Berkeley vs. Warwick: which undergrad uni is better for banking?

sefago
Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0000

You’re saying as if there really is a difference between those who graduated from Imperial/LSE and Warwick/Durham/Bristol/St Andrews.



This lacks consistency. Its like saying there is no difference in how banks view schools in the US when recruiting. Everyone knows LSE is held in very high esteem in the US and this pervades banking recruitment.



If US banks would hire a few grads of those unis straight right out of undergrad, I don’t see why the same banks don’t do for grads from Warwick/UCL/Durham/Bristol/St Andrews.



Its quite basic- if you want a company to sponsor a work visa for you from another country you have to be extraspecial. They could easily place you in the country of your residence so why jump hoops to go through immigration. Rarely would you see in any analyst class in the US which has a foreign graduate except maybe an American who studied at a UK university and is trying to work in the US.

Basically for full time offers- study in the country you want to work in. Its more difficult to get hired cross-country. This is as basic as it gets. I am not trying to debate tiers in UK universities.