UCLA vs UC Berkeley recruitment for IB
In terms of recruiting, how prominent is UCLA among investment banks, including BB and boutiques, especially compared to UC Berkeley.
I've spent a lot of time researching and I've looked up literally every post with the tag UCLA but I can't get a clear answer.
I've heard some people say UCLA is a target, and others say its barely a semi-target. Some say that UC Berkeley beats it in terms of recruiting by a long shot and will give you access to NY and SF, while UCLA is limited to tiny LA offices that barely hire anyone.
I've looked on their career website, and there are plenty of banks that visit and have OCR there, but there is no way to get a number. From a career survey in 2011, Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi, BlackRock, are listed among the top 20 employers, and according to the data, each hired at least 5 students, but it doesn't give you any other data or the position they were hired for. Is it reasonable to assume that they were mostly analysts or could they have been back office positions?
Will choosing UCLA over Berkeley dramatically reduce your chances in the recruitment process down the line? I'm just confused because in various forums I've come across many people that said that you absolutely must go to UC Berkeley and get into the Haas undergraduate program if you want a decent chance because UCLA grads only get hired at a fraction of the amount and most will end up in Big 4 accounting jobs.
Does anyone have any other solid or anecdotal evidence about these claims?