Wall Street Placement 2024 update

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

Except for the tech jobs in AI, right?

If you believe that, then this entire thread is moot because AI is going to kill the Wall Street analyst job. See an excerpt from an article below from the New York Times from April:

The Worst Part of a Wall Street Career May Be Coming to an End
Artificial intelligence tools can replace much of Wall Street’s entry-level white-collar work, raising tough questions about the future of finance.

Until now. Generative artificial intelligence — the technology upending many industries with its ability to produce and crunch new data — has landed on Wall Street. And investment banks, long inured to cultural change, are rapidly turning into Exhibit A on how the new technology could not only supplement but supplant entire ranks of workers.

The jobs most immediately at risk are those performed by analysts at the bottom rung of the investment banking business, who put in endless hours to learn the building blocks of corporate finance, including the intricacies of mergers, public offerings and bond deals. Now, A.I. can do much of that work speedily and with considerably less whining.

“The structure of these jobs has remained largely unchanged at least for a decade,” said Julia Dhar, head of BCG’s Behavioral Science Lab and a consultant to major banks experimenting with A.I. The inevitable question, as she put it, is “do you need fewer analysts?”

Finance is regulated if mistakes happen and it's because of AI the bank will lose millions. They won't take that risk, like they will in tech.

Some of Wall Street’s major banks are asking the same question, as they test A.I. tools that can largely replace their armies of analysts by performing in seconds the work that now takes hours, or a whole weekend. The software, being deployed inside banks under code names such as “Socrates,” is likely not only to change the arc of a Wall Street career, but also to essentially nullify the need to hire thousands of new college graduates.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other banks are debating how deep they can cut their incoming analyst classes, according to several people involved in the ongoing discussions. Some inside those banks and others have suggested they could cut back on their hiring of junior investment banking analysts by as much as two-thirds, and slash the pay of those they do hire, on the grounds that the jobs won’t be as taxing as before.

Same at large top tier law firms….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising that it’s all the top schools. Goldman Sachs is big on UPenn Wharton School graduates.

Its not just Wharton. My Seas (engineering) junior has many senior Seas friends going into these jobs or similar high paying jobs. Engineering jobs make more than Wharton the last few years and no not just CS. Many go for phD or Md instead but for those that want the big $ jobs all of Penn is golden as long as you have decent internships or research. Even the college(CAS) does very well with consulting and wall street , just not as well as Engineering or Wharton unless they are math majors. They get tons of big name offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

Except for the tech jobs in AI, right?

If you believe that, then this entire thread is moot because AI is going to kill the Wall Street analyst job. See an excerpt from an article below from the New York Times from April:

The Worst Part of a Wall Street Career May Be Coming to an End
Artificial intelligence tools can replace much of Wall Street’s entry-level white-collar work, raising tough questions about the future of finance.

Until now. Generative artificial intelligence — the technology upending many industries with its ability to produce and crunch new data — has landed on Wall Street. And investment banks, long inured to cultural change, are rapidly turning into Exhibit A on how the new technology could not only supplement but supplant entire ranks of workers.

The jobs most immediately at risk are those performed by analysts at the bottom rung of the investment banking business, who put in endless hours to learn the building blocks of corporate finance, including the intricacies of mergers, public offerings and bond deals. Now, A.I. can do much of that work speedily and with considerably less whining.

“The structure of these jobs has remained largely unchanged at least for a decade,” said Julia Dhar, head of BCG’s Behavioral Science Lab and a consultant to major banks experimenting with A.I. The inevitable question, as she put it, is “do you need fewer analysts?”

Finance is regulated if mistakes happen and it's because of AI the bank will lose millions. They won't take that risk, like they will in tech.

Some of Wall Street’s major banks are asking the same question, as they test A.I. tools that can largely replace their armies of analysts by performing in seconds the work that now takes hours, or a whole weekend. The software, being deployed inside banks under code names such as “Socrates,” is likely not only to change the arc of a Wall Street career, but also to essentially nullify the need to hire thousands of new college graduates.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other banks are debating how deep they can cut their incoming analyst classes, according to several people involved in the ongoing discussions. Some inside those banks and others have suggested they could cut back on their hiring of junior investment banking analysts by as much as two-thirds, and slash the pay of those they do hire, on the grounds that the jobs won’t be as taxing as before.

Same at large top tier law firms….

Goldman Sachs has assigned 1,000 developers to test A.I., including software that can turn what it terms “corpus” information — or enormous amounts of text and data collected from thousands of sources — into page presentations that mimic the bank’s typeface, logo, styles and charts. One firm executive privately called it a “Kitty Hawk moment,” or one that would change the course of the firm’s future.

his week, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, wrote in his annual shareholder letter that A.I. “may reduce certain job categories or roles,” and labeled the technology top among the most important issues facing the nation’s largest bank. Mr. Dimon compared the consequences to those of “the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, computing and the internet, among others.”

That isn’t limited to investment banking; BNY Mellon’s chief executive said on a recent earnings call that his research analysts could now wake up two hours later than usual, because A.I. can read overnight economic data and create a written draft of analysis to work from.

Morgan Stanley’s head of technology, Michael Pizzi, told employees in a January private meeting, a video of which was viewed by The New York Times, that he would “get A.I. into every area of what we do,” including wealth management, where the bank employs thousands of people to determine the proper mix of investments for well-off savers.

Many of those tools are still in the testing phase, and will need to be run past regulators before they can be deployed at scale on live work. Bank of America’s chief executive said last year that the technology was already enabling the firm to hire less.

Among Goldman Sachs’s sprawling A.I. efforts is a tool under development that can transfigure a lengthy PowerPoint document into a formal “S-1,” the legalese-packed document for initial public offerings required for all listed companies.

The software takes less than a second to complete the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

Except for the tech jobs in AI, right?

If you believe that, then this entire thread is moot because AI is going to kill the Wall Street analyst job. See an excerpt from an article below from the New York Times from April:

The Worst Part of a Wall Street Career May Be Coming to an End
Artificial intelligence tools can replace much of Wall Street’s entry-level white-collar work, raising tough questions about the future of finance.

Until now. Generative artificial intelligence — the technology upending many industries with its ability to produce and crunch new data — has landed on Wall Street. And investment banks, long inured to cultural change, are rapidly turning into Exhibit A on how the new technology could not only supplement but supplant entire ranks of workers.

The jobs most immediately at risk are those performed by analysts at the bottom rung of the investment banking business, who put in endless hours to learn the building blocks of corporate finance, including the intricacies of mergers, public offerings and bond deals. Now, A.I. can do much of that work speedily and with considerably less whining.

“The structure of these jobs has remained largely unchanged at least for a decade,” said Julia Dhar, head of BCG’s Behavioral Science Lab and a consultant to major banks experimenting with A.I. The inevitable question, as she put it, is “do you need fewer analysts?”

Finance is regulated if mistakes happen and it's because of AI the bank will lose millions. They won't take that risk, like they will in tech.

Some of Wall Street’s major banks are asking the same question, as they test A.I. tools that can largely replace their armies of analysts by performing in seconds the work that now takes hours, or a whole weekend. The software, being deployed inside banks under code names such as “Socrates,” is likely not only to change the arc of a Wall Street career, but also to essentially nullify the need to hire thousands of new college graduates.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other banks are debating how deep they can cut their incoming analyst classes, according to several people involved in the ongoing discussions. Some inside those banks and others have suggested they could cut back on their hiring of junior investment banking analysts by as much as two-thirds, and slash the pay of those they do hire, on the grounds that the jobs won’t be as taxing as before.

Same at large top tier law firms….

Goldman Sachs has assigned 1,000 developers to test A.I., including software that can turn what it terms “corpus” information — or enormous amounts of text and data collected from thousands of sources — into page presentations that mimic the bank’s typeface, logo, styles and charts. One firm executive privately called it a “Kitty Hawk moment,” or one that would change the course of the firm’s future.

his week, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, wrote in his annual shareholder letter that A.I. “may reduce certain job categories or roles,” and labeled the technology top among the most important issues facing the nation’s largest bank. Mr. Dimon compared the consequences to those of “the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, computing and the internet, among others.”

That isn’t limited to investment banking; BNY Mellon’s chief executive said on a recent earnings call that his research analysts could now wake up two hours later than usual, because A.I. can read overnight economic data and create a written draft of analysis to work from.

Morgan Stanley’s head of technology, Michael Pizzi, told employees in a January private meeting, a video of which was viewed by The New York Times, that he would “get A.I. into every area of what we do,” including wealth management, where the bank employs thousands of people to determine the proper mix of investments for well-off savers.

Many of those tools are still in the testing phase, and will need to be run past regulators before they can be deployed at scale on live work. Bank of America’s chief executive said last year that the technology was already enabling the firm to hire less.

Among Goldman Sachs’s sprawling A.I. efforts is a tool under development that can transfigure a lengthy PowerPoint document into a formal “S-1,” the legalese-packed document for initial public offerings required for all listed companies.

The software takes less than a second to complete the job.

Link to article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

+1
It matters.
And for top tier law and top med too.
And Rhodes and Furman pipelines.
And on and on.
People without students there cannot fathom the resources of these elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

Except for the tech jobs in AI, right?

If you believe that, then this entire thread is moot because AI is going to kill the Wall Street analyst job. See an excerpt from an article below from the New York Times from April:

The Worst Part of a Wall Street Career May Be Coming to an End
Artificial intelligence tools can replace much of Wall Street’s entry-level white-collar work, raising tough questions about the future of finance.

Until now. Generative artificial intelligence — the technology upending many industries with its ability to produce and crunch new data — has landed on Wall Street. And investment banks, long inured to cultural change, are rapidly turning into Exhibit A on how the new technology could not only supplement but supplant entire ranks of workers.

The jobs most immediately at risk are those performed by analysts at the bottom rung of the investment banking business, who put in endless hours to learn the building blocks of corporate finance, including the intricacies of mergers, public offerings and bond deals. Now, A.I. can do much of that work speedily and with considerably less whining.

“The structure of these jobs has remained largely unchanged at least for a decade,” said Julia Dhar, head of BCG’s Behavioral Science Lab and a consultant to major banks experimenting with A.I. The inevitable question, as she put it, is “do you need fewer analysts?”

Finance is regulated if mistakes happen and it's because of AI the bank will lose millions. They won't take that risk, like they will in tech.

Some of Wall Street’s major banks are asking the same question, as they test A.I. tools that can largely replace their armies of analysts by performing in seconds the work that now takes hours, or a whole weekend. The software, being deployed inside banks under code names such as “Socrates,” is likely not only to change the arc of a Wall Street career, but also to essentially nullify the need to hire thousands of new college graduates.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other banks are debating how deep they can cut their incoming analyst classes, according to several people involved in the ongoing discussions. Some inside those banks and others have suggested they could cut back on their hiring of junior investment banking analysts by as much as two-thirds, and slash the pay of those they do hire, on the grounds that the jobs won’t be as taxing as before.

Same at large top tier law firms….

Goldman Sachs has assigned 1,000 developers to test A.I., including software that can turn what it terms “corpus” information — or enormous amounts of text and data collected from thousands of sources — into page presentations that mimic the bank’s typeface, logo, styles and charts. One firm executive privately called it a “Kitty Hawk moment,” or one that would change the course of the firm’s future.

his week, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, wrote in his annual shareholder letter that A.I. “may reduce certain job categories or roles,” and labeled the technology top among the most important issues facing the nation’s largest bank. Mr. Dimon compared the consequences to those of “the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, computing and the internet, among others.”

That isn’t limited to investment banking; BNY Mellon’s chief executive said on a recent earnings call that his research analysts could now wake up two hours later than usual, because A.I. can read overnight economic data and create a written draft of analysis to work from.

Morgan Stanley’s head of technology, Michael Pizzi, told employees in a January private meeting, a video of which was viewed by The New York Times, that he would “get A.I. into every area of what we do,” including wealth management, where the bank employs thousands of people to determine the proper mix of investments for well-off savers.

Many of those tools are still in the testing phase, and will need to be run past regulators before they can be deployed at scale on live work. Bank of America’s chief executive said last year that the technology was already enabling the firm to hire less.

Among Goldman Sachs’s sprawling A.I. efforts is a tool under development that can transfigure a lengthy PowerPoint document into a formal “S-1,” the legalese-packed document for initial public offerings required for all listed companies.

The software takes less than a second to complete the job.

Link to article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/10/business/investment-banking-jobs-artificial-intelligence.html?searchResultPosition=4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

+1
It matters.
And for top tier law and top med too.
And Rhodes and Furman pipelines.
And on and on.
People without students there cannot fathom the resources of these elite schools.

Rhodes and Furman have pipelines to The Street? Since when? Bucknell, yes...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

What jobs will be alive? Finance?

Healthcare

Think again. Many first tier doctors like family doctors, allergy doctors, etc. might lose job.

With little bit more of advancement, I would trust AI more than human primary care doctors.

You clearly know nothing about the practice of medicine. AI cannot do physical exams. The physical exam is how every diagnosis starts. Even psychiatric ones need a good exam to rule out other causes . AI is not replacing medical doctors. Scribing/note generation and other nuisances of medical practice, yes. So we can see more patients. And have better margins in primary care, and get salaries closer to our surgical peers. And thus pay for ivy/T10 for our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to work on Wall Street anymore? It used to be the only option besides law or medical school. Now there’s the tech industry. Wall Street is less desirable.

Big Tech is dying.

I guess you don't really track.

We just had NVDIA earning yesterday and it was a blast.
Stock almost jumped 10%

NVIDIA hires from the same companies listed. They go for prestige too. FAANG is dying.

Yep, I know a recent hire. Could have done UMD honors, but went a small private at great expense instead, got an NVIDIA internship while there, risk paid off.

However, it's not just pedigree, the mentorship at these schools grooms a student for these positions.

+100
The elite private experience makes a difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

+1
It matters.
And for top tier law and top med too.
And Rhodes and Furman pipelines.
And on and on.
People without students there cannot fathom the resources of these elite schools.

Rhodes and Furman have pipelines to The Street? Since when? Bucknell, yes...

I suspect they meant pipelines to the Rhodes Scholarship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

What jobs will be alive? Finance?

Healthcare

Think again. Many first tier doctors like family doctors, allergy doctors, etc. might lose job.

With little bit more of advancement, I would trust AI more than human primary care doctors.

You clearly know nothing about the practice of medicine. AI cannot do physical exams. The physical exam is how every diagnosis starts. Even psychiatric ones need a good exam to rule out other causes . AI is not replacing medical doctors. Scribing/note generation and other nuisances of medical practice, yes. So we can see more patients. And have better margins in primary care, and get salaries closer to our surgical peers. And thus pay for ivy/T10 for our kids.

Maybe I am missing something...but couldn't a nurse or someone much cheaper than a doctor actually do the first physical exam and take the various vitals and what not that feeds into the AI? The AI then spits out a diagnosis that a doctor reviews...but why does a licensed MD have to be present for the first physical exam?

In an ER situation, you may have a doctor and you hook the patient up to the various machines that will transmit data to an AI program which quickly sifts through the data and gives a diagnosis. Again, a doctor will have to sign off...but it will make 1 doctor 5x more productive (hence, reducing the number of doctors needed on staff).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

+1
It matters.
And for top tier law and top med too.
And Rhodes and Furman pipelines.
And on and on.
People without students there cannot fathom the resources of these elite schools.

Rhodes and Furman have pipelines to The Street? Since when? Bucknell, yes...

No, elite ivy/plus schools are pipelines to getting Rhodes, Furman as well as to top law, top med and yes as OP shows, wall street. The point is even for the many students who do not want top banking or consulting, elite schools are pipelines to the top in many different areas. Undergrad matters for getting to the top of many fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

What jobs will be alive? Finance?

Healthcare

Think again. Many first tier doctors like family doctors, allergy doctors, etc. might lose job.

With little bit more of advancement, I would trust AI more than human primary care doctors.

You clearly know nothing about the practice of medicine. AI cannot do physical exams. The physical exam is how every diagnosis starts. Even psychiatric ones need a good exam to rule out other causes . AI is not replacing medical doctors. Scribing/note generation and other nuisances of medical practice, yes. So we can see more patients. And have better margins in primary care, and get salaries closer to our surgical peers. And thus pay for ivy/T10 for our kids.

Maybe I am missing something...but couldn't a nurse or someone much cheaper than a doctor actually do the first physical exam and take the various vitals and what not that feeds into the AI? The AI then spits out a diagnosis that a doctor reviews...but why does a licensed MD have to be present for the first physical exam?

In an ER situation, you may have a doctor and you hook the patient up to the various machines that will transmit data to an AI program which quickly sifts through the data and gives a diagnosis. Again, a doctor will have to sign off...but it will make 1 doctor 5x more productive (hence, reducing the number of doctors needed on staff).

You are missing a lot. Nurses have no detailed physical exam training. They do not have the years of practice in med school and residency. A Nurse Practitioner can only diagnose the most common conditions, but they often miss the rare diagnoses, which is why they have doc backup. Even in primary care, they are not as good as the fresh out of residency docs until they have worked 20 yrs in the field. Physical examination and interpretation of findings is how you know which labs to order. There isnt an all button: you cannot just order all. Humans are not cars, you cannot plug us up to a computer and tell what is wrong. It takes the exam and the points of pain and the specific findings then used to figure out what studies are needed. Even something as simple as diagnosing appendicitis in a primary care clinic is hard for nurse practitioners. They havent done years in the hospital and seen patient after patient with a variety if ailments and memorized all the different ways the same disease shows in different people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

+1
It matters.
And for top tier law and top med too.
And Rhodes and Furman pipelines.
And on and on.
People without students there cannot fathom the resources of these elite schools.

Rhodes and Furman have pipelines to The Street? Since when? Bucknell, yes...

I suspect they meant pipelines to the Rhodes Scholarship

Yes thank you. I have a kid applying so I am used to the shortened lingo. Their T10 is insanely thorough and committed to having each applicant have the best shot possible. It is an entire team that helps each student. No wonder they get so many .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is that Wall Street will hire from any college that has qualified applicants. Useless lists like this just show us where the highest number of smart people who want to work with money are.

My second is that useless lists like this unnecessarily add to the anxiety of teenagers and parents by implying that it matters a whole lot which college you attend if you want certain jobs. It' doesn't.

Wall Street firms don't even recruit at many colleges -- have you heard of target and non-target. I'm sorry, but where you go to college does matter for finance (IB and consulting) jobs.

They recruit where they do because that's where the greatest concentration of smart people with an interest in IB are located. It's efficient. It would be a stupid business decision, though, to refuse to look at applications from qualified applicants who went elsewhere. So yes, you're more likely to see a recruiter on campus at some places vs. others, but it doesn't give you a leg up on people with similar or superior skills from less known colleges.

As I mentioned above, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan Chase), went to Tufts. The CEO of Bank of America's investment branch went to Colgate. The CEO of Schwab went to Ohio U. The CEO of Fidelity went to Hobart and William Smith. Vanguard's chief investment officer went to Penn State and is in charge of a team that manages over 7 TRILLION dollars in assets. None of these people are going to let the name on the diploma get in the way of hiring talent.

If they recruited only for smart kids then Tufts, Georgia tech, Northeastern, Pomona etc would have made the list.

Nice job sneaking Northeastern in there.

Northeastern is ranked #6 and #9 per capita for Tech placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech

It's also ranked #14 and #12 per capita for Engineering placement.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-engineering

Texh and Engineering doesn't care about prestige

Maybe.
They definitely care about smart kids.

Tech is dying anyway.

Don't tell that to OpenAI, Anthropic and the hundreds of AI companies raking in the VC money right now.

AI is why tech jobs will be dead.

What jobs will be alive? Finance?

Healthcare

Think again. Many first tier doctors like family doctors, allergy doctors, etc. might lose job.

With little bit more of advancement, I would trust AI more than human primary care doctors.

You clearly know nothing about the practice of medicine. AI cannot do physical exams. The physical exam is how every diagnosis starts. Even psychiatric ones need a good exam to rule out other causes . AI is not replacing medical doctors. Scribing/note generation and other nuisances of medical practice, yes. So we can see more patients. And have better margins in primary care, and get salaries closer to our surgical peers. And thus pay for ivy/T10 for our kids.

Maybe I am missing something...but couldn't a nurse or someone much cheaper than a doctor actually do the first physical exam and take the various vitals and what not that feeds into the AI? The AI then spits out a diagnosis that a doctor reviews...but why does a licensed MD have to be present for the first physical exam?

In an ER situation, you may have a doctor and you hook the patient up to the various machines that will transmit data to an AI program which quickly sifts through the data and gives a diagnosis. Again, a doctor will have to sign off...but it will make 1 doctor 5x more productive (hence, reducing the number of doctors needed on staff).

You are missing a lot. Nurses have no detailed physical exam training. They do not have the years of practice in med school and residency. A Nurse Practitioner can only diagnose the most common conditions, but they often miss the rare diagnoses, which is why they have doc backup. Even in primary care, they are not as good as the fresh out of residency docs until they have worked 20 yrs in the field. Physical examination and interpretation of findings is how you know which labs to order. There isnt an all button: you cannot just order all. Humans are not cars, you cannot plug us up to a computer and tell what is wrong. It takes the exam and the points of pain and the specific findings then used to figure out what studies are needed. Even something as simple as diagnosing appendicitis in a primary care clinic is hard for nurse practitioners. They havent done years in the hospital and seen patient after patient with a variety if ailments and memorized all the different ways the same disease shows in different people.

You may be correct...but if you have a kid that is starting college in the Fall and plans to go to medical school and you are not paranoid about how this may impact a medical career in 10 years (after undergrad, med school, residency)...I think that is naive.

I think the people that best understand how to use AI in their profession (no matter what it may be), are the ones that will be in the highest demand.