<p>'How do you know KCL students strugggle in Georgetown? Did you see their transcripts or are you just assuming."</p>
<p>Just like the 10-15 I have met in my four years. Most were not that bright-infact </p>
<p>Warwick is ranked number 6 on the subject tables for history- are you really sure you know what you are saying?</p>
<p>Americans value study abroad a lot- u really dont know much do you? Infact they place british Universities on a higher pedestal than they should. Thats why wisconsin takes Warwick students even though they are not in the same academic class- wiconsin has superior engineering to Warwick. Americans are really anglophobes. Maybe they dont like other countries though.</p>
<p>Look at someones IBD class from an unnamed investment bank in the city of london the hardest division to break into more than low office positions like sales and trading/strategy/operations research</p>
<p>Coverage and Advisory:
Oxford - 2
Cambridge - 3
LSE - 2
Georgetown University - 2
Imperial - 1
University of Michigan - 1
Stockholm School of Economics - 1
ESSEC - 1
Norwegian School of Economics - 1
Gothenburg School of Economics - 1
Queen Mary University of London - 1</p>
<p>'Warwick is a top IB recruitment school too in UK, as Brown is in the US. I doubt USC and Tufts get the same proportion into IB as Warwick."</p>
<p>Thats because it is one of the best in the Uk. ETH Zurich has a lot of students at UBS in Switzerland. Warwick is a good school in the UK- but comparing it to the major research universities or the student body to top US universities is a joke. Just because Warwick is the good in the UK does not mean it is equivalent to Brown. IB have to take what they get and Warwick is as good as it gets in the Uk- transfer Warwick students to the US and they become equivalent to Tufts or USC.</p>
<p>Is it really that hard to understand?</p>
<p>The top 5% in the UK+its colonies is not equivalent to the top 1% in the US which even has a higher population. Like it does not make sense at all.</p>
<p>Cambridge+Oxford+Warwick+UCL+LSE+Imperial= 21,000 students, same number in the top 25 schools in the US.</p>
<p>This does not include KCL/Durham/Bristol and this ignores academic quality. I have not included excellent schools like Williams/Amherst or Swarthmore or specialist schools like Cooper Union</p>
<p>The US is even bigger than the UK, but let me humor you and ignore the fact that 2.5 times the people take the SAT and apply to school in the US than in the UK.</p>
<p>I am really missing something here. The IQ curve is a Gaussian in all countries. The British are not smarter than Americans. They have not produced much innovation in the past years- but I am still generous to assume that IQ levels are equivalent in all countries.</p>
<p>No, Americans are ignorant of the outside world. </p>
<p>Now, you look at that mix of universities at the IBank, can you honestly say that you would see such a mix in a US IBank? Or even any US company?</p>
<p>Never. It would be filled with US grads.</p>
<p>That is a similar mix you would get in Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Frankfurt.</p>
<p>^ Its hard to link out to student room. Just go to TSR UK and search âWhat University gives you the best careerâ</p>
<p>The bank is RBS (Royal bank of scotland)</p>
<p>In the US you will not see the same mix on wall street thats why wall street is where it is now-you cannot take inferior schools to improve a mix of universities- Wall street needs hard and smart workers. You will find Cambridge/LSE/Oxford on Wall street and maybe Imperial but Warwick/KCL would be hard. You will also find McGill and University of Toronto but not Waterloo or University of Montreal. Google recruits nearly as much from University of Waterloo as they do for Stanford. Because University of Waterloo is superior in Computer science to a large number of American schools. google knows this.</p>
<p>Americans need people with the liberal art skills and the analytical powers they cultivate and thatâs why its hard to take people from other countries. Its not about intelligence- its all about the academics. You have to take the best from each country and then retrain them. An average American student has the same knowledge in IB as a first year analyst. They have investment clubs that train you on basic trading skills. These are noticeabely absent in UK or European. Why waste resources on training when you can take people already trained with such skills?</p>
<p>Speaking of diversability 80% of the people in City of London come from Cambridge/UCL/Imperial/Warwick/Oxford/LSE</p>
<p>In the US over 30 schools (Around 15 are really core schools for front office roles) and are recruited although in different capacities and tier. Thats because investment banks recognize that there are more quality schools in the US than the UK.</p>
<p>If the non-US schools are inferior schools and is the reason wall street cannot hire from them, how come London overtook New York as the Worldâs financial centre?</p>
<p>If their academics (the non-UK European grads) are poorer how did they manage the feat of propelling London to overtake the financial heart of the Worldâs strongest economy and the commercial giant of the world?</p>
<p>No, the 80% of the people are from the core schools (Cambridge/UCL/Imperial/Warwick/Oxford/LSE) for front office roles as well in the UK. At least 25 schools provide for non-front office roles or 15 schools for front office roles in 2nd tier IBanks.</p>
<p>Remember that the US has over 2000 universities/colleges and about 60 top/quality ones.</p>
<p>The UK has about 120 universities/colleges and about 18 top/quality ones.</p>
<p>So 15 universities/colleges being considered in the US is not a big deal, it is proportional to the 6 or so in the UK.</p>
<p>LOL, the wikipedia link shows a 1=1 for NYC and London. So does the GFC link on page 28. By the way an index made by a British company. Its always interesting that anything made by Brits makes them top the list.</p>
<p>London is also an historic financial centre having operated longer than the NYC. The US has boston, new jersey, chicago and San francisco. The UK has London only.</p>
<p>âRemember that the US has over 2000 universities/colleges and about 60 top/quality ones.â</p>
<p>Really? Probably closer to 150 quality schools. University of Massachusetts at Amherst is ranked 106, but its more renowned than Exeter. It has produced more contributions to the world than University of Exeter could even imagine. The British have like 15 quality schools then the rest just take you in as long as you can pass grade inflated A-level exams in classes like leisure/sport education.</p>
<p>"So 15 universities/colleges being considered in the US is not a big deal, it is proportional to the 6 or so in the UK. "</p>
<p>Does not even make sense For one the 30 most recruited school are for NYC- not boston or other places. Also the schools on this list have nothing to do with ranking. You would hardly find a Johns Hopkins student on Wall street because they dont really go into that sort of thing. Neither is emory or vanderbilt. However check who has the best students in med school Johns Hopkins. However Emory has a lot of people in the business offices of top firms in Atlanta. </p>
<p>I was talking about front office roles. For front office roles its around 30 schools depending on the city. The US has five centres NY, Boston, NJ, Chicago and San Francisco. Chicago would have people from UIUC/Uchicago/Northwestern. These schools might have a lower representation on Wall street. So they may not form the core 30 schools and they lost out to other Northeast schools. Infact back office jobs take anyone as long as you are driven and know what you want. You see people at Clemson working for PWC and Accenture.</p>
<p>See the last paragraph of the wiki page. London is well known to be number 1 now.</p>
<p>Here are more links for you, the World Economic Forum did the survey. You can not say that WEF is a British thing as well, can you? It is US dominated.</p>
<p>And lest you forget, the EU is smaller in geography to the US and even in economic size. The EU has destroyed borders and barriers so London is competing with Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich, Amsterdam and Geneva, just like NYC is competing with those others.</p>
<p>You will see that the author also noted that it was because of the openness to foreigners that London overtook NYC. America needs to be less myopic to be stay competitive.</p>
<p>Even in the article, WSJ warned of the anti-immigration. The foreign professionals do not only bring their intellectual input that Americans look down on to London (Yes, some of their unis are top notch), they bring their financial connections which is worth billions.</p>
<p>Makes sense anyways- i would have expected worse considering the financial crisis on wall street. As I have previously mentioned- I never trust rankings except I see the methodology and examine them for biases. Look at an example of bias:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=âBloomberg - Are you a robot?â>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?]New</a> York Eclipses London as Financial Center in Bloomberg Poll - Bloomberg.com<a href=âBloomberg%20is%20a%20US%20financial%20news%20and%20they%20would%20obviously%20want%20the%20best%20for%20their%20homeâ>/url</a>. More hilarious this was gotten through polling bloomberg subscribers who largely work on wall street.</p>
<p>Interesting:</p>
<p>âThe UK overtaking the US comes amid reports that several hedge funds are moving from London to New York because of less tough regulation.â </p>
<p>So basically these rankings are based on what exactly? I would like to see explicit data like the volume of business between the two regions. Not some ranking that could include polls or âmany variablesâ</p>
<p>Its also interesting- the Americans are taking business outside their region- nothing wrong with this- If Goldman sachs wants to do business in Europe it makes sense- the money ultimately ends up with Goldman Sachs- an American bank. A lot of trading is being done in London but through which banks?</p>
<p>I took a look at the top 15 IBs and noticed that 40% where American. NM Rothschild and Barclay are the only British banks- there portfolio were vastly lower than that of the lowest American bank. Even if City of London rivals Wall Street- its because it has gotten the business of American banks. London is strategic because its in Europe, and it would be silly of the Americans to not take advantage of the money in Europe.</p>
<p>The CEO of Barclay is a Colby graduate and UConn MBA graduate. A position that Warwick/Durham could ever wish for. He had to leave the US (Greenwich connecticut) to go and be a major player. i dont know much about his history but I am aware greenwich is a major area for Hedge funds and he started his career in hedge funding. Colby = 22nd Liberal art school, Uconn is = 79 business school.</p>
<p>You claim there are only 60 quality schools in the US rite?</p>
<p>Ok I would admit that the US is hostile to Middle Eastern/Indians and other groups which could have affected how money comes into wall street. However posting articles from 3 years ago (2006) during the era of Bush and just before the financial crisis does not really hint much. I would prefer articles after 2009 to give us an idea of what is happening after the credit crunch and the great recession.</p>
<p>I donât think it was a Bush factor. It was about regulation style, infrastructure, knowledge and skills (partly related to talent restriction due to tough immigration laws).</p>
<p>I searched and there was not much of recent.</p>
<p>Yes, London does risk its position with its new bankers tax laws except they can get a global implementation consensus.</p>
<p>I disagree that the U.S. is hostile to people from India. I have a lot of Indian friends and they are very comfortable here. I also think people from Muslim countries tend to be treated better here than they are in Europe. For one thing, the people from India and the Middle East who live in the U.S. tend to be more educated and upper middle class than those who live in Europe. By and large, these immigrant groups are perfect examples of living the American Dream.</p>
<p>^ I meant Muslim south Asians- sorry for grouping all of you together. Immigration is tough for Muslims even ones with expansive skills after 9/11. Also America does not try and court Middle Easterner or East Asians as much as they should, and encourage them to bring money in. America is more interested in bringing in illegal immigrants than a skilled set- I see a lot of campaigns for illegal immigration (especially from Hispanic Americans and misguided liberals) but hear nothing about improving work-visas for skilled foreigners. I do agree this would have significant effects. </p>
<p>Let me just save myself some time.</p>
<p>Oxbridge better than Ivies+MIT+Stanford because Bush went to Yale and US schools are inflated
LSE/Imperial better than UChicago/Cornell/Brown/Dartmouth/Berkeley
Warwick/KCL/Bristol better than Georgetown/Johns Hopkins/Northwestern/Washington U/Emory/Vanderbilt/UMich</p>
<p>London finance >>> New York finance (Despite Bain (Founded by a Vanderbilt Grad)/BCG (Founded by another Vanderbilt Grad)/Mckinsey/ Booz Allen (Founded by a Northwestern Grad)/ Arthur Andersen Accenture (Founded by a Northwestern Grad) being founded in the US.</p>
<p>I would really like to see Warwick/KCLâs contribution to finance</p>
<p>In reply to sefagoâs foolish comment where he implied university exchange partners are somehow an indicator on prestige and international reputation, id like to know if youâve ever heard of Uppsala? Surely you must, given it has an exchange agreement with HarvardâŠ</p>
<p>I donât often throw out comments like this and I didnât mean to butt in, but anybody scoffing at the rigor of Georgia Tech is either a delusional madman or a genius. The school is extremely difficult and operates with a âsink or swimâ attitude of the highest degree. There is absolutely no coddling there, and the administration quite frankly doesnât really give a damn if you flunk out. Just take a look at the graduation rates: at four years, itâs ~30%; five years, ~70%; six years, ~80%. All this with a high-quality and ambitious student body. Iâm not holding that Tech is necessarily a better school than Imperial, but saying that someone from Imperial can waltz on in and be at the top of the class at GTech is an ignorant comment at best and a blatantly insulting one at worst.</p>