The HR for trading is full of idiots

It absolutely infuriated me when I watched a clip on Goldman Sach's website of a chick from Harvard who said,"I never heard of trading before but they taught me." I was so pissed off I almost broke my computer. Does Goldman actually think some English major from Harvard is going to be a stud trader. I can't emphasize enough how clueless this chick came off in the video.

I'm not a trader, but I certainly share your frustration coming from a school that for some reason gets no respect on the street. It's absolutely ridiculous that across various divisions they take liberal arts grads from top 10 over finance guys from lets say top 25. I'm not ripping on ivy liberal arts grads, but I know a few who got jobs ahead of me with much lower gpas, and who got into finance to "try it out" and collect a paycheck.

It is what it is - you just have to put in 10 times as much effort to land the job. Tuneman, if you have an MBA, shouldn't you have much more latitude? I plan on using an MBA as a reset button because I've been completely disregarded based on my undergrad degree.

Kisses Yale diploma

Maybe those gilrs were really hot. There are a lot of hot people in S&T vs. IBD

this is exactly why they consider these guys and not you tuneman: if you are so full of yourself and think you know everything, you're bound to blow up some day. If you trust your models blindly, you're bound to blow up too. If you're modest, admit that you know nothing but show passion to learn, and show a sound intuition about how markets work then you're suitable for the trading floor. Maybe you're more suitable for a quant role. And btw, people most times don't give a shit if you follow the stock markets and invest for your PA (at least for FI roles), so guys that do that have no advantage at all.

ok...i dont intend to fight with you dude. I hope my advice would be appreciated but seems you're very bad tempered. Anyway, it's not a matter if yo uconvince anybody on this board, but it's a matter whether you convince anybody having the power to recruit. Good luck.

tuneman ---

I have had similar experiences in the past.

It is sometimes worth abstracting it a bit further...

For instance... Why would you want to work for a firm that believes an individual that majored in art history at a Top 5 is superior to someone with your background?

I realize that you are talking about the HR people specifically... but still.

Several years back I became comfortable with the fact that I am not large company material.

There are tons of opportunities at smaller shops. And if you shine... you have the opportunity to make partner (or equivalent) in a much shorter timeframe.

Good luck!

Well I am on the other side of the table now... trading analyst at BB bank. I am more like you guys.. into the markets and felt I was much more qualified than my peers and got the job. The reality of the situation is that you will be trained and molded when you get there. Although I have a finance background... I am still just raw material to them. At the analyst level they are looking looking more for raw talent and less for actual skills than many of you think. Regardless of how good you guys think you are, you will realize that you know NOTHING if/when you land that trading analyst job.

tuneman - a good first step would be to learn how to spell "Black-Scholes"

you've misspelled it multiple times in this thread so I know it isn't just a typo

a) In BB's any position you're applying for at the undergrad or even MBA level, 99% of what you need to know you will learn in training or on the job . . . there have been studies that show that undergraduate music majors have the highest success rate as finance professionals.

b) In the end you have people on the inside advocating for hires from their school, so if you don't have a strong contingent pulling for you it's even tougher to stand out in the minds of the guys who make the final decision.

Absolutely true, and that's why it's been hell for me trying to land a spot. My school has a weak presence out in NY.

And I understand the logic behind taking all majors from Ivies and the like. I know my finance degree doesn't qualify me for the job, but it does lay a good foundation. What I was commenting on was the fact that a lot of ivy kids go into banking because they have easy access via recruiting, not necessarily because they have a strong interest in the finance arena.

That's pretty frustrating for a guy like me.

I don't even think a finance degree lays a good foundation for a career on wall street. You will grow up a bit and learn about business... but in reality you will probably learn 99.9% of everything on the job.

Who cares if a person has an interest in finance or not?

The only question is whether they have an aptitude for finance.

All I said was it's frustrating for someone like me with a strong interest in finance. I am not evaluating from the bank's perspective.

Also, I don't think Ivy kids are absolutely smarter/more successful at the job either. We can all agree that banking doesn't require supreme intellect, and you have to remember that there are a lot of people who have the grades but can't afford private school.

Really not trying to start one of those debates. I suppose the system works this way for a reason, but I believe the rigidness of recruiting leaves untapped talent on the market.

I understand your frustration, but I think my point still stands. You're right that the system might be flawed in that it weeds out passionate folks, but again, that seems to detract from what's important to the firms that hire these kids.

These firms care only about talent. Talent is surely affected by interest and passion, but if I were in the firms' position, I'd hire a superstar finance whiz who is miserable over a mediocre finance person who would feel fulfilled by the work.

Now, of course, there's always the chance that this miserable finance whiz could leave after a few years, whereas the mediocre finance person would happily churn away for the next twenty years, but then it just becomes a question of what the expected return would be on the two individuals based on their expected stay at the firm.

And if you're right in that the finance whiz's misery affects their work, to such a degree that it makes the finance whiz a worse worker than the mediocre finance person, then surely the finance whiz will get fired. (This is trading, after all, meritocracy generally trumps over cronyism.)

I agree with the OPs original contention (and possibly yours) that it's hard to make an ex ante determination as to who will make a good trader/financier and who will not, but again, passion may be a necessary condition and yet not a sufficient one. The only condition that is necessary is talent because that, and not passion, is the only thing that determines the firm's return on its investment.

Now, it's a whole other discussion whether kids from "better" schools with worse GPAs have the necessary talent, but it seems like the firms that are hiring these kids seem to think so.

(Note: In no way was I insinuating that you or the OP are "mediocre finance" people. I was just using that as a abstract hypothetical in my response since you were championing passion for the field of finance as a determining factor.)

I hear ya merkhet, it's just tough being on the margin. I was referring to banking by the way, not trading. Something tells me it's a bit more transparent who's underperforming on the trading side.

Look.

You take people from the BEST fucking schools possible, period. You don't take top 25 when you can take top 5 private historically incredible schools. if a mothafucka could get into harvard with his 4,3 gpa in highschool and 1490 sat (out of 1600) then that's proof the mothafucka has got what it takes.

Don't bitch, don't moan, keep getting degrees and you will get your position. Look to the logic of the BB's. Use objectivity rather than skepticism as your basis and you will understand.

I pity the mothafuckin fools and i'm drunk as shit right now. lol.

I was told something along this line - If you hire a kid from Harvard and he sucks, and someone blames you, you can always say, "Well he was from Harvard." Now if he is from Georgia Southern or something, it's your fault hiring the kid without much of a track record. In the same time, I was told students from non-targets work much harder and don't take things for granted. And if you can make the necessary connections and sell yourself, you can do it too. Not like it never happened before.

Trading requires neither a masters in finance nor a physics degree. I completely understand why they take arts majors (like myself) into markets instead of someone who studied finance at a mediocre university. Trust me, there are people who studied philosophy in my analyst class who have a natural aptitude for trading, while there are econ/finance/math majors who are slogging through their first year. What you like to study has no relationship to what you're good at in a job, if you can't realize that then just enjoy being bitter, it won't get you anywhere though.

fp175 - there is a big difference between cash products and derivs.

Ficcster is right on the money. This bunk about "arts majors" is really making me laugh. I know maybe 1 arts major in S&T and she is in equity sales.

most of the non finance majors at my bb in trading majored in econ/engineering/physics/math...there arent really any art majors or music majors as you speak of

also as other people have stated, anyone can go to a crap school and take finance classes..you have to be very smart to go to an ivy or other top school..smart people can learn and will do well....its a dog eat dog world out there, if you cant get it this time around work somewhere not as glamorous, work hard kill the gmat and go to a top 5 mba

I am not in cash sales and am actually sitting on a structuring desk at the moment.

Which product?

That's life, I didn't go to a target. Far from it actually, and I understand why somebody from Harvard would go in front of me. The thing I also understand is that there are many morons at Harvard as well, and they won't get in banking. It's hard even at the top schools to get a banking gig. Banks higher people that have the power to learn fast, and that are smart. Why bother looking at A-hole tech in the middle of no where when they have already good schools that have done part of the screening for them? I studied Finance, so what? All that shit I studied can be learned in two months. Now if you really want to get into banking, and you come from a small school, just go for a Masters degree. Tuff it out on the GMAT during your senior year of undergraduate, get a really high GPA, and prove to a really good school that you have what it takes; banks will look at you then... And on top of that, don't be bitter because that won't get you anywhere. Be happy for the people at Harvard, at least they will be able to reimburse their loans. Good luck with everything, and remember your school is nothing if you don't do any networking. Wether you are at Harvard or A-hole tech.

I want to work now! No, really. I want those 100+ hours/week.

Thanks for all the responses-

I hope you didn't take this as a complaining thread- They are free to hire anyone they want. However, do not advertise that you are going for the smartest, most quantitative, well suited people in the world. Even though they advertise it, this isn't NASA, they aren't hiring rocket scientists.

Now like one poster mentioned, going to smaller trading firms might be more for people like me. Which is exactly what im doing. (Honestly I don't know if the politics and monkey business in ibanking is for me).

I also disagree that someone with a 4.3 GPA at high SATs shows they have what it takes. Id rather you show knowledge in the subject matter and general quick thinking aptitude. The SATs are a test just like anything else that you can study for. But they have 100000 aps, so how the heck can I expect them to intelligently sort through every single one of them. Its most likely a ridiculous request.

I guess my point is simply hard work isnt enough. perhaps I haven't worked hard enough, however getting a very quant degree, trying to network tons, and getting a masters in finance hasn't been enough. Perhaps I simply need more patience though.

To "poppingmycollar" (you have got to me kidding me), just because I misspell words does not mean I am ignorant on its meaning. Your statement has more to do with your failure to utilize logic rather than my erudition. I misspell a lot of words , however I still understand them and can utilize them.

No offense tuneman, but I have never seen any major bank advertise that they hire the "most quantitative." People with 3.5+ GPA at Harvard/Princeton/etc, who got basically perfect grades and SATs in high school, and who made it through the screening process at the bank to actually get an offer, ARE the best and the brightest.

Is it fully inclusive? No. Is there a finance major at Baruch College who is smarter than someone at Harvard? Of course, there must be a few. But the reality is that the biggest concentration of the smartest and most capable young people are at the best universities.

I went to a target, and to be honest from friends I knew who went to easier colleges, I could have gotten the same GPA studying something a finance degree at my state university.

FP is pretty much completely right. I got a 1500+ SAT, 5s on a ton of aps, high gpa, lots of clubs/leadership and on and on and on in high school. Went to a 'non-target' thats supposedly by far the best in the region with really high standards. A lot of my friends went to top schools and are quite successful there. Bottom line: I know what kind of intelligence top-tier schools screen for, and while many of the kids here might be 'smart' by some standards, they just don't cut it. Now, keep in mind that this school is huge. There are plenty of very smart people here. A few of them are both very smart and very motivated. If I was HR would i recruit here? Hell no. Why waste money and time trying to find the relatively small percentage of sufficiently smart, motivated kids at this school when Harvard already screens for me. Consider how hard it is to even figure out who's smart at this school. You have no idea if these kids are really smart or their classes are that easy. A school teaches at the intelligence level of its students, so to be academically stellar at any university just means you're smarter than the other students. Being smarter than the students at this school doesn't mean you'd hold your own against harvardians. Case in point: math is arguably my worst subject (i'm not horrible, but not awesome either), but I can smoke most people in advanced math classes here while working on my triple major. I'm sure a lot of harvard art majors could do the same, though they would get their butts kicked by harvard math. If I was at harvard or yale , I would have choosen a less quantitative major (history, poli sci) so I could play on my comparative advantage (and because i'd still stand a chance at getting into ib).

HR is full of morons, you can not stress that enough!

It's all relative. I grew up in Princeton my whole life, had 15-18 friends go there, and love it to death. But for someone like me at a non-target, breaking into a BB is tough enough. For a lot of my friends at Princeton, the bitching starts when they cant get into Blackstone etc, but have offers from every other BB. At my school in the midwest, people are lucky to even get an interview at PoDunk Bank.

Realize there is always someone below and above you, and that complaining or whatever won't help you. I realize the frustration of going to a non-target, but with some networking and whatnot, you may get somewhere. I know a lot of friends at Princeton that may or may not deserve that BB offer, but thats life.

I love that if you don't go to an ivy, then you must go to A-hole state.

Ivy's in the long run are overrated. Studies have shown that the income gaps between ivy grads and us "humanoids" get substantially narrower as time goes by.

They have a high concentration of successful graduates because often times these students are the most motivated (not necessarily smartest or brightest) and many of the most extremely successful individuals usually have that coveted "way in" (such as having a last name like Clinton, or Hilfiger).

So if you dont go to an ivy and dont get into a major bank the first year out of undergrad...relax! Looking at most of the profiles of investment bankers, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, and traders youll notice that many of them didnt even start their career in investments. There is more than one road to ibanking, despite what people will lead you to believe on this board.

20 years from now youll look back and wish you enjoyed yourself in college rather than worried about getting into X bank or regretting that you didnt apply to harvard.

i'd like to see those studies please

"20 years from now youll look back and wish you enjoyed yourself in college rather than worried about getting into X bank or regretting that you didnt apply to harvard."

So true...I know this and yet I still cant stop stressing about breaking into this field.

I go to a non-target and consider myself a top candidate at my school, so I'll give my two cents. Two years ago, I would have been all over the bandwagon of state school people deserve it just as much as ivies and how state schools have a ton of smart people that just couldn't afford an ivy (me being one of those people). However, my view has drastically changed as of late and now I fully support the "hire from the best schools, first and foremost" logic.

Here's why . . . When I first started college, my university grouped all the honors students together for their first year or so, therefore almost all of my classes were filled with people with top ACT/SATs and GPAs so I felt like I was surrounded by incredibly bright people (who mostly chose a full-ride to a state school over taking out loans to attend a much better private school). But now that I'm in my upper level finance and accounting classes, I completely understand the banking logic because my classes are filled with people who are interested in finance and talk the talk, know all the jargon, read the journal, etc. but they are just dumb. Sure they might have 3.5s or above, but honestly they just aren't that bright. I have so many classes this semester with interested finance people, who talk about getting banking jobs and being HF managers, who study for an entire week for an exam that I study for in one night, they get low Bs and I ace them.

The point is that now that I'm out of the highly concentrated honors classes I understand the banking system because there are a lot of dumb, and we're talking really dumb, people that can get good grades (they kiss a lot of ass, get bonus points, take easy profs, etc) at a state school, have leadership, talk the talk, and appear like a good candidate, despite not being bright enough in reality. And when I graduate, I will not try to hire a lot of people from my school, I will try to recruit people from the top schools. I feel like the few qualified people from state schools will do whatever it takes to make it (contacting a ton, getting a lot of internships, knowing interview questions in and out, etc) and those that might appear qualified on the outset (decent GPA, high interest, etc) but really aren't that smart, well they won't make it due to being disadvantaged from the start.

Furthermore, don't get delusional about how easy the ivies have it (as I once was). Yes they have it much easier than non-targets, but it's still very competitive for them. Perfect example, at my school I am considered the top finance student in my grade (GPA, internships, connections, ECs), but one of my best friends goes to a top target, is a year below me, has the same internships (we interned at the the same places), has the same GPA, just as many ECs, etc. And you know what, he commonly talks about feeling behind compared to other people at his school. Again, Me=considered top student at a non-target; friend=same stats as me and feels behind at a top target.

In conclusion, if you go to a non-target for undergrad and you really really want it, you should be able to get what you want in a good market. If bad hiring conditions are present though (as they are currently), then maybe you don't get your dream job from undergrad, despite working your ass off. So what, it's not the end of the world. You take the best job you can get, ace your GMAT, then apply to every top B-school four years down the road. You get accepted into a top MBA, and all of the sudden the reset button has been hit on your career and it's an even playing field. It's that simple, and if it that doesn't work for you, then you got other problems that you aren't being honest with yourself about (like maybe your personality totally sucks, you dress like shit, you're annoying, you have a victim/the world isn't fair demeanor, etc).

I apologize for the length of this post, guess I was feeling a rant.

Sucker_for_seers, bravo. You articulated everything I've ever tried to express in comparing state schools to ivies. For instance, Schumacher's post before this last one made me want to cringe like I always do when I read a non-target's perspective on ivies - seriously, "studies" can prove anything anyone wants them to prove. I never believe anything that follows a "studies show" sentence started unless I see cold hard facts extrapolated from a completely scientifically sound experiment.

I had a January acceptance at the ivy I currently attend because I applied months after the deadline (I graduated early and did not know I would be doing so until the middle of spring semester that year). I filled in that first semester with time at a state school that had rolling admissions (what can I say, there's a certain amount of spontaneous magic in filling out an application in late June, seeing a school for the first time at orientation in July, and being a student there in August... heh). Regardless of if some of the kids were really bright, the majority just aren't. They really, honestly just aren't. I'm still friends with many people I met at that state school and consider them amazing people but that doesn't negate the fact that they would flounder in the environment I am currently in. It's not a bad thing, it's just the cold, hard truth.

Most of the people at schools like mine are here because their brightness and intelligence complement the fact that the characteristics to be motivated and succeed are innate for them. Yes, you're going to have those quintuple legacies who got 1250 on their SATs, but that is a small minority. They stand out here just as much as the 1500 students at a state school. You know both groups don't belong at their respective universities but circumstances allow/force them to be there.

Now for recruiting, if you were a bank, would you rather spend resources sending recruiting teams out to state/non-target schools where you have to weed through hundreds of fools to get to that one shining star or would you rather fish in a sea where you have a 99% chance of getting a desirable catch?

There is no reason for state school/non-target schools to get annoyed at what I've said - considering you are on here and reading up on what you need to do to get ahead, you're obviously one of those shining stars. Just don't pretend your dormmates are on your level.

Meehgs, what you said is completely retarded. There is more to the spectrum than "ivy" or "state". There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.) These schools are not targets because of the limited number of slots available at a bank - not because of the caliber of students at these schools.

That you actually believe that all non-targets are full of idiots just shows your personal ignorance, arrogance, and pretense. Nothing against Ivies in general, but your comment is completely idiotic.

For future reference, Berkeley, UMich, and UVA are all state schools and I bet half the students at these schools can run intellectual circles around the kids at HYP. Paying $40k for an education comparable to a $200k education is one of the smartest moves any student could make. You're joking if you tell me the caliber of students at any of these three states aren't up to par with top Ivies. Please don't label "state schools" as some sort of inferior institution.

b, I use the word ivy loosely (as I believe lots of people on this site do). When I say ivy/target I'm referring to any top school that any top student can attend and have a very solid shot at getting their dream job when they graduate. I'm not purely referencing the athletic conference. Therefore, when I say Ivy or target, I'm including Stanford, UChicago, etc. despite them not being in the actual Ivy League. Additionally, when people reference state schools being non-targets and full of dumb people, they are referencing state schools as a whole/generally and are not knocking the few top state schools that do exist (Univ Michigan, Virginia, Berkely, etc). Therefore, when I say state school (I attend one), I'm referencing Florida, Oklahoma, Oregon, Michigan State, etc, which in my opinion are "inferior schools" because despite having a few incredibly gifted individuals that decide to attend there for whatever reason over a more academically prestigious institution, for the most part, these state schools are full of average students and get essentially no love from any employer outside of the region.

Schumacher, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment on how to succeed in the world of finance, but not in the world of business. In the business world, yes, I agree that anyone that is willing to work a ton, network, and kiss a little ass will be successful, whether they have a 2.8 instead of a 4.0 or went to Ole Miss instead of Yale. However, after interning at a very reputable hedge fund this summer, I have no problem saying that no one has any chance of being a very successful PM at a quant heavy HF (this is just an example) unless they have off the charts intelligence. I don't care how hard you are willing to work, how motivated you are, or how connected you are, there are certain roles in finance that you absolutely cannot be a superstar in unless you have some serious aptitude. Which in my opinion, is another underlying reason why it is better to focus the majority of your recruiting from top schools (but leave some slots for a few non-target kids like me), which already have screened the intelligence factor for you generally (of course, there will always be the JFK Jrs of the world that don't have the academic merit, but get accepted for other obvious reasons).

Again, in the general business world being a 1600 SAT guy really doesn't matter when compared to just grinding out hard work (I remember reading a story about one of the Tyson pioneers being somewhat illiterate and just listening really intently in board meetings to gather all the proper info and make decisions accordingly), but in the world of finance (and numerous other careers), your intelligence/aptitude plays a much much bigger role.

i agree with Tumeman... I once interviewed for a SWAP position at a middle-mkt IB for a trading position. I came across as too confident and knowledgeable... right now i am interviewing, i will eventually get a position but i need to be patient...

This is frustrating. There are tons of girls working in my office who had killer grades, and are the dumbest ppl in the world and have no idea how to work. Seeing that thing on Goldmans site made me furious. I mean this si the definition of stupidity. If she gives good head, then i get it. Otherwise i dont. English majors!!!??WTF, who cares what grades they got, they are english majors!!..lets see them in Finance (not hard) or physics!!

Very very sad...so many of us would be coffee boys, work for free, and actually have real passion ,perseverance, adn these incompetent idiots get the jobs...cause they studied shakespeare..wow... This is demeaning to the trading profession...to say the least. When i get in, i promise you all that i will never hire such ppl ever. Only quant kids, with decent ppl skills, and good grades. English majors will be able to fuck themselves and teach grammar in primary schools.

Think about this logically.

The average English major at Princeton took harder math classes and got better grades in them in high school than the average finance or math major at Rutgers, which is a top 25 state school according to rankings.

I went to a target, studied an arts subject, but took enough AP calc and sciences in high school to have placed me out of the first year of an engineering degree at my state university.

Meanwhile the other new analyst on my desk studied finance and business at a mediocre university (got in due to amazing grades and being insanely multilingual) and failed all of his FSA exams (I'm in the UK - equivalent of Series 7). I passed them all on the first try.

you think about this logically- I do think ivy league arts majors have something to offer, but you may be going too far. the Rutgers math major by the end of his/her studies has surely surpassed the princeton english major in math ability- who cares about your AP calc and science scores from high school? (btw, I go to an ivy school and don't mean to brag when I say I did pretty well on many APs too..)

On the other hand, the rest of you may be forgetting that a very significant portion of S&T jobs don't require high math ability or deep previous knowledge in finance. That's where they would rather just take the princeton english major because they know (or believe) he/she will work hard to learn everything necessary and be successful.

In future success if given the opportunity a Rutgers Math major with a high SAT score would be a superior candidate. But then the problem is there are a 1000 dipshit state school retards for that one guy, making it easier to just forget about all you rutgers-esque math/sci majors and just focus on the princeton guy.

Wow did she just equate, 4th year engineering to same difficulty as AP High School Calc?

Guys, it's all about diversity. There are probably drawbacks to having too many quant kids in the same place.

That's not what it's about. It's about taking the most qualified people - period. It doesn't matter what their major was or where they went to school; if they are the most qualified, they will be considered. Non-targets may have a harder time landing an interview, but, given an interview, they have equal chances at getting a position. Quality candidates aren't denied because of qualifications; they are denied because of space limitations. Even an English major at Princeton has to demonstrate quantitative aptitude and an interest in business before getting a position. Yes, majoring in one of these joke majors at a target can get you an interview (provided a strong resume and high GPA), but trust me, the first question an engineering/science/arts/history major will be asked during an interview is "Why banking?". And they will get grilled on this. They are expected to know the nuances of banking just as well as anybody else, and, if they don't, they will be dinged. It can be advantageous (because less time is dedicated towards technicals) but the student w/o a finance background needs to demonstrate knowledge about the industry. If they are successful at this, they are probably just as passionate and interested as the next candidate. Simple. It's stupid to say that these soft majors don't belong in banking, just as it's stupid to say that non-targets are less qualified than targets.

"Meehgs, what you said is completely retarded. There is more to the spectrum than "ivy" or "state". There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.) These schools are not targets because of the limited number of slots available at a bank - not because of the caliber of students at these schools."

Duke and Gtown are very much targets. Tufts, CMU and Northwestern too.

Trust me, those schools that I listed are not considered "targets" the same way that actual targets are (Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc.). The schools that I listed receive very limited targeted recruiting. For example, I know that most of the schools that I listed are considered "alumni schools" or "secondary targets" at some major firms (when the alumni are vested enough to vouch for their alma mater) or students at these schools are considered for "targeted recruiting" at firms like Lehman (which means that they target the top few candidates at every school across the board as opposed to targeting every student within a very limited band of schools). Under these conditions, the school recruiting team may be granted a very limited superday slots to award to their schools. These schools are the first to get the shaft in current market conditions.

In my original post, I mentioned that they are considered non-targets at most/all banks. This is true for the most part. The two exceptions are Duke and NW'ern. These schools are considered "targets" at a few banks (think 1-2) and are also considered alumni/secondary schools at the other banks. These two receive additional recruiting b/c of Fuqua/Kellogg, but the undergraduates are still not considered the same way a H/W/S undergrad is considered.

"The two exceptions are Duke and NW'ern. These schools are considered "targets" at a few banks (think 1-2) and are also considered alumni/secondary schools at the other banks."

false.

" but the undergraduates are still not considered the same way a H/W/S undergrad is considered."

this is probably true.

Trust me... I go to one of these schools. We aren't considered a top-target at most of the major banks.

Am guessing you go to northwestern then.

Maybe yes, maybe no. If you say this because you think that Duke is considered a top-target at most of the banks, I can assure you that your assumption is incorrect.

"Maybe yes, maybe no. If you say this because you think that Duke is considered a top-target at most of the banks, I can assure you that your assumption is incorrect."

Ok then. I'm looking at from the perspective of doing college recruiting (though I'm not on the duke recruting group).

seem to run into a decent number of dukies. very few from northwestern.

I've heard of Duke people doing very good. Georgetown too (when I transferred schools I almost decided to go to Gtown but my old man made me pick Cornell). At Northwestern only people in MMSS are regularly successful. You need perspective. (i.e. being on the recruiting teams, being a transfer student and able to compare schools, personally knowing stats or many people and their schools, etc.) Jimbo would know.

I'm not arguing whether one school is more successful than another; I'm arguing whether each school is treated as a "target". Yes, you can be very successful, yet come from a non-target. I know plenty of Middlebury and Hamilton kids who ended up both on Wall Street, as well as penetrating the almost impermeable wall of McKinsey (don't ask me how). Nevertheless, these schools are still considered non-targets. I can tell you that Duke's superdays got slashed this year at a number of banks because of the credit crunch... then again, so did all other non-targets.

Also, my original point was that there are very smart kids at schools other than Ivies who don't get jobs because they come from a non-target - not to argue whether certain listed schools are targets [there are more than enough of those posts as it is]. Some of the kids at these non-target schools are easily up to par with kids at top Ivies, and I stand by that statement. It was moronic for Meehgs to claim that "everyone who doesn't go to an Ivy is an idiot, save a few exceptions".

[I believe her exact words were: "considering you are on here and reading up on what you need to do to get ahead, you're obviously one of those shining stars. Just don't pretend your dormmates are on your level." ... Guess what Meehgs; fabricated flattery doesn't work and it doesn't sit well when you condescendingly generalize across institutions, even if you are making us out as the "shining stars".]

Interesting points made but I've got to add a few. First, on many trading desks there are roles for many of the stereotypes displayed here. I don't need to work with 100% MIT quants and similarly I don't need to work with 100% "touchy-feely" liberal arts HYP guys/gals. Some trading businesses are more art than science and vice versa. Second, many firms hire the Ivy types because they have a better network. And in many businesses, especially IB, networking is huge at the top levels. So it's not always who is the better student, it's the full package being looked at. All that said, for IB analyst programs (and I started there), the Ivy emphasis at the BB firms seemed misplaced, because the gruntwork can be done by any reasonably smart, very motivated employee. Third, for Tuneman, you're right, life isn't fair, especially on Wall Street. But you are wrong about all the women traders "doing" people to get their jobs. It's probably the same percentage as the percentage of guys who get their first job at a BB firm because their daddy is a big client.

Are you suggesting that big clients of banks don't have daughters?

b- you go to Hamilton. Never heard anyone toss it in the same group as Duke, Northwestern etc.

If you guys think finance is snobby about which school you went to, consulting is much worse...

Maybe I do... most likely I don't.

A school that would best exemplify my original point: Johns Hopkins.

For people intimately familiar with the school, they realize that the quant program w/in JH is extremely difficult and very highly regarded. I personally view the school as an unknown bastard brother to MIT. Yes, a number of JH kids are very successful in recruiting (after all, the school does have a strong brand name). I know a number of JH kids who ended up at GS/MS. Nonetheless, the Hopkins and MS alumni that I worked w/ over the summer (now at HBS) told me that JH gets virtually no recruiting, and is not considered a target at the majority of BBs.

Thigns may be different at a heavily-quant trading desk, but in terms of banking, the work itself isn't that difficult. At least at the analyst level, I would make the argument that recruiters are looking for the whole package/ability to work your ass off. Coming from a non-target, I know that my school is very well regarded on the Street. Yes, the top individuals in finance/math/econ/engineering are recruited and get jobs... but I don't doubt that their success is mainly from their drive and willingness to work hard.

"There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.)"

You are kidding yourself if you don't think Duke is a target at most banks.

Fact.

The credit crunch has affected students ranging from the Ivies, comparable top-tier universities, to non-targets.

Fact.

This recruiting season has not been good for ANYONE.

Fact.

Why do people keep advocating Duke as a top-target?! Are people basing their claims on Duke's reputation and USNews ranking?! I have intimate knowledge of recruiting at Duke, and I can assure you that you are gravely mistaken if you are basing your assertions on these factors. Duke does get some recruiting, as I mentioned earlier, but it is definitely NOT a top-target.

Nonetheless, I am done arguing this point. As I emphasized, this was NOT the point of my post. If you are obsessed w/ a target/non-target debate, go take it up somewhere else.

US News ranking? No

More like close relationships with recruiting at various banks

Who cares if it's a super target or a "targeted non target", blah blah blah, the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people working on Wall Street from Duke, Middlebury, Northwestern etc.

It's not Harvard or Stanford but get over it! If you go to these schools, work hard, and have half a brain you should be able to find some decent work. So maybe you wont be a VP at Goldman by the time you're 28 or a partner at McKinsey by your early 30's, GET OVER IT.

I cant stress this point enough: If you think you are denied a job from a certain firm simply because of the school you went to, why would you want to work at such an institution? Have some self respect and have faith in your own talents, because if you don't, who will?

Here ends this public service announcement...