<p>Is it because Ivy grads are more well-rounded with good soft/communication skills? I mean, if theses finance companies are looking for the best and the brightest minds, Berkeley (engineering), MIT, Stanford are their best bets...But I'd imagine places like Yale and Columbia produce more well-rounded grads and maybe ibanking doesn't require the sharpest technical minds...</p>
<p>Because it’s one stop shopping for some of the brightest, hardest working kids in the Country who already have a good network. A third of kids from MIT have headed to Wall Street in the past decade, it’s the equal of any ivy in banking as is Stanford.</p>
<p>While engineers certainly have skill sets many employers want, the stereotypical engineer may or may not have the skill set for banking. The study of engineering is rigorous in a narrow way. Certainly bright kids at the top engineering schools but the brightest?</p>
<p>Berkeley engineering might be great for both graduate and undergrad, I truly don’t know. That being said, I doubt that Berkeley engineering undergrads are any “better” or “brighter” than Ivy League engineering undergrads (or non-engineering for that matter). In the meantime, the Ivies have a whole lot of other advantages, not the least of which is geographic. But for sure MIT and Stanford do quite well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the students at Berkeley undergrad are necessarily the “brightest minds” since anyone who got into an Ivy would probably have gotten into Berkeley as well. That’s not to say their program is weak, but it just doesn’t take as much to get into Cal. Whether the student decides to do engineering or not as no bearing on admissions. That being said, I’m pretty sure Berkeley still sends a few to bulge brackets each year</p>
<p>Stanford and MIT are as competitive as Ivies (although I imagine most MIT students would prefer to work in the high tech or similar industry rather than finance).</p>
<p>Probably because these bright minds will be able to protect Ibanks from a downturn in the economy…</p>
<p>those bright minds were also the ones who caused the downturn in the economy in the first place, albiet a small % of them</p>
<p>“I don’t think the students at Berkeley undergrad are necessarily the “brightest minds” since anyone who got into an Ivy would probably have gotten into Berkeley as well.”</p>
<p>It’s not about getting in. It’s about graduating out when i comes to engineering, which explains the huge attrition rate due to drop outs to other majors because they cant make it, failing out. I think I read somewhere that engineering attrition is about 30% across the nation. Surviving engineering itself is hard, getting a 3.5+ that banks want is even harder in engineering. So kids who graduate from engineering (especially a high reputation program like berkeley’s) are more tested and have a higher “floor” than say a women studies, history or even a business major with the same GPA (not talking about ceiling here, no one knows that until the person starts working, but you are guaranteed to not get a completely incompetent person).</p>
<p>Only engineers see it this way. Sure, studying engineering is more time consuming and requires better quant skills than many majors. This doesn’t mean the students are brighter or more tested on the whole, just in the narrow areas pertaining to engineering.</p>
<p>I have children at MIT, an ivy and a top LAC. There are all tested in different ways. The latter 2 sit in small seminars where they must perform on their feet daily and do paper after paper that demand intellectual output. Very different challenges and different jobs within banks will favor kids with different backgrounds.</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree with hmom more</p>
<p>“Only engineers see it this way.”</p>
<p>hmom, you always give good advice and I respect what you have to say, but I do not agree with that.</p>
<p>When I say getting a high gpa in engineering is harder, it is not how I feel about the field, it is the statistics. Average engineering GPA at top programs are constantly 0.3 to 0.4 lower than average GPA in the liberal arts college.
Take Michigan for example, average engineering GPA is 2.7. Average LSA GPA is 3.2.
For engineering, 3.2 gets you top 25% (Cum laude), 3.5 gets you top 10% (Magna), 3.75 gets you top 3% (Summa). For LSA, it’s 3.75(top 25%), 3.85(top 10%) and something like 3.93(top 3%).
As you can see. Getting 3.75 in LSA at Michigan means you are top 25% in LSA, but in engineering you are top 3%.</p>
<p>Also, the highest attrition rate is also not made up. More people fail out of engineering than any majors because of the weeder classes and grading curves.</p>
<p>Obviously liberal arts majors are tested differently, but these discrepancies in “testing” exist.</p>
<p>hmom said nothing about there not being a lower average gpa. She only said that the 3.5 Berkeley engineering grad isn’t automatically “better and brighter” than a 3.8 Yale philosophy grad, or a 3.5 Yale philosophy grad for that matter, their backgrounds are just different. Focus more on her second sentence and not her first.</p>
<p>Also, you assume a whole lot about causation, which may or may not be accurate.</p>
<p>Bearcats, the question is why are GPAs lower?</p>
<p>I think a lot of kids are attracted to or pushed into engineering because it offers job stability and relatively high starting salaries. As my son pointed out all during his undergrad years at CMU, many of his peers should not have been in the major.</p>
<p>And even if the GPAs are lower because courses are more rigorous, this does not make the engineering students brighter. They may be better at problem sets but how is this helping in any but the quant banking jobs?</p>
<p>This is why for most banking jobs the most sought after remains kids with a top liberal arts or liberal arts like education. The skills they have mastered are broader.</p>
<p>engineers aren’t as good at sales. We live in a sales and marketing based economy. If they wanted the best engineers they’d go to IIT in India. But they wouldn’t be nearly as good at pitching as some handsome, smooth talking dartmouth grad. So the IIT grads make 1/10th the money and do way more tedious work. Nobody said life is fair.</p>
<p>But HMom is right-math ability is only one component of intellectual ability. Verbal and social ability matter too. The Ivy grads (and Williams grads) I know are really well rounded.</p>
<p>My school is a non target (McGill), but Banks do occasionally pick up top students like at any top public. These students are usually econ/math superstars who interview well. But unlike at targets, they do care about you major because my school’s admissions aren’t selective enough to filter out the dummies.</p>
<p>I passed that last post onto my handsome, smooth talking Dartmouth son!</p>
<p>Social graces are key. And I’ve always maintained that looking the part is very important in many business jobs. Ever notice there are CEO looks? And there is a disproportionate number of very tall people in banking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a couple misconceptions and generalizations (dare I say stereotypes) that have been passed along in this thread:
- Too much of this thread has focused solely on “brand name” whereas it should focus on life experiences (of which the brand name school you attended does play a role).
- Liberal arts education implies that you have mastered broader skills.
- Engineers are not good at sales.
- Handsome and smooth-talking individuals actually go far in life.</p>
<p>Of these four, the one that gave me the most laughs was the notion that being a handsome, smooth talking Dartmouth grad correlates with success in terms of management and leadership abilities.
When you take a close look at senior leadership in all walks of life, you’ll realize that substance is way more important than style and flare. How many times have you seen the handsome smooth talking male falter and buckle when taken out of his comfort zone and put in a situation where everything is working against him? We all know that someone and we all laugh at him at his own expense.
Personally, I’d rather be the handsome, quiet engineering grad that has a commanding presence and is looked upon as someone that can execute and accomplish the mission in the worst possible circumstances.
The question any real leader has to ask himself is would he rather be liked or would he rather be respected?</p>
<p>
There is a disproportionate number of very tall people in banking because it’s true that being tall is definitely an advantage. By default, it gives you more presence.
However, that’s not the sole reason why a large number of very tall people end up being CEOs. Not enough shorter males understand how to project their presence.</p>
<p>Biologically, it’s been ingrained in our heads that bigger equals more powerful. Thus, shorter people are at a natural disadvantage. However, it is up to the individual to work on those weaknesses and prove those stereotypes to be false. For example, I’m not tall by any means, standing at 5’9" and weighing 150lbs. But by the Army’s standards, I’m a PT stud and I do everything from running, swimming, boxing, etc. I know many civilians that are much taller than me and wouldn’t want to compare physical abilities because I’ll just blow them out of the water. Therefore, in that respect, I stand out (as a shorter male) because I have dominated those who would otherwise have been expected to perform better in all measurable categories. </p>
<p>In addition, if it is my turn to lead and you walked up to me and a group of people (all of whom are taller than me) I guarantee you that you will make no mistake about who is running the show and in charge of the element. My short experience and ongoing in the Army has dramatically developed my command presence. Too many people in the civilian world lack this experience and skill. However, that is not to say that I constantly hoard power - being a team player is the most important part of small unit/group dynamics. When you need to be the chief, be the chief, when you need to be the indian, be a good indian as the saying goes.</p>
<p>^when are you going to realize life isn’t fair?</p>
<p>
I’m in the Army, I know more about life being unfair than you will ever know.</p>
<p>The difference is that I’m the type of person that recognizes the challenges, immediately formulates a course of action to overcome that challenge, and executes to the best of my ability rather than sit there and complain about it.</p>
<p>Polo, there is study after study that spells out that people like good looking people more, expect them to succeed and simply that things like good looks and height predispose people to success. Right or wrong it’s simple fact. It doesn’t mean a total idiot who is 6’7" will easily become a CEO, it means if his skill set is comparable to the next guy’s he’s likely to get the nod.</p>
<p>That said, confidence gets people far.</p>
<p>hmom5, I never disagreed with you. I was only trying to offer solutions based on my experience for those shorter folks out there on how to overcome that obstacle.</p>
<p>
The key to this is true confidence and not false bravado.</p>