<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, if a school is not a recruiting target, then it would be at a disadvantage when it comes to representation. But these “hyper-selective” firms make up a very small percentage of the finance industry. </p>
<p>My main argument, however, is that the “subjective lists” in question tend to conflate representation with recruiting. Some schools may not be as well represented as others due to factors that have nothing to do with recruiting. For example, Amherst and Williams are peer institutions with virtually identical student profiles but they were placed on different tiers re: placement. Is this due to different recruiting? Possibly, but more likely, Williams grads may be more interested in i-banking than Amherst grads. So this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are more interested will be more likely to be recruited. Given that certain schools are recruiting targets for the same firms, what accounts for their difference in representation controlling for any differences in student quality? Do the schools themselves play any causal role in helping their students get hired? Until we can honestly answer these types of questions, these “subjective lists” amount to not much more than self-congratulatory pats on the back.</p>