WSO University Rankings
There is always a lot of talk about 'target' schools, 'prestige' and the like.
I'm genuinely curious exactly how people on this site measure which universities are 'top tier'. From the perspective of an Australian, this all seems very arbitrary and based significantly on the abundance of OCR.
For instance, if I look at the QS World Rankings (http://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking…), I can see CalTech ranked at #5, UCL at #7, Imperial at #8 and some swiss university at #9. On WSO and even more broadly, these are not the typical universities that people dream about attending. However, they still rank ahead of many universities that are commonly raved about, such as Princeton, LSE, Cornell, UPenn, Columbia, ect.
Obviously, universities are also ranked differently when compared across faculties. In addition, if you look at how QS (or any other) service ranks universities, there are a multitude of factors, including academic research, ect. Even so, I'd like to get a discussion going with regards to everyone's thoughts about this. Is there a measure of university rankings that I'm oblivious to? Or is it purely based upon the arbitrary impressions people have gotten through hollywood movies, ect?
First off, the QS, Bloomberg, US News, Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda, etc. lists are general, and don't focus on just investment banking. Thus, they don't really hold much weight in the finance world.
Second, those lists suck anyways. The criteria they use mean that universities that spend a lot on dorms and student facilities are inordinately rewarded. Furthermore, much of their criteria is arbitrary and difficult to use to ecompare schools with one another.
Now, as far as the differences between "target", "semi-target", and "non-target" schools in finance, you are correct in saying that it mostly has to do with the amount of OCR. The alumni and networking opportunities also play a large role in determining a school's "prestige". Really, however, what it boils down to is that higher tier schools simply make it easier to break into the industry. If you are dedicated and focused a target school, you will have little trouble getting a good job. At a semi-target, you will have to work hard and your odds are slightly less. At a non-target (depending on how much of a non-target it is), you will likely have to work quite a bit harder, but you certainly stand a fairly decent chance. Regardless of where you go, however, I still believe that your future is still in your hands; it's not all up to luck.
I should also add that the differences between target schools are minimal (the same applies to semi-target schools.) People can argue about UPenn is better than UMich, or how Georgetown has more opportunities than UVA, but in reality, those argument are just cock measuring contests. Now, there are in some instances major differences among non-targets (e.g. I would much rather go to U of South Carolina vs Arizona State or Georgia Tech vs U of Alabama) but they're not as numerous as one would think.
That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Universities are not the entry doors to the system. Certain select Prep schools are.
Op, those rankings mean nothing. The Economist ranks the University of Queensland's MBA program 16th globally. In previous years, I've seen it ranked above some of the top elite ivy's, which is obviously ridiculous.
They are generally based on certain measurable criteria that can be manipulated to skew the results.
Nice, it's been awhile since there's been a good rankings Charlie Juliet
UH #1
In my opinion, the prestige of a school varies firm to firm, and those lists are simply ra ra put out by writers needing to update material. It really comes down to alumni networks. If a lot of bankers at a firm are from a certain school, that school is going to be seen as more prestigious. When looking at schools, keep an eye out for places that are breeding grounds for bankers because those are the schools with the best alumni networks.
For example, UVa, UMich and UCLA produce tons of bankers, and even though these aren't as prestigious as the Ivys, a firm might think those are very prestigious because that's where all their bankers went.
I think a more accurate way to think about the rankings is actually thinking through the full student-employee-retirement lifecycle.
What do I mean?
Let's take a look at some of the presitgious schools like Oxford, Harvard, and University of Sydney...
What!? You're probably saying to yourself right now. University of Sydney is prestigious? I've never heard of it... where even is that?
Follow me on my example and you'll find out.
All three Universities have existed for a decent length of time; Oxford = started 1167 Harvard = 1636 University of Sydney = 1850
But looking at context you see an interesting thing happen - Oxford is the oldest University in the English-speaking world, Harvard is arguably one of the oldest by a few years in America, and University of Sydney is the oldest University in Australia, predating the country by half a decade.
Now the rest is just simple logic, if you have three Universities that haven't blown up, but started at 'year 1' and then underwent the same forces of growth that had delivered World Power to England, and then to the United States, you can see that there's deep entrenchment because people 'went there'. In fact, enough people 'went there' to accrue a few spectacular leaders in different fields, through sheer statistical probability. I can point to University of Sydney's Law school as an example, it had claim to most High Court Justices of Australia (equiv to Supreme Court in the US) and produced someone called H.V.Evatt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Evatt).
(No really, you should check out that link.)
So with people like Evatt coming out of University of Sydney, naturally all locals of Australia would want to 'go there'. Now Australia hasn't had it's 'world power' ascent, so it's 'locality' is geographical. Harvard/Oxford have a much larger 'locality' and thus are seen globally as leaders.
And guess what? Those people are your recruiters for banking, consulting, law, and all other influential areas, because it just so happenned that the Universities (broader than the three I listed of course) who were there first have a monopoly on the 'greats', and unless they squander that monopoly, will continue to enjoy it.
So why this long-winded explanation, and why do you care?
Because it illustrates that barring a blow up of the above three universities, or gross mismangagement for decades on end, each will remain in the collective cultural minds of each country that it is 'the' university to attend.
So what's in a current rank? I'd say you'd be able to plot the preference of an Institution on two factors; - Age - Alumni (both past and future)
The 'quality' of your education is impossible to observe, it is prone to randomness based not only on who teaches you, their mood, and your mood when you learn. University of Nowhere may have the best teachers ever, but that's vapid based on whether the teachers move, curricula, who attends, the additional support they have etc.
Age and Alumni not only is observable, but self-feeds. Good teaching does not beget good teaching (students leave to go work). Every decade your institution lasts longer, increases the probability it will exist for longer still. Every additional great alumni will serve to develop additional great alumni...
University of Melbourne is better than university of sydney.
UniMelb has been killing it for years.
Everyone reads the same books in every single University. The only reason these phony rankings exist is to give a false perception to naive students, so they can pay lots of money to school administrators.
The only ranking that should be there, is the probability of becoming friend with wealthy kids. That's it. Actually, that should be the WSO University Ranking. The higher the rank = the more wealthy kids that are attending.
Qui nihil libero unde ab explicabo perspiciatis eveniet expedita. Expedita eaque enim magnam vel dolor fugiat quos. Asperiores quo omnis aut qui. Tempora cumque inventore pariatur officiis earum id. Est sit ullam quia.
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...