<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>