numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > one thing that’s abundantly clear about this > thread is that the people who went to top colleges > generally don’t bother to debate this on this > thread. maybe it’s because they’ve been through > the experience and know what kinds of > opportunities a top tier education creates, and > there’s just no point in talking about it because > actions speak louder than words. in comparison, > it’s the people that didn’t go to ivy league > schools that are most vociferous about their idea > that ivy league schools are overrated and “not > worth it”…as if they would really know love it, numi. totally agree with you on this. as a group (not to sound arrogant but myself included) ivy league grads probably don’t care enough to debate with people who have not gone through the system and experienced for themselves what an ivy league education is all about in an effort to try and justify what that degree symbolizes. it’s not just the degree or the networking, but everything encompassed in those four years (on average) that are spent on campus. just to put it in context, it’s probably something along the lines of how you (the general forum audience) would feel if a CPA came up to you and said “oh, the CFA- what’s taking you so long? i banged mine out in 18 months… anyways, now that i have my CPA, i’m considering trying out the CFA exams… what do you think?” (no offense to CPAs). I truly believe and i know that most of you agree that unless you go through the entire process of CFA program candidacy (altho i’ve just begun last year), you have NO idea what that entails. ivy leaguers don’t just show up to classes and receive a degree at the end of the four years (harvard and brown excluded. lol. J/K) they work initially to get into that school and then harder once they are in. level of competition steps up, then you gotta step it up a notch. to answer the initial questions, altho no ivy leaguer HAS to take the CFA exam, i’m sure many do. it would also depend on whether you went to a business/finance oriented school like Wharton or a more liberal arts environment like Harvard.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > stylemog Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > numi Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > one thing that’s abundantly clear about this > > > thread is that the people who went to top > > colleges > > > generally don’t bother to debate this on this > > > thread. maybe it’s because they’ve been > through > > > the experience and know what kinds of > > > opportunities a top tier education creates, > and > > > there’s just no point in talking about it > > because > > > actions speak louder than words. in > comparison, > > > it’s the people that didn’t go to ivy league > > > schools that are most vociferous about their > > idea > > > that ivy league schools are overrated and > “not > > > worth it”…as if they would really know > > > > > > didnt you go to an ivy? what are you doing > > debating then > > > well, sometimes it’s easy to get caught up in > these things, but starting with my post above, i’m > trying to take more of an observational stance > rather than to get into a heated discussion on > these topics. like it’s been said, the facts are > the facts, right? one poster even implied that there was a connection between an ivy league education and divorce. you can’t win against that.
From Harvard’s Career Services page… http://www.ocs.fas.harvard.edu/students/careers/business/business_byindustry.htm#asset
Love it because it makes you all warm and fuzzy on the inside? LOL. IMHO, the CFA is can either act as an undergrad level (and higher) finance education to those who never had one (like most ivy league undergraduates) I frankly don’t believe that ivy leaguers don’t need to take the CFA…if they never majored in finance in undergrad. Even if they got placed unfairly into an analyst program, after they leave it seems essential if they go into investment management or ER that they do it. > > > love it, numi. totally agree with you on this. > > as a group (not to sound arrogant but myself > included) ivy league grads probably don’t care > enough to debate with people who have not gone > through the system and experienced for themselves > what an ivy league education is all about in an > effort to try and justify what that degree > symbolizes. it’s not just the degree or the > networking, but everything encompassed in those > four years (on average) that are spent on campus. > > > just to put it in context, it’s probably something > along the lines of how you (the general forum > audience) would feel if a CPA came up to you and > said “oh, the CFA- what’s taking you so long? i > banged mine out in 18 months… anyways, now that > i have my CPA, i’m considering trying out the CFA > exams… what do you think?” (no offense to CPAs). > I truly believe and i know that most of you agree > that unless you go through the entire process of > CFA program candidacy (altho i’ve just begun last > year), you have NO idea what that entails. > > ivy leaguers don’t just show up to classes and > receive a degree at the end of the four years > (harvard and brown excluded. lol. J/K) they work > initially to get into that school and then harder > once they are in. level of competition steps up, > then you gotta step it up a notch. > > > to answer the initial questions, altho no ivy > leaguer HAS to take the CFA exam, i’m sure many > do. it would also depend on whether you went to a > business/finance oriented school like Wharton or a > more liberal arts environment like Harvard.
I can’t help but chime in…something about college discussions always piques my interest: The thing about an Ivy-league caliber education is that they get the cream of the high school crop. The student makes the school and not other way around…and the top schools get the best students. That is not to say that some top students don’t go to state or lessor-known schools, but it is to say that on average, the quality of student is far superior at a top-tier school. Again, I’m not knocking state schools, but if you look at who is admitted to a Yale, Middlebury, MIT, etc…you will see that their credentails absolutely blow away the credentials you see from most schools. Forget about prestige, I’d take the kid from Swarthmore anyday who scored 1580 on his SAT’s, finished 1st in his class of 1,500 in HS, wrote two papers that were published, started on his varsity sports team, and spent the summer in Africa of his Jr. helping build a school. The thing is, that description is very typical of the “average” student at these top schools, and you will simply not see this level of accomplishment, drive, and intellect at most schools. Of the students I know that went to great schools, almost all are doing incredibly well early in their career, and it is not because daddy got them into a great school (in 98% of the cases). The brand name of a school is a reflection of the quality of the students that it produces and continues to produce. Believe me, if the Ivy-league, MIT, Chicago, Stanford, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst, and Middlebury were producing bums they would not be in demand. These schools product great talent and that is recognized by the job market. Other schools also produce talent, just not in as great numbers or in as concentrated a fashion so it makes it a little harder for the very talented students from these schools to break-in to a top-tier job. Just my 2 cents.
One more thing to add…“Smart is Smart”…and the school that one went to is a good initial screening mechanism, but is not the end-all and be-all. I happen to sit next to a guy that went to Seton Hall, and he’s smarter and more productive than 3 Harvard guys on our floor…and he’ll wind up moving up quicker too. I personally could care less what school someone went to…if they’re an idiot it doesn’t take long to tell and vice versa.
It is true that some state schools have much tougher admissions standards than several of the ivy and ivy caliber schools. For instance, UCLA and Berkeley are much harder to get into, even in state, than Cornell and Penn. The fact of the matter is that the top 50 or so school all have students of almost identical quality and prospects.
UCLA is harder to get into than Penn? I ask that if we are going to have constructive discussion about this, can people at least stick to the facts? thanks
sternwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I frankly don’t believe that ivy leaguers don’t > need to take the CFA…if they never majored in > finance in undergrad. Even if they got placed > unfairly into an analyst program, after they leave > it seems essential if they go into investment > management or ER that they do it. > > stern- i never said it wasn’t necessary because of ivy league status. i’m totally with you that the decision to take it would depend on background and job function. i was referencing the ORIGINAL question which asked: “with all the talk of Ivies, i was wondering how many Ivy League school grads have to take the CFA.” hence the “HAS” in caps.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > UCLA is harder to get into than Penn? I ask that > if we are going to have constructive discussion > about this, can people at least stick to the > facts? thanks Look at the numbers. It’s a fact.
My feeling is that most succesful people will push their development as much as possible. So to answer the original question: Ivy League grads that think the CFA will further their career will likely take it, while those that don’t see the value will not. I’ve seen CFA’s from Harvard along with UMASS-Boston, and in both cases they likely did it because they felt it would add value. It likely added more incremental value for the UMASS-Boston alum, but the Harvard alum did not think he was “above the designation” either. As a sidenote, UCLA admit percentage was 23%, Penn was 18%. If you’re interested in the quality of the student, check out the schools with lowest admit percentages. You’d have a hard time arguing against the fact that those with the lowest percentages are usually considered the “best” undergrad institutions to go to. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/webex/lowacc_brief.php
Well according to this, Tougaloo College in Mississippi is a better undergrad institution than my alma mater Middlebury. I’ll bet we have a better ski team.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > UCLA is harder to get into than Penn? I ask that > if we are going to have constructive discussion > about this, can people at least stick to the > facts? thanks I don’t know if this is true with today’s enrollment process, but from a years back, UCLA was hard to get into IF you were applying from out of state. In-state it’s pretty easy with something like an avg GPA of 3.0, while out of state applicants it was something like 3.7, along with SAT disparities and enrollment allotment (~90% in state, ~10% out of state).
Something is wrong with that. According to Peterson’s, 627 applied and 622 were admitted to Tougaloo.
hobbes928 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > UCLA is harder to get into than Penn? I ask > that > > if we are going to have constructive discussion > > about this, can people at least stick to the > > facts? thanks > > I don’t know if this is true with today’s > enrollment process, but from a years back, UCLA > was hard to get into IF you were applying from out > of state. In-state it’s pretty easy with > something like an avg GPA of 3.0, while out of > state applicants it was something like 3.7, along > with SAT disparities and enrollment allotment > (~90% in state, ~10% out of state). That’s certainly true at UNC. In state and out of state are completely different. It’s a nasty environment to be teaching in because your best students are all New Jersey carpetbaggers.
sternwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > …Even if they got placed > unfairly into an analyst program… Yes, it is totally unfair that students at top schools with top grades get placed into analyst programs. Finance is EASILY learnable (to the extent that you need it for investment banking work). We aren’t talking about quant work here, and in that case lets go ahead and disqualify 99.9999% of finance majors here as well (the .0001% being those who added a doctorate in math to their finance undergrad). Please explain how top students are “unfairly” being placed in analyst programs, just because they weren’t finance majors.
hobbes928 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > UCLA is harder to get into than Penn? I ask > that > > if we are going to have constructive discussion > > about this, can people at least stick to the > > facts? thanks > > I don’t know if this is true with today’s > enrollment process, but from a years back, UCLA > was hard to get into IF you were applying from out > of state. In-state it’s pretty easy with > something like an avg GPA of 3.0, while out of > state applicants it was something like 3.7, along > with SAT disparities and enrollment allotment > (~90% in state, ~10% out of state). This year average high school GPA at Berkeley was 4.17. At UCLA it is 4.14 !!
***yawn*** the battle between wanna be BSD’s. It never ends. I know one fact, my daddy could kick your dad’s ass.
MFE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ***yawn*** > > the battle between wanna be BSD’s. It never ends. > I know one fact, my daddy could kick your dad’s > ass. LOL. hilarious
BSD’s?