<p>Which school has more credibility and more respect on Wall Street and the corporate world. I know both are ranked closely (Cornell 14, Brown 16). Although Cornell has far better international rankings, Brown has a lower acceptance rate. From what I sense, Cornell has a better repuatation amongst businesses, what do you think? And what happens when we throw Dartmouth into the mix? (solely based on corporate respect)</p>
<p>You're asking a bunch of 19 yr old kids that arguably has not graduated from college let alone pass introductory chemistry 101 what Wall St. firms think of these schools.</p>
<p>Dude... All you are going to get is speculation. I speculate that Dartmouth > Cornell > Brown. Source: my brain. </p>
<p>Just think about it. Tuck...Johnson...<em>blank</em>...</p>
<p>Ivy Business placement/ reputation:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard, Princeton</li>
<li>Dartmouth, Yale</li>
<li>Columbia, Penn</li>
<li>Brown, Cornell</li>
</ol>
<p>My experience is that they are tied. Dartmouth tends to do much better.</p>
<p>In terms of the IB profession, Penn and Harvard people seem to show up the most..</p>
<p>Dartmouth is by far the most represented of the 3 on Wall Street. Cornell and Brown would be equally represented. I agree with Slipper except Penn Wharton would be in the top group.</p>
<p>Yeah I would put Wharton in top group as well, Penn otherwise next to Columbia.</p>
<p>Wall Street as we knew it is dead. May it rest in peace. In the Corporate World, Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth are all very respected. Generally speaking, in most large corporations (major Commercial Banks, Phamarceutical Companies, Tech firms, Heavy Manufactuing firms etc...), universities with top ranked Business and Engineering programs have a greater presence and reach. As such, I would say that Cornell's reach in the corporate world is greater than Brown's or Dartmouth's...but it is negligible.</p>
<p>you are really splitting hairs here when you are talking about "Corporate" America (which is an incredibly broad term btw)</p>
<p>graduates of both Cornell and Brown, by sheer virtue of their selective admissions processes, should command respect in "Corporate" America -- any argument giving one school a discernible edge over another isn't very credible.</p>
<p>frankly, from my own experience and other anecdotal experience from friends, colleagues, etc., any "bias" will come from any personal biases held by a specific recruiter / human resource professional within any given corporation -- unfortunately, that is the "real" world.</p>
<p>That is why I said that any edge that Cornell may have is negligible. Personally, I think it depends on industry and geography. My thinking above had more to do with the size of Cornell and the versitility of its academic offerings, particularly in areas that corporations tend to value, such as Engineering, Business and Law. But generally speaking, this is a highly debatable subject.</p>
<p>
[quote]
....graduates of both Cornell and Brown, by sheer virtue of their selective admissions processes, should command respect in "Corporate" America -- any argument giving one school a discernible edge over another isn't very credible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. This is what I'm saying....None of us know jack. We connect selectivity in the undergrad admissions process with credibility and respect in the Corporate world. Quality of instruction during the four years in college doesn't count?</p>
<p>HOW does the admissions process at a university prior to arrival as a freshman indicate how positive or negative Wall St. firms judge graduates of said schools four or five years down the line. There is an gap of four years of maturity and development here that varies school to school which is not included.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, Selectivity of an institution prior to arrive as a freshman is not an automatic "you must respect me" label in Corporate America. Respect comes from alumnis working hard and doing well in the industry... </p>
<p>Reason I believe Dartmouth has an edge is because Dartmouth has superior undergraduate emphasis compared to Brown and Cornell. Their undergraduates simply have more attention and receive a better liberal arts education than others...</p>
<p>I agree with Phead. Just because a person attends a selective university does not mean they will be automatically respected in industry. Most people in senior corporate roles don't even assume a person is intelligent based simply on where they went to college. Of course, if 100% of students at a given university are certified brilliant and that brilliance translates into guaranteed professional success 100% of the times, then the concept of brilliance by association would be valid. But that is not the case at any university, Harvard and Caltech included...not by a long shot. The number of average intellects walking the halls of elite universities is significant...as is the incidence of academic brilliance not translating into professional ability.</p>
<p>In my experience, what generally determines reputation in the corporate sector is alumni representation in a particular industry and geography and quality of professional programs, particularly Business, Engineering and Law. Obviously, a school should have a reasonable number of qualified, even gifted, students if it is to attract a significant number of recruiters. However, recruiters are more interested in how far a university has stretched its students' intellect and, in so doing, developped its students critical and analytical reasoning skills. </p>
<p>Attending a top university helps improve the odds (sometimes significantly) of a student landing that first interview at a top company. Once that student enters the room, he (or she) is on his own.</p>
<p>Banking/ consulting - Dartmouth has the edge
Venture capital/PE - Dartmouth has the edge
Corporate- All about the same</p>
<p>A few things to note--</p>
<p>Phead, Dartmouth does not really have superior undergraduate emphasis to Brown. Also, "corporate" America is one area where they hire very much on school reputation and success at those places and don't really care about the quality instruction or objective learning outcomes,etc. Hell, even if they did care about learning outcomes, they'd have no way at all to measure them reliably and would likely turn to various ranking systems the same as most pre-college people do. The exception is when someone in the hiring process happens to be aware of a school intimately due to attending there.</p>
<p>The truth is, none of these places care very much about these kinds of things-- great school and good record to get in the door, the student being smart for the rest. Especially since most of these jobs are >95% on the job training.</p>
<p>All of the Ivy League has an excellent reputation on "Wall Street" -- I think a lot of the perceived difference here comes from the fact that students at one school are more or less likely to go in that direction than students at another, to be perfectly honest.</p>
<p>Unless you're doing research or going to graduate school, just about no one hiring you is going to care about quality of instruction once you're there-- they're 100% concerned with how well you're going to do your job and how smart you are. Whether college has improved that or not, tremendously or just a small amount, they don't give a crap. It's all about where you are and whether you've passed the threshold to be successful.</p>
<p>Which is why anyone who thinks going to a top school is a means to a top job is wasting money and time...</p>
<p>I don't know where the perception comes from that somehow Yale is considered inferior to Harvard and Princeton in the business world and corporate America. In my experience, it hasn't been remotely true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You're asking a bunch of 19 yr old kids that arguably has not graduated from college let alone pass introductory chemistry 101 what Wall St. firms think of these schools.</p>
<p>Dude... All you are going to get is speculation. I speculate that Dartmouth > Cornell > Brown. Source: my brain. </p>
<p>Just think about it. Tuck...Johnson...<em>blank</em>...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering that Yale > Dartmouth, but Tuck > Yale SOM, these type of analogies don't necessarily work. </p>
<p>I find it amusing when people cite USNWR rankings to decide what schools are considered better like corporate recruiters are adjusting their interview schedules each year based on them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, recruiters are more interested in how far a university has stretched its students' intellect and, in so doing, developped its students critical and analytical reasoning skills.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is one going to tangibly measure this? They can't, which is why interviews are are about the candidates not the schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unless you're doing research or going to graduate school, just about no one hiring you is going to care about quality of instruction once you're there-- they're 100% concerned with how well you're going to do your job and how smart you are. Whether college has improved that or not, tremendously or just a small amount, they don't give a crap. It's all about where you are and whether you've passed the threshold to be successful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly what I was trying to say, but articulated better. Thank you.</p>
<p>Slipper, I don't agree with you on IBanking and Venture Capital. I consider myself an expert on recruitment in both those two industries. Dartmouth is not as unique as you make it out to be. Wharton and Harvard are the only two schools that I would consider in a league of their own. After those two, you have a bunch of highly regarded programs and universities that are highly regarded andrecruited. As for corporate, as the_prestige suggests, one should perhaps define the term. Industry and location play a significant role in determing reputation. I confess I am not knowledgeable about Consulting recruitment, although I doubt it would be too different from IBanking recruitment.</p>
<p>"How is one going to tangibly measure this? They can't, which is why interviews are are about the candidates not the schools."</p>
<p>That is what I was saying Gellino. It is about the individual, not the school. A school's reputation is determined by the strengths of its departments and programs. The school's reputation will attract the corporate recruiters, but it is up to the student to impress the recruiter.</p>
<p>Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner both went to Dartmouth... I'm not sure if that's a plus or a minus.</p>
<p>i know goldman sachs is the number one employer of graduating brown seniors</p>
<p>i also know that there are a lot of companies that include brown among the few select schools they exclusively recruit at because the school has a reputation for creative thinkers</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is what I was saying Gellino. It is about the individual, not the school. A school's reputation is determined by the strengths of its departments and programs. The school's reputation will attract the corporate recruiters, but it is up to the student to impress the recruiter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To me, the reputation of a school is more determined by the quality of the student body; especially how it is regarded by corporate recruiters. They're hiring the students, not the professors or the lab equipment.</p>
<p>I don't agree Gellino. The reputation of the school is determined by its quality. Its quality is determined by its faculty, resources, facilities and research output. Companies are drawn to universities that are known for their quality. Once on campus, they will recruit students who make the cut (specific majors and GPA). Of those students, those who seem to be the "best fit" for the organization will get the job. Of course, it is taken for granted that talented students will be found in large numbers on elite campuses. whether one is looking at a small private elite or a large public elite, over 50% of the student body is going to be qualified. Whether we are talking about 60% or 90% is irrelevant to most recruiters. At that level, they will look for individual fit.</p>
<p>Now my experience is merely limited to 10 years of HR recruitment at the highest level...so I could be wrong.</p>
<p>"...great school and good record to get in the door, the student being smart for the rest."</p>
<p>For Wall Street, I'm sympathetic to this view.</p>
<p>If your school is "great" enough that these companies come to campus and actually routinely hire analysts from there, for front-office jobs, then that's all you can ask. The rest is up to you, following a potentially grueling interview process to see if you are the best fit.</p>
<p>Due to preselection, a greater proportion of certain student bodies are made up of people who do, in fact, fit. By all relevant measures: intellect, interest, social skills and personality. Those schools are consequently likely to be the most highly represented. But that has no bearing on you, individually. Which is how you will be judged. As long as you can get an interview.</p>
<p>Also if your school is sufficiently great to help you get admitted to great grad programs, this level will provide another shot at Wall Street. But again, that grad program has to be good enough that they interview there, after that it is you who has to be good, not the school.</p>
<p>When I worked at an investment bank, all three of these universities were represented. One time when I needed to fill a vacancy in my group I was handed the Brown resume book. I guess it was handy..</p>
<p>At that time, in my department, among undergrad hires, Brown was more highly represented, then Dartmouth then Cornell. But then, during that same period one of the two co-chairmen of Goldman Sachs was a Cornell graduate.</p>
<p>My direct experience in the corporate world is as follows:
I worked for a Fortune- 200 company for a while. I wanted to get them to recruit for my group at the more selective schools, and I was turned down. They didn't want students who they felt would not stay in the area, would require more compensation, and then be likely to leave. They found their needs were more than adequately met by recruits from the major local state universities. For that firm, grads of all those three schools would be viewed with suspicion. On the other hand, for MBAs they interviewed at some regionally prestigious programs as well as regional state schools. But still, no Ivies.</p>
<p>For corporate jobs in areas of engineering, hotel administration, agriculture, nutrition, architecture, human resources, etc- Cornell would likely be more prominently on the radar screen for these corporate employers, only because it has more interested and well-trained candidates for these jobs.</p>