chicago和columbia那个好？

很丑的鬼脸

我觉得短期要找金融工作，芝加哥虽然不在纽约，但是也不至于吃亏太大吧。但是长远来讲那个学校的牌子更持久更好使啊带来更多机会才是区分两个学校的标准？
谁来说说？

wordance

quotes from some English forums:


"In my opinion they are both great schools but based on what I've read I think Columbia may have a slight advantage just due to proximity to allof teh major banks and many MM shops. Although if you want to be around Chicago after graduation and do banking there, Chicago would probably give you an advantage there..."


"Both are great schools, however Chicago seems to be a more Finance - Strong oriented school; just like how Kellog is for marketing etc. Of course, not taking anything away from Columbia, but something to think about. I think both schools will give you great chances in Ibanking. Chicago is perhaps more geared towards Finance in terms of academics. My two cents."


"Both Chicago and Columbia are target schools for all the major banks and many of the boutiques.

From a pure recruiting standpoint, it makes zero difference. Your chances of getting an interview at any bank will not be impacted by whether you go to Columbia or Chicago.

And once you get into the interview room for round one, it all comes down to you.

From an educational standpoint, you'll probably have more options at Chicago if you want to really dig deep into finance. If you want real estate finance, Columbia has the edge. From a location standpoint, the "NYC advantage" may help if you're targeting NYC boutiques that don't conduct on-campus recruiting -- but for every major investment bank (or any bank that has an on-campus recruiting process), it doesn't matter whether the school is located in NYC or not. Just because a bank is a subway ride away doesn't mean you can just walk in, get through security, and become a wallflower at a bank -- the recruiting events are organized precisely for that reason -- to allow students to interact with otherwise very busy bankers (who won't appreciate having students show up in their office buildings unannounced). And most of the informal correspondence outside of the recruiting events are via email or phone anyhow -- most bankers don't have the time or won't make the time to have coffee 40 times with 40 different students to just shoot the breeze."



"There definitely is a NYC advantage, which manifests itself in the following manner.

I don't know if Alex Chu has actually been through recruiting yet, but organized events are worthless ... there will be 5-10 students surrounding each banker trying to say something intelligent. The only way they're going to remember you at these events is if you do something stupid.

If you rely on these events and a couple of phone calls you had better have a much better resume than your peers if you want to make the close lists you want.

At Columbia however, you actually can traipse on down to the banks whenever you want, just plan ahead with alumns ... it's absolute BS to say that they won't make time for you, most would rather grab a coffee in the afternoon than talk on the phone, and there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction.

I know guys who did 10-20 face to face informationals at banks they really wanted and guess what, they got summer and FT offers there.

Additionally, more small PE/VC/Advisory shops = more opportunities to work part-time while in school ... it's not going to get you the job, but as a career switcher it can help get you on close lists and give you relevant stuff to talk about in informationals and real interviews.

Finally, you'll have more exposure to banks outside of the BB that don't have offices in Chicago. It's always good to have options and back-ups.

Don't get me wrong GSB is a great school, and they're probably closer to the cutting edge of financial theory, but unless you're getting a PhD that doesn't matter.

At the end of the day banks probably hire close to the same number of students from each school due to the way that recruiting is run from school teams. However, the
advantage of Columbia is that it gives you more opportunities to hustle and set yourself apart from your classmates, which is very important for a career switcher."

wordance

Anyhow, my main point (even though it was perhaps originally conveyed in a hyperbolic fashion) is that the "NYC advantage" catchphrase overstates the benefit especially when compared to schools of equal or greater renown like Chicago, HBS, Wharton or Stanford. when it comes to finance recruiting.

For plain vanilla investment banking, it really doesn't matter which top school you go to, as long as the school is on the banks' target lists. And for specific jobs in private equity, hedge funds, venture capital, investment management, etc. it's more a function of your prior experience and the alumni networks of the various b-schools -- not whether the b-school is within subway distance (only difference is that aside from Stanford, going to the other schools just involves a more expensive but short trip into NYC).

Don't get me wrong - Columbia is a great school, but the "NYC advantage" is often overstated (exhibit: Stern). It's primary strength in placing grads in finance isn't due to its location, but like Chicago, Wharton, or HBS it's due to its reputation and alumni base who are in these very industries.

The main point is: it doesn't matter because it's all roughly the same. Chicago will likely give you a better academic education in finance, whereas Columbia makes it cheaper and easier to contact recruiters. But neither is so significant that it makes one school better than the other for the practical process of finding a good job in finance (whether it's IB or something else).

ztztzt

Anyhow, my main point (even though it was perhaps originally conveyed in a hyperbolic fashion) is that the "NYC advantage" catchphrase overstates the benefit especially when compared to schools of equal or greater renown like Chicago, HBS, Wharton or Stanford. when it comes to finance recruiting.

For plain vanilla investment banking, it really doesn't matter which top school you go to, as long as the school is on the banks' target lists. And for specific jobs in private equity, hedge funds, venture capital, investment management, etc. it's more a function of your prior experience and the alumni networks of the various b-schools -- not whether the b-school is within subway distance (only difference is that aside from Stanford, going to the other schools just involves a more expensive but short trip into NYC).

Don't get me wrong - Columbia is a great school, but the "NYC advantage" is often overstated (exhibit: Stern). It's primary strength in placing grads in finance isn't due to its location, but like Chicago, Wharton, or HBS it's due to its reputation and alumni base who are in these very industries.

The main point is: it doesn't matter because it's all roughly the same. Chicago will likely give you a better academic education in finance, whereas Columbia makes it cheaper and easier to contact recruiters. But neither is so significant that it makes one school better than the other for the practical process of finding a good job in finance (whether it's IB or something else).

-- by 会员 wordance (2009/12/10 0:02:56)

do you agree that Chicago has better placement in consulting?

UocBooth

我知道的数据，芝加哥全球校友第二多的地方，就是纽约。所以，其实地区和网络估计不会是太大的问题。
问题1，Nerdy：芝加哥的确有些Nerdy的土壤。
我自己的理解是由于非常数据驱动，必须有事实做依据的授课方式和讨论方式，所以在这样的环境里，比较容易产生只关心数字（IQ）的人，而忽视EQ的人（Don't get me wrong，那里的同学是很Nice的，而且很愿意互相帮助，不过有些人可能在工作里属于只关心技术和分析，而刻意避免太复杂的人际关系的)。
问题2，Challenge Style：我个人很喜欢芝加哥的辩论，教授授课的时侯甚至会故意支持他可能不支持的论点，来Challenge你，想的更深一些，看到真实世界的运作机制是你能得到的一个礼物。互相辩论以帮助自己和他人改善自己的理论（其实我们经常做的就是要求对方Challenge自己，部分人会用“请帮助我发现我的不足，以得到更好的结果”这句话开头），在Challenge对方的时侯总是严格的提出合理的假设，而不是为了Challenge或显示自己而做。经历多了，你会意识到以前的教育有片面的地方，可能无法让我们感激Challenge。Challenge其实是朋友们给你的一块磨刀石。当然在变得更加Sharp的同时，别忘记EQ的锻炼，
对于两个学校，我觉得都是Great School，学生一般不会计较世俗的排名和比较。因为你已经得到了最好的磨练并且改变了自己。付出的时间和金钱换回了超出预期的回报。哥伦比亚可能你能经历更多的大型活动，许多国家领导人和名人会去那里演讲，相比之下，我自己的感觉是芝加哥似乎这样的活动比哥伦比亚要少些，地理位置的关系吧。纽约的女生，尤其是NYU的似乎有过一个哥伦比亚男朋友不在少数？（只是个人的观察，样本数4而已，未必是真的）而芝加哥的可能优势是，如果你选对了教授，学对了理论，也许未来10年里，你可以在某天（诺贝尔经济奖颁奖后）随意的和朋友聊起，“哦，是啊，那个教授的课我听过”...然后享受一下众人崇拜的目光，毕竟，芝加哥是全球和诺贝尔奖关系最为紧密的大学。
至于校友网络...在我看来大未必给我们更多，而小也许会给我们更紧密的链接。我一直觉得校友网络大而广可能是有宣传和宏观的作用的，但是具体到每一个个体，也许在一个地区，小而紧密的网络能带给你更多（估计这可能是我自己的一个认知偏差，我书呆子的脑瓜在作怪 ）

chrisbrae

cbs 一年的学费是多少哦

wordance

Don't always take reasons as a given without thinking them through. If you are in NYC, recruiting for a job in NYC like banking that requires a lot of networking/ face time, they will EXPECT you to be networking with them every minute that you possibly can- and your other classmates will be doing this too. The result (together with grade disclosure at Columbia) is an extremely competitive environment in which you have zero free time to do anything you like.

In contrast, in Chicago if you even fly to NY once a month to network, they'll think that you're amazingly committed. Think carefully about whether you want to be in NY, even if you want to recruit for jobs there.

-- by 会员 jelt2359 (2009/12/9 22:56:00)

Thanks Jason. This is a good point. But on the flip side, aren't all these networking efforts part of the reasons why CBS grads are generally more street-smart and good at connecting with people(or at least considered so) ?

aspirant2010

而芝加哥的可能优势是，如果你选对了教授，学对了理论，也许未来10年里，你可以在某天（诺贝尔经济奖颁奖后）随意的和朋友聊起，“哦，是啊，那个教授的课我听过”...然后享受一下众人崇拜的目光，毕竟，芝加哥是全球和诺贝尔奖关系最为紧密的大学。

-- by 会员 UocBooth (2009/12/10 11:32:38)

呵呵，随便贡献点不相干的。全球和诺贝尔奖最为紧密的大学是剑桥，那里是诺贝尔奖严重扎堆的地方。一共有87 名大学成员获得诺贝尔奖(29 项物理奖、24 项医学奖、21 项化学奖、8 项经济学奖、2 项文学奖和2 项和平奖)，其中70多人在剑桥获得本科或者硕士学历, 仅三一学院一个学院就有32个。

牛津也有五六十个，但如果算毕业生只有不到30个

如果哪位想拿诺贝尔奖，概率上来说应该去剑桥，呵呵。没准跟着某个朋友就能一起搞出点啥，到时候别忘了回CD报一个诺贝尔offer。我就可以随意的和朋友聊起，“哦，是啊，那个教授的帖子我顶过”...

cannedpineapple

wordance>

If you apply the logic that 'the more I do something, the better I get at it', then yes. But I believe that while that logic is indeed true to some extent, there comes a point at which the more I do of something, the worse at it I get- perhaps networking becomes just a 'game' to me; perhaps I no longer look to form meaningful relationships because it is just so tiring to try and do so every single night; perhaps because it becomes impossible to convince myself that meaningful relationships CAN be formed if my whole point is just to try to make use of the person I am networking with.

Think about it from the view of the person being networked with. Who will you help, the person who talks to you genuinely, without street smarts but also without airs, and tries to form a friendship with you? Or, the person who is extremely 'street smart' and very smooth and slick, networks like a pro, going exactly for the people whom are use to him, and no one else?

Of course I might just be describing a 'bad networker'. But then if what it means to be a 'good networker' is to try and make friends, then this really isn't about street smarts now, is it. It's about how sincere you are as a person. And I think it's much harder to argue that that improves with practice (although I'm sure it does to some extent too).

My point was however a different one- that Chicago offers you the choice to make a very good impression with much less effort than it would have taken at Columbia, where potentially the only impression you can make is a 'normal one' (since everyone is networking so hard), or a 'negative one' (he isn't trying, so he must not be interested.) The dynamics of the situation are completely reversed, since at Chicago you have the opportunity to also make a 'good impression' by travelling more often, as well as a 'normal impression' by travelling less so. It's all about expectations. For Columbia students, you can never exceed their expectations- you can only hope to either meet them, or fall short. For Chicago students, however, you can hope to exceed their expectations, or simply meet them, depending on your preferences.

So if you want to look for a job in NY, it may make sense to try and think about why it may be better NOT to be situated in NY.

weeksuper

扔硬币吧