10 Best Schools If You Want To Work At Top Hedge Fund
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
Ah, I have no basis for comparison when it comes to liberal arts degrees, as I work on the engineering side of the aerospace industry. Really, I have no basis for comparison with finance type degrees either, but I can't imagine why one would be better prepared (in terms of knowledge, not opportunity) going to Harvard vs going to Arizona State (the Harvard of the Southwest 
) or any public university. I think what it comes down to is getting someone to look at your resume, and a top school certainly helps that.
) or any public university. I think what it comes down to is getting someone to look at your resume, and a top school certainly helps that.
'Batting average' to me seems like a questionable way to compare the data. I see what they're trying to do, but the idea that you have a better chance at a hedge fund job coming out of Emory than Harvard, ad nauseam, is obviously a bit questionable. Maybe a better stat to look at is 'what MBA program/3+ years at which BB will give you the best shot at a hedge fund.' I think by the time hedge funds generally start looking at you, work experience and graduate study are part of the playing field, your undergrad will likely matter less.
Huge shoutout to 'Gate though. I almost went there. My ex goes and loves it. Fun school; not so different from the other LACs or comparable Ivys listed above though...everyone who attends is roughly the same. Some poor kid who was homeless and then went to Harvard (now that's *real* diversity) will probably come flame me, but generally kids here are all pretty similar. That's probably (sadly) part of what makes us attractive to hedge funds...we all spell piqued and penchant correctly. Kidding haha, but @m1nt will probably recount a similar experience. A lot of likeminded people with similar backgrounds end up at top schools, despite 'diversity' on paper.
Having transferred to an Ivy from a pretty good state school, I must say it's pretty much the difference you'd expect. All the kids put in an A level effort, pretty much all the kids are smart, the teachers are more eccentric (worse), the building are old and fancy, but austere and few fountains/phones/intercoms/heaters/air conditioners/sports facilities /lightswitches work, the liberal arts requirements are more stringent and broader, the classes are a little harder, the tests are much more difficult, the curve is a little tougher, usually B or B- for the sciences, etc etc. It's essentially exactly the difference that you'd expect. I don't really agree with the idea that Ivy League kids are arent as 'hungry' as state school kids...everyone here tries harder.
Huge shoutout to 'Gate though. I almost went there. My ex goes and loves it. Fun school; not so different from the other LACs or comparable Ivys listed above though...everyone who attends is roughly the same. Some poor kid who was homeless and then went to Harvard (now that's *real* diversity) will probably come flame me, but generally kids here are all pretty similar. That's probably (sadly) part of what makes us attractive to hedge funds...we all spell piqued and penchant correctly. Kidding haha, but @m1nt will probably recount a similar experience. A lot of likeminded people with similar backgrounds end up at top schools, despite 'diversity' on paper.
Having transferred to an Ivy from a pretty good state school, I must say it's pretty much the difference you'd expect. All the kids put in an A level effort, pretty much all the kids are smart, the teachers are more eccentric (worse), the building are old and fancy, but austere and few fountains/phones/intercoms/heaters/air conditioners/sports facilities /lightswitches work, the liberal arts requirements are more stringent and broader, the classes are a little harder, the tests are much more difficult, the curve is a little tougher, usually B or B- for the sciences, etc etc. It's essentially exactly the difference that you'd expect. I don't really agree with the idea that Ivy League kids are arent as 'hungry' as state school kids...everyone here tries harder.
That's not my experience in real industry. I'm not saying the ivy/mit/stanford engineers are bad. They just aren't any better than those that went to less prestigious schools and tend to act slightly entitled in some regards and are the first to ask the most irrelevant question there is: "what school did u go to"
I'm not in industry, so I can't suggest that I've had a diverse group of engineers around me to comment on. I can speak for the engineers I've worked with at both schools. I think the quality is generally higher here, consistent with higher admission standards and more difficult classes. I don't deny that there are students at my former state institution who would be at the smarter/happier end of the grading/happiness joint PMF (which I just made up, but sounds like a much better stat than 'batting average') here. I'm not going to make any arguments for my professors being better here. Some are amazing, most are not.
The nice thing about engineering and, more specifically, trading: it's a meritocracy.
If someone from state school could make a hedge fund more money at a lower risk than I could, he deserves that job.
The nice thing about engineering and, more specifically, trading: it's a meritocracy.
If someone from state school could make a hedge fund more money at a lower risk than I could, he deserves that job.
Straight out of college, it isn't a meritocracy though. It is unfortunately very much who you know and where you went to school. That is the way the game is played though.
As for the higher quality engineers at Ivy's. Their thesis topics may be more impressive, but I find some of them have trouble getting real work done. Too much dabbling in the abstract
That's a generalization, which is dangerous. But that is one of the differences I notice
It's hard to take lists like these as anything more than a gimmick.
I have worked in hedge funds and on the buy side for a long time (risk mgmt). Though there may be some fund here or there that takes things like college rankings seriously in the screening phase, getting into a HF is mostly a function of who you know. Both in terms of either having a direct contact yourself or knowing the right headhunters. And yes, there are HF specific recruiters only.
Across the hundreds of resumes that ever crossed my desk I doubt if I personally ever made a hire or recommended a hire based on schooling.
I have worked in hedge funds and on the buy side for a long time (risk mgmt). Though there may be some fund here or there that takes things like college rankings seriously in the screening phase, getting into a HF is mostly a function of who you know. Both in terms of either having a direct contact yourself or knowing the right headhunters. And yes, there are HF specific recruiters only.
Across the hundreds of resumes that ever crossed my desk I doubt if I personally ever made a hire or recommended a hire based on schooling.
Do you hire straight from college? How important is math genius in hiring? With the proliferation of quant funds is a LAC education a disadvantage?
I graduated prior to the boom in hedge funds and can't think of anyone that went straight to a HF. Also, there were many very bright students graduating during that time but maybe only one known math savant.
No irons in the fire. Just curious.
Last edited:
@nomoremondays I agree. Rather gimmicky. And @IAS_LLC i agree there too, meritocracy doesn't exactly work 100% off the bat. Two points though (playing devil's advocate):
1. Give it time: with no professional track record, why not do you first hires with 'who you like' as a criterion? A meritocracy isn't going to work until the good employees have a few years to demonstrate their abilities. That takes major projects, as well as time to built trust with bosses and prove you can tie a tie 5 days a week for 2 years straight, etc. Once some time has past and my classmates and I disperse, I'm sure we'll see some surprises as people settle into new careers based on how the performed in their first few jobs.
2. This is gonna sound bad coming from me, but you don't need to have the last name 'Kennedy' to network a bit. I have a buddy whose parents are obstensibly broke and he's from a corn field basically...he's a Seimens Fellowship winner, killer GPA, TAs ,all that stuff...people like him are undeniable. He's sent my dad a Christmas card to network every year for two years so far. He's worked/networked his way into a summer analyst job at Goldman Sachs. He's managed to overcome his background and by participating in the networking song and dance, he's doing pretty well.
1. Give it time: with no professional track record, why not do you first hires with 'who you like' as a criterion? A meritocracy isn't going to work until the good employees have a few years to demonstrate their abilities. That takes major projects, as well as time to built trust with bosses and prove you can tie a tie 5 days a week for 2 years straight, etc. Once some time has past and my classmates and I disperse, I'm sure we'll see some surprises as people settle into new careers based on how the performed in their first few jobs.
2. This is gonna sound bad coming from me, but you don't need to have the last name 'Kennedy' to network a bit. I have a buddy whose parents are obstensibly broke and he's from a corn field basically...he's a Seimens Fellowship winner, killer GPA, TAs ,all that stuff...people like him are undeniable. He's sent my dad a Christmas card to network every year for two years so far. He's worked/networked his way into a summer analyst job at Goldman Sachs. He's managed to overcome his background and by participating in the networking song and dance, he's doing pretty well.