Columbia for I-banking

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s more to selection bias than that. You cannot easily assume that your friends (many of whom are probably Columbia alums) are representative of people in (whichever segment of) i-banking. Since you’re more likely to know the school affiliation of i-bankers who went to Columbia than those who didn’t, your inherent Columbia bias becomes reinforced.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why the binary distinction? Clearly, there exists a hierarchy between targets and non-targets. But among the targets, individual ability trumps school affiliation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s certainly possible depending on how rigidly “interest” is defined, but that’s neither here nor there. Whether the “interest” is more or less than 20%, your assessment of Columbia’s pre-professionalism seems to be off the mark:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Compared to its peer institutions, Columbia IS “highly pre-professional,” if PhD production (per capita) is any indication:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/799213-post1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/799213-post1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In fact, Columbia is the only Ivy not to make the top 50 on this (objective) list. Even Barnard made it.</p>