MBA Myth

My school (MBA) definitely wasn’t top 5 - maybe top 25? While I was there I remember everyone complaining - myself included - that you needed to go to Harvard, Wharton, etc. to land a good job in finance. While this may substantially increases your odds, I don’t think this is the only reason these folks are landing these jobs.
Case in point: I went to a career functions and spoke with an alumnus of my school who landed an investment banking gig at a smaller shop a couple of years back. Anyway, he told me how everyday they get 2 to 3 cold calls from top 5 b-schools guys looking for jobs. He mentioned that they hardly ever gets calls from our school, even though our school has two alumnus working there.
My point is - are top 5 guys landing jobs because of their CV or because they are pounding the pavement harder? Probably a combination of both.
 
So you’re telling me that if you got an MBA from Yale (19th ranked), you’d have a much tougher time getting into say Merrill’s I-banking program than someone from Harvard… c’mon, no way.
I’m not saying school snobbery doesn’t exist… clearly it’s harder to get into Goldman if you went to a lower ranked school. But, it still happens all the time, particularly if you have a good network.
 
I’m sorry, it’s true. There are not “tons” of people at Blackstone in top front office roles who went any where other than top 3. In fact, almost everyone in the profiles of private equity professionals went to Harvard. So it’s not even top 3, it’s top 1. If you have compelling evidence to contradict this, then please, by all means, post it. Otherwise, the facts stand. Check it out for yourself.
When firms post job listings and require TOP schools (I don’t know why they always capitalize it, but whatever), it means top 5 or 10. That is not my opinion – I have spoken to numerous recruiters who have confirmed this. If you didn’t go to Ivy + Stanford + MIT + a few others, you are not even on the radar (I’m referring to undergrad here but the same applies at the MBA level).
In fact, I challenge you to find a website of a top firm that has profiles suggesting that even a significant amount of non-M7 or top 10 grads work there in meaningful front office roles. I’m not talking about one or two, since someone always has an uncle in the business or something really unique (there is a guy at Blackstone from U of Delaware, but that’s because he has really unique airline experience that they apparently couldn’t find anywhere else).
I’ve researched this extensively while trying to debunk the “myth” myself, but the “myth” is actually pretty accurate.
jlx177 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “But you aren’t eligible for a TOP job, either,
> and you never will be.”
>
> Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard… There are so many
> holes in this statement I can’t even bring myself
> to post a retort.
>
> By the way, there are tons of people at Blackstone
> don’t have an MBA from a top 3 b-school.
 
jlx177 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So you’re telling me that if you got an MBA from
> Yale (19th ranked), you’d have a much tougher time
> getting into say Merrill’s I-banking program than
> someone from Harvard… c’mon, no way.
This is absolutely true.
 
I go to a top ten school, but one that is not really known for its finance program. I think that you can get a great education at any of the top 50 schools or so. However, I would really try to get as complete of picture as possible of the recruiting scene at your school, especially if you go full time.
If you’re interested in banking, I think that probably any school in the top 15 is fine. You’ll see a lot (at least 10 banks) of recruiting at these schools. No idea what the banking scene is like outside of the top 15, but if they don’t recruit on-campus, it’s going to be really tough.
IM can be little bit more selective. Less on-campus recruiting that corp finance and banking.m Some sleepy mutual funds only recruit at the top 3-5. They tend to recruit where the current employees went to school. So for my summer internship, the only reason they came to my school was because they have two alumni in my group. But nearly everyone else in my group is from Wharton and Chicago, and really nowhere else.
PE is also very selective, but I think this requires a more specific work background–banking. If you weren’t a banker before school, you’ll have to work really hard to get into PE.
Hedge funds are varied. The big names tend to recruit where the current employees went to school. However, the smaller funds often don’t recruit on-campus, which means it’s a big benefit if you can go to school somewhat near them. So schools near the major financial centers are good. Also, the smaller funds will often look for part time help during the school year, which can be a great way to get your foot in the door. So to do this, you’ll need to live nearby the fund.
Don’t know too much about corporate finance.
Again, you can get a great education at a lot of schools. But before shelling out the money, get an honest view of the recruiting at the school, because it does make a difference.
 
wch239 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> SMU is not ranked higher than UT Austin
This is where the rankings become questionable. I do not have an MBA yet, but I have trouble believing that there is a big difference in quality of education between full time and part time programs but maybe I’m wrong. The reason I say this is because on the most recent Businessweek rankings for Part Time programs SMU was ranked 13 and UT ranked 30, but full time UT was ranked 10 and SMU unranked (they only did top 25).
How can one be so far ahead in one ranking and the other in the other ranking? Aren’t the majority of classes and professors the same?
Also as a graduate from SMU as an undergrad, I find that SMU’s reputation is not that strong in the northeast where I live now, but it is very strong in Texas. Also I would like to echo what Kevinf12 said. The networking at SMU is unbelievable. Lots of rich kids there that are obviously well connected. The number of people I knew with private jets is almost embarrassing. The Economist ranked SMU’s Cox School of Business #1 in the US and #7 in the World for “Potential to Network” in 2005.
 
jlx177 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So you’re telling me that if you got an MBA from
> Yale (19th ranked), you’d have a much tougher time
> getting into say Merrill’s I-banking program than
> someone from Harvard… c’mon, no way.
Yes, they’d have a much tougher time. Have you seen the campus recruiting at Harvard versus the recruiting at Yale at the business school level? The programs are very different.
 
MT327, The sense I get is that SMU is well-known down in Texas, but in other parts of the country, the UT-Austin name can go pretty far. I don’t know how the academics compare between the two schools – like all other schools, I’ve heard good and bad – but one thing that’s true about UT-Austin is that it is a HUGE school and by the sheer number of people there, there’ll be many opportunities to network. I’ll also say that campus recruiting at Austin/McCombs is broader than SMU, based on the number of fellow analysts and associates I worked with who came from UT-Austin (several) versus SMU (none).
 
What I was really trying to get at is that ranking schools is an inherently flawed system. I agree that on campus recruiting (at least at the undergrad level) was nothing special at SMU, but I felt like everyone’s father at the school was a CEO somewhere. This made finding jobs for the majority of us relatively easy. I would imagine at the MBA level this effect would only be magnified. Bottom Line: If you want to live in Dallas or Houston SMU is an excellent school. If you want to work on Wall Street, UT is probably a better option.
 
If you’re fine not working for Goldman or Blackstone, a top 50 school will give you the opportunity. On the other hand, if you have your sites set only on the top of the top, stick to a top 3 school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top