do econ major / nescac athletes land same jobs..

[Anonymous]

Do the women lax players from those schools have the same Wall St outcomes as their male counterparts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean Wall Street and IB type jobs? If so, this analysis may be helpful:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-banking/

The site includes all the Ivies along with NESCACs Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Hamilton and Bowdoin. I'm not sure about the athletic component of this though.

That list is of limited use. Because there is a bias for bigger schools. And it doesn't differentiate the types of jobs. Baruch is high up the list and they do get jobs at banks. But there is a difference between a glorified bank teller and M&A at Goldman. Note that there are kids from Baruch who do end up in pretty high level jobs. But most are mid-office. And there is no shame in that. But it isn't what Harvard alums are gunning for.

If you think that the ‘Middlebury Mafia’ isn’t real you’re clueless. Williams, Amherst, and CMC also outperform half of the Ivies without breaking a sweat.

Lighten up, Francis. When did I say any of those things? Your reading comprehension skills stink. If anything, I was saying that small schools like those are largely under-ranked because they have fewer students, which should not be a penalizing factor.

I wrote incredibly purposefully and clearly. People are looking for reasons to get angry and just end up showcasing their stupidity. No job on Wall Street for you or your children (except in the mailroom or the cafeteria).

You wrote clearly, but you don't appear to have read the entirety of the site on which you based your comment (no offense intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean Wall Street and IB type jobs? If so, this analysis may be helpful:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-banking/

The site includes all the Ivies along with NESCACs Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Hamilton and Bowdoin. I'm not sure about the athletic component of this though.

That list is of limited use. Because there is a bias for bigger schools. And it doesn't differentiate the types of jobs. Baruch is high up the list and they do get jobs at banks. But there is a difference between a glorified bank teller and M&A at Goldman. Note that there are kids from Baruch who do end up in pretty high level jobs. But most are mid-office. And there is no shame in that. But it isn't what Harvard alums are gunning for.

If you think that the ‘Middlebury Mafia’ isn’t real you’re clueless. Williams, Amherst, and CMC also outperform half of the Ivies without breaking a sweat.

Lighten up, Francis. When did I say any of those things? Your reading comprehension skills stink. If anything, I was saying that small schools like those are largely under-ranked because they have fewer students, which should not be a penalizing factor.

I wrote incredibly purposefully and clearly. People are looking for reasons to get angry and just end up showcasing their stupidity. No job on Wall Street for you or your children (except in the mailroom or the cafeteria).

If you think that the kids from Williams, Midd, Amherst, and Bow are heading to mid-office jobs you are even dumber than your previous post.

You’re right, no IB for me. I’ve had a successful exit, spent time in PE and now do a bit of EIR work to keep busy. Mostly done by 50 with wealth that you will never approach. It’s a nice life.

OK, hot shot. You continue to prove your stupidity. I very clearly was referring to Baruch kids as those who go to mid-office. Not the SLAC kids. I know that is not the case. I have the utmost respect for those schools - probably more respect than 90% of the morons who post on DCUM and have no idea what they are. Ironic that we are probably more aligned than most people here yet you keep coming after me for no apparent reason other than that you can't read.

But thanks for the humblebrag.

Reread your post. I misread your intent. My apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the women lax players from those schools have the same Wall St outcomes as their male counterparts?

Female athletes. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean Wall Street and IB type jobs? If so, this analysis may be helpful:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-banking/

The site includes all the Ivies along with NESCACs Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Hamilton and Bowdoin. I'm not sure about the athletic component of this though.

That list is of limited use. Because there is a bias for bigger schools. And it doesn't differentiate the types of jobs. Baruch is high up the list and they do get jobs at banks. But there is a difference between a glorified bank teller and M&A at Goldman. Note that there are kids from Baruch who do end up in pretty high level jobs. But most are mid-office. And there is no shame in that. But it isn't what Harvard alums are gunning for.

If you think that the ‘Middlebury Mafia’ isn’t real you’re clueless. Williams, Amherst, and CMC also outperform half of the Ivies without breaking a sweat.

Lighten up, Francis. When did I say any of those things? Your reading comprehension skills stink. If anything, I was saying that small schools like those are largely under-ranked because they have fewer students, which should not be a penalizing factor.

I wrote incredibly purposefully and clearly. People are looking for reasons to get angry and just end up showcasing their stupidity. No job on Wall Street for you or your children (except in the mailroom or the cafeteria).

If you think that the kids from Williams, Midd, Amherst, and Bow are heading to mid-office jobs you are even dumber than your previous post.

You’re right, no IB for me. I’ve had a successful exit, spent time in PE and now do a bit of EIR work to keep busy. Mostly done by 50 with wealth that you will never approach. It’s a nice life.

OK, hot shot. You continue to prove your stupidity. I very clearly was referring to Baruch kids as those who go to mid-office. Not the SLAC kids. I know that is not the case. I have the utmost respect for those schools - probably more respect than 90% of the morons who post on DCUM and have no idea what they are. Ironic that we are probably more aligned than most people here yet you keep coming after me for no apparent reason other than that you can't read.

But thanks for the humblebrag.

Reread your post. I misread your intent. My apologies.

However I could not let “No job on Wall Street for you or your children (except in the mailroom or the cafeteria).” go without a response. I have been extremely fortunate in my career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean Wall Street and IB type jobs? If so, this analysis may be helpful:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-banking/

The site includes all the Ivies along with NESCACs Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Hamilton and Bowdoin. I'm not sure about the athletic component of this though.

That list is of limited use. Because there is a bias for bigger schools. And it doesn't differentiate the types of jobs. Baruch is high up the list and they do get jobs at banks. But there is a difference between a glorified bank teller and M&A at Goldman. Note that there are kids from Baruch who do end up in pretty high level jobs. But most are mid-office. And there is no shame in that. But it isn't what Harvard alums are gunning for.

Precisely. Ivy kids want the top, and often have a better shot at getting it. Athletics does not play into the TOP roles they seek

That's wrong. Do you guys just make stuff up? I would say that more than 50% of the people I've interacted with at Goldman (as a client) were college athletes. This is just either cope, mendacity, or ignorance.

https://www.aol.com/articles/athletes-key-hiring-pool-goldman-090102072.html

https://fortune.com/2026/02/22/meet-retired-olympic-champions-second-careers-goldman-sachs-no-financial-expertise-office-experience/

I mean 80% of their recent CEOs were proud college athletes.

"It is a way to differentiate yourself," Jacqueline Arthur, Goldman's head of human capital management, previously told Business Insider about why athletes are compelling applicants. "These qualities are not just transferable but powerful and directly applicable to the dynamic environment of financial services."

And, it isn't just Goldman. Finance is filled to the gills with athletes from top schools. It is a well known thing in finance.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/data-backed-advantage-hiring-student-athletes-don-philabaum-oehrc


“Athletes understand what it means to be part of a team. They are disciplined, competitive, and they know how to handle pressure. Those are the people you want in your organization. " --Jamie Dimon

So, if you had any industry experience, you would know this is a phenomenon.

I don’t get the IB obsession with athletes? Is it just a dude bro thing that makes them feel good? Genuinely, so many ways to show grit, teamwork, and working through failure beyond sports. It feels like such a narrowly tailored definition of success

I am sure you don't get it. But employers do. They compete.

[Anonymous]

OP - you're a dum* a** to make lifetime decisions based on how an anonymous board responds, especially when you have real figures from the IRS at your fingertips, e.g., IRS tax returns by college and degree, via collegescorecard.ed.gov. As the IRS will confirm, uh, no, few, if any, colleges can match Ivy econ degree salaries.

[Anonymous]

NESCAC schools are relics of a bygone era. Excuding Williams, the rest are irrelevant compared to the big boys of the Ivies and Duke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NESCAC schools are relics of a bygone era. Excuding Williams, the rest are irrelevant compared to the big boys of the Ivies and Duke.

Someone’s kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NESCAC schools are relics of a bygone era. Excuding Williams, the rest are irrelevant compared to the big boys of the Ivies and Duke.

Isn’t Williams D3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the women lax players from those schools have the same Wall St outcomes as their male counterparts?

What a sexist question. We’re all just people, aren’t we? Let’s all just, you know, coexist, like the bumperstickers say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the women lax players from those schools have the same Wall St outcomes as their male counterparts?

Take it one step further: do non-athlete, Asian women from Williams and Amherst have the same Wall St outcomes as their white counterparts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NESCAC schools are relics of a bygone era. Excuding Williams, the rest are irrelevant compared to the big boys of the Ivies and Duke.

Isn’t Williams D3?

Yes, but your question seems to be a non sequitur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NESCAC schools are relics of a bygone era. Excuding Williams, the rest are irrelevant compared to the big boys of the Ivies and Duke.

Someone’s kid didn’t get in.

An incredibly weak line when they are worse

[Anonymous]

“Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that, upon other fields, on other days, will bear the fruits of victory."

Douglas MacArthur
Superintendent, United States Military Academy at West Point
1920