Anonymous
08/20/2025 08:21
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's not what target means, OP.
Learn the lingo before posting.
The above poster is wrong; the OP is using the term "target" correctly.
Several readers fail to understand that terms, such as "target", have different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, context is key. OP provided none.
Agree. As another poster guessed, the thread starting post writer, the OP, might have written his/her post while drunk.
As another poster guessed, OP may have been drunk.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 07:58
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Anonymous wrote:AI will put all finance bros, stock brokers out of business.
Tell me you don’t work on WS without telling me.
“Stock brokers”? lol
Anonymous
08/20/2025 07:47
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's not what target means, OP.
Learn the lingo before posting.
The above poster is wrong; the OP is using the term "target" correctly.
Several readers fail to understand that terms, such as "target", have different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, context is key. OP provided none.
Agree. As another poster guessed, the thread starting post writer, the OP, might have written his/her post while drunk.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 07:30
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
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.
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.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 07:14
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
DC has 2 friends at Wisconsin, 1 at Berkeley and 2 at UCLA that had finance internships this summer at top Wall Street firms so I am not sure your theory holds.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 06:58
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
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.
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.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 06:34
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
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.
It's very meritocratic as UVa is harder to get into as you said. Having a higher GPA has less to do with intellect than having a higher SAT score. I known that bothers many of you but tough .
Anonymous
08/20/2025 06:24
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's not what target means, OP.
Learn the lingo before posting.
The above poster is wrong; the OP is using the term "target" correctly.
Several readers fail to understand that terms, such as "target", have different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, context is key. OP provided none.
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:14
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: THERE ARE TWO DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERM/WORDS "TARGET SCHOOL(S)"
1) The way it's commonly used on this forum to differentiate between schools with varying rates of admission: Safety/Likely, Target, Reach.
2) The way it's used to identify universities/programs where top financial institutions, consulting firms, etc., actively recruit new talent. They are all reach schools.
You are welcome.
1) The way it's commonly used on this forum to differentiate between schools with varying rates of admission: Safety/Likely, Target, Reach.
2) The way it's used to identify universities/programs where top financial institutions, consulting firms, etc., actively recruit new talent. They are all reach schools.
You are welcome.
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:14
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Anonymous wrote:AI will put all finance bros, stock brokers out of business.
+100
The first to go
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:14
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
This business crap is a trend. People that never would have ever thought about in the past are all caught up in it.
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:13
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
Never break in where?
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:13
Subject: Re:The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
AI will put all finance bros, stock brokers out of business.
Anonymous
08/19/2025 23:11
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
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.
Okay
Anonymous
08/19/2025 22:56
Subject: The “target school” culture is extremely toxic
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.”
Yes the arbitrariness is true to an extent. If people think, despite having no tangible reason, that UVa is better than Wisconsin, then they will yield thus making UVa more selective and prestigious. This cycle turns on itself, and thus the prestige of UVa seems somewhat artificial. This could be true of all rankings however. I say “to an extent” because it’s clear that some distinctions in prestige are accurate, like UVA/MSU or Wisconsin/Iowa.