<p>Bain recruits at Caltech.</p>
<p>The fact is, MBB likes undergrad students who major in the hard sciences or mathematics.</p>
<p>Caltech getting bain and bcg (just examined their calendar year events) recruiting is a new occurrence. But, Do you work here (as in MBB)? It’s well known UVa, Berkeley, and UMich have FAR more recruiting and placement (even per capita in terms of applicants) than Caltech and WUSTL (hence why ALL 3 of MBB recruit at UVa, Haas, and Ross for undergrad versus Olin and Caltech).</p>
<p>See here:</p>
<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>versus</p>
<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>Tier 1: USN ug top 10 (HYPSM, Caltech, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, Duke, UChicago)
Tier 2: USN ug top 11-30
Tier 3 (aka TTT): all other schools</p>
<p>Interestingly enough McKinsey doesn’t appear to recruit at some rather high profile schools. For example, I couldn’t find the U of C on their website (even though Booth has very close ties with McKinsey).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For those of you who find the “tier” concept useful, why is it that you so often include more universities than LACs in the top tier?</p>
<p>Compare the #50 university with the #50 LAC, or the #30 university with the #30 LAC.
Chances are, feature by feature the LAC will have many stronger numbers than the equally ranked university. The LAC is likely to have higher average SAT scores, higher 4 year graduation rates, much smaller class sizes, better financial aid, a larger endowment per student, and a higher rate of PhD production per student.</p>
<p>Compare these 3, for example:</p>
<p>School…Rank …SAT-CR …SAT-M…Classes <20 …Classes >=50 …4yr GradRate… Avg % Need Met… Endowment per Student… PhDs Produced Per Undergrad 2005-10</p>
<p>UCSB…41 Uni…606…628…47%…19%…69%…86%…$9,500…4%
Boston College…31 Uni…665…685…52%…6.4%…87%…100%…$129,000…4%
Whitman…43 LAC…680…665…62%…0.3%…80%…97%…$257,000…9%</p>
<p>The LAC’s numbers nearly match, or exceed, the numbers for a much higher-ranked university. It seems to me that quality tends to run much deeper in the USNWR rankings for LACs, if we measure it by features like these. </p>
<p>Sources: USNWR and (for PhD numbers) webcaspar.nsf.gov</p>
<p>tk21769, you make such good points!</p>
<p>First: HYPSM, Columbia, Chicago, Penn, Dartmouth, Duke, Caltech
Second: Brown, Cornell, Berkeley, Northwestern, Hopkins, Georgetown, Vandy, UVA, WUSTL, UCLA
Third: everywhere else</p>
<p>UVA and UCLA second and not Michigan? I don’t think so…</p>
<p>Oh whoops, yeah Michigan belongs in the second tier.</p>
<p>Tier 1: HYPSM
Tier 2: Columbia, Caltech, Chicago, Dartmouth, Penn, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Duke, Berkeley, Michigan
Tier 3: UCLA, UVA, Georgetown, WashU, JHU</p>
<p>I completely agree with the above. ;-)</p>
<p>This thread is FIVE years old!!</p>
<p>I may be wrong but I believe at one point in time Tufts was considered an LAC. If this is true then you could look at how Tufts ranked up against other LACs at that point and from there you can at least figure out which LACs are in the top 28.</p>
<p>Tier1: HYSM
Tier 2: Chicago, Columbia, Caltech
Tier 3: Duke, Northwestern, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, JHU, Berkeley
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U
Tier 5: UCLA, Michigan, UVA, Georgetown, Notre Dame,
Tier 6: Emory, CMU, USC, Tufts, UNC</p>
<p>In a more general sense a tier 1 school is probably any school in the top 50, tier 2 50-100, tier 3 100-200</p>
<p>I pretty much agree with allcapella’s rankings except that UNC Chapel Hill IMO is a school overplayed in quality by its students.</p>
<p>We should just break down the first tier of schools into 1a, 1b, 1c, etc, which is basically what is happening here.</p>
<p>“I pretty much agree with allcapella’s rankings except that UNC Chapel Hill IMO is a school overplayed in quality by its students.”</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on the above statement?</p>
<p>rjk – friedman is a 17-year-old high school senior.</p>
<p>Eh. I just don’t think any of their programs are really that legit, but every student I know who is going/goes to Chapel Hill makes it seem like all their programs are phenomenal to the point where it’s kinda obnoxious and they’re trying to make it seem like they’re Harvard. </p>
<p>I’m 18 by the way.</p>
<p>“Tier1: HYSM
Tier 2: Chicago, Columbia, Caltech
Tier 3: Duke, Northwestern, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, JHU, Berkeley
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U
Tier 5: UCLA, Michigan, UVA, Georgetown, Notre Dame,
Tier 6: Emory, CMU, USC, Tufts, UNC”</p>
<p>Agree with this.</p>
<p>jakey54: It is interesting that you always seem to agree with everything that allcapella says. It seems that he always agrees with everything you say as well. It’s as if you were both the same person…Hmmmmmm</p>