<p>I fail to see any contradiction. You miss the point. They are equally talented as high school students going in but when they come out, students that come from a place like Notre Dame are better able to transition due to a much broader and richer college experience, not to mention alumni support second to none. BC, UVA, UNC, W&M, etc. would certainly offer that same experience. I will concede what is a considered a rich college experience is somewhat subjective but generally you cannot compare the overall experience of these horribly insular 'elite" liberal arts colleges with other schools of equal academic caliber. Sorry to be so blunt, but for the money I fail to see much value in these types of schools.</p>
<p>@AgilityAce
</p>
<p>So, this is just a matter of prejudice. Fine. [-( </p>
<p>@AgilityAce Interesting that you picked Colby and Bates, despite the two being very different (and Bates being very similar to Wesleyan in terms of “vibe”). I’d be interested to know your sample size, as @circuitrider said, most of the schools you mentioned are much larger. Also, how do Colgate, Holy Cross, and Bucknell differ from your average NESCAC school? Those three schools are probably “to the right” of some NESCACs (like Wesleyan and Bates) but certainly no further right than Trinity or Williams, no larger in terms of enrollment, and would fit right in if their athletic programs dropped to DIII. I would argue alumni support is just as good, if not better, at smaller schools (like NESCAC), because of the intimate experience and willingness to help out others of the school - this goes for Colgate as much as Wesleyan (and they are exactly the same size school/alumni body). In terms of being contradictory - you mention horribly insular “elite” liberal arts colleges as a bad thing, and then go right ahead and mention some in your list of “better” schools…?</p>
<p>@AgilityAce you say that kids coming straight from large schools (BC, UVA, UNC, etc) are better prepared than kids coming from small liberal arts colleges, but I wonder is that only because these schools offer specialized degrees such as Finance or Accounting which would obviously be valuable at an investment banking firm? I can see where a kid having an undergrad business degree might be able to “hit the ground running” immediately following college but I would think that over time that technical knowledge advantage would dissipate and that someone with a liberal arts degree would be just as successful, if not more successful than someone with a more focused business degree. From your experience in the banking world have you found this to be the case? I am genuinely curious since I will be starting at Wesleyan this month and the world of finance is an area I am interested in…</p>
<p>Ah yes, investment banks. The bastions of intellectual flexibility and creativity.</p>
<p>Regardless, I’ll be sure to let my friends know that they were ill prepared for life at firms like deloitte and should probably quit their jobs and apologize for faking it through the interview process.</p>
<p>@AgilityAce is clearly confusing political stripe with being “prepared.”
Most of the schools he mentioned skew pretty hard to the right on the spectrum.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I’ve been hiring in banking for longer than he has and I’ve seen plenty of duds from pretty much every school. The one place that does seem to never disappoint me is CMU. What ever they are doing, they are doing it right.</p>
<p>Two of the schools he mentioned (BC and WM) are in my opinion, among the most overrated in the country.</p>
<p>(I have no connection to CMU, in case you are wondering).</p>