I recently made a thread about UChicago vs Stern, and got a lot of feedback on general experiences, difficulty, etc. Was wondering about specifically the brand name of UChicago on an objective level and wanted to try the poll function for this.
The poll tier list is based on the most "reputable" and crowd sourced tier lists on WSO:
| +44 | Wharton Huntsman Program vs Yale vs Dartmouth | 53 | 4h | |
| +33 | Umich Ross vs Rice vs Notre Dame Mendoza | 17 | 3d | |
| +29 | LSE BSc Economics vs Cambridge BA Economics | 9 | 15h | |
| +28 | Succeeding at Penn CAS? | 8 | 15h | |
| St Andrews vs LSE vs Middlebury | 19 | 1d | ||
| +26 | Target School Kids Stop Complaining | 6 | 3d | |
| +25 | LSE MSc Finance vs Oxford MFE? | 8 | 12h | |
| +24 | Washu a target school now. | 46 | 6h | |
| +23 | Imperial College Finance Masters' | 5 | 3d | |
| +14 | Engineering vs Business degree? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Bump
Would categorize in a similar tier as JHU, Northwestern and WashU
Now that I think about it, that’s a pretty good comparison
Aren’t those three schools are semi-targets?
Outside of finance though I agree JHU in particular is very similar - not as much “lay” prestige but very well respected within specialized field. I don’t know about WashU though …
They all are. WashU was always historically ranked top 10-15 as a university, like UChicago. The bar to get into each was around the same as well. 5-6 students from my year in HS went to each, and they all were similarly as strong / qualified
All I know is that Washu Is in the middle of bum fuck nowhere.
Got washu students chucking monkey shits at me 🤣🤣
Pretty sure WashU is a cut below UChicago, Northwestern, and JHU. Its acceptance rate is 11-12% compared to UChic's 5% and JHU and Northwestern's 7%. At least in my HS people didn't perceive WashU at the level those other three schools, though it could be a geographical thing.
Also, I definitely wouldn't call UChicago a semi-target based on their placement to top groups relative to interest (even a "target" if you're only looking at pure placement volume).
That's cap. UChicago is way above. WashU is most similar to like Emory(great school but not UChicago)
I worked at a top BB, then a MF, and now L/S at a Tiger cub.
First of all, let me make it clear that all schools on your list are very good and would get one their desired interview - assuming all else equal. In other words, nobody would give a Harvard grad an offer just because he went to Harvard over someone who went to Penn/Chicago/Dartmouth/Columbia
But some schools are just slightly better than others overall. Just like HBS/Stanford are considered half a notch more selective than Wharton/CBS/Booth
Based on my recruiting experience, I consider Chicago in the same camp as Penn/Columbia/Dartmouth
In my humble opinion it is somewhat equal to Columbia, Brown and Upenn (Not Wharton) and above Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke but below HYPW. Like a mid Ivey. Thing is since it’s quite academia focused, for your ordinary man uchicago would disappear form that list (notice not going below just because it’s not active in sports like Duke for example) but for industries that you would probably care about (IB, academia for masters, VC (Maybe?), Law and just any other highly sought after career it regains it’s spot in the ranking described above. Overall, I would compare it to the A lang and Söhn watch - many and most of the uninitiated will discard it as uninteresting but that one rare distinguished connoisseur will come to truly appreciate it. Hope this helps
.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking based off the older tier lists… one tier below HYPSM
What the fuck are you rambling about
Sorry mate replied to the wrong comment lmao
These tiers are pretty bad and fail to understand the recruiting process and how it works. This forum overtiers and over analyzes exits and recruiting. Great candidates come from many places and your undergrad just isn’t as defining as many people make it out to be. Many of the schools people debate are hair splitting. Ultimately, the candidate will matter more.
HYSW, MIT are in a league of their own.
Then you have other schools that make up the top 10 of US news and schools that have top 5 business programs. Uchicago, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, JHU, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Michigan, etc.
Then you have schools that aren’t top 10, but have programs or patterns of sending alumni to Wall Street. Think Claremont McKenna, some state schools (IU), USC, UVA.
People will complain and try to ride their school, but again it’s hair splitting and over analysis. JHU might send less alumni to a place than Columbia, but a perfect act/sat kid that knows their technicals and interviews well from JHU is going to have no problem getting a spot. Candidates somehow are simultaneously all similar in resumes and very different when you interview to the point where the hairsplitting institutions just doesn’t matter.
Please interns continue to monkey shit someone who has recruited numerous classes in IB and PE over their career.
test scores, gpa, and other accomplishments trump all. High correlation between high test scores and accomplishments and going to a higher ranked school. Correlation isn’t causation though.
UChicago is a top target--consistent placement into Qatalyst, PJT Restructuring, Citadel, Point72, KKR, and Blackstone. It might fall off from a numbers perspective, mostly because people there might be majoring in Econ but not know that the hardo finance path is for them. Much higher % of Stern are doing by the book recruiting--networking early, grinding technicals, etc. UChicago is much more academic than pre-professional and you have a smaller group of people focused on the finance path. Higher batting average (people who want to that break into finance), and higher slugging (% of people getting the best seats) than NYU. Only places with objectively better in both of the previous metrics are Harvard and Wharton.
That said, at a certain point it is splitting hairs about school, and much more catered to what you actually want. An offer from Wharton doesn't guarantee you will have success the same way that Stern doesn't guarantee you will have success, but in both instances the brand name does help in the macro picture but they differ by some relatively minute margin (WSO seems to obsess over this small margin)
Thanks for the insights, interesting to hear that it places especially well in those super-exclusive roles beyond BB.
I'm guessing to get into the firms you mentioned, you'd need to be at the top 5% of UChicago students (with regards to networking, GPA, knowledge, etc.). Do you think going for the easier, less-theoretical major like Business Econ rather than the highly theoretical and quantitative regular Econ would be a bad move? My thinking is that it would let me get a higher GPA, more efficiently learn technicals, and have more time to dedicate towards extracurriculars and networking. My worry is that it would send out a signal that I'm less intellectually capable or something since I chose the less rigorous major.
IMO it depends on the firms your targeting. As a rule of thumb For BB your fine with bizecon but for Private equity you need econ ( and succeed there at that as well)
Are Williams/amherst really in the last tier? They seem to go 50/50 in cross admits with Penn/Dartmouth/Brown, etc.
That's just what I've seen in these WSO tier lists and IB placement data. Generally I would say that Penn/Dartmouth/Brown is perceived as more prestigious though, just from my experience
Is that just lay prestige due to the ivy thing though, or also for high finance/people in the know?
people here meatride the big schools but williams/amherst just has less interest. better than a uchi/columbia per capita
FWIW: I led IB recruiting in my IB team (think MS M&A / GS TMT / PJT RX) + MF PE.
H/W > UChicago for recruiting, but other than that, really a toss up between the rest of HYPSM. UChicago definitely has better placement than Stanford / MIT given fewer people from these schools try to enter investment banking (many of them go on to start companies / quant roles that pay much more). I would put UChicago on par with Yale, Princeton, MIT, etc. from a recruiting perspective. It's gotten a lot better in in the past 3 years, and sends probably 15-20 people to MF PE each year (as associates) and a small handful to MF PE analyst seats as well. Just go look up the representation at the top banks for UChicago, and you'll see very strong representation across GS, MS, Qatalyst, JPM, PJT, Evercore, etc. Anyone who is top 25% at UChicago is able to land a pretty solid BB / EB role unless other idiosyncratic factors prevent them from doing so.
You could say in a bear case that it's equivalent to Dartmouth / Duke, but in no world is it anywhere close to Michigan or UVA. Truest comp is probably somewhere between Yale / Princeton and Columbia in the Ivies, but I'm watching the caliber of students change live with the new business econ major. The original culture of UChicago is (depending on how you see it) unfortunately getting decimated - people are no longer going into academia at nearly the same rate, and instead, they are attracting many more pre-professional students who want to enter finance
Thanks for the detailed response mate! Really great write up.
Just a follow up question, from your experience on the recruiting side of things, would you view a business Econ major as less attractive compared to regular?
I think business Econ would let me learn more applicable finance material, have a higher GPA (due to less deeply theoretical quant classes), and would potentially help me with networking as I would be amongst other students interested in finance.
However I’m worried that the easier nature of the degree would hold me back from getting into the top groups.
What’s your perspective?
All else being equal - a 4.0 from regular econ is more impressive than a 4.0 from biz econ. However, you're probably much more likely to achieve a 4.0 from biz econ, and probably a 0.15-0.2 delta in GPA all else being equal, so would reommcend biz econ. Regular econ is truly not worth it if your goal is to do investment banking, but if you want to do academia, probably better. Plus, greater likelihood to get latin honors with biz econ (i.e. Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude etc.)
When you recruit down the line, no one will care about whether you did biz econ or regular econ, but other things are pretty unequivocally clear. Clear pecking order between summa cum laude > magna cum laude > cum laude. Not to over-extrapolate - it's like GS > MS > JPM or 4.0 > 3.95 > 3.9. Might not be the difference between getting an offer vs. not, but this hierarchy very clearly exists, and if you stack a bunch of these things together, it will likely matter more.
UChicago - horsepower but usually autistic
So the opposite of fratty non-target schools.
Academic weapons but socially inert
Currently at a public target (UMich/UVA) and I'm 100% confident I could both beat up and steal the gf of any analyst in a "top group" (GS TMT/MS M&A/PJT RX)
“Target”… slow down there buddy
I can curl what you squat lil bro... and I'm working in tech (You will be at the office while I wine and dine Mrs.Viscount)
Lmao this guy is so insecure about his "public target" that he comes on a completely unrelated threat and starts rambling like a madman.
Inventore veniam sint architecto nihil a distinctio. Nam sapiente saepe corporis velit doloremque soluta sit. Eos aut vero modi dolores tenetur enim. Veniam hic quo voluptates. Rem et suscipit quas dicta. Ut sint ipsa explicabo iusto quia.
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...
Dolor qui eveniet ipsum et distinctio. Quia possimus nisi architecto. Corporis ab aut suscipit quia quis aut hic. Dicta odit pariatur sunt qui. Temporibus aut culpa molestiae asperiores enim fugit suscipit.
Veniam suscipit recusandae incidunt accusantium id. Et suscipit ex occaecati distinctio suscipit laboriosam sed ipsum. Vero consequatur libero architecto consectetur qui aut architecto. Autem magni voluptate a distinctio repellendus tenetur.
Eos error sint vel dolores velit quo. Corrupti vel laborum voluptas et repellat et. Et recusandae a aut beatae iusto et.