Recruiting Possibilities

Question

Hey everyone. So I'll confess, I posted this over on BW first... but frankly I like you guys better so I wanted to make sure I dump it over here too. Related to a discussion on the recruiting potential of the top schools, I went through LinkedIn to see how much representation each school has a some of the top firms. Here's the results, with some more jibber jabber:

Based on a totally non-scientific methodology, I've compiled the number of hits on LinkedIn associated with each business school for some of the top firms. Just in case anyone is curious, I've constrained the search so that only "current" employees at each firm will show up. Also, I've tried to be as precise as I can with the names to makes sure I'm capturing MBA alums, as opposed to undergrads (for example school= Duke Fuqua + keyword=MBA) instead of just Duke, which could capture ppl who went there for undergrad.

Here it is (sorry about the formats):

Students Goldman Sachs JP Morgan McKinsey Bain Carlyle BlackRock
Wharton 863 136 48 241 172 5 18
Columbia 646.5 127 62 176 48 4 26
HBS 921.5 102 21 347 217 17 14
Chicago 592.5 88 73 161 62 3 27
Cornell 476 49 17 48 16 0 9
Kellogg 597 47 44 222 98 3 12
Stanford 385 36 5 107 64 8 7
Sloan 389.5 26 4 123 62 1 5 
Tuck 256 18 5 48 42 2 3
Darden 319.5 17 13 23 27 0 4
Duke 444 16 14 36 17 1 5
Anderson 366 16 8 31 22 0 12
Michigan 471 13 9 66 23 1 9
Yale 217 13 11 18 6 0 2
Haas 247 12 3 44 18 0 21

I've also looked for CFA's at each of these, since I'm currently procrastinating studying by even doing this stupid analysis:

CFA 236 169 63 16 3 199

I'd welcome you all to play the same game with your favorite firms. Just be aware that this is a stock variable, not a flow variable (as opposed to the BW recruiting numbers). To me, it represents the number of people you could potentially reach out to if you attended one of these schools.

jankynoname · Answer

You guys sure are quiet today... Anyways, I've put this into a shared spreadsheet, so feel free to add any schools and companies as you see fit.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AndCUjb9VV86dHJLRW9nOG45U2lZZTRtTnFHWVdqclE&hl=en

sm332 · Answer

interesting numbers ... not sure how I would use them but interesting nonetheless.

jankynoname · Answer

Yeah, it's just one more set of data points to add to the totality of evidence out there. I think there are some unexpected results. I've added a bunch more companies, so if anyone cares, take a look:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AndCUjb9VV86dHJLRW9nOG45U2lZZTRtTnFHWVdqclE&hl=en

3underscore · Answer

How many of these were straight in though? The latter two are more likely a move later on - they aren't going to be available with alum (for example I know people in similar cache careers who won't recruit anyone without 10yr experience in some way, even with an MBA).

It is kind of interesting I guess, but you would be better seeing the volume that go per year. That gives an idea how much the school actually gets recruited by the firm.

To make this statistically solid, obviously you need to work out how many people are in each class, how many from each class are on linkedin with open profiles...

britguy · Answer

obviously not statistically solid as 3underscore points out, but interesting. Key surprise for me was seeing Stern blow everybody else out of the water at the banks (even Barclays, which until it took Lehman assets was mainly based in London).

PS your colour scheme makes my eyes bleed!

PS your colour scheme makes my eyes bleed!

DrSatisfaction · Answer

this.

and yeah, this is making me feel kinda bad about taking oxford over insead. oh well...i'll stand by my reasoning though.

jankynoname · Answer

you guys and your lack of appreciation for bright colors...

yeah, it's definitely not the most robust analysis, but more of a proxy for the size of the network at a given school. i wish there was a good hedge fund we could look at, but none of them seem to have enough employees to give any realistic snapshot. any ideas?

britguy · Answer

pick the five biggest and combine the figures for all schools maybe?

jankynoname · Answer

OK, got a new spiffy hedge fund tab in there. I'm no expert on the HF industry, so I could be way off on my selection of the top funds. But Chicago wins by a landslide thanks to Citadel. :-D

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AndCUjb9VV86dHJLRW9nOG45U2lZZTRtTnFHWVdqclE&hl=en

britguy · Answer

Yep, kind of defies the point of taking a combined figure! Nice job anyway though, and maybe useful as long as people accept that the data is tenuous and use it as just another indicator.

The percentage of total fields on the first page is returning an error.

PS colour scheme vastly improved!

britguy · Answer

Hey, I got excited and starting making a few updates but having never used google docs before I didn't realise I was working online so you may be stuck with my changes? Sorry if this is the case!

Anyway I've added columns to calculate % of each group from each school. Not sure why you've grouped IM (Fidelity, PIMCO) with PE (Blackrock and Carlyle) - I'd suggest splitting these into two groups and add one other company to each. T Rowe Price maybe for IM, dunno about PE.

As far as results go, some things are not surprising:
- Wharton, Chicago and Columbia do well in banking and IM.
- HBS and Stanford do well in PE, with a decent showing from Chicago, Columbia and Wharton.
- Haas does well in Silicon Valley GM along with HBS and Wharton
- HBS and Wharton very well represented in the big MC companies.

Some things did surprise me though:
- NYU destroyed all other banks (but consider the data - PT grads are included, and it's reasonable to assume that many Wall St banks would send employees to Stern PT whilst retaining them, thus skewing up the numbers)
- HBS very well represented in IM
- Stanford not as dominant as I expected in Silicon Valley

Remember folks, not everyone uses linkin, some people hide their profiles and some people lie on their profiles. Hopefully they are equally likely to do any of these things regardless of where they went to school!

DrSatisfaction · Answer

The main reason why I don't take the rankings based off Linkedin so seriously is mostly because a lot of the successful big shots hide their profiles and skews the numbers.

Posted from my mobile device

jankynoname · Answer

Britguy - yeah, the Stanford/Haas dynamic surprised me as well. Haas has many more ppl at Google, Apple and Oracle... I would have expected at least Google to have more GSB alums.

I guess my thought is that most (but not all) of the ppl on linkedin are probably within about ten years of graduating. The older guys aren't going to bother with it. And I think this bias affects all of the schools evenly, so I still think it gives a pretty good indication of where ppl from each school are ending up. That said, you do see a lot of managing directors and partners on there, so it's not all associates.

Codex · Answer

I think another issue that skews the IB numbers at NYU is the fact that many banks hire MBAs into non-banking roles from Stern, simply because its geography is convenient.

Recruiting Possibilities

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards