以下是引用nnm在2007-3-21 11:41:00的发言:Dear 重拳出击 You have posted it a million times. Don't you feel a bit fed up? We all know LBS is good at finance, but getting IB offers not a evidence as convincing as you might think it is. And, if you like "talk in data", that's fine, here you go: The main numbers I was looking at (and care about):
Number of hires Insead/LBS:
McK: 74/16 BCG: 40/2 Bain: 30/2
When you consider that LBS is roughly 1/3 the size of Insead, its still not even close. Also, the employment reports show that about 1/3 of Insead students go into MC and 1/4 of LBS students go into MC.
I think the Insead numbers reflect 05 recruiting but are consistent with trends over the years. I have seen figures that show Insead sending as many as 90-100 to McK. The LBS numbers are for 2006. The question is, why such great disparity given that both schools enjoy a similar reputation? Do students at LBS have significantly less interest in these jobs or are they getting fewer offers? You might wanna say " ha, that's MC, not IB". Right, I 100% agree with you. But where is your point? People here more care about the job placement for Chinese students. That is why I just publish the chinse student cases from LBS. Whatever MC or IB, let's talk about Chinese people cases. Any comments? Objectively speaking, LBS is located in London, one of the worldwide financial center. What does that mean? It means LBS is taking the huge advantages than Insead, which is enjoying the nice view in a small town in France. I don't care about which one is really better. Just feel confused why some people here judge a school just based on their feelings
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-3-21 21:38:24编辑过] |