<p>what else? Hospitality the best in the country; better than Cornell. Pharmacy, one of the tops in the country, Aviation, pretty damn good, and Management oh yea, one the best in the country. So we have
Pharmacy
Aviation
Engineering
Management
Hospitality</p>
<p>I can say from experience that almost all major management consulting firms require that you state your SAT score. They need to hire bright people, and the brightest people usually have the highest SAT scores. It is also necessary for management consulting firms to hire from top schools, because they are offering a service, and having the best of the top schools brings credibility to the firm in the eyes of the client.</p>
<p>In the big 3 revenue sports, Michigan is better in hockey and OSU is better in basketball, and both have a strong football program.</p>
<p>Michigan might have the edge if you consider the overall varsity sport programs:
“In seven of the past ten years, UM has finished in the top five of the NACDA Director’s Cup, a ranking compiled by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics to tabulate the success of universities in competitive sports. UM has finished in the top eleven of the Directors’ Cup standings in each of the award’s twelve seasons and has placed in the top six in each of the last eight seasons.” (ref: Wikipedia). Stanford is of course the unanimous #1.</p>
<p>NACDA Director’s Cup:
Penn State is the only Big Ten team that made it three times in the last 8 years, while OSU made it twice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I don’t (yet) have an example of this happening in OCR, I do know of a fairly similar example. At HBS, certain employers, which shall remain unnamed, only “recruited” by appearing at non-OCR events and solicited applicants through resume drops. Interested applicants were, shall we say, ‘strongly encouraged’ to include standardized test scores when they submitted their resumes. While I obviously can’t prove this, I strongly suspect they were using those test scores as a first pass. After all, why else would they ask for these scores?</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that a lot of recruiters at any school are “stealth” recruiters who either don’t use the formal OCR process at all, or only use it in a limited fashion. Often times, recruiters feel that OCR doesn’t give them sufficient control over the process - and specifically, I have heard many recruiters complain about what you have said - that they end up having to interview whoever the career office gives them (which generally means those people who happened to bid the highest), which they dislike as they prefer to interview properly prescreened candidates. </p>
<p>To give you one poignant example, consider Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) recruiting of MIT Sloan LFM students (LFM being the dual MBA + MS engineering program at MIT). J&J basically runs ‘stealth’ recruiting of LFM students, because while J&J was a former LFM corporate partner, they no longer are, so they are not allowed to participate in formal LFM OCR. But J&J responds by running a parallel ‘stealth’ recruiting process that happens at the same time as LFM OCR does. Interested LFM students know they have to submit a resume to J&J using a well-known procedure, and then hope that J&J contacts them for an interview. </p>
<p>So it’s not OCR formally speaking, but it’s akin to “pseudo-OCR”. A lot of employers who hang around campus don’t use formal OCR and can therefore engage in whatever resume screening they want.</p>
<p>sakky,
You know I’ve been out of this game for so long, so I have to rely on what I heard from the students I have contact with. None has reported anything like this so far. Btw, if you are an accounting student, don’t worry about this … I know for a fact that the Big 4 don’t operate this way.</p>
<p>But let’s assume what you say is true for certain elite employers. If you were the recruiter, would you screen applicants based on their college GPA or SAT scores? Let’s be realistic. For on-campus recruiting, you are not dealing with an insurmountable number of applicants that you have to resort to mechanical process like SAT cut-off. How many LFM applicants would J&J get on a given recruiting trip? I’m sure they can afford to evaluate each resume without resorting to using the SAT scores for cut-off.</p>
<p>Btw, HBS and MIT are bad examples. Why would you care about the SAT scores if you are recruiting at these schools? Wouldn’t they be more interested in their GMAT scores?</p>
<p>p.s. I would like to hear from current Haas/Ross/McIntire/McCombs students if they experience what sakky described above in their job/internship interview process.</p>
<p>sakky,
Let me rephrase that. I’m not questioning what you said. Like KK, I’m just questioning the importance of the SAT score for on-campus recruiting, “stealth” or otherwise.</p>
<p>Recruiters are smart people. When selective employers decide to come to a certain university to recruit, they have a good idea what kind of product they can expect. Often new alum are sent back to recruit as they know their way around the system. There are so many ways they can pre-screen a candidate I’d bet the SAT score is at the very bottom of the list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do. They use both. They use all of it. That’s exactly what I’m talking about when I talk about using standardized scores - meaning ALL available standardized scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, it’s not a matter of whether they CAN afford to do so. Rather, it has to do with whether they WANT to afford it. Obviously all large firms could engage in an intensive recruiting search of every single student in the school if they really wanted to. But they don’t want to. </p>
<p>Secondly, be careful about what I said. I never said that J&J was one of those firms that used standardized scores to determine their hiring. I am simply saying that J&J is a firm of which I am extremely familiar with their stealth recruiting methods as far as LFM students go. Out of a class of 48 LFM students in a class, J&J hired 4 of them (and I’m sure made offers to others who declined). It’s become something of a running joke at LFM that J&J is considered to be a ‘pseudo-partner’, in that while they aren’t formally part of the official LFM hiring process, for all practical purposes, they basically are. They’re always hanging around the LFM office (even if they don’t actually use the office to do formal recruiting), they conveniently schedule their “unofficial” LFM hiring to be at the same time that official LFM hiring for official partners is being done, and they make it such that every LFM student basically knows where to find them. For example, I strongly remember some LFM students scheduling their official LFM interview calendar to fit in their “unofficial” J&J interview. </p>
<p>But the point is this. If J&J is acting as a ‘stealth’ recruiter as far as LFM is concerned (and frankly, not exactly being very stealthy about it), I am quite sure that plenty of other stealth recruiters exist at plenty of other programs. And I’m quite sure that among them, some of them do indeed use SAT scores and other standardized test scores to determine who to hire. </p>
<p>I am almost certain that this issue is most prevalent in the most ‘elite’ employers of all (of which I never included J&J) and that are extremely popular with the students. Right now, that would probably be private equity. For example, I can tell you that at both HBS and Sloan, far far more students want to get into private equity than will actually get offers. For example, consider the following quote:</p>
<p>“Almost 75% of HBS students want to do private equity or venture capital. Only about 10% get to do it,” "</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nysun.com/article/29141[/url]”>http://www.nysun.com/article/29141</a></p>
<p>Yet the fact is, private equity firms don’t really use much OCR. Whatever campus recruiting they do seems to be largely of the ‘stealth’ variety. Of course, by nature, that’s hard to pin down - after all, there’s a reason why it’s called ‘stealth’ recruiting, and there’s a reason why its’ called * private * equity - in that these firms are very secretive about what they do. But anecdotally speaking, what I have found and what many others have found is that if you want to get a job in PE, you can’t rely on OCR, because that’s not where most of the PE hiring is done. Furthermore, given the competitiveness of the jobs, and the fact that many B-schools practice grade nondisclosure (including HBS until this year), you may feel obligated to include your SAT score in order to remain competitive. When the competition is this intense, you want to get any leg up that you can. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, I never said that it was a highly important metric. What I am saying is that the metric probably does get used, at least by some firms. It may well be that it’s at the bottom of the list. But that’s different saying that it’s not on the list at all.</p>
<p>HBS and MIT are bad examples because the SAT range is around 1450-1580. So where do you set the cut-off. Do you value a student with 1580 SAT more than on with 1500 … or would you rather look at what they accomplished in college? SAT is not a good predictor when you are at that level.</p>
<p>
This is new to me. Do you mean you are not allowed to put your GPA down on your resume?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I think you should picked up by context that I was talking about graduate business schools - in other words, MBA’s. And there is obviously no tight SAT range when you’re talking about MBA students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grade nondisclosure is a common policy feature at many of the top MBA programs. The policy was cancelled this year at HBS, after 8 years of being in effect. But it’s still a feature at Stanford, Chicago, and Wharton. </p>
<p><a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg;
<a href=“http://gsb2008.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-grade-non-disclosure-and_05.html[/url]”>http://gsb2008.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-grade-non-disclosure-and_05.html</a>
<a href=“http://wga.wharton.upenn.edu/gnd/[/url]”>http://wga.wharton.upenn.edu/gnd/</a>
<a href=“http://www.chicagogsb.edu/corp/hire/policies.aspx#grade[/url]”>http://www.chicagogsb.edu/corp/hire/policies.aspx#grade</a></p>
<p>The policy is generally not so strict that ‘you can’t put your GPA down’. Obviously you can choose to do anything you want. The issue is what the student community standards are. At those schools, the general policy accepted by the student bodies is to adhere to grade nondisclosure. Of course, since you’re on the honor system, you can choose to violate the policy. But this is considered to be poor form that will probably hurt your relations with other students if it were to be known, and keep in mind that the networking is arguably the most important benefit of any business school. So by choosing not to abide by community rules, you are potentially hurting your networking opportunities. It may also be considered to be poor form by the recruiters themselves. For example, what if you were a Wharton student and, in violation of the community policy, you listed your GPA to get an interview with a company, only to be interviewed by another Wharton grad? I know that if I was that interviewer, I would not take too kindly to that candidate. </p>
<p>Now, I know what you might say - that my posts here talk strictly about MBA programs and have nothing to do with undergrad. Well, I admit, I haven’t been in undergrad for awhile so I don’t know exactly what’s going on with undergrad recruiting these days. But I would contend that if, right now, plenty of MBA recruiters are asking for GMAT scores, even for OCR (and certainly for ‘stealth’ recruiting). So, given that, is it really so hard to believe that some undergrad recruiters would ask for SAT scores?</p>
<p>I realized my mistake after I posted. I was talking BBA while you were obviously talking MBA. I didn’t know about the non-disclosure policy at HBS. Your links are very informative.</p>
<p>So you claimed that some of the more exclusive employers take SAT (in addition to GMAT) scores into consideration when hiring MBA grads. This is even more bizarre. It means whether I scored a couple hundred points more or less in a test 8-10 years ago would have an effect on whether I get my first round of interview!? I would think that my 4-year college GPA, my 3-5 years job performance, the prestige of my MBA degree, and what I accomplished in college and beyond would overshadow and more than compensate for what I did or did not do in high school. If they really need to look at some kind of standardized test scores, I would think that my GMAT score is a much better indicator of what I am capable of today. I’ve heard of companies using some form of psychological tests for screening … but that’s still testing my ability today.</p>
<p>I’m not questioning that some employers require you to disclose your SAT scores. I’ve seen a number of application forms routinely asking for that kind of information. I do question the importance of it especially regarding on-campus recruiting. Do you pre-screen applicants prior to the first on-campus interview based on his/her SAT scores? If so, I’d like to know how they weigh the SAT score against all the other factors I mentioned above … or do they simply cut off all applicants with subpar SAT scores?</p>
<p>I don’t know about private equity but I do know some kids with not so stellar SAT getting jobs and internships with Goldman, Citigroup, Big 4, etc.</p>
<p>I suppose we will need to hear from recruiters who have actually done this before to give us a more definitive answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, if you want to talk about bizarreness, I have personally always found MBA grade non-disclosure policies to be rather bizarre. The intent is clear and good but the effects are questionable at best. For example, MBA employers who recruit at those ‘non-disclosed’ schools will often ask for undergraduate GPA in lieu of the undisclosed MBA GPA. Honestly, which GPA is more applicable and precise - the MBA GPA or the undergrad GPA from many years ago? Yet the fact is, like it or not, the recruiters are going to use * something * to screen, and if they aren’t allowed to view the most relevant datapoint, they’re just going to weigh the other datapoints more heavily, even if they are less relevant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, I’m not defending it. I’m just saying that it’s the reality in the way that recruiting is done today.</p>
<p>Nice to see all the homers come out of the woodwork.</p>
<p>rabban -
</p>
<p>Geeze - no one is saying that there aren’t smart students attending UoW (or any B10 school for that matter). All the B10 schools have a % of smart students (to varying degrees) who are equal to those attending NU.</p>
<p>However, NU, overall, has a higher % of “highly qualified” students.</p>
<p>UW’s grad school>>NU. Nu may have better average students but UW has better average faculty and facilities, social life and school spirit.</p>
<p>better law school? - uhm, no.</p>
<p>b-school? no.</p>
<p>med school? no.</p>
<p>And the other grad programs vary on a case by case basis (besides, graduate program rankings/reserach $$ have little to do with the quality of undergrad education or the quality of the undergraduate student body).</p>
<p>Nice to see that the UoW homers are just as delusional as the UoM homers.</p>
<p>Alex - And yet, Michigan places as high a percentage of its students into top graduate schools and exclusive IBanks and MC firms. I guess Michiugan takes a lower calibre student population and somehow educates them better than Cornell and Northwestern.</p>
<p>More UoM homerism - shocking!!</p>
<p>**Acceptedalready, the quality of the student body at Michigan is roughly equal to that at Northwestern. The SAT scores are roughly identical too, with the average Northwestern student outscoring the average Michigan student by 20-30 points on each section. </p>
<p>Yes, Northwestern’s numbers are slightly higher, but are they that much higher? Everything points to those schools having roughly equal student bodies and academics.**</p>
<p>Ughh - not THIS again.</p>
<p>Closer analysis reveals that the make-up of UoM’s student body isn’t so “roughly equal” to that of NU’s.</p>
<p>NU -
SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 94%, ACT scores over 24 96%, SAT verbal scores over 700 53%, SAT math scores over 700 63%, ACT scores over 30 69% </p>
<p>UoM -
SAT verbal scores over 600 70%, SAT math scores over 600 86%, ACT scores over 24 94%, SAT verbal scores over 700 21%, SAT math scores over 700 43%, ACT scores over 30 38%</p>
<p>And as we can see, the make-up of UoM’s student body is **significantly closer to that of UoW<a href=“or%20UoI%20for%20that%20matter”>/b</a> than it is to NU.</p>
<p>UoW -</p>
<h2>SAT verbal scores over 600 61%, SAT math scores over 600 81%, ACT scores over 24 91%, SAT verbal scores over 700 15%, SAT math scores over 700 31%, ACT scores over 30 26%</h2>
<p>As for SAT scores - good predictor or not, many I-banks, consulting firms and a no. of commercial banks/corporations have SAT cut-offs (it’s just another way for them to pare down their applicant pool).</p>
<p>The total enrollment of non-professional grad schools greatly excceds the professional schools (law, med, business).NU Law and Med faculty have NOTHING to do with undergrads while business only has a partial major. Virtually all UW grad school faculty teach both grad and undergrad classes excluding law and med.<br>
No research does not have a direct impact on undergrads but winning competitve research grants is an indicator of excellence as is the ranking of grad depts outside the pro schools.
A few years ago NU’s president ripped the NU faculty for not being better ranked in research funding. He basically called them lazy.</p>
<p>Arguably, professors who are the “rain-mamakers” for research $$ don’t have the time to teach too many undergraduate courses (not to mention that many are better researchers than educators).</p>
<p>I guess the professors at top LACs and non-research oriented universities (like Dartmouth) must pale in comparison to those at UoW.</p>
<p>Actually people who are talented enough to attract money usually are good with students too. Many winners of the teaching awards have been top researchers going back to the days of Harry Harlow who taught intro to psychology and many others who followed.</p>
<p>Over the last three years UW and NU have led the Big 10 in Sloan fellows for top young scientists with an edge to UW 11-9.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sloan.org/programs/fellowshiplist.shtml[/url]”>http://www.sloan.org/programs/fellowshiplist.shtml</a></p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>How many profs in NU and UW? What if UW has 2 or 3x more profs?</p>
<p>NU says they have 2500. UW has about 2100. That’s full-time.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/[/url]”>http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/community.php#community[/url]”>http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/community.php#community</a></p>
<p>“Actually people who are talented enough to attract money usually are good with students too.”</p>
<p>Rain-making in academia (getting research grants) has little to do with personality; being an effective, interesting speaker; etc.</p>