At the level of Yale and Chicago, the main reasons, one or the other may have dramatically different recruiting results are
- The students self select into certain professions differently at either schools
- Recruiters find it easier to get a larger yield at one school than the other, so focus on that school as the easier path
- The core recruiting team is heavy with alums form one school or the other who prefer recruiting form their alma mater
- The career services in one or the other school is run much better operationally than the other
For example, these reasons drove why Wharton has such a lead on some of its peer schools.
Very rarely is it the “quality of the student pool”. If anything Chicago students may be at a slight disadvantage here. I-Banking firms mainly depend on the 3P’s during recruitment: Prestige of School, Performance of students within the School, The Packaging of the student (Meaning can I have a beer with this guy after work, are they good communicators, will they work hard, take good direction, have attention to detail etc).
My guess is that the average Yale student might fare slightly better on the last two fronts, but I may be wrong.
I think 1,2 and 4 are fixable more easily within a few years.
3) is going to take almost a generation to fix. While Chicago may have a slight disadvantage on the previous metrics because of student self selection and profile, it has a slight lead on Yale as far as 3 is concerned in I-Banking given Booth’s presence, so I expect Chicago will have a slightly easier time here, but it is by no means a huge insurmountable lead.