Columbia for I-banking

[objobs]

<p>

@IndianOptimist

“An alternative theory could be that the same student would have the same (or at least very similar) finance job opportunities coming out of either Columbia or NYU Stern”</p>

<p>This is completely and utterly false. What is the difference between an NYU student and a Columbia Student? The Columbia student got into NYU.</p>

<p>Columbia students are simply more qualified than NYU students - the school’s selectiveness and prestige are greater - just look at admission statistics - and being in the Ivy League helps.

</p>

<p>You misinterpreted my argument. By the “same student,” I mean a student who has gotten into both schools. For example, this could be an admitted student who is deciding between his or her Columbia and NYU Stern acceptances. It’d make no sense to use the SAME student in this thought experiment if s/he were only able to get into one or the other school, right? </p>

<p>I am fully aware that the average quality of students is different between the two schools. In fact, I said that it is mostly this difference which makes up any of the significant difference between Columbia and NYU Stern in finance job placement: </p>

<p>

@objobs

An alternative theory could be that the same student would have the same (or at least very similar) finance job opportunities coming out of either Columbia or NYU Stern. **More than anything else, significant differences in job placement (if any) can probably be accounted for by the differences in student quality between the two schools. **If, like you said (and I agree), engineers have a “leg up” over non-engineers, then this would help explain more of the “advantages” that Columbia grads have over NYU Stern grads, since some of the former and none of the latter are engineers. It’s not clear that if we control for student quality and engineering (vs. non-engineering) status (not to mention other possible variables), there would be left any significant differences.

</p>

<p>Finally, I don’t necessarily subscribe to this “alternative” theory. I just said that it was a better alternative than confidentialcoll’s would be sarcastic response which is to “sit here and tell high school students interested in finance that going to any college anywhere doesn’t make a difference to their future job prospects.” confidentialcoll then demanded an “alternative” theory, so I gave a plausible one: </p>

<p>

@confidentialcoll

Quote:
Why do you think this is the (only) “alternative?” </p>

<p>why don’t you come up with something, genius.

</p>

<p>confidentialcoll then tried to take “ownership” of this “alternative” theory and claimed that it was his or hers all along by saying: “no, that was my theory.”</p>

<p>

CollegeCall is right. 10-20% of the students at Columbia are interested in Finance.

</p>

<p>More than 10-20% of Columbia students are “interested” in finance. The 10-20% represent Columbia undergraduates “who care enough to apply to finance positions on our career website and then interview.” So confidentialcoll excludes those who may have real interest in finance but do not apply due to low GPA or whatever. It seems that Columbia is more “pre-professional” than s/he let on before.</p>

<p>

@IndianOptimist

Nearly EVERY student at Stern at NYU wants to do Finance - even if the two Universities were the same in prestige/recruitment - Columbia would have the better shot since less students apply.

</p>

<p>A higher percentage of students at Wharton also wants to do finance. So would Columbia have the “better shot” since fewer of its students apply?</p>

<p>

@IndianOptimist

Of course OBJOBS you’ll ignore everything I say

</p>

<p>No, you ignored (or at least misinterpreted) what I said.</p>