What does it mean to be a target school?

If you are a target school at a certain firm, do they reserve a set amount of spots in their SA class to be filled by that certain target?

For instance, if X University was a target at Y Bank, would Y Bank reserve a certain amount of spots from X University?

 

From what I hear from friends in Ivies unless you are majoring in a research intensive area the quality of education and the work load are very similar to mine(small LAC). Its mostly the alumni base and prestige that keeps them going.

 

Targets get: - On-campus recruiting/interviewing/networking - Analyst/Summer spots reserved - Alumni interviewers - Recruited early in the season

Non-targets: - May have to submit application materials online or through contacts (as opposed to through a career center). Much smaller chance of getting noticed. - May have to interview over the phone or travel to the HQ/office for the first round instead of simply doing having it on campus. - May struggle to attend information sessions. - Are often recruited late in the season.

 
justanotherbanker:
Targets get: - On-campus recruiting/interviewing/networking - Analyst/Summer spots reserved - Alumni interviewers - Recruited early in the season

Non-targets: - May have to submit application materials online or through contacts (as opposed to through a career center). Much smaller chance of getting noticed. - May have to interview over the phone or travel to the HQ/office for the first round instead of simply doing having it on campus. - May struggle to attend information sessions. - Are often recruited late in the season.

I understand all this. What I am asking is about their actual education. I probably have the exact same textbooks as a target student, is his teacher able to more clearly explain the subject matter? Is a target school's education really better than mine? What is he learning that I am not?

 
onickjo:
What I am asking is about their actual education. I probably have the exact same textbooks as a target student, is his teacher able to more clearly explain the subject matter? Is a target school's education really better than mine? What is he learning that I am not?

Ugh...can't believe I'm helping beat this dead horse.

The reason why there are target schools is because banks only have so much time, money, and other resources to spend on recruiting. So they make target schools in order to limit costs of time and money. If the world was perfect and we had infinite resources, every school would be a target school. But due to the constraints, only a handful can be deemed "targets."

Even if targets get better books and better professors, it doesn't change the fact that banks don't go there for the time & money reasons.

 

Not to mention the fact that Target schools have more respectable and intelligent profressors. Learning from the brightest minds in the country is the ultimate educational advantage.

Ryan H.
 

There's a reason why targets are 'targets.' ON AVERAGE better professors, better students, more appropriate curriculum, along with the prestige, networking opportunities, and the rest.

 

It's all about the types of students you'll be competing with. Even if you learn the same material, due to curves, you'll have to work much harder at a target just to be at the same level as everyone else. Also, just because you learn the same thing information-wise doesn't mean you take exams of comparable difficulty. Take managerial accounting or even principles of economics at a target, and you'll see what I mean. I don't doubt that the non-targets know their supply/demand or cost accounting. But try taking one of the exams at a target. I'm sure there are bright students at non-targets, but the competition is much more fierce at a target, and getting through all that is why a target student is perceived to be better candidate.

 

wouldn't Ivies generally have better faculty staff (professors, advisors etc)? i mean.. saying that a school is prestigious because of the students is like saying there were cigarette addicts before cigarettes were ever made.

 

It's just like club sports back in the day - the tougher the competition, the more you develop. You get better playing in the toughest league and finishing last than you do winning the shit league.

 

Where to begin. People at targets are almost always smarter, more well-rounded, more motivated, more cleanly, and the guys, at least, are better looking. Probably most importantly there's no sense of inferiority complex at targets. This inferiority complex and insecurity frequently carries into the workplace for non-targets, and that is why you generally see target-school kids advance to the upper levels of finance. Non-targets frequently switch into operations or shoe-shining after their two year analyst stint ends.

 

I find it interesting you mention the inferiority complex. Being at Stern, there is a mixed current of both brash self-assuredness and a resentment of Penn/Wharton. The latter is a bit more under the surface, but is definitely there. That said, I'd tend to shy away from generalizations about self-esteem; Johnny Sixpack could go to UDel or whatever, bang himself some nice sorority babes and feel damn good about himself while having an uncle in IBD that gets him into GS.

 

Yeah I mean why do the NFL and NBA mainly draft division 1 athletes instead of D2 and D3? Do football players at SEC schools play more games than D2 players? Do they play by different rules? Is D3 basketball not real basketball?

 

I go to a school in Canada that has quite a bit of firms recruiting for ibanking. We have the big 5 CDN banks:TD, BMO, CIBC, RBC & Scotia. As well as some CDN BB firms such as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and I think we had MS and CS this year also. But these firms all take like 1 person each (being in Canada).

Would we therefore count as a target school?

 

I think someone else brought this point up before in a much older post, but there is a smaller chance that you are going to get a bad candidate from a target than a non-target. Meaning, out of 10 candidates from a target, 7 or 8 are going to be a competent to good analyst, whereas a non-target has a wider distribution of talent, so maybe only 1 or 2 of the 10 would be competent to good candidates.

Thus, the hiring risk of target schools are a lot lower than non-targets. The non-targets that make it are the 1 or 2 out of the 10 that go out of their way to show they are competent.

 

Sure if you got money go to a target school, pay for the experience. But if your a true baller go to a non-target and if your good you can work for any company and any division still. Yes targets have all the top firms come, but you can pay 1/4 the tuition price and still get the same jobs

 
But if your a true baller go to a non-target

If you're a true baller, go to Harvard where financial aid is outstandingly generous:

"Under new financial aid guidelines, parents in families with incomes of less than $60,000 will no longer be expected to contribute any money to the cost of attending Harvard for their children, including room and board. Families with incomes in the $60,000 to $80,000 range contribute an amount of only a few thousand dollars a year."

Source: Wikipedia

 

Baller don't need financial aid duh, anyways that shit is for poors. ginNtonic hit it right now. Targets are recruited because they are visit a few schools and get quality people. I'm not really sure why ibanks don't hit up big state schools, even Univ of Alabama is bound to have a lot of 1400+ SAT students, but also I guess it had to do with alum. My friend at yale told me someone always get MS IBD from his frat. Even if there is someone smarter at a non-target, their gonna take kids from schools they know and have gotten quality people in the past.

Better teachers? Give me a fucking break. Being a prestigious prof is all about your research and papers, nothing to do with actual teaching ability.

BTW class difficulity is the same at most big state non-targets and targets, at least in econ at schools like yale/princeton and my non-target school.

 

Class difficulty is certainly not the same..how can it be when grades are on a curve and the quality of students you're competing against is so much lower at a non-target? Why are people even saying things as dumb as this?

Anyway, target school students in general do have more class. This comes from having money, or being around people who have money. And stuff like knowing not to gel your hair up for the interview, knowing how to hold a wine/champagne glass during a pre-interview superday dinner, and knowing not to wear a black suit are very important, more important than most people want to admit.

 

Curves are no where near the same. Ivys have 3.4 curves normally, many state schools have sub 3.0 curves like mine. Assuming a normal distrubation of grades and SAT scores, I calculated a 3.6 at my school would equal a 3.4 at most target schools, based off GPA curves and SAT scores.

Also many of my friends went to Ivys and I know the econ they took, it was NOT more difficult. I would have aced their exams are easily as I aced mine.

 
sleepyguyb:
Curves are no where near the same. Ivys have 3.4 curves normally, many state schools have sub 3.0 curves like mine. Assuming a normal distrubation of grades and SAT scores, I calculated a 3.6 at my school would equal a 3.4 at most target schools, based off GPA curves and SAT scores.

Also many of my friends went to Ivys and I know the econ they took, it was NOT more difficult. I would have aced their exams are easily as I aced mine.

You're WAY WAY off. 2.7 at target = 3.7 at most non-targets. That's really not even debatable. Stop spreading lies/attempting to validate whatever school you go to.

 
KillerMike:
2.7 at a target = no one's going to hire you anyways

You couldn't be farther from the truth. Look, I see no point in continuing this discussion. It's just a bunch of kids from crappy schools trying to justify that they're smart because they've got good grades and are the best out of a pool of subpar people.

The truth is, the 2.7 at a target will get the job (pretty much any job) over the 3.7 at a non-target. Argue all you like, but that's just how it works. Is it fair? Absolutely. I'd rather have someone who's smart but puts in less effort than his highly intelligent and hard-working peers at an ivy than someone who's top 10% within a group of people of subpar intelligence at a non-target.

 

My roommate has a 2.7 and is working at GS next year. My other roommate has a 2.5 and is working in Quant at a BB.

The benefits of being at a target are tremendous. If you aren't at one, you probably won't understand.

 

a 2.7's a B- and a 2.5's a C+, maybe your roommates just give great dome?

and yes I do go to a target and this attitude of it being some magical whitewash that'll cover up all of your faults is idiotic. No one wants to hire a B- student, especially since average graduation GPAs for target schools is around a 3.3

 

I know a guy who has a 0.7 at Yale and he's gonna be working at Blackstone next year.

I also know a guy who has a 1.2 from Devry University who's gonna be working at KKR next year.

 

One roommate gives a great HJ, but the other isn't so adept. I'm pretty sure it wasn't their sexual prowess that got them employed at good firms.

Agreed on the whitewash comment. But I must say that there is a hierarchy among the targets, and the higher up you are among the targets, the more you can get a way with.

A HYP grad with a 2.0 is still a HYP grad. Your GPA will be known by no one but your HR people and maybe your MD. Given this, imagine the following: Sitting down at a client meeting as an analyst, you're not there to say anything but just to support your associate and to give answers on your book. Your MD introduces you to the client, says you are a HYP graduate. This gives both you and your MD immediate credit, which was the purpose of you getting hired in the first place. If your MD says you're a Vandy graduate, but an excellent one with a 4.0, it certainly doesn't carry the same weight.

We are not simply employed to get work done. We are employed to create an image of intelligence for our firms so that our clients think that they have hired the best and brightest. This image has nothing to do with your GPA and has everything to do with your school.

This is the advantage of being at a respected target.

 

I don't agree with your opinion that the people at non-targets are "sub-par" and the ivy kid who gets a 2.7 is just "smart but puts in less effort". Truth be told, that ivy student probably isn't as intelligent as the non-target school student. There are smart kids at just about every school and assuming that non-targets are inherently inferior just makes you sound like an arrogant condescending bastard.

 
Yellowchocobo:
I don't agree with your opinion that the people at non-targets are "sub-par" and the ivy kid who gets a 2.7 is just "smart but puts in less effort". Truth be told, that ivy student probably isn't as intelligent as the non-target school student. There are smart kids at just about every school and assuming that non-targets are inherently inferior just makes you sound like an arrogant condescending bastard.

I think the best analogy is the Division I vs. Division III sports one. For example, consider the biggest recruited scrub on North Carolina's bench. I have no idea who that is, but if he were to get fed up with not playing and transfer to a D III school like Williams or Amherst, he would arguably be the MVP of that league right away. Similarly, take the 2.7 kid at Princeton or Yale. That student's probably bottom 15% or so of his class, but if you dropped him into a Ohio State or Indiana type non-target, he would probably have a 4.0 and be in the running for valedictorian. I've mentioned this story before - my best friend from high school ended up going to Vanderbilt and graduated with like a 3.95. He has a mediocre work ethic and mediocre intelligence in high school, and if he had done the same at the top target I attend, he would probably have about a 2.7 or so. Maybe he changed his work ethic in college and that explains his big jump in performance. I highly doubt it though. More likely that he was just competing against kids dumber than him and thus coming off as intelligent.

 

Truth is it does not matter where u go! Everyone in this business knows this entire business is who you know, and yes targets can meet more people in the field EASIER, but can non-targets not meet people in the field too? Sure it is more difficult, but any motivated kid can find alumni at every BB from their university and therefore can get an interview. It is quite depressing to know you paid 40k a year for this prestigious education when some kids pay 10k a year and will be sitting right next to u on your first day of work, with the only difference being that he spent the past 4 years of his education w/ hot girls and normal people, whereas I spent it with the latter.

 

banking is a very competitive field and there are prob a 100 kids applying for every 10 positions much the same way target schools are competitive, esp HYPS with tens of thousands of kids applying for 1000-2000 spots at each school, sometimes less. so, the targets wind up the best of the best which is what banks like to see. that being said, there are great students at non-targets to, but on average target schools > non-target schools in terms of quality of students.

 

Most of you are retarded. You know like half of all target kids scored lower than 1400 right? As I said, compared grade curves and SATs of colleges, there is only a small difference between GPAs, fact. Sorry you all think everyone at your school is so smart and that your 3.5 must be worth a 4.0 at a non-target but that is simply not true. Whats easier, a class with a 1200 SAT average but a 3.0 curve or a class with a 1400 SAT average but a 3.4 curve? The 1200 class is easier, BUT NOT BY MUCH. I'm not talking about how gets the job or who has better opportunities, I'm talking about whats "harder" at least stasticially. 2.7 at Princeton/yale and in the running for a 4.0 at a state school? LOL. top 1% of state school kids easy would be near top of their class at targets. Hell top 10% of non-targets kids have similiar profiles (SAT scores, HS grades) at kids at target schools, so it would be fairly easy to assume 10% of non-targets would do as well as average at targets. Seriously what are you guys basing some of your "facts" on? You want to an ivy so it must be sooo much harder because 40% of the class gets As and your SAT is like 1450? Wow, I'd rather be in that class than a class average of 1300 and only 10% As.

 
sleepyguyb:
Most of you are retarded. You know like half of all target kids scored lower than 1400 right? As I said, compared grade curves and SATs of colleges, there is only a small difference between GPAs, fact. Sorry you all think everyone at your school is so smart and that your 3.5 must be worth a 4.0 at a non-target but that is simply not true. Whats easier, a class with a 1200 SAT average but a 3.0 curve or a class with a 1400 SAT average but a 3.4 curve? The 1200 class is easier, BUT NOT BY MUCH. I'm not talking about how gets the job or who has better opportunities, I'm talking about whats "harder" at least stasticially. 2.7 at Princeton/yale and in the running for a 4.0 at a state school? LOL. top 1% of state school kids easy would be near top of their class at targets. Hell top 10% of non-targets kids have similiar profiles (SAT scores, HS grades) at kids at target schools, so it would be fairly easy to assume 10% of non-targets would do as well as average at targets. Seriously what are you guys basing some of your "facts" on? You want to an ivy so it must be sooo much harder because 40% of the class gets As and your SAT is like 1450? Wow, I'd rather be in that class than a class average of 1300 and only 10% As.

Please see previous post about friend w/3.95 at Vanderbilt who I guarantee would have no better than a 2.7 at my school. Stop trying to validate your shitty school. People who go to targets are almost always rejects from better schools. Being the smartest reject is not an accomplishment. Two more things. Your average SATs for HYP etc. are off - they're closer to 1500 than 1400. And secondly, a 200-300 point difference on your SATs is huge. I know kids who only got a 1200, and I would classify them as borderline retarded at best. So...the average SAT in a non-target is that of a borderline retard. Congrats on being smarter than a retard...

 

My school is a target but not nearly on the same level as HYPS. Every year all of the banks come repeatedly and all of them hire interns and full times (besides MS for some reason). As others have said the big difference is the curve. I have no doubt that most of the top kids at my school could hang with the elite targets (not saying they'd still get 3.9, but they would do pretty well). At my school the difference between the top students and the 3.0 students is amazing. What that does it just helps the smart kids because even if they aren't completely grasping something, they are so much smarter than the others that a class they should get a B+ in now becomes an A-.

The banks all know this, and that is why you probably aren't getting a job if you aren't top of the line. At the elite targets you are still going to get a very good job with a 3.0. At my school you will get a job, but it is something that the better students wouldn't even consider.

Again, the difference between the top students and middle students at my university is night and day. When I think of the lower level students it is actually embarrassing to think some of these kids will be earning degrees from the same university that I am.

 

I wasn't using HYP or MIT as my "target", as those 4 schools and maybe Cal Tech, at least based off my calculations, do deserve a decent bump. However other targets, esp the ones in the 1400s, deserve no large bump.

I'm not trying to validate my shitty school, I actually hate my school, but I know my school and many other big state schools with low curves are not easier than most targets.

Congrats on knowing a friend that you think is dumb and did well at Vandy. I know dumb people (URMs) who got into Ivy schools and did well, above the median, yet their SATs were in the 1200, Ivys must be real easy if retards in the 1200 can beat the median, wait, oh no, looking at only a few people really doesn't count sorry.

I also have friends who scored 1500+ and failed out of my shitty school. Whats your point? Again a few people can always change or have wierd results Look at the whole, do the math, there really isn't much of a difference between most targets and most non-target big state schools.

 

sucram, you make some good points. I know plenty of people who into their target school because of legacy or sports (though it seems like almost all quit the sport during the first year since ivys dont give scholarships) and people who got in solely on merit. Big difference between the two in terms of intellegence. However there are plenty of both groups at target schools.

 
sleepyguyb:
BTW I compared my state school to Harvard. A 3.7 at my school = a 3.4 from Harvard, which kind of makes sense. Top 15% at my school = little below median at Harvard (Harvard median = 3.5).

Sorry but there is no way in hell that the top 15% of your state school (or probably any state school) is anywhere close to average at Harvard. That is just a laughable statement. Assuming your state school has 4,000 kids per class, that means 600 kids there have 1450+ SATs. No way in hell...

 
Please see previous post about friend w/3.95 at Vanderbilt who I guarantee would have no better than a 2.7 at my school. Stop trying to validate your shitty school. People who go to targets are almost always rejects from better schools. Being the smartest reject is not an accomplishment. Two more things. Your average SATs for HYP etc. are off - they're closer to 1500 than 1400. And secondly, a 200-300 point difference on your SATs is huge. I know kids who only got a 1200, and I would classify them as borderline retarded at best. So...the average SAT in a non-target is that of a borderline retard. Congrats on being smarter than a retard...

oops~ another insecurity comes in from a person who did not get a single interview...

 
thelastdayofschool:
Please see previous post about friend w/3.95 at Vanderbilt who I guarantee would have no better than a 2.7 at my school. Stop trying to validate your shitty school. People who go to targets are almost always rejects from better schools. Being the smartest reject is not an accomplishment. Two more things. Your average SATs for HYP etc. are off - they're closer to 1500 than 1400. And secondly, a 200-300 point difference on your SATs is huge. I know kids who only got a 1200, and I would classify them as borderline retarded at best. So...the average SAT in a non-target is that of a borderline retard. Congrats on being smarter than a retard...

oops~ another insecurity comes in from a person who did not get a single interview...

LOL, I already have a job. Thanks for the concern though....

 
sleepyguyb:
Roughly 10% have SATs at my school like that. Whats your basis for saying no way in hell? Are people at Harvard smarter than their SAT says and people at non-targets are dumber than their SAT says?

Actually yes, in terms of Emotional Intelligence at least. People at Harvard recognize that the Harvard brand-name is worth so much down the line, and thus choose Harvard over a state school even if that choice entails financial sacrifices in the present. State school students, even if they have the same scores at someone at Harvard, did not have the societal awareness to choose Harvard...

 

because at the end of the day targets and non-targets will be working side by side, and no one will give a damn about how you got 200 points higher than this non-target on your SAT.

 
gsmsml:
because at the end of the day targets and non-targets will be working side by side, and no one will give a damn about how you got 200 points higher than this non-target on your SAT.

They won't directly care about your SAT score. But, as a previous poster mentioned, your MD is way more likely to bring you to a client meeting if you went to a top brand-name school than a non-target. It simply reflects well on the bank and specific group. And clearly SAT scores help you to get into a target, so indirectly yes people do still care about SAT scores at banks....

 
sleepyguyb:
Judging by his great reaosning skills, I doubt he broke 1200, but daddy knew someone at the country club and got in him anyways.

I love how, after having realized that they lost the argument, everyone starts making ad hominem attacks. I guess that's better than trying to defend your point. And for the record, my dad actually went to a non-target, and is bitter to this day about how that's affected him in the workplace. That's why he pushed me so hard to get into a top school, so I wouldnt go through all my life with the inferiority complex he carries with him to this date. :)

 

Are you serious? Your point was that ur friend who u think is dumb went to Vandy and did very well, therefore non-targets must all be dumb. You never refuted my math nor told me why the SAT underpredicts intellgence/productivity at Harvard and overpredicts it at state schools. You refuted zero of my argument and had zero argument yourself other than your one friend. Please re-read what I wrote, your reading comprehension skills are clearly not up to par.

LOL @ your dad having an inferiority complex LOLOLOL. I can see where you get yours from. Fuck my dad went to a non-target and did very well, thats why he sent me to a non-target even after getting into some target schools.

 
sleepyguyb:
Are you serious? Your point was that ur friend who u think is dumb went to Vandy and did very well, therefore non-targets must all be dumb. You never refuted my math nor told me why the SAT underpredicts intellgence/productivity at Harvard and overpredicts it at state schools. You refuted zero of my argument and had zero argument yourself other than your one friend. Please re-read what I wrote, your reading comprehension skills are clearly not up to par.

LOL @ your dad having an inferiority complex LOLOLOL. I can see where you get yours from. Fuck my dad went to a non-target and did very well, thats why he sent me to a non-target even after getting into some target schools.

You are correct once again. I feel inferior to people who go to Indiana and Ohio State. Greg Oden really intimidates me with his intelligence.

 

All your incessant bragging is clearly an attempt to cover up for some shortfall in your life. So what if you went to a top school and you work in investment banking. You can impress the people that browse this site and would love to be in your situation, but beyond that, no one cares. One day, you will learn that humility breeds prosperity.

 
ConcealedCarry:
All your incessant bragging is clearly an attempt to cover up for some shortfall in your life. So what if you went to a top school and you work in investment banking. You can impress the people that browse this site and would love to be in your situation, but beyond that, no one cares. One day, you will learn that humility breeds prosperity.

Haven't bragged about myself one bit. Have only argued the merits of going to a target over a non-target.

 

You certainly seem insecure.

What exactly is your argument?

How do you refute mine? I said in relation to GPA curve at the school and SATs, assuming there is a normal distribution (I think a sound assumption) to both GPAs and SATs, the difference between target and non-target GPAs is pretty small, holding a few schools like HYP, MIT out, because at those schools there is a difference, not a huge one, but not a small one either. I used SAT and GPA curves, nothing more.

 
sleepyguyb:
You certainly seem insecure.

What exactly is your argument?

How do you refute mine? I said in relation to GPA curve at the school and SATs, assuming there is a normal distribution (I think a sound assumption) to both GPAs and SATs, the difference between target and non-target GPAs is pretty small, holding a few schools like HYP, MIT out, because at those schools there is a difference, not a huge one, but not a small one either. I used SAT and GPA curves, nothing more.

You actually come off as rather insecure yourself - rather than just saying hey I worked my ass off and got a job (if you have one) despite my non-target school, you somehow feel the need to argue the sub-par merits of your school. Noone's saying you can't get a job from a non-target, just that it's much more difficult.

Just to go back to your curve - my school is one of the four you mention above. Average SAT is about 1480 or so, and average GPA last year I think was about 3.2. That pretty much means that the average person with a 1480 at my school had a 3.2. I'm fairly confident that anyone with a 1480 at a state school will have a 3.9+. I don't know for sure I guess, but if you gave me even odds on that bet, I'd sure as hell take it...

 

"Actually yes, in terms of Emotional Intelligence at least. People at Harvard recognize that the Harvard brand-name is worth so much down the line, and thus choose Harvard over a state school even if that choice entails financial sacrifices in the present. State school students, even if they have the same scores at someone at Harvard, did not have the societal awareness to choose Harvard..."

Only in a few prefessions like banking. If you want to be a doctor or lawyer, a state school would probably be the better pick, at least if money is an issue. Honestly only finance/banking does a top school name really do anything, at least from what I can tell. Most professions it depends where you got your grad degree from, and most admissions processes don't value "target over non-target," at least no where near the level banking does.

 
sleepyguyb:
"Actually yes, in terms of Emotional Intelligence at least. People at Harvard recognize that the Harvard brand-name is worth so much down the line, and thus choose Harvard over a state school even if that choice entails financial sacrifices in the present. State school students, even if they have the same scores at someone at Harvard, did not have the societal awareness to choose Harvard..."

Only in a few prefessions like banking. If you want to be a doctor or lawyer, a state school would probably be the better pick, at least if money is an issue. Honestly only finance/banking does a top school name really do anything, at least from what I can tell. Most professions it depends where you got your grad degree from, and most admissions processes don't value "target over non-target," at least no where near the level banking does.

Maybe true, but this is a banking message board and not a med school message board. But at least you're recognizing the value of that brand name now....

 

I've always recongizing its value in ibanking. An employer will take a 3.2 Cornell student everyday over a 3.8 big state school kid, but if you look at the curves and SATs of both schools, that 3.8 kid probably has done better relative to the 3.2 kid. I'm arguing that 3.8 was harder to get than that 3.2, even if the 3.2 kid is almost always selected.

3.2 median? You don't go to HYP or MIT, none of them have a 3.2 median. H is around 3.5, Y is about 3.4. I think P and MIT are little less than that, but not a 3.2.

A 1480 median 3.4 at yale would put you top 5% at my school, or roughly a 3.85. Thats a pretty big difference, but for most targets, the non HYP-MIT ones, the difference is much smaller, like half that, since the difference between HYP and my school is about 2x greater than the difference between my school and most targets.

 

Why a target is better than a non-target reason #34:

I am taking a seminar on corporate restructuring from a current member of the Board of Directors (who is also an MD in M&A) at MS. He comes from NYC once a week to teach our class. We use no textbooks -- the class is taught entirely from his ~35 years experience in banking. Think you can learn the same thing from a corporate restructuring textbook? Further, he helps the smarter kids in the class get banking jobs. Try finding that at a non-target.

 

The best reason for me is just the alumni networking. I've spoken to tons of alumni at top PE shops, both MD's and analysts and it's a great networking tool.

I highly doubt a non-target is gonna have senior or even junior people at MDP, Warburg, KKR, Blackstone and the like.

 

I don't disagree with the previous two posts. Target schools in general have better faculty and resources. However, what is rediculous is to generalize the students the way midwest did in his post.

 

i like this post quite a bit. i also agree with hobbes. people from targets tend to generalize the non targets...some say theyre not smart enough...others feel they're campus stinks and some think they just don't look good enough. sweet !!

yes there are super advantages of goin to targets...recruiting, opportunities, networking, culture...ye theyre tops !! but how can anyone generalize non target kids n put them in the B-league. Agreed, that there might be loads like that, but there always are a select few who know what it means to make it through, and are smart enough when it matters.

And all those non targets who hava a complex and are bogged by pressure from the target folks...don't !!

 

The statement about non-targets not being good looking enough is retarded. Have you seen the Ivy-League girls ?? Chicks from big, public schools are a million times hotter, just pay a visit to UT Austin and you'll see what I mean.

 

Some did though. Many kids at state schools get into at least one ivy, about 10% of my school did. (I haven't met someone in our honors program that didn't and 10% of my school is in the honors program.)

 
sleepyguyb:
Some did though. Many kids at state schools get into at least one ivy, about 10% of my school did. (I haven't met someone in our honors program that didn't and 10% of my school is in the honors program.)

That's what they claim at least.

 
Best Response
sleepyguyb:
Some did though. Many kids at state schools get into at least one ivy, about 10% of my school did. (I haven't met someone in our honors program that didn't and 10% of my school is in the honors program.)

I wouldnt say "many kids at state schools get into at least one ivy" - maybe a handful did and chose not to go for whatever reason (financial, proximity to home, etc.) but def not "many".

also, not all state schools are created equal and there are def some that are pretty solid overall - umich, ucberkley, uva-but then again these schools could be called targets.

also, even though midwest comes out with ridiculous comments, i do have to agree with his comment about how Harvard is worth it no matter what. Places like HYPS simply open doors for you whereas nontargets have to fight their way in. in terms of overall intelligence levels: ON AVERAGE, ivy league and other target schools have higher quality students overall. this argument that nontarget and target schools have similar quality students may be true if you compare the top 5% of the nontargets students with the median target student.

 

It would seem that this site is populated by at least 60% non-target kids. It would seem that the general banking population is populated by about 10% target kids.

Huh? Strange.

Wonder where the animosity/defensiveness comes from?

 

I cannot wait to be laughing this summer at all you target fucks on here when I am sitting right next to you doing the EXACT same thing as you, but my pockets got another $120,000 in them because I didn't listen to all these dumbasses on here who say, "You got to go to this school for this company, you got to have this SAT for this company, you got to have a 4.0 from a non-target". But keep doing your thing PoppingMyCollar, because you sure are a superior lucky target kid who gets to see all the top companies! Lick deez

 
goldson:
I cannot wait to be laughing this summer at all you target fucks on here when I am sitting right next to you doing the EXACT same thing as you, but my pockets got another $120,000 in them because I didn't listen to all these dumbasses on here who say, "You got to go to this school for this company, you got to have this SAT for this company, you got to have a 4.0 from a non-target". But keep doing your thing PoppingMyCollar, because you sure are a superior lucky target kid who gets to see all the top companies! Lick deez

I have two words for you: Financial Aid.

 

lol. thats not me, however it is very funny and i was thinking the same thing. im quite happy with my gig ty.

ibanalyst i agree with mostly, when i say big state school or non target, im meaning the big state schools that are non targets, which doesn't include mich/uva/berk. inconsistant on my part. big state schools im referring too include ohio st, texas, fla, md, penn st, uconn, umass, etc. Best large public school in the state.

 

I was talking to my janitor earlier today. He graduated top ten percent of his class from UT. He told me that kids there were just beating down the door trying to become a janitor at HYPS. Everyone wants to clean the shit of the best.

 
midwestisthebest:
I was talking to my janitor earlier today. He graduated top ten percent of his class from UT. He told me that kids there were just beating down the door trying to become a janitor at HYPS. Everyone wants to clean the shit of the best.

And what are you even trying to say here, because UT is a target school......

 

1 Your Poor

2 Your insecure - meaning your ugly as well

3 I have a better gig than you and you jerk off to this stuff 24 / 7

4 I go to school with girls 100 times hotter than yours

5 You just got owned

 

midwest:

This is one of the first times I have been on this site, but your comments on this thread make me sick. Comparing people with a 1200 to a "retard" is ridiculous, and disgusting. I attend the top school in the country and some friends of mine scored a little bit higher, but not much, than 1200. Some people do not have the luxuries that others do, and therefore end up scoring lower on a test that means little in life after college.

As well, you unjustly represent all those from good schools as fucking assholes because of your elitist bullshit. What percentage of fortune 500 CEO's came from HYP? Fine, you and I may get our feet in the door easier, but after that its ALL IQ, EQ, attitude and a bit of luck. So why don't you shut up with your remarks. Because you will not get far with your disgusting attitude...

 

Here you go, before you get blasted for this question: "A school is considered a target when a large number of Wall Street firms conduct on campus recruiting (“OCR”) for "front office" positions. A school’s status as a target may vary slightly from industry to industry, firm to firm, and region to region. Ultimately, however, a school’s status as a target depends on its relationships with employers and the number of students that get hired each year."

//www.wallstreetoasis.com/faq/what-are-a-target-semi-target-and-non-targe…

 

Target school=school that gets recruited from. Your school could be a target for McKinsey and not Bain..GS and not MS..F500 but nothing else. When people on here say "Target" school they mean all BB banks and MBB recruit from them.

As you can see, theres still plenty of opportunities from schools that arent targets(ivy,MIT,Stanford,Duke) for everybody else even through campus recruiting.

 

What I've learned so far is crush your grades, network your ass off, and intership as early and often as possible. I guess if you do those three things, you should be set no matter what school you go to. Work speaks for itself at the end of the day.

 
tuxcsean90:
So everyone talks about targets but I couldn't find any posts that actually define a target. Are they only the Ivies? It doesn't seem like it because Stanford is usually included and Dartmouth doesn't get much loving. Is it the top 10 schools in the country? What department then? Finance? What about business schools? I just read a post by PAfromPA who didn't think Villanova was a target. I live in the South. Villanova is definitely a target. Am I the only one who has problems with defining targets?

You asked for the definition of a target and then stated that Villanova is definitely a target. I do not understand.

Look up the FAQs like Patrick said.

[quote=patternfinder]Of course, I would just buy in scales. [/quote] See my WSO Blog | my AMA
 

There is no such thing as a "target", schools are "targets" or not depending on the firm. For example, I attend a midwestern state school with a strong reputation but outside of the US News Top 20. Goldman Sachs recruits OCR here, therefore we are a target for Goldman. Barclays does come here to recruit, therefore we are not a target for Barclays.

 

ALL schools w/ a less than 15% acceptance rate,UMich, Cornell, Berkeley, VA, Amhearst, Williams, Wellesley, Middlebury, and other top LACs

Learn Programming, Lectures by Professor Mehran Sahami for the Stanford Computer Science Department http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMDCCdjyW8
 

As someone said, a target is a school that a firm targets to recruit at. So not all schools are targets for all places. For instance, I go to a strong midwestern school (think NU, WUSTL, ND) and BofA, JPM, MS, Citi, Credit Suisse, and Goldman all host on campus events. But UBS and Barclays don't. We also have on campus events for BCG and Bain but not Mckinsey.

In general, on this website, schools that are referred to as "targets" are schools that have at least a lot of these firms at them. I guess technically my school would be a "semi-target" because not all the firms recruit here, but for the sake of this site most people refer to it as a target school because a lot of firms recruit at.

Villanova would be a non-target. Being in a business school or a certain program doesn't make you a target or non-target, it's about the school. And yes, you should try to go to a target, it's substantially easier to get a good job out of a target school than a non-target (though it's really tough for everyone right now).

 

Perferendis architecto cupiditate aut architecto possimus voluptas magni quaerat. Eos quia occaecati officia et laboriosam delectus. Commodi error distinctio sed animi repudiandae tempore adipisci.

Numquam nemo sit quidem praesentium. Non quis temporibus harum et voluptatibus natus dignissimos fugit. Consectetur assumenda id dicta.

Doloremque rerum eos libero dolor enim. Quis neque aperiam non hic fuga repudiandae commodi. Mollitia in ab amet est ducimus. Laborum voluptas aut expedita sunt dolor alias. Aut facilis alias vero molestias reprehenderit excepturi. Quam aut consequatur nam ut.

 

Eveniet consequuntur delectus dicta neque laborum modi et. Enim aliquam aut illo deleniti vel dolorem quae voluptatibus. Nisi veritatis dolore pariatur eos atque earum quibusdam. Voluptatem itaque corrupti ut quidem. Vel aspernatur ut aut veritatis. Sit praesentium quas corporis reprehenderit consequatur atque nobis. Provident et libero qui id molestiae eos.

Et adipisci cupiditate neque eos blanditiis eum id. Facere et vel voluptatem illo. In alias inventore dignissimos ipsam sequi. Aperiam expedita voluptas ullam sequi quas a rerum. Quisquam incidunt iure beatae magni. Qui sequi officia ipsam deleniti.

Impedit eum officia excepturi quod et laudantium similique. Ratione repudiandae aliquam laudantium dolor aspernatur. At at ut mollitia optio sit voluptas.

Quae vitae dolorum ut amet officiis harum veniam possimus. Quod rem tempore iusto facere. Porro quam dolor aliquam quod provident voluptas. Maxime saepe assumenda adipisci a quia odit sint.

 

Quia ipsum non alias qui iure atque earum. Sit earum in quo reiciendis fuga deserunt. Aut aut excepturi dolor ipsa.

Maxime ratione ratione nihil voluptatem et. Aut quis nemo reprehenderit. Et numquam accusamus delectus reprehenderit laudantium sint. Accusamus minus consequatur quos tempora libero aspernatur. Non accusantium eius consequatur voluptatem ut temporibus omnis.

I hate victims who respect their executioners

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”