<p>The CGF: I think the more realistic comparison would be, as posted elsewhere, Northwestern vs. Wisconsin or George Washington U.</p>
<p>Sure, there are perhaps 10-12 I-banks and consulting firms that might not recruit <em>at all</em> at GWU or UW that have a regular schedule at NU… I’ll agree that for those 10-12 targeted employers, where you go does matter in terms of getting access to the interview.</p>
<p>99.9% of really good paying and rewarding careers are not at those 10-12 firms… so in broad stroke I absolutely agree with the article, and take a tangent from it as well. </p>
<p>In youth sports, the normal advice for best-fit team choice is to pick the best possible team on which the athlete will start, or at least get significant playing time. Riding the bench sucks, but that’s where the bottom third of any team spends most of its time. It is better to be a starter on the JV than a bench warmer on Varsity, as this thinking goes. Sitting the bench increases the difference in skill level between those who start and those who do not, simply by virtue of increased opportunities to develop game-skills in game situations.</p>
<p>Let’s take this over to college. </p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Princeton, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or Northwestern/Wash U/Hopkins, in the top third? What if the bottom third student at Princeton gets no access to 1-1 with professors in a research setting, but a top third at NU does?</p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Stanford, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or UCLA Honors/USC, in the top 20%? What if the bottom third student at Stanford gets no access to 1-1 with professors in the finance/econ area, no recommendations for summer internships, etc. (by virture of not being a standout), but a top 20% at UCLA/USD does get such opportunities? </p>
<p>In each case, where would the student be more likely to thrive?</p>
<p>Which would you choose is both cases?</p>