Cornell vs. Brown- Corporate Reputation

College Search & Selection
21

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that were really the case, then grads of UIllinois, UWisconsin, Penn State would be occupying much higher chunks of analyst class positions at IB, MC, IM, PE firms than grads of Williams, Dartmouth, Amherst, which is definitely not the case.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Its quality is determined by its faculty, resources, facilities and research output. Companies are drawn to universities that are known for their quality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That may be partially why the students are drawn to those schools, but companies are drawn to schools that are known for their quality of student. When I am interviewing candidates for positions, I couldn't care less about the research output, facilities, resources of the schools the interviewees attended.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tell me why recruiters might care about the other thousand or so non economics business majors.</p>

<p>Quality of the *overall *student body can't tell you how good or bad the 10-15% of econ students aiming for Wall St. really are.</p>

<p>Instead of looking at the overall picture of the school's student population (which is filled with irrelevant ppl like classics, biology, astronomy, history ppl who may or may not want to go to Wall St.), ppl who recruit focus on the quality of alumni sent off by the school. Quality of students sent in based on acceptance rate and SAT scores don't matter after you get your BA/BS degree. It matters how you grown/matured and what you've become after 4 years in college.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Quality of students sent in based on acceptance rate and SAT scores don't matter after you get your BA/BS degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many IB, MC, IM, PE firms do request SAT, GRE, GMAT scores in applications or interviews. </p>

<p>However, I think we're arguing the same thing; it's just a matter of how you define quality of student. How previous employees from the schools worked out is certainly a determinant and seeks to get at quality of student from individual schools.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
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...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dartmouth does not have a "superior undergraduate emphasis" vs. Brown. Dartmouth has two of the "big three" professional grad schools (i.e. Med / Law / Business) -- Dartmouth has a b-school and med school. Brown only has a med school. Brown's undergrad to grad student ratio (~2.64) > than Dartmouth's (~2.43). Brown (I don't know about Dartmouth - perhaps Slipper can chime in here) REQUIRES every professor to teach an undergraduate class every year. Now if that isn't evidence of undergraduate focus, I don't know what is.</p>

<p>I've long argued that for an UNDERGRADUATE education, out of the Ivies, Brown / Dartmouth / Princeton were the strongest. For GRADUATE schools, Harvard / Yale / Penn / Columbia.</p>

25

<p>hmmm... the_prestige forgot Cornell.... I simply don't understand why kids on CC diss on Cornell, quite ridiculous</p>

26

<p>I don't view professional grad schools as getting in the way of UG focus. It's not like they have an overlap of professors the way students pursuing a BA in a discipline where other students are pursuing a PhD do.</p>

27

<p>I doubt there are more than a handful of people who have experienced Brown and Cornell as undergraduates.</p>

<p>I transferred just before my junior year from Cornell to Stanford thirty years ago, so it's not like my observations are the most current. But I find that people spend endless time on these boards debating the differences between schools that are far more notable for what they have in common than what makes them different. </p>

<p>Cornell was full of smart, highly motivated students, most of whom had grown up in the Eastern United States. Stanford was full of smart, highly motivated students, most of whom had grown up in the Western United States.</p>

<p>If I had a candidate from Cornell, and one from Brown, and they had comparable experience, there's a good chance I would interview both of them. Ultimately, you winnow it down to the five or six candidates with the best qualifications, and pick the one whose personality seems like it would be the best fit for the team.</p>

28

<p>"If that were really the case, then grads of UIllinois, UWisconsin, Penn State would be occupying much higher chunks of analyst class positions at IB, MC, IM, PE firms than grads of Williams, Dartmouth, Amherst, which is definitely not the case."</p>

<p>Gellino, UIUC used to place more of its students (by quite some margin) in major IBanks than any LAC, including Williams or Amherst. Last year, 14 UIUC BBA graduates were placed into JP Morgan. That's students from one college within the UIUC and one IBank. Wisconsin and PSU did not place that many of their students into top IBanks. </p>

<p>Generally speaking, large state universities, including the elites such as Cal, Michigan, UVa etc..., typicaly do not attract students that are the "IBanking types". At smaller private elites, a significant portion of the students dream of becoming IBankers before even attending college. That does not mean that IBanks did not recruit heavily at public schools, just that it is not possible to compare placement rates because the makeup of the student bodies at each university is entirely different. And the difference is not restricted to public and private. Brown and Yale are known for having students less likely to become IBankers than mostother private elites. </p>

<p>Of course, I am writing in the past tense because IBanks as we knew them are now gone. They have all been bought by Commercial Banks and will become little units within larger organizations. Some have even disapeared...like my first employer, Lehman Brothers, may they R.I.P!</p>

<p>But to get back to the initial topic, Brown, Cornell and Dartmouth are all exceptionally well regarded by corporate America. Students at those universities will have the luxury of being recruited on campus. But the university's reputation will not hand them jobs and promotions on a platter. Students at all elite universities have to work just as hard at reaching their goals, they just have an easier first step...on-campus recruiting.</p>

29

<p>I think monydad makes a good point, there are indeed companies that will not recruit at top schools. This skews some of the MBA rankings.</p>

<p>In this economy these employers know they can get top school grads but that they'll be gone the minute things get better. Might be better to be coming from a state school right now!</p>

30

<p>hmom, you and monydad make a very good point. That is why most top Business schools, such as Kellogg, Wharton, Ross etc... try to attract students interested in a variety of careers, not just Management Consulting and IBanking/PE. </p>

<p>I know Kellogg and Ross typically make a conscious effort to have a class that is made up 25% IBankers, 25% Consultants, 25% Technology and 25% manufacturing. That way, recruiters will come from all industries to recruit on campus and if one industry collapses, their students interested in those careers can be absorbed by other industries. </p>

<p>That being said, I don't think Ivy League students are going to have trouble finding jobs in the near future. Top universities will always attract recruiters and elite university campuses career offices typically see to it that employers from all over the country (and the World) and from all industries come to recruit their students. The number of companies that actually recruited on campus at Cornell and Michigan was mind-blowing. I am sure the same goes for all other major university campuses. The difference between schools like Cal, Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern etc.. and smaller, more focused universities like Dartmouth and Williams is that at the former, only a fraction of the students seek careers in IBanking whereas at the latter, a significant portion of the students seek such jobs. This may cause some disatisfaction, but I suspect the students in question will bounce back! hehe!</p>

31

<p>I agree with Alexander that Cornell has the edge here albeit only slightly.</p>

32

<p>The Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown debate changes a bit if we look toward the likely future and not the recent path. As mentioned earlier, investment banking as we know it is dead. For the last 30 years we have built an economy based on Debt, Gambling and Financial Ponzi schemes. These things are in the process of colapsing and we will have to return to an economy of growing things, making things, and mining things. If we look at the kinds of companys that will lead us out of the collapse we see companies where Cornell has by far the greatest tradition of strong graduates. From agribusiness, to manufacturing to food production, to consumer goods to electrical power production to aerospace and defense and even the hospitality industry, Cornellians rule.Dartmouth and Brown students are equaly talented and for all practical purposes will have the skills to adapt to the realities of our much "changed" future but they will be entering a landscape where Cornell graduates now reign supreme.</p>

33

<p>@ Shermanbus83:</p>

<p>It was up until 1999 that Alan Greenspan started to deregulate everything which allowed banks to package mortgages into securities which they sold to over leveraged institutions and mutual funds etc.. IBanking will never die, there will be reform and things will get regulated.</p>

<p>I laughed so hard at above post...</p>

<p>A better argument for Cornell's *potential *dominance....Obama's multiple billion dollar infrastructure stimulus package would encourage more engineers to come into the field. The investment into public capital like roads, bridges, highways, etc... will create demand for civil engineers, one of Cornell's strong points.</p>

<p>Who watches the The Office?!?!</p>

<p>The Office isn't a true reflection of what things are like in the corporate world, but it's pretty darn close to it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
B.J. Novak (Ryan Howard) went to Harvard, Mindy Kaling (Kelly Kapoor) went to Dartmouth, and John Krasinski (Jim Halpert) went to Brown. This may explain why Andy Bernard of* Cornell *is - quite hilariously - hated upon in the show.</p>

<p>If</a> You’re Not a Cornellian You Shouldn’t Sport Cornell Gear > Cornell, the office, this is why people hate the ivy league | IvyGate

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Brown wins with Jim Halpert :D</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Gellino, UIUC used to place more of its students (by quite some margin) in major IBanks than any LAC, including Williams or Amherst. Last year, 14 UIUC BBA graduates were placed into JP Morgan. That's students from one college within the UIUC and one IBank. Wisconsin and PSU did not place that many of their students into top IBanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know what time period you're talking about, but in viewing the IB resume books of my three roommates and my firm, there were certainly way more from Williams or Amherst than there were from UIllinois. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course, I am writing in the past tense because IBanks as we knew them are now gone. They have all been bought by Commercial Banks and will become little units within larger organizations. Some have even disapeared...like my first employer, Lehman Brothers, may they R.I.P!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know why people keep saying this; except to try to smugly feel like they're not missing out. There are still going to be corporate finance analyst classes hired right out of UG regardless of where the firms' underlying capital is coming from. They won't be as large as in the last few years, but they're far from going away completely. Even in the case of Lehman, their North American business was bought by Barclay's with a significant portion staying on performing the same roles as previously.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
I don't know why people keep saying this; except to try to smugly feel like they're not missing out. There are still going to be corporate finance analyst classes hired right out of UG regardless of where the firms' underlying capital is coming from. They won't be as large as in the last few years, but they're far from going away completely. Even in the case of Lehman, their North American business was bought by Barclay's with a significant portion staying on performing the same roles as previously.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For those who have been in the industry (as you and I have), I think the point isn't that "i-banking is dead" -- as you note -- the role in one form or another will continue to exist. The phrase should probably be "investment BANKS are dead".</p>

<p>The mystique, the "prestige" and most importantly, the compensation (read: MONEY) related to the i-banking industry of years past will largely be scaled down. There aren't any stand alone full-scale investment banks left anymore (note: "full-scale" not just an advisory boutique like Lazard or Greenhill -- I'm talking about advisory plus sales / trading plus research). Just take a look at the traditional "Bulge Bracket" Wall Street firms (as defined by the leading underwriters of equity, debt and advisory on M&A transactions over the last 5 decades -- 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s):</p>

<ul>
<li>Goldman Sachs --> Bank Holding co.</li>
<li>Morgan Stanley --> Bank Holding co.</li>
<li>First Boston --> Credit Suisse</li>
<li>Salomon Brothers --> Citigroup</li>
<li>Merrill Lynch --> Bank of America</li>
<li>Lehman Brothers --> gone (with defunct pieces bought up by Barclays and Nomura)</li>
</ul>

<p>Other players: Deutsche Bank, UBS and JP Morgan --> all banks</p>

<p>The point being when you run a firm based on "risk / reward" (i.e. prop trading, high leverage, shifting assets quickly to the "hot" sector -- be it M&A or equity or derivatives or sub-prime) -- you can afford to pay your employees above the average worker, as long as the model works. That model of taking on risk (and hence, the reward) no longer works. That model is broken. Take a look at the first moves a large bank makes when it acquired i-banks -- they all shut down the ultimate "risk/reward" center -- the proprietary trading desks. And I suspect that when the higher pay is taken out of the equation (and with it a measure of prestige, selectivity and overall desirability), fewer and fewer quality folks will be clamoring for a position in the space that was formerly occupied by "investment banks". Just take a look at Merrill's John Thain trying to justify his bonus to BofA shareholders -- there will be similar discussions within the large banks that swallowed up these i-banking units... do you want to be in an industry where you not only need to justify your existence but your pay structure? I mean let's face it folks, why would anyone want to put up with the grueling hours and stress with an axe just waiting to cut you and your division out -- and ultimately if you survive, the pay and prestige aren't what it used to be? No thanks.</p>

<p>If I were coming out of university now, there is no way an i-banking job would be on the top of my list as it was when I was graduating... I suspect that feeling will only grow stronger as the dust settles from the current financial crisis.</p>

36

<p>^ Having worked at three of the firms you mention above, I totally agree. There was an article in the NYT over the weekend tracing the history of Wall St pay vs other jobs over the decades, showing when and by how much it swayed similar to how you describe that you may have seen. </p>

<p>However, most of the people (myself included) who come out of UG or MBA that went into IB would usually only stay for a few years before moving on to something with a better work/life balance and job description that they wouldn't have been able to attain without having gained experience through IB first. This stance may not change too much (it certainly will on the margin!) because it is still an obvious entry point for about-to-be grads in a very difficult job market.</p>

37

<p>gellino, though I understand your logic, I tend to disagree to the extent that I believe we are undergoing a seismic shift in the industry.</p>

<p>So, net/net, yes there will still be work that is "i-banking" related -- companies will still require avenues for raising capital (via underwriting both debt and equity) and companies will still require advisory on corporate structure / M&A... but as the pay structure begins to "normalize" -- in line with other industries, talent will (has already) begin leaving the industry. I don't know about you, but much of what I took away from my investment banking years was the sheer amount of intelligence (financial and otherwise) that I was surrounded by -- it made you push yourself, it made you a better banker.</p>

<p>With the exodus of talent (at the higher and mid-levels) in conjunction with the lower expectations of future payout, there will be a natural attrition of talent even from the entry levels -- in other words, other industries (which were not traditional competitors to i-banks -- such as a Google or a Starbucks or whatever) will begin eroding i-banks stranglehold on entry level talent. So while I agree that i-banking related work will still be around for years to come, it certainly won't be an attractive option as it was in the past (read: top tier talent --> which is where the "virtuous circle" begins and ends in any industry). As you rightly note, a large portion of those people who initially enter the business end up leaving for a number of reasons (e.g. grad school, jumping to the buyside, made redundant, etc.) But the "quid pro quo" that i-banking offered in the years past may not be enough anymore (i.e. in the form of either renumeration, securing a spot at a top-school, etc.). I mean let's put it simply, when the POTUS (Obama) effectively declares war on i-banking bonuses (and worse still is in a very strong position to demand as such by sheer virtue of all of the government capital that has flowed to the industry), it's time to re-think what the value proposition of i-banking is when the risks are clearly to the downside.</p>

38

<p>You guys know more about this than me, but nonetheless, y’all sound like you’re overreacting. Wall Street has been around a long time and pay has been very good for much of that time. The last decade was the exception as the pay went astronomical virtually all over the Street (in contrast to the selectively high pay that accrued to a few star performers when the Street was dominated by private partnerships). I agree that pay levels will be well off the scale of the last decade and will likely take many years (and lots of inflation) to get close to the recent ridiculousness, but grads from Brown and Cornell and other schools will still find their way to the Street and many will still find that pay levels are very acceptable. And hopefully those that are going there are doing so for the right reasons, ie, they actually like the work and the industry. </p>

<p>One other thing that might be a little more controversial is that I think it is a lot easier to make a lot of money on Wall Street than it is in corporate America. That gap will shrink, but I don’t think it will disappear and frankly, Wall Street has always been a quicker path to wealth, often with less political danger, more personal freedom, and definitely less bureaucratic impediments.</p>

39

<p>Just one data point, in my firm, resumes received are up from a year ago.</p>

40

<p>Here is an interesting take by a Bloomberg columnist:</p>

<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> Bonus Bans Are Too Late to Fix Banking</p>

<p>Here is a particularly interesting quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Broken System</p>

<p>There is still no point in thinking that clamping down on bonuses will get the financial industry moving again.</p>

<p>First, it will be a long time before any banks are making the kind of money that allows them to pay big bonuses. The old way of doing business is broken, and a new one will take years to emerge. Too many banks turned themselves into giant hedge funds, trading their own capital. They got stung -- and they won’t be repeating the trick any time soon.</p>

<p>Next, the banks are doing their own house cleaning. **UBS has introduced negative bonuses: You will make money in good years, and you will lose it in bad ones. **Credit Suisse Group AG is experimenting with bonus payments in illiquid assets and trying a system that allows money to be recouped if there are losses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here is a WSJ article (you will need access to read the entire thing) expanding upon the point I made earlier about John Thain's Merrill and bonuses:</p>

<p>Merrill</a> Bonus Case Widens as Deal Struggles - WSJ.com</p>