Top 25 USNews Universities into WALL STREET TIERS

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I'm trying to figure out the relative presence of top 25 universities in High Finance. Is this a reliable list? (Specific undergraduate business programs have been separated from their University.)</p>

<p>Tier 0: Harvard, Wharton</p>

<p>Tier 1 "Top Target": Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale, Stanford, MIT</p>

<p>Tier 2 "Strong Target": Duke, Penn, Columbia</p>

<p>Tier 3 "Target": Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, Ross, Haas, Stern, McIntire, Georgetown</p>

<p>Tier 4 "Semi-targets and non-targets" (The rest of top 25, simply in USNews order): CalTech, WashU, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Emory, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, USC, UCLA, UVA, Wake Forest</p>

2

<p>All Ivies are at least strong targets in the eyes of Wall Street recruiters.
I don’t agree with your Tier 3&4.</p>

<p>Tier 0: HYPSM Wharton
Tier 1: Other Ivies, Stern
Tier 2: Duke, Chicago, Ross, Haas, McIntire
Tier 3: Georgetown, Northwestern, Vandy, Emory, etc…</p>

3

<p>arent you guys like tired? I would be, if i kept on permuting schools into different tiers.</p>

4

<p>Nah, I basically copied my list from another source. I just wanted to see if it was reliable.</p>

5

<p>No offense to Stanford, but I’d drag it down to Group 2. It’s a great school but its distance to NYC does not make it more a sought-after school to Wall Street jobs than some of the Ivies and those schools located in the NE.</p>

6

<p>Where kellogg at!!!?!?!?!?!?!</p>

<p>PS you’re set with any of these business schools as long as you do well haha. these tier rankings are useless…</p>

7

<p>^ Kellogg is mainly for grad school.</p>

8

<p>I am confused what you mean by target schools. Like Tufts, for example, actually has Goldman recruit in IBD. As in, Goldman pays to come and recruit on campus/hold interviews. And they don’t even have a business school. Could you clarify?</p>

9

<p>averby: your ranking says Cornell or Brown are higher than Duke or Northwestern, which doesn’t seem to be the consensus so I’m sticking to my list for now…</p>

<p>ipoppills: NU was included in the “target” tier.</p>

<p>buzzers: I’m trying to understand (as a SoCal native) the representation of undergraduate schools on Wall Street. According to my research, Tufts would not be considered a “target school”, even though someone from Tufts can still get a job on Wall Street.</p>

<p>RML: you sure about Stanford? These tiers should include both representation in high finance, along with the “prestige” of the school in that industry. So while Duke might be more represented on WS than Yale, it seems Yale is still considered more prestigious. Therefore, Yale ranks higher than Duke. For Stanford, regional bias (west coast vs east coast) causes it to be less represented on east coast WS, but isn’t Stanford considered on par with Yale/Princeton?</p>

<p>The tiers should consider a mix of prestige and actual representation in top firms. Also these rankings should prioritize the NYC point of view, because I already understand the relative prestige of schools here on the West Coast.</p>

10

<p>So is this list an accurate description of undergraduate prestige/representation in NYC finance?</p>

<p>Tier 0: Harvard, Wharton</p>

<p>Tier 1 “Top Target”: Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale, Stanford, MIT</p>

<p>Tier 2 “Strong Target”: Duke, Penn, Columbia</p>

<p>Tier 3 “Target”: Cornell, Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Ross, Haas, Stern, McIntire, Georgetown</p>

<p>Tier 4 “Semi-targets and non-targets” (The rest of top 25, simply in USNews order): CalTech, WashU, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Emory, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, USC, UCLA, UVA, Wake Forest, + maybe some others like Tufts, etc…</p>

11

<p>^ No. Keep trying though; it’s funny.</p>

12

<p>^ Alright then, could you actually contribute?</p>

13

<p>lol</p>

<p>Tier 0: Harvard
.
.
.
.
.
Wannabees (Targets,semitargets, half-targets,middle targets, shot targets)</p>

14

<p>[Magna</a> Cum Lousy](<a href=“Magna Cum Lousy”>Magna Cum Lousy)</p>

15

<p>I thought Caltanner’s tiering was pretty spot on.</p>

<p>I don’t see much of a point in including “non-targets” in tier 4, though. Or at least don’t list every one of the universities left on the USNWR top 25. Some of those schools seem really out of place to be included in any type of even “non-target” Wall Street discussion.</p>

16

<p>^ Thanks. And alright, forget tier 4.</p>

<p>Tier 0: Harvard, Wharton
Tier 1 “Top Target”: Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale, Stanford, MIT
Tier 2 “Strong Target”: Duke, Penn, Columbia
Tier 3 “Target”: Cornell, Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Ross, Haas, Stern, McIntire, Georgetown</p>

17

<p>

Try talking to some guys who actually work in WS and you can be assured that Stanford guys are less represented compared to guys who come from Ivies and those top NE schools.</p>

<p>

You cannot mix that together. The list would become different when the location changes. For example, West Coast list would look differently. I expect Stanford to edge Harvard and Wharton in the West Coast. Even Berkeley would outperform Princeton, MIT or Yale. UCLA/USC would rival Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown and Cornell, and so on. We could also expect Northwestern, Chicago and Michigan to top the list in the Midwest. But Stanford and WS are on both sides of the country. They’re separated by thousands of miles away. Why would Goldman, for example, chase Stanford grads when they can alway get applicants of the same caliber at Columbia, Cornell, Brown and most especially, Dartmouth, Penn and HYP?</p>

<p>Therefore, to do this rightfully is to count the number of those grads who actually are now in WS. Sadly, we don’t have that count and all we can do is to rely on anecdotes. Most anecdotes would say that Stanford grads are not as much represented in WS as Ivies grads are. That is not due to Stanford being a less prestigious school. It is mainly due to distance or location. </p>

<p>

Well, honestly, I don’t think that’s how HRDs think. I think the HRDs evaluate the applicants rather than the school. The more personable, well-qualified Duke grad would always win the slot over an under-performing, dull, less-personable, ugly Yale grad. Schools do not have to do with the actual hiring of the applicants. Schools can only get you to the interview stage. </p>

<p>

In what way is this relevant to WS hiring? Oxford and Cambridge are considered on par with HYPSM, yet they’re way less represented in WS. </p>

<p>If you want a good list of schools that are top targets for banking ang finance jobs, here’s very good list: [Feeder</a> Schools | WallStreetOasis.com](<a href=“http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/feeder-schools]Feeder”>Feeder Schools | Wall Street Oasis)</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Terrible terrible logic. Do you know how ibanking recruitment works in the US? Its usually based on OCR (on-campus recruiting in which last time I checked non-American schools were not a member off. What can you find in Cambridge that you can’t find at Emory lol). Stanford on the other hand is in the US, and has OCR going on for several bank. This is not the same as the UK where you turn in your CV and HR does the recruiting. </p>

<p>Anyways, I think you just wanted to console yourself that Oxbridge are at par with HYPSM by inserting this statement (no proof really the same way the premier university of any country cannot claim to be at par with HYPSM)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Its more a question of demographics. HYPM have a huge number of people who are from the Northeast and would want to stay in the NE. Stanford has a lot of west coast people anyway. In the rare chance that one wants to move to another city, I doubt they would be hindered anyway.</p>

<p>Its however more regional schools that might have that issue of moving around</p>

19

<p>

It wasn’t a terrible logic. it was a severe lack fo comprehension on your part.</p>

<p>

Says how much you know. OCR exists in the UK too. I may even suspect that it is as rampant as it is practiced in the US. </p>

<p>

Your poor logic, severe lack of comprehension and malicious thinking led you to think that. </p>

<p>

LOL… Do you understand the meaning of demographic? Demographic often refers to size, structure, and distribution of human populations. How are Stanford grads “demographically” different from HYPM grads? LOL</p>

<p>Next time, when you try to open your mouth be courteous.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Not the same way it works in the US. I meant in the US context.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great you know how to use wikipedia. Now put demographics in the context I was using it as in reference to location. I dont think I was wrong in using demographics. And I am not wrong to use it to claim that I think Stanford has less Northeast kids than HYPM. </p>

<p>Stanford has a 43% instate student body. Chances are most dont really want to leave for new york. But that does not preclude them from entering new york if they wanted to. </p>

<p>Here is location being used for demographics: [Age</a>, Gender, Location: The Demographics of the Blogosphere](<a href=“ReadWrite - Crypto, Gaming & Emerging Tech News”>ReadWrite - Crypto, Gaming & Emerging Tech News)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There was no need to bring two schools outside the country into that context. What does Oxbridge have to do with recruitment on wall street? Seems quite random and out of context. You cannot use those two to back any statement about job opportunities in the US. Only in one country and thats the UK.</p>

<p>Not going to bandy words, heading to sleep anyways</p>