Wall Street Placement 2024 update

[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

Prestigious to who? I don’t think anyone is thinking about Emory in the Northeast. Same as they don’t consider UVA prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

clearly, you don’t work on Wall Street. You have to look at the department and title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

Filter for US.

Then take out all the back office/support/engineering titles.
You don’t get the big bucks for those roles - it’s almost like being in an entirely different company.

Sure you work for a bank, but you’re doing that inside. Infrastructure work. Not client facing at all. Very little mobility to become a managing director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

Filter for US.

Then take out all the back office/support/engineering titles.
You don’t get the big bucks for those roles - it’s almost like being in an entirely different company.

Sure you work for a bank, but you’re doing that inside. Infrastructure work. Not client facing at all. Very little mobility to become a managing director.

Yep. Lots of “cost-center” roles listed. Not what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

Please -- do you understand these job titles? You really think Goldman Sachs -- which has a lower acceptance rate than Harvard overall -- is dumpster diving a some non-target schools? You clearly know nothing about the Wall Street recruitment process so stop mentioning Jamie Dimon's college, Vanguard CEO's college, and back office Goldman schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

Please -- do you understand these job titles? You really think Goldman Sachs -- which has a lower acceptance rate than Harvard overall -- is dumpster diving a some non-target schools? You clearly know nothing about the Wall Street recruitment process so stop mentioning Jamie Dimon's college, Vanguard CEO's college, and back office Goldman schools.

not to mention that the whole purpose of that page is to show the "diversity" of their hiring. These are outliers (and few US Investment Bankers which is what we are talking about)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

"Jack" looks exhausted

[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!

already happening to tech…

AI isn't like some genie that's been let out of the bottle to eliminate all software engineering jobs. Work will change. The bar will be raised, and software engineers will use more powerful tools to make better solutions and tackle more business problems. Personally, I think there will be *more* software engineering jobs, not less.

Spreadsheets didn't eliminate accountants. High level languages (e.g., C/C++, etc.) didn't eliminate programmers. All of these tools enabled the same set of people to accomplish more with less and improved productivity.

[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!

already happening to tech…

AI isn't like some genie that's been let out of the bottle to eliminate all software engineering jobs. Work will change. The bar will be raised, and software engineers will use more powerful tools to make better solutions and tackle more business problems. Personally, I think there will be *more* software engineering jobs, not less.

Spreadsheets didn't eliminate accountants. High level languages (e.g., C/C++, etc.) didn't eliminate programmers. All of these tools enabled the same set of people to accomplish more with less and improved productivity.

Not the purpose of this thread. Move along.

[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!

already happening to tech…

AI isn't like some genie that's been let out of the bottle to eliminate all software engineering jobs. Work will change. The bar will be raised, and software engineers will use more powerful tools to make better solutions and tackle more business problems. Personally, I think there will be *more* software engineering jobs, not less.

Spreadsheets didn't eliminate accountants. High level languages (e.g., C/C++, etc.) didn't eliminate programmers. All of these tools enabled the same set of people to accomplish more with less and improved productivity.

Tech will be first to automate and use their own products. Client/customer-facing jobs that service clients that are businesses or individuals with a lot of wealth will at least have a shot of sticking around and interpreting the AI output. But everyone will have to evolve to some extent. But I wouldn't want to be a coder: demand will plummet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

clearly, you don’t work on Wall Street. You have to look at the department and title.

And we're supposed to believe you do work on Wall Street and are posting on an anonymous college discussion board all throughout the trading day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ignore all those insisting you must attend an elite college to work on Wall Street and take a look at the evidence that some companies provide on their websites. Here's Goldman Sachs' page introducing some of their employees.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/meet-our-people/

Take a look at their bios, many of which include the colleges they attended, and you'll see the truth.

clearly, you don’t work on Wall Street. You have to look at the department and title.

Exactly. Most of these jobs might as well be Equities in Dallas.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else wondering why anyone cares about a list put together by people who profit off of the anxieties of students and their parents?

Anyone else wondering if it's members of their team who are so insistent on this thread that you need to go to a college that they are happy to take thousands of dollars to help you figure out how to get into?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else wondering why anyone cares about a list put together by people who profit off of the anxieties of students and their parents?

Anyone else wondering if it's members of their team who are so insistent on this thread that you need to go to a college that they are happy to take thousands of dollars to help you figure out how to get into?

Why are you so determined to believe it's not true?