The “target school” culture is extremely toxic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finance person here on the buyside. Some of the target vs non target tiering is hardwired because on campus recruiting resources are finite.

But the other “basis” is the extent and depth of networks. A candidate can really benefit from having access to contacts that they went to school within the firm. For example, when i interview, I always ask candidates to pitch me a stock. I find it useful for distinguish kids that are truly interested in a life investing vs someone chasing an illusion. By titrating the depth of questions, I can pretty quickly figure out how deep someone is.

The Harvard and Wharton kids are actually practicing their pitch with younger alums in the firm and even customizing it for certain technical details I am known to go after. So, they not only have an advantage getting in the door, they have now created an edge in the active process.

We pride ourselves on meritocracy and I love finding hustlers from schools not on “the list”, but the network effect can be very challenging to beat.

Agree, this is my experience too. Would add that there is also a self-reinforcing cycle at schools where these companies recruit. The companies come to recruit, the school gets/hears feedback, it adjusts how it preps the kids, the companies recruit more heavily there because the kids seem prepared and competent, the school gets more feedback, more prepping, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plain and simple: The “target/non-target” school culture is extremely harmful to youth, arbitrary, and counterintuitive to the American dream. For those unfamiliar, “target” is the name given to the most popular schools among the wealthiest Americans, mainly HYPMS+ private schools. Then there are schools like Umich Ross, UVA commerce, which are supposedly the “best” business schools that will also place, but you must major in business while the Harvard people major in philosophy ( what makes a business school the “best” seems to be controlled by acceptance rate, which is in turn controlled by yield and popularity so it’s superficial in that sense). Lastly, the “target/non target” distinction is supposedly based on academics; however, strong academic schools are disregarded despite strong academic reputation if they never had a reputation for sending people into finance. U of Texas and U of Wisconsin are two of the strongest examples. By academic reputation, both of these schools are peers to UVa and Umich ( not necessarily exactly as good but they are in the same orbit). Nevertheless, a strong student from Wisconsin could get their resume ignored just by going to Wisconsin, while a student from UVa who didn’t work as hard could still get the job. Does that seem meritocratic? In conclusion, the “target/non target” distinction is one of the obstacles to the American dream. Prep kids who go to Harvard are the main beneficiaries of this system. It’s sad to see because there likely are qualified students from genuinely good academics institutions like Maryland, Wisconsin, or Purdue who will never break in because they didn’t come from money/connections.

I mean, I guess this is true if your dream is to be in 'finance'. People who make it to the top in finance are largely sociopaths anyway.

So, whatever.

This.

Burn it all down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are schools like Umich Ross, UVA commerce, which are supposedly the “best” business schools that will also place, but you must major in business while the Harvard people major in philosophy ( what makes a business school the “best” seems to be controlled by acceptance rate, which is in turn controlled by yield and popularity so it’s superficial in that sense). Lastly, the “target/non target” distinction is supposedly based on academics; however, strong academic schools are disregarded despite strong academic reputation if they never had a reputation for sending people into finance. U of Texas and U of Wisconsin are two of the strongest examples. By academic reputation, both of these schools are peers to UVa and Umich ( not necessarily exactly as good but they are in the same orbit). Nevertheless, a strong student from Wisconsin could get their resume ignored…

What? Wisconsin is not in the same league as UVA or Michigan/Ross. Just as the latter two are not in the same league as ivies/stanford +

Companies recruit where there is the highest likelihood of finding academically talented students.
It should be no surprise that ivies and a few more are the main targets.

OP is talking about academic reputation, that is the reputation of the professors and the departments of the schools. In this sense, Wisconsin, Michigan, and VA are all academic peers ( just look at the U.S. News department rankings across all subjects).

In theory, the best schools have the best professors which makes them the most desirable to attract the best students. The paradox is when a school has top departments, yet goes unrecognized. Wisconsin is clearly the foremost example of this phenomenon more than any other major university. Econ, Poly Sci, History, Math, Bio are all T10 or T15; yet, the yield for Wisconsin is remarkably low, signaling the student-market does not think too highly of its academic reputation.

As it turns out student yield is probably the best indicator of how the general public (including elite employers) view universities. Wisconsin is obviously not the only school like this; Purdue and CWRU are two other ones. But Wisconsin is by far the most well rounded and the most distinguished historically, making it the best example of what OP is talking about target schools being “arbitrary.”

There’s definitely some truth to this. Big disconnect between academic reputation and recruiting at some schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finance person here on the buyside. Some of the target vs non target tiering is hardwired because on campus recruiting resources are finite.

But the other “basis” is the extent and depth of networks. A candidate can really benefit from having access to contacts that they went to school within the firm. For example, when i interview, I always ask candidates to pitch me a stock. I find it useful for distinguish kids that are truly interested in a life investing vs someone chasing an illusion. By titrating the depth of questions, I can pretty quickly figure out how deep someone is.

The Harvard and Wharton kids are actually practicing their pitch with younger alums in the firm and even customizing it for certain technical details I am known to go after. So, they not only have an advantage getting in the door, they have now created an edge in the active process.

We pride ourselves on meritocracy and I love finding hustlers from schools not on “the list”, but the network effect can be very challenging to beat.

The network effect, as you describe, is not challenging to beat: come up with more creative questions which are less subject to gaming, and don’t claim “pride” in meritocracy when you have described the opposite.

[Anonymous]

One reasons that the “targets” outperform in post graduate finance outcomes, especially for the ultra-difficult to attain opportunities in HF’s and MF PE, is that they come from families with a one (and sometimes two) high level finance parents (who have been prepping their kids for HYPW from an early age). That in and of itself confers a massive networking advantage. Where you see this effect really manifest itself is the post freshman year internship, which then becomes a critical differentiator for recruiting processes that kick off in the sophomore year fall. Even within a target school, there are tiers where for a select few IB is actually a consolation prize rather than aspirational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One reasons that the “targets” outperform in post graduate finance outcomes, especially for the ultra-difficult to attain opportunities in HF’s and MF PE, is that they come from families with a one (and sometimes two) high level finance parents (who have been prepping their kids for HYPW from an early age). That in and of itself confers a massive networking advantage. Where you see this effect really manifest itself is the post freshman year internship, which then becomes a critical differentiator for recruiting processes that kick off in the sophomore year fall. Even within a target school, there are tiers where for a select few IB is actually a consolation prize rather than aspirational.

+1. Don't also forget the private schools that the same kids you are referencing went to, where the finance parents of classmates become invaluable nodes. I have a kid at HYP who talks about this tailwind being particularly prominent for predicting the distribution of early internships, especially summer between freshman and sophomore year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I passed through Madison recently and was quite impressed with the campus. I was not shopping for a college at the time. I just wanted to see it.

Flyover country (where I also live) is not considered cool right now. That's a prejudice based on some tough economic realities. Most of the Midwest flagships get some discounting because of location.

Of all of this, the thing I think OP most needs to challenge is the presumption that the American Dream is tied to working at a place like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. Based on my experience as an MBA from a top school, I think that's quite rebuttable. I started writing up some examples from my experience but it seemed a bit petty, so I think that's best left for OP to discover.

I bet there are Wisconsin undergrads with MBAs from other schools at these elite firms. The first step would be to try reaching out to them for advice.

Where exactly is “flyover” country? Is it east of the Appalachian mountains? It certainly is not used when talking about Ann Arbor, which is on eastern time. Does it start west of Detroit? But then there’s Chicago which is the greatest metropolitan area of the Midwest.

Was just listening to someone who thought Bloomington had an advantage over Madison due to its “proximity to Chicago”?? Even though Madison is significantly closer. The point is I don’t think anyone from DC knows anything about midwestern population dynamics or geography. The crappiest places of the Midwest are all on eastern time ( Indianapolis/Detroit/Cleveland/Gary).

[Anonymous]

Unless your goal is quant finance, the target school culture is pretty normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been saying this for a while. The toxic college competition stems from companies that hire only from certain colleges. If so-called top-tier firms like Goldman Sachs and McKinsey hired from a broader range of schools, there wouldn’t be as much crazy competition for the top 10-20 schools.

Frankly, it’s also very short sighted of them as there are lots of smart and great kids at all schools. Many kids can’t even consider applying to HPYSM due to finances.

BS. The schools that provide the best need-based financial aid all the way up to household incomes of around 250k are Princeton Penn Harvard and MIT.
S and Y and a couple of others are the next best with aid. 250k is top 5% ihousehold income in this country. if your family makes more than that you can afford to be full pay. Heck many of us are doing it now with under 250k due to starting college before the need-aid increased, or just missing out on aid.

The elite companies prefer to maximize their search efficiency by targeting about 12-15 schools. So be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I passed through Madison recently and was quite impressed with the campus. I was not shopping for a college at the time. I just wanted to see it.

Flyover country (where I also live) is not considered cool right now. That's a prejudice based on some tough economic realities. Most of the Midwest flagships get some discounting because of location.

Of all of this, the thing I think OP most needs to challenge is the presumption that the American Dream is tied to working at a place like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. Based on my experience as an MBA from a top school, I think that's quite rebuttable. I started writing up some examples from my experience but it seemed a bit petty, so I think that's best left for OP to discover.

I bet there are Wisconsin undergrads with MBAs from other schools at these elite firms. The first step would be to try reaching out to them for advice.

Where exactly is “flyover” country? Is it east of the Appalachian mountains? It certainly is not used when talking about Ann Arbor, which is on eastern time. Does it start west of Detroit? But then there’s Chicago which is the greatest metropolitan area of the Midwest.

Was just listening to someone who thought Bloomington had an advantage over Madison due to its “proximity to Chicago”?? Even though Madison is significantly closer. The point is I don’t think anyone from DC knows anything about midwestern population dynamics or geography. The crappiest places of the Midwest are all on eastern time ( Indianapolis/Detroit/Cleveland/Gary).

PP. Ann Arbor is west of Detroit. People tend to think Detroit is in Central time zone.
Some people erroneously argue that Pitt is in the Midwest, even though Pennsylvania is a Mid-Atlantic state.

I would say for Eastern Seaboard people and Californians, flyover country spans from about Vegas to Harrisburg, PA. It's the zone of "nobody goes there" and "doesn't matter to me". Yes, Chicago is included in "flyover country".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I passed through Madison recently and was quite impressed with the campus. I was not shopping for a college at the time. I just wanted to see it.

Flyover country (where I also live) is not considered cool right now. That's a prejudice based on some tough economic realities. Most of the Midwest flagships get some discounting because of location.

Of all of this, the thing I think OP most needs to challenge is the presumption that the American Dream is tied to working at a place like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. Based on my experience as an MBA from a top school, I think that's quite rebuttable. I started writing up some examples from my experience but it seemed a bit petty, so I think that's best left for OP to discover.

I bet there are Wisconsin undergrads with MBAs from other schools at these elite firms. The first step would be to try reaching out to them for advice.

Where exactly is “flyover” country? Is it east of the Appalachian mountains? It certainly is not used when talking about Ann Arbor, which is on eastern time. Does it start west of Detroit? But then there’s Chicago which is the greatest metropolitan area of the Midwest.

Was just listening to someone who thought Bloomington had an advantage over Madison due to its “proximity to Chicago”?? Even though Madison is significantly closer. The point is I don’t think anyone from DC knows anything about midwestern population dynamics or geography. The crappiest places of the Midwest are all on eastern time ( Indianapolis/Detroit/Cleveland/Gary).

Indianapolis has actually gotten quite nice and is having a bit of a moment. You sound like a bitter Wisconsinite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are schools like Umich Ross, UVA commerce, which are supposedly the “best” business schools that will also place, but you must major in business while the Harvard people major in philosophy ( what makes a business school the “best” seems to be controlled by acceptance rate, which is in turn controlled by yield and popularity so it’s superficial in that sense). Lastly, the “target/non target” distinction is supposedly based on academics; however, strong academic schools are disregarded despite strong academic reputation if they never had a reputation for sending people into finance. U of Texas and U of Wisconsin are two of the strongest examples. By academic reputation, both of these schools are peers to UVa and Umich ( not necessarily exactly as good but they are in the same orbit). Nevertheless, a strong student from Wisconsin could get their resume ignored…

What? Wisconsin is not in the same league as UVA or Michigan/Ross. Just as the latter two are not in the same league as ivies/stanford +

Companies recruit where there is the highest likelihood of finding academically talented students.
It should be no surprise that ivies and a few more are the main targets.

OP is talking about academic reputation, that is the reputation of the professors and the departments of the schools. In this sense, Wisconsin, Michigan, and VA are all academic peers ( just look at the U.S. News department rankings across all subjects).

In theory, the best schools have the best professors which makes them the most desirable to attract the best students. The paradox is when a school has top departments, yet goes unrecognized. Wisconsin is clearly the foremost example of this phenomenon more than any other major university. Econ, Poly Sci, History, Math, Bio are all T10 or T15; yet, the yield for Wisconsin is remarkably low, signaling the student-market does not think too highly of its academic reputation.

As it turns out student yield is probably the best indicator of how the general public (including elite employers) view universities. Wisconsin is obviously not the only school like this; Purdue and CWRU are two other ones. But Wisconsin is by far the most well rounded and the most distinguished historically, making it the best example of what OP is talking about target schools being “arbitrary.”

Correct. consequently the student body is not of the same level as UVA (and UVA's is not at the ivy+ level): top professors may be there but they cannot teach at the same pace and depth with a wisconsin student body. Companies know this and want to recruit at schools with the smartest students not the smartest professors. Frankly most T50 schools have very similar level of intelligence of professors, but talk to any of them who have taught at a T50ish and a T10 and they will be quick to tell you how they have to slow it down and change the format for the weaker student body. By the way law schools know this too and that is why top ones have algorithms for GPA that account for the rigor of the undergrad school and some have specific coursework included in that. Also why top med schools have a tier rating for undergrad (spouse is on a T10 med admissions committee and I am a lawyer who still has many contacts at my top school, DCUM likes to deny these truths but they are there). Undergrad rigor is small but not insignificant factor in admissions. It is no coincidence that a very similar group of schools is at the top for elite companies. That is why people chase the ivy+ universities plus the top 3-4 LACs: they have a self-propagating reputation for churning out well prepared students who navigated college surrounded by a highly competitive student body. Even a few years of TO that has now essentially ended is not enough to change anything: it is just a minor blip that makes course choice factor in slightly more when reviewing transcripts, and interviews matter more too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I passed through Madison recently and was quite impressed with the campus. I was not shopping for a college at the time. I just wanted to see it.

Flyover country (where I also live) is not considered cool right now. That's a prejudice based on some tough economic realities. Most of the Midwest flagships get some discounting because of location.

Of all of this, the thing I think OP most needs to challenge is the presumption that the American Dream is tied to working at a place like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. Based on my experience as an MBA from a top school, I think that's quite rebuttable. I started writing up some examples from my experience but it seemed a bit petty, so I think that's best left for OP to discover.

I bet there are Wisconsin undergrads with MBAs from other schools at these elite firms. The first step would be to try reaching out to them for advice.

Where exactly is “flyover” country? Is it east of the Appalachian mountains? It certainly is not used when talking about Ann Arbor, which is on eastern time. Does it start west of Detroit? But then there’s Chicago which is the greatest metropolitan area of the Midwest.

Was just listening to someone who thought Bloomington had an advantage over Madison due to its “proximity to Chicago”?? Even though Madison is significantly closer. The point is I don’t think anyone from DC knows anything about midwestern population dynamics or geography. The crappiest places of the Midwest are all on eastern time ( Indianapolis/Detroit/Cleveland/Gary).

Flyover country is basically the northeastern part of the country. It's what we have to fly over to get to Europe and back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plain and simple: The “target/non-target” school culture is extremely harmful to youth, arbitrary, and counterintuitive to the American dream. For those unfamiliar, “target” is the name given to the most popular schools among the wealthiest Americans, mainly HYPMS+ private schools. Then there are schools like Umich Ross, UVA commerce, which are supposedly the “best” business schools that will also place, but you must major in business while the Harvard people major in philosophy ( what makes a business school the “best” seems to be controlled by acceptance rate, which is in turn controlled by yield and popularity so it’s superficial in that sense). Lastly, the “target/non target” distinction is supposedly based on academics; however, strong academic schools are disregarded despite strong academic reputation if they never had a reputation for sending people into finance. U of Texas and U of Wisconsin are two of the strongest examples. By academic reputation, both of these schools are peers to UVa and Umich ( not necessarily exactly as good but they are in the same orbit). Nevertheless, a strong student from Wisconsin could get their resume ignored just by going to Wisconsin, while a student from UVa who didn’t work as hard could still get the job. Does that seem meritocratic? In conclusion, the “target/non target” distinction is one of the obstacles to the American dream. Prep kids who go to Harvard are the main beneficiaries of this system. It’s sad to see because there likely are qualified students from genuinely good academics institutions like Maryland, Wisconsin, or Purdue who will never break in because they didn’t come from money/connections.

I mean, I guess this is true if your dream is to be in 'finance'. People who make it to the top in finance are largely sociopaths anyway.

So, whatever.

There are many jobs within finance. Not all are toxic Wall Street bros.