HBS / GSB / Wharton post-MBA recruiting

wso_user:

How much of it is fund dependent? I'm curious as well. I assume it is dependent on firm (and in the megafunds, by group since recruiting is more on an industry basis.) Going through some of these firms, it looks like some firms will take candidates from all of the M7s as long as their backgrounds are strong, while others are virtually 100% HBS/GSB, especially some of the more white shoe firms. Do you think Wharton would be an auto ding for firms like Berkshire Partners or H&F which are very respected and at least based on their IP biographies place a premium on pedigree? Going through their bios one would think so...

I had never noticed that before. All of the Directors, Principals, and VPs at both of those firms went to either GSB or HBS (if in the US), with all attending a top 15 undergrad (80% Ivies). Maybe I haven't had a shot for the past 10 years... haha.

I think it is very firm dependent. Like others have suggested, a good gauge of this is to look at where all the post-MBAs at different firms went. For instance, Bain Capital is also 100% HBS and GSB--know they interviewed at Wharton this year but didn't hire anyone (and haven't ever). For the vast majority of firms I think there is little tangible difference between the three, but among some of the largest / most well known firms it does seem like HBS and GSB are getting the lions share of hires

Very.

APAE:

I've noticed that in the past four (?) application cycles, it really seems to have separated to HBS/GSB with Wharton a distinct band behind (as opposed to the former HBS/GSB/Wharton interchangeability that applicants held in their mind). Whether that carries through generally to recruiting opportunities I cannot say.

Among the [Phi Beta Kappa + HYPS 3.9 + GS/MS/BX/EVR/LAZ/etc.] kids who have the candidate profile to really stand out in the finance bucket of applicants, it's been interesting to see how often I heard over drinks, brunch, dinner, what-have-you "I'm applying this year, but if I don't get into Harvard or Stanford I'll wait until next year to reapply." Also heard the same but with "or I won't go at all" as well.

Said delicately, it appears that there's now stratification within the M7. That's not to say Wharton is not a stellar school. Everyone knows what it is: a truly fantastic school with world-renowned faculty, unique joint-degree programs, intensely loyal alumni, and historically consistent volume of finance placement that every other school pales against.

The (objective) nits to pick seem to be that:

a) The marketability of an MBA is falling. In a climate where startups are the thing, people are realizing you can learn a tremendous amount of immediately applicable knowledge through self-study outside of a classroom: if you want a non-technical role at an early stage startup, the MBA is viewed almost pejoratively.

b) The value proposition is tightening. If you're going to i) forgo two years of income and ii) fork out $200,000 in total costs (tuition, housing, travel [because hey, you're only there once, right?]), you damn well better be attending your dream school.

c) As acceptance rates continue to fall (just like undergrad; more applicants are crowding into the pipeline, especially international) and the number of MBA graduates to rise, the importance of getting that very most prestigious brand possible increases.

d) In a world with increasingly democratized access to information, it's become easier to find information about and channels to reach your dream role other than through b-school. Where ten years ago you may have uniquely benefited from the concentration of resources (upper-year students [especially from the rarest, most pedigreed of backgrounds], notable and acclaimed professors, dedicated and resourceful career counselors, alumni base, speakers and panel-members, etc.) on an elite b-school's campus, the proliferation today of resources online (seriously, LinkedIn alone makes so much possible) makes that benefit less unique.

The subjective nits I've heard people make:

a) Philadelphia is increasingly less attractive of a place to be in than Cambridge or the Valley. (Okay, because location is really the driving factor in your school decision, right...)

b) Wharton is increasingly viewed as too singularly focused on finance. (This one I don't get, because most of the people voicing this then go on to extol how HBS offers a creamier cream-of-the-crop of buy-side positions [from the places that take one new hire every 2-4 years].)

c) The student body is less diverse (in background, interest, and post-graduation outcome) than those the adcoms at HBS and GSB assemble. (I agree here.)

In short, the choosiest of applicants (from the finance world) seem to have an H/S-or-bust mentality lately. The people I hear speaking of Wharton most glowingly are career-switchers, which makes sense. If you're leaving a $90/year marketing job or $120/year operational role, haven't lived on sites like WSO, and want an associate seat where you'll pull $250, an elite school that teaches you as much as Wharton does looks really attractive.

All of the above is background color. You asked about recruiting. The simple answer is that it's largely dependent on the firm.

Private equity partnerships are a strange and amazing breed. I don't say 'investment partnerships' for a few reasons: a) the lack of the long-dated lock-up means public market partnerships dissolve or change much quicker, b) the personalities attracted are quite different, and c) private equity titans in particular seem to be prepossessed by a peculiar obsession with pedigree, pomp, and circumstance more so than any other asset class.

I can say firsthand that the very best (definition here being one-off, rare, high-paying seat on a lean team at a buy-side shop with good performance) opportunities are most concentrated at those two schools. Keep in mind, however, that when a White Elm, Bridger, et al. look for new blood, they immediate step is to ask an already thin team who they think would be a fit. Shocker, but people reach into their immediate networks. That often tends to be school.

Those who leave Cambridge cull from the same field they sprouted in. Those from Stanford's sunny lands do the same. I'd take the time to list out which partnerships have a real bias for their founders' alma maters (Crestview, HBS loud cough), but this has gone long and my flight boards soon.

Hope it's helpful.

Completely agree. In general, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When going through the application process, many of my peers applied exclusively to HBS and GSB. Now, the vast majority of these individuals went to a top UG school, such as Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Harvard, or Wharton, which changes things. Just as APAE said, it goes back to the strong desire of alumnus to recruit from their alma mater.

If you go to a top boarding school, you improve your likelihood of getting into a top undergraduate program. Good grades in university, combined with a strong network, is helpful in garnering an internship at a top investment bank. Six months into the full time banking stint, you interview for a top PE fund position with either alums of your UG institution, boarding school, or members that were once in your IB group. Once you get the top buyside offer at an elite fund, their placement into HBS or GSB is near 100%, so you naturally apply and get in. Once you enroll, recruiting starts and the the cycle continues.

The academic and professional pedigree continues to grow over time, making it easier to move to the next level in comparison with your peers. In order to overcome this and compete with those individuals, one must truly have excellent soft and hard skills. Some people think the firms are the reason that certain applicants get into MBA programs, but in reality, they just recruit individuals who are extremely pedigreed and qualified.