<p>Best in terms of what? Say, recruiting efforts, finance/econ programs, overall student interests? </p>
<p>I'm surprised that the name MIT hasn't been tossed around much when people talk about I-banking. I-banks like candidates with highly quantitative and analytical coursework, which is exactly what you get from MIT. MIT's traditional economics department is also a top 5 program. Plus, MIT is one of the few schools that you can get a top-notch undergrad education in business along with a rigorous engineering/science/ background. I'm not trying to say one school is more deserving than other schools, but just saying that Harvard/Wharton grads don't enjoy an advantage when it comes to recruiting over peer schools.</p>
<p>Guys ranking and academics play a good role in decisions, but you should also be aware of location as well.
a student who goes to columbia or nyu has much much more opportunities in terms of internships and interviews since the firms are so close. meanwhile, schools that are located farther away, despite academic prestige, may have not as many opportunities.
(speaking from a personal perspective)</p>
<p>Not really true. Most banks are very willing to travel for recruiting, at the analyst level its much harder to "network" in, rather you get in through established campus recruiting.</p>
<p>What do you guys think about Claremont McKenna College for undergrad? I really like the school but my biggest concern with it is that the name just doesn't carry the same weight as a Stanford or Harvard.</p>
<p>What makes you the expert in rating Economics programs? I certainly don't have the expertise but Chicago is clearly a tier one program conceivably #1. Look at the college rankings, ask people in academia, ask business people. It's reputation is impeccable even at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>In a word, you don't know what you are talking about. You're proably a Harvard guy.</p>
<p>I'm not a Harvard guy, and if you want to go ask business people you feel free. As long as you understand that the assistant manager at your local Dairy Queen is not a "business person" you ought to receive... something. Their graduate program is tier one, and probably one. The undergraduate program is not, and recruitment comparisons, anecdotal evidence from the field of finance and the word of Chicago graduates themselves will reaffirm my statements. There is a barrier between the ugrad and graduate programs at Chicago that does not exist at peer schools, and it impacts the quality of the ugrad program. The undergraduate program is still very good, but it's very academic in nature (as is the entirety of the undergraduate Chicago experience), and it lends itself less to a career in business than prospective Chicago students would like to believe. The rankings posted a long while back by people on this forum who work in finance are generally on track with what I've been told and what I've seen at the ground level.</p>
<p>You supplied nothing but conjecture and ended with "in a word," followed by a sentence instead of a word, as if to make some strong closing statement to sum up... the absolute lack of content in your post. I have no reason to believe that you are qualified to tell me what color the sky is, much less override all that I've been told and all that I've seen.</p>
<p>In the future, you should drop the sharp (and I use this term very loosely) last couple of closing sentences if your post contains no pith. Just a tip.</p>
<p>based upon reading a bunch of different forums here and on wallstoasis, and reading stuff online. also, i am going to leave out caltech and mit, i dont really know where they would go.</p>
<p>Well, not necessarily. I like my stupid little groupings/tiers to hold 5 each, and Princeton, Stanford, Harvard and Wharton are probably 4 out of the top 5. It's arguable as to whether or not Wharton can be considered top 5 for economics alone as a discipline, I'd probably argue against it, but it is the best undergraduate business program in the country, and somehow I think we're not just talking about econ when we include Wharton.</p>
<p>While I'm not a Harvard guy, I am a Yale guy in my preferences, and even I admit that Yale has a program that wouldn't rank in the top 10 if LACs were included. I wouldn't really discuss Yale in the same context as Princeton, Stanford and Harvard as far as econ programs go. I wouldn't put Harvard and Wharton above Princeton and Stanford in the quality of the econ programs, but for recruitment purposes it's hard to see two programs that are easier to get jobs out of than Harvard econ and Wharton.</p>
<p>how good is recruiting at Wesleyan? what about compared to USC Marshall and Vanderbilt? (those three and Boston College Carroll are the only ones i have been accepted to.)</p>
<p>all those 4 schools (usc, wesleyan, vanderbilt, bc) are probably very similar in the recruiting. although if you are looking to work in the west coast branch of a firm then definitely go to usc. i dont really know much about vandy's recruiting, but i would say you can't really make a mistake choosing from those 4 schools.</p>
<p>Note the odds--over 7000 apps from mostly top schools and about 600 hired. And that was in a good year. The next few years will be much tougher with more apps and fewer hires as not many other IB firms will even be hiring.</p>
<p>^^ Only 9 from engineering... Would that be attributed to the fact that GS typically does not recruit engineering majors or that engineering majors do not usually go for IB?</p>