Snapshot 2009 first year programs' stats Watch

Teenage Pirate
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 9 years ago
#41
(Original post by AlexCash)
Why the bitter tone? Don't you study a mickey mouse degree that they don't even offer there?
Right, and how many spring weeks did he get? And a first year summer internship?
0
reply
AlexCash
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 9 years ago
#42
(Original post by Teenage Pirate)
Right, and how many spring weeks did he get? And a first year summer internship?
That wasn't actually what I inferred. But anyway, the goal is the grad job. Everyone who is competent gets there.

Nothing beats the Oxbridge degree on the CV.

It's amusing to see some of the bitter responses on this thread.
0
reply
SevenDeuceOff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#43
Report 9 years ago
#43
Once you actually get a job on a trading floor or in IBD, you'll realise that nobody gives a toss about whose uni is better or more respected, and nobody has a chip on their shoulder denying Oxbridge are still the best in the UK (at the moment).

Also, spring week stats are quite frankly, a joke. These programmes are designed to recruit from a wider, more "diverse" range of sources...
0
reply
LegallyBlonde2.0
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 9 years ago
#44
....
0
reply
Teenage Pirate
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 9 years ago
#45
(Original post by AlexCash)
That wasn't actually what I inferred.
To quote Lisa Simpson: "I infer, you IMPLY"
(and you're supposed to finish that off with Homer's reply of "thank you honey")
0
reply
rboogie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 9 years ago
#46
(Original post by SevenDeuceOff)
Once you actually get a job on a trading floor or in IBD, you'll realise that nobody gives a toss about whose uni is better or more respected, and nobody has a chip on their shoulder denying Oxbridge are still the best in the UK (at the moment).

Also, spring week stats are quite frankly, a joke. These programmes are designed to recruit from a wider, more "diverse" range of sources...

This is very true. Frankly, when I interview, I don't care all that much about the education - it helps a little, but I'm mostly looking for character, hunger, passion and broad sense of knowledge. That's how I would hire and therefore it doesn't matter to me as much the university.

This goes to my point that anyone can get into a bank if they show passion, drive and hunger. What we do is not rocket science and as long as the degree is reasonably good, then we're fine. There are some position that require a polished look, so Oxbridge does well in this accord (or, public school kids) but these are few and far between. I want street smarts - this is stockbroking at all levels, and in the markets, this is crucial to being successful. Obviously again depends on the desk, but for anything market related, have decent maths skills, a solid education and hunger. I guarantee that you will impress an interviewer with this background.
0
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 9 years ago
#47
It bears repeating that Cambridge students are possibly the most lackadaisical people about their careers of the lot, until they get to graduation year and start panicking into applying. So as has been said there's probably a skew away from Oxbridge in these numbers that gets redressed in grad numbers.

Also, dunno about other courses but you can't begin to compare Cambridge maths to X uni maths. Take like for like schedule parts in Warwick and cam, we cover the material in 5 hours of lectures and they cover it in 30.

It's also a bit odd whoever said 'you don't need to be a rocket scientist' etc etc. It's not like there's some minimum threshold of intelligence and whoever's above that performs exactly the same regardless of how far above they are - from my experience the utility of being smart and sharp is in no way capped.
0
reply
rboogie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 9 years ago
#48
(Original post by ClickItBack)
It bears repeating that Cambridge students are possibly the most lackadaisical people about their careers of the lot, until they get to graduation year and start panicking into applying. So as has been said there's probably a skew away from Oxbridge in these numbers that gets redressed in grad numbers.

Also, dunno about other courses but you can't begin to compare Cambridge maths to X uni maths. Take like for like schedule parts in Warwick and cam, we cover the material in 5 hours of lectures and they cover it in 30.

It's also a bit odd whoever said 'you don't need to be a rocket scientist' etc etc. It's not like there's some minimum threshold of intelligence and whoever's above that performs exactly the same regardless of how far above they are - from my experience the utility of being smart and sharp is in no way capped.

I think you are confounding my point - have an infinite amount of knowledge doesn't mean that our jobs in finance are particularly hard. Certainly, the point also I am making is that we are not looking necessarily for the most technically minded applicants -because they are not always the best brokers. Remember the quote by Warren Buffett in his latest annual report - "Beware of geeks bearing calculators." This was in reference to the derivatives implosion that happened in the city.

The more intelligent you are, the better- but being successful requires fierce intelligence, reasonable technical ability (again, depending on the desk), fantastic interpersonal skills, unrelenting hunger and dedication. No one can work the hours we do without these skills. That's why the dropout rate is so high.
0
reply
invicta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 9 years ago
#49
Just to give a bit of an LSE perspective in this debate (seems to be dominated so far by oxb and warw and ucl):

A fair amount of people did apply (sorry no idea about numbers). A fair few of my friends did get spring internships. (Hence I do question the source of the spring week statistics). Lots (myself included) didnt even get interviews. Why? I really have no clue. Maybe because we generally seem not as eloquent on paper than our peers at other places? There is a feeling among some of the LSE Econ Dept staff, that the intake of 2008, just seemed slightly less 'bankerish' and more 'social' than other years- maybe we're just a stupid intake year. I know personally I applied too late for my own good, probably didnt do too well on the tests, and i wasnt really anywhere near polished enough as many of my counterparts both at LSE and not- so im not very sore about being rejected straight off.

The thing is, there are lots of very very talented people at LSE who didnt even get invited to interview at many banks- people who essentially live, work , breathe Banking. Thus I think the banks (excl GS) were looking at people who wanted to become more interested in banking this year, compared with those already interested.

I also agree with the honorary member that said that banks didnt really care about who they hired this year. There was a rumour that was going round that somebody went to an interview at a BB and the only question they asked him was a) What languages he/she spoke - starting with English?... and b) What modules he/she was doing at LSE? This person was given an intership. Its a fairly reliable source of gossip :P , so yeah...crazy.

Before, it was common for LSE students to end up with multiple spring interships, now its hard to even get one. The (very understaffed) LSE careers service seems to just encourage students to apply else where tbh- and the staff there dont give very much support to help measly first years, they're too worried about the grads and 3rd years to care. In all honesty, I am slightly taken aback by the above stats, but I just hope me turning down my (easier) UCL offer wasnt a mistake.
0
reply
greenyblue_eyes
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report 9 years ago
#50
The standard of University education isn't an indicator of the number of people from each one that go for a spring week. A lot of it to do is with how aware students are of the IB recruitment process, or have the desire that getting into IB is the be all and end all of life.

I know someone at Durham who did 4 spring weeks. I however, didn't know they existed and only really started seriously looking at a job in IB around jan of my penultimate year, thus didn't get onto an IB internship. Now going for grad jobs, I know of 3 people from Durham at the Citi first round sales and trading interview. There were 2 in my session with only one from each of Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, and a French Uni (one other as well I didn't catch the uni of).

Do Durham get more kids into IB than LSE? No. Do you need to have gone to LSE/UCL/Imperial/Warwick/Oxbridge to get into IB? Evidently no.

And to all the bs about whether oxbridge/warwick/wherever is more work. Oxbridge, clearly. It isn't the whole tutorial thing that makes it so demanding, we've a similar system at my uni in terms of them being compulsory and small classes, but more the standard of work they're expected to produce in tutorials. It is hard. Having said that, it doesn't seem to matter at all in the big scheme of things.
0
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#51
Report 9 years ago
#51
(Original post by rboogie)
I think you are confounding my point - have an infinite amount of knowledge doesn't mean that our jobs in finance are particularly hard. Certainly, the point also I am making is that we are not looking necessarily for the most technically minded applicants -because they are not always the best brokers. Remember the quote by Warren Buffett in his latest annual report - "Beware of geeks bearing calculators." This was in reference to the derivatives implosion that happened in the city.

The more intelligent you are, the better- but being successful requires fierce intelligence, reasonable technical ability (again, depending on the desk), fantastic interpersonal skills, unrelenting hunger and dedication. No one can work the hours we do without these skills. That's why the dropout rate is so high.
(Original post by rboogie)
This goes to my point that anyone can get into a bank if they show passion, drive and hunger.
I don't get it. So does being more intelligent matter for job performance or not?

I think what you're trying to say is that 'book smarts doesn't itself improve job performance' but that's obvious. I'm not disputing that taking the top 10 Cambridge mathmos and putting them on a book straightaway is a recipe for disaster - but it's a little weird to keep bringing up the passion, hunger etc and pretend being sharp as nails isn't a huge boon. The former you develop as you get into the job, the latter's much harder to improve. And generally speaking your educational background is a pretty good proxy for your thinking skills.
0
reply
rboogie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 9 years ago
#52
(Original post by ClickItBack)
I don't get it. So does being more intelligent matter for job performance or not?

I think what you're trying to say is that 'book smarts doesn't itself improve job performance' but that's obvious. I'm not disputing that taking the top 10 Cambridge mathmos and putting them on a book straightaway is a recipe for disaster - but it's a little weird to keep bringing up the passion, hunger etc and pretend being sharp as nails isn't a huge boon. The former you develop as you get into the job, the latter's much harder to improve. And generally speaking your educational background is a pretty good proxy for your thinking skills.
Ok, to be clear - you need a minimum standard of book smarts. That's why hiring is dominated by Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/Cass/Warwick/UCL. That is generally the standard level of intelligence. However, I would not be against hiring someone not from these universities at all - it just depends on the applicant. We assess very much on a case by case basis.

In addition, you need to be hungry and driven. This almost matters as much, and that is why we are loathe to just put academics in a linear form as the proxy for hiring.

Ultimately, we require a combination of talent - to me, when I hire, i look for a solid educational background (but it doesn't have to astrophysics at Caltech), market sense, passion and hunger. This is what I mean when I say anyone can make it to work in a bank - our work requires many skills, and as long as you show these attributes, you will be in greater stead with a recruiter. Hiring is an art in some ways, especially when you start interviewing with Associates and MD's. I can tell pretty quickly (within about 30 seconds) whether someone will be a good broker. That's why we don't just look at book smarts exclusively, or previous experience either.

You need many skills to work in a bank, and that's why most applicants will not get hired - you need to be good at a lot of things otherwise you will definitely not be able to hack it based on the hours we do and stress we incur. That's why being well-rounded is as important as education.
0
reply
SevenDeuceOff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#53
Report 9 years ago
#53
Book-smarts are all very well and important, but they're no good to a bank if you don't have your head firmly screwed on. There are some utter geniuses on paper who unfortunately have a complete lack of common sense or street-smarts, and/or are poor decision-makers; this is why there seems to be such an emphasis on "well-roundedness".
0
reply
ElemenT'
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 9 years ago
#54
rboogie and SevenDeuceOff have pretty much rapped this thread up.
0
reply
KK89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 9 years ago
#55
(Original post by invicta)
Just to give a bit of an LSE perspective in this debate (seems to be dominated so far by oxb and warw and ucl):

A fair amount of people did apply (sorry no idea about numbers). A fair few of my friends did get spring internships. (Hence I do question the source of the spring week statistics). Lots (myself included) didnt even get interviews. Why? I really have no clue. Maybe because we generally seem not as eloquent on paper than our peers at other places? There is a feeling among some of the LSE Econ Dept staff, that the intake of 2008, just seemed slightly less 'bankerish' and more 'social' than other years- maybe we're just a stupid intake year. I know personally I applied too late for my own good, probably didnt do too well on the tests, and i wasnt really anywhere near polished enough as many of my counterparts both at LSE and not- so im not very sore about being rejected straight off.

The thing is, there are lots of very very talented people at LSE who didnt even get invited to interview at many banks- people who essentially live, work , breathe Banking. Thus I think the banks (excl GS) were looking at people who wanted to become more interested in banking this year, compared with those already interested.

I also agree with the honorary member that said that banks didnt really care about who they hired this year. There was a rumour that was going round that somebody went to an interview at a BB and the only question they asked him was a) What languages he/she spoke - starting with English?... and b) What modules he/she was doing at LSE? This person was given an intership. Its a fairly reliable source of gossip :P , so yeah...crazy.

Before, it was common for LSE students to end up with multiple spring interships, now its hard to even get one. The (very understaffed) LSE careers service seems to just encourage students to apply else where tbh- and the staff there dont give very much support to help measly first years, they're too worried about the grads and 3rd years to care. In all honesty, I am slightly taken aback by the above stats, but I just hope me turning down my (easier) UCL offer wasnt a mistake.
It is still common for (LSE) students to land multiple spring programmes. Plenty people did this year. It's more down to the individual than the university and course.

I've met people from Manchester, Durham, Bath, Cass etc universities during the spring programmes this year - most of them, if not all are as good if not better than the students from Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/Warwick.

You obtain a job at IBs because they think you have the potential to make money for them. If you still have that job 2-3 years down the line then you are making money for the them. Your university and course do not matter when you land an internship or graduate position. What matters is your interest in the markets, willingness to learn and the hunger to be the best in the business. You will do quite well if you have those 3 qualities.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (314)
37.83%
No - but I will (64)
7.71%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.47%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (390)
46.99%

Watched Threads

View All