Quote:
The_prestige, I don't think looking at per capita numbers is very meaningful. In this particular case, absolute numbers are more telling.
I am not sure I understand your point about universities with undergraduate business programs. Those students, had they attended a school with no undergraduate Business program, would have merely majored in another field and upon graduation, pursued a career in Finance.
|
They point is a simple one. Take the earlier example I highlighted. UMich and Princeton are virtually tied in the absolute number of people in those three firms PE firms (UM with 27, Princeton with 26).
But that's only half the story (or even less) on two levels:
1) I'd be willing to bet that nearly every one of those 26 individuals are Princeton undergrad alums (if not all) whereas the UMich number is comprised of:
Quote:
7 completed their BA/BS at the college of LSA
6 completed their BBA at Ross
3 completed their BSE in the college of Engineering
9 completed their MBA at Ross
1 Completed his JD at the Law School
1 completed his PhD in Physics
|
Now, I'm not saying that this is not a "legitimate" number -- after all these are all bona fide UM grads. But, as I said, this is not a real "apples to apples" comparison, which brings up point 2:
2) Normalized for size (per capita), Princeton punches way above UMich's weight. Add in the fact that if you compare undergrad numbers vs. undergrad numbers, Princeton's numbers look even more impressive.
That's all I wanted to point out. As I said, it's an interesting list. The key takeaway I get from this list is that some schools that don't have a traditional strong presence in Finance (e.g. don't have a B-School either grad or undergrad) still punch above their respective weights (e.g. Princeton and Brown -- a school I have argued on behalf in the past -- recall those ridiculous "core i-banking" "core consulting" threads).