<p>yeah...i thought so</p>
<p>nodnard - you can stick it up yours afterward.</p>
<p>zr1990, Williams is solid. There are actually some boutiques OWNED by Williams alum. You can look it up.</p>
<p>It’s the best very among LAC"s for banking, on par with Duke, and if you can get anything like an equivalent GPA (which should be fine, as Duke GPA is notoriously inhumane), you have a better shot than the Duke dude. Williams is especially good with the more socially elite banks, which is not surprising.</p>
<p>Go, do well, take as many easy courses as you can get away with (Williams marks pretty rigorously), get good grades, and make lots of money on Wall St. You’ll be fine.</p>
<p>How does Middlebury compare to Williams in terms of putting people on wal street/ in I-banking? Also, coming from a Liberal arts school, I imagine that one would need to at the very least Minor in economics if not major in it to get one of these kinds of jobs. Can anyone attest to this, AND answer my question?</p>
<p>Middlebury does very well with placing grads on Wall Street. Both schools have strong alumni presences in NYC.</p>
<p>IPBear, I am guessing that you know next to nothing about the Ivy League. </p>
<p>Look, it’s really simple. The Yale-Duke comparison isn’t even a straight one because Duke is super-intent on screwing its own kids by giving them the crappiest GPA’s ever. I know largely equivalent kids at both schools, and let me tell you that the kids I know at Duke, clinging on to 3.0 and 3.2’s, surely wish they had the luck of their Yale peers who are easily chilling with 3.6’s and 3.7’s.</p>
<p>A Yale kid with equivalent GPA as a Duke kids is gonna have a better change at the more prestigious and more prestige-conscious banks. A Yale kid, getting that sweet GPA with a built-in GPA booster relative to other top schools, is gonna have an AMAZING advantage.</p>
<p>Now go slink off to your corner. You don’t know anything about elite schools, and frankly I can only make the reasonable conjecture that if you know nothing about elite schools, you know less about banking.</p>
<p>The problem with Duke is essentially that half the kids there want to be bankers, and they were probably academic enough to get into a top-10 school but not hooked up and old-money enough to score Ivies, so they are all working their butts off for (collectively) god-awful GPA’s. Really nasty situation if you ask me.</p>
<p>Frankly, most of the top-20 schools outside Ivies are pretty worthless, if only because of the ■■■■■■■■ GPA factor. Really good example: Notre Dame, which is a joke as far as recruiting goes.</p>
<p>If you can score 3.5+ GPA at Duke, good for you; however, that’s probably a good indication you can transfer to Ivies (especially the academically more relaxed ones, Penn CAS, Brown, Yale) because you are gonna have much better prestige there.</p>
<p>I know there’s probably a fairly large difference between williams/amherst and the other liberal arts schools mentioned, but is there a significant difference between breaking into the industry after attending Colgate or Middlebury? </p>
<p>From what I have researched both have a fairly strong alumni network but I am curious as to whether there is any advantage in going to one of these two schools over the other. </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>The reason for Colgate’s alumni network is purely the lacrosse players. It’s a mad lacrosse school, and laxers do well with banking. If you don’t play lax (or field hockey), Colgate means nothing.</p>
<p>Yes there is. Colgate is a laxer school. Basically, Colgate lax is mad dirty, and the laxers there ball hard and get wall st jobs. if you don’t lax, you won’t be part of the game.</p>
<p>middlebury, on the other hand, has a network for everybody.</p>
<p>actually, come to think of it, the best prep for wall st is to lax. if you lax, you are gonna have SUCH an easier time getting jobs and stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Difference in what? Percentage of students who own purple clothing?</p>
<p>Difference in prestige. Williams/Amherst can be as selective as the Big Three, and more so than some Ivies.</p>
<p>Well now you’re talking about selectivity–not prestige.</p>
<p>The difference in prestige isn’t as great as you make it out to be, especially among LACs. If you’re looking mainly for prestige among the general population (e.g., Joe the guy you buy your coffee from or Jane, your co-worker who went to Arizona State), then Colgate is probably the best known of all the LACs you’ve mentioned. Among elite circles, Amherst and Williams will have marginally more prestige, but there isn’t a “fairly large” difference. If you’re smart and ambitious, you’ll have roughly the same chance of getting a job regardless of whether you went to Amherst or Hamilton.</p>
<p>“If you’re smart and ambitious, you’ll have roughly the same chance of getting a job regardless of whether you went to Amherst or Hamilton.”</p>
<p>That is quite right actually. The LAC’s are about equally tough academically (notwithstanding perhaps Trinity), and given the rather sparse on-campus recruiting on all of them, the chance of scoring a good job is equally as good everywhere. You need a decent GPA (not easy, trust me), and good EC’s, and connections.</p>
<p>Middlebury is probably the strongest in recruiting on account of its sweet career services office.</p>
<p>By the way, what counts in elite circles is a) you didn’t go to some mediocre state school and b) you didn’t go to some tier-three private (Drew, Drexel, etc). Near the top it flattens out. No one is going to automatically assume that the Yale guy is necessarily more competent than the Bowdoin man.</p>
<p>herrsque - oh right. everyone knows how Yale is so much more academically relaxed than Duke. What are you going to claim next? Wharton has a laid-back atmosphere? Stop making outrageous claims without evidence.</p>
<p>take that stick out of your ass herrsque and stop ■■■■■■■■ this ****.</p>
<p>Somehow you take my saying Yale to be chill to be some sort of insult. Actually, no. I actually wanted to go to Yale. I didn’t get in. It’s an awesome school.</p>
<p>But that it treats its kids well hardly reflects ill on the school; I see it as a positive.</p>
<p>It’s simply that Duke treats its kids like **** and it shows. Ever since they went on the “we-are-a-top-national-university” schtick they have been insufferably uptight about academics.</p>
<p>And Wharton is a pain in the *** is because of the curve, which is ■■■■■■■■. The curve kills.</p>
<p>I am not in IB. I am only an interested party. (my daughter is a frosh at Williams).</p>
<p>In retrospect, how has the Wall Street meltdown affected the getting of jobs in IB today?</p>
<p>“In retrospect, how has the Wall Street meltdown affected the getting of jobs in IB today?”</p>
<p>Not as big as you might think. It’s worse for white-shoe corporate law, where entire firms have had involuntary start-date deferrals and hiring freezes and so on.</p>
<p>The main effect in banking is the decimation of senior-year recruiting, and of course the reduction in analyst class sizes. This year’s Goldman summer class was only 60 (in IBD I presume). Since the Great Recession, the ordinary senior-year part of recruiting has been completely rendered neligible, with hiring being reduced to largely full-time conversions of summer interns.</p>
<p>But as far as employment goes, finance isn’t the worst. It’s always worse for the guy down the line doing some expendable, disposable $35k-a-year job. Banks have to keep hirig, because a) analysts are super cheap compared to say, first-year corporate lawyers ($165k + bonus + relocation, etc, etc, etc) and b) being brusque at elite targets gives you a bad rep that lasts with you forever and ever and ever. Those aren’t normal jobs, and you don’t get to keep screwing schmucks because no one told the next college kid down the line that he’s gonna be screwed (name any big industrial company, etc, whatever). Those are Ivy Leaguers we are talking about. </p>
<p>Just as the most elite law firms wouldn’t touch a courtroom with a 30-foot pole, so do truly elite banks keep hiring even when the kids aren’t doing much.</p>