<p>
</p>
<p>nope, I have friends at every bulge bracket, I just happened to ask at 3 of the best, I could easily have asked at UBS or Credit Suisse or citi etc. </p>
<p>My theory was always about representation (placement success), I never ascribed reasons to it, thus your ascribing reasons to my observation, was not an alternative theory but a more specific subset.</p>
<p>Also I said either you tell people that there is a hierarchy when it comes to wall street recruiting and this is it, or you tell people going to any school doesn’t make a difference. Your “alternative” was: going to any school doesn’t make a difference, because differences in placement can be explained by differences in student quality. So are you in fact saying it doesn’t matter where you go? - this was the only alternative I cited. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are never going to be able to honestly answer these questions (if you come up with a way please do share). Lacking such absurdly accurate causal links, most people reasonably assume that better placement stems from a combination of student interest, student ability and recruiter interest in the school. Since you can’t tease out where the success stems from, when you observe higher placement rates you assume that recruiter interest is likely higher. Under limited information this is the best realistic conclusion you can make, the alternative is it doesn’t matter where I go.</p>