Does undergraduate “pedigree” matter after the first job?
Being in a target v non-target makes a difference in recruiting opportunities, on average. But does the pedigree still matter in your success after you landed the first job and worked hard? I would love to hear your reflections. Please include info on the number of years since college, industry (IB/PE/HF/CO, etc) you started and you are in. To streamline discussion, please focus on pre-MBA experience.
It actually matters but it becomes less a requisit if you can tick other boxes
I am predicting a large pile of MS as I have a feeling most people on WSO are non-targets, but whatever:
Where you attend school is extremely important. Not because companies will keep screening based on your college, but because of the network. My closest friends are from school (top Ivy - HYP). All of these guys are doing extremely well for themselves and will be great lifelong resources moving forward. Their (very wealthy and connected) parents were amazing mentors who wouldn’t have given a shit about me if I weren’t friends with their sons.
A top degree is also a stamp of approval that lasts forever. If you know that an MD went to Wharton, you view him differently than one who went to BU. People naturally respect the Wharton MD more, for some qualification from decades ago. Is it fair? Not really, but that’s just how it works. If you have the luxury of choosing, always go to a top school if you have the choice.
Question is if he's viewed differently because he's actually better or because of Wharton. Had bankers senior to me that had undergrads at HYP or Wharton but you definitely wouldn't have guessed it based on their actual job performance.
I'm not certain if you are serious or just a bit green because you have not spent much time in the business world (based on your tag that says Analyst 1) but other bankers, CEOs, investment banks and pretty much any other remotely relevant constituent* don't respect an MD based on the fact he went to Wharton. An MD within an investment bank is judged on his ability to generate fees by winning deals and seeing them to completion full stop.
The more "respected" MD is the one that generates the most fees year in and year out. Doesn't matter if he went to Podunk University or Wharton.
How do MDs win deals over their competition? Strong industry expertise and relationships that warrant a reputation / referrals, strong sales and pitching ability, strong emotional intelligence during the deal process, getting parties to come to the table and negotiate, track records of successful outcomes on deals etc. Frankly this has way more to do with personality and refined deal experience over time than the school they went to.
*Relevant constituents do not include 1st / 2nd year analysts rather key strategic decision makers throughout the deal process
Thanks for the good list of key success factors!
I think it is much more that if you have the skills to be a good MD you likely have the skills to get into Wharton. When you have the option it is worth going for the one that carries more pedigree, but it is largely of your control after a certain point
Thanks for the good insight that top undergraduate institutions serve a certification role. The network and school prestige certainly are better at the top. What about the "mid tier" (loosely defined? Any difference 3-5 years after graduation for those from, say, Emory, IU Kelley, or U of Florida?
The difference 3 or 5 yrs in is somewhat based (could be a lot) on where you get your start, Not just firm but the office. Assuming you're equally talented, a launch from Goldman in NY with a top group is going to open up more doors than starting at RayJay in St. Pete. Part of that is the deals you'll get exposed to, part of it's the network you'll build, and part is the actual name. It will also help you place into a higher end MBA program which will open up major doors.
Long term, you can likely navigate anywhere from anywhere if you're really good and you've built up a great network. It's just easier with a powerful launch.
That said, you can only afford what you can afford. I highly recommend going to the best school you can afford. Why wouldn't you?
Will offer up my insights. At this point I have 13 years of experience (started in MM banking as an analyst out of undergrad and MM PE ever since). I led pre-MBA PE recruiting for probably seven years in total, MBA recruiting, and also been a part of a small committee for pre-Partner recruiting. All that said, my insights are limited to my own experience so seek insights from as many sources as possible, especially for matters relating to what folks look for in a candidate.
Pre-MBA, the perceived quality of one's school and performance at that school matters a lot for selecting who to interview. At this stage in someone's career, there are just so few data points on which to evaluate the individual. University, Major, GPA, and standardized test scores (GMAT) are all recent enough to help provide evidence of a candidate's capability and potential. Combine this with the fact that a lot of PE recruiting occurs just months into an analyst's career when the individual has extremely limited on the job experience and you can't help but weigh these factors heavily.
Once we are onto interviews, we value performance in the interviews the most out of any factor. No amount of pedigree or scholastic achievement is going to get you the job if you under-perform in the interviews. However, outstanding performance in the interviews will absolutely overcome poor academics. The catch is that most people with poor academics are not going to be given the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities because they won't be granted an interview in the first place. While it is very unusual that two candidates will have performed more or less equivalently in their interviews, in such cases academics are usually the tie breaker. Alternatively, a senior individual within our own shop stepping up to advocate for the candidate will also make the difference.
Without going into too much detail: Post-MBA hiring, undergraduate pedigree matters, but it is extremely low on the list. We pay much more attention to work experience, GMAT, and relevancy of work experience. We also tend to hire our pre-MBAs that went to bschool or our summer interns as opposed to an individual we've never worked with before.
For Partner or very senior level hires, academics are a non-factor. At least not one that is discussed openly or meaningfully weighs into the occasion. Not surprisingly though ... these folks are at a minimum 15 years out of undergrad.
And for fun -- when selecting bankers, we pay ZERO attention to where the MD went to school. I couldn't even tell you where a single banker went to school and I've run a whole bunch of portfolio company sale processes.
Hey Comp, you mention GMAT score for post-MBAs... can you elaborate on how various scores are perceived? Is the saying that anything 700+ is good accurate? Thanks
This is also going to be wildly variable based upon each individual who is evaluating your candidacy. Marcus_Halberstram made a very good post on this thread that echoes my sentiments on how one should view standardized test scores: As an additional data point that either confirms a positive/negative trend or that demonstrates you have the high mental capability despite mediocre scholastic achievement. Thread here: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/pe-recruiting-as-a-lateral-analy…
In terms of the precise scores, what is viewed as acceptable for getting into top MBA programs is not the same as what is viewed as acceptable for securing a PE job. I know the GMAT scores of almost all our senior professionals. The lowest that I'm aware of is a 720, but that score was 99% and well above the median ~15 years ago when it was taken. Anyone who has obtained their MBA in the last 10 years scored a 750+ and roughly half the team went to HBS.
I'm not saying we wouldn't seriously evaluate someone with a score under 750, that would be ridiculous. But we would consider anything under a 700 a red flag and a 700-720 would likely be analyzed under the same lens as described above (what does the trend line suggest?)
Tempora molestias laboriosam autem dolor voluptas repudiandae. Mollitia architecto repellendus error veniam distinctio. Magnam aliquam magnam enim quidem mollitia dolor rerum. Beatae ut consequatur est voluptatem porro. Nemo voluptatem aut sed quia ut dolores.
Aliquid voluptates vero maxime ut nesciunt molestiae. Qui alias sapiente quod repellat. Sunt tempora consequatur nostrum vel. Ut iste temporibus explicabo occaecati quis. Dolor odit sint ut possimus.
Sint quo illo dolor repudiandae non et perspiciatis. Neque aut dolorum aut eveniet quia blanditiis ut perferendis. Quia et aut aut omnis voluptatem laborum. Odit totam laudantium quaerat exercitationem recusandae ipsa earum. Enim suscipit ut fugit distinctio. Maxime aliquid minima aut deleniti repudiandae.
Dolorem doloribus dignissimos aspernatur rerum doloribus. Vel eum exercitationem qui corrupti. Sint rerum quos nulla earum eos.
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...