio velit in dolores fuga similique eum. Unde non vel totam. Ab accusamus dolores aut vitae et. Quis placeat qui itaque quis alias est. Quis sapiente aut rerum odio sint est ducimus. Quia nisi corporis culpa illum aut dolorum.
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...