Undergrad: Cornell, Wharton, Yale?
Hi guys:
I'm a new user of WallStreetOasis.com and I hope to get some insight from you as to which school to choose for undergraduate.
I'm an international student (canada) who has recently been admitted to:
Cornell--school of industrial labor relations
Penn(Wharton)--waitlist only, should I wait?
Yale--math and econ major
I've also received offer from top undergrad b-schools in Canada, namely:
Schulich-iBBA
Queen's commerce
Ivey School of Business (western ontario)
As a Canadian, which school should I choose to maximize my chance of getting a job (after undergrad) in the banking industry on Wall Street? Is it impossible for international students to get employed on Wall Street?
Also, any insights on undergrad, majors, etc, are welcome!
Thank you very much!
yale, hands down. no contest. wharton is good for one thing and one thing only. you may decide not to go into IB later, yale will keep all doors open.
W
If you plan on working in IBD esp in the US, you should condsider the schools you listed in the order below
Go to Yale.
Wharton is obviously the big cheese in undergrad business, but you'll get a better educational experience (overall) and college experience at Yale -- and in the end, still have great access to jobs on Wall Street (if you are still interested in that by then -- you have to keep in mind that as hard as it may be to imagine right now -- you WILL change a lot in the 4 years you're in college, so you never know).
Alex Chu
If you got into Yale, then definitely go to Yale. If you get into Wharton off the waitlist, then definitely go to Wharton. It's the absolute best place you can possibly go if you're looking to go into business. Don't rule out Cornell since its amazing as well, but ILR doesn't hold a candle to the AEM program there.
I can't give you advice for the U.S., but in Canada Ivey is pretty much your only option for Wall Street, and maybe a few jobs from Queen's. I'm at Schulich BBA, we place 0 people on Wall St out of undergrad, and maybe 1 or 2 from MBA, however some are Osgoode (Law)/Schulich, so that helps them a lot.
wow..thanks for the advice, guys!
i've decided to go to Yale because, as many of you mentioned, i will probably change a lot in the next four years and Yale keeps all the doors open for me.
thanks!
what do you guys think about my major? math and economics
math is definitely my strength, but what kind of major is the best for IB job? (i'm not that bad at sciences but i don't love them as much)
sorry if the question has been asked many times...thank you in advance!
well by best major you mean most relevent, then that would be accounting and finance (which only Wharton has)...but after reading about the experiences of other americans who are on these boards, you can basically study whatever the heck you want at a school like Yale. I personally would drop the math major if you can and just do economics. That extra time studying would be better spent on extracurriculars and/or networking.
I majored in econ and... I have to say looking back I sort of regret it. The good thing about econ is that if you've got a good mix of math and writing skills (the "softer" classes), you'll do very well in terms of grades - it was pretty easy.
However, I took a lot of courses in math (and a few in philosophy) and if I were to do it all over again, I would major in math and philosophy - in other words, I would've flipped my courseload around by taking a lot more math and philosophy courses as the double-major, and then take the remaining electives in other "applied" subjects like econ, history, finance, etc. As for learning accounting - don't feel you absolutely NEED to learn it in undergrad. I took ZERO accounting courses, didn't know a lick of accounting when I was an IB analyst - and after 2 months of analyst training I still scored near the top of the class in accounting and finance without busting my ass any more than any other analyst (and I'm far from a genius - trust me, accounting is about learning the "rules" of how the numbers are grouped and classified - it's NOT hard).
The first year calculus classes everyone complains about (from engineers to sciences to econ majors and everyone in between) aren't representative of the upper level electives.
One thing about math is that the workload is relatively light - but the material can be very challenging.
I remember doing classes where the only "assignment" we'd have was every two weeks - and sometimes each assignment would have just ONE question -- but that question was basically like a brain teaser so it was always in the back of your mind no matter what you were doing...trying to figure out how the hell to solve it haha
Especially if you're going to be doing a degree from a great school such as Yale, don't limit yourself to the "practical" courses like accounting, finance, etc -- because you WILL get that training if you go into banking (and there is no evidence that doing a commerce or econ undergrad makes you any better of an IB analyst).
Take advantage of the "Yale" pedigree and really use that opportunity to really learn something challenging - as opposed to limiting yourself to what is "useful" or "practical" - that will come with work experience.
Why I would choose math and philosophy is because these two subjects are the foundation of virtually all disciplines.
Math is the analytical foundation for everything from physics, engineering, economics, and any of the "quant" aspects of business like market research, finance, and even chemistry and biology (a system of organizing and analyzing how organisms work, genetics), etc.
Philosophy is the conceptual foundation for just about everything from political science, history, sociology, anthropology, economic policy, etc.
In other words, math and philosophy collectively give you the solid foundation in which to apply to virtually any subject - in fact you can argue that every major of study is a derivative of these two subjects. Just about every aspect is some form of "applied math" or "applied philosophy".
It will be a true liberal arts degree -- teaching you how to think, using both sides of your brain (math: analytical, philosophy: critical thinking).
I'll give you an example. When I was studying economics, it was very frustrating to get through a lot of the math jargon that the profs would throw at us. It just seemed to be an endless series of formulas that came out of nowhere, without any sort of underlying theory or source for how these are derived. Even though it was almost 15 years ago (yikes!) I remember my multivariate calculus class where we learned the full Taylor series expansion and it was like you understand what calculus is really about (in first year calc, they only give you the first order or at most the second order expansion, which just confuses the sh*t out of most people). And along with differential equations and statistics, the econ math stuff just seemed like rubbish most of the time - and very easy to figure out because it was just an application of all this math that you've learned at a much more fundamental level (and with far less assignments and work, and math profs who are better at teaching math than the econ profs are at deriving formulas!).
The real value of economics I realized as a discipline then was the "soft" stuff -- not the analytics, but the policy implications. It was a combo of studying economic history (how the Depression came about, the stock market crash of 1987, savings and loans scandal, etc.) and economic development (why do certain developing countries grow far faster than others? Why is Africa continually in the dumps?).
Which then leads to philosophy. Economics is at its most useful when it's in the messy real world where formulas don't begin to explain everything. Because it's as much about politics, cultures, social norms, etc -- the study of human behavior, and the "systems" (whether they're political, cultural, religious, etc) that govern these behaviors.
And then you realize that the root of this is in philosophy. Our system of democracy is built on the concept of utilitarianism, which was closely associated with John Stuart Mill. Philosophy isn't about meditation, head in the clouds, etc. but is really about studying the concepts of the most influential thinkers in human history - from Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rosseau, Mill, Voltaire, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc. So much of our political systems, economic systems, religion, and so forth are based on a set of assumptions that come from these very authors. It's pretty amazing. And when you learn this stuff, it allows you to really pinpoint the root of so many political, economic and social issues that you would normally be studying in politics, history, economics and so forth.
So that's sort of my long-winded recommendation -- double-major in math and philosophy, and take electives in whatever "practical" or "applied" subjects in finance, economics, political science, and so forth.
This probably flies in the face of a lot of the "tunnel vision" approach of "do whatever courses to get the IB job" but trust me on this -- if you feel you have gray matter in that head of yours that is worth nurturing (i.e. you have intellectual curiosity and you're not just another business drone), the person you are 10-20 years from now will thank you for it.
Take my advice as well as everyone else's here with a grain of salt, since we're people from an internet message board and ultimately you have to decide what's right for yourself. But in my opinion, if you know you want to do finance or business, go for Wharton. If you want to keep your options open and have a very broad college experience, I'd probably go for Yale if I were you. As long as you come from a top school and have some demonstrated interest of finance, your chances of getting interviews on Wall Street will be fine no matter where you go. Wharton isn't a real option for you right now since you're on the waitlist, but you should very happy going to Yale.
As a way of context, I applied to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Penn (college, not Wharton), among others. I didn't know at the time that I wanted to do finance, and the kids at my high school that applied to Wharton all seemed like they knew they wanted to do finance from the get-go. I didn't have that same conviction, and in fact, I thought I would end up majoring in chemistry or applied mathematics. I thought maybe I'd end up on Wall Street somehow, but hadn't seen it happening and didn't even know what investment banking was till I was a sophomore in college. However, none of those schools would have prevented me from getting onto Wall Street as long as I was determined to do so, regardless of my major. Anyway, I'm glad I went to school where I did because I had a chance to take my classes in chemistry and applied math as I'd always wanted to do, before ultimately going down a path that was more paved for finance. I also met a lot of interesting people from different backgrounds in the process, and that was probably the most valuable part of my college experience in the end.
Anyway, I hope this feedback helps...and by the way, MBAApply has dropped lots of wisdom on this thread. Definitely consider the advice he's given, as it's good food for thought.
I find it absurd that people mold their undergraduate educations around the top 5-10 schools depending on which they feel will better suit their career interests in 5 years. Honestly, do you think that a choice related to your current interests will carry any weight in an interview 5 years down the road?
Business-type schools for undergrad are fine if you're certain that you're going to spend the rest of your life in that field...but it's important to note that they close more doors than they open. You can get the same opportunities from any school of the same caliber, whereas you cut yourself off from anything outside of business if you choose a strictly business route.
I had no problems getting interviews at MANY BB banks with a pretty good GPA (around 3.3 at a top school, nothing special by any means) and everything on my transcript screaming Pre-Med...regardless of what people may have you believe, it has very little to do with your undergraduate pedigree as long as the school is capable of churning out quality students. In my opinion, you end up shorting yourself with a limited education by focusing on business too early..because, frankly, business (and often econ) is a crappy choice for undergraduate study.
There was little to prepare me for my current offer in S/T. I simply showed my recruiters that I was smart, capable, and willing; regardless of my background. I think that if I'd specialized too early, I would've shorted myself massively on the quality of my education. And I was quick to emphasize that in my interviews. Such a stance is HIGHLY respected.
Keep in mind that finding a job is not the only thing you do in college. Definitely visit Yale and Wharton, and get a feel of the students and figure out which environment would make you happier. Wharton is stronger in business specifically, but Yale is still a top target. In other words, if you plan to go into business, neither place will hurt you. But regardless of whether you end up doing finance, Yale offers much more room for "exploration" as a new college student that an undergrad business school. And.. of course. Congratulations.
Go to Yale - and spend freshman year exploring everything you can get your hands on.
i kind of disagree, in the sense that in college, the only classes where i felt i've really learned something are those with the concrete knowledge--ie corp finance, econometrics, etc (and not my econ theory classes where i feel pretty confident i learned almost nothing). i had heard so much about the value of a liberal arts education, but in reality, i feel like i didnt get much out of it. but i think thats partially because the high school i went to had a strong humanities program...
the only real point i'm trying to make is think about yourself and what you want to learn--rely too heavily on others' advice (like i to some extent feel like i did) and you'll may end up with an education that you don't actually value.
you should obviously major in what interests you the most, but Alex's advice above is very good. The point of college education is to teach you how to think and solve problems. Math & philosophy are two of the best subjects to develop you in this way (for math, it is especially the upper level proof-based classes, not calc and difeq.) Once you become well versed in rigorous analytical thinking everything like accounting, securities pricing, corp fin, econ, etc will all be much easier. Employers want someone who "gets it" and can ramp up fast on any type of job, so that's the actual skill set you want to develop.
While I agree with most of what xqtrack said, I think you're missing the point of what school we're actually talking about here. I don't think theres any way you can't get value out of a degree from Wharton. Its so highly renowned that it really doesn't matter what you want to do as long as you do decently well there and get that highly sought after degree. For instance, I go to Penn and I have two friends graduating this year from Wharton, both of which have taken business and finance classes for 3 and a half years, and are on their way to Duke and Harvard Medical School respectively. They barely have taken any sciences classes in their lives, they just did well on the MCATS.
What I'm getting at is don't think you're going to pigeonhole yourself by going to Wharton. It's pretty much the ultimate door to Wall Street and beyond. At least thats what I've observed...
i definitely see what you and alex are saying, regicide...on the other hand, most of the kids i know who take upper level math proof classes aren't necessarily exceptionally good problem solvers--but they can understand abstract algebra (some of them are, of course, exceptional problem solvers). don't get me wrong, when it comes to certain subjects, like how to price a complex derivative, these kids are on point...but there are a lot of non-mathematical areas of problem solving where they aren't.
and as for philosophy, that it develops your argumentation skills is indisputable; but, there is a limit to how much any one person can improve these skills (or rather, an asymptotic limit). and again--problem solving? perhaps, i'm not sure. there is certainly a degree where philosophy becomes enveloped in a self-loving absurdity (really, how long can you tolerate talking about whether you exist?)
and without question, these same skills can be developed in any number of subjects. a good english or history program, for example, will not only teach you to make well-reasoned logical AND evidentiary arguments, but to do so with rhetorical flair. learning how to communicate effectively with other people (where you can't just say proposition 1. proposition 2. ergo i'm right and you're not, so suck on it or you'll get punched in the face) is important. so is learning how to form a theory based on evidence, and learning how to incorporate the messiness of the real world, where everything doesn't always fit. on top of it, you will still get the same grounding in logical thinking (making an argument about literature or history, after all, requires that you make some sort of sense).
all of which isn't to say you should become an english/history major. or an econ major. or whatever. but the idea that a math and philosophy major will unquestionably develop your problem solving skills better than other subjects is to me doubtful. it will develop some skills, other subjects will develop other ones. problem solving is fundamentally the business of life; the idea that there's one best way to go about this is to me absurd. i've found that certain types of people tend to lean heavily towards the math and philosophy tracks (ie they use similar modes of thinking, which is why you hear of math and philosophy as a common combo). that to me, would suggest that more than developing superior problem solving skills, the two subjects use types of thinking that appeal to a person with certain thought processes.
after all, if you look at all the role models you have in the world, all the people who you would want to emulate in finance, or really whatever, the top people come from all kinds of backgrounds. there must be some reason for that.
and i seriously take issue with the idea that math and philosophy are the foundation of all other disciplines. that, seems to me to be more the result of intellectual arrogance than anything else (these subjects are the ones that appeal to me--ergo they are the most important and foundational). i go to a university where professors do this all the time with each of their disciplines, whether it be philosophy or art, and really, there's nothing more pathetic.
as i said, there's a reason that math and philosophy appeal to similar types of people...and it's not that these are the only people suitable to contemplate the foundations of all knowledge.
math is everything. truth.
i am a non-math major.
Yale, but if you think you'll be smart enough for the submatriculation program, def. Wharton.
wow...
thanks for the replies, everyone!
MBAApply, thank you for your advice, i've emailed your reply to myself so that i can refer to it in the future =)
spiral9, couldn't disagree more.
I'd go to Yale.
Yale is arguably the best school in the world, go there.
Harum assumenda quo aut non numquam autem. Id vel voluptates ullam. Voluptates quasi debitis ab minus.
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...
Ullam aspernatur necessitatibus nam alias. Ipsa provident et nulla eos. Molestiae aut temporibus quas aut.