<p>Given the incredibly high quality of bearcats post #15 (was wrong about the hiring because he didn’t know where to look, making childish remarks like the “dirty south”) I think we can all be excused for dismissing this last post as well.</p>
<p>^
I love being called childish by someone who made fun of a non-native speaker’s english.</p>
<p>btw, I was born in the dirty south (my dad was doing energy PE at the time). For that, I can say dirty south all I want. Just like how it’s acceptable for black people to use the N-word and when a white guy drops it he’s a racist, or for jews to make jew jokes and when a non-jew makes one he’s automatically anti-semitic.</p>
<p>Right. Everyone believes that.</p>
<p>Funny that bearcats knew ‘for a fact that’ Goldman hadn’t hired anyone from Tulane yet now he knows ‘for a fact’ that they hired 5 just last year but the specific positions were all back office. It’s amazing the detailed knowledge that just sprang into his lap.</p>
<p>Sure, take your turn in the portal.</p>
<p>Don’t worry fallen, I will definitely in the portal this year, the london one though. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WallStreetOasis is the most heavily trafficked message board for current and aspiring finance professionals. You are clearly unfamiliar with the site, but if you read through it there are very intelligent and knowledgeable people, of all ages, who write posts. </p>
<p>Without any hard evidence, I still have to agree with FO vs. BO.</p>
<p>Why has this turned into a hissy fight between bearcats and fallen, why don’t we focus on the actual thread. The writer asked about history and pre-law, not I banks. If we look at this Michigan is better, but Tulane offers a pretty awesome program for a lot of its programs that offer automatic admittance into the Grad school, and a lot of money. I feel like we could be much helpful if we stop focusing on the stupid topics that have nothing to do with the actual topic of comparing the history and pre-law departments, and the culture that surrounds Michigan and Tulane.</p>
<p>Michigan>>Tulane for history and pre-law. :-)</p>
<p>mpundmann - where have I talked about the banks? As far as bearcats, he has posted incorrect and misleading information, and Benetode and I simply try to correct it. I also take issue with his childish way of characterizing things. But he is the one that brought up banking out of nowhere, IIRC. I agree it was totally off topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His statement is not childish.</p>
<p>I will repeat what I said before, in a clearer format: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the OP has no stated interest in finance or business or banking, so what does this have to do with anything? Saying that there is a relationship between the recruiting to a particular field like IB and the overall experience a history major may have at a school is bizarre. Your statement #1 is flawed and should read “A banking analyst position is arguably one of the most sought after entry-level positions by college students that have studied in that area.” It isn’t sought after at all by some huge percentage of UM grads that studied chemistry, history, art, and almost any other major outside of IB related ones. And your #3 takes a leap that makes no sense, arguing that the quality of an entire university can be inferred from the recuiting for IBanking. Just absurd.</p>
<p>Calling an area of the country the “dirty south” is not exactly an adult level of discussion. That is what was childish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It absolutely speaks to the quality of the institution; #3 makes no leap. Why are the most widely considered target schools (HYPSMW, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Dartmouth, Ross, Stern, Northwestern, etc… not Tulane…) coincidentally the top tanked institutions in the nation?</p>
<p>I was not implying it speaks to a student’s overall experience at the school. Changing my wording of 1) to your’s does not alter the logic. Banks are still looking for the top people who studied in any field. They mostly consist of economics/math/finance majors, but the top people studying those subject are arguably as intelligent as students studying in other areas.</p>
<p>Michigan has a top 10 law school which may be an inherent advantage.</p>
<p>Very true – and, if a UM undergrad has a 3.8, you can apply without having taken the LSAT.</p>
<p>
If you really believe that makes sense, you totally flunked logic. How can being good in one department possibly make a school good in every other department? I am not saying UM is only good in one department. I am saying your argument makes zero sense. There was a time, when oil money was big in Texas, that Texas A&M bought themselves several top departments, and were heavily recruited for areas related to those fields, more so than Harvard. Does that make it better than Harvard? Ag companies probably recruit more at Iowa than Yale. Iowa is not better than Yale. If you really believe that getting a lot of recruiters in one field speaks to the quality of an entire school, well we can let everyone else judge the merit of that argument.</p>
<p>Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the OP’s inquiry, so enough.</p>
<p>I think this thread is pointless. Comparing Tulane to Michigan is like comparing Tufts to Stanford. Just because SAT averages are somewhat similar does not mean the schools are peers or that Tufts is remotely as good as Stanford. Without a doubt, Tulane is a very good university, but it is not nearly as good as Michigan. Whether we are discussing placement into Investment Banks or into Law Schools, Michigan will have access to resources that will greatly enhance a student’s chances. Furthermore, the quality of the faculty, facilities, research and departments at Michigan is, in most cases, significantly better than it is atTulane. </p>
<p>Of course, education is, to a large degree, a personal venture. A student can go to Tulane and receive as good an education as she/he would at Michigan or Northwestern or whatever elite university. I would never claim tha the quality of education a person has received is entirely predicated on the quality of the institution that person attended. But once the time has come to put that degree to use, there will be a significant difference in how easily that student will be able to open doors both in academe and in the corporate world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I got an A in the one philosophy class I took at UM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not saying being good in one department and being good in every other department is directly causal. I’m saying that, on average, being strong in departments (and more importantly having strong students in those departments) that investment banks seek after is correlated with having other equally good departments (and equally good students in those departments).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly concur with Alexandre on this one.</p>
<p>…haven’t read the whole thread, but i am having the same exact problem making this decision. they’re both so great …!</p>
<p>I have a very similar problem as well. I am from Connecticut and my decision is coming down to Tulane and Michigan. </p>
<p>For Michigan I would be in Kinesiology and majoring in Sports Management (Although I might be looking to switch schools). I haven’t yet received Aid from Michigan yet, but the Financial Aid office said at best I would still have to pay 30,000 a year.</p>
<p>For Tulane I got a 26,000 scholarship plus a lot of grants. Overall I received around 45,000 in aid. I would be coming in to Tulane undecided. </p>
<p>I visited Michigan a couple of weeks ago and loved it and I’m visiting Tulane in 2 weeks. After I come back from Tulane I have 2 days to make a deposit to one of the schools.</p>
<p>FA is an important factor for me since I can’t afford to pay much. Not sure which to chose.</p>