WSJ Sept. 13: "Top 25 Colleges According to Job Recruiters"
Let's discuss how flawed this article is.
My take:
Read between the lines - they're talking about entry level jobs that only require a bachelor's degree. Of course they're going to hire people who went to middling state schools with middling GPAs. They assume that the people who went to better schools or who have rockstar GPAs are going to leave for better opportunities and/or grad school. They want people with decent social skills but no real ambition, people who lack the intellectual horsepower to do anything creative but have the practical skills to be a salesman or a middle manager.
I don't think it is flawed at all. The article isn't which school has the most OCR for IB, it is about general recruiting. Penn State, UIUC, Texas A&M, etc are all very large, well respected state schools. If you are a F500 company with limited resources you are going to send your recruiters to schools with a lot of kids and that are the tops in those states. You think Verizon is going to recruit at Wharton for their Retail Leadership Development Program? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean a 40-50K job right out of state school is not a good job.
There is a huge world outside of banking.
For fortune 500 companies and general management jobs, this list makes sense. But I don't think it's because recruiters don't want ivy kids. The top students at elite colleges usually don't opt for the same jobs that penn state and illinois kids are gunning for.
What's the over/under on the amount of time it takes before IlliniProgrammer writes about how this survey is "proof" that big ten state schools are just as good as harvard, yale, princeton, stanford?
"Penn State Tops Recruiter Rankings" lol
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043589045754776433696633…
In any case, someone who gets the same quality product or candidate as someone else but pays less for him/her/it winds up richer than the guy who pays more money- giving him a significant competitive advantage over time. Given the weak market and the need for improved productivity, there's been a race to value and competence, and that's helped out the public ivies big time- even a little with Wall Street recruiting. If you can win a race on a Suzuki Hayabusa against a guy on a Ducati and spend $20K less on the bike to win that race, well, you're now a win- and $20K- better off than the guy who bought the Duc. So Suzuki mass-produces Hayabusas and they're not as expensive as Ducatis- big deal, Suzukis win races. The guy with the expensive bike can keep his elite status- you've got the status of actually winning a race and you're $20K richer than he is, to boot. (And besides, winning is really more about the rider than the bike once you get past 600 ccs on any of the Big Four bike manufacturers or equivalents) Likewise with banking, the performance equation really comes down to the actual employee and the manager rather than the school once you get to the top 10-20% at a strong state school program.
Hiring from state schools- or buying a Suzuki- doesn't guarantee that you're going to win against the guy who spends more- it might actually put you at a very slight disadvantage, but if you've got two pretty evenly matched candidates, the firm that spends a little less on comp or winds up with more loyal employees is going to be the firm that outperforms in the aggregate.
There's great values and loyal potential employees at every school- but there's also smart people everywhere. This survey doesn't really show that public ivies produce higher quality candidates than private ivies (I agree that the average candidate from a public ivy is a little weaker than a private ivy), but I do think it indicates that they may be overlooked a little more than they should be by wall street- particularly the top decile or two of candidates. This is especially important in a secular bear-market environment where the cost of capital is very high.
Illini, if you're going to be a broken record, at least be concise. TL, DR.
Let me tell you, if Texas Tech is higher than UT-Austin, there is a flaw. Even my Tech friends would tell you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University
Texas A&M is the 7th largest university in the USA, no wonder it ranks high on the list.
This article deals mostly with fortune 500 recruiters. Generally speaking, ivy students are not going for those jobs, since they prefer consulting, banking, grad schools, teach america, to working at a fortune 500 firm in the midwest doing accounting. If they do end up at one of those jobs they will bide their time and try to get a better job or go to law/b-school. The fortune 500 recruiters know this, so they're going to spend most of their time, energy, and money, wooing state school grads who will be grateful to work an office job at one of those firms.
Therefore, I think the list represents the best values in F500 recruiting. In some way, it shows which schools America's largest corporations think are underrated based on the cost to hire a typical student. In other words, if the average student at Penn State costs $65K/year, F500 recruiters think that's a great value and want to hire more of them at that price. Likewise, a kid at MIT who costs $80K-$85K/year still represents a good value- though they may not be as compelling as a kid from CMU at 70-80K or one from Michigan at $65-75K.
I don't think looking at relative value is an unfair way of interpreting the results, and I'm not surprised that state schools and technology schools largely top the list. I do have a few questions about why MIT tops the list when its candidates generally earn more in industry than many prime target schools, though.
Could you at least attempt to hide your contemptuous tone? People at Ivy league schools go into all kinds of jobs and many of them go into F500 roles. Those that don't either go into the type of positions you mention above or have rich parents that allow them to dick around.
I would not call most of the leadership development programs or rotational programs that recruit from these state schools lame, worthless or anything someone would be simply "grateful" to have. People have such thin skin. Who gives a shit about this ranking? These schools are huge, usually the best schools in the state and it makes sense for firms to come on campus to recruit from them.
With this economy I am sure there are plenty of Cornell, Princeton, Columbia, etc kids who would be more than happy to make 60K to start in one of those F500 jobs.
The attitude on this board is shocking sometimes.
I went to Penn State. We get a lot of Big 4 audit recruiting, some BB IB recruiting, a lot of government jobs, and places like JNJ, Pfizer, PG, GE, Verizon, AT&T, etc.
Here is another article on this that goes a little more in depth...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043589045754776433696633…
"What's more, Ms. Goldin said, at Harvard, more than 55% of graduates went on to a doctorate degree, according to a recent survey, so they tend to stay in a first job for a short period of time—often a year or less. It's an observation recruiters in the Journal's study also made."
It's ok, Anthony. I have my Big Ten complex and JJC has his H/Y/P obsession. At the end of the day, though, performance really comes down to the individual, his preparation for the job, and his manager. It is less about the school than the candidate, and it is really no surprise that students with practical training do well at competing for work at (admittedly not necessarily special or fancy) practical firms.
This is another good point. Many of the northeastern schools have a liberal arts focus and more of an academia focus- this means they have much fewer students who are interested in industry. However, I am surprised that Harvard grads are not going directly into graduate school programs like what you typically see at state schools. Are they spending a year travelling or something? It would be nice if she could elaborate some more on whether students are getting hired into F500 firms and quitting after fifteen months or if they are going straight into grad school and the F500 firms are making a negative decision because of a smaller potential hiring pool.If you work hard enough to get into an Ivy, your choice of school doesn't really matter - you're going to work hard enough wherever you go to get the job you want. There are plenty of people at BB firms from big state schools that likely had a lot more fun in their 4 years and graduated with less debt.
Not true. Getting into a top target is not that hard if you are smart and did shit in high school. Getting into a good FO position IS an incredibly difficult task for most who do not go to a target to end up in premiere FO positions and you will do way more work and make many more sacrifices than an equal counterpart at a target, only to have a chance.
It makes sense for companies to go to bigger schools. Just pure numbers. However, as a student of those schools, this may not be a big advantage because you are also competing against many more students than at a smaller school. Harder to stand out from the crowd.
I'm not sure how Texas isnt even on the list, while TAMU, Tech, and even Arizona St. are. Not only is Texas bigger than those, but it is harder to get into also.
One thing I think is a factor is that engineering may be more heavily recruited. I know A&M specializes in engineering, and so do some of the others on the list. These arent for business or finance related jobs specifically.
I thought ASU was supposed to be a party school with tons of hot girls and std's..
This part pretty much summed it up for me: " The research highlighted a split in perception about state and private schools. Recruiters who named an Ivy League or elite liberal-arts school as a top pick say they prize their graduates' intellect and cachet among clients, as well as "soft skills" like critical thinking and communication. But many companies said they need people with practical skills to serve as operations managers, product developers, business analysts and engineers. For those employees—the bulk of their work force—they turn to state institutions or other private schools offering that." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487035972045754837305063727…
I went to a State school that showed up in the list. Paid $0 in tuition, but I know (now) there were disadvantages, but ended up in a decent spot regardless.
for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I have to laugh at all the people citing minimal debt as the reason to turn top a top target (say any top 10). That is the biggest crock of shit and misinformation someone could post on here. I have over a dozen friends from HS (a public HS in the midwest) that went to top targets and none of us graduated with any significant debt (nothing over $10k and that includes all housing/books/etc.), which is substantially less than our in-state honors colleges and the like offered and we got a way better education and have way better opportunities. If you or your family can't handle the debt, top targets will cover everything. The trend is getting to full rides for families under $80k (give or take $10k depending on which one) and families making under $150k are paying even less. With all of the academic achievements, I couldn't have gotten that good of a deal (once you factor in boarding) at any state school save ones that offered athletic scholarships (totally different matter).
Regarding how much fun it is at a state school versus top target--I went to the worst of the worst for fun and I still enjoyed my experience, so it isn't a big deal. If you went all out enjoying your state school experience, you don't have the GPA most likely to get where you want. Plenty of people at my school have 3.2s and 3.3s and end up in FO positions @ BBs and the like, but the one person from my HS that went to a top Big Ten school graduated with a 4.0 and went through hell for 4 years to end up as an IBD analyst in NYC at Goldman from a non-target. I definitely know who had the most 'fun' between him versus other friends.
I think it ultimately comes down to the individual, the manager, and the training. The bottom line is that the bar is a lot higher than it really needs to be for coming in from a state school, the smartest managers are able to recognize that- or at least respond to the competence of their hires, and the promotions and general good luck tend to follow.
Things are probably very different in IBD. It's ultimately a client service industry so it's less about technical competencies and more about soft skills- which private schools teach extremely well. However, on the markets, research, and quant side of things, it all comes down to quantitative ability and aggressiveness- something that you can learn anywhere and really comes down to YOU, not your degree.
I have to laugh at commenting that those are where you found the best traders because the fact is, the top props and BBs spend that vast majority of their time recruiting elsewhere and the vast majority of their traders and successful traders come from targets. Sure, there are exceptions, but with >40,000 people going to most of those schools, I'm sure they will have one or two that are decent. The thing is that these firms are filled with people from targets who excelled and make them a lot of dough, even if there is a guy who happened to go to a semi-target (which all of those schools besides Rutgers are). Go to any respected prop and see where the majority are coming from--that isn't a knock on people from state schools, just facts. Even if you are 100% equal in every way other than school you attend, you will have a significantly harder time coming from a non-target.
Except that there is way more recruiting for these positions go to elite private schools (MIT/CalTech, Ivies , UChicago, etc.) for quant work and state schools are looked at very secondarily. I don't see how you can even deny this--compare the number of people who get hired for true FO quant roles and see the percentage breakdown. Top tier schools are dramatically overrepresented and state schools are much smaller in their representation at all levels.Illinois is heavily overrepresented at Google. I turned their offer down for work in New York- I still think I made the right move.
I think it ultimately depends on the hiring manager. The smart ones want competent people who can do a good job. If you're from BMCC but can generate more trading revenues than a guy from Harvard, the kind of manager most people will want to work for will take the guy from BMCC. (However, the guys from BMCC and Harvard will lose out to an orangutang if it can make more money- at least in Chicago.)In any case, many of the firms you mentioned are extremely well managed and employ the same philosophy. Illinois is heavily overrepresented at Google and Jump Trading. When I visited a few friends working there, somehow the subject that I went to Illinois came up, and a guy started complaining that all the traders were Illinois grads. I don't even think Jump recruits from Ivy League schools- at least on campus. Yes, it recruits from Stanford and MIT, but I don't think there's any serious recruiting outside of the top Five US News Engineering schools.
Actually, the school with the heaviest representation in the quant analytics group I worked in was SUNY of all places. When I got hired in there, we were considered the best firm on the street for both internal and external quant anayltics in fixed income, so I don't think there's really an adverse quality argument to be made here- a large number of SUNY programmers were running some of the best quant pricing services on the street, hands down.Apparently, the SUNY kids did the best when it came to stats, numerical methods, and algorithms interviews. Yes, we interviewed a lot of kids from the target schools- and we hired a number of them- but the SUNY kids seemed to really outperform, many of them leading the way to jobs on the trading floor.
People accuse me of having a Big Ten attitude, but I think you might actually getting a little too defensive about this survey and peoples' experiences in industry. Wherever you went, things worked out well for you- and it's really time to transcend the sillier school stuff. I underpaid and things worked out great, too. Bottom line is that there's smart people everywhere and a bright kid from a state school can overcome the obstacles of the target school system. As the results of the WSJ bear out, it all comes down to competence and value in the long-run anyways.
Are you trying to say people are competent or that the recruiting is equal? You go back and forth so fucking fast it is incomprehensible.
IP, let's start over:
I think the argument about debt is a direct statement that private schools are more expensive than public schools. If you look at raw tuition Harvard or Princeton is much more expensive than Illinois for example. Everyone has examples or experiences which contradict or support various stances in this topic.
Individual examples do nothing to support this argument, on either side.
$100K debt for making $120K/yr Day 1 >> $0K debt for making $50K/yr Day 1. You'll break even pretty soon. You don't see many people wondering if the debt load is bad before going into Medical or Dental school. Obviously not everyone will make $120K coming out of a private school, neither will everyone make $50K coming out of State U. As mentioned above, if you can't pay for it, most private schools will offer assistance (similar with state schools). $ should not even be part of the discussion. Actually even for non-IB jobs (like medical school admission), better off going to top private schools compared to state school (per my brother who is about to finish up medical school).
This thread and this ranking has ZERO to do with banking. How about someone goes into a ranking of which school is most fair to women and then tears it apart on this forum because it is so wrong for people wanting to go into banking. The WSJ is looking at all jobs, all recruiters, etc. This was not a ranking based on how people place into FO IBD. Fucking blows my mind how people can not understand this.
90% of the kids going into school have zero desire to be investment bankers. Outside of this forum no one gives a shit. Chicks don't get wet when you tell them you are a banker, they don't even care. I am not bashing the career, I know it and respect it, but the sooner people realize how little everyone else cares the sooner they will lose their huge fucking ego.
UIUC, Ross, UVA, UNC, UT-A, UCLA, etc are all amazing schools and offer great tuition rates for people in school. Most Ivy league schools have huge endowments and offer plenty of financial aid, but not everyone at Harvard is going to school for free. Many get free educations, but many cost money. Whether your parents are paying or you are, end of the day someone is coughing up tuition. In this economy with many high paying professions laying off people you see a lot of students having to go to different schools because their parents lost their jobs. Things are not cheap.
Illini has a point, Jerome has a point, but everyone is completely off topic. Large, flagship state schools have a lot of recruiters because they have a large student body and also have a lot of research and funding. These students are also looking to work and willing to stay with a company. If you look at the schools that represent F500 CEO's you see way more non Ivy schools. Turn over is expensive and you don't break even on a kid until 2 years in so I would imagine it is a better investment taking a smart state school kid and putting him in a GE FLDP vs taking a Princeton kid who is going to be looking for the next big thing.
Without reading any other comments or the article itself, pretty much anyone can get into Penn State. They would make great long-term employees because they aren't exactly mobile. Ivy League for life (and a few special friends like Duke Stanford and MIT, I went to one of the few special friends)
This might be the dumbest comment I've ever seen on this site (seriously, go find a yahoo message board). First, you admit that you have not read the article or any of the discussion, thus you have nothing of value to add. Then you say "Ivy League for Life", when you didn't even go to one of those schools. Honestly, no one gives a shit that you went to Duke, Standford, or MIT (btw my guess is on Duke... I don't go to any of these "fo-life" schools but Standford and MIT are in a whole different class than Duke).
Hey Big Unit, I wouldn't be so disparaging to Penn State alumni. I know plenty of them in higher levels of finance. You also need to realize that a large amount of Ivy league B-schoolers didn't go to the best undergrads. It has been my experience that people tend to be more loyal to their UG over MBA.
Heed my advice, judge people based on the quality of work they do and how they treat you. You will be more successful. The day will come when you will be shitting on some PSU or UIUC kid and find out that your MD went there for UG.
Wow! Ilini got thoroughly demolished in this thread. Good job Jerome, for defending the Ivy League! The insecurity and delusion of midwestern big 10 alumni are just out of control.
How did Illini get demolished in this thread? Other then a bunch of opinions I see no hard facts on anything. This whole thread went completely off topic anyway.
The study suffers from serious size bias.
An excerpt from the methodology: "To calculate the final ranking we did the following: First we assigned 10 points to each No. 1 ranking, 9 points to each No. 2 ranking, 8 points to each No. 3 ranking—and so on—for each school. For the overall ranking, those ratings were weighted by the number of total graduates that a company reported hiring in the prior year."
Since the study weighted each college's rating by the number of graduates hired, larger colleges naturally received higher rankings. This explains why the top 25 colleges are mostly state schools.
To correct for this, the study could (should) have divided each school's total composite rating by the school's class size (or, even better, by the number of graduating students pursuing entry-level positions at the surveyed companies, non-profits, and government agencies).
I'm pretty surprised that the WSJ would run such a poorly designed study and then report the results without noting this size bias. They might as well have weighted each school's rating by its latitude and then proclaimed "Employers Favor Northern Schools for Hires."
Hahaha, nice LIBOR. Big Unit, you got called out.
JJC, Illini does not speak for all Big 10ers/Midwesterners, and neither does Quantum (Illini, I hate to group you with Quantum, but sometimes it is not unreasonable). They're only 2 posters, most of us are not like that.
Some of you seem to be very delusional. There are alot of jobs out there, and there are alot more state school kids than private/ivy. Even if the ivy is "the cream of the crop" it can only fill so many positions, its just numbers. Thing is I know a kid from Georgia Tech who got a FT offer from Morgan Stanley in NY... just get on your grind and you'll let your name be known, Po'Dunk State College or Ivy-Prestigeville. JJC for being so intelligent (i assume you're ivy league) you have made some of the most ignorant comments I have the displeasure of reading (I remember that whole asian men are the most discriminated against nonsense...) and now that childish drivel. Please try and come off as less of a loser online.
I'm not going to inject race into this thread, but I stand by the assertion I made about asian-american men. I know what i went through, and i know how hard i had to work to overcome the discrimination against asians in college admissions. I went to upenn, which was nowhere near my top choice; if I were black with my credentials, I would have easily gotten into harvard.
Well, I do want to second the point Anthony made about undergraduate allegiance. Every Saturday, without fail, regardless of whether I have to work or not, I will make it a point to duck out for 3 hours and then come back afterward, in order to watch my UG Alma Mater play college football. While I can't speak for Illini, although I am waiting for 10/9, everyone that I know who went to a school with a major UG football program (D1 FBS/FCS school) shows a much higher degree of loyalty to their Undergraduate School than their MBA program/Law School, and these are people who are MDs, SVPs, even partners at various financial institutions and funds. I've gone out with traders to watch USC play Oregon. I've enjoyed The Red River Rivalry with energy traders from Houston. I've civilly debate the merits of Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate with PhD wielding quants. Let's not even talk about the Jeweled Shillelagh, because you never know where you'll find a Notre Dame Alumnus.
The one thing that no one pointed out was the alumni network as well. Larger state schools benefit from this over most other places, as they graduate larger classes and they fill out a larger percentage of the workforce than the respective alumni base from other schools. The alumni network definitely helps increase the value of a school's ability to recruit. The more people you have across a firm, the bigger their presence. When you produce a high number of employees that can perform, the people doing the recruiting can see the link.
Just to correct you for a second, Big Unit, not everyone can get into Penn State. The overall admissions figures are skewed, especially because they co-mingle both in state and out of state admission rates. They don't differentiate when they report the application statistics of who applied in-state or out of state. While it's much easier to get into Penn State if you are a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for an out of state student, it's surprisingly hard, especially if you are trying to get into the Main Campus. I know people that applied from where I went to high school in NJ (Top 5 school in the state and Top 200 in the US) that were ranked higher than me who didn't get into the Main Campus. In general, out of state students are at a disadvantage across the board, regardless of school.
Using Penn State, according to their admissions website, 20% of the total freshman enrolled are from out of state and 34% of the freshman admitted to the main campus are from out of state. Of a class, 15,250, Penn State only took ~3,000 out of state students. Of the class, only ~6,700 were admitted to the main campus, meaning that 8,500 students were admitted to commonwealth campuses (Branch Campuses). ~2,250 out of state students accepted to Main campus and and ~750 accepted to the branch campuses is pretty selective, when you consider that those 3,000 students include all of the freshman athletes on 27 Sports teams and international students. Now, lets look at schools like University of California, where admissions are not as hard on in state students as they are out of state students across all campuses. The same applies for schools like UMich, UVA, U Texas, and UNC. The impression people have of state schools is skewed because of this.
Shut the fuck up with your tripe, you are worrying about the difference between UPENN and Harvard while some people are trying to live their lives in a world they feel isnt suited for them. Im done with this ignorant kid, obviously studying alot in high school doesn't lead to any sense of perspective. Being asian led to going to a top 10 school instead of the #1, what racism, cry me a fucking river.
Oh, JJC is the guy with the Asian issues. Now I remember. Dude, shut the fuck up with the Asian shit, no one wants to hear it.
Asians are model minorities. The only negative stereotype that Asian people have is a small penis thing and big fucking deal. People assume you are good at math? Wow, booo hooo, I guess you don't get brain teasers when you interview. Nothing more pathetic then someone making up discrimination. Asians make up a large majority of the college population. With the attitude you have good luck working with normal people.
Does anyone else see the irony? JJC feels discriminated against for being Asian so he stereotypes state school kids. Real brilliant.
His idea of racism is going to UPenn instead of Harvard. It just sounds un-fucking-believable saying it out loud.
I am with Anthony, no one cares about investment banking. I go to one of the 10 most selective universities in the USA and I was one of a handful from my school who worked in an IB in any capacity. Most students in my school are working on start-ups, preparing for grad school and just trying to figure out what they want in life. This entire argument is fallacious; banking is simply not that great of a profession or a popular one. At GS, one of my mentors told me that the average is 28 years old ( obviously a lot of people cut and run after their experience there).
And I hate how people bash F500 jobs. I would rather work as a product manager at Google or GE than as an Investment Banker any day of the week.
JJC, I normally like your posts, but I'm not exactly sure how you think I've been delusional or insecure about this.
Accusantium hic sint commodi quis quibusdam et facilis. Rem voluptatibus reprehenderit voluptatem maxime beatae eaque. Cupiditate recusandae qui quia qui asperiores et. Magni nesciunt id voluptatem illum deserunt.
Magnam eum eos corrupti consequatur commodi ut qui. Quibusdam quia voluptatibus at dolorum nisi. Necessitatibus placeat asperiores optio accusantium.
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...
Necessitatibus eaque molestiae ab non. Et sequi id et sed in provident aut. Dolor nam veniam occaecati delectus ipsa. Deserunt in qui aut deleniti. Omnis rerum doloribus doloremque qui et. A soluta rerum eos ex.
Voluptatum amet dolorem expedita officiis. Voluptate adipisci error ad ut. Ullam et velit fugiat dolores et ipsa.
Facilis facere rerum unde aut. Deleniti quam optio consequatur sunt consequatur eum libero. Ipsa vitae cum sunt mollitia velit. Esse animi dolor sunt enim provident nostrum necessitatibus. Quia autem qui optio sit deserunt quis ut. Aliquid perspiciatis ut reiciendis.
Dolore sapiente minus qui fuga tenetur. Ullam est ea est odio sit quis. Qui ratione dicta maxime voluptas debitis voluptates nam qui. Et consequuntur vero adipisci in fugit enim.
Dolores alias similique explicabo dignissimos ullam deleniti enim. Hic et rem vitae qui autem. Aspernatur sequi et magni sunt necessitatibus.
Voluptatum doloremque impedit rerum quia animi non tempora. Possimus quidem repudiandae sequi praesentium et omnis aliquam. Et iste maxime omnis et doloribus vitae.