<p>how is that something to laugh about? A lot of lives just went down the ****ter....I wouldn't be laughing at that...</p>
<p>A lot of people who think they are god's gift just got a reality check. LOL. More to follow.</p>
<p>CMC is mentioned above</p>
<p>I assume you are still in high school. Given the current state of the economy, In four years there will be no investment banks left. Just kidding--I think the real answer to your question is that big firms recruit at all the top schools (All Ivys for sure, plus lots of NESCACs, University of Michigan, UVA, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford.....lots more I didn't mention so hope other posters don't get offended if I left a school off. Older brothers were analysts at I-banks--they say it's how you distinguish yourself in school, not necessarily which school, especially because so many junior I-bankers go off to B-school in two or three years anyway. P.S Superstar analyst at one brother's firm was from Hamilton. Nothing against Hamilton--only make the point because it's the person not the school.</p>
<p>P.S. Hamilton is a great school anyway just might not have the reputation of others</p>
<p>Final comment-doesn't matter what you major in either. One brother was History, the other Comparative Literature.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of lives just went down the ****ter....I wouldn't be laughing at that...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh please, this is no Enron. I am sure they can all find a decent finance job elsewhere. You are not crying for people because they can no longer have 100-dollar dinner every night, are you?</p>
<p>The financial industry needed to be culled--too many low level analysts and banks were taking positions in companies that were bigger than they should of (really, this was the most unheard of thing). I think most of us would've preferred if a thinning of the herd didn't turn into a slaughter of the worldwide economy and a recession, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with your logic is causality. BSC's demise didn't bring about the "slaughter of the worldwide economy"; it was the credit crunch of '07 and the instability in the financial markets right afterwards that brought Bear to its knees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem with your logic is causality. BSC's demise didn't bring about the "slaughter of the worldwide economy"; it was the credit crunch of '07 and the instability in the financial markets right afterwards that brought Bear to its knees.
[/quote]
Firms like BSC were the reason (and they should always be the reason, Wall Street should solely focus on greed because nuance is worthless in a place where merit is all that matters) they were brought to their knees. The credit crunch was not some magical being that came into existence through the sheer force of will of commodities traders worldwide.</p>
<p>I've already made long posts about this in the business forum so I'd rather not do it again, but Wall Street is inherently self-destructive, they did what they should have done which was underwrite loans in a profitable market, while regulators did nothing, lenders were predatory and stupid and the country was exceptionally delusional (not as bad as the tech bubble, though--in the number of people involved, anyway). It is an inherently cyclical industry, this bad part of the cycle is being exacerbated by a lovely combination of incompetence and arrogance, and the industry itself will be fine assuming what the Fed is doing doesn't cause a depression.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The mighty UChicago <em>undergrad</em> team had been beat 4 times in a row by Northwestern in College Fed Challenge. Maybe their solution were too complicated for the judges to comprehend?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I don't take any national competition in which SUNY Geneseo comes in second seriously.</p>
<p>Game, set, match.</p>
<p>What is wrong with SUNY Geneseo coming in second? You don't have to go to a top private school to be smart or to win competitions. The SUNY Geneseo team probably worked very hard.</p>
<p>^Exactly, it's like saying Nobel prize shouldn't be taken seriously because many Nobel winners didn't go to top-25 schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, I don't take any national competition in which SUNY Geneseo comes in second seriously
[/quote]
</p>
<p>beefs,
Regardless of what you think, the fact is Chicago team got beat ALL 4 times. If your program is so superior, shouldn't your team at least win something regardless? Keep telling yourself Chicago undergrad econ is the best in the world doesn't make it one. You haven't studied in other colleges, how do you know other programs are all inferior?</p>
<p>Despite how I feel about "beefs" Chicago's econ program is probably the best. That does not however mean that they will place the best into ibanking or hedge funds, as there are other factors (besides strength of academic department) that determine each individual students candidacy. </p>
<p>When you are applying, though your school (and thus department) are taken into account, these are weighed among other factors like previous internship experience, and (for lack of a better way to put it) finance interview savvy. </p>
<p>A student at Chicago, despite coming from the 'best' econ program around, could be beaten out by a student from a "lesser" department who excelled in other areas (Did someone mention Hamilton).</p>
<p>Therefore, strength of department is not the be all, end all determinant of ibank and HF placement, and a school with the best department, because of the consideration of other factors, will not automatically place the best.</p>
<p>I still have a problem with people saying the undergraduate economics program at Chicago is the best. It isn't. It's still a great program, but if you're "tiering" things with 5 schools per tier--it's not in the first, it's probably in the second. The graduate program is amazing, but there's more of a barrier between the graduate and undergraduate program than there is at peer schools. The Chicago program also is generally considered more "academic" in nature (as is pretty much every program at that school) than the program at Harvard or Northwestern or Dartmouth or wherever else, which is great for graduate school prospects, but doesn't necessarily line-up perfectly with the business world. Of course, you're going to be fine coming out of Chicago (or any elite school) for whatever, and most of what you get out of an education is what you put into it, but it's not a preprofessional program.</p>
<p>Tetrishead - did you go to UChicago? You seem to have a lot of knowledge regarding their academic "barrier."</p>
<p>corruptbargain you really think NYU Stern is better than Cornell AEM? Isn't Cornell AEM harder to get into than Stern? I'm referring to their undergrad business btw.</p>
<p>I've never been enrolled at the school, though I've been for other things. For issues like this I try to avoid anecdotal evidence or "rankings," which can't really highlight the nuance in something like this, and I instead go off the opinions of people I know who have been to the school. In reality, even people who went to Chicago aren't going to be able to assess the school in the context of other schools they've never visited (just like someone at Harvard isn't really in a position to say their X is better than Columbia's Y), so it always makes topics like this difficult even if students of a school are involved with it.</p>
<p>Most people seem to place the undergraduate program in the second or third tier, and the consensus opinion of people I know and I've asked (visiting sociology student, graduated history student, transferred philosophy student) seems to be that there's an inaccessibility to the graduate program and certain professors that doesn't exist at other schools. It also appears to have been the opinion of people on this forum in the past, although I don't know any of them so I can't speak as to whether or not their opinion is based in any experience.</p>
<p>they generally want the smartest students who are enthusiastic about banking, not those from top ranked econ departments. it just happens that the top schools tend to have top econ anyways.</p>