<p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>I am an international student in USA and I am looking forward to an i-banking career.</p>
<p>I have offers from UCL and UChicago so far, and I am also applying to LSE, Oxford (UK) and Stern, Wharton (US).</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone could give me some general information about how these schools in these two countries would be helpful for my future i-banking career?</p>
<p>Thanks a lot!</p>
<p>Where are you interested in working? Wharton and UChicago definitely stand out either way. If you are interested in U.S. BB opps, then Stern (a strong semi-target) would be a notch below them. </p>
<p>IBanker</p>
<p>emmm I am not quite sure about the pros and cons of the locations… </p>
<p>So basically you mean that UCL is not competent with UChicago in this way… but what about LSE and Oxford? Given their world wide reputation, would they be good places to go, too? Or no?</p>
<p>Also, there are people saying that UChicago is at huge disadvantage comparing to Stern in terms of locations. Is that really so? I’ve also heard people say that UChicago is better academically and has better reputation than NYU as a whole… How would you choose between this two?</p>
<p>Thank you very much in replying to my thread!</p>
<p>To be honest, UoC is more of an academic school, less recruited by WS from what I’ve seen. In fact, I’ve seen many more NYU grads than UoC. Take that for what you will, I don’t know official statistics. I don’t know much about UCL honestly, can’t comment on that front.</p>
<p>To the larger question, it depends on whether you want to be in NY or London. Obviously LSE & Oxford feed to London while Stern and Wharton feed to NY. The country in which you go to school will have a large impact on where you end up starting (though there are exceptions, myself included).</p>
<p>Thanks for your replying.</p>
<p>For recruiting, I am sort of confused of what you said. As you said, WS recruit more NYU than UofC students - you mean undergrads, right? That makes sense in this way… </p>
<p>But do WS mainly recruit undergrads or MBA students? and why? I myself plan to go to some business school anyways after my undergrads studies (probably econ) and try ibank then. Any advice on that?</p>
<p>I am talking about undergraduate, yes. If I had to guess, I would think they do more recruiting from undergrad. </p>
<p>To your second point, getting into a top MBA program out of undergraduate with no work experience is EXTREMELY difficult. There are exceptions, but in general it will not happen even if you have stellar credentials. If you are going to one of these schools undergrad, you will have opportunities to go into banking straight out of college… why not do it then? Furthermore, if you want to get an MBA after working in banking for a few years you will have a much easier time.</p>
<p>What I meant was not whether you know the pros of each location,. but which location you are most interested in. For U.S. (NY) banking, you want to go with Wharton, U Chic and Stern. </p>
<p>Next, if you are dead set on going into banking in NY, I would rank Wharton as your top choice and then a fair weighting between NYU and Chicago. Chicago is a phenomenal school - don’t let student interest in other fields outside of banking lead you to believe that companies don’t recruit for IB at U Chic. In this case, I would go Wharton at the top, and then Chicago and Stern right behind it.</p>
<p>If, however, you are interested in banking, but might consider other finance/econ fields/industries as well, I would choose Chicago over NYU, as Chicago has a phenomenal all-around reputation with a well-represented network throughout the Street and beyond. Wharton, however, still stands at the top for Undergraduate level. </p>
<p>If you are planning to go for a continuing degree after U Grad, you are probably thinking of a Master’s in Econ, rather than an MBA. Without work experience, or some sort of absolutely phenomenal background, you are not going to get into a strong MBA program. </p>
<p>Assuming you come out of undergrad or a Master’s program, you will be applying for analyst level IB positions. If you go for IB after earning your MBA, you will be applying for associate level IB positions. As an undergrad, you will not be competing with MBA level students for IB positions. Therefore, Wall St. does not mainly recruit for MBA or U Grads, it recruits for both for different positions - one analyst, one associate (the promotion right above serving as an analyst for, usually, 3 years). </p>
<p>Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.</p>
<p>IBanker</p>
<p>I agree with what BankonBanking said. Wharton, UChicago, and Stern are all very competitive internally. At Wharton, you will be competition with other ambitious undergrads on curves. Even though people say UChicago is for students interested in academia, don’t be fooled. Most econ majors at UChicago want to get into ib, and competition is fierce there. These American schools would definitely give you an edge over the British schools in NYC or Chicago.
For London at the undergrad level, LSE>Oxford>UCL. UCL is noted for excellence in social sciences and humanities, not for placing undergrads into investment banks. Oxford has an academic atmosphere, and it would trail LSE slightly in placing an undergrad into the city. This being said, the emphasis is on how you do at the school you attend, not on which school you attend out of these schools.</p>
<p>I banking you say? Ignore the idiots who have replied to your post. I have experience with both US and UK education. Take LSE and or Upenn. CHicago vs UCl for banking, finance etc, take UCL. Chicago is good but remember the 2 year common core. UCL has an excellent mathematics and economics department. A friend of mine graduated from LSE Government and Economics joint major this year and now works for the financial times. My cousin who is now in Finance got through to Upenn.</p>
<p>If you want something more all rounded before venturing into economics, then take Chicago. LSE, UCL, Upenn = fast track to I banking. If you get into Oxford too then it’s really your call. Oxford is a name that carries everywhere and anywhere, just take time to think whether or not you’ll like it there…as in the environment, the people, the collegiate system. LSE carries a lot of weight in the states, particularly (not limited to) NY and Cali…after all high ranked universities there offer dual major/location programs with LSE.</p>
<p>Take care and best of luck for everything.</p>
<p>For NYC opps, you want to attend Wharton or another top American school. Likewise, for London opps, you want to attend European schools. If you are striving for the top investment banks in NYC, going to school at Oxford or LSE would place you at a disadvantage simply the American firms strongly prefer well-rounded people who can excel in any discipline. Students who concentrate on a major or two for three years at Oxford, LSE, etc. simply aren’t as desirable in eyes of top banks in NYC. On the other hand, opps in London prefer applicants to know their econ, thereby preferring applicants from British schools.</p>
<p>If you get an offer from Wharton, take it. The Wharton brand carries the most prestige by far (out of the ones you mentioned) any where in the financial world (even in London). LSE would be a far second, followed by the rest.</p>
<p>Do not discount UofC-- particularly if you are accepted for econ. Although you may not have as many recruiters banging on your doorstep, it is the most historically important economics program in the world, and this will serve you well in the long term (grad school, MBA studies, etc.)</p>
<p>In terms of straight hiring prospects 3/4 years from now when you finish, it depends somewhat on location, but controlling for that, I would probably say…</p>
<p>LSE
Wharton/Oxford
UofC
Stern
UCL</p>
<p>LSE on top only because of its proximity to the City. Good luck!</p>
<p>Jamesy12’s list is for the City. It’s very different in the US. Student from LSE, Oxford, and UCL are at a very disadvantageous position because BB in New York prefer four years of liberal arts.</p>
<p>True, U Penn for NY. LSE for London.</p>
<p>For UK and Europe Placement: Oxford > LSE = Wharton > Stern = Chicago > UCL</p>
<p>For US Placement: Wharton = Oxford > Stern > Chicago > LSE >>> UCL</p>
<p>LSE is Located in London. If one think NYC, he should go Columbia.</p>
<p>"For UK and Europe Placement: Oxford > LSE = Wharton > Stern = Chicago > UCL</p>
<p>For US Placement: Wharton = Oxford > Stern > Chicago > LSE >>> UCL"</p>
<p>For London, and Europe, Oxford=LSE=Wharton > Stern = Chicago > UCL</p>
<p>For US, Wharton >> Oxford = Stern = Chicago >> LSE = UCL (neither can place you into BB IBD in NYC these few years; LSE >> UCL when the economy was booming)</p>
<p>"For UK and Europe Placement: Oxford > LSE = Wharton > Stern = Chicago > UCL</p>
<p>For London, and Europe, Oxford=LSE=Wharton > Stern = Chicago > UCL"</p>
<p>Nice try. It just shows that none of you ever worked in the City. I went to UChicago and did one semester at LSE. For IBD/S&T at top BBs, Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick give almost equal opportunities. I don’t want to repeat myself. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1252080-university-college-london-5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1252080-university-college-london-5.html</a></p>
<p>For US, you won’t find many UCL grads. But that is for reasons other than prestige of the school among employers.</p>
<p>Don’t get hung up about the proximity to the city to LSE compared to Oxford, Oxford is only an hours train ride from London and we have loads of IB recruiting events etc. I assume that you are looking at E&M, this is the top course in Europe for employment, starting salary etc, so go for it. The connections you make at Oxford will be incredible, and the Said has good links to HBS etc, my tutor is ex HBS.</p>