What subject for investment banking?

If you've the pre-eminent initiative and perspicacity of intellect to acquit yourself in a field such as investment banking; all other considerations being equal, doesn't it stand to reason that you probably will have attended one of the above-mentioned?

Yours is analogous to that age-old fallacy perpetrated in relation to careers at the Bar, where graduates of Oxford and Cambridge yet prevail among the majority: suffice it to say that the sort of person that is capable of answering a call to the Bar will be typically (more) prevalent at Oxbridge, hence that its composition (in terms of alumni) should reflect this. It is inductive reasoning to infer from such, per se, that a graduate of Manchester or, say, Bristol would encounter discrimination more by virtue of their alma mater than the simple fact that those who satisfy the academic and intellectual pre-requisites for banking are statistically more likely to have attended Oxford, Cambridge, the L.S.E. et al by default. Had 'City Trader' attended Manchester, I imagine he'd still be where he is today; but then, how many people with his academic credentials would settle for Manchester?

All of which isn't to deny or to repudiate the legacy of the old boys' network (among other such 'connections', enjoyed by universities whose graduates permeate every facet of the industry); but your assertion does not hold water.

Thank you many of you for your kind private messages.

To conclude on this, I don't appreciate being called a liar without substantiation. I will defend myself if provoked. I'm not here to boast or gloat. I'm here to talk about finance. And that's it.

As an aside, a company came out with their christmas trading statement. As my first stock call, I was one of four teams in the country to get the call bang on. A fund manager called this morning and said our recommendation 'embarassed' some of the guys at GS and Citi. We also were more correct than the guys I'm supposed to be working with at Merrills. Now you can see why they've fast-tracked me through.

Thank you many of you for your kind private messages.

To conclude on this, I don't appreciate being called a liar without substantiation. I will defend myself if provoked. I'm not here to boast or gloat. I'm here to talk about finance. And that's it.

As an aside, a company came out with their christmas trading statement. As my first stock call, I was one of four teams in the country to get the call bang on. A fund manager called this morning and said our recommendation 'embarassed' some of the guys at GS and Citi. We also were more correct than the guys I'm supposed to be working with at Merrills. Now you can see why they've fast-tracked me through.

If you've the pre-eminent initiative and perspicacity of intellect to acquit yourself in a field such as investment banking; all other considerations being equal, doesn't it stand to reason that you probably will have attended one of the above-mentioned?

Yours is analogous to that age-old fallacy perpetrated in relation to careers at the Bar, where graduates of Oxford and Cambridge yet prevail among the majority: suffice it to say that the sort of person that is capable of answering a call to the Bar will be typically (more) prevalent at Oxbridge, hence that its composition (in terms of alumni) should reflect this. It is inductive reasoning to infer from such, per se, that a graduate of Manchester or, say, Bristol would encounter discrimination more by virtue of their alma mater than the simple fact that those who satisfy the academic and intellectual pre-requisites for banking are statistically more likely to have attended Oxford, Cambridge, the L.S.E. et al by default. Had 'City Trader' attended Manchester, I imagine he'd still be where he is today; but then, how many people with his academic credentials would settle for Manchester?

All of which isn't to deny or to repudiate the legacy of the old boys' network (among other such 'connections', enjoyed by universities whose graduates permeate every facet of the industry); but your assertion does not hold water.

The facile approach you take to the complexity of the situation of undergraduate education and graduate recruitment is really rather outstanding; although, sadly, not really that distinct from the baseless arrogance held by a wide range of high-achieving undergraduate students. While it is true that, in general, better students will got to better universities – which seems to be your only real assertion (and what an incisive one!) – the situation is notably more complex.

For example, as I’m sure you’re aware as a Law student, there is a huge disproportion within subject areas and departments that will be relevant both to your quality of teaching, graduate recruitment in that area, and quality of the pupils around; it is simply not valid to say that History at Warwick will outperform History at Durham (widely understood as the best if not one of the absolute top departments in the country in the field) – especially with regard to the quality of student and so on. Of course, an graduate recruiter at an IB is unlikely to know this, but this does not detract from the point in question: namely, that the top-achieving at A-Level students go to the most-reputed departments, not the most-reputed Universities.

Private students still do a lot better at undergraduate admissions, and therefore, unless you're making the presumption that the rich are genetically predisposed to be more intelligent, there is a form of elitism within this, and therefore, subsequently within graduate recruitment.

Actually, the state-private breakdown of Oxbridge entrants reflects the breakdown of the applicants. I don't know specifically about socio-economic breakdown, however I'm not aware of any evidence showing that a specific group disproportionately out-perform the others.

This does seem to be the case with most mathematicians and scientists, certainly; at certain universities they are often complete lunatics, but are also exceptionally talented. I suppose coming from a more arts-based background I find that a lot of students for subjects like Law, Geography, and even Economics don't seem particularly bright. I was talking to an Economics student at Durham who was a complete moron.

Actually, the state-private breakdown of Oxbridge entrants reflects the breakdown of the applicants. I don't know specifically about socio-economic breakdown, however I'm not aware of any evidence showing that a specific group disproportionately out-perform the others.

I don't agree. Last time I checked, Cambridge's population was 51-49 staterivate, hence privately educated individuals are hugely overrepresented. However, as I said above, I believe the problem is not with the universities, but the state education system.

I think what he meant was that although the student makeup is approx. 50:50 (give or take 5% either way), this is the same ratio as the applications to Oxbridge, i.e. their applications come from around half state, half private.

But of course what the means is that the universities themselves are not discriminating against state schoolers, as you say. The real difficulty is getting enough state school kids to apply in the first place.

Bare in mind that these 'state' schools are highly selective faith schools or grammar schools. I don't believe Oxbridge have ever had trouble giving either access.

It's bog standard low performing comprehensives that they have trouble with.

Bare in mind that these 'state' schools are highly selective faith schools or grammar schools. I don't believe Oxbridge have ever had trouble giving either access.

It's bog standard low performing comprehensives that they have trouble with.