Undergraduate Representation Among PE Firms (With Data)
Hi Monkeys,
I just had some downtime during my internship, and I thought it would be interesting to quantify how many alumni from the top undergraduate schools are at the top PE firms. Many PE firms will list their MD, Principals, VP, and even Associates in their public directory, so it was pretty easy to gather this data.
The PE firms presented include Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, TPG, Warburg Pincus, Bain, etc.
Notably, I forgot to include Cornell and NYU Stern in this process......Sorry to those who attend those schools.
*UPDATED WITH UNDERGRADUATE SIZE ADJUSTMENTS
Adjust for undergraduate percentage for each school is calculated through this formula = (Total Number Represented)/(Undergraduate Size Per Class*Percentage Pursuing Finance Jobs)
*All data are taken from university official career outcome reports
Undergraduate Represented Most
Penn/Wharton - 114 (Adjusted % - 41.0%)
Harvard - 97 (Adjusted % - 18.1%)
Princeton - 53 (Adjusted % - 28.7%)
Duke - 42 (Adjusted % - 13.4%)
Stanford - 34 (Adjusted % - 5.33%)
Dartmouth - 30 (Adjusted % - 18.0%)
Columbia - 25 (Adjusted % - 8.2%)
Yale - 24 (Adjusted % - 7.0%)
MIT - 15 (Adjusted % - 6.5%)
Brown - 13 (Adjusted % - 4.2%)
UChicago - 10 (Adjusted % - 1.7%)
Any thoughts from the expert in the field about this data? Was shocked to see how well Duke and Dartmouth performed with respect to other schools.
As someone at one of those funds, some people on here are actual losers.
Would be interesting to see this data normalized with the number of students earning an economics degree at each of these schools. Wharton has something like 750 undergrads matriculating each year, Harvard around 210, Princeton around 120, Dartmouth about 160 -> 15% Wharton to PE, 46% Harvard, 48% Princeton, 19% Dartmouth, etc.
that would be quite interesting; however, while searching I did see many people who majored in areas not related to economics or finance. Perhaps adjusting for pure undergraduate class size would be a more viable comparison.
Economics would be the best proxy at the Ivy+ schools. It’s reasonable to assume that the number of students recruiting for finance positions is better correlated with the number of economics majors than the total number of students as some schools lean more towards engineering or other subjects (Stanford as an example).
Wow, Princeton and Harvard really do dominate finance. I thought Wharton per capita would be the highest.
I definitely agree with you that it's important to normalize the data, but I don't think the economics major approach is the best way. If we use that approach, MIT has a placement rate of 62.5%, and Columbia would have a placement rate of 31.6%. While these are (obviously) great schools, I think most people would agree that MIT and Columbia do not place better than Wharton/Harvard/Princeton for PE/finance. I think the best approach is what the OP updated the post with: Normalizing with the % pursuing finance jobs. These are some of the best schools in the country, and the vast majority of students who want a job in finance will get it (just that it might not be the most coveted roles). I don't think there's a better proxy for 'finance interest' than that.
Also, if I'm not misinterpreting the data, this is not based on direct undergrad to PE, but rather based on school representation in general amongst all levels of the firms. Hence, I think that's another reason why normalizing using college major isn't the best approach, but instead looking at how many of these students from each school actually entered a finance job in the first place is better.
Yes, I agree that “finance interest” would be the best metric here, but there’s no way we can access that without sophomore/junior year survey data. Like someone else said below, using career outcomes data results in survivorship bias.
Also, Columbia had over 300 economics concentrators graduate last year, unless I’m mistaken. That would put their normalized value at 8%, not 32% — on par with what we’d expect relative to Wharton/Princeton/Harvard.
I’ll also say: if the analysis suggests that MIT “places” better than Wharton, then that’s what the analysis reveals. Our conclusions should always follow the analysis, not the other way around. Otherwise, all we’d be doing is constructing a model that validates and confirms our existing opinions, rather than performing an analysis that reveals novel information.
Of course, this is no in-depth analysis by any means, but if the data were to surprisingly show that MIT places the best out of these schools, one could reasonably conclude that while few MIT matriculates enter the world of high finance, they do exceedingly well due to rigorous training from the quantitatively-heavy MIT curriculum or some other factor.
Nah, using college major is better. You're forgetting that most people who can't land IB end up doing asset/wealth management or MBB which is a fat chunk of people per class (also went to HYP). suvivorship bias is gonna be real bad if you use the career services info
Why did you not include Cornell or Stern? The numbers won’t top Harvard or Princeton but those numbers can’t be non-significant.
PE industry has many heavyweights from Dartmouth/Duke that sort of created the industry so a bit surprised anyone is shocked they are well represented.
Dartmouth alums founded Carlyle, Apollo, TPG, as well as a bunch of middle market funds including GTCR, Abry Partners, Graham Partners, Arsenal Capital. Duke also has great representation among the heavyweights with alums such as David Rubenstein.
If anything, I'm surprised Princeton has that much?
Everyone knew Dartmouth hit way above their weight class for finance, and considering most of the top shops were founded by Dartmouth alums / have alums in top positions, it's not a surprise.
Why would anyone be surprised by the Princeton numbers? I’m more surprised they didn’t beat out Wharton for the top spot in this analysis.
you should update the adjusted numbers for wharton/penn. should be 17% not 41% based on the official career outcomes reports