<p>I don't think they'll widen the net, hawkette. </p>
<p>In April or so of 2008, Goldman's Chicago office received 200 applications for summer internship from students at Northwestern University alone. about 10 NU students were interviewed, and 2 NU students were offered as summer interns. In the same office, one intern each came from Chicago, Yale, Notre Dame, and maybe a couple more. I assume over 100 students from each of those schools also applied for the one offer ultimately given to a student from each of those other schools.</p>
<p>200->10->2. at NU. same everyone else I think.</p>
<p>Do you really think they <em>need</em> to widen the net? So what if 75% of those who heretofore would have applied don't apply? That still leaves 50 remaining eager applicants from which to pick one or two interns for summer 2009. why change? there is a pipeline in place, and to widen the net would require more travel, more inteviewing, and would be just plain more work.</p>
<p>dunnin,
I'm not disagreeing with you. I am suggesting, however, that these firms might benefit from "widening the net" both in terms of new thinking, new perspectives and maybe this would lessen Wall Street's blind spot. </p>
<p>As for your Chicago example, would they have seen a decline in intern/associate quality if they decided to take fewer from Northwestern, U Chicago et al and took one also from U Illinois, U Wisconsin, even U Minnesota not to mention one or two from some of the top Midwestern privates, eg, Grinnell or even someplace like Kenyon. I know that there are plenty of smart kids there as well and that the Chicago office would benefit from a broader set of perspectives than the Stepford-like pattern of recent years coming from the so-called elite colleges.</p>
<p>Even if ibanks employees continue to get half the pay they got in 2007, where are the greener pastures for those at target schools? That's the one and only question. These kids will definitely flee if they can find a better place to get rich quick and wheel and deal with their intellectual peers, there's no doubt. But there is no green pasture that I can see in sight.</p>
<p>The other thing I'll point out is that WS hires 'a type.' I'm not at all sure that hiring a kid with the same MO who went to Kenyon or UCSB would make much of a difference in perspective.</p>
<p>hmom,
We probably agree on most of this, but I don't think that hiring a top student from a Kenyon or a top student from even a less prestigious public will reduce the individual intellectual quality level, but I think it will help the perspective of the overall organization. </p>
<p>I agree that Wall Street hires a type, but there is some baggage that comes along with that when hiring from only the elite schools. In good times, this is good baggage and breeds a confidence and sense of strength that can be productive. In bad times, however, it can breed a blind spot, a false sense of infallibility and a lack of understanding. Could broader hiring patterns have changed/reduced this? I don't know, but I do think about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"hawkette-- I think that in some ways, the differences are narrower, and in other ways, they're wider.</p>
<p>In some of these "elite" areas top students are dime-a-dozen, but in many other walks of life to have someone who was not educated at the closest couple of universities is a rarity, forget about an elite institution. It has a lot of pull in some of these less commonly occupied niches in my experience."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually do not think this is true. My only experience is from Texas and particularly in the oil and gas industry there is HUGE nepotism for a few schools namely University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M, other top schools (including Rice) don't have nearly as much pull because of the STRONG alumni network. But this may be a Texas phenomena, Texans really love Texas.</p>
<p>I agree Hawkette, I've actually long pushed in my own firm for broader hiring. It's been clear with tuition increases out pacing inflation for some time that there was a lot of talent at state and merit aid schools. But it ain't going to happen, especially now. I think that keeping The Street elite is more important than ever in the eyes of most as self esteem and respectability issues are at the forefront. If the ivy kids aren't getting the jobs, people will think they don't want them. During the dot com boom when they ran to Silicon Valley, many firms just reduced hiring out of college instead of casting a wider net.</p>
<p>"I think you are right that students coming from the top schools will have many options post-graduation, but this is true for far more than just the historically-favored colleges of the I-banking industry. There are great colleges and great students to be found all over the USA and most employers don't have the same preoccupation with prestige that the I-banking industry had fallen into. In fact, I would contend that the vast majority of employers see much narrower differences among the colleges than is usually propagandized here on CC."</p>
<p>I agree with you. My point wasn't just that Wall Street hopefuls graduated from top schools per se. More important is that these schools, in the courses one takes there to prepare for Wall Street, provide rigorous and well-rounded educations. It's this education, rather than the name per se, which is what will allow these students to succeed anywhere. At worst, the relative advantage compared to having attended a less prestigious school decreases somewhat.</p>
<p>It could be much worse, which was why I used someone who studied Computer Science to break into IT as an example. That person really didn't have many options in, say, 2002. Most Computer Science programs do a mediocre job of producing well-rounded students. But that's another story.</p>
<p>Employers are not attracted to ivy grads so much for the educations they got at the schools. It's the fact that these are proven achievers and go getters. The act of managing your life and doing what was necessary to get into an ivy or equal in pulled off by less than 1% of the college going population. It's those survival skills employers seek.</p>
<p>Wall Street is not going to be overhauled that much. Ironically and sadly, the people that got us into this mess are some of the only people that can get us out of it. That's why AIG tried to give them so much money to stay around...</p>
<p>hmom5: That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you think this is primarily true in the case of people who attend an Ivy League university or the equivalent as an undergraduate directly out of high school? Or does it also apply to people who complete graduate school thereat? Does it apply to people who complete one of the non-traditional programs thereat (wherein the non-traditional program genuinely is an Ivy-level education), e.g., Columbia's School of General Studies or Penn's College of Liberal and Professional Studies?</p>
<p>I do think it applies to grad school too, though most of the MBA's I see in elite jobs also have a top undergrad degree. I do not think it applies to the general studies type programs as the admissions standards are different.</p>
<p>hmom5: Thank you for the input. It probably doesn't change my decisions significantly given that I'm primarily interested in the education itself. Even so, it's good to know what to realistically expect in terms of career options afterwards.</p>
<p>"...I've actually long pushed in my own firm for broader hiring. It's been clear with tuition increases out pacing inflation for some time that there was a lot of talent at state and merit aid schools."</p>
<p>And thank you for sticking up for people who had limited options for getting an education due to financial constraints.</p>
<p>what about fordham? in business week its recruiter survey rankings have jumped up to 13 out ranking Georgetown which falls all the way at 42 or even academic quality rankings GU is at 23 but fordham doesn't fall far behind its ranked 34. both of them have B job placement grade. why doesn't fordham have bigger wallstreet presence? does it have a good academic repuation?</p>