2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[wiz]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

[wiz]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

[Hikikomorist]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

[Hikikomorist]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

It's also only really a problem if it's distortionary, if it affects some schools more than others. I guess schools like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd might get an artificial boost for the salary-at-graduation metric, but I'm not sure how big of a deal that will end up being.

[Hikikomorist]

Other people are welcome to offer their ideas regarding rankings, too.

[wiz]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

[Hikikomorist]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Agreed that med school is more prestigious overall and that the ranking should count deeper down in the stack. Don't really care about the GPA floors, and I'd be most interested in looking at SAT scores of applicants relative to those of M7/T13 applicants. Or we could just use MCAT medians and percentiles and allow for a larger percentage to count as prestigious.

[wiz]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

It's also only really a problem if it's distortionary, if it affects some schools more than others. I guess schools like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd might get an artificial boost for the salary-at-graduation metric, but I'm not sure how big of a deal that will end up being.

I'm assuming it would affect some schools more than others just like it does at T3 law schools.

When you go to a top school and have more options available, you have the opportunity to select out of high paying jobs in favor of unicorn positions that don't pay big money but are appealing for other reasons. I think that lower tier schools aren't affected by that as much, and you can't really give them the benefit of the doubt the same way you can a Wharton econ undergrad who had the credentials to go to GS/MS.

[wiz]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Agreed that med school is more prestigious overall and that the ranking should count deeper down in the stack. Don't really care about the GPA floors, and I'd be most interested in looking at SAT scores of applicants relative to those of M7/T13 applicants. Or we could just use MCAT medians and percentiles and allow for a larger percentage to count as prestigious.

The beauty of the SAT is basically everybody takes it. Once you bifurcate into LSAT vs. MCAT, the comparison gets trickier. What if a higher concentration of smart students are taking the MCAT?

[wiz]

T20 med schools have acceptance rates ranging from 1%-4%.

T20 law schools have acceptance rates ranging from 9%-40%, so there has to be something going on there.

[Hikikomorist]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

It's also only really a problem if it's distortionary, if it affects some schools more than others. I guess schools like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd might get an artificial boost for the salary-at-graduation metric, but I'm not sure how big of a deal that will end up being.

I'm assuming it would affect some schools more than others just like it does at T3 law schools.

When you go to a top school and have more options available, you have the opportunity to select out of high paying jobs in favor of unicorn positions that don't pay big money but are appealing for other reasons. I think that lower tier schools aren't affected by that as much, and you can't really give them the benefit of the doubt the same way you can a Wharton econ undergrad who had the credentials to go to GS/MS.

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of many UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

[Hikikomorist]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Agreed that med school is more prestigious overall and that the ranking should count deeper down in the stack. Don't really care about the GPA floors, and I'd be most interested in looking at SAT scores of applicants relative to those of M7/T13 applicants. Or we could just use MCAT medians and percentiles and allow for a larger percentage to count as prestigious.

The beauty of the SAT is basically everybody takes it. Once you bifurcate into LSAT vs. MCAT, the comparison gets trickier. What if a higher concentration of smart students are taking the MCAT?

Might be personal bias, but the people applying to Harvard/JHU med schools didn't seem any smarter than the people applying to YHS law schools or SHW business schools. But I agree that SAT scores would be ideal for comparison.

[34iplaw]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Sort of chiming in randomly here.

Your UG rankings were pretty on point, IMO.

I would say that most people view med school as more prestigious than both law school and business school even though I think the students have probably similar early academic indicators.

With med school, it is a bit challenging. AFAIK, landing residencies largely depends on GPA and STEP scores more-so than what specific med school you went to, and your residency is far more important than the med school you attend.

[wiz]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

It's also only really a problem if it's distortionary, if it affects some schools more than others. I guess schools like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd might get an artificial boost for the salary-at-graduation metric, but I'm not sure how big of a deal that will end up being.

I'm assuming it would affect some schools more than others just like it does at T3 law schools.

When you go to a top school and have more options available, you have the opportunity to select out of high paying jobs in favor of unicorn positions that don't pay big money but are appealing for other reasons. I think that lower tier schools aren't affected by that as much, and you can't really give them the benefit of the doubt the same way you can a Wharton econ undergrad who had the credentials to go to GS/MS.

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

[Hikikomorist]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

I'd favor inputs as well. Outputs at the undergrad level are also really hard to measure and way more subjective than desirable outcomes in law: biglaw, clerkship, fed gov honors. I also kinda got reamed for emphasizing salary, and I do think there are good, lower-paying jobs that people are passionate about, but I'm not sure how to objectively measure undergrad employment outcomes otherwise.

And tbf, median salary at graduation is how schools like YLS/SLS get bumped down in rankings that misapply the data.

It's also only really a problem if it's distortionary, if it affects some schools more than others. I guess schools like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd might get an artificial boost for the salary-at-graduation metric, but I'm not sure how big of a deal that will end up being.

I'm assuming it would affect some schools more than others just like it does at T3 law schools.

When you go to a top school and have more options available, you have the opportunity to select out of high paying jobs in favor of unicorn positions that don't pay big money but are appealing for other reasons. I think that lower tier schools aren't affected by that as much, and you can't really give them the benefit of the doubt the same way you can a Wharton econ undergrad who had the credentials to go to GS/MS.

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

Sorry, I left out a word that changed the meaning somewhat substantially. I can think of things that would pull a college graduate, but they're opportunities that affect a tiny number of people, and that's why I don't think these jobs are as important to account for as clerkships and whatever else people choose over biglaw.

[wiz]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Sort of chiming in randomly here.

Your UG rankings were pretty on point, IMO.

I would say that most people view med school as more prestigious than both law school and business school even though I think the students have probably similar early academic indicators.

With med school, it is a bit challenging. AFAIK, landing residencies largely depends on GPA and STEP scores more-so than what specific med school you went to, and your residency is far more important than the med school you attend.

Yeah, I agree that med schools are a lot harder to compare, and I still think that getting into virtually any MD program gives you a strong chance at a good outcome. Med schools do a much better job of limiting the applicant pool at the point of entry, so most of the culling is already done pre-matriculation. The law school herd isn't really culled until OCI.

Hikko seems more concerned with inputs, but I don't really see a clear M7 or T13 cutoff like there is with law schools.

[34iplaw]

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

Maybe jobs with prestigious newspapers and working on the hill? I'm not that sure, though. That said, I'm pretty sure that IB analysts do not start near $200k even with their bonus, and I'm fairly certain (I'd dare to say positive) that MBB analysts do not start near $200k.


For computer science, I have no idea. Programmer salaries have gone absolutely haywire over the past few years that a really brilliant friend of mine from UG (I assume Cornell ranks near the top for computer science, but I'm not certain) said he made less starting out at one of the brand name internet companies than they pay graduates of top bootcamps now.

[Hikikomorist]

I'm also pretty ignorant about med-school admissions generally, so probably don't take my thoughts on that too seriously.

[34iplaw]

Also not sure T14/M7/top med schools are comparable.

Getting into almost any medical school is an accomplishment, given the small class sizes, the (relatively) few number of programs, the competitiveness of admissions, and the strong matching process.

I'm sure all med schools have pretty good outcomes, but are they all as prestigious/do they attract the same quality of applicants as M7/T13 schools? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm reluctant to congratulate those who scrape by into the least selective med schools, whatever those are.

Probs right about not being as prestigious, but getting in is more difficult because of the small class sizes. I would assume that they attract the same quality of applicants (how would you quantify that aside from looking at earlier inputs like SAT scores?), if not higher, so the cutoff should at least extend further than 13 schools. If anything, the GPA floors are significantly higher and acceptance rates significantly lower.

I also feel like med school in general is more prestigious, though that's a personal preference.

Sort of chiming in randomly here.

Your UG rankings were pretty on point, IMO.

I would say that most people view med school as more prestigious than both law school and business school even though I think the students have probably similar early academic indicators.

With med school, it is a bit challenging. AFAIK, landing residencies largely depends on GPA and STEP scores more-so than what specific med school you went to, and your residency is far more important than the med school you attend.

Yeah, I agree that med schools are a lot harder to compare, and I still think that getting into virtually any MD program gives you a strong chance at a good outcome. Med schools do a much better job of limiting the applicant pool at the point of entry, so most of the culling is already done pre-matriculation. The law school herd isn't really culled until OCI.

Hikko seems more concerned with inputs, but I don't really see a clear M7 or T13 cutoff like there is with law schools.

Even good DO programs give you a strong chance at a good outcome AFAIK. I don't really see a clear cutoff too, and I think it's complicated because residencies are far more important for determining outcome and, from what I've read, I don't think the school matters all that much for that purpose.

IIRC, you get residencies from med schools unless you target residencies way too narrowly. A lot of brilliant kids miss med school for the same reason. The "worst" med school outcomes still pays $150-$180k with basic guaranteed job security I think.

edit: I guess healthcare though has some general uncertainty. Then again, all of the kids I know who are wealthiest have parents that did obscure shit. One owns a dry cleaning / laundry company that supplies the major hospitals in the area. One owns ice boxes outside of 7/11. Nothing beats that suds and cold water money.

[34iplaw]

I'm also pretty ignorant about med-school admissions generally, so probably don't take my thoughts on that too seriously.

I am too. I've only looked into it relatively recently.

[wiz]

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

Maybe jobs with prestigious newspapers and working on the hill? I'm not that sure, though. That said, I'm pretty sure that IB analysts do not start near $200k even with their bonus, and I'm fairly certain (I'd dare to say positive) that MBB analysts do not start near $200k.


For computer science, I have no idea. Programmer salaries have gone absolutely haywire over the past few years that a really brilliant friend of mine from UG (I assume Cornell ranks near the top for computer science, but I'm not certain) said he made less starting out at one of the brand name internet companies than they pay graduates of top bootcamps now.

You're right. Fresh IB analysts are $150k-$160k at bulge brackets. They can approach $200k as second to third year analysts.

At MBB you're looking at $115k-$120k straight out of undergrad (plus a sweet 401k match).

I was thinking about the two-year TFA commitment and just kind of threw out a number.

[Hikikomorist]

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

Maybe jobs with prestigious newspapers and working on the hill? I'm not that sure, though. That said, I'm pretty sure that IB analysts do not start near $200k even with their bonus, and I'm fairly certain (I'd dare to say positive) that MBB analysts do not start near $200k.


For computer science, I have no idea. Programmer salaries have gone absolutely haywire over the past few years that a really brilliant friend of mine from UG (I assume Cornell ranks near the top for computer science, but I'm not certain) said he made less starting out at one of the brand name internet companies than they pay graduates of top bootcamps now.

Oh, yeah - my UG's valedictorian ran off to work for Bloomberg, and she definitely could have gotten at least one of MBB/IB. Actually, I looked it up on Glassdoor, and she didn't give up too much in terms of salary to take that job.

[Hikikomorist]

Maybe it's my poor upbringing/lack of imagination, but I can't think of UG equivalents to clerkships/ACLU-like organizations that would pull graduates away from MBB/IB/Google in significant numbers. For example, at my school at least, TFA wasn't attracting the top graduates. I guess you could take 5 percent from the 40 percent to account for prestigious fellowships (which we still haven't ranked!).

I agree with you, man, and I don't know too many people who turned down $200k for TFA either.

I just got roasted for the MBB/IB/Google argument earlier, so I'm trying to be more careful about the salary-based assumptions I make now.

And I feel like a lot of people who take a fellowship or TFA or do another stint in their 20s exploring their passions end up getting closer to their earning potential later in life as they start families and have more expenses, so maybe weight midcareer salary heavier?

Maybe jobs with prestigious newspapers and working on the hill? I'm not that sure, though. That said, I'm pretty sure that IB analysts do not start near $200k even with their bonus, and I'm fairly certain (I'd dare to say positive) that MBB analysts do not start near $200k.


For computer science, I have no idea. Programmer salaries have gone absolutely haywire over the past few years that a really brilliant friend of mine from UG (I assume Cornell ranks near the top for computer science, but I'm not certain) said he made less starting out at one of the brand name internet companies than they pay graduates of top bootcamps now.

You're right. Fresh IB analysts are $150k-$160k at bulge brackets. They can approach $200k as second to third year analysts.

At MBB you're looking at $115k-$120k straight out of undergrad (plus a sweet 401k match).

I was thinking about the two-year TFA commitment and just kind of threw out a number.

Really? Median total compensation for a McKinsey analyst looks to be $90k on Glassdoor.

[wiz]

Just saw your CS comment: Cornell has a pretty good CS program, and I've seen some of the bonkers numbers being thrown around at FB/GOOG/MSFT/AMZN for coders. It depends on school, internships, github page, and interviewing, but I've seen some packages starting out well over $200k for the first year.

For example: $130k base, $100k signing bonus, $200k stock vesting over 3.5 years, ~10% bonus.

That's a 22 year old CS grad making $280k his first year and then maybe $190k the next year (depending on raises).

[34iplaw]

TBH, I thought they were both lower, but I haven't looked at it in awhile so I'm surprised that it is as high as you said it was. Granted, the economy is also just wildly different than when I graduated. I thought it was more like $115k for IB (granted, salary figures could probably be skewed by "real" IBD jobs versus support roles that graduates take) plus some bonus maybe and MBB was closer to $95k.

(note: I used quotes because I generally hate these kinds of discussions of "prestige" and "outcomes" unless someone is obnoxious and I want to get under their skin. It's generally super easy to get under someone's skin that only cares about prestige.)

@Hikko, I'm surprised they get paid that much, but I do know a lot of smart people that went to newspapers. Granted, I don't think many of these people ever entertained the idea of going IB/MBB, as it isn't the 90s where an English major can land an investment banking job with a high enough GPA and undergraduate pedigree.