akx06

There seems to be a lot of misinformation here....
I cannot speak about Duke or Darth, since I am not a student there...but at U of C, it certainly isn't the case that kids end up only in Chicago.

All the major banks recruit (Goldman, MS, JP, ML, Lehman, CSFB, UBS, Lazard, BoA, Citi...) and all of them recruit for both Chicago and NYC. JPMorgan tends to recruit heavier at U of C than anywhere else (cept maybe Harvard), and most people end up in NYC or give an office preference. I have numerous friends who landed internships (in this tough year) at many of the above banks, and many of them in NYC. Also, when there are recruiting events on campus, it's mostly U of C alumni that come back, and many of them are in the NYC office of their firm.

But, to the poster, it probably won't make that much of a difference of where you go to school, its more on you. Your school can only get you an interview....and then your experiences and how you can present yourself matters. I would recommend you check out all 3 campuses before deciding on something as trivial as recruiting, unless you are torn between the 3 and this is the final criteria...

Sam Lee

stoneimmaculate,

The link you provided seems to prove nothing though. It seems to be not all that different from the business threads here.

A tally of total number of grads from different schools in any particular office doesn't necessarily give the full picture. Maybe Duke/Dartmouth have more in NYC because more of their grads apply for those positions in NYC?

What we need is to get first-hand info from the recruiters/managers: when they look at resume from UChicago and from Duke, do they have a preference of one school name over another?? Or compare campus recruiting schedule and find if different firms consistently hold more events in one school more than another. I already did a bit of the latter and so far I haven't found any noticeable difference among UChicago/Dartmouth/Duke.

unalove

I think I posted on this thread already, but I think it merits posting again.

When I read a post that says "I want to be an i-banker. Which one of these great schools will be best for me?" a little part of me dies (not the fun part). Though I'm sure the question is honest and well-intended, it seems to be quite misguided as to what the undergraduate experience-- and in particular, what the Chicago experience-- is like.

If I read, "I want to have long debates about politics, meet awesome people, read a few batty philosophers, be challenged in my classes, go to Bar Night at Alpha Delt, and maybe go into investment banking after graduation," I would have much more sympathy towards the poster.

Simply choosing a school and spending four years of your life working towards a goal that you don't even know you will reach (or, using what is at best fuzzy, anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Y school is better than X school for Z job) is a surefire way to make you miserable. The reason that the poster in the other forum was unhappy, I gather, was that he chose us based on our hazy reputation in one particular field without thinking about his other options, his ideas of what college life should be like, or where he would find himself happiest.

Sam Lee: if you were a recruiter (or an employer), would you see a difference between a Duke, Chicago, Dartmouth, Columbia, Northwestern grad simply from the name of the school? I wouldn't. I would probably search for more telling aspects on the resume and in recommendation letters and in interviews to help give me a sense of each applicant.

uchicagoalum

I think there is also a selection bias by field. Dartmouth may have a lot of people in say straight M&A for its size, but far less compared to Chicago doing derivatives or pure industry research (Chicago has far more math and physics majors). I just really cannot see a tangible difference between the schools though for finance at large.

The Chicago over NYC element is true, and I know for some students this is make or break. I could see turning down a school if I knew I wanted to be in a given field, and did not want to locked into a city for 6-7 years between school and a 2-3 year stint out the door.

Sam Lee

unalove,

I wouldn't see a difference either. But that's not what some of the people here claimed and that's why I questioned what their basis was, if there's any.

evil_asian_dictator

2007 list of BB Summer Associate class by colleges | WallStreetOasis.com

Private Equity Firms & Universities: What’s the Relationship? | BankersBall

Duke and Dartmouth are a notch or two notches above UChi with regards to placement into Banking/PE.

stoneimmaculate

yeah, I was actually looking for that first link but couldn't be bothered to find it.

I totally agree with Unalove's post though, wall street is the last place I want to be when i graduate (and would not factor into where I go to school) but then again I didn't used to think that way.

Sam Lee

The first link seems to contradict with the following one as far as UChicago goes:
Top 5 Undergraduate Schools for IBanking

akx06

In regards to the top 5 schools....I would argue just going on pure number makes no sense. My friend at Harvard told me 60% of students move into banking/consulting after graduation. At U of C, that number is probably less than 20%, simply because many students have different goals.

Essentially, larger student body+larger interest in banking=higher raw number of hires (at least at these top schools). I still don't think there is going to be that much of a difference between Duke, Darth, and U of C. I would, again, advice the prospie to look beyond that fact and see which school they find the most appealing.

aworldapart

I went through the recruiting process and I am going to be working a top group at a BB this summer. I would argue that there are only two true supertargets: Harvard and Wharton. All of the other schools (in no particular order: Ivies, Caltech, Duke, MIT, Stanford, UChicago, NU, Georgetown, top publics, Stern) have more or less the same recruiting. The BB I'm working at recruits at only those schools and I am positive that other BBs look at similar schools. I put Harvard and Wharton in its own league because they get exclusive recruiting from some very heavy hitters like MoCo, Bessemer, Goldman Sachs PIA, and other prestigious names in IB/PE/VC/HF. Therefore, the difference between a school like Duke and UChicago is minimal and I would say negligible.

akx06 and unalove have the right idea. UChicago does not have the same representation on the Street in terms of sheer numbers because frankly they could care less about slaving away at a distressed debt desk (although Andrew Alper, UChicago alum, was one of the youngest guys ever to be a partner at GS). That does not mean, however, that the University is "less recruited."

Sam Lee

Well, find me the specific thread on that site that has bunch of recruiters talking about the hierarchy. The link *you* provided wasn't one of them. Why do I need to do all the work? You made a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Hanna

"My friend at Harvard told me 60% of students move into banking/consulting after graduation."

Whoa, that can't possibly be right. Maybe 60% of the students who get jobs through on-campus interviewing, or 60% of those who take full-time jobs (as opposed to going to grad school, fellowships, or travel). But not 60% of the graduating class.

davida1

If you want to do banking, Duke=Dartmouth and then Chicago is significantly behind both. U Chicago is not a great place for I-banking jobs directly out of undergrad and they don't place as well into MBA programs (which is a sign that students are not getting great pre-MBA positions).

CNI

I've heard, however, that McKinsey recruits EXTREMELY rigorously at U of C. That'd make sense, however, considering that the founder used to be a professor( i think) there.

chicagoboy12

^^McKinsey & Company - A History of McKinsey - 1920s: A Man Called "Mac"