数据贴：Wharton，Columbia，Chicago，Kellogg，Sloan，LBS就业对比及分析

flyfighter

thanks for sharing!

很丑的鬼脸

在第二张图里加了个新的数据
MBB+Bulge bracket IB + BUYSIDE的总%，除了Columbia达到45.1%外，没有其他任何学校达到40%。Columbia大比分领先。Wharton 2011 数据不available，但是他们09年是40.9%。

wordance

顶数据帝

darriel

楼主，提醒一下，consulting的数据可以看，但是很多去im/hf的人，在学校收集就业信息的时候，不一定会report 的。。。另外，PE/VC 太大了。深创投和黑石统计的时候都算PE。

nottingham84

Good post!

melody56

很有用。谢谢楼主。Wharton vs. Columbia. 但是有一点需要考虑到的是，毕业后是否是纽约找工作还是回国。因为在纽约找finance的话，Columbia非常好，但是如果回国，可能没有wharton的名字好用。

l3enny

thank you for the data, it's really helpful! But I think there may be a logic flaw in using the % of people in a given school that's in Consulting / MBB to conclude a certain school is stronger/weaker in consulting. I think the overall consulting % is a mere reflection of the % of class that's interested in the consulting industry, rather than how well a school is able to place students in consulting. For example, more Kellogg students want to enter Consulting (and less students want to enter banking), but this doesn't imply having Kellogg on your CV is better than Wharton for consulting.

I think a more effective method of comparing the strength of a school is to look at the number of students joining MBB as a percentage of the total students entering the consulting industry. This assumes that out of the students entering consulting, MBB would be their first preference, and looks at what % of students can get their first preference if they are interested in the consulting industry. Using this method, Kellogg and MIT are actually the worst - while 37% of their students wanted, and ultimately entered, the consulting industry, only 44% of Kellogg and 42% of MIT joined MBB. In contrast, 48% of LBS and 66% of Columbia students that wanted to join consulting got into the top 3 firms.

38383388

有人做个2013版的么？ 最近几年金融和咨询变动较大。

crackerjacks

thx~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DMIDMI

不错啊啊啊啊啊啊啊