How are so many schools improving their IB placement?
Talking about both semi-targets and non-targets here. I've seen lots of times on this forum about X or Y school is improving their investment banking placement and sending more kids to IB and top banks every year.
How is this possible? Is investment banking headcount growing? Or are some schools declining for finance and sending fewer kids to IB every year? Is the number of kids entering high finance from targets decreasing and expected to continue to decrease?
Target interest is plummeting (vs. Tech and other options) and the big players are being more open-minded about other schools. Some of it’s because, thanks to HireVue etc. they can interview a lot more, but it’s also because they want career bankers and target kids tend to bail.
agree with SpreadMyComps
a lot of banks are no longer focusing so much on given x amount of spots to certain schools, especially GS. GS has been more focused on attaining the top students from any schools rather than just taking from top schools.
Other firms are also being more open to taking kids from other schools.
A lot of it stems from networking as well. A couple students from a non-target break in and do a fantastic job, and their group decides they’re open to hiring more students from the school. If the hires consistently do well and churn out quality product, the schools rep grows and so does placement.
But unless headcount greatly increases, there's a finite amount of spots. So if a bank starts hiring more from 5 new schools, then they are hiring less from 5 other schools.
Agreed. I’m just saying by getting that initial foot in the door, they now have a chance for the finite spots that weren’t available to them before. Targets will always have the advantage, but even getting a chance can make a big different for non-targets.
Most semi to non target schools are developing specialized programs to get kids into Wall Street specifically IB. Also most non targets have alumni who are super loyal and willing to help kids break into Wall Street. A school that comes to mind is Penn State. They were barely any people from penn state on Wall Street ten years ago and now they have a considerable presence. They have the following programs Nittany Lion Fund: a $10 million dollar student run hedge fund of real investor money Leveraged Lion Capital: a $125 million dollar paper portfolio of fixed income investments There’s also a 15 week program called Wall Street Bootcamp where the kids learn directly from walk street professionals and get to network with them. These programs give kids a huge alumni base, have almost 100% job placements, and drill similar skills to Wall Street such as ATD, professionalism, and working with FactSet and Bloomberg. PSU alumni also love the school and are super helpful to getting kids in.
Yes, my point is that every school can't improve their IB placement unless headcount is greatly increasing. So if headcount is stable, then that means that there are quite a few schools that are sending less kids to IB every year.
Don't forget that a lot of schools will label "investment banking" as the industry. But little do they know the student has a back office or in a bottom tier IB group. I have seen Rutgers pull this PR move.
There’s been a big drop in interests in banking as a career at all schools. Some mba for example were sending 40% years ago now there down to teens and 20’s. Other schools that maybe only sent a few can still boost numbers even if banking is less interested.
Deleted
If 30% going into banking now is a huge decrease, it's actually crazy to think that maybe 50-60% of the class used to go into banking. I wonder if I there's an employment report out there from 15 years ago.
Deleted
Mostly due to schools' alumni. If a bunch of alumni from a school do great work, the company will go out and hire more from that school. Also, if an alumni climbs the ranks into a position where they're in control of recruiting, they will be able to direct some more recruiting into their own school.
But there's still a finite amount of spots unless headcount greatly increases. So if banks start hiring from 10 new schools for IB, then they are hiring less kids at other schools.
Nowadays the top kids at HYPSW and even Duke/Dartmouth/Cornell are going direct to the buy side – meaning IB is not their top choice. But I do think overall headcount is growing too.
So since these schools are sending less kids to IB than they used to, are their alumni network at the junior level of investment banks decreasing and over time, even at senior levels? I wonder if this would lead to some high ranked schools losing target status in favor of current semi-targets for some banks in the close future. Obviously, they will still be amazing schools but we may see some banks dropping them as a core recruiting school. Though, this may not matter for the top schools because fewer students are pursuing IB.
It's the proliferation of the Internet and its democratization. People are being exposed to IB and the necessary resources to help them succeed so easily nowadays that they no longer have that disadvantage they once had. WSO itself is a major driver of that. IB used to be the hidden career that was hard to get into or even understand for most people. Now, everyone on WSO whether you're a non-target or in a BO job, knows all the different tiers of banks and which ones are better and all of that jazz, along with which resources to use to get up to speed just by starting a thread and asking.
The Internet and tech itself has made things so accessible to the common man that everything in general is going to be and is already becoming significantly more competitive. Now, anyone can find out how to best position themselves for a solid IB internship after a couple hours of research on this site - something that was not possible and maybe not even available on the Internet ten years ago. I'm so happy that I am in my 20s now and got into a great college and bank but I know for a fact that if I were competing at this time with high school students or college IB hopefuls, then I would not have gotten into the same college or frankly, even the same bank. It's crazy to think that 20 years ago, a 3.8+ GPA and 1400+ SAT score with barely any ECs could most likely get you into at least an Ivy (yes, hard to believe but standards were much lower back in the day). Now, only those stats would get you rejected from most decent schools like Penn State, U Miami, Wake Forest and Emory...
So is there significantly less kids getting IB jobs from connections because they come from an upper class background in the Northeast? If all these schools are growing their IB programs, then either headcount is greatly increasing or spots must be coming from somewhere.
He's a troll. Don't bother with him.
so you're saying all those ranking threads serve a purpose
I wonder if 10 years ago before all these ranking threads, some unconnected people were actually making bad decisions, like rejecting Lazard for Wells Fargo because they didn't know which one was better for their career and they didn't have anyone to ask.
Two of those schools are not like the other two
Troll, Emory is a top 20 school always has been.
debatable, far better state schools in my opinion
I have never seen anyone who even considers it top 20
It's a mix of what everyone is saying. You're seeing a lot of the traditional targets, such as the Ivies, MIT, Chicago, Duke, etc, go straight to the buy-side, or go into other fields such as consulting and tech. In addition, you're seeing a lot of non-targets create specialized programs to help funnel their kids into these positions.
I think the biggest factor is student investment clubs. I can't speak for other schools, but I go to a large non-target state school on the east coast and our investment club manages a large equity portfolio, and actually has pretty strong placement onto Wall Street when considering the school is a non target. Another big factor is students are more aware of the resources around them such as networking opportunities through alumni, cheap or even free online courses and material to learn modelling and valuation skills not taught in the classroom, and finally reading interview prep material. A lot of the times students from non-targets also have a chip on their shoulder per-say and may work harder than students at targets. I think BBs are starting to look at students from non and semi-targets a bit more as well.
Yes, I am well aware that schools are all improving their programs to give students better support. My original post was supposed to be more about the fact that there is a finite amount of IB spots, so it is impossible for 90% of schools to be be placing better every year unless either there are schools sending a lot less kids to IB every year or headcount is increasing.
While Richard is a troll, I do believe that he is correct.
Twenty years ago if you wanted to get into investment banking they needed to come to your school, you needed to know someone, or you needed to get lucky with a letter / showing up to the office, etc.
Today, you can see everyone at the bank of LinkedIn, reach out with the public email formats, and start a conversation. Banks no longer rely purely on on-campus resume drops. Everybody has a shot now, albeit each shot is not necessarily equal.
This thread is so painful....
Because of senior assassins. High school kids are headhunters. Literally.
I did my undergrad at a non-target and post grad at a target. This isn't going to be the most politically correct answer but here you go, (1) more non-targets are getting the opportunity because diversity recruiting and its a good PR move. That does not mean a non-target will get good placement. (2) More target kids have so many more opportunities. E.g. myself I skipped IB and went into straight HF investment team. You are seeing lots more opportunities come up now that would not have been allowed 20 years ago. I know it's still common to see the traditional routes but I have tons of friends that sit on buyside teams right out of undergrad.
Main trends I’ve personally been seeing / hearing:
Increase of diversity inclusion recruiting programs within investment banks (many non-target schools happen to be significantly more diverse than ivy leagues)
Increase of non-target alumni presence within investment banks that can vouch for similar prospects
Increase of ib/s&t/am/hf related organizations developing at non-target schools
Decrease of high finance focus and an increase of more tech VC / tech f500 company focus at target / ivy leagues (as ppl have realized pay is equivalent if not higher with better hrs + career projection)
Increase of online resources such as Breaking Into Wall Street, Wall Street Prep, YouTube etc to teach non-target students the in-depth materials and process of “breaking in”
You are missing the lack of integrity behind the numbers. Not only the numbers on this forum, but every school that uses % of placements and hiring/offer rates define it differently. Those definitions change every single year to whatever makes the % go up. Start adding in layers like FO/MO/S&T etc. and all if the % get wonky. Add in the BS and lying on this forum and it becomes a fools errand.
You are trying to nail it down to this perfectly mathematical formula and it just doesn’t exist. The numbers ebb and flow YoY.
Biggest factor is alumni working their way into prominent front office roles (they didn't start there out of undergrad usually) and then making an effort for the firm to recruit kids from their school. I know this is happening for a fact. Other but less significant factors are the internet making it easier to network/learn, schools rising in academic reputation, student finance orgs and sometimes better school career services, and perhaps less interest in FO finance from top targets.
Because as the world grows, companies realize that talent is increasingly distributed and not concentrated in a handful of schools with static class sizes.
Also, people at “target” schools are increasingly shifting away from IB, freeing up spots
Voluptatem sed repudiandae eligendi architecto quasi sapiente. Similique facilis quae sunt enim.
Ullam sapiente quis fuga accusamus laudantium occaecati ad. Ratione dignissimos enim quia at eum.
Vel recusandae ratione et quas quasi autem optio. Voluptatem incidunt ea quo vel quasi. Aperiam corrupti sit ipsa sit. Minus ea quam dignissimos quaerat maiores. Maiores aperiam ab excepturi molestiae voluptas inventore.
Qui voluptates nisi dolor omnis unde quas et. Et officia facilis autem laborum quisquam voluptatem quaerat.
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...
Soluta tempora aliquam sit voluptatem consequuntur eius. Sapiente vel doloremque doloremque deleniti amet. Dolor quia exercitationem et ad labore ut non. Magnam animi occaecati et quos repellat.
Sunt sed cupiditate qui in quia voluptatem architecto. Ipsam eum numquam eum quibusdam. Et aut ea quisquam maiores labore. Ipsum quos et odio laboriosam. Excepturi blanditiis sunt rerum ab non voluptatem. Rerum aut quas ut rerum consequuntur eos. Veniam quis debitis labore amet voluptas at commodi consequatur.
Est accusantium ea voluptatem sit in. Alias optio id voluptatem eum ipsa. Sit voluptatem dolore praesentium sunt.
Tenetur debitis accusamus blanditiis tempore neque quisquam. Sed eaque odio mollitia dolorum dolorem.