Who recruits where?

Amazing resource!!!!

Very informative- thanks for posting. Just noticed that H and S are missing from the list

I think it's because H and S apparently don't report.

But the stats for H and S sending to companies can be found somewhere, I've heard about them being around... just can't remember. Off the top off my head, I think for McK, H sends 100 people? Don't know whether that's correct or not.

If you dig deep at businessweek, I think you can find the stats.... but you'll probably gouge your eyes out after reading all that stuff on b/week...

There is something similar to this on BW but will lots more companies.

https://bwnt.businessweek.com/recruiting/index.asp

Wow, that's a great figure - 100 McK'ees. I didn't do a special research for Harvard, but always supposed that Kellogg is number 1 for recruitment in top consulting companies, then goes Columbia. And it's a kind of true, if you do not go further and compare the stats against the class size.

It's an interesting list, but I think the value is limited because it only includes the top 10 recruiters at a school. For example if a school sent lots of people to firms 1-10, they will not show up even if they sent a whole bunch of people to their 11th ranked recruiter.

I don't have hard stats, but I think of Columbia as an example. They send lots of people to investment banks each year. There are about 15 (give or take) huge investment banks, in addition to other huge employers. If a bank is 11th on Columbia's overall recruiting list, they might be taking 18 people from Columbia a year, which could very well be #1 overall; but for the purposes of this list Columbia wouldn't even show up as a top recruiter on these lists.

This data is horrible and will cause so many people to make bad decisions...

Two reasons:

1) Obviously this says nothing about the number of OFFERS at any given school, which is far far more interesting.

2) People will very easily misread this data -- its easy to interpret it as "The top 10 places company X recruits" -- which is not what it is.

Take Bain for instance:

Univ. of Pennsylvania 32
INSEAD 30
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 15
Dartmouth College 12
Northwestern Univ. 10
Univ. of Michigan 8
Univ. of Virginia 5
Univ. of California, Berkeley 4
University of Navarra 4

The classic interpretation of this data is that if a school isn't on the list, then the firm didn't heavily recruit there. But of course, thats completely wrong... This data is so horrible the WSJ should be embarassed to publicize it. They should have publicized the raw # across all schools... For instance, why isn't Harvard on here? Surely they place a few at Bain!
I'll take the GSB as an example cause thats one that I am familiar with. For instance, the GSB placed 7 at Bain last year. Microsoft? 6 last year (but its not on that list either). BCG, 11 last year I think. Deloitte is somehow lead by UNC? Where's northwestern? I'm sure they sent a few there too! Goldman? I think GSB had 12 there last year...

Sorry for the rant.... its not about the lack of the GSB on the list... its about how incredibly poor the data is, how insanely easily misinterpreted it can be (and the WSJ knows it), and how often I can see it being (mis)quoted: "Dude! School X isn't even on the list!!!"

are you mad because the University of Navarra is a better school than the GSB?

LOL. No I'm mad because its just a crap canned job by the WSJ. They should know better.

thanks for the rant, rhyme. I was wondering why HBS, Stanford, GSB, and other top schools aren't on those lists. It was a very strange set of data in my opinion.

rhyme, but it is only what it is - the top places where some company recruits. And this list helps to work backwards - for example, you know, that you will prefer to work with Bain - you know the lowest schools where you have to go to have good chances to be hired by Bain.
Learning these stats, I found some interesting thing - if you take Deloitte Consulting, for example, you see that they hire from second-tier school, so, your chances to get there from top-tier should be higher.
For the same reason, Harvard is not shown in these stats - it could be sending their graduates to other companies, less related to consulting and IB.

With a 900 student class, I am sure HBS placed a significant # of people at each of these employers. Definetly a hack job by WSJ.

In BW there were no stats for placement by company for Wharton. Only from WSJ I figured it out finally. I think, the same story happens to Harvard stats. The school just doesn't publish them everywhere, because there is no much need. But the stats look weird then.

actually, I just realized that someone mentioned that H/S didn't give out info, which may explain why they don't have any placed at these companies.

Also, class size matters too. If Haas is placing 4 out of 240 students, that's as good as a 900-1000 sized class placing 16... considering not as big of the population at Haas goes for financial jobs as the East Coast powerhouses.

That's why I never liked absolute figures. Everything matters only when compared as rates. Then, you can easily come up to same placement stats in Kellogg and Tuck in top consulting companies, because the class size differs by several times.