<p>Are you guys serious? 6’7? :P</p>
<p>Isn’t that pushing it? Lol.</p>
<p>I think the terminal advocacy about good looks and presence is simply that it is a huge, dominating factor when all other “substantive” skills are in fact equal. If two men are completely competent academically at all the same things, then the one who is taller, better looking, etc, will win.</p>
<p>However…what about a short good looking one vs. a tall bad looking one? :)</p>
<p>Speaking of appearance, the OP wanted to know why banks tend to love Ivy League students. Well here’s the reason: appearance. Whether it’s actually the case or not, having an Ivy League degree makes one appear intelligent. Basically, it just means that you passed another screening – if you go to the Ivy League, you’re obviously smart enough to do the work. Check, next question. Again, it’s not the soundest of logic but you certainly can’t belittle banks for this sort of thinking.</p>
<p>With investment banking there are lots of factors in play, particularly depending on the position. Just like the best traders tend to have been high intelligence athletes (competition, pressure), the best investment bankers are relationship builders. A lot of successful investment banking relies on building relationships over years, not months, and bringing people together over numbers. It is not pure math or pure problem solving when personalities get involved, thus: the smooth talking dartmouth grad.</p>
<p>I’m so glad I’m tall and handsome haha</p>
<p>I’m so glad I’m smarter than most people at my school</p>
<p>All of you are very special.</p>
<p>I’m so glad someone interested in ibanking who elects to go to Dartmouth is going to find him or herself surrounded by all sorts of students - not just handsome, tall smoothtalking men. Would otherwise be a far less rich experience.</p>
<p>I’m going to need to visit Dartmouth and make an assessment of the physical attractiveness of its students. The one female from my high school that eventually chose to go to Dartmouth wasn’t the most attractive female (and that’s an understatement).</p>
<p>yeah lol so that’s why im probably not going to go into ibanking. sure i might miss out on 300k/year salary. i wanna be an entrepreneur. maybe i’ll get a bit lucky and walk out a billionaire while these ivy grads make 300k doing 80-100hrs/week of tedious work</p>
<p>Those reputations date back to the days when ivy students were mostly WASP legacies with tall, powerful fathers and beautiful mothers. Now that they are more of a meritocracy, the great looking students appear to be at lower ranked schools where they have much more time free to work out and primp:)Think Playboy party list.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that most CEOs are not taller than 6’5.</p>
<p>Additionally, I am sure a shorter, yet more body builderesque man will still dominate a taller lankier one. So in short, if you’re short, hit up the gym.</p>
<p>yeah, in general, the less attractive students at my high school went to the best schools. The most attractive students went to good but not quite HYPS-think UVA, Vanderbilt-as well as more mediocre state schools like UMass. A lot of it was self selection. The very ugliest, least adapted nerds went to MIT, no surprise. I’m sure they could be working as quants, but they’d never make it as “relationship builders.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have the habit of making many generalizations that are probably not true.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You stated that the less attractive students in high school went to the “best schools” while the most attractive students went to average schools. Have you ever thought that maybe that was the case because there are far more less attractive people than there are attractive? In my graduating class there were nearly 350 females and of that many I only considered less than ten of them extremely attractive. Therefore, with that sample size, it’s no surprise that not many went to great schools. However, what you’re definitely forgetting and ignoring are those who are not attractive and still ended up at average to mediocre schools or maybe even no undergraduate education.</p></li>
<li><p>You stated that the ugliest and least adapted nerds went to MIT and that they would NEVER be “relationship builders”. I know some “nerds” who went to MIT and have “game”. I know many who went to Brown and Dartmouth and will never be networkers for their life.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Maybe it’s just me, but somehow it seems like the Ivy League guy/gal ends up being the most attractive at the end of the road, once they can actually spend time on their appearance instead of burying their noses in a book. Damn now I forgot what I was saying because the Red Wings just scored but anyways any woman can look good if she really tries to; the reason everyone says attractive girls go to less selective schools is because in high school only the dumb, slutty girls who’ve had D cups since 6th grade are the ones who put on makeup and wear mini-skirts every day… </p>
<p>I still say if you’re the best at what you do people will make room to get you to work for them, no matter what you look like.</p>
<p>
Brains and titties in one package! Cool!</p>
<p>Can’t complain with that! Things like personality and depth of relationship have never really felt important to me anyways. It’s best to clip it down to the essentials: brains and titties.</p>
<p>
If I had to pick between one or the other, it’d be titties.
I’m at a point in life where a relationship would only slow me down and a long term relationship just wouldn’t work (career goals, military deployments, academic goals, moving around a lot, etc.).</p>
<p>If you think Ivy League girls’ looks are anywhere near competitive, you are very, very mistaken. Even the 50 best looking girls from the eight ivy league schools would still get outdone by any decent sorority from a public school.</p>
<p>I overheard a conversation as boorish as this one among some young and older ivy alum recently. The older guys were asking if the girls’ schools still went to the colleges for big weekends. The young alum said not really, that they realized the guys wanted their kids to be able to use their legacy status and studies show that IQ’s tend to fall around the parent’s average.</p>
<p>Your statement doesn’t make any sense. If the guys were already from an Ivy, why were they concerned that girls from Wellesley, Smith would negate their Ivy status as far as offspring is concerned? Plus, the vast majority of 18-22 yr olds are not thinking like this anyway, even at the top schools.</p>