Frank, the “way around SATs” is expensive tutoring sessions starting in 7th or 8th grade. A lot of rich people–and parents from the Far East–in my area force this upon their kids.
nbkn9xu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure rich kids from private schools have better > access but they also have the fulfill the > requirements. Harvard’s average GPA and SAT scores > apply to everyone. Only your riches don’t get you > in to ivy leagues schools. I can guarantee that > most of the kids who go to ivy league have > superior academics (along with a lot of money) > that gets them in. > > Also, for I-banking jobs, they teach you > everything so why would it matter if you have any > prior knowledge? As some one else pointed out, ivy > kids have raw brains which makes them better > learner than perhaps kids who lack that quality > and in my opinion, that’s precisely what I-banks > look for. nbkn9xu is spot on here. there are plenty of people at top schools that come from underprivileged backgrounds, whose parents work manual labor jobs just to make ends meet. but sometimes it’s these individuals that have the most potential and are willing to work the hardest to get places in life, because they’ve seen what their parents had to do. i myself made friends with classmates from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and i never considered that my university was prejudiced towards upper income families. i mean, you have to remember that the top schools have endowment funds that are worth billions of dollars, so it’s not like admitting a handful of “underprivileged” students is an impossibility for them.
numi, what I find repugnant is the fact that Harvard–with an endowment pushing $30 billion–charges $50,000/year in tuition/room and board AND drains from the liquidity of the loan system in the US because the system gives federal financial aid to assist students AND allocates money to these insitutions, too. The gov’t shouldn’t give student aid to students who attend universities with endowments of over $10 billion and charge rates in excess of $40,000. The university should pay for it themselves.
The $50,000 they charge is for students who can afford to pay that. Harvard (and some other top schools) have a need blind policy and give huge grants to underprivileged students. They obviously can’t give free tuition to everyone because it’s not a charity organization afterall. I remember reading an article that nearly 70% of students attending a four year college pay less than $8000 for tution and fees with the rest covered by the schools and the govt.
nbkn, the point is, with $30 billion, not ONE STUDENT at Harvard should be taking money out of the public system to pay for college, but many are. Harvard isn’t a charity organization nor is a for-profit institution–it’s a not-for-profit. The gov’t should cut off these obscenely wealthy instutitions that choose to charge obscene amounts. It’s not even like they’re shooting out architects and engineers that are badly needed for society–they’re making political scientists and politicians.
kkent, i agree. lets face it, the rich have advantages. but that is why i admire figures that come from nothing i.e boxers, 50 cent since i’m more like them then the clan that George Bush hangs around. i was watching some documentary on bush, and it seems coming from that “skulls and bones” click, you’re pretty much set.
That documentary probably failed to mention all the rich liberal politicians who were bought into these institutions and organizations (Al Gore, John Kerry).
The SAT I is a very easy test… it’s merely low level math and decent vocab…anyone can get in the range of the score I got given enough effort at vocab memorization and pre-calc level math skills. I was a good student in middle school, so the SAT was very easy for me…got 1440 on the PSAT , the first time I took it. Not because I was so much smarter than anyone else. But I can bet you that if everyone here spent 200 hours studying the SAT they would eventually get in the 1500/1600 range. The complaint on hand is how unfair it is for useless kids from ivies to get into Ibanking and people like frank here, who unfortunately get a bit lower on college entrance exams due to less diligence and lack of private school connections during their teenage years suffer from an impossible entry barrier even with accomplishments like the CFA, CPA when they are older. I’m very positive that an older guy with a CPA, CFA could come in and get a banking analyst’s repetitive grub-like work done with greater efficiency, precision, and speed than some guy with a 3.7 Harvard majoring in African history with a super duper 9 week analyst training.
sternwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The SAT I is a very easy test… it’s merely > low level math and decent vocab…anyone can get > in the range of the score I got given enough > effort at vocab memorization and pre-calc level > math skills. I was a good student in middle > school, so the SAT was very easy for me…got > 1440 on the PSAT , the first time I took it. Not > because I was so much smarter than anyone else. > > But I can bet you that if everyone here spent 200 > hours studying the SAT they would eventually get > in the 1500/1600 range. > > The complaint on hand is how unfair it is for > useless kids from ivies to get into Ibanking and > people like frank here, who unfortunately get a > bit lower on college entrance exams due to less > diligence and lack of private school connections > during their teenage years suffer from an > impossible entry barrier even with accomplishments > like the CFA, CPA when they are older. > > I’m very positive that an older guy with a CPA, > CFA could come in and get a banking analyst’s > repetitive grub-like work done with greater > efficiency, precision, and speed than some guy > with a 3.7 Harvard majoring in African history > with a super duper 9 week analyst training. The whole idea of the i-banking training program is that they want to mold you the way they see fit. That’s why it doesn’t matter what background you come from. Here is another way to see it. Let’s say you went to MIT to get a Mechanical engineering degree. Did you know anything about ME before MIT? NO. Did you need to know anything? NO because they TEACH you everything there. Similarly, I-banks TRAIN you to everything so these “useless” kids as you call them and not really as useless as you might think. Another reason why they target young people for the analyst role is because they’re in the prime years to put in 15 hours days than some one who’s older and has a family. As for your last comment, I doubt that having a CFA or a CFP makes you a better analyst. Sure you have a deeper understanding of the concepts but it doesn’t make you any more efficient than a 23 year old kid with a 9 week training
stern, you’re somewhat right. however, i’m Canadian so i never ever thought of entering into the US for schools and we don’t have entrance exams here. Truth be told, i got into a lot of trouble in H.S and finally got my act together in the later years. i would’ve never even uttered the word Harvard EVER. the only time i ever thought about a US school was for graduate school. but i’m very pleased with the schools I went to and the education that I have acquired. the only thing i wish i did earlier was decide on exactly what I wanted to do. i’m having a wonderful time studying for the CFA. i have learnt a lot and i think it is a blessing to be given the power to study and take an exam.
Isn’t part of the fact that M&A analysts work such ridiculous hours due to the fact that they are too green and lacking analytical knowledge (and acumen) to work faster and more efficiently on their models, comps, valuation, etc.? Hence the need for their banking associates to constantly tell them to redo, revise their models and correct the constant stream of mistakes? And the fact that 2nd and 3rd year analysts get such giant premium bonuses compared to first year grubs because they have learned the essential accounting/valuation skills on the grind rather than by cpa study? (albeit with many tears of a wasted youth) And lastly, aren’t M&A bankers known to be very significantly less technically acute (dumber) than equity researchers and traders? Correct me as you will… While the CFA is probably not as applicable, it seems that hiring CPAs would probably greatly ease things up in banking analyst positions.
"And lastly, aren’t M&A bankers known to be very significantly less technically acute (dumber) than equity researchers and traders? " Hey, hey! I’m interviewing tomorrow for an M&A investment banking analyst position…
"And lastly, aren’t M&A bankers known to be very significantly less technically acute (dumber) than equity researchers and traders? " this statement is a joke. Obviously first hand experience here… kkent Good luck and v interesting work.
“While the CFA is probably not as applicable, it seems that hiring CPAs would probably greatly ease things up in banking analyst positions” If that was the case, how come not a single bank targets CPAs for their analyst position?
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numi, what I find repugnant is the fact that > Harvard–with an endowment pushing $30 > billion–charges $50,000/year in tuition/room and > board AND drains from the liquidity of the loan > system in the US because the system gives federal > financial aid to assist students AND allocates > money to these insitutions, too. The gov’t > shouldn’t give student aid to students who attend > universities with endowments of over $10 billion > and charge rates in excess of $40,000. The > university should pay for it themselves. Actually, Harvard’s endowment is now about $41 billion. I agree that the government should not be subsidizing any students at these institution. In fact I would go so far as saying that it is the government subsidies that are responsible for the skyrocketing cost of higher education in the US. All preferential loans made by the government to students should go, with a possible exception for the truly underpriviledged.
$41 billion? Just goes to show what compound interest does. Just a few years ago, the endowment was about $20 billion.
As of June 30, 2007, it was $34.9B http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101512.html How did it grow by $6B in 2 months? Danteshek where did you get that figure?
Harvard is returning about 23% per year, putting them on pace to hit $41 billion in a little more than 7 months.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/08/21/harvard-gets-it-right-again Aug 21 2007 8:52PM EDT Harvard Gets It Right Again Every year, the Harvard Management Company sends out a “John Harvard letter” saying what’s happened to the world’s largest endowment over the past 12 months. Historically, it has been an opportunity for the CEO to crow about excess returns. And this year is no exception. HMC had a truly phenomenal fiscal 2007, which ran from July 2006 to June 2007. The Harvard endowment grew by an eye-popping 23%, net of all expenses and fees. Says the letter: Reflecting the strong investment results, and after taking into account annual distributions to the University and the receipt of new gifts, the value of the endowment grew from $29.2 billion as of end-June 2006 to $34.9 billion as of end-June 2007 (Exhibit 1); the total value of the “General Investment Account” (GIA), which constitutes the pooled assets managed by HMC that include the endowment and related accounts, grew from $33.7 billion to $41.0 billion. The man ultimately responsible for that $41 billion is Mohamed El-Erian, who’s getting by on a high seven-figure salary. Which is a lot of money by academic standards, but just think how much a hedge-fund manager would make for the same returns: the average assets under management for the year were $37.35 billion, which means that a 2% management fee would come to $747 million. Then a 20% performance fee on the $7.3 billion increase in assets would be an extra $1.46 billion, for a total of $2.207 billion. To put that in context, El-Erian’s take-home pay is roughly the $0.007 billion at the end of that figure. But what’s going on now? Harvard, famously, had a huge investment in Solengo Sowood Capital, run by a former Harvard portfolio manager, which blew up spectacularly during the credit bust just after Harvard’s 2007 fiscal year had ended. Have the fiscal 2007 gains, then, been eroded? No. Based on the information we have received so far, on a standalone basis the Sowood losses would translate into a decline of about 1% in the endowment relative to the end-June valuation. The Sowood-related losses, as well as the more general impact of financial market dislocations, were offset by gains on account of the overall positioning of the portfolio, including a number of market hedges implemented in the context of our overall risk management process. The endowment also benefited from a high degree of diversification among internal and external portfolio managers and strategies. As a result, the initial estimate for the month of July points to an aggregate gain in value for the endowment of 0.4%. (As a comparison, the S&P fell 3.1% during that month while the Lehman Aggregate rose 0.8%). No news yet on August, of course, which was even tougher than July. But if the endowment could weather a major portfolio manager blowing up spectacularly and still show a profit overall, I have a feeling that its August performance will be entirely satisfactory. El-Erian hints as much in his letter: We are resisting the temptation to extrapolate the recent strong investment performance. Instead, it is more prudent to view it as involving a “windfall gain” component. Indeed, the question is not whether there will be market pullbacks, but rather their likely depth, breadth, and duration. This consideration assumes added importance given the gradual decline in the traditional risk mitigating characteristics of a diversified asset allocation, thus further emphasizing the importance of HMC’s hedging and risk management strategies. Indeed, the July experience, as well as market developments so far in August, illustrates how these strategies can help the endowment navigate a challenging combination of sudden market disruptions and significant liquidity dislocations. In other words, don’t expect me to increase total assets by another $7.3 billion next year: fiscal 2007 was something special. But at the same time, I know what I’m doing, and that money is now in the bank. You’re welcome. It’s also worth noting that El-Erian spent a lot of fiscal 2007 rebuilding an organization which had been decimated by the abrupt departure of Jack Meyer and his lieutenants. If this is an example of how he can perform while understaffed and not entirely positioned as he might ideally like, one suspects that fiscal 2008 could also turn out to have an upside surprise or two.
I like how the article likes to give implicit credit to El-Erian (a guy who was hired only a year or so ago) for managing such a large endowment, comparing his salary to hedge fund managers that have to actually raise that money from scratch.