What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy helps you get into Old Money oriented clubs.

No. Entry into a very selective school will never really get you into Old Money clubs. It's all based on who your parents are. Now if you become a social climber who marries into an old money family and for the years until your divorce and they remarry, you will get to wear the name and be inside the club. But a divorce puts you firmly on the outer circle again.

You can't get into Old Money circles just by going to the same schools.

That’s bygone. It used to be Greenwich. It’s now been over taken by all the new money hedgies. The characters on “Your Friends and Neighbors” remind me of what has moved into all those formerly old $ towns. They mowed down a lot of the old estates too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

What research?

[Anonymous]

It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

That is not how it works at either of DC's ivies. MBB recruits on campus and often targets certain majors for certain events, others are open to all undergrads. There are direct contacts the students can follow up with. Physics, Engineering, Math get a lot of love from MBB. Almost none are athletes in these concentrations/majors. Finance and consulting clubs are 100% not needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

Feel free to provide a link

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

You really don’t see it though, or at least you see it through a very myopic lens.

There was an article from almost 10 years ago in the WSJ calling college athletes on Wall Street an endangered species. Computerizing and quanting everything has changed the make up of trading floors and banking divisions. Athletes are increasingly pushed into wealth management and private banking, a distinction which is of course not understood on DCUM.

You sound like you’ve never heard of on-campus recruiting. It’s how most of these people are getting hired these days. Clubs can help with this but they rarely monopolize it. And these days these firms recruit at large publics, privates outside of Ivy Plus, etc. Not everywhere but that list is probably 30 or so schools long, not “Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs.”

Again, a heavily out of date view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

You really don’t see it though, or at least you see it through a very myopic lens.

There was an article from almost 10 years ago in the WSJ calling college athletes on Wall Street an endangered species. Computerizing and quanting everything has changed the make up of trading floors and banking divisions. Athletes are increasingly pushed into wealth management and private banking, a distinction which is of course not understood on DCUM.

You sound like you’ve never heard of on-campus recruiting. It’s how most of these people are getting hired these days. Clubs can help with this but they rarely monopolize it. And these days these firms recruit at large publics, privates outside of Ivy Plus, etc. Not everywhere but that list is probably 30 or so schools long, not “Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs.”

Again, a heavily out of date view.

+1

[Anonymous]

Another day older and deeper in debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

You really don’t see it though, or at least you see it through a very myopic lens.

There was an article from almost 10 years ago in the WSJ calling college athletes on Wall Street an endangered species. Computerizing and quanting everything has changed the make up of trading floors and banking divisions. Athletes are increasingly pushed into wealth management and private banking, a distinction which is of course not understood on DCUM.

You sound like you’ve never heard of on-campus recruiting. It’s how most of these people are getting hired these days. Clubs can help with this but they rarely monopolize it. And these days these firms recruit at large publics, privates outside of Ivy Plus, etc. Not everywhere but that list is probably 30 or so schools long, not “Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs.”

Again, a heavily out of date view.

+1

If the list is 30 schools long, and let's face it, it includes basically the top 20 private National colleges, plus at least like 5 top SLACs...that only leaves room for like 5 state schools, and only the top ones.

So, let's face it...if you want to be a target for recruiting you need to be at a UVA, Michigan, UCB type school. It's a short list of flagships.

BTW, WSJ published an article from January of this year that companies are back to only recruiting at top schools:

The hiring trend for new graduates resembles recruiting practices before the pandemic and the tight labor market of 2018 and 2019, researchers who have focused on entry-level hiring say. Most now recruit only at up to 30 American colleges out of about 4,000, starting with top-ranked schools and then looking at local universities, said William Chichester III, who has spent years directing entry-level recruiting at companies including Target and Peloton.

McKinsey is “recommitting to a high-touch process” by hosting in-person events and the chance to meet alumni who work at the consulting firm to students at a shortlist of about 20 core schools, said Blair Ciesil, a partner who oversees recruiting. McKinsey doesn’t want large numbers of students from other schools to apply because most would be rejected, which wouldn’t benefit them or the firm, Ciesil said. Instead, recruiters will use AI to find students on noncore campuses who have similar profiles to McKinsey’s star hires, she said. That could mean the same major or similar extracurricular activities, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

Wait, alumni from highly selective undergraduate programs are overrepresented among physicians? That's...not surprising at all. Also not surprising is that you've convinced yourself your undergrad degree makes you superior to everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

That is not how it works at either of DC's ivies. MBB recruits on campus and often targets certain majors for certain events, others are open to all undergrads. There are direct contacts the students can follow up with. Physics, Engineering, Math get a lot of love from MBB. Almost none are athletes in these concentrations/majors. Finance and consulting clubs are 100% not needed.

Come back in a couple of years and let us know how that works out. There are many threads on DCUM and articles in other places about the stress of getting into top clubs at the Ivies to have a decent shot at IB and MBB. I am sure that some make it through because some make it through from non-targets as well but it isn't the norm. Tell yourself otherwise if you would like but then take a good look at who gets the spots in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

You really don’t see it though, or at least you see it through a very myopic lens.

There was an article from almost 10 years ago in the WSJ calling college athletes on Wall Street an endangered species. Computerizing and quanting everything has changed the make up of trading floors and banking divisions. Athletes are increasingly pushed into wealth management and private banking, a distinction which is of course not understood on DCUM.

You sound like you’ve never heard of on-campus recruiting. It’s how most of these people are getting hired these days. Clubs can help with this but they rarely monopolize it. And these days these firms recruit at large publics, privates outside of Ivy Plus, etc. Not everywhere but that list is probably 30 or so schools long, not “Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs.”

Again, a heavily out of date view.

Thank you for actually proving the point. Ivy+ along with a small set of Elite SLACs is about 20 schools. Add in NYU, Fordham, CMC, regionals like BYU, SMU, UT, USC, etc. and the top publics and you are done. There are 4000 schools in the country. On campus recruiting is critical but its not an open cattle call. On site recruiting is a huge advantage for kids at Williams, Middlebury, CMC, Amherst. Far less competition for spots, much easier to get attention at recruiting events. Resumes are screened and kids invited, if the clubs didn't matter kids wouldn't be so stressed about gaining admission.

You might think my view is out of date, but it isn't. I'm downstream form this stuff (PE on the West Coast) but I see many kids who are going through or went through including one of my own and in the end I'm pretty confident of my POV.