Wall Street Placement 2024 update

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which do you think you would have more chance at Wall Street

Business/Econ/CS/Math at NYU

vs

Business/Econ/CS/Math at Emory

Depends if it's Stern or not. Emory is the more prestigious school so for econ, CS, and Math it's Emory. NYU Stern is different so NYU for business.

Another delusional shameless Emory person.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/economics-rankings
Undergrad one only shows for premium, so this is for grad, but not much difference.
NYU Econ: #11
Emory Econ: #53

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/16lnder/us_news_2024_ranking_of_best_undergraduate/
Undergrad CS
NYU: #40
Emory #63

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/applied-mathematics-rankings
Best math
NYU: #2
Emory: Need I say more?

Emory people please wake the F up already

Yet NYU still didn't make the adjusted ranking now did it? NYU grads do not get the same jobs Emory grads do.
Despite being in New York and Emory in Atlanta. Emory grads make more.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search?page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc&search=Emory%20University
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc&search=New%20York%20University

Emory is also just ranked. NYU boosters need to get over it.

I would love to see them exclude Tisch, the School of Social Work, Steinhardt, and the College of Nursing. NYU would leapfrog up the list. I am certain that *Stern* grads get better jobs than Emory grads.

(Not a big NYU booster here - my son didn't even apply - but well familiar with Stern!)

Sure but exclude Emory humanities majors too.
If we look at just CS, Emory grads still make more 133k vs 129k. Again most NYU grads stay in the Northeast. Emory is more prestigious get over it.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?139658-Emory-University&fos_code=1107&fos_credential=3
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?193900-New-York-University&fos_code=1101&fos_credential=3

[Anonymous]

DC said: "So this is the list of schools to avoid?"

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

[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.

You know there are employees at nvidia who did not go to a top tier, right?

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

Not in AI/ML section. Low level programming, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

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.

Tech never dies. It just evolves. The country with the best technology and science is usually the most powerful.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

Not in AI/ML section. Low level programming, absolutely.

Your kids have to start somewhere, and AI will not hire like FAANG did 5-10 years ago.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

already happening to tech…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which do you think you would have more chance at Wall Street

Business/Econ/CS/Math at NYU

vs

Business/Econ/CS/Math at Emory

Depends if it's Stern or not. Emory is the more prestigious school so for econ, CS, and Math it's Emory. NYU Stern is different so NYU for business.

Another delusional shameless Emory person.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/economics-rankings
Undergrad one only shows for premium, so this is for grad, but not much difference.
NYU Econ: #11
Emory Econ: #53

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/16lnder/us_news_2024_ranking_of_best_undergraduate/
Undergrad CS
NYU: #40
Emory #63

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/applied-mathematics-rankings
Best math
NYU: #2
Emory: Need I say more?

Emory people please wake the F up already

Yet NYU still didn't make the adjusted ranking now did it? NYU grads do not get the same jobs Emory grads do.
Despite being in New York and Emory in Atlanta. Emory grads make more.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search?page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc&search=Emory%20University
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc&search=New%20York%20University

Emory is also just ranked. NYU boosters need to get over it.

I would love to see them exclude Tisch, the School of Social Work, Steinhardt, and the College of Nursing. NYU would leapfrog up the list. I am certain that *Stern* grads get better jobs than Emory grads.

(Not a big NYU booster here - my son didn't even apply - but well familiar with Stern!)

Sure but exclude Emory humanities majors too.
If we look at just CS, Emory grads still make more 133k vs 129k. Again most NYU grads stay in the Northeast. Emory is more prestigious get over it.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?139658-Emory-University&fos_code=1107&fos_credential=3
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?193900-New-York-University&fos_code=1101&fos_credential=3

So overall seems like peer schools.
Prestige factor is negligible.
It's a matter of personal preference and priorities.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

It sounds like the tech folks will be replacing the finance folks.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

It sounds like the tech folks will be replacing the finance folks.

Yep, finance jobs are increasingly being filled with recent CS, math, physics and engineering grads.

[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:

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.

Managed care and being replaced by NPs and PAs was supposed to take away and ruin our jobs in med school 25 yrs ago. Then Obamacare was going to ruin it and make us all poor and out of date like some of the European health care systems. None of that happened. Medicine adapts. I am not concerned because i am in the field and have been around long enough to know adaptability is key and we will always be in demand. I own my practice. I have seen a lot over the years.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

I love how you just can't wrap your head around what is happening:

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.

[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.

This will happen to tech before it happens to finance!

Not in AI/ML section. Low level programming, absolutely.

Your kids have to start somewhere, and AI will not hire like FAANG did 5-10 years ago.

Tech is cyclical. AI/ML is still somewhat in its infancy, but even the FAANG are investing heavily in it right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You know there are employees at nvidia who did not go to a top tier, right?

Yes, and people get expensive degrees and go nowhere, too. But as a student or a parent, you can tailor the choice to your situation. You do not need to find something that works for everyone else.