<p>My mom say’s I’m special…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If “UBS” is in response to my “worst bank on the Street” comment, you clearly know very little about banking. No hate, but I’m not a fan of HS seniors posting information that they have no knowledge about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. A bit of cockiness is good, but the egos in this thread…wow!</p>
<p>
You should check out the elitism in this thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/investment-banking/709368-why-do-ibanks-care-about-ivy-brandname-so-much.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/investment-banking/709368-why-do-ibanks-care-about-ivy-brandname-so-much.html</a></p>
<p>Cockiness should come from achieving a level of proficiency that you’re competitors cannot reach. It should not be a result of where you come from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Compared to many of the posts on here, I don’t really see this guy as that arrogant. It’s funny, a year ago, I would have considered ML to be the #3 bank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or in reaching a level of proficiency in the English language to understand the difference between “you’re” and “your”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hah, touche. I guess “attention detail” got thwarted for a moment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How quickly times change.</p>
<p>
Is a typo the only flaw that you have found in my statement? I can live with that. It’s an internet forum, not a paper or a formal presentation/briefing.
I’m sure we can search through all your posts on this forum (because you certainly have a lot), find one typo, and apply the same logic to infer that you haven’t reached a level of necessary proficiency in the English language either, gellino.
I believe the phrase is “attention TO detail”. I guess attention to detail was thwarted for a moment here as well.</p>
<p>In the words of Robin Williams, I was “being ironic.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was his point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, to me, is not a typo but rather a syntax error. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I do disagree with your statement too. Being accepted to a top school is achieving a level of proficiency that your peers cannot reach and one who does so should feel good about themsleves, although not necessarily “cocky”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is incorrect. Being accepted to a “top school” does not always mean that you have achieved a level of proficiency that your peers cannot reach. There are many who have sub-par performance but are accepted because of their family and political connections.</p>
<p>While you have made no implication to the contrary, we need to recognize that some of those individuals who were accepted to “top schools” did not choose to go to a “top school” in the end.</p>
<p>You need to re-read what I stated previously because you’re misunderstanding it.</p>
<p>I stated:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you thought I had said and what I did say are not the same things.</p>
<p>More importantly, we need to define what exactly a “top school” actually is? Is a top school simply based on rankings or is it based on it’s suitability to the individual in terms of achieving that individual’s goals?</p>
<p>For example, let’s say I have just graduated from pharmacy with a PharmD. If I was accepted to both Harvard Law and Rutgers Law, which are two law school on completely different tiers, which one is the “top school” for me?</p>
<p>If I attended Harvard Law for 3 years full time, it would cost me about $200,000 in living expenses and tuition.
However, if I added Rutgers Law part-time for 4 years (which would cost me $0 because of NJ’s NG Tuition Waiver) and worked full time as a community pharmacist (36 hours/week, 3 days a week, income: $110k-120k/year) during that time I would be up $450000.
The net difference is at least $650000.</p>
<p>Clearly, the “top school” is the latter but that is totally dependent upon the circumstances of the individual.</p>
<p>Well, Rutgers certainly isn’t the “top school” over Harvard for anyone who wants to go into finance, no matter how much money one saves… so in the context of this Investment Banking forum, let’s be real and agree that the top schools are actually the top schools. </p>
<p>Quit being so trivial…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But are they?</p>
<p>For those major BB firms that have recruited the “best and the brightest” from these “top schools” over the years, they seemed pretty vulnerable over the past year…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but imagine what WS would look like if they recruited from schools like Rutgers.</p>
<p>lol just playing, polo. But seriously, no need to turn this into another “pharmacy is better than finance” thread.</p>
<p>
It probably would have the same disaster or worse, truthfully. So in that regard, you don’t have to be “just playing” as I agree with you for the most part.
My point was that even coming from a “top school” one can still find himself extremely vulnerable to a downturn of the economy. Until someone can honestly stand up and say, “I make X amount of money regardless of the economy’s condition”, it would behoove that person to play a more humble role in life. And seeing that not many people from “top schools” can say that with certainty, the amount of elitism in this sub-forum really needs to be toned down in my opinion.</p>
<p>Okay Polo you have an ax to grind. You say "Cockiness should come from achieving a level of proficiency " </p>
<p>Well, if you have been accepted to a target school (1 level of proficiency) and been selected for an interview to a bank (next level of proficiency) and been offered an internship (final level until the next step), you have achieved a level of proficiency.</p>
<p>Next, you have you prove yourself on the job. That would be the 80+ hr a week job.</p>
<p>You might ask why only the target school. Because, in this industry, they believe future workers have already passed the first proficiency test, ie high sat’s and high gpa from a selective school.</p>
<p>Sorry Polo— this is a very select group.</p>
<p>If you want an equalizer- apply to Law School. The LSAT matters most, not the school you graduated from.</p>
<p>
Is that level of proficiency sufficient to insulate you from systemic risk? If they were laid off through no fault of their own, were they able to find employment in a similar function with little delay? If the answer is yes, then you’re “proficient” (or connected) but I would probably be correct in saying that for the field of finance right now, that’s not too common.</p>
<p>
It’s a one dimensionally selective group and in my opinion, not very selective at all.
There are better equalizers than just law school. Just throwing an example out there: greater net income over a period of time - achieve this whichever way you choose.</p>
<p>i’m a junior with a 3.4 at wharton and i’m getting my ass owned during ocr right now. does that answer the question? 3.5 is more like average.</p>