- Joined
- 10/20/13
- Messages
- 3
- Points
- 13
1) Reputation creates selectivity. There are simply more qualified people applying to Columbia (for example) than to Baruch, just for the brandname of the program. Same thing goes for Princeton, Berkeley, etc... So, in these kind of schools (Ivy types, well known domestically and abroad), you'll get better students who on average will perform better in interviews and therefore will get placed more easily to better positions.
I don't blame Baruch for trying to break the cycle: increasing their reputation through this ranking (which is the only one available?) and getting better applicants to little by little improve the quality of their cohorts.
But I'm not sure it's very fair to somehow misguide prospective applicants who don't have their foot in the door yet by telling them Baruch is the 2nd program in the country. Where I work (top tier bank) , it's simple, you have mainly NYU, Columbia and UCB MFE grads in quant positions (plus tons of PhDs). I think I talked to one Baruch intern once, no clue if he got an offer. I don't think there's one Baruch alum on my floor. I'm not saying there are absolutely no Baruch alumns in top banks, I'm just saying there aren't a lot of them compared to the other top programs. Baruch has great placement statistics but do they place their students in as "good" positions as the other top programs ?
2) I think if you look at the profiles from UCB/Princeton/Columbia students vs Baruch students, you will see that the former have in general much better profiles/CV. For example, at these programs, Indian students will mainly come from IIT, French students will come from the best "Grandes Ecoles", you'll see domestic students with very good undergrads / sometimes PhD from very good schools, etc... They are just better students on average and that's what banks/HF are looking for.
Being surrounded by very good students makes a big difference too. In terms of courses quality, I doubt there is much difference between all these programs, we all learn about the same stuff, we all have good teachers. But are you being as challenged intellectually by your classmates at Baruch than at Princeton ? I'm not so sure. That's another thing to consider.
I don't blame Baruch for trying to break the cycle: increasing their reputation through this ranking (which is the only one available?) and getting better applicants to little by little improve the quality of their cohorts.
But I'm not sure it's very fair to somehow misguide prospective applicants who don't have their foot in the door yet by telling them Baruch is the 2nd program in the country. Where I work (top tier bank) , it's simple, you have mainly NYU, Columbia and UCB MFE grads in quant positions (plus tons of PhDs). I think I talked to one Baruch intern once, no clue if he got an offer. I don't think there's one Baruch alum on my floor. I'm not saying there are absolutely no Baruch alumns in top banks, I'm just saying there aren't a lot of them compared to the other top programs. Baruch has great placement statistics but do they place their students in as "good" positions as the other top programs ?
2) I think if you look at the profiles from UCB/Princeton/Columbia students vs Baruch students, you will see that the former have in general much better profiles/CV. For example, at these programs, Indian students will mainly come from IIT, French students will come from the best "Grandes Ecoles", you'll see domestic students with very good undergrads / sometimes PhD from very good schools, etc... They are just better students on average and that's what banks/HF are looking for.
Being surrounded by very good students makes a big difference too. In terms of courses quality, I doubt there is much difference between all these programs, we all learn about the same stuff, we all have good teachers. But are you being as challenged intellectually by your classmates at Baruch than at Princeton ? I'm not so sure. That's another thing to consider.
) will complain anyway.
