UChicago Econ v. UPenn Wharton
I had the opportunity last year to pick between these two schools and selected the University of Chicago. Though I do plan on entering investment banking, I wanted to learn theoretical economics before applied finance, something I believe that Wharton undergraduate students lack. I personally believe that I made the right choice - both are recruited relatively heavily.
From a public standpoint, is a UChicago Economics degree or UPenn Wharton Economics degree better received?
UChicago has the international reputation. Wharton has the NYC banking connections.
For both programs- UChicago Econ and Wharton Finance, this will be the top choice program for 40-50% of the incoming class.
What do you mean by "public standpoint"? Both schools are relatively unknown to the general public, even more so outside the US. I don't think you should care about what ignorant people think though.
Both are great schools and if you wanted a more theoretical academic experience you made the right choice...just my opinion on reputation below:
GENERAL REPUTATION: Based on my int'l. experience (have lived / worked in 12 different countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia), I would say that both have stellar reputations across the world, however, Wharton has an edge in both public reputation (significantly more well known) and in professional circles in pretty much every one of these 12 countries (except for one countries in LATAM where I lived - Chile where Chicago is very very well known mainly for historical reasons - look up the Chicago Boys ). One reason for this is that in many of these countries, predominantly in LATAM and Asia, people are kind of prestige whores and see Wharton on another level vis a vis Chicago. Chicago actually seems has a better reputation in academic circles according to friends I had in academia in Europe and Asia.
RECRUITING REPUTATION: From a recruiting standpoint at the undergrad level, unfortunately, Wharton is unparalleled and Chicago cannot compete / doesn't come close in this regard given that Wharton, as you mentioned, has a more applied finance focus. Basically, from a recruiting standpoint Wharton opens up a hell of a lot more doors than Chicago at the undergrad level.
Wow BAD choice
agree that in NYC it is more prevalent. However, I would say that the latter part of your comment is inaccurate. In my experience, Wharton places significantly better pretty much everywhere with the exception of the Midwest / Chicago.
I have actually worked and recruited for various industries (tech, online, media & entertainment) in London, Zurich, Texas, SF / Bay Area, LA, and Seattle and Wharton basically places just as well as HYPS (if not better in certain industries) in all of these regions...while Chicago is non-existent from a recruiting standpoint...
Don't worry, both of them are quite prestigious and well-received around the world. I think the biggest advantage too for Chicago is that you have the possibility of going into graduate programs in Economics if you are interested.
Maybe, but Chicago is where all of the prop shops are and where a lot of the growth in finance is. It looks like OP already mailed in his decision form, and I don't think his decision has hurt him very much in the long run. UChicago has a very unique culture among the top ten universities.
illini's newest UChicago advertising: It is the same as Harvard/Princeton if you don't live in the east... lmao
p.s. OP both schools will put you in good position, you as an individual make the difference.
Well, this is now coming from someone with some experience with both schools. Grew up three miles from Hyde Park. You guys forget that 3/4 of the US population and economy is not northeast of Philadelphia.
Equal on all levels, except that Wharton gets more recruitment because it actually teaches some courses that one can actually use on the job. This gives Wharton huge pull even over other top Ivies like Princeton as well (compare finance placement between the two, and you can see that Wharton absolutely demolishes Princeton). The only school that does better up against Wharton (with Penn added, it's about equal) in finance and consulting is Harvard College, which isn't a choice here.
That said, UChicago is a fantastic learning environment with a top-notch economics major, a very intellectual atmosphere, and a very bright future. If you have goals other than finance, I wholeheartedly recommend UChicago. Otherwise, Wharton all the way. No contest.
Agree that 40-50% of the students at Wharton consider it their top choice. Same with Chicago Econ. Same with about two or three dozen schools.
Biased opinion probably, but all I can say is I never met anyone from UChicago during my superdays... Things are different outside of finance I'm sure, but I don't think you're gonna do much better than Wharton in finance unless you're into that theoretical shit like you said.
while some on this message board will point out the slight edge Wharton has over UChicago Econ in recruiting, you made a personal choice to go with the a more intellectually exciting environment. good chioce.
heck... maybe you'll change your mind about banking. this probably positions you better for a PhD if that's what you want to do later.
Echoing to that.
OP, just work on building a network with alumni and other professional in econ and finance. You will have Chicago stamped on your resume, now the rest is your work. Play your charm.
fuck reputation.
chicago = intellectuals, wharton = finance grinds. no one is "better" just better/not better for YOU.
from what you describe UC is the best choice for you. congratulations on getting into a fine school, i am sure you will make the most of it.
@illini: Is that the famous (infamous?) 'rusty Honda'? :D
No. The honda pictured can still go up steep hills without the driver having to get out and push. :D
(In all seriousness, the real rusty honda is a 15 year old ford mustang).
I don't know why I said last year. I meant I picked this year - submitted deposit.
I can see that a Wharton degree has more reaches in the finance world, but the main reason I picked UChicago was because the kids at Wharton seemed like pre-professional, pretentious douchebags. The vibe at Chicago was more "I'm doing this for the sake of learning" and I appreciated that more.
I also felt as if Wharton were more limiting - what if I do change career prospects in college?
And for investment banking, its not like a UChicago degree is undesirable is it? Don't forget that I can take finance classes at Booth my third and fourth years.
Yeah... alright from what you just wrote, I'm like 99.99% sure you didn't get into Penn. Nice troll.
That said, congrats on Chicago.
Finally, how in the world is an undergraduate business degree more limiting than a liberal arts one (including econ in liberal arts, obviously)?! With an undergraduate business degree you're qualified to work in a number of roles in the corporate world. With a college liberal arts degree, even one from Harvard, at the end of the day you're only qualified to be a barista.
Also, you talk about pretentiousness? Lol, walk into an IvyLeague or equivalent physics or philosophy class and compare it to a business-oriented one, and then come back and repeat what you posted. Liberal arts kids define pretentiousness.
Dude what the fuck are you talking about. How are physics students pretentious?
bad choice man. Upenn is still an ivy.
Again, this is a very New York centric forum. We tend to forget that 3/4 of the US economy and population lies southwest of Philadelphia, and we haven't even gotten to international stuff.
MIT, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Chicago, Northwestern, Berkeley, Amherst, and IIT India all compete on a level or sometimes even an advantaged playing field against many if not most of the ivies. Just ask any engineering major at Harvard how recruiting is going. Different schools have different strengths
LOL so are Brown and Cornell, and I'm sure people would pick Stanford over those.
^shut up Spectro.
Haven't read all of the comments, but I think this comes down to what you actually want to learn. UChicago Econ and UPenn finance are the best at what they do, so if you want to learn economics then UChicago is a great choice. Good stuff.
Seedy Underbelly, I'm not trolling. I'm just conveying the vibe I got from my visits - Penn during their debate tournament this year. A few of my judges were Wharton students, and I know a few people at Wharton. I will say that although I still do think Wharton kids are douches, Penn kids do know how to party.
I read somewhere that 75% of Wharton go into consulting or banking, with the rest mainly to graduate programs. Either a lack of diversity or career prospects limited to financial world.
Penn alum here. Relatively speaking, I agree with you that we're one of the few who DO know how to party (given, we don't know how to party compared to 95% of schools out there, no argument there) And yes our students are douchebags, but guess what, so are UChicago kids. Douchebags are everywhere at prestigious schools. There's normal kids too though. If you're not a douchebag you will find other non-douchebag kids and it won't be a problem.
Sounds to me like you didn't get in. Your reasoning doesn't make much sense, and it could be the way I was raised and the way I think, but I don't know many people who legitimately enjoy "learning for the sake of learning." Honestly I'm not sure what that means, I think it's something people made up to justify their actions, kind of like "life is short" and "change is good." They don't make any fucking sense but whatever helps you come to a decision...
As for diversity, we don't really have a lack of that, we just have a business school. A good one. So obviously most kids are going to go into banking or other "high finance" jobs that pay better on average. Not many of us planned to go on to be tax accountants, or else we would have went somewhere else.
In short, if you plan on going into banking, Wharton was probably the right choice. If you want to learn theory and possibly stay in academia or do something that will allow you to avoid the craziness that is recruiting and finance, UChicago was a good call. Can't knock you for choosing either way, but gotta defend the alma mater from broad generalizations like that.
P.S. Who would ever let a Wharton student judge a debate about anything?!
FYI folks, got into UChicago (with merit money), Stanford, Wharton, UNC, and Cornell. Waitlisted at Dartmouth. Rejected by Duke (the fuck), Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
UChicago is also the cheapest because of merit money. Honestly, I'm trying to justify picking uchicago, thus the obvious bias in my posts...
At Wharton, you get very good recruiting and etc, but I personally believe that a liberal arts education is crucial as a part of your college education. It's sad but, you need to make a trade off if you want to work in finance. i.e., you have a better shot if you go to Wharton vs UChicago when I'd personally pick Chicago if I didn't need to consider recruiting.
The Wharton vs. UChicago debate comes down to whether you'd want to be an intellectual or a practical finance person. I'm clearly biased toward the former as well, but I'd caution you not to underestimate Wharton's international reputation as well (since you mentioned UChicago has a better one), it's not quite true.
Side note (not a very important point): I'm sure you're a capable person and all, but do keep in mind that a lot of bright kids at Wharton also don't get a shot because the competition is also higher.
Someone also mentioned not seeing any UChicago people at superdays... In general I'd agree, but I think it's more of a self-selection bias. Also, I've seen UChicago people at Bridgewater's interviews, but didn't see anyone from Wharton.
OP, it's probably not too late to switch. You'd probably lose your uchicago deposit though--a small price to pay if you want to go to wharton.
I think that with the scholarship, OP made the right decision. Wharton offers an advantage for NYC Banking, but it is not worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Seriously, the NYC mentality reeks on this forum. Just because a school happens to be within 150 miles of NYC does not mean it's far better than Stanford, Chicago, or Oxford. It just means that more people land in NYC banking from that school.
It doesn't matter. NYC is dying anyways. Between high grain prices, a recovery in the industrial sector, and HFT, the future is in Chicago.
Agree that given the scholarship at Chicago it probably got the OP more "bang for his buck." That said, your NYC / finance point still is very narrow, Wharton undergrad trumps Chicago undergrad in initial opportunities across the board in finance (S&T, IBD, corpfin, etc.), consulting, tech, energy, marketing, etc. in most parts of the world - excluding Chicago.
Wharton has advantages in areas that are going to become irrelevant in a world of declining GINIs and growing government. It's going to be like being from Harvard in the 1950s.
Wharton mainly opens the doors to NYC Banking, but UChicago is no doubt a great school from which you will have no trouble finding a career after graduation.
Lol people are really questioning whether he got into Penn because he visited and doesn't want to become a finance drone? Get a life. UChicago is a great school and he will have many doors open because of it, perhaps less of the corporate stuff not being at Wharton, but i'm sure he won't be on the streets if he wants a corporate job. Also, Blackhat that whole "I dont know what learning just to learn is" has to be one of the stupidest things i've read on this site, and actually confirmed OPs assessment of UPENN kids(you being one of the apparently) are nothing but finance drones.
p.s. you should have gone to Stanford
I'm still lol'ling at the fact that you guys are actually believing OP. While UChicago is a good school, it's obvious the OP didn't get into Penn or any of the other schools he's claiming he got into. Just read this damn post and see his reasoning.
if this is trolling... then it's some very weird, very subtle trolling.
Does it even matter if Chicago turns out to be the better choice four years from now?
NYC is in decline. The banks are dying. Meanwhile corn is hitting $9/bushel, HFT is expanding, and Midwestern manufacturers are more competitive than they've been in 50 years. If you can get into one of Chicago's or Northwestern's better programs, why not go?
It's like getting into tech in the late 70s. The Midwest and South have all of the resources and all of the infrastructure.
One of the smartest kids from my high school just got a Gates Scholarship to Cambridge coming out Chicago. Chicago >>> Wharton for academic work, especially if you want to go onto grad school. They do a very good job of placing for top scholarships, including the Rhodes, Gates, Goldwater, Marshall, etc. Having said that, Wharton >>> Chicago for finance / industry placement. However, the difference is negligible in that you will have the opportunity wherever you go. Just kick ass from Chicago and you will be fine. I know professors at top ivies, businessmen, etc. from Chicago. You just have to find the people you need to network with, which may be a bit harder at Chicago vs. a top-Ivy. Contrary to popular belief though, being a Harvard/Princeton undergrad does not make it an automatic shot into top banking firms. It's up to you to network and succeed wherever you end up.
Yes, I'm a troll. I spend my spring breaks trolling and making an account on Wall Street Oasis (and College Confidential). That's how I roll, bro.
I'm just trying to rationalize my decision. I can back out (and lose $500 deposit), but over the course of 4 years, I'm saving around 30k (Chicago gave me 10k merit aid/year and Wharton and Stanford were both 7.5k/year more), and I think I can still break into finance from Chicago. It's just how much effort I take I guess to network, etc.
Thinking about econ research at Duke or UNC this summer if I can get a professor to work with me...
if you are poor, consider the money. if you are not, go to the school you want to go to. in the LR the cost will smooth out.
Lol, why is IP selling Chicago so hard?
It's hard to screw this choice up in my personal opinion. Both are great schools, congrats
I also agree that it's tough to screw this up. Both Wharton and Chicago are top choice schools for about 50% of the incoming class. New Yorkers hate Chicago's culture, and it literally drives them out of their minds that a simple non-pretentious school can do so well in the placements and the rankings. Seriously guys, it really is possible for a non-douchey school to kick the butts of most ivies.
Us Midwestern transplants get annoyed by the northeastern focus here in New York where folks consider Swarthmore a better school than Stanford or Oxford. We like folks who are quietly competent. It annoys us that Wharton can place so well in New York when we don't see its academics or the quality of its students as being any different than Northwestern, let alone Chicago. But the proof is in the pudding on placements.
Freshwater perspectives vs. saltwater perspectives. But given that there are going to be 10 billion hungry mouths to feed in the world, given that China is running out of cheap factory workers, given that we are in a shrinking GINI economy, and given that HFT is really taking off, my hunch is that the freshwater perspectives are going to have increasing clout over the next fifty years. If that's the case, our kids are going to be using the term H/C/P/N rather than H/Y/P.
Idunno. Coming from someone who is actually working in industry, I'm pretty happy where I am coming out of a state school, and Chicago Econ is much stronger than Illinois engineering. Cost was a huge factor in my undergrad decision. I might have graduated UPenn and landed somewhere better; I might have graduated UPenn and landed somewhere worse. What I do know is that I graduated debt free and made (and saved) some pretty good money afterwards.One ranking of world academic reputation of the entire university (undergraduate + graduate): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/15/top-100-universitie…
Chicago's a great school that demands the utmost regard of, well, everyone. You won't have to work extra hard to break into a top BB. If you felt Chicago's a better fit for you, then you made the right choice. Hell, it's rarer to see a Chicago grade in banking, so it might even give you an edge, if anything.
I chose WashU over UChicago. Dorms and food were way nicer, #priorities
Please for the love of God don't make the mistake of choosing UChicago over Wharton. You will regret that choice for a LONG time. The Wharton brand doesn't just help one break into finance ... it opens doors deeper than that. And the doors will stay open to you for a long time. Do you really think all the kids at Wharton didn't get similar scholarship offers from schools like UChichago?
shut up. how would you know this?
Because while UChicago is a great school, getting in there is a joke.
Illini, quite with the Chicago trolling.
I don't think you understand just how selective some of the top funds out there are. When you are only hiring 1-2 candidates a year, you can afford to ignore anyone who didn't go to HYPSW even if they worked at GS TMT.Both are great schools but for getting into investment banking--if that's what you really want--I think Wharton is worth that extra 30k, imo.
@FranciscoDAnconia, I mixed up last night and this year to create the ever more confusing 'last year'. I guess 'this night' would have been easier to spot lol.
@Seedy Underbelly, honestly stop being a fucking douchebag. And do me a favor and actually look up UChicago's acceptance rate and test scores. It was 15.8% last year and it will be around 12% overall this year. Might I also mention that average SATs are higher than Stanford? Seriously, HYPS+other Ivies are awesome and all, but stop undermining UChicago.
You are from an Ivy League school, right? Explains the douchebaggery/attitude.
Didn't intend to sound douchey. Just saying what's true. I personally prefer UChicago over my Ivy and would recommend it to those choosing between the two.
Also, acceptance rates are meaningless. Columbia (6.9%) made Princeton (8.7%) look like a safety school last year when comparing acceptance rates, but do you really think that that mere statistic reflects the reality of the situation?
Anyways, I'm done with this thread. I'm positive you didn't get into Penn simply because your reasoning for choosing UChicago over it is so utterly flawed. You didn't have to come up with this nonsense.
Well, the nice thing about Chicago is that it was a top choice school for maybe not 80-90% like Harvard, but probably something on the order of 40-50% of the students, especially in Math and Econ. This compares favorably against most of the other Ivies.
Well at the very least you sound a little inexperienced and New-York-centric.Not every great job is in NYC. Yes, Wharton and Columbia beat Chicago for NYC jobs and maybe finance jobs on the coasts. You need to get out more, Seedy. What was the longest time that you spent more than 200 miles from NYC?
How many times have you said that and come back five posts later? LOL, Seedy. Not everyone sees Wharton or Cornell or Columbia or even Harvard/Princeton/Yale as these amazing schools that completely blow Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Duke, Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley out of the water. They are good schools if you are 100% sure you want to work in New York. Otherwise, Wharton is one of two dozen or so top tier schools that have a lot of bright students and at least a couple douchebags. Columbia and MIT game the numbers and reject students they believe are going to get accepted at and choose Harvard/Yale/Princeton. It's fairly well known that Columbia's acceptance rate is more like 50% for students in the 3rd-10th percent of their high school class who pay three or more visits to the school. Columbia in particular seems to have this sort of inferiority complex that permeates the professors, admissions committee, and students on campus. Frankly, as a parent, I am going to send my kids to Berkeley or UVA before I send them to Columbia. Columbia may have the better program, but the culture is very unhealthy.I don't think Chicago does that. I do think that their admissions decisions are much more metric-heavy than the east coast schools. SAT scores and high school class rank tend to be a lot more make-or-break on applications to Chicago. Chicago takes the 3.8 GPA student with the 2300 SAT and no extracurriculars while rejecting the 3.6 2200 who was the high school quarterback who won state; Columbia picks that kid up while rejecting the grind (as long as the football player visited at least three times and let them know he'll accept if admitted).
I come back to laugh at nonsense like this.
Feel free to rejoin us at the adult table when you get over the insecurity. There's two or three dozen or so good schools globally, and each has their strengths. Chicago and Columbia are both on that list. There are also smart people everywhere and dumb people everywhere. But why do SO MANY Columbia alumns have insecurity issues? It's like some running gag from a sitcom.
UChicago is a great school academically and you'll really like living there, that city can be a lot of fun. Enjoy.
Oh, so you'll know he'll regret it for a LONG time because of that? Because top funds only recruit out of undergrad, right? and if you don't get in from ugrad, then your career is destined to not be as good as a Whartonite's, right?
Anyways, we're talking about ugrad here, so how the hell would a ugrad have worked at GS TMT? And what makes you think that they'd rather have some kid from Wharton over somebody who was in GS TMT (you know, has actual finance experience)?
You need to understand that not everybody has the same goals in life as you and that they're not going to regret a decision just because you would. If I wanted to be around intellectuals, I'd go to Chicago. If I wanted to be around career hungry finance whizzes, I'd go to Wharton (way oversimplified, I know). It depends on the person and their personality/goals.
edit: Oh, and if you can't do well for yourself with a degree from UChicago... it's your own damn fault, not your school's.
It's flawed logic to assume that means you're getting the smartest / best suited for the job. That just means you have an acknowledged bias in your recruiting and "good enough" is, well, good enough? As long as they went to Penn I suppose.
At the OP, can you clarify what you mean by "public standpoint"?
If you mean reputation with my great grandmother, she only knows Penn because she was born in Philly, but she's heard of the city of Chicago.
If you mean reputation on Wall Street, Wharton undergrad is only equaled by Harvard. If you mean reputation with few the banks and PE shops that are not in NY, Wharton undergrad is only equaled by Harvard. Chicago is strong, even outside of Chicago, but it is not in the same class as Wharton and Harvard.
If you mean reputation with quant-focused hedge funds and HFT funds like Illiniprogrammer keeps talking about, I don't know. I would speculate that Harvard, MIT, Wharton, Chicago, Stanford, and Princeton are all strong in this space. MIT, I imagine, is the strongest.
If you mean reputation among research institutions in the field of economics, I don't know. My guess is that Chicago economics is in a class with Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, while Penn, Princeton, and Yale are a step below.
@Illiniprogrammer: I see your point about East Coast bias, but you also have a pronounced regional bias. I grew up in the South, where Vanderbilt and Duke have superior reputations to those of Chicago and Northwestern. Try getting a job in Charlotte or Atlanta out of Chicago. Similarly, Rice is Texas's version of Chicago, especially if you want to trade oil/gas in Houston. On the other hand, Wharton has a strong reputation everywhere.
On a separate point, I would bet that the majority of the financial companies in the US are based in the NY area. Thus if you are looking for a job in finance, a school with a great NY area reputation would make job hunting easier than would one without it. A school with a great national reputation in finance would make job hunting even easier.
Best of luck to the OP. As some have said, both are exceptional schools.
If you went to UChicago to learn "theoretical economics" before finance you might as well have gone to Caltech to learn "theoretical mathematics" before "theoretical economics."
LOL at UChicago, you have to learn theoretical mathematics (and by that, I mean proofs in calculus, etc.) before they even let you past intro econ.
I saw some references to this in the thread, but what are prop shops? Are these firms that trade derivatives...because I thought investment banks still do that...?
i will bet that OP will not want to be a banker within 3 years' time.
Thank god I'm not going into IB/PE then.
Investment largely banks do over the counter trades with large institutional clients. They also merge big companies. They also do some of what the prop shops do, but it is mostly about relationships with big financial players.
Prop shops sit on the exchange and trade currency, stock, options, and exchange traded derivatives. They generally operate in liquid markets and do 100,000 10-lot trades instead of 20 10,000-lot trades every day.
Because of the CBOE, CME, and CBOT, Chicago is a huge center for proprietary trading in the same way that Stamford, CT is a huge center for hedge funds. I'm going to get yelled at if I try to compare it to New York, but I think the analogue to hedge funds in CT is fair; some prop shops are in NYC or London; some are in places-of-all-places Chicago. Chicago has Jump, DRW, GETCO, CTC, Wolverine, Peak6, and if you count hedge funds with huge proprietary exchange-based market making businesses, Citadel.
There are prop shops everywhere; many of them are in New York and London; many of them are in Chicago, and they- along with the insurance industry and the exchanges- make up about 80% of the high paying finance jobs in the city.
Wharton places better than HYPS. Fact.
^^They also cost $100K more than Chicago is costing this guy. Assuming a 10% cost of capital, I don't think the difference between UPenn and Chicago is really worth $7 million over a 45 year career.
UPenn is an excellent school. But unless you already have a million or so in a trust fund, cost is something a lot of folks don't pay enough attention to.
Wharton hands down. You want to go into banking.
Here's another plug for Chicago - I've been a CS grad student at Chicago for 2 years, and am starting FT at Booth this fall. You made a great choice - Chicago gives you a wider variety of experiences and options, but still positions you well to break into banking if that's what you still want when you graduate. If you do actually enjoy learning, and being around others that enjoy learning, then there's no question you picked the right one.
Honestly, of the schools you got into, I would pick Stanford over both Chicago and Wharton. I'm a computer nerd though, so I view it through that lens.
I get that - there isn't necessarily a better way to filter it down. You're all Wharton guys at your shop, and there is a natural preference for other Wharton guys, all other qualities being pretty much equal in a stack of 200 resumes. But that bias doesn't exist everywhere, and plenty of Chicago kids (if they want it) break into IB.
And breaking into IB is the easy part. Even all the GS TMTs and MS M&As that make you beta bros jelly as fuarkk are easy as fuarkk to attain in comparison to true generation of preftigious cash money investment ideas on the buyside. But most of you will never even get to realise that. Shame. But I need beta bros like you to support my preftigious pedestal.
heh, no chip here. you can keep your wharton bros, your ivy pedigree, and your $500k bonus. that's the prestige of the 80's. The prestige of today is a tech startup; coincidentally I just incorporated with 3 friends and former colleagues to develop and deliver a set of tools to F1000 companies. My consulting bros and my computer nerd compatriots, leveraging our wide network of executive connects, already have 8 large companies interested in the concept, without even having a beta ready. I'll be starting at Booth in the fall, spending the next few months developing the product, and my first year pimping it to people I meet (at least, the companies they came from). So, in 7 years when I've been clearing $10M a year and we sell to Computer Associates for $150M, we can reconnect and compare pedestals brah :)
This is why investment banking and finance has a bad name. It’s not about prestige but doing the right thing. Prestige isn’t that important once you are in the door. Frankly the prestige driven people take the already pathed path. The most successful people are the ones that are driven by intellectual interest and create new paths.
Its hilarious trying to defend UChi over Wharton. First off, if you are trying to break into finance Stern is second, whereas Wharton is first (assuming undergrad). No one is saying that UChi is a bad school, its just retarded to think its on par to Wharton. As illini pointed out, if money is the factor then going to UChi could make sense (Id personally rather take out loans).
Stern? What are you smoking?
I don't think anyone is saying Chicago gives him a better chance at IB, especially in NYC. That's clearly false; the percentage of Wharton grads that get high finance jobs is going to be much higher. What people are saying is that Chicago gives him a pretty decent shot if that's what he still wants when the time comes, and when you consider other factors (i.e. learning environment, location, wider educational focus, and then of course, the cost benefit in his specific case), it's not a bad choice. Chicago positions him well for entry to IB (if not as well as Wharton would), but also gives him other options if his interests change over the 4 years he's in school. That happens to a lot of us, so telling the guy he's a moron for picking Chicago over Wharton is a pretty one-sided view.
Also, as pointed out, if he stays interested in markets but not necessarily IB, then Chicago is a great place to be for derivatives and commodities - arguably better than being in NYC.
OP, I'm graduating from Wharton ugrad this May and from what you've described as far as what you're personally looking for in an education, you made the right choice. The preparation for a real-world IB job that Wharton provides is unparalleled but like you said, if you're looking for a more theoretical academic education then Chicago is the place.
i don't understand why so many people keep saying that chicago has more career options than wharton. first of all, picking up another degree in the college once you're in wharton is EASY (if you can handle the work...i just mean it is very easy for penn to qualify you to be able to pursue another degree once in wharton), which essentially expands your academic and career options significantly. Basically any position in finance, wharton is strongest for recruiting, but also almost any other professional services position including consulting.
also, you want to be in nyc. someone on this thread keeps trying to justify why chicago is all that (trading is growing there or something), but that is a very limited view (how many traders are there out of every graduating class, compared to bankers or consultants?). chicago is lame compared to nyc.
Dude, you're golden. Chicago is a phenomenal school. The banking connections may or may not be quite as good as Wharton, but I've also heard that you'll learn much better theoretical at Chicago and you will have plenty of opportunities for recruiting there. Don't worry.
^^^ But it's named after a state, so it can't be as prestigious as the trolls make it out to be. ;-)
UPenn Wharton and Chicago are both great schools. UPenn is a better choice if you want to do NYC banking, but the scholarship tips the scale in favor of Chicago.
I live in Europe and Wharton is more well known here but from what I read on this UChicago is extremely well respected. It seems like many doors are open to you no matter which school you pick.
Cool. Me too now, apparently. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like we're any different than the folks on the engineering campus at a good state school let alone folks at UChicago.
Oh well, back to my rusty honda.
upenn
I'd also argue that going to a school that is "prestigious" or highly ranked isn't as important in banking/S&T than for other professions, especially academia. Schools that are in the top 30 or so and even beyond have many BB recruiters - sure, Wharton's got more recruiting than a 20+ school like Georgetown, but the opportunities are still there. Going to Wharton will only help you get your foot in the door - if you are unprepared for the interviews, you'll go nowhere, in contrast to a person at a semi-target who will get somewhere by knowing their shit. Networking is also much, much more important than going to a top school. If you're at a school that's 30 or above or so, the opportunities will be there if you know your stuff and network just as much as they would be at a top 3 school. Now I'd argue the value of a top 3 school comes in more for graduate school opportunities, especially law school, but that's a different issue.
Prestige itself doesnt matter. College is a means to an end, whether your looking to use the careers office, professors, or the booklearnins themselves. All that matters is making it work for your goals and making $ out of it.
$ Matters.
You guys are better off boasting about your salaries than where you went to school (It would also be more entertaining).
saving 30 k over 4 years... because of that you chose Uchicago over Wharton... troll
LOL NewGuy is a real G and a real pimp.
OP, I'm not following your train of thought. If you are legitimately intending to go into IB, this is a no-brainer. Your GPA and career options in finance will thank you for going to Wharton. The culture at UChicago really doesn't fit IB as well. Those douchey pre-professionals at Wharton? Those are bankers. If that doesn't seem like the path you want to follow, than UChicago is solid from an academia perspective, but your GPA will reflect that, and you're going to have to network that much harder to gain that ground back. I'd take Northwestern over it for several reasons, but to each his own. Make this decision based on your career prospects, not what you want to learn unless the cost of schooling is irrelevant to you. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that just wanted to learn a little about music therapy before jumping into the job market, but it's irresponsible. Find what you want to do, and put yourself on the best possible path to get there. Don't wander around like you're lost.
1st, Columbia does not have an inferiority complex. Any parent that choose CU over UVA should have their child sent to Protective Services. 2nd, UPenn is considered the state school amongst the Ivies. Wharton is a completely different ballgame. 3rd, UChicago > Wharton is just blasphemy if you want to get into banking. Then again in 4 years when you graduate, how much of the IB market will exist for bulges?
To each is own I guess. I just wish I knew what you meant about an unhealthy culture.
Seriously. I'm not sure if it's better or worse to go to the #5 school or the #2 school, but I'm pretty sure it's healthier to go to the #5 school and worry about things besides what the #1 school is doing.
I know plenty of Harvard grads that are "snobs", along with a ton of Yalies, insert uni name here and repeat. You meet these people and walk away in disgust because the name of the university on your degree is merely a talking point during dinner parties. I think it's an age thing really because as you get older, one becomes more secure with themselves and your alma matter
I can easily say that most CU grads are down to earth compared to other Ivies because of NYC alone. It's humbling and opens students' eyes unlike isolated campuses. Hell, I encounter more pretension from NYU grads than CU grads. It varies.
Honestly, I tend to notice an inferiority complex from 2nd tier schools like Duke, UChicago, UVA, etc. Those graduates feel the need to make up for the fact that they didn't go to Ivies or Stanford.
In my experience, it's the students who go to the top-tier schools and lesser known Ivies who have a need to prove that they went to the best schools and are threatened by the success of the second tier schools like Vandy/ND/Berkeley/UVA/Georgetown, etc, so they act condescending. Many of the students who go to the top-tier schools got in because of affirmative action anyway and aren't as bright as many of the students of these "second tier" schools. Happened at my high school - the Valedictorian didn't get in to Princeton because the Salutatorian was a legacy and got in, and yet a black girl who was literally 30th in the class out of 300 with sup-bar scores got in. Nothing against the girl who got in because I wasn't the valedictorian anyway, but being a white male is a handicap for getting into a lot of these "top tier" schools.
Illini, I hope you realize that everyone not at Harvard College was hoping to attend another college.
Also, a lot of what you're posting is pretty offensive to Columbia students. Just saying. Saying Columbia students, who got into the second most selective college in the nation have more of chip on their shoulders than Chicago or Northwestern students, schools that are safeties for Columbia, is preposterous.
That's pretty subjective. I'm ex-military who's lived in Illinois most my life, and Columbia is my #1 choice by miles. While there's plenty of schools with outstanding OCR, great alumni networks, and so on, there's only a handful that give you the daily networking opportunities that you get from being in NYC, and Columbia is the top of the pack in that regards. With how huge of a business hub NYC is, there's got to be students from all disciplines that take that into consideration when choosing Columbia, for a variety of reasons. Sure, it might be a safety school for the leftovers from HYP, but I don't think that's enough for you to stereotype all students there as having an inferiority complex.
Columbians tend to believe there are three top schools, and Columbia is the fourth school on that list. As a contrast, engineers tend to believe there are several dozen top schools and we should really just be judged by our work.
A little. The folks I know from Columbia have mellowed out a bit. LOL, it's the Columbians who believe that these are second tier schools and it's the experienced hiring managers who defend those schools as being one of two dozen excellent schools.Acceptance rates for the most recent Class:
6.2% -- Harvard 6.9 ---- Columbia 7.1 ---- Stanford 7.4 ---- Yale 8.4 ---- Princeton 8.7 ---- Brown 9.6 ---- MIT 9.7 ---- Dartmouth 12.3 --- UPenn 12.6 --- Duke 14.9 --- Swarthmore 15.4 --- WUSTL 15.8--- Univ. of Chicago 18.0 --- Cornell 18.0 --- Northwestern 21.8 --- Tufts 24.1 --- Notre Dame 25.3 --- UCLA 32.3 --- Univ. of Virginia
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1115323-in…
[quote=seedy underbelly]Acceptance rates for the most recent Class:
6.2% -- Harvard 6.9 ---- Columbia 7.1 ---- Stanford 7.4 ---- Yale 8.4 ---- Princeton 8.7 ---- Brown 9.6 ---- MIT 9.7 ---- Dartmouth 12.3 --- UPenn 12.6 --- Duke 14.9 --- Swarthmore 15.4 --- WUSTL 15.8--- Univ. of Chicago 18.0 --- Cornell 18.0 --- Northwestern 21.8 --- Tufts 24.1 --- Notre Dame 25.3 --- UCLA 32.3 --- Univ. of Virginia
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1115323-in…]
I definitely agree with your post above regarding harvard and columbia, but I do think that acceptance rates aren't that indicative of school worth. After all, different numbers of students are applying to these schools in the first place and they have different class sizes.
[quote=seedy underbelly]Acceptance rates for the most recent Class:
6.2% -- Harvard 6.9 ---- Columbia 7.1 ---- Stanford 7.4 ---- Yale 8.4 ---- Princeton 8.7 ---- Brown 9.6 ---- MIT 9.7 ---- Dartmouth 12.3 --- UPenn 12.6 --- Duke 14.9 --- Swarthmore 15.4 --- WUSTL 15.8--- Univ. of Chicago 18.0 --- Cornell 18.0 --- Northwestern 21.8 --- Tufts 24.1 --- Notre Dame 25.3 --- UCLA 32.3 --- Univ. of Virginia
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1115323-in…] Self selection brother. I only applied to HYPSW. Columbia isn't quite preftigious enough.
LOL Seedy, how can it be offensive to Columbia students when you have been saying the same thing about the schools you consider "second tier"? If it's offensive to Columbia students, how is it not offensive to students at Duke? I just figured we were all adult New Yorkers working in finance and didn't get offended too easily.
According to Wharton they accept about 7%. Feels too low even though I'd like to believe it. These numbers don't mean shit though.
Columbia is the one Ivy that actively seeks out veterans. I'll give them that. If that's why you're going to Columbia, that's a bit of a different story.
I think this talk is ridiculous and you're splitting hairs. I think that how you fit into a culture of a school and whether you feel comfortable and will truly thrive there is so much more important than some asshole's rankings list.
Nah, the 2370 came with a summer of prep. The varsity track and field came with the legs I was born with. The As come because of my higher thinking capacity.
Oh, and I go to a white school.
If I am a nerd, things would change little if I were in a white body.
If you didn't get into HYP, blame yourself for failing to compare with the Asian bros who had even better stats than you, not other races brother. Nothing more annoying than whiny pathetic Asian bros with an inferiority complex.
Ps. I'm an Asian brother who got into HYPSW and graduated summa cum laude. U mad jellyyyyy brother?
I'm a white male who didn't apply to HYP but got into Dartmouth, I can say that a lot of it depends on regional priorities and school standing. I come from Florida and APs are very big there, but because of our location, HYPS only typically take one graduate per year and then one from the other high schools, regardless of stats (7 high schools in our county). So you may have been in a geographic area/school that they wanted more of, but at certain schools, you have to realize that no matter what the stats, they'll only take one sometimes. At my school, the valedictorian (one of my best friends) was a presidential scholar semi-finalist, had 18 AP courses, got 5s on almost all of them, was a band member, got a 35 ACT, clubs, etc, and got shafted because a black girl 30th in the class got into Princeton. So yes, sometimes you can blame the fact that you didn't get in on affirmative action. It does in fact cause a lot of injustices.
lol i'll bet anything it is W. affronted by OP choosing nerdy UChicago over your alma mater. no bigger inferiority complex than penn kids comparing themselves to pton.
Harvardgrad08, top analysts in your class may be from a variety of schools, but HYPSW grads still dominate associate positions at preftigious funds brother.
Thank you darknight12.
My stats qualified me for these schools, but I'm not heartbroken. In fact, over the past week, I've gotten more attached to UChicago.
A Princeton University study showed that for top 50 schools, for every 1 Asian, a white will have 3x the chance, a Hispanic 6x the chance, and a black 15x the shot. I'm a proponent of affirmative action, but I would just like to point out that qualified Asians get fucked.
NewGuy, the fact that you call me a brother every post, and spell prestigious 'preftigious' makes you look incompetent.
which school is better for phys commodities trading in terms of MBA
Guys, Princeton let a redneck from Illinois with a rusty honda in. These schools can't be that special.
There are smart people everywhere, and there are idiots everywhere. I think we do ourselves a disservice by judging ourselves by our job/school rather than the quality of our contribution, our ideas and our friends.
The very best students at Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Wharton, MIT, Berkeley, UVA, and UMich are of all about the same very high quality. So let's all drop the inferiority angst and get some sleep.
Totally agree...when you guys get to the real world like IP and myself you'll realize this and you'll start to judge people less and less by their school...it was a shock to some of my fellow analysts in my class when they realized that the top tier analysts weren't just HYPSW guys but also UT, Mich, no name state school, unheard of non-target, etc. The top guy in my analyst class was a bro from Arizona State...go figure.
you do realize that you will kill 40% of the WSO traffic if you stopped the presteej debates?
Funny how naïve I was not too long ago. In hindsight, I'm glad I came here because of the cost factor. I'm dead set on entering econ academia (or pubpol). Lol high schoolers should really not base where they go based on IB recruitment.
Definitely see more Wharton kids at top names, and in general Wharton is second to none with regards to sell-side/buy-side undergraduate recruiting. That said, if you're a top candidate at UChicago, you'll be just fine.
Ultimately it depends on what you're personally interested in getting out of college. At UofC you get the liberal arts pedigree in addition to great finance recruiting (we do have Chicago Booth), while at Wharton you forgo, but not necessarily, the liberal arts classes for superior recruiting prospects.
To put this in perspective: At UofC, you take a humanities, social science, civilization, and arts sequence, in addition to bio, chem, math, ect. Emphasis on the first three. This entire process takes about two years at most and it's an experience on par with what you'd get at a LAC. You also have the opportunity to take classes at Booth. At Wharton, from what I understand from talking with friends there, you take accounting and Excel classes beginning freshman year.
Again, this depends on the person.
Wharton vs UChicago Econ: in Hong Kong (Originally Posted: 12/20/2013)
I am currently a freshman at UChicago and I have a 3.92 GPA after a quarter of classes. I am thinking of a career in finance -- not on Wall St., but in Hong Kong (I'm from HK). Ideally, I'd like to transfer to Wharton, since I know Wharton has a pretty significant edge over UChicago Econ on Wall St, but I'm just wondering how much of an edge, if at all, it is in HK. Anyone with insights on the financial industry in HK is welcome to answer.
The landscape in HK is more concentrated, not less, than the one on Wall St. in terms of schools. Uchicago is on most of the target lists though.
If I were you, I'd transfer to Berkeley. Stronger name than Chicago in Asia as far as I know.
no. don't do this. you hvae a 3.92 in one of the best econ programs in the entire world and you're going to transfer to a UC (albeit the best UC)? out your mind to even suggest this.
yes, asia is a prestige whore clusterfuck, but as long as you don't work for some two bit bank, UChicago will carry weight and so will your 3.9 econ gpa.
with your stats, IF you're going to transfer, go for gold. HYPWS and maybe Columbia (although Columbia is more of a lateral than a step up, the ivy brand name carries a lot of weight).
Yes Wharton has the edge over Uchicago in Asia but i don't think that matters. Both are still top targets
Just remember-- internationally, "University of Chicago" and "University of Pennsylvania" both sound like state schools.
Bankers and their respecting recruiting teams are well aware of relative prestige of American and European schools.
(Disclaimer: I grew up in the Bay Area before going to school on the East coast and my dad is a Berkeley alum, so I've got a soft spot for the Golden Bears. I've also been pretty impressed with the Haas grads I've met in tech-banking/PE. So I'm not totally unbiased.)
I certainly wouldn't transfer to Berkeley from Chicago, but FWIW it is a primary target for every HK bank. Large number of HK expats go to school there and of course Haas is excellent, so Berkeley naturally has a good number of candidates for HK BBs to draw upon. Did a LinkedIn search and pretty large number came of HK-based Berk grads came up.
All that being said, Wharton is Wharton. I wouldn't worry about "University of Pennsylvania" sounding like a state school. Every investment banker at a firm you'd like to work at knows what Penn and Wharton are. If you can transfer in, do it. 100% of the time.
I agree with this; I'm sorry if my initial post came off too strong. Berkeley is still a fantastic school, and its grads do fine in recruiting (for example, Qatalyst takes a HUGE number of berkeley kids relative to their class size).
However, there's really nothing that you can't do from UChicago but can do from Berkeley, and it does have a stronger academic reputation.
PS LBJH, do you mind if I pm you a question?
Wharton has a slight edge over UChicago in HK. But it probably won't make much difference. Both place well.
I never said that I had the slightest intention to transfer to Berkeley...The question is regarding to UChicago vs Wharton, and from what I've gathered, Wharton has the slight edge in terms of recruiting? Given that I'm attending school in the US, how does HK recruiting work for me?
Assuming you can carry your 3.9 GPA through the econ sequence and have good extra curric's, you should have no problems recruiting for HK two years from now. HK usually goes a little before NYC and other US banks, so typically what will happen is you will interview through skype, potentially with a superday where you will go to NYC and meet with a mix of HK bankers that fly in along with NYC based bankers as well (sometimes).
and yes I'm only considering to transfer to HYSW (princeton doesn't take transfers). I just think that Wharton would be the easiest transfer out of the four, since I wouldn't have much of a legitimate reason to transfer to HYS, given they are all national universities like UChicago
.
I didn't apply out of high school. I got into UChicago EA and didn't bother applying anywhere else.
And yes, the problem is that I probably won't be able to hold on to a 3.9 for 4 years. I've only taken the huamnities/social science/bio core sequence (all mandatory) and calc 3 in the 1st quarter, and I heard the econ classes later on can be quite difficult, which is part of the reason why I want to transfer.
And I'm not saying that I will get in; I am asking if I should apply at all.
UChicago is already an impressive school and should be known in HK. I suppose it doesn't hurt to apply to Wharton just to see if you have the option to transfer, but the difference between the two aren't night and day.
What would make a material difference is networking in HK. Have you tried checking linkedin for Chicago alum? You can even try Booth (yeah, I know, not the same, but still worth trying).
The experience I had is, in HK since the expat community is the minority, it's almost sort of easier to relate to a loose connection (e.g., a US kid reaching out to someone who also went to a different US school, or by nationality - like a Canadian reaching out to another Canadian, an Aussie reaching out to an Aussie, or even US reaching out to Cdn [on account of both being from north america...]). And coming from a good school, you'll probably get some people entertain your networking efforts.
UChicago Booth has a branch in Hong Kong, so Uchicago isnt an school there
I would certainly look at HYSW for a transfer. GL.
Dicta et cumque ab dolorem quo voluptatum. Alias rerum reiciendis labore excepturi. Vel dicta minus sed fugiat animi. Cumque vel nesciunt pariatur. Id quaerat itaque non velit et. Omnis excepturi at necessitatibus et provident voluptatem quisquam magni. Veritatis quae saepe ad doloribus pariatur sapiente cumque inventore.
Eum neque facere cum ipsum esse nihil explicabo. Totam quasi in iste voluptates. Est eum atque vitae inventore iusto tempora non. Quibusdam molestias voluptas impedit officia fugit fugiat ipsa. Eaque animi rerum et officia ratione velit hic. Temporibus aspernatur incidunt iure.
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...
Est et ut nesciunt magnam quidem. Sequi veritatis et odit repudiandae dicta laudantium. Inventore adipisci impedit quia fugiat. Dolorem nihil accusamus laudantium totam veniam porro. Totam deleniti adipisci quia natus. Quaerat quo est quibusdam reiciendis fugit. Error adipisci dolor id.
Vitae eveniet repellendus velit eveniet quis vel omnis blanditiis. Facilis impedit libero id omnis est nihil dolor. Cupiditate nobis hic enim molestiae reiciendis quis harum eos. Quis sequi quidem in temporibus accusamus nihil.
Harum sit molestias qui quo voluptas. Eveniet ab quisquam aut voluptate porro consequatur sunt. Optio pariatur voluptatem dolorem porro consequatur. Sint et quidem at eaque fugit amet.
Voluptatibus quasi magnam culpa et. Commodi saepe et earum veritatis. Vel sint magni et rem temporibus beatae qui.
Non et quasi ea quaerat modi. Quod in iure corporis nobis non. Sit sed nam ex rerum sed qui porro. Voluptatem mollitia alias voluptatum perferendis. Nemo consequuntur ut quaerat eum molestiae architecto explicabo.
Voluptatem sit debitis nisi necessitatibus. Ea soluta non aliquam temporibus fugit et. Et ut est nisi voluptatem maiores qui quis. Enim dolores omnis architecto et impedit sit. Delectus vel fugiat tempora aut. Quis eligendi omnis aliquam voluptates maxime est maiores. Ullam tempora nisi laudantium sit rerum perspiciatis.
Iste doloremque dolor laboriosam cupiditate. Pariatur et ea nobis eveniet aut temporibus reprehenderit. Incidunt autem rerum ut temporibus molestiae ut. Vel totam autem earum ut repudiandae eos. Dolor facilis consectetur aut aut. Quae aut fugit veniam excepturi.
Accusamus quam at est et voluptatem. Qui voluptatibus dolores occaecati nam. Eligendi voluptatibus amet nam aperiam.
Non sint esse nihil. Dolores natus quos tempore est reiciendis. Est praesentium aut vel qui aperiam ipsum. Aut et ipsum amet in reprehenderit dolorem. Illo est quia sed culpa porro non.
Molestiae a ipsa repellendus deserunt. Reprehenderit quod explicabo qui architecto recusandae. Ullam recusandae molestiae dignissimos atque. Necessitatibus aut saepe architecto libero. Libero laudantium tempore et quisquam eos.
Asperiores quis velit sunt reprehenderit voluptatem labore natus. Totam officiis dolorum nesciunt dolor sed. Eum sit expedita odio vel quo quaerat suscipit. Aspernatur alias dolores magni reprehenderit quia aspernatur iste nesciunt. Officia velit aut quis ad amet rerum assumenda. Incidunt autem eum eveniet dolor occaecati at recusandae.
Illum quas maiores sit dolorem voluptatum voluptate. Non omnis delectus omnis id quaerat ab quasi. Voluptatibus est eveniet et ipsum incidunt. Qui hic dolores alias quibusdam dolorem non.
Corrupti error nisi id alias rerum omnis suscipit. Quasi aut non provident quia. Ut qui voluptatem error officiis ratione. Dolorem accusamus eum ad explicabo. Fuga soluta quas mollitia vitae non omnis est. Quibusdam natus id quia pariatur. Dignissimos vitae doloremque reiciendis incidunt eveniet facere sequi doloribus.
Dolorem non aliquid quas quasi nam vel. Perspiciatis nobis nulla a. Praesentium illum animi deserunt maiores molestiae fugit.
Officia quas voluptatum assumenda ut officiis assumenda sequi. Dolore architecto et ducimus hic. Odit modi odio et quis quas dolorem.