Why no business major at (most of) the Ivies

[Anonymous]

Colleges especially Ivies used to operate as country clubs for rich Whites. Some of the tradition is still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you wanted a job in PE or IB at a top firm, you'd have better odds as a history major from Yale than a business major out of Stern

This is just objectively not true at all. Stern has tremendous placement in IB and PE.

And Yale is better. It is 100% true.

Just joining this thread. It is a clear class divider in America (and by class, I am not just using wealth as a criteria) between those who understand the value of a non-pre-professional Ivy League/top SLAC degree and those who don't. There is a mentality among some people that you are totally wasting your time if you are not doing a pre-professional degree. While I somewhat understand the need to be concerned about ROI as the cost of college rapidly increases, particularly for those for whom the cost is a large portion of their net worth, this is a very short-sighted, narrow minded perspective.

To reach the upper reaches of white collar corporate America, it is critical thinking skills that matter the most, as well as people skills. To rise through the ranks of these places, it doesn't really matter what you studied as an undergrad. It matters how you navigate your way up. You can do this as a liberal arts major, a STEM major, or anything else.

I have worked on Wall Street most of my career. I have historically preferred hiring really smart Ivy League types, regardless of their degrees, over obsessively requiring a "business degree." I am happy to hire engineers as those skills are valuable, but not required.

When I talk to people who don't get this, or who say "why would you go to Williams?" I know to adjust the conversation accordingly. They just don't get it. Yes - I am a snob. I'll own that. But when these people who know so little about the levers of power in America talk to me like I am clueless when in fact I get the joke, I find it hilarious. YMMV.

This is so true, as a SLAC grad myself. DC is headed to an Ivy as an English major. It's so interesting to see the reactions - to many they think it means no money and becoming a barista at Starbucks (I laugh along), but I also know that it could also lead to many other careers and there is no way I can even begin to explain that to someone who doesn't get it.

Laugh all the way to the bank as they say. I am with you, and PP. Once you have a student at an ivy (or T10 private or Williams-Amherst-Swat) it becomes clear exactly what it is you are paying for, or not paying much for if like the majority your kid has aid. The education is second to none: peers make the education as much as top faculty. Opportunities for internships, jobs, and tracks to the next step in education if they choose that are unmatchted

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No business major offered at Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Columbia. Cornell the "land grant Ivy" is an exception, and even Penn's Wharton School grants the BS in economics presumably because they don't want to embarrass their graduates with a lowly business degree. Why don't most of the Ivies offer a business major?

They want your grad school $ too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forget the Ivies, go to Holy Cross one of the very few top 25 SLACs that offers accounting degree. HC grads are significantly overrepresented in Corporate America C suite roles much more so than Amherst, Bowdoin, and Swarthmore.

You have been repeating this time and time again on multiple threads over time. Since I have a bit of time on a Sunday morning while sitting here with my coffee I decided to put your assertion to some scrutiny and and dig in a bit using paid AI tools. I did it for both National Universities and National SLACs but I will focus on SLACs here since I am responding to the Holy Cross booster. The results are interesting but alas your overrepresentation claim does not hold up to analysis.

Six SLACS dominate appearing in basically the same positions regardless of AI model

Williams
Amherst
Bowdoin
Wellesley
Middlebury
Claremont McKenna

These schools are the consistent top of every list.

Vassar, Hamilton, Swarthmore, and Colgate round out the top 10 schools.

NESCAC dominance among the SLACs is very real.

Expanding into the top 20 or SLACs for major board representation is also interesting.

Pomona falls in this bucket in every model. The "Intellectual Powers of the SLAC world", Swat and Pomona do get traction (after they get PhDs?)

The NESCAC continues to dominate with Hamilton, Colby, Trinity, Bates, and Wesleyan all sitting in the top 20. Almost half of the top 20 are NESCAC schools.

The Patriot League (Colgate, Bucknell, Holy Cross, Lafayette) shows up in the latter part of to5 20 except for Colgate which is in the 10-15 bucket. Bucknell's representation is in Finance (path to the Street!) even though they aren't even a semi-feeder which is a bit of a surprise but maybe the booster has legs (small ones) and you can get to the c-suite via Holy Cross (which is a great school) though in truth their representation is a small fraction of that of any of the top six above. Lehigh would also appear at the top this bucket but it is considered a National University in the USNWR rankings. In short the Patriot League shows strong results.

Regional powers emerge as well with Davidson and W&L sitting in the top 15 representing the South.

Women's colleges punch far above their weight with Wellesley, Smith, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, and Mount Holyoke all sitting in the top 30.

There are a couple of surprises with both Kenyon College and St. Lawrence University producing significant numbers beyond what might be otherwise expected.

[Anonymous]

Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

What does “Better” mean? Not comparing or competing here…He had all the access in the world. 3 offers came from 3 of the top groups in the city. All of which pick kids from several Ivies, including Cornell. His incoming group at his firm had 9 kids from Cornell, Wharton, Princeton and Dartmouth…At the end of the day, there might “better” placements elsewhere, but we have had absolutely zero complaints about Cornell’s access and placement options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

Agreed. The placements out of Wharton are also insane. The network is incredible.


What does “Better” mean? Not comparing or competing here…He had all the access in the world. 3 offers came from 3 of the top groups in the city. All of which pick kids from several Ivies, including Cornell. His incoming group at his firm had 9 kids from Cornell, Wharton, Princeton and Dartmouth…At the end of the day, there might “better” placements elsewhere, but we have had absolutely zero complaints about Cornell’s access and placement options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

What does “Better” mean? Not comparing or competing here…He had all the access in the world. 3 offers came from 3 of the top groups in the city. All of which pick kids from several Ivies, including Cornell. His incoming group at his firm had 9 kids from Cornell, Wharton, Princeton and Dartmouth…At the end of the day, there might “better” placements elsewhere, but we have had absolutely zero complaints about Cornell’s access and placement options.

Great school, wasn't trying to put down the school or results in any way. By better, I mean efficiency in achieving the result which I would measure as per-capita placement from schools with similar recruiting opportunities. By that measure there are quite a few schools which provide an easier path to the same result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

What does “Better” mean? Not comparing or competing here…He had all the access in the world. 3 offers came from 3 of the top groups in the city. All of which pick kids from several Ivies, including Cornell. His incoming group at his firm had 9 kids from Cornell, Wharton, Princeton and Dartmouth…At the end of the day, there might “better” placements elsewhere, but we have had absolutely zero complaints about Cornell’s access and placement options.

Great school, wasn't trying to put down the school or results in any way. By better, I mean efficiency in achieving the result which I would measure as per-capita placement from schools with similar recruiting opportunities. By that measure there are quite a few schools which provide an easier path to the same result.

I’m sure there are. Cornell is a huge school. But im taking specifically Dyson. 150 kids per class. Their placement I bet on a per capita basis is as good as anybody else. But if you include Cornell’s 16,000 student population, then sure…per capita looks ridiculous….but I guarantee a lot o these placements from cornell are 95% from Dyson and Nolan. So need to compare apples to apples here….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you wanted a job in PE or IB at a top firm, you'd have better odds as a history major from Yale than a business major out of Stern

This is just objectively not true at all. Stern has tremendous placement in IB and PE.

And Yale is better. It is 100% true.

Just joining this thread. It is a clear class divider in America (and by class, I am not just using wealth as a criteria) between those who understand the value of a non-pre-professional Ivy League/top SLAC degree and those who don't. There is a mentality among some people that you are totally wasting your time if you are not doing a pre-professional degree. While I somewhat understand the need to be concerned about ROI as the cost of college rapidly increases, particularly for those for whom the cost is a large portion of their net worth, this is a very short-sighted, narrow minded perspective.

To reach the upper reaches of white collar corporate America, it is critical thinking skills that matter the most, as well as people skills. To rise through the ranks of these places, it doesn't really matter what you studied as an undergrad. It matters how you navigate your way up. You can do this as a liberal arts major, a STEM major, or anything else.

I have worked on Wall Street most of my career. I have historically preferred hiring really smart Ivy League types, regardless of their degrees, over obsessively requiring a "business degree." I am happy to hire engineers as those skills are valuable, but not required.

When I talk to people who don't get this, or who say "why would you go to Williams?" I know to adjust the conversation accordingly. They just don't get it. Yes - I am a snob. I'll own that. But when these people who know so little about the levers of power in America talk to me like I am clueless when in fact I get the joke, I find it hilarious. YMMV.

As long as we're being honest...I'm wondering what you might think...

I understand what you describe and I believe you are correct that certain schools provide an easy fit into an elite lifestyle. However, do you think the school is the only differentiator? Or, do you think the kid from a wealthy Midwestern town who despite being well-educated and intellectually curious and perhaps even well traveled but who is unfamiliar with NYC or East Coast clubs, summering where you summer, and whose family acquaintances have never crossed paths with those who hold the levers of society would receive the same reception from Wall Street/IB upon graduation from an ivy as the kids who have lived entirely in this elite world?

I'm skeptical that the Ivy prestige serves the same value to the unconnected Midwestern student as it does for a student where the school is simply a natural part of their family path progression. I'm skeptical that the school alone provides an entry to the top levels of places like Wall Street.

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another parent of a Cornell kid here. Dyson. Just graduated last year and had 3 offers from NYC based investment groups. It is not about the education. It is about the network. Simple as that. The network is second to none.

Agree with the network piece, for IB network is a key advantage. However, there are many schools which place better than Cornell, especially adjusted for size.

What does “Better” mean? Not comparing or competing here…He had all the access in the world. 3 offers came from 3 of the top groups in the city. All of which pick kids from several Ivies, including Cornell. His incoming group at his firm had 9 kids from Cornell, Wharton, Princeton and Dartmouth…At the end of the day, there might “better” placements elsewhere, but we have had absolutely zero complaints about Cornell’s access and placement options.

Great school, wasn't trying to put down the school or results in any way. By better, I mean efficiency in achieving the result which I would measure as per-capita placement from schools with similar recruiting opportunities. By that measure there are quite a few schools which provide an easier path to the same result.

I’m sure there are. Cornell is a huge school. But im taking specifically Dyson. 150 kids per class. Their placement I bet on a per capita basis is as good as anybody else. But if you include Cornell’s 16,000 student population, then sure…per capita looks ridiculous….but I guarantee a lot o these placements from cornell are 95% from Dyson and Nolan. So need to compare apples to apples here….

Dyson places very well (1/3 into IB) well but A&S and other areas will have many applicants as well. Overall many schools place more efficiently than Cornell but if you get into Dyson you’re in a great spot. If you get into Cornell anywhere you are in a far better spot than most as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you wanted a job in PE or IB at a top firm, you'd have better odds as a history major from Yale than a business major out of Stern

This is just objectively not true at all. Stern has tremendous placement in IB and PE.

And Yale is better. It is 100% true.

Just joining this thread. It is a clear class divider in America (and by class, I am not just using wealth as a criteria) between those who understand the value of a non-pre-professional Ivy League/top SLAC degree and those who don't. There is a mentality among some people that you are totally wasting your time if you are not doing a pre-professional degree. While I somewhat understand the need to be concerned about ROI as the cost of college rapidly increases, particularly for those for whom the cost is a large portion of their net worth, this is a very short-sighted, narrow minded perspective.

To reach the upper reaches of white collar corporate America, it is critical thinking skills that matter the most, as well as people skills. To rise through the ranks of these places, it doesn't really matter what you studied as an undergrad. It matters how you navigate your way up. You can do this as a liberal arts major, a STEM major, or anything else.

I have worked on Wall Street most of my career. I have historically preferred hiring really smart Ivy League types, regardless of their degrees, over obsessively requiring a "business degree." I am happy to hire engineers as those skills are valuable, but not required.

When I talk to people who don't get this, or who say "why would you go to Williams?" I know to adjust the conversation accordingly. They just don't get it. Yes - I am a snob. I'll own that. But when these people who know so little about the levers of power in America talk to me like I am clueless when in fact I get the joke, I find it hilarious. YMMV.

As long as we're being honest...I'm wondering what you might think...

I understand what you describe and I believe you are correct that certain schools provide an easy fit into an elite lifestyle. However, do you think the school is the only differentiator? Or, do you think the kid from a wealthy Midwestern town who despite being well-educated and intellectually curious and perhaps even well traveled but who is unfamiliar with NYC or East Coast clubs, summering where you summer, and whose family acquaintances have never crossed paths with those who hold the levers of society would receive the same reception from Wall Street/IB upon graduation from an ivy as the kids who have lived entirely in this elite world?

I'm skeptical that the Ivy prestige serves the same value to the unconnected Midwestern student as it does for a student where the school is simply a natural part of their family path progression. I'm skeptical that the school alone provides an entry to the top levels of places like Wall Street.

What do you think?

You can be skeptical all you want, but I'm an Ivy league grad who got a number of post undergrad-offers at IB firms and consulting firms, despite being an immigrant kid on financial aid with no family history at the Ivy. Would I have gotten better offers at more elite parts of those IB firms if I were the son/daughter of a head honcho somewhere and had connections? Probably yes, but those elite firms are recruiting like crazy at every Ivy, and once you're in, you're in and can show your worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you wanted a job in PE or IB at a top firm, you'd have better odds as a history major from Yale than a business major out of Stern

This is just objectively not true at all. Stern has tremendous placement in IB and PE.

And Yale is better. It is 100% true.

Just joining this thread. It is a clear class divider in America (and by class, I am not just using wealth as a criteria) between those who understand the value of a non-pre-professional Ivy League/top SLAC degree and those who don't. There is a mentality among some people that you are totally wasting your time if you are not doing a pre-professional degree. While I somewhat understand the need to be concerned about ROI as the cost of college rapidly increases, particularly for those for whom the cost is a large portion of their net worth, this is a very short-sighted, narrow minded perspective.

To reach the upper reaches of white collar corporate America, it is critical thinking skills that matter the most, as well as people skills. To rise through the ranks of these places, it doesn't really matter what you studied as an undergrad. It matters how you navigate your way up. You can do this as a liberal arts major, a STEM major, or anything else.

I have worked on Wall Street most of my career. I have historically preferred hiring really smart Ivy League types, regardless of their degrees, over obsessively requiring a "business degree." I am happy to hire engineers as those skills are valuable, but not required.

When I talk to people who don't get this, or who say "why would you go to Williams?" I know to adjust the conversation accordingly. They just don't get it. Yes - I am a snob. I'll own that. But when these people who know so little about the levers of power in America talk to me like I am clueless when in fact I get the joke, I find it hilarious. YMMV.

As long as we're being honest...I'm wondering what you might think...

I understand what you describe and I believe you are correct that certain schools provide an easy fit into an elite lifestyle. However, do you think the school is the only differentiator? Or, do you think the kid from a wealthy Midwestern town who despite being well-educated and intellectually curious and perhaps even well traveled but who is unfamiliar with NYC or East Coast clubs, summering where you summer, and whose family acquaintances have never crossed paths with those who hold the levers of society would receive the same reception from Wall Street/IB upon graduation from an ivy as the kids who have lived entirely in this elite world?

I'm skeptical that the Ivy prestige serves the same value to the unconnected Midwestern student as it does for a student where the school is simply a natural part of their family path progression. I'm skeptical that the school alone provides an entry to the top levels of places like Wall Street.

What do you think?

It's parents, parents' friends, already having a free place to crash in NYC, having NE lifestyle hobbies, etc. Plus actually viewing what NYC has to offer positively.

I went to Michigan (since you brought up the Midwest). A lot of our grads who go to NYC for Finance jobs came from NYC in the first place.

A lot of our rich Midwestern business types who joined NYC circles made their money in big real estate. Not IB/PE.

This might be a weird example but when I was in B-School at Michigan, I was invited to dinner with Goldman Sachs and the young recruiter tried to impress me with their big salaries. I asked her if she had a washer and dryer within her own apartment space. Nope. A lot of Midwest people define luxury in terms of large houses, lawns, vacation property, and being able to DIY the things you want to do (of course you outsource the things you don't). It's not particularly luxurious to spend 80 hours a week or more cooped up making spreadsheets, slides, and dealing with one-dimensional MOTUs in exchange for big money but a small living space with few creature comforts that a SFH would have.

While I was in B-school, I once got an fly-in interview in New Hampshire that was 100% driven by bullshitting about skiing during the screening interview. I was probably the only person who felt like a fit for a NE job. (I have lived in several US regions.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you wanted a job in PE or IB at a top firm, you'd have better odds as a history major from Yale than a business major out of Stern

This is just objectively not true at all. Stern has tremendous placement in IB and PE.

And Yale is better. It is 100% true.

Just joining this thread. It is a clear class divider in America (and by class, I am not just using wealth as a criteria) between those who understand the value of a non-pre-professional Ivy League/top SLAC degree and those who don't. There is a mentality among some people that you are totally wasting your time if you are not doing a pre-professional degree. While I somewhat understand the need to be concerned about ROI as the cost of college rapidly increases, particularly for those for whom the cost is a large portion of their net worth, this is a very short-sighted, narrow minded perspective.

To reach the upper reaches of white collar corporate America, it is critical thinking skills that matter the most, as well as people skills. To rise through the ranks of these places, it doesn't really matter what you studied as an undergrad. It matters how you navigate your way up. You can do this as a liberal arts major, a STEM major, or anything else.

I have worked on Wall Street most of my career. I have historically preferred hiring really smart Ivy League types, regardless of their degrees, over obsessively requiring a "business degree." I am happy to hire engineers as those skills are valuable, but not required.

When I talk to people who don't get this, or who say "why would you go to Williams?" I know to adjust the conversation accordingly. They just don't get it. Yes - I am a snob. I'll own that. But when these people who know so little about the levers of power in America talk to me like I am clueless when in fact I get the joke, I find it hilarious. YMMV.

As long as we're being honest...I'm wondering what you might think...

I understand what you describe and I believe you are correct that certain schools provide an easy fit into an elite lifestyle. However, do you think the school is the only differentiator? Or, do you think the kid from a wealthy Midwestern town who despite being well-educated and intellectually curious and perhaps even well traveled but who is unfamiliar with NYC or East Coast clubs, summering where you summer, and whose family acquaintances have never crossed paths with those who hold the levers of society would receive the same reception from Wall Street/IB upon graduation from an ivy as the kids who have lived entirely in this elite world?

I'm skeptical that the Ivy prestige serves the same value to the unconnected Midwestern student as it does for a student where the school is simply a natural part of their family path progression. I'm skeptical that the school alone provides an entry to the top levels of places like Wall Street.

What do you think?

Good question. I think it is a lot harder but it is possible. A really smart kid from this background needs to have really good EQ and be willing and able to assimilate. Pay close attention to how the people they aspire to be behave and figure out how to do it without coming across as a phony poser (many of them end up clearly trying way too hard and coming across as phony posers). It's not easy but many people succeed at it. They will always be a bit behind those who are born into it, but they can largely bridge the gap. This reminds me of the great 80s movie Secret of my Success.

Contrast that with DCUM where you get countless posters who do not come from the elite background but think they know everything and that corporate America will adapt to the way they think things should be done. They might think they are at the top of the world but they don't know what they are missing. Not saying this to be a snob (though I guess I am). Just saying it to show what I know. And trust me, I am far from the top of the social hierarchy. But I am a lot closer than they are and I know enough to be able to play the game and interact with those types as necessary and not make a fool of myself.