nbd52
If you place Vanderbilt so high I would think Washington U has to be much higher as well. I know you didn't apply to this school, however, the class profile for 2010 was 3.57 gpa and 729 GMAT. The job placements are stellar. All I could get from Vanderbilt after speaking with them is that certain banks recruit their students. WashU has PLACED it's 2009 graduating class at many top tier companies (i.e. For IB: Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi, Barclays, BofA. For consulting: McKinsey, Monitor Group, etc.). In addition, WashU places it's students at a higher rate (87% 3-months after grad compared to 72%). I don't doubt that recruiting is strong at Vandy (after all I did apply there) but recruiting is one thing, actual placement is another. So far I haven't seen anything after researching and speaking to both schools that indicates that Vandy is better than WashU.
As a side note. The fact that MIT and Princeton are highly quantitative programs doesn't mean they are bad for Corp finance and IB. The name value of each school far outweighs ant concern I would have about that. In addition, Princeton has an amazing career services department. I'm sure the combo of name value + career services could land you in whatever job you want. The jury is still out on MIT job placements and I don't entirely disagree that 100k is kinda ridiculous.
Posted from my mobile device
You are missing the big picture.
A common theme in these rankings is the descent in "brand" prestige as you go down the list. Owen>Olin. Hands down, especially in IB.
Also, if you are coming out of WashU you will probably place into a quant role.
Just look at their brochure online, they arn't event willing to call the job "Investment Banking Analyst," they decide to spin it to "Investment Banking Quantitative Analyst," even though everyone know that the math need for IB is pretty basic.
As to your point the Princeton and MIT will place well, of course they will. I would never dispute that. But why would you go knock yourself out at some quant bonanza for a year, when you could go to a program where the coursework is focused on what you are interested in as opposed to these schools. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, very very few people go from the Princeton MSF to IB, i do not know about MIT, but I would imagine that the same is true.
You are focusing on some arbitrary numbers too much. 70% placement as opposed to 85% placement is not a big deal at all. At Vandy you are given the tools (OCR, Alumni Network, Coursework, Career Center) to land an IBD job at a bulge bracket bank. I am not convinced that you could do the same at Wash U.
*I have talked to at least one student/alumnus all of these schools, with a few exceptions.
Looking at the brochure, it is clear that Olin places well in IB. For instance, you mention the fact that they call a position "Investment Banking Quant Analyst", however, you ignored the other job titles. "Equity Capital Markets Analyst" and "Debt Capital Markets Analyst", both of these titles indicate working in the Investment Banking arm of a BB firm (check out JPMorgan's career webpage, it breaks down these divisions pretty clearly). In addition, the list of companies that have hired Olin students is pretty amazing (and the job placement titles indicate a variety of positions are filled, i.e. trading, IB, consulting, research, etc.).
I'm just not sure why you think SO highly of Vandy. I definitely respect the institution as a whole, however, the recent placements of Vanderbilt MSF students is not good enough to warrant such a high ranking. I understand that you believe all the necessary resources are available to land a great job, but the recent placement doesn't reflect that. However, I guess this is just your personal opinion - there really wasn't any specific metric or formula that you used for this ranking. In that sense, I respect your opinion and your attempt at ranking these programs.