以下是引用keepsilent在2006-12-31 10:04:00的发言:Wharton: Financial Services | 288 | 44.2% | | Diversified Financial Services | 22 | 3.4% | | Hedge Funds/Other Investments | 20 | 3.1% | | Insurance | 2 | 0.3% | | Investment Banking/Brokerage | 169 | 26.0% | | Investment Management | 31 | 4.8% |   rivate Equity/VC/Buyouts | 44 | 6.8% |
Full-Time Compensation Summary* | Compensation Item | # Reporting | % | Compensation Range | Compensation Median | | Annual Base Salary | 627 | 100% | 40,000-300,000 | 100,000 | | Sign-On Bonus | 467 | 74% | 1,000-300,000 | 20,000 | | Guaranteed Year-End Bonus | 215 | 34% | 2,000-200,000 | 25,000 | | Relocation Expenses | 397 | 63% | 100-30,000 | 10,000 | | Tuition Reimbursement | 38 | 6% | 5,000-135,000 | 40,229 | | Other Compensation | 90 | 14% | 1,600-100,000 | 11,250 | | Total Compensation** | 627 | 100% | 42,000-425,000 | 137,000 |
MIT: Consulting 28.8% Investment Banking 15.8% Number of Candidates 377 Full-Time Employment Overview3 Mean Base Salary $101,988 Median Base Salary $100,000 Range of Base Salary $6,500 – 165,000 根据楼上的逻辑就是投行给MIT和Wharton的面试机会一样,最后Wharton进26%,MIT进了15.8%。那说明什么?难道说MIT的人本事不如Wharton? 投行做Modelling,有优势有什么用?你喜欢不喜欢做,给你的钱多不多,才是个理吧。 我也不是Wharton的,只是说话凭良心。 单从录取比例说,只能说明在面试机会均等的情况下,wharton的可能更合适进投行,从个人本事而言,能在机会均等的情况下录取的一定比没被录取的个人能力更被投行认可, 但是仅投行不认可并不代表个人能力差,只能说个人不fit,因为投行的认可度不是个人能力的benchmark. 关于做模型,你这话由于太不专业太外行,所以实在没什么必要和你说的,就你这心态估计近投行没戏。等你什么时候进了MIT或wharton之后再比较他们的优劣吧 |