aluminum_boatRegistered UserPosts: 1,539Senior Member
Exactly. Tech is a great school and the students are smart enough to do it IF they wanted to. But I think they're more interested in programming and engineering and working for Apple or Google or whatever than they are in working for banks or accounting firms. Just a different student body.
UGA is competitive and one of the best state schools, and has a good alumni base, and GA loves its college football, which helps. But, overall, it's not on the same prestige level as Emory- which matters more in the business world than anywhere else. I don't think we see them as competition for the same jobs. They'll beat us every once in a while, but not enough to view them as major competition.
Huge difference from WUSTL- which competes with UChicago, Notre Dame, and UIUC for Chicago jobs. As well as much of the Ivy League that couldn't get a spot in NYC or Boston.
I don't know about it for business, but I hear the education there is amazing. It's prestigious enough.
aluminum: I was just under the impression that regional loyalty to schools like UGA would play a role in the Atlanta. The region is very loyal to UGA, perhaps moreso than Tech and Emory which both have higher caliber students. I thought that this loyalty would make up for their lack prestige as we view it. As for the competition of the top midwestern schools, that must kind of suck. There are certainly advantages of GBS being in Atlanta, but given the demographics of the school and many students being from the mid-Atlantic, many want to return up to the large northern cities. And it's unfortunate that, no matter the quality of GBS, it won't really be a target of that many of those companies and certainly not the IBs. The business world prestige almost seems as if it's mostly based upon history.
For example, if GBS's BBA program were to one day outperform or be more innovative in many aspects than a place like Wharton, it wouldn't really matter because of the Halo effect and the branding. It seems hard to grow brand recognition beyond a certain point (GBS has come a VERY long way, but still..) and that's what seems to matter and some places have lots of history on their side. This is not to say that GBS is at the level of Wharton (despite being excellent, still not that), but to basically say that it's the UG entity that is probably driven and well-positioned enough to be with a place like that in terms of quality at least. However, I wonder if the 2 year thing ultimately screws them in some senses. I like the idea behind it, but it's the same situation as us missing out on engineering and applied sciences students, where most of the higher caliber students interested in that would not want to do a 3-2 program just as higher caliber pre-bus students would likely prefer a 4 year curriculum over a 2 year curriculum (though admittedly, it appears the 2 year structure has brought about unexpected innovations of BBA students that likely drew from experiences and interests pursued while in ECAS. This may partially explain why, despite the SATs of BBA students at Emory being lower than most of the peers, the end "product" is basically as strong.).
aluminum_boatRegistered UserPosts: 1,539Senior Member
Engineering/Math at UIUC is much better than anything Emory offers in similar fields (math/physics/CS/business). Business at Emory is better than business at UIUC.
Bernie, I have a very long post to reply to what you said. Give me a bit.
I look forward. And I see what you're saying about science (physical and computational) at places like UIUC. I've recently been discovering that many leading public institutions are in general better at, and more innovative at science education than most leading private institutions. Perhaps, it's because they are responding to their large class sizes and the failure rates in introductory courses (because at public school, many people actually fail, and not receive something between C and B- as fail). Only a select few (maybe like 3 or 4. Primarily, the very wealthy ones like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, and of course MIT) private schools are innovating or trying different methods in the sciences. Fortunately, Emory will be among them soon (better late than never I guess). Top public schools are sometimes under-rated by many of us who attend elite privates for UG science. In many cases, if you can tolerate the larger class sizes, many of these schools are likely better (and the attrition for tracks like pre-med or science in general at such schools is now on the decline. Most top privates can't say this. I think researchers have found that attrition correlates positively with the selectivity of the school. Some exceptions may be those schools with very high grade inflation. However, the pattern is even seen at places like Stanford where, as normal, chemistry weeds folks out). I think, at the current time, many private schools are complacent just assuming that their models are sufficient because of placement rates. However, this is less because of learning outcome moreso than survival. They know it could be better, but changing things requires lots of resources as a lot of science faculty are resistant to such changes. I'm sure the gen. chem changes at Emory in a year or 2, for example, will raise hell with people like Mulford or Weinschenk who are essentially perfect at lecturing in a traditional format to large masses (Let's not even talk about the research faculty who will likely refuse to teach in such ways) because of the additional time expenditure incurred. Publics also probably try harder do it because there is more at stake (they are responsible to state government and citizenry more than they are USNW).
aluminum_boatRegistered UserPosts: 1,539Senior Member
I need to clear some confusion up. Emory’s business school is very good at what it does (coming from someone who thinks Bschools are borderline worthless).
I say Emory is not a target. It’s a semi-target. Pretty much, when the economy is good, they recruit here and hire from us. When it’s not, they cut us off and fire us. Someone I work with right now had an internship with Goldy… But then they revoked it during the crash we had 5 years ago. Not an Emory grad but an anecdotal example of what happens. A couple of my friends work for Goldman. And I know people who work for JPMorgan and someone who works for Bank of America. So the top jobs are definitely possible.
But the difference is that you have to be the very best (top 10% or so) here to get those jobs. While mediocre Penn students (but, let’s not kid ourselves, they’re smarter than the mediocre Emory students) will be handed those jobs. Goizueta Business School - 2008 Placement Statistics
This is the start of the 2008 recession. The big companies (Goldy, Citi, Credit Suisse, BoA, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, UBS) hired some people… But it’s really only the top 3 or so students each (and you have to wonder how many of those kids had parental connections… since, let’s be real, some Emory students have pretty ridiculous backgrounds). 2009 Placement Statistics
2009 stats… Recession. Some things happened:
1. They stopped publishing exact numbers. IDK if this is because they weren’t that impressive or it was because they were planning on doing it anymore.
2. Chicago isn’t on the top hiring cities list. pretty big deal since it's a prime destination for every 22 year old in the world.
3. A lot of big names (Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, UBS) have disappeared
4. More tier2 destination (the term tier2 being used kind of in the way Uchicago is tier2 to Princeton. Theyre still opportunities that most would die for.)
Jump forward a couple years Placement Statistics
2012. Good list, but numbers aren’t given. I think people are coming back now that the economy is healing up again.
Bottom Line:
Yea, we are a semi-target (I’d even say that we are one of the highest semi-targets), but if the economy tanks, we are going to be cut. If you’re an elite student here, you’ll have no problem getting jobs. FAQ: What are target, semi-target and non-target schools? | Wall Street Oasis is a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about. Notice how it's a FAQ - not a user with no reputation- that says it. And notice how they straight up say back and middle office positions (not the glamorous front office positions).
Now, I want to take a minute to also say that PWC and Deloitte love Emory, especially for their Atlanta office. And they’re extremely good companies. Best Accounting companies. But for stuff like Consulting (which they dabble in), they’re not really considered the elite. accounting in general isn’t as “elite” as S&T and banking and stuff. So I definitely think people should come here if they wnat to end in ATL. But a history major with a 3.8 at Duke is going to beat out a Bschool kid with a 3.8 from Emory for a position in NYC. That’s all I’m saying.
In terms of placement and prestige, I would say Emory is somewhere around 15. Which is a wonderful place to be. The education here is great and people shoudl come here. We place people in great situations. But it's not handed to us like it is at some places. And people need to know that. You cant come here and half ass it and expect to end up at Morgan Stanley.
I don’t know how to get Emory as good as Wharton (it isn’t now, that’s for sure). I think a lot of it has to do with (dare I say it) the student body of one school just flat out being more intelligent. A lot of it has to do with connections (we’re still new). The BSchool education is excellent, as far as B Schools go. But Goldy, JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, etc are literally filled with Penn grads. Who hire more Penn grads. Who happen to be connected to the professors at Penn who help them identify more Penn grads to hire.
We just need to wait for more Emory grads to filter to the top of companies. It will happen. We're young still and it takes 20 years of work to get to the top.
I think the OP should do Emory instead of UIUC, fwiw. But only if she is willing to put in effort.
That's what I was thinking (the target thing sounds like law schools where you're screwed if you want to work at a top firm in this economy and your school isn't top 15 or higher). However, I would expect WashU to perform extremeley well as their SAT scores in their business school is higher than Penn (1492 vs. 1462). What I was thinking was, that those sorts of stats. matter up to a certain point, but certainly not more than the connections of the school as you were describing with Penn. As in, it would not matter if Emory admissions stepped up its game and joined the club with the other top 20s (and Virginia) that have students with over a 1400 SAT average (currently 1377 at Emory). We lag here, and I wonder if it would make a difference. Not sure if Emory will ever hit that magical 1400 (soon that is). If anything ECAS will hit it first and the BBA program will be slightly lower (which is the opposite situation for schools that separate the freshman admissions of the b-school or engineering school from the Liberal Arts entity. Normally the former 2 would select higher caliber students than the latter). Regardless, Emory does very well considering that the statistics of the incoming students don't measure up to the peers.
As far as ECAS is concerned, you won't find much of a difference in quality or rigor of the curriculum between us and the near peers with maybe a 40-60 point advantage (so Emory is at least trying, for the most part. What's weird, is that you can't really tell that students are smarter on those campuses. They seem kind of the same, except attitudes toward academics may vary based upon the school's atmosphere. For example, students at these schools can actually seem less smart or intellectual despite being statistically better in all categories. Many of the Ivies, on the other hand.....you can actually tell the difference, mainly because the students are more intellectual and perhaps more aggressive in their ambition). However, I imagine the differences do affect how challenging the supposedly math intensive (non-science geared) courses are such as those in the econ. department which by and large are joke like (seriously, there would need to be no grading distribution if their core courses classes were already challenging. The distribution would be achieved by applying the regular scale). It must come from the idea that students can't handle a more challenging econ. or calculus class or that making them more challenging would jeopardize people's chances at the b-school (but still, this wouldn't be a concern if the professors were confident in the students' math ability). Given that incoming statistics will likely remain static for a while, I would argue that they should change the intro. calc. and econ. sequences anyway (right now, only financial accounting is apparently a weedout, but it doesn't really matter if it's your only B. You'll know financial accounting, but you won't know econ. as well unless you took AP, which is likely at a higher level than many intro. econ. sections here). This way, the b-school could actually select for those who are actually really good at the foundations and can perhaps do more than those who can't (a B+ average in the b-school pre-reqs will mean significantly more even if many people achieve it). Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with raising the bar even if you don't really believe in the students (however, before you do that, you need quality instructors. I believe econ. suffers here, at least at the intro. level. The whole econ. dept.'s instructional quality cannot just be carried by Bannerje. Sorry, can't spell). I mean, ultimately, if they want to go to GBS, the students won't have a choice but to step up.
And BTW: I am also kind of anti-BBA, especially if one plans to pursue an MBA afterwards. You're better off just majoring in something you like in the college or choosing something that will develop "marketable" skill sets.
aluminum_boatRegistered UserPosts: 1,539Senior Member
Yea, pretty much.
Also, people do Emory bschool as a cop-out from math. That's not what is supposed to happen. You're supposed to be so good at math and then apply it to business.
Wharton students fwiw are good at math. Not empirically speaking, but I imagine there were much more USAMO qualifiers in there than Emory. SAT is a good start to gauge math ability, but unless you're USAMO or at least AIME or have some similar recognition, I don't consider you "great" at math.
I totally don't expect anything handed to me. I live in a community with families who have major connections except my family's the exception. Every internship, company (including the nonprofit I started), grade or anything has been through my own means. I think I'm a good worker.
It's just that I worry a lot. I like to have stability or have things planned out. If I did go to emory, I would hope that top firms recruit from here. But if there are more firms recruiting from uiuc (which is considerably cheaper), I would definitely consider that. I don't want to go a university with there being no possibility of me getting a great job in the later future.
On an off hand note, is it easy to double major at Emory? and is Emory good for marketing or finance? I know its great for accounting and consulting (btw how is that degree like at emory? Extremely hard? Useful?)
aluminum_boatRegistered UserPosts: 1,539Senior Member
“I've had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened”
― Mark Twain
Friend gave me that when I was having a panic attack last week. Time to pass it on.
No, Emory is the way to go over UIUC unless you want Chicago specifically. No benefit in a double major if you go BSchool route, but you should pick up a CS minor. IDK about marketing... In my friend group, nobody wants to do it (first people to get cut in a recession). I wrote a booklet on finance a couple posts ago.
Consulting is useful I guess. I never figured out what consultants did 3 years after graduation... It's not like they have any skills from a BBA. Maybe someone can elaborate on that, but I would guess they get fired and newer (therefore, cheaper) people get brought in from undergrad.
Emory doesn't seem to recruit Olympiad people of any discipline (I don't even know if we get the Intel folks. I know a couple, but not that many, and they're pre-med). I think it's difficult to draw people this intense about science and math to a school that is primarily targeting pre-professionals (and thus give them significantly more support than those considering grad. school or a career/job in the arena after Emory), and outside of math and physics, doesn't offer much opportunities to start at higher level courses beyond the standard introductory courses (which will bore and disappoint such students). For example, many very high ranked schools tier introductory chemistry classes a lot. Many of such schools also allow students to skip both gen. bios if they make a 5. Emory's gen. bio is not rigorous enough to force students with a 5 or a high HLIB score to take 142. They should be able to move on or an honors course, perhaps taught by someone like Eisen, should be created. I think chem is doing something like this (I think Soria wants to teach like an honors gen. chem that focuses on experimentation. They apparently will do experiments first and then break down the concepts in greater depth than they would in a normal gen. chem course). For these reasons, I wonder how the new Woodruff Research Scholars will receive Emory as it's science courses are structured now. I mean, if they are pre-med, it means free A's, but if they are looking for more, it means an academically boring freshman year. They'd better immediately get into a lab and load up on EC's.
As far as math: I don't think that Emory students have bad math SAT scores. In fact, they are basically the same or slightly better than Tech's. And many Emory students also have calculus credit (both AB and BC). It's just that the math intensive intro. courses here don't push the students. They teach the courses at the level of like an honors calc. class in HS, which makes no sense given that a majority of students have either taken it, AP, and maybe have even passed the exams (with a 4 or 5). These courses (econ. and calc.) should play a role at getting students very solid at math or at least pushing them to reveal their actual skill level instead of giving them more or less a free ride. It kind of sends the wrong message. I have the idea that if Tech students can do it, so can we. And our classes are smaller, so the C/D/F rate is likely to be significantly lower if. Currently the intro. math/math intensive courses do a disservice to those considering a quantitative career or major to the point where only those with credit should be doing such things.
Replies to: Schools like Emory?
UGA is competitive and one of the best state schools, and has a good alumni base, and GA loves its college football, which helps. But, overall, it's not on the same prestige level as Emory- which matters more in the business world than anywhere else. I don't think we see them as competition for the same jobs. They'll beat us every once in a while, but not enough to view them as major competition.
Huge difference from WUSTL- which competes with UChicago, Notre Dame, and UIUC for Chicago jobs. As well as much of the Ivy League that couldn't get a spot in NYC or Boston.
aluminum: I was just under the impression that regional loyalty to schools like UGA would play a role in the Atlanta. The region is very loyal to UGA, perhaps moreso than Tech and Emory which both have higher caliber students. I thought that this loyalty would make up for their lack prestige as we view it. As for the competition of the top midwestern schools, that must kind of suck. There are certainly advantages of GBS being in Atlanta, but given the demographics of the school and many students being from the mid-Atlantic, many want to return up to the large northern cities. And it's unfortunate that, no matter the quality of GBS, it won't really be a target of that many of those companies and certainly not the IBs. The business world prestige almost seems as if it's mostly based upon history.
For example, if GBS's BBA program were to one day outperform or be more innovative in many aspects than a place like Wharton, it wouldn't really matter because of the Halo effect and the branding. It seems hard to grow brand recognition beyond a certain point (GBS has come a VERY long way, but still..) and that's what seems to matter and some places have lots of history on their side. This is not to say that GBS is at the level of Wharton (despite being excellent, still not that), but to basically say that it's the UG entity that is probably driven and well-positioned enough to be with a place like that in terms of quality at least. However, I wonder if the 2 year thing ultimately screws them in some senses. I like the idea behind it, but it's the same situation as us missing out on engineering and applied sciences students, where most of the higher caliber students interested in that would not want to do a 3-2 program just as higher caliber pre-bus students would likely prefer a 4 year curriculum over a 2 year curriculum (though admittedly, it appears the 2 year structure has brought about unexpected innovations of BBA students that likely drew from experiences and interests pursued while in ECAS. This may partially explain why, despite the SATs of BBA students at Emory being lower than most of the peers, the end "product" is basically as strong.).
Bernie, I have a very long post to reply to what you said. Give me a bit.
I say Emory is not a target. It’s a semi-target. Pretty much, when the economy is good, they recruit here and hire from us. When it’s not, they cut us off and fire us. Someone I work with right now had an internship with Goldy… But then they revoked it during the crash we had 5 years ago. Not an Emory grad but an anecdotal example of what happens. A couple of my friends work for Goldman. And I know people who work for JPMorgan and someone who works for Bank of America. So the top jobs are definitely possible.
But the difference is that you have to be the very best (top 10% or so) here to get those jobs. While mediocre Penn students (but, let’s not kid ourselves, they’re smarter than the mediocre Emory students) will be handed those jobs.
Goizueta Business School - 2008 Placement Statistics
This is the start of the 2008 recession. The big companies (Goldy, Citi, Credit Suisse, BoA, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, UBS) hired some people… But it’s really only the top 3 or so students each (and you have to wonder how many of those kids had parental connections… since, let’s be real, some Emory students have pretty ridiculous backgrounds).
2009 Placement Statistics
2009 stats… Recession. Some things happened:
1. They stopped publishing exact numbers. IDK if this is because they weren’t that impressive or it was because they were planning on doing it anymore.
2. Chicago isn’t on the top hiring cities list. pretty big deal since it's a prime destination for every 22 year old in the world.
3. A lot of big names (Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, UBS) have disappeared
4. More tier2 destination (the term tier2 being used kind of in the way Uchicago is tier2 to Princeton. Theyre still opportunities that most would die for.)
Jump forward a couple years
Placement Statistics
2012. Good list, but numbers aren’t given. I think people are coming back now that the economy is healing up again.
Bottom Line:
Yea, we are a semi-target (I’d even say that we are one of the highest semi-targets), but if the economy tanks, we are going to be cut. If you’re an elite student here, you’ll have no problem getting jobs.
FAQ: What are target, semi-target and non-target schools? | Wall Street Oasis is a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about. Notice how it's a FAQ - not a user with no reputation- that says it. And notice how they straight up say back and middle office positions (not the glamorous front office positions).
Now, I want to take a minute to also say that PWC and Deloitte love Emory, especially for their Atlanta office. And they’re extremely good companies. Best Accounting companies. But for stuff like Consulting (which they dabble in), they’re not really considered the elite. accounting in general isn’t as “elite” as S&T and banking and stuff. So I definitely think people should come here if they wnat to end in ATL. But a history major with a 3.8 at Duke is going to beat out a Bschool kid with a 3.8 from Emory for a position in NYC. That’s all I’m saying.
In terms of placement and prestige, I would say Emory is somewhere around 15. Which is a wonderful place to be. The education here is great and people shoudl come here. We place people in great situations. But it's not handed to us like it is at some places. And people need to know that. You cant come here and half ass it and expect to end up at Morgan Stanley.
I don’t know how to get Emory as good as Wharton (it isn’t now, that’s for sure). I think a lot of it has to do with (dare I say it) the student body of one school just flat out being more intelligent. A lot of it has to do with connections (we’re still new). The BSchool education is excellent, as far as B Schools go. But Goldy, JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, etc are literally filled with Penn grads. Who hire more Penn grads. Who happen to be connected to the professors at Penn who help them identify more Penn grads to hire.
We just need to wait for more Emory grads to filter to the top of companies. It will happen. We're young still and it takes 20 years of work to get to the top.
I think the OP should do Emory instead of UIUC, fwiw. But only if she is willing to put in effort.
As far as ECAS is concerned, you won't find much of a difference in quality or rigor of the curriculum between us and the near peers with maybe a 40-60 point advantage (so Emory is at least trying, for the most part. What's weird, is that you can't really tell that students are smarter on those campuses. They seem kind of the same, except attitudes toward academics may vary based upon the school's atmosphere. For example, students at these schools can actually seem less smart or intellectual despite being statistically better in all categories. Many of the Ivies, on the other hand.....you can actually tell the difference, mainly because the students are more intellectual and perhaps more aggressive in their ambition). However, I imagine the differences do affect how challenging the supposedly math intensive (non-science geared) courses are such as those in the econ. department which by and large are joke like (seriously, there would need to be no grading distribution if their core courses classes were already challenging. The distribution would be achieved by applying the regular scale). It must come from the idea that students can't handle a more challenging econ. or calculus class or that making them more challenging would jeopardize people's chances at the b-school (but still, this wouldn't be a concern if the professors were confident in the students' math ability). Given that incoming statistics will likely remain static for a while, I would argue that they should change the intro. calc. and econ. sequences anyway (right now, only financial accounting is apparently a weedout, but it doesn't really matter if it's your only B. You'll know financial accounting, but you won't know econ. as well unless you took AP, which is likely at a higher level than many intro. econ. sections here). This way, the b-school could actually select for those who are actually really good at the foundations and can perhaps do more than those who can't (a B+ average in the b-school pre-reqs will mean significantly more even if many people achieve it). Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with raising the bar even if you don't really believe in the students (however, before you do that, you need quality instructors. I believe econ. suffers here, at least at the intro. level. The whole econ. dept.'s instructional quality cannot just be carried by Bannerje. Sorry, can't spell). I mean, ultimately, if they want to go to GBS, the students won't have a choice but to step up.
And BTW: I am also kind of anti-BBA, especially if one plans to pursue an MBA afterwards. You're better off just majoring in something you like in the college or choosing something that will develop "marketable" skill sets.
We destroy our region (which conveniently is a top 5 destination) but we are not technically really good nationally.
Investment Banking Salary, Average Investment Banker Compensation | Wall Street Oasis emory grads are on the bottom end of that range.
Target Schools | Wall Street Oasis
Comprehensive List of Target Schools | Wall Street Oasis
not on the list fwiw
That's teh most thoroughly I've ever answered that question. Im just going to start referring people here whenever it comes up.
Also, people do Emory bschool as a cop-out from math. That's not what is supposed to happen. You're supposed to be so good at math and then apply it to business.
If you can do that, this is what happens: James Harris Simons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wharton students fwiw are good at math. Not empirically speaking, but I imagine there were much more USAMO qualifiers in there than Emory. SAT is a good start to gauge math ability, but unless you're USAMO or at least AIME or have some similar recognition, I don't consider you "great" at math.
It's just that I worry a lot. I like to have stability or have things planned out. If I did go to emory, I would hope that top firms recruit from here. But if there are more firms recruiting from uiuc (which is considerably cheaper), I would definitely consider that. I don't want to go a university with there being no possibility of me getting a great job in the later future.
On an off hand note, is it easy to double major at Emory? and is Emory good for marketing or finance? I know its great for accounting and consulting (btw how is that degree like at emory? Extremely hard? Useful?)
― Mark Twain
Friend gave me that when I was having a panic attack last week. Time to pass it on.
No, Emory is the way to go over UIUC unless you want Chicago specifically. No benefit in a double major if you go BSchool route, but you should pick up a CS minor. IDK about marketing... In my friend group, nobody wants to do it (first people to get cut in a recession). I wrote a booklet on finance a couple posts ago.
Consulting is useful I guess. I never figured out what consultants did 3 years after graduation... It's not like they have any skills from a BBA. Maybe someone can elaborate on that, but I would guess they get fired and newer (therefore, cheaper) people get brought in from undergrad.
As far as math: I don't think that Emory students have bad math SAT scores. In fact, they are basically the same or slightly better than Tech's. And many Emory students also have calculus credit (both AB and BC). It's just that the math intensive intro. courses here don't push the students. They teach the courses at the level of like an honors calc. class in HS, which makes no sense given that a majority of students have either taken it, AP, and maybe have even passed the exams (with a 4 or 5). These courses (econ. and calc.) should play a role at getting students very solid at math or at least pushing them to reveal their actual skill level instead of giving them more or less a free ride. It kind of sends the wrong message. I have the idea that if Tech students can do it, so can we. And our classes are smaller, so the C/D/F rate is likely to be significantly lower if. Currently the intro. math/math intensive courses do a disservice to those considering a quantitative career or major to the point where only those with credit should be doing such things.