<p>Sorry - I meant "background" as your college major. Of course I know that I banking is an elitist community; there's no doubt. This is at Penn and I'm trying to show that even though Wharton is a buisness school, it does not have a monopoly over the rest of Penn in getting people into Ibanks, and especially consulting firms.</p>
<p>"The fact is, lots of companies, especially the big Fortune 500 companies, aren't really interested in hiring the absolute best and the brightest. They say they are, but they aren't really. What they are really interested in is hiring people who are going to fit well in the company, and that often times does not really mean the best and the brightest. "</p>
<p>I've observed a little more nuance to this, actually. </p>
<p>At the particular Fortune 500 company I worked at, for at least some jobs we absolutely wanted, and needed, the best and the brightest. And the jobs themselves were very much up to the task, in most respects including (regionally cost-adjusted) compensation. </p>
<p>However the jobs may not have been located in a sexy place where a lot of young unmarried people with no roots there want to live. So retention was still a big concern.</p>
<p>So if the job was in, say Des Moines, Iowa, and a brilliant MIT guy from Des Moines was interested and wanted to come home, absolutely he'd get a good hearing. But since there weren't many MIT guys from Iowa, it wasn't necessarily worth it to go up there looking for them. Versus recruiting at U Illinois and getting boatloads of interested and qualified candidates. Candidates who were really excellent but additionally had local roots, thereby reducing retention risk to a degree.</p>
<p>So yeah, not the best and the brightest. But the best and brightest of the people who were deemed likely to want to live there for more than a few years.</p>
<p>I myself lost employees while I was there for this very reason. And our jobs were as intellectually demanding as they come, IMO.</p>
<p>On the other hand, most companies have lots of jobs that would bore the best and the brightest, or not really utilize their fulll abilities. That includes the companies that you guys so admire. Believe me, I know this to be a fact. The difference is, the snooty firms just get the same bright people anyway, and then bore them to death. Too bad on these employees; the places don't give a hoot. If they don't like it they can leave. Except they can't because they can't replicate their salary. Whereas the Fortune 500 companies, who are not in such well-oiled oligopolies, can't throw cash at everyone and actually have to care about costs of retention, have to actually make an effort to match jobs with abilities.</p>
<p>My company was a bit different than many though in that we had lots of trading and finance- related line jobs. Talking solely about Finance, which seems to be mostly what's being discussed here, in most Fortune 500 companies finance is a staff job, not a line job. For every discipline, line jobs are frequently considered better opportunities than staff jobs, by many people. So at some of these companies, the finance department may not be where their "best and brightest" are congregated. They might be located more in general management,or marketing, or whatever is key in that particular firm. Most of these other areas don't have to compete with Wall Street for employees, to the same extent as finance jobs do. </p>
<p>Finance is but one area of business; reading these boards, sometimes I'm not sure all you people realize this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's important that all of us (myself included) remember that the purpose of this site is to help out students in making some very important career choices. I was out of line in lecturing bananainpyjamas, and hope that he/she will accept my apology. I wish you all the best in your future career, and hope you have a wonderful college experience over the next few years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks, I'm sorry for being snippy with you too. It's just that as you spend more time on this site, you'll pick up some of its quirks, with one being that people who say they want to be finance majors are almost always looking to work for one of the major i-banks. In that case, following your advice to go for the business school degree over a more prestigious econ degree would be a mistake, because as previously stated, i-banking is notoriously blue-blooded. Now if someone says they want to major in marketing or accounting, then I copy/paste the US News undergrad biz rankings...or at least I did back when I was still subscribed to the online version.</p>
<p>In any case, I wish your son luck with his apps, especially with Wharton. I know quite a few people will probably disagree with me, but IMO an undergrad degree from there is as good as a BS or BA from Harvard when it comes to the business world.</p>
<p>Oh and I agree with monydad...there is more to business than finance, but for CC purposes I usually just assume posters don't realize that unless they specifically state otherwise. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
how about UVA compared to Duke?
[/quote]
Are you in-state for UVA? If so, unless Duke is a better fit and/or gives you a ton of aid, go to UVA. Take this as advice coming from someone who was faced with that choice and can now see they made the wrong decision.</p>
<p>I am glad you saw the light bananainpyjamas. I always maintain that students from Virginia, California and Michigan would be crazy to chose any university over their flagship state universities unless it is for H,M,P,S and Y, and even then, it is questionable whether or not the cost is justifyable.</p>
<p>I know many students choose UNC over Duke too :)</p>
<p>North Carolina girls are hot.</p>
<p>I guess it's going to be extremely difficult to get a job on Wall St. coming from Florida's flagship university</p>
<p>How about USC Marshall vs Indiana Kelley vs Umich Econ ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I always maintain that students from Virginia, California and Michigan would be crazy to chose any university over their flagship state universities unless it is for H,M,P,S and Y, and even then, it is questionable whether or not the cost is justifyable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering the sometimes quite impressive financial aid packages that the top private schools can throw at you, certain people may actually find it to be CHEAPER to attend a top private school than a public school. Reminds me of the story of 2 guys I know who got into Harvard and Berkeley, and found out that it was actually CHEAPER to go to Harvard than to Berkeley, once their aid packages were factored in. Basically, Berkeley wanted them to take on debt, whereas Harvard was offering full grants. I distinctly remember one of them joking that all his life he dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he can't afford it, so now he has "no choice" but to go to Harvard. He had a mordant sense of humor. </p>
<p>My advice is if you're a strong student, apply to your public school and apply to the top privates, and also apply for financial aid, and then compare your true costs. You may be surprised by what you find. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've observed a little more nuance to this, actually. </p>
<p>At the particular Fortune 500 company I worked at, for at least some jobs we absolutely wanted, and needed, the best and the brightest. And the jobs themselves were very much up to the task, in most respects including (regionally cost-adjusted) compensation. </p>
<p>However the jobs may not have been located in a sexy place where a lot of young unmarried people with no roots there want to live. So retention was still a big concern.</p>
<p>So if the job was in, say Des Moines, Iowa, and a brilliant MIT guy from Des Moines was interested and wanted to come home, absolutely he'd get a good hearing. But since there weren't many MIT guys from Iowa, it wasn't necessarily worth it to go up there looking for them. Versus recruiting at U Illinois and getting boatloads of interested and qualified candidates. Candidates who were really excellent but additionally had local roots, thereby reducing retention risk to a degree.</p>
<p>So yeah, not the best and the brightest. But the best and brightest of the people who were deemed likely to want to live there for more than a few years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this and I would add some more nuance.</p>
<p>I believe one of the biggest draws of consulting (and to some extent banking) is that these kinds of jobs will almost always locate you in a city where there are many things to do, and in particular, many opportunities for your significant other. Let's face it. A good number of high-value employees are romantically attached, such that decisions to move somewhere are not just a 1-person decision. You have to ask the question of, if you move somewhere, what is the boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife going to do there? In the case of consulting and banking, you are almost assured of being located near one of the major cities in the world, and you have some (not complete, but some) power to choose which city that is. That maximizes your chances of finding someplace where your husband/wife can find a good job. Contrast that with taking some great job in the boonies. While you might be happy, what's the spouse going to be doing? </p>
<p>In fact, a guy I know had to turn down a very nice offer from Amazon to be an operations manager. The problem? The girlfriend (soon to be wife). She's graduating from law school at Berkeley and obviously wants to work as a lawyer in California. Amazon's operations jobs are all located in Amazon's distribution centers, which are, for cost reasons, all mostly located in the boonies, and none are in California. He really likes Amazon and wanted to take the job. But he can't. So instead, he's going to take a consulting job at BCG. It's not what he really wants to do, but the key is that it would allow him to work in either Los Angeles or San Francisco, depending on where she ends up. That's obviously a lot better for her law career than having to relocate to Farley, Nevada or Coffeyville, Kansas.</p>
<p>Going back to monydad's point about staff vs line jobs and promotional opportunities.</p>
<p>At many places here in the Silicon Valley, the ability to move up in companies is limited simply by the fact that the company is a high-tech company--and as such demands people with high-tech engineering/operations knowledge. People that have worked on the staff side in Finance or IT for a long time will find it difficult to easily work their way up into executive management in such firms.</p>
<p>Therefore, this is another reason why top people with finance degrees/computer degrees will gravitate to i-banking and consulting positions.</p>
<p>Taking the time to get the operations experience (at an Amazon or equivalent) or working on product designs (in an engineering environment) will be the preferential route. This is one reason a lot of students might want to consider either going undergrad engineering, then graduate business/econ (or vice-versa). These might seem like dramatically different routes--but in many companies they are entirely compatible and are the best way to get to the top of the company ladder.</p>
<p>Sakky, there are exceptions of course, but on average, students from Michigan or California who are good enough to get into Harvard will get a full ride at Michigan or Cal. I'd say very few residents of those states would find Harvard cheaper than Cal or Michigan, although I am sure you have a few such cases each year. </p>
<p>At any rate, I did say that Harvard, M,P,S and Y are worth considering over Cal, Michigan and UVA, even if they are more expensive. However, for in-staters to pay $45,000/year to attend Duke or Penn when Michigan will cost them $15,000/year makes no sense. Michigan is academically just as strong, it is equally respected by exclusive employers and adcoms at top graduate programs, offers an unbeatable undergraduate experience and saves in-staters in middle-income families $30,000/year. Of course, if the cost of attending an elite private university like Brown or Cornell should be equal to the cost of attending UVA or Michigan or if the student's parents are very wealthy, at that point, the student shoud chose based on fit rather than cost.</p>
<p>Alexandre, there is no way Michigan is as highly reputed as Duke or Penn. Those private schools have far more money, better rankings and reputation, and quite frankly more opportunities due to private school funding. Granted you will pay more but for a family where cost isn't a huge concern, Penn or Duke will certainly offer you a stronger academic experience (if you choose to take advantage of their manifold opportunities)</p>
<p>While you have yours, I don't think that's very representitive of the actual opinion. When I was applying to college, from Virginia, probably about 70-80% of those who got into UVA would rather attend a non HYPSM ivy league school/equivalent if the choice was available.</p>
<p>I'd take Michigan Ross over Duke anyday...regardless of cost.</p>
<p>I am not sure what source you are looking at Andrw. Michigan is the nation's 7th wealthiest university.</p>
<p>ENDOWMENT:
Michigan: $4.9 Billion
Penn: $4.4 Billion
Duke: $3.3 Billion</p>
<p>Michigan is richer than Penn and Duke and the gap is growing. 20 years ago, Penn was much wealthier than Michigan and Duke was slightly wealthier than Michigan. The reason for that was simple. In the 1950s and 1960s, universities did not requirew much money and state schools were very well funded by the state, so they did not develop their endowments. In the 1980s, most elite private universities had been developing their endowment for over 100 years whereas state universities had not even started developing their endowments. Only in the 1990s did state universities realize that they could no longer rely on state funding to remain competitive and that's when state schools really started to develop their endowments.</p>
<p>And Michigan and Duke both get roughly the same amount of private donations...and Penn isn't much above. Not that it matters since Michigan get more federal and state money than Duke or Penn.</p>
<p>As far as academic opportunties and reputation are concerned, perhaps you know something the rest of the academic and corporate world don't know, because those three schools are considered pretty even in most circles. From the Fiske Guide, the USNWR Peer Assessment score and graduate school placement success to professional placement and starting salaries, Michigan is always up their with the best of them.</p>
<p>I'd take Duke just for the weather :)</p>
<p>Alexandre, Michigan hits the numbers on a few important areas like research, but misses on undergraduate focus, selectivity, and the benefit of a smaller more loyal network. Recruiters could care less about the ranking of an econ dept, they want top students and the Ivies (and Duke, etc) do better than Michigan. T</p>
<p>Undergraduate really doesnt matter, you need to look at marketing yourself towards getting into a good Masters program. Banks higher from elite schools simply because they are elite. It is like making a house look great on the outside but not care about the interior. They are marketing with the elite graduates they have, so they are hiring for the college name, not student. Obviously this doesnt account for 100% of hires, but it is a general practice that does happen.</p>
<p>so southpasdena, you mean econ degree from elite school will be more respected than bba from other business schools? (probably excluding top5 business schools?)</p>
<p>Excluding top 5 business schools, Econ from a top 15 is better.</p>
<p>in my opion Michigan's student body is different from Penn or Duke.
If you want go to Penn or Duke you have to work much harder. If you get GPA form Penn or Duke with 3.0. It is better to go MIchigan with GPA of 3.4 or 3.5 with the same working attitude. But if you work hard enough at Penn or Duke and you can graduate with top 10% or better your furture may be
have better chance than you graduate form Michigan with top 10% over there. In short, if you want go top school you have better to work much harder, otherwise it will be better for you to stay at state school.</p>