<p>
</p>
<p>wrong </p>
<p>don’t get gradute business schools confused with the undergraduate schools</p>
<p>when it comes to WALL STREET</p>
<p>for undergraduate schools it is Harvard, Wharton and Princeton</p>
<p>then all the others</p>
<p>^ no…</p>
<p>In Investment Banking / PE, here are the major represented schools:</p>
<p>Wharton
Stern (NYU)
Columbia
Dartmouth
Harvard
Georgetown</p>
<p>Anyway, to all of you still in college… as I said before, don’t think too much about IBD. Your preeminent education is more than a vocational tool - use it to nurture your mind and do something meaningful.</p>
<p>I’m not the biggest fan of Columbia but it is NOT true that Columbia won’t get you into MBB consulting or Bulge bracket banking.</p>
<p>In fact I’m pretty sure that’s one of the only things going for it. Fyi, McKinsey took 8 full-times from my year alone.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a good idea to pick a school based on which one will give you the best chance at getting into investment banking. Most kids change their minds on what they want to do, so it’s usually a poor idea to choose a school because of a career goal when you’re 18.</p>
<p>Most kids at age 18 are attracted by the big money in investment banking, and have little idea what it really is (the term itself is vague – it often includes private equity, venture capital, trading municipal bonds and helping huge companies acquire other companies, among other things).</p>
<p>It’s a tough racket to get into, even tougher to be successful in, and one with a high job dissatisfaction rate (measured in part by some surveys of my college class). My friend quit at 39 after the guy across the street with the same job as him died of a heart attack at 36.</p>
<p>That being said, these two schools are both excellent academic schools, and you can get into investment banking via either school. For all of the hoopla, the differences in reputation aren’t significant (and I’m a Princeton grad, and would say the same thing if you were comparing Princeton and Columbia).</p>
<p>Choose the school that fits you the best. I can’t imagine that you could be just as happy at either school, because they are so different. One is in a ritzy Northern California neighborhood on an expansive, gorgeous campus, and the other is in a compact campus in an exciting, crowded city in a neighborhood that is getting better, but ain’t so great. Go to Columbia if you want to experience the big city; go to Stanford if you want to experience Northern California.</p>
<p>You’ll do best at the school that fits you best. If you have a stellar record at your school, then you will have the best chance of breaking into whatever field you desire, four years from now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WRONG</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.careereducation.columbia.edu/sites/cce/files/ccseas-ug_2011_gss_0.pdf[/url]”>http://www.careereducation.columbia.edu/sites/cce/files/ccseas-ug_2011_gss_0.pdf</a>
According to Columbia Career Services, 26.9% of CC/SEAS graduates get financial jobs.</p>
<p>According to Princeton Career Sercies offices,
[Princeton</a> Office of Career Services 2010-2011 Annual Report](<a href=“Princeton Office of Career Services 2010-2011 Annual Report by Career Services At Princeton University - Issuu”>Princeton Office of Career Services 2010-2011 Annual Report by Career Services At Princeton University - Issuu)</p>
<p>Only 12.9% of princeton graduates get financial jobs. </p>
<p>Wharton is a business school.
Please note that CEO/Chairman of Morgan Stanley is a Columbia graduate. Citi bank CEO got BS, MS, MPhill , MBA, PhD all from Columbia. One of the largest shareholder of Goldman Sachs is Warren Buffett, who is also a Columbia grauate. </p>
<p>Obama administration is dominated by Columbia graduates and provided $800 billion bailout fund to Wall Street financial firms. </p>
<p>The top positions of major financial firms are dominated by Columbia graduates ( not by Princeton/Stanford/wharton graduates).</p>
<p>JamieBrown, here we go again with the consistent animus against Columbia that you shrink from NO opportunity to display on CC. Your use of prejudice in place of facts completely undermines your credibility as someone who has any information about Columbia that could, in any way, be helpful or germane to the points raised. You don’t like the school, for whatever reason. Fine! But might you take a rest from the unrelenting purveyance of prejudice and unverifiable “facts”? Please allow the poster an opportunity to secure from the site verifiable data that he can then assess in order to make an INFORMED decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fantamas, there you go again with the disinformation campaign of yours…</p>
<p>this is a discussion of undergraduate schools yet 2 of the 3 people that you list as Columbia graduates didn’t get undergraduate degrees from Columbia…</p>
<p>How more wrong can you be…</p>
<p>now - your comments regarding the percent of students of an undergraduate school that go on to get financial jobs being a measure of how great that undergraduate school is in getting the top investment banking jobs - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?</p>
<p>It is, and has been for years, that Harvard, Wharton and Princeton are in the top tier for undergraduate students getting the top investment banking jobs…period…Columbia is at the next lower level</p>
<p>live with it, along with your listing of Columbia graudate school alumni being represented as Columbia undergraduates in determining the greatness of the Columbia undergraduate program…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, as fantamas is claiming, do you agree with the listing of graduate alumni of a University and claiming that the undergraduate program is superior because of these alumni of the graduate school?</p>
<p>So, as fantamas is claiming, do you agree with the statement that a school is a better undergraduate school for the top investment banking firms in the U.S. because a bigger percentage of its undergraduate students go on to receive financial jobs, even though they might not be with investment banking firms and even though they might not be with the top investment banking firms?</p>
<p>when someone consistently makes false statements about Columbia and the other top schools, should we just sit there and let them do this without mentioning their absurd statements?</p>
<p>answer the questions, then we can talk further</p>
<p>Would you want to go to a school that if you mix up the letters that make up its name, you come up with Snodfart. I wouldn’t want to be a Snodfart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THis is easy.
<a href=“http://www.careereducation.columbia.edu/sites/cce/files/ccseas-ug_2011_gss_0.pdf[/url]”>http://www.careereducation.columbia.edu/sites/cce/files/ccseas-ug_2011_gss_0.pdf</a></p>
<p>This web site shows that Top financial services employers(for CC/SEAS grad) are:</p>
<p>Goldman Sachs (Warren Buffet is one of the largest share holder)
J.P. Morgan Chase<br>
Morgan Stanley (CEO is columbia alum)
Barclays Capital
Bank of America
Citigroup (CEO is columbia alum)</p>
<p>These are top investment banks at US. 26.9% of CC/SEAS grads get Financial Services jobs and 25% get base salary (excluding bonuses) above $70,000. And 33% with base salary higher than $60k. At Columbia, getting financial services jobs is equivalent to getting TOP Investment Banking jobs.</p>
<p>Again, at top CEO or share holder level, Columbia dominates. Can you name any current CEO at top 6 investments banks, who graduated from Stanford, Wharton, or Princeton ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Morgan Stanley CEO, James P. Gorman, does NOT have a degree from Columbia undergraduate school.</p></li>
<li><p>Warren Buffet does NOT have a degree from Columbia undergraduate school.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>why do you continue with this disinformation campaign about Columbia</p>
<p>for the top Investment Banking jobs straight out of college, it is Wharton, Harvard and Princeton, then the others…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In addition to the CEO of Citibank, which received his undergraduate degree from Columbia,
The CEO of Goldman Sachs received his undergraduate degree from Harvard.
The CEO of JP Morgan received his undergraduate degree from Tufts.
The CEO of Credit Suisse received his undergraduate degree from Chicago.
The CEO of UBS received his undergraduate degree in Switzerland.
The CEO of Bank of America received his undergraduate degree from Brown.</p>
<p>So, when you say that Columbia undergraduates dominate at the CEO levels of the top investment banks, what EXACTLY did you mean?</p>
<p>I absolutely cannot imagine Stanford “isolating” you from a Wall Street career. Stanford has a better business school (GSB) than Columbia does and a fantastic alumni network in New York. Though you would be physically further away from Wall Street at Stanford, it wouldn’t be hard to get there after graduation. </p>
<p>That said, if you want to be within commuting distance of Wall Street, Columbia would be it! Also times are changing, and with all the reform going on, Silicon Valley may offer a much better get-rich-quick plan than Wall Street can.</p>
<p>Also about #6 (the warmer welcome), Stanford will definitely be a much more welcoming place than Columbia. In terms of climate, New York is cold for basically Nov-Apr, while Palo Alto is temperate all year round. Stanford also has a more substantial and beautiful campus than Columbia does. </p>
<p>If you aren’t perfectly fluent and articulate in English, New York may be a difficult place for you. People are mean here. There is no getting around that.</p>
<p>Big picture wise…these two schools are both amazing and prestigious, based on rankings or not. Instead of simply posting facts and putting both schools down, just make a personal decision (weather, what you want to major in, location). That’s all this really comes down to. </p>
<p>I’m going to be a Columbia 2016-er and I have a couple friends who will be going to Stanford. None of us applied because we thought one was better than the other. We applied because we decided that these schools would fit our personalities and needs better than the other. </p>
<p>HYPC and HYPSM are both used and shouldn’t affect your decision. Make your own judgement and don’t regret it!</p>
<p>Though, for business, I really would have to say Columbia is a better choice mainly because of the location. If you were to do Comp Sci or science, than Stanford would be better (Silicon Valley O_O) . Weather-wise, it depends on where you come from. I’m used to the cold so I’m okay with it :)</p>
<p>^^^ha!</p>
<p>Whenever HYPC is used, the “C” is for Cal tech, not Columbia.</p>
<p>Here are top 10 silicon valley firms. </p>
<p>Hewlett Packard
Apple
Intel
Cisco
Oracle
Google
Applied Materials
Synnex
eBay
Gilead Sciences</p>
<p>None of the current CEO’s from these firms received UNDERGRADUATE degree from stanford. The top executive positions at Sillicon Valley are not really for people who received Stanford UNDERGRADUATE degree.</p>
<p>So, when you say that Stanford undergraduates dominate at the CEO levels of the top Silicon Valley firms, what EXACTLY did you mean?</p>
<p>By his own admission, this poster does not now have, and has never had, any kind of connection WHATSOEVER with Columbia University. He is a “chronological” adult who derives a psychologically perverse pleasure in trolling a site principally “peopled” by KIDS AND YOUNG ADULTS, and he does so for one purpose, and one purpose only: to trash a school they either attend, are eager to attend, or have just been notified they are invited to attend. He clearly gains something psychologically from the exercise. However, there is something extremely disturbing about this poster’s need to insert himself REPEATEDLY into conversations about a school he never attended, and with which he has no other relevant connection, solely to trash the school and thus to undermine the enthusiasm that other people – much younger than himself – have for it. I say “chronological” adult because psychological adulthood is not evident in this poster’s on line behavior.</p>
<p>I am not arguing AGAINST informed critical opinion and discussion. It would be one thing for someone affiliated with Columbia to offer an insider’s perspective – positive or negative – for the edification of the board. This is not the case. This individual is, let me say it again, a twisted ■■■■■ with no credibility, and some serious emotional issues. NO one who HAS NO CONNECTION with an institution spends this kind of time and space trashing it unless the person who is doing it is lacking some kind of balance in his life. This is not rational behavior because the person HAS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER, and never has had any, to the institution he is trashing. It should not continue to be accepted behavior.</p>
<p>The real issue for this poster is a desperate need for attention AT ANY COST. Sadly I have given him a “fix.” But the behavior is not rational and needs to be called out.</p>
<p>^^^swingtime, huh?
This is a thread discussing Stanford v. Columbia. </p>
<p>YOU have a degree from neither. Your only connection is that your niece got accepted at Columbia. That is it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have a degree from Stanford and spent a couple of years there.</p>
<p>So tell us, according to your requirements to post on this thread, who should be the person not posting?</p>
<p>
If you got undergraduate degree from Stanford, you are not likely to be a top executive at top Silicon Valley firms. (see #37)</p>