<p>(by the way, i can do this with other companies too if anyone wants. sadly i'm not getting out of bed for another 24 hours or so...)</p>
<p>SO unscientific. Also people could put goldman as a IT person or financial advisor so the filters aren't right. The top firms love the Ivies + the usual suspects (Duke, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, etc). That;s it.</p>
<p>Sakky, although I agree that private equity firms like KKR, Texas Pacific Group, Blackstone, Providence Equity Partners, Warburg Pincus, Carlyle Group etc. are the most sought after types of financial institution for the highly ambitious young financiers, I don't think it is a very realistic goal. Each of these firms hire only a handful (literally) of undergrads nationwide each year and do not recruit much on any given campus. In many instances, it is more a question of who you know rather than how good you are. On a great year, those 5 or 6 private equity giants (none of which have more than 700 employees worldwide) COMBINED will not hire more than 5 or 6 undergrads from each major hunting ground. Goldman Sachs alone will hire more than 10 undergrads from each of its major campuses.</p>
<p>But Slipper, I think Georgetown is one of the usual suspects.</p>
<p>Slipper's comments on CC are always very elitist in nature. I shudder to think what she must think of me for having picked Tufts over Dartmouth. (Yes, can you believe it? Wow)</p>
<p>Several thoughts:</p>
<ol>
<li>Arizona is pretty far off the beaten track for Wall Street. To my current recollection, no major investment bank or private equity firm has a permanent presence in Arizona. Based on geography and a stronger school profile in the minds of these East Coast-dominated firms, Georgetown is likely to give you more opportunities to tap into a school network.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>An exception to this would be if you were involved in some aspect of Arizona that was investable and about which you were able to develop proprietary knowledge that could be of use to an I-bank, private equity or hedge fund. In this instance, the lack of a local presence is a big advantage for the Arizonan who can gain the local information and relationship advantage. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>At your school, whether ASU, Georgetown, or anywhere, attend every company presentation that you can. Try to find out about firm activities in the region close to your home or school, eg, whether a certain firm acted as an underwriter on a stock or bond offering or if a private equity firm invested in a local firm or if a certain firm acted as an advisor in a prominent M&A transaction. You need to begin to build a storehouse of knowledge and be conversant in the language of Wall Street and know who is doing what with whom.</p></li>
<li><p>Read the WSJ regularly and try to know a few companies or industries better than the average reader. I guarantee you that the kids from Wharton and similar institutions which are well represented on Wall Street are devouring the Journal on a daily basis and their knowledge and passion comes through in their interviews. If you are coming from a less "prestigious" school, be prepared to be challenged on your knowledge. </p></li>
<li><p>Do really, really well in something-academics (need not be finance related), sports, music, something. Even better, be good at something that is unusual and requires long hours and real dedication. The top firms want people who see themselves as world-class in ability and who demonstrate great personal tenacity. If you aren't really special in something, good luck because the top firms have plenty of applicants who are. </p></li>
<li><p>I don't know anything about you or your circumstances and really don't want to get too deeply into career advising. My best advice would be for you to go to NYC over a future vacation and visit with as many people and firms as you possibly can. There is no substitute for seeing, touching, feeling, hearing the environment directly. If you want to be on Wall Street (and particularly if you want to get there from a less traditional recruiting source), then you have to start the process and drive the process.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Lolabelle, I think Slipper is a dude! LOL!</p>
<p>Haha, sorry... didn't mean to assume, but I did associate Slipper with Cinderella. ;-p My bad!</p>
<p>Duke should be high up on the list. They are usually one of the highest employers of graduating seniors each year. I believe the CEO (or someone high up) is a Duke graduate and "many" students seem to have connections.</p>
<p>Yeah, Slipper is a stupid username I randomly put out in frustration since my usual name was taken, now I have to live with it! </p>
<p>Alexandre, I agree that Gtown is one of those usual suspects. Lolabelle, all I am saying is that the elite firms tend to be elitist and hence they only recruit at the from what they perceive as the top schools.</p>
<p>The list is unscientific, but definately not unrepresentative. Goldman Sachs may have 20,000 employees, but not all of them are in the "prestigious" investment banking, sales, or equity divions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Lolabelle, I think Slipper is a dude! LOL!
[/quote]
LOL!</p>
<p>Thanks again dajada07 for the great advice. I actually used to live in Manhattan before college and this summer am going back and plan on trying to land some position at an i-bank over there. Also, I read every issue of Financial Times and The Economist so I'm decently well versed in Wall Street terms. I also manage my own portfolio and watch CNBC in my spare time. I don’t really know what I can be that excellent in, though, as you were saying is necessary.. I have pretty good grades and a passion for investing and economics but then again so do many others and from better schools to boot.</p>
<p>A few thoughts:</p>
<p>1) Getting an IB job out of MBA school is different than getting a job out of undergrad. MBAs will come from a range of undergrad schools- though maybe only primarily 8-12 MBA programs. Their undergrad degree is not the primary credential that got them an interview, usually.</p>
<p>There are plenty of MBAs hired by investment banks who would not have been successful in getting even an interview for a job there directly out of undergrad.</p>
<p>2) Getting a job laterally, as an experienced senior person, is not the same as getting a job out of undergrad. Experienced people are hired for what they know, or who they know, and what they''ve done. Can you bring a book of business with you, yes or no? At that level, where they went to grad school is much less important, and where they went to undergrad is less important yet.</p>
<p>3) All jobs are not created equal. "Back in the day" we had secretaries, word processors. We had back-offices, computer techs. There was an HR department. There were janitors. There were chefs for the officer dining room. There were all sorts of people, doing all sorts of support, clerical, etc. work there who had all sorts of educational backgrounds. Many people working at full-line securities firms that have Investment Banking departments are not themselves investment bankers. Maybe a guy out of Pace can get an interview in a back-office computer support department, but don't expect to see many working as line officers in Mergers.</p>
<p>There are a number of jobs that were formerly in "wirehouses" and commercial banks that may now be offered in investment banks. Such as stockbrokers and commercial lending officers. Even bank tellers (not at Goldman though, yet??). There are a great variety of pedigrees required for these vastly different jobs. Though they may all work for the same company.</p>
<p>"Back in the day" traders fell into two groups- those that were quant stars, and those that had more street/poker sense than SATs. The latter group did not necessarily have big name pedigrees. Though their numbers were declining, even then. This contingent, if they still exist, may not have big degrees.</p>
<p>So in summary my point is: you can look at people there and see all sorts of undergrad programs represented. But unless you also account for what these people are doing there, and whether that bachelor's degree was their terminal degree, you may not be really addressing your real question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, although I agree that private equity firms like KKR, Texas Pacific Group, Blackstone, Providence Equity Partners, Warburg Pincus, Carlyle Group etc. are the most sought after types of financial institution for the highly ambitious young financiers, I don't think it is a very realistic goal. Each of these firms hire only a handful (literally) of undergrads nationwide each year and do not recruit much on any given campus. In many instances, it is more a question of who you know rather than how good you are. On a great year, those 5 or 6 private equity giants (none of which have more than 700 employees worldwide) COMBINED will not hire more than 5 or 6 undergrads from each major hunting ground. Goldman Sachs alone will hire more than 10 undergrads from each of its major campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm not saying that the goal is 'realistic'. It's more that if that's what you are shooting for, then it behooves you to give yourself every single boost you can, even if at the end of the day, the goal is still highly unlikely to be achieved.</p>
<p>It's like getting into the NFL. Only a vanishingly small percentage of football players will make it to the NFL. But if that's your goal, then you are probably better off going to one of those 'NFL factories' like USC or Michigan or Ohio State. Most players at even these schools don't make it to the NFL. But by going to these schools, you are giving yourself the best possible shot by getting TV exposure and the best possible coaching and training.</p>
<p>I am not so sure it is comparable Sakky. Roughly 25%-30% of Michgan, OSU and USC players end up in the NFL. Like I said, only a handful of very lucky or very well connected individuals get jobs with private equity firms. One does not "maximize" one's chances at getting a job at one of those companies. One is either freakishly lucky or one isn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One does not "maximize" one's chances at getting a job at one of those companies. One is either freakishly lucky or one isn't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the 'freakishly lucky' or 'freakishly connected' tend to be the ones who go to only a handful of schools. That's the point. While the chances are low either way, I think the odds of you getting those connections are clearly higher if you go to Harvard than if you go to,say, SE Missouri State. </p>
<p>But allright, I should have made my analogy tighter by talking about NFL Pro Bowlers, or even just starters. I think you would agree that nobody dreams of getting to the NFL only to end up riding the bench. Nobody dreams of becoming a * backup * player.</p>
<p>Sakky, my point is that the 6 or so private equity giants we mentioned above have a total of 3,000 employees and relatively low attrition and turnover rates. As such, all 6 combined probably recruit a grand total of 50-75 or so undergrads annually. I'd say that roughly 2,000-3,000 undergrads from elite (top 15 private universities, top 10 LACs and top 5 Publics) institutions have the ability and the desire to compete for those 50-100 spots annually. Even if all 50 spots were filled at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale, we are still talking about over 500 highly qualified and connected applicants for those 50 spots. But when you consider that schools like Amherst, Brown, Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown, Haverford, Michigan, Middlebury, Northwestern, Penn, Swarthmore, UVa and Williams probably have another 2,000 or so highly capable and driven applicants vying for those covetted 50 openings. Oh, I almost forgot, there are a couple of BBA programs that are also highly recruited, like Wharton, Ross, Sloan, Stern, McIntire, Haas and a couple of others. In short, I'd say that for every 100 qualified applicants from elite universities seeking a job with one of those private equity firms, only 2 or 3 will end up getting an offer. Like I said, the odds aren't good.</p>
<p>Ok, I know I've been gone for a few months (darn school), but what in the world is a "super moderator"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, my point is that the 6 or so private equity giants we mentioned above have a total of 3,000 employees and relatively low attrition and turnover rates. As such, all 6 combined probably recruit a grand total of 50-75 or so undergrads annually. I'd say that roughly 2,000-3,000 undergrads from elite (top 15 private universities, top 10 LACs and top 5 Publics) institutions have the ability and the desire to compete for those 50-100 spots annually. Even if all 50 spots were filled at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale, we are still talking about over 500 highly qualified and connected applicants for those 50 spots. But when you consider that schools like Amherst, Brown, Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown, Haverford, Michigan, Middlebury, Northwestern, Penn, Swarthmore, UVa and Williams probably have another 2,000 or so highly capable and driven applicants vying for those covetted 50 openings. Oh, I almost forgot, there are a couple of BBA programs that are also highly recruited, like Wharton, Ross, Sloan, Stern, McIntire, Haas and a couple of others. In short, I'd say that for every 100 qualified applicants from elite universities seeking a job with one of those private equity firms, only 2 or 3 will end up getting an offer. Like I said, the odds aren't good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, when did I ever say that the odds were good? In fact, I have always said that the odds are bad.</p>
<p>But that's precisely my point. It is * precisely * when the odds are bad that you want to have the most boost you can possibly get. The more available a particular job is, the less important it is where you went to college, or in some cases, whether you even went to college at all. I agreed with another poster here on this thread that there are plenty of regular jobs out there with regular employers, and if that's all you want, you don't really need to go to a top college. </p>
<p>I admit that my NFL analogy didn't quite capture the spirit of my post, so let me give you another one. Just think of become a tenured prof at the #1 school in your discipline. Consider all of the things you have to do to even have a shot at doing that. Except for a few disciplines like law, you need to get a doctorate. Plenty of people don't even manage to get into a doctoral program. Of those that do, something like over half, statistically, never even manage to complete the doctorate. Even of those that do, I believe that the vast majority don't manage to get a tenure-track position. For example, molliebatmit, who is getting her PhD in biology at Harvard Medical School, was told that about 20% of her program graduates get prof positions. And that's coming out of the PhD program at HMS. Granted, some of that is self-selection (i.e. some grads prefer to go to industry), but still, if even HMS can't place more than 20%, just think about how many PhD's from no-name schools get no academic placements. And even if you do get placed, a large fraction of asst. profs will not get tenure. For example, I have heard that something like around 80% of assistant profs at Harvard Business School will not win tenure at HBS. Again, some of that is self-selection (i.e. some find out that the prof lifestyle is not their thing, some get offered tenure at another business school and they take that rather than risk the HBS tenure review, etc.), but still the point is, only a tiny fraction of undergrads in any discipline will become tenured profs at the top school in that discipline. Granted, it's easier to become a tenured prof at a no-name school, but that's like a comparison between working in private equity and just working for the finance department of a regular company. </p>
<p>But that doesn't mean that your school becomes less important if you want to get that prof job at the top school. To the contrary, it becomes paramount. Academia, like it or not, is a highly incestuous field such that most profs at the top programs themselves got their PhD's at top programs. To invoke the example of HBS again - a highly disproportionate percentage of HBS profs graduated from HBS itself, or from other Harvard programs (i.e. Harvard's PhD programs in Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Public Policy, etc.). A lot of MIT profs got their PhD's at MIT. </p>
<p>The point is, the harder something is, the more important it is to get as much help as you possibly can. For example, the best way to become a tenured prof at HBS probably is to go there for your MBA, stay there to get your doctorate, and then hope you get placed there, and then hope you get tenure. Yeah, even if you do all that, you probably still won't get it. But it does give you your best shot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
economics is one of the most useless degree if you want to go into finance and investment in general.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong!</p>
<p>This year, two of the three seniors on Northwestern's College Fed Challenge team are going to work for Goldman Sachs (Northwestern won the third national title in a row). The College Fed Challenge is a contest in economics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plavner, who is from Annapolis, Md., is a senior in economics. He plans to work for Goldman Sachs in New York after graduation. </p>
<p>Li is a senior in the mathematical methods in the social sciences (MMSS) program. She is from South Bend, Ind., and will work for Morgan Stanley next year.</p>
<p>Herrmann's hometown is Skillman, N.J. He is a senior civil engineering major and has plans to work as an analyst in the equities division at Goldman Sachs.</p>
<p>Ruan, who is from Carmel, Ind., is a junior in economics, and Goldstein is a sophomore in economics from New Rochelle, N.Y.
[/quote]
</p>