<p>I'm thinking about going into investment banking. Is Berkeley's Haas (undergrad) program that much better? Can I have the facts on what recruiting @ UCLA is like for investment banking? Thanks. I'm looking more into the local LA banks, not the NYC ones.</p>
<p>You should be fine for the LA offices, all the big ones recruit on campus (except for JPM I think)</p>
<p>Haas will do better than UCLA. It's not even close. If you really want IB you need to go to berkeley.</p>
<p>Well, I have to admit I don't now too much about Haas, but here at UCLA, I two of my friends got jobs with Goldman, and 2 guys w/ other banks. Fact is that the big banks do recruit at UCLA, so it's definitely possible to land an i-banking gig.</p>
<p>Why the conflicting information? </p>
<p>Ok, my precise question is:</p>
<p>Is a biz econ major at UCLA with a GPA and GMAT score that is above the 75th percentile of the entering class of the "top 10" business schools (for example Harvard, Wharton, Kellogg), and extremely well qualified in other areas (leadership skills, work experience, personal qualities, etc.) going to encounter problems finding an analyst position @ a local investment banking firms (in LA and greater LA area) compared to a student at Haas (who is finding work @ Bay Area firms), all other factors equal?</p>
<p>haas is better than ucla's bizecon. if i were you, major in mathematics or physics because that will REALLY help you in getting recruited in finance (coming from ucla).</p>
<p>UCLA's BizEcon is absolutely capable of helping you get a top i-banking job in the LA area.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is a biz econ major at UCLA with a GPA and GMAT score that is above the 75th percentile of the entering class of the "top 10" business schools (for example Harvard, Wharton, Kellogg), and extremely well qualified in other areas (leadership skills, work experience, personal qualities, etc.) going to encounter problems finding an analyst position @ a local investment banking firms (in LA and greater LA area) compared to a student at Haas (who is finding work @ Bay Area firms), all other factors equal?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First you seem to have no clue what you're talking about. There's really only three things that matter for getting an analyst position: Strength of your school (in terms of recruitment, prestige, past history of placement), gpa, and how you can do in an interview. The strength of school + gpa get you the interview, the rest is up to you. At yale you can major in history and pull a 3.6 and land an interview, at ucla you certainly cannot (if we're talking about top banks). </p>
<p>If you're talking about business school (gmat, work experience etc) then </p>
<p>1) your type of WE doesn't matter, you could do teach for america for all they care, you just have to show that you excelled and performed well in w/e you do. </p>
<p>2) You don't come out of biz school as an analyst, you come out as an associate (assuming you go into IB). </p>
<p>As noted above people from UCLA can get IB in LA, but you would have an easier time getting it from Haas. From your posts I get the feeling that you're doing this just for the money because you really don't have any clue about how the thing works. If this is the case then w/e, I'm not here to tell you what you should/shouldn't do, but LA IB doesn't make nearly as much as those in NYC. There's a reason the NYC jobs are the hardest to get, followed by the ones in SF...it's because they pay much much more. </p>
<p>You can get LA IB from UCLA, it's certainly within reach, what is nearly out of reach is NYC IB (at top firms). People from UCLA can get them, but you can count them on one hand (for the big4 banks). Haas on the other hand would give you an even better opportunity for LA IB and would give you as good of a shot as anywhere else at NYC IB. </p>
<p>The moral of the story is if you want IB, 1) look into it because you seem lost and 2) go to haas.</p>
<p>well, it will be harder to get in, but i know several students personally who came from lesser schools (think SUNY, CSU) that still got offers from investment banks, not top tier, but bank of america, wachovia, and such.</p>
<p>Thanks. Sorry for my lack of knowledge about the field...</p>
<p>So I'm aware that NYC banks (followed by SF) banks pay a lot more. I'm not too concerned, however, about the money I make as an analyst, I'm more concerned about getting into a top business school. Are you saying that not only do NYC banks pay more, but that working at NYC is actually "better" work experience than working in LA or even Bay Area? (What about companies like Goldman Sachs who have offices in LA? Are these considered NY banks too?)</p>
<p>Why is there such a disparity between Haas and UCLA? Both undergrad programs are affiliated with top business schools. Sure, UCLA's business econ program isn't an undergrad business degree, but all investment banks openly say that most of the stuff that you need to know you can learn on the job...</p>
<p>The disparity between Haas and UCLA BizEcon can in part be attributed to the toughness of admission. It's significantly tougher to get into Haas than to get into the BizEcon major, therefore the average Haas student is probably more capable than the average BizEcon student. Also, education quality at Hass is probably at least a bit higher than at UCLA.</p>
<p>You can get into a top B-school with an LA-based i-banking job. Honestly, if there are no factors that would make you favor UCLA, go for Berkeley. Even if you don't get into Haas, there's always Cal's Econ major.</p>
<p>However, in my opinion, UCLA BizEcon is sufficient for you to reach your goals. So, if there's a reason you'd prefer UCLA over Cal (campus, environment, location, "feel", sports, women, etc.), then go to UCLA.</p>
<p>The thing about IB and biz-school is there are tons of kids gunning for the top 5 business programs. These business schools can't just fill up their classes with IB people (look at the classes, usually only about 10% of the class did IB). Coming from UCLA + LA IB isn't going to set you apart...you are going to be like hundreds of others, and worse off then all those kids doing IB in NYC coming from the ivies. To be honest I don't understand why anyone would "shoot" to snag IB in LA. It makes no sense. It's like aiming to get 3rd place in a race. No, go for it all. </p>
<p>IB in NYC (assuming BB) gives you a much better chance at getting into a top biz school. Also remember that analyst programs are 2 years long (3 years if they want you to go right into being an associate. This is extremely rare, and you don't need to get your mba for this...but it's VERY rare so nobody counts on it). After you 2 year analyst stint you can't just go into a top biz school program, 2 years of WE is too little, so these people do a 2 year stint in private equity (most of them). Now you have 4 years of WE, 2 in IB and 2 in PE, and you're going to be very competitive at top b-schools. However coming from IB in LA doesn't give you the same chance to get PE jobs as NYC does. </p>
<p>Companies like GS, ML, MS all have offices in LA. You aren't considered IB in NYC unless you work in their NYC office...often the hardest office to get into. You make more, you have more career opportunities, you're seen as the best of the best. If you do IB in LA you're going to be seen as somebody who couldn't get a NYC job. </p>
<p>In all honesty the last thing you should be worrying about is business school. You need about 4 years of WE after UG to get into business school. They take as many people from IB as they do from govt, nonprofit (like teach for america, peace corps). IB isn't a golden ticket...thousands of people apply to b-school with an IB background, what makes you think that you (a ucla grad...good but not great) are going to stick out? </p>
<p>With Haas not only do you have a chance at NYC IB (the thing you should really be aiming for) but you're going to be far and away better than anybody applying from UCLA for LA IB spots (assuming you perform well, you can't just slack off). </p>
<p>Just go to Haas if you want to do IB, there's no discussion at all. Haas > UCLA Bizecon</p>