<p>SixSixty, you are definitely still in high school. With that view of rankings, you are an absolute fool. Georgetown is the Catholic Harvard(in name), and it receives respect not only because of its name and legacy,but because it has very smart students. </p>
<p>High school kids shouldn't question Consulting firms. End of story.</p>
<p>elsijfdl, having any of the top 6 MCs or top 10 IBs consider a school a "core" campus is an honor. Brown, Chicago and Cornell only have 1 or 2 major consulting companies that consider them "core". It is very rare to be considered a core campus by MCs because they recruit very few undergrads each year. But one thing is definite. Georgetown is a major hunting ground for IBs and MCs. I know, I recruited there many times when I worked for Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and met competing recruiters from peer institutions. And the assumption that recruiting does not merely take place at their B-School is also correct. Companies recruit talent, not majors!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Brown, Chicago and Cornell only have 1 or 2 major consulting companies that consider them "core".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's just flat out wrong (at least for Brown). </p>
<p>The 3 most prestigious Consulting Firms (i.e. the "Big 3" - McKinsey, BCG and Bain) all recruit directly at Brown and consider it a core school:</p>
<p>McK:
<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/mckoncampus/brown.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/mckoncampus/brown.asp</a></p>
<p>All three firms have Brown specific / designated recruiting reps, Brown specific recruiting/resume dates and deadlines (with specific locations/buildings on Brown's campus)</p>
<p>...and that's not to mention the other major consulting firms.</p>
<p>I-banks and consulting firms are big time elitists and prestige wh0res. They are probably the only two sectors that focus solely on the BRAND NAME of the university you attended. Most other fields (IT, accounting, teaching, etc.) focus more on what sort of job skills you have, and past internships, etc. </p>
<p>That's b/c i-banks and consulting firms are very status-conscious. I-banks and consulting firms care about image; they want to boast that they recruit only the best of the best, and the assumption is that the best of the best go to brand name schools. I think it's a very narrow-minded and egotistical approach. It also gives a disincentive to many ppl who attend these elite universites to not work hard; they can get by solely on the name of their school on their diploma. </p>
<p>I-banks and consulting firms are also not very skill-based. That's why reputation of your school matters. Basically, the rule of thumb is this: if you attend a prestigious university, major doesn't matter. You can major in the most useless thing ever (medieval studies, literature, etc.). If you attend a no-name university, you better major in something useful so that you can develop certain job skills b/c your school's bad or unknown reputation won't take you far. </p>
<p>Prestige of a university is inversely correlated to specific job skills you develop.</p>
<p>The_Prestige, I am talking about "core" campuses. The major consulting firms recruit students from hundreds of campuses, but only a handful are considered "core".</p>
<p>Teckno, tha analysis is wrong. The truth is at the highest levels of business being able to think critically and strategically is the core value, and the top schools train a way of thinking more than a specific trade.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is at the highest levels of business being able to think critically and strategically is the core value, and the top schools train a way of thinking more than a specific trade.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Generally speaking, that's what a liberal arts education is all about: teaching you how to think critcally and analytically. Top schools aren't the only ones doing it.</p>
<p>And my analysis is correct: i-banks and consulting firms are nothing more than elitists and prestige wh0res. They care about the reputation of your school at the expense of your character.</p>
<p>They should care about the reputation of the school because people work very hard to get into top schools. Simple as that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They should care about the reputation of the school because people work very hard to get into top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From my work experience, the ones who went to top schools are very lazy and have this sense of entitlement attitude. Like they think Wall Street owes them everything b/c they went to a name school. Of course not all of them like that, but the hardest working ppl I've met are the ones who attended relatively obscure colleges. They have the strongest work ethic b/c they know that they don't have the "brand name" of their degree to ride on.</p>
<p>But I will acknowledge that there are ppl out there who make the argument that if brand name reputation doesn't matter, then they have no incentive to work hard and try to become successful. Well, if prestige is all the matters in your life, then you will die a miserable and lonely man.</p>
<p>Sounds like you're drawing anecdotal evidence from your work and possible grudge you have against some. The fact is, there are lazy people from any college. But recruiters aren't blind. They can probably tell how lazy you are by your GPA and major. So I really don't know what your argument is here, unless you're saying that firms deliberately recruit lazy people, which is obviously not ture.</p>
<p>My point is that consulting firms and i-banks are often elitist and the expense of hiring quality employees with characters. </p>
<p>Some firms (sadly) would rather take the bottom 10% of Harvard's class then the cream of the crop from an obscure university. The cream of the crop from an obscure university likely is much better qualified for the job, but the cream of the crap from Harvard will still get the job just b/c they went to Harvard.</p>
<p>Of course, i could be wrong and perhaps this practice isn't as prevalent as I thought....</p>
<p>I actually agree with your point about the bottom 10% at Harvard. However, I think you are exaggerating the demand for those graduates. I don't think any top firm will really want to hire them, unless for special reasons. Top consulting/finance firms are very competitive to get in. 3.5 GPA is usually the threshold and 3.5 is still well above the average GPA at most Top schools, including the alleged grade-inflated ones.</p>
<p>I'm not entirely sure what consulting is, but there was an interesting article in the Chronicle about a Duke student in his first year of consulting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_Prestige, I am talking about "core" campuses. The major consulting firms recruit students from hundreds of campuses, but only a handful are considered "core".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's EXACTLY what I said - that Brown was definitely a "CORE" campus recruited out of the TOP THREE Consulting Firms (whereas you had mentioned "1 or 2" for Brown).</p>
<p>When a particular school has a specifically designated firm representative, presents and actively recruits directly ON Campus, holds ON CAMPUS PRESENTATION and INTERVIEWS, has specific CAMPUS deadlines (for recruiting, presentation and interview dates) that is one of the tell-tale signs that it is considered a "CORE" school. If you disagree, then are you saying that they show this level of commitment to "hundreds of schools", if not, then you must agree that only a handful of schools get this kind of commitment.</p>
<p>The Top 3 Consulting firms DON'T engage in that level of commitment from, as you say, "HUNDREDS OF CAMPUSES" - whereas Brown (and a few select others) are one of the few campuses that those elite firms have made a specific commitment to (in terms of designating a specific recruiter, actively going to Campus, interviewing on Campus, etc.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, I personally know very senior level people - EXTREMELY SENIOR LEVEL PEOPLE - at all three of those firms McKinsey, BCG and Bain and know for a fact that Brown is absolutely considered A CORE SCHOOL for all three firms.</p>
<p>...again, this doesn't even include other major Consulting firms (e.g. Monitor Group which considers Brown a "Core" school as well as others)</p>
<p>So please, don't state that Brown only has 1 or 2 Consulting Firms that consider it a "core" school, because that is just not correct Alex.</p>
<p>I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Easy there The_Prestige. I know very senior people at most major MCs too...and I also happen to know some of their HR VPs too. We often work together on various projects. I stand by my comment. Brown is not a core campus for most of them. That does not mean top MCs do not recruit at Brown, but it does mean that when recruitment activities are slashed, Brown does not make the cut. </p>
<p>I realize this is not 100% accurate, and it is a couple of years old, but it is a pretty good indication of which campuses are considered core:</p>
<p>As you said, that is OLD and INCORRECT information from a non official website (at least 3, 4 or more years old), where as I have posted direct links from I am providing CURRENT information from THE OFFICIAL COMPANY WEBSITES:</p>
<p>McK:
<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/mckoncampus/brown.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/us_schools/mckoncampus/brown.asp</a></p>
<p>So, I ask the audience WHO ARE YOU GOING TO TRUST AND BELIEVE?</p>
<p>Furthermore, to your comment:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Brown is not a core campus for most of them. That does not mean top MCs do not recruit at Brown, but it does mean that when recruitment activities are slashed, Brown does not make the cut.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that all three of those firms above will not honor their commitments to recruit, present and interview directly at Brown this year (as they have done every year)?</p>
<p>1) I have already proven that the Big Three already recruit actively at Brown (which proves you wrong that there are more than "1 or 2")</p>
<p>2) I have already proven the recruitment level goes beyond what these firms do at "Hundreds of Campuses" - if you challenge that, please name me AT LEAST 100 Schools that have designated recruiters, actively present ON CAMPUS AND HOLD ON CAMPUS INTERVIEWS at McKinsey, Bain and BCG.</p>
<p>Put simply, according to Alex (and the Vault website):</p>
<p>FACT or FICTION: Brown does not even exist (or actively recruit) in the eyes of Mckinsey and BCG</p>
<p>FACT: Both McKinsey and BCG have presented, recruited and interviewed at Brown this year.</p>
<p>I am totally sick of the complete crap that sometimes gets posted on this website</p>
<p>
[quote]
FACT: Both McKinsey and BCG have presented, recruited and interviewed at Brown this year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not that I'm disagreeing when you say that they do show a real commitment to recruiting at Brown, but where's your proof of on-campus interviews for McKinsey? Your link doesn't say where the interviews take place, unless they are in fact at the 'New Jersey Office' listed right under 'Round 1 Interviews.'</p>
<p>"Brown, Chicago and Cornell only have 1 or 2 major consulting companies that consider them "core". </p>
<p>That's just flat out wrong (at least for Brown). "</p>
<p>again, SEE DEFINITION of the word "core"</p>
<p>The_prestige, you need not take it so personally, nor accuse me of being ignorant or whatever else you are attempting to insinuate. </p>
<p>According to the link you provided, McKinsey interviews on over 100 campuses nationwide. Are you telling me that all 100+ universities are equal in McKinsey's eyes? I am sure you can agree that some campuses are considered more strategic than others. You don't have to accuse me of who knows what. </p>
<p>And no the_prestige, you proved nothing. I never said that MCs do not recruit at Brown. I said that Brown isn't a core campus. And Brown's "designated recruiter" is also responsible for the Cornell and Colgate campuses. Personally, nothing on the link you provide proves that Brown is any more a "core" campus than Colgate or Cornell...and none of those are considered "core" as far as I know.</p>