Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Isn't the Oxbridge monopoly on IB ridiculous?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attainflair)
    All of this is all nice, but it won't happen in reality. These are where contacts come in, it's not about how much you know by who you know.
    And Banking isn't? You'll find it easier to get a job in FTSE100 Strat or Ops than in IB.

    Law, how? Doing a GDL? That's a dead-end, there's already a mass excess in supply of Lawyers with LLBs, nevermind GDLs.
    You get a TC before you do the GDL

    Consultancy, is even worse than IB, they favour the target universities even more. All I am saying is when people do Economics degree, they want to work in the city or be a professional Economist, they have an interest in that career path. That's what I am saying.
    So what if Consultancy is worse with regards to target universities? It is still a popular alternative for economics students at the top universities.

    What I am saying is that Banks don't care that you've done an economics degree. They don't see that as showing an interest in the career path. Also Banking is not the only sector in the City.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attainflair)
    Economics exposes you to the city-life far more than any other degree and does give you a selective advantage, even if people with anecdotal evidence here will say otherwise.
    Just no. What you may have seen is that there are more Economics graduates in the City than those of any other discipline. That doesn't mean they had an advantage when applying for jobs, it just means there are far more Economics students applying for positions in these sectors than Physics or English Lit graduates.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attainflair)
    All of this is all nice, but it won't happen in reality. These are where contacts come in, it's not about how much you know by who you know.

    Law, how? Doing a GDL? That's a dead-end, there's already a mass excess in supply of Lawyers with LLBs, nevermind GDLs.

    Consultancy, is even worse than IB, they favour the target universities even more. All I am saying is when people do Economics degrees, they want to work in the city or be a professional Economist, they have an interest in that career path. That's what I am saying and the point I am disagreeing with you about.

    Economics exposes you to the city-life far more than any other degree and does give you a selective advantage, even if people with anecdotal evidence here will say otherwise.
    Go into teaching. You can rep your degree for years and years there....and talk about the "city-life"
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePauper)
    Go into teaching. You can rep your degree for years and years there....and talk about the "city-life"
    :rofl:
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobG93)
    Why does doing a back-to-back BSc then Masters course matter in terms of employing them?

    (Original post by BigFudamental)
    This is a bit of an odd veto criterion.
    Several reasons, firstly most of these people if they had previously applied using their undergrad and didn't get in, then there was probably a reason beyond their academics that they didn't get in and it is rather unlikely then showing a Masters would change that.

    Secondly, vast majority of Masters are mostly academic, very few entry level jobs at graduate level actually requires this and generally a Masters doesn't really indicate any transferable skills that is useful to IB. Generally most IBs don't put people who are over-qualified for a job for various policy and personnel reasons. The other issue, the department of the IB I work for last year spent US$23mil on academic and research, most of it went to faculty members at various Ivy League institutions.... if these IBs can afford to pay your profs for that type of work, it is rather unlikely your Masters would teach you anything that the IB would need.

    Thirdly, many IBs today are facing a lot of political pressure, this is especially so in UK where it is seen to be a very elitist area, hiring someone who has a Masters most likely paid for by daddy or mummy's scholarship will almost immediately skew their statistic that they had hired an individual from a wealthy family.

    Finally, as the person hiring these people, firstly I have to consider, if I give you a position as a junior analyst, you are going to tell me that you have a Masters in one way or another that you would want more money than a junior analyst who is joining us without one.... I must then decide whether you are worth the money (which you aren't) and if you are asking for the same money I must consider whether or not you're essentially using my dept as a way to gain experience and later jump ship... jumping ship does cost my dept lots of money because the amount I pay in salaries is just 20% of your actual cost, the trainings and guidance etc also cost my department lots of money....and in today's economic climate it is not money I can waste.

    Though not officially a reason, quite often people especially the senior ones in IB tend to have very big egos.... now I may have a great associate who reports to me, he may have just a Bachelors from a regular Russell Group Uni, he is great at his job.... I place a junior analyst under him who has a Masters say from Cambridge.... now if this Masters analyst start acting as if he knows everything (because he came from Oxford) when he actually knows nothing, it does become a rather tricky situation and eventually I will get a report from that associate that this analyst isn't suitable so either transfer out or don't retain...... if that happens in the middle of a headcount freeze (which is very typical at many American IBs) the whole dept will be left short staffed.... not something we could afford these days.

    Hope that answers it for you.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Herr)
    Several reasons, firstly most of these people if they had previously applied using their undergrad and didn't get in, then there was probably a reason beyond their academics that they didn't get in and it is rather unlikely then showing a Masters would change that.

    Secondly, vast majority of Masters are mostly academic, very few entry level jobs at graduate level actually requires this and generally a Masters doesn't really indicate any transferable skills that is useful to IB. Generally most IBs don't put people who are over-qualified for a job for various policy and personnel reasons. The other issue, the department of the IB I work for last year spent US$23mil on academic and research, most of it went to faculty members at various Ivy League institutions.... if these IBs can afford to pay your profs for that type of work, it is rather unlikely your Masters would teach you anything that the IB would need.

    Thirdly, many IBs today are facing a lot of political pressure, this is especially so in UK where it is seen to be a very elitist area, hiring someone who has a Masters most likely paid for by daddy or mummy's scholarship will almost immediately skew their statistic that they had hired an individual from a wealthy family.

    Finally, as the person hiring these people, firstly I have to consider, if I give you a position as a junior analyst, you are going to tell me that you have a Masters in one way or another that you would want more money than a junior analyst who is joining us without one.... I must then decide whether you are worth the money (which you aren't) and if you are asking for the same money I must consider whether or not you're essentially using my dept as a way to gain experience and later jump ship... jumping ship does cost my dept lots of money because the amount I pay in salaries is just 20% of your actual cost, the trainings and guidance etc also cost my department lots of money....and in today's economic climate it is not money I can waste.

    Though not officially a reason, quite often people especially the senior ones in IB tend to have very big egos.... now I may have a great associate who reports to me, he may have just a Bachelors from a regular Russell Group Uni, he is great at his job.... I place a junior analyst under him who has a Masters say from Cambridge.... now if this Masters analyst start acting as if he knows everything (because he came from Oxford) when he actually knows nothing, it does become a rather tricky situation and eventually I will get a report from that associate that this analyst isn't suitable so either transfer out or don't retain...... if that happens in the middle of a headcount freeze (which is very typical at many American IBs) the whole dept will be left short staffed.... not something we could afford these days.

    Hope that answers it for you.
    This comment should be a sticky for all the next 100 "Will a masters give me the edge" threads
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eldedu)
    I've found a recurring theme on this forum to be that if you have a degree from Oxbridge, you can find yourself a job in IB, whether your degree's in archaeology or veterinary sciences. Meanwhile, a degree in finance or economics from a uni outside the top five offers much less promising chances of employment in the industry.

    There seem to be be two philosophies at work here:

    1.) The non-Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we will take only the brightest, hardest-working and best qualified graduates of the most relevant subjects, and only a few of these. Now considering the high compensation that exists in the industry, fair enough. But...

    2.) The Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we want bright people (a 2:1 will do) with a varied skillset and considering how much of one's job is learnt whilst actually doing it or through specific training it doesn't much matter what they've studied and can even be an asset if it's unorthodox for the industry. However, this will apply almost exclusively to Oxbridge graduates.

    Now, either Oxbridge are head and shoulders above other universities in every aspect (head and shoulders and torso even) or this is a ridiculous double standard. I'm not complaining because I'm an Oxbridge reject interested in IB and feel shut out. I know employment is a buyers market and if an employer decides they're more intersted in a third class grad from southbank than me that's their full right. What irritates me about it is that surely it can't be beneficial to IB itself?

    A first class degree from a Russell Group outside the "top five" implies a certain level of personal ability, commitment and good teaching. Likewise, I don't believe the same philosophy is applied to the rest of the top five, which again seems odd. Is my understanding of the situation warped? Is there a good reason for this dichotomy? To be fair I know very little about the whole issue, but from my limited perspective it seems ridiculous.

    I'm not trying to make a point, just asking for opinions and further information.
    Out of interest, what, to you, are the "top five"?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Does that include a 4 year undergrad course where you'd leave with an undergraduate masters (like an MPhys, MEng, MMath, etc.), or just to a postgraduate masters degree?

    I ask because I'm starting a 4 year "Physics with Theoretical Physics (MSci)" degree next year at Imperial but want to go into IB afterwards. This wouldn't get my CV put in the shredder, would it?
    he's full of crap

    find one graduate from a continental university at an investment bank WITHOUT a masters (well obv you can find one but ask around) and I'll be amazed

    obviously a straight after BSc masters doesn't hurt...

    edit: i think switzerland MIGHT be an exception to this, ie people with bscs start applying for full time jobs, but definitely not the case in most countries
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePauper)
    This comment should be a sticky for all the next 100 "Will a masters give me the edge" threads
    shame its a massive load of bull**** tho


    (Original post by Teenage Pirate)

    edit: i think switzerland MIGHT be an exception to this, ie people with bscs start applying for full time jobs, but definitely not the case in most countries
    don't think it is. they're more german than they'd like to admit.
    If i remember correctly Pictet, a swiss bank, had a Masters as an explicit requirement for their London grad scheme.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Herr)
    ...
    So what about those of us who attended a Russell Group and want to pursue a Masters to add a brand name to their CV, as well as follow the subject they love a bit further?

    Those who have no problem with being bossed by a 15 year old, provided he's there on merit, and whom expect no extra salary for the MPhil next to their name?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stilo)
    Out of interest, what, to you, are the "top five"?
    I don't even know, the five unis bandied about on this forum constantly

    Oxbridge ICL LSE and Warwick I believe?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Herr)
    For the most part we don't give priority to anyone from any particular institution. There are a few things that would get your CV thrown into the shredder almost immediately and for sure the person in HR would get a good sounding from me if I see such garbage of a CV, these are :-

    A CV that shows a back-to-back Bachelor and Masters, the only exception is a MBA from either a top 20 uni.

    A CV that has zero work experience, I rather see you've worked at a McDonald's flipping burgers than one that shows you've been scrounging on mummy or social security.

    A CV that is more than 2 pages long.

    A CV that contains grammatical or spelling errors of any kind.

    The last time I did recruitment was for 2011/12, I had an allocation of 16 heads for the London office and 4 for the office in Switzerland.

    For the Swiss office, 1 was sent from the US HQ, she graduated from Princeton and went through the graduate training scheme. The remaining 3 were selected from Swiss institutions including one who was recommended by one of my MBA instructors.

    For the London office, 4 were sent from the US HQ, these were all British citizens and they were either from Princeton or Harvard. We had no say on these as they were pushed on by US HQ.

    The remaining 12, 3 were graduates from USA. 4 were graduates of Cambridge and UCL. 3 graduated from unis in EU countries, 1 each from various Russell Group uni. Their CV's were selected from the pool of candidates who had completed our internship program and whose names remained on our "to offer" list.

    An Oxbridge degree alone won't net you a job, even if it is a 1st. It is very rare that a graduate entry level position is an "academic" type position unless it is one which involves lots of calculations or research. We tend to look for candidates with the right attitude, good references especially from their supervisors and above all one that can think on their feet, on the go and out of the box..... remember in IB many things can change in .2 secs and you need to be able to react and solve the issue without it becoming a bigger problem.
    This seems like solid cv advice for employment in any industry, I'll be taking it into account.

    Pos repped for the detail and info.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SW1X)
    wtf are you on about? You completely misinterpreted my post. He was having a rant about oxbridge and he got rejected from oxbridge, I was putting the two together. Was not having a go at York or PPE at all.

    Anyway, I couldn't really give two Sh1ts. Have a nice day Sir.
    If you still think this is the case after I actually invested my time and effort into clarifying it to you earlier, then not only are you delusional, you're also rude. And you certainly didn't read my post.

    Why would I rant about Oxbridge? I respect it so much I've invested serious amounts of my time, ability and money into trying to study there. The fact that I wasn't able to if anything increases my regard for the standard of the people they do accept.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moritzplatz)
    for maths at least, ucl and durham syllabi are not even comparable to oxbridge one, not to mention that terms are a lot shorter
    i know it does not hold for subjects like PPE or EM but in that case you needed to work hard in order to get in. once you are in you're halfway (maybe more?) done.
    Why are they not comparable?

    UCL Maths is pretty good?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Herr)
    x.
    Hi there,

    sorry to go off topic but please may you go back to my HK thread and help answer a couple of questions?

    Cheers
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eldedu)
    I've found a recurring theme on this forum to be that if you have a degree from Oxbridge, you can find yourself a job in IB, whether your degree's in archaeology or veterinary sciences. Meanwhile, a degree in finance or economics from a uni outside the top five offers much less promising chances of employment in the industry.

    There seem to be be two philosophies at work here:

    1.) The non-Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we will take only the brightest, hardest-working and best qualified graduates of the most relevant subjects, and only a few of these. Now considering the high compensation that exists in the industry, fair enough. But...

    2.) The Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we want bright people (a 2:1 will do) with a varied skillset and considering how much of one's job is learnt whilst actually doing it or through specific training it doesn't much matter what they've studied and can even be an asset if it's unorthodox for the industry. However, this will apply almost exclusively to Oxbridge graduates.

    Now, either Oxbridge are head and shoulders above other universities in every aspect (head and shoulders and torso even) or this is a ridiculous double standard. I'm not complaining because I'm an Oxbridge reject interested in IB and feel shut out. I know employment is a buyers market and if an employer decides they're more intersted in a third class grad from southbank than me that's their full right. What irritates me about it is that surely it can't be beneficial to IB itself?

    A first class degree from a Russell Group outside the "top five" implies a certain level of personal ability, commitment and good teaching. Likewise, I don't believe the same philosophy is applied to the rest of the top five, which again seems odd. Is my understanding of the situation warped? Is there a good reason for this dichotomy? To be fair I know very little about the whole issue, but from my limited perspective it seems ridiculous.

    I'm not trying to make a point, just asking for opinions and further information.
    From my recruiting experience, the Oxbridge candidates tend to be less impressive in person than their CVs indicate.

    They tend to start the interviews assuming they can do away with the preliminaries, when in fact when asked basic questions, ended up struggling!

    Especially in engineering when graduates from Imperial far outshone Oxbridge, possibly owing to the practical nature of their degree course or strong links with industry.

    As for banking, quant related positions, the Continental students are first class, especially with their wide subject knowledge, both technical and products. Obviously this has something to do with their better training at uni, combining practical skills and hard-core theory.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)
    Why are they not comparable?

    UCL Maths is pretty good?
    the syllabus is a lot shorter, at least for first years!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hackett)
    Hi there,

    sorry to go off topic but please may you go back to my HK thread and help answer a couple of questions?

    Cheers
    instead of listening to this guy, why not listen to the people who are telling you that there are almost no "BSc only" analysts from continental universities in investment banks and therefore this guy is full of crap
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The reason for not hiring a MSc holder for an entry position cause they may want more than a mere BSc graduate is to me not convincing.

    After all , I bet most MSc's will not complain as the whole reason was to land the job in the first place - they will be aware that they will start at the same level as a BSc.

    No, I think it a prejudice vs MSc, for whatever reason legit or not.

    I also noticed that most non Oxbridge high fliers tend to come from non UK unis; usually US ones.

    BTW, the work load at Oxbridge IS much larger than the chasing pack easily - for any essay based module, I think they have an essay a week per module.

    It's no way the same in Durham, ICL, LSE: they haven't got the staff for it, remember Oxbridge is much better funded.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eldedu)
    I've found a recurring theme on this forum to be that if you have a degree from Oxbridge, you can find yourself a job in IB, whether your degree's in archaeology or veterinary sciences. Meanwhile, a degree in finance or economics from a uni outside the top five offers much less promising chances of employment in the industry.

    There seem to be be two philosophies at work here:

    1.) The non-Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we will take only the brightest, hardest-working and best qualified graduates of the most relevant subjects, and only a few of these. Now considering the high compensation that exists in the industry, fair enough. But...

    2.) The Oxbridge graduate philosophy: we want bright people (a 2:1 will do) with a varied skillset and considering how much of one's job is learnt whilst actually doing it or through specific training it doesn't much matter what they've studied and can even be an asset if it's unorthodox for the industry. However, this will apply almost exclusively to Oxbridge graduates.

    Now, either Oxbridge are head and shoulders above other universities in every aspect (head and shoulders and torso even) or this is a ridiculous double standard. I'm not complaining because I'm an Oxbridge reject interested in IB and feel shut out. I know employment is a buyers market and if an employer decides they're more intersted in a third class grad from southbank than me that's their full right. What irritates me about it is that surely it can't be beneficial to IB itself?

    A first class degree from a Russell Group outside the "top five" implies a certain level of personal ability, commitment and good teaching. Likewise, I don't believe the same philosophy is applied to the rest of the top five, which again seems odd. Is my understanding of the situation warped? Is there a good reason for this dichotomy? To be fair I know very little about the whole issue, but from my limited perspective it seems ridiculous.

    I'm not trying to make a point, just asking for opinions and further information.
    Because not many (if any) people on this forum are actually investment bankers. And even investment bankers might not have much idea why they got selected.
Updated: July 12, 2012
New on TSR

SQA results day chat

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.