Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 28 Aug 2014, 19:39

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition)

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Kellogg (No $) vs. UCLA (40% tuition)

  • 60% [20]
  • 39% [13]
Author Message
TAGS:
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 27
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 750 Q V
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2013, 06:53
Hi fellow GCers,

I want to work in tech / entrepreneurship on the west coast post-MBA. I have computer software background. I visited UCLA and like their campus, weather, and many VC / tech firms in area. I just got off Kellogg wait-list yesterday and have not visited Kellogg yet. I will visit Kellogg soon but would like to hear everyone's opinions.

What would you choose?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

Vu.
Current Student
User avatar
Status: Too close for missiles, switching to guns.
Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 764
Location: United States
Schools: Johnson (Cornell) - Class of 2015
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 308 [0], given: 166

Premium Member
Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2013, 07:26
Normally Kellogg would seem like a no-brainer, but given your career goals, I'd have to go with UCLA on this one...especially since you've already visited and seem to like it there. Sure Kellogg can get you to the west coast - it's an elite school for a reason - but you might find your network thinner out there. Also, if you want to be in SoCal after graduation it's a lot easier to network during school than being limited to career treks that you would take while at Kellogg.

I will say Kellogg would be the better choice if you happened to change your mind on your career goals since it's strong in so many areas.

Congrats on getting off the WL! It's nice to know that it's possible!
_________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fWvub_WBho

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 81
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
Schools: Babson '14 (M)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3
WE: Marketing (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 11

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2013, 07:46
Completely agree. I vote UCLA as well.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 25
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 5

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2013, 07:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
Vu,
My cousin graduated from Kellogg (2012) and relocated to the west coast post MBA. He didn't have too much problem adjusting creating a network (he's been a mentor through my app process).
If you're looking at NorCal, then either school would be fine. UCLA definitely if you plan to settle in the LA area.
Tech/Entrepreneurship sounds more like you're looking at NorCal. My cousin had a similar profile to yours (Pharma/IT) and has just launched his second company there.
Hope this helps.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 23
Location: United States
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 7

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2013, 19:52
Go with Kellogg. UCLA 40% ain't worth the missed opportunity to graduate from a premier institution. You would recoup that in a couple of years max. Howsoever good UCLA's network be on the west coast, Kellogg will serve you better in the long run.

40% ain't no love here.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 27
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 750 Q V
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2013, 07:59
Thank you for all the insight so far. Much appreciated. Please keep them coming.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2013
Posts: 119
Location: United States
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 23

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2013, 09:35
Honestly I'd go with Kellogg. It'd be really hard for me to give up the chance and long term pay off that a top 5 school affords. Maybe if UCLA was giving you full tuition I'd say go that way, but 40% doesn't seem worth it to me.
Current Student
avatar
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 326
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 129 [0], given: 26

GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2013, 10:27
@tienvunguyen : What edge will UCLA give you that Kellogg MBA program will not be able to give? Its like preparing to take on the national team with one of the state level teams. The national level team will always have better players. Kellogg name will always give you the brand , network and the opportunities that UCLA might not. MBA is once in a lifetime opportunity and a better brand v.s saving some extra bucks should be a no brainer.
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2012
Posts: 64
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [2] , given: 13

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2013, 20:08
2
This post received
KUDOS
I'm seeing some responses here that rely on the myth that starting salary rankings and long-term net worth rankings of the top 20 b-schools are based on people being compensated differently for the same jobs, purely based on the brand of their MBA. This is incorrect. A JPMorgan investment banker from Ross will have the same starting salary as a JPMorgan investment banker from Wharton. Kellogg has a higher starting salary average than Anderson because they send MORE people into consulting and finance, where the starting salaries are across the board higher. This is a function of the industry breakdown of the schools' graduates, not a reflection of the market's perception of school brand.

Further, after people are hired, raises and promotions are PURELY a factor of their job performance. Most peers and managers won't care in the slightest which school you went to; it will be the merits of your performance every time. So the real question is (and ONLY is): which school will give me the better opportunity to get that first great job that I want upon graduation?

That's where employment statistics play a MUCH more crucial role than US News or Bweek rankings can ever play. Because if you happen to know what you want to do - both industry and function - then you can be scientific about your chances. You can scour LinkedIn. Compare placement reports. Model it out. The work is worth it. And if you do that for Anderson and Kellogg, you happen to find that Anderson fares very well for what the OP has already decided he wants. Kellogg places a little better for tech in Seattle, but not by much. Anderson places better in Silicon Valley/San Francisco; and Anderson dominates totally in SoCal/LA. This is a function of the school's curriculum emphasis, strong regional network, and geographic advantage that allows students to frequently be in the faces of potential recruiters. All this matters.

Of course, my points are only salient if you know what you want to do. If you're someone who really doesn't know, and want to keep all options on the table, then the advice to go after the largest possible brand holds a lot more water. And naturally, if you want to be a banker on the East Coast or go into pedigree-hungry MBB consulting, then Anderson loses. And if you want to be in the Midwest, then Anderson gets decimated. But that's not the OP's situation.

Personally, I'm currently deciding between Kellogg (with no money) and Anderson (with a full tuition fellowship). I, similarly to the OP, am aiming for a product management career in a technology or entertainment company on the West Coast. All things considered, then: turning down the #4 school in the country for the #14 school (and pocketing the cash) makes a lot of sense for me.

Moral? Context is everything.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2010
Posts: 694
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: MIT Sloan - Class of 2015
WE: Consulting (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 627

GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2013, 23:05
cole2012 wrote:
I'm seeing some responses here that rely on the myth that starting salary rankings and long-term net worth rankings of the top 20 b-schools are based on people being compensated differently for the same jobs, purely based on the brand of their MBA. This is incorrect. A JPMorgan investment banker from Ross will have the same starting salary as a JPMorgan investment banker from Wharton. Kellogg has a higher starting salary average than Anderson because they send MORE people into consulting and finance, where the starting salaries are across the board higher. This is a function of the industry breakdown of the schools' graduates, not a reflection of the market's perception of school brand.

Further, after people are hired, raises and promotions are PURELY a factor of their job performance. Most peers and managers won't care in the slightest which school you went to; it will be the merits of your performance every time. So the real question is (and ONLY is): which school will give me the better opportunity to get that first great job that I want upon graduation?

That's where employment statistics play a MUCH more crucial role than US News or Bweek rankings can ever play. Because if you happen to know what you want to do - both industry and function - then you can be scientific about your chances. You can scour LinkedIn. Compare placement reports. Model it out. The work is worth it. And if you do that for Anderson and Kellogg, you happen to find that Anderson fares very well for what the OP has already decided he wants. Kellogg places a little better for tech in Seattle, but not by much. Anderson places better in Silicon Valley/San Francisco; and Anderson dominates totally in SoCal/LA. This is a function of the school's curriculum emphasis, strong regional network, and geographic advantage that allows students to frequently be in the faces of potential recruiters. All this matters.

Of course, my points are only salient if you know what you want to do. If you're someone who really doesn't know, and want to keep all options on the table, then the advice to go after the largest possible brand holds a lot more water. And naturally, if you want to be a banker on the East Coast or go into pedigree-hungry MBB consulting, then Anderson loses. And if you want to be in the Midwest, then Anderson gets decimated. But that's not the OP's situation.

Personally, I'm currently deciding between Kellogg (with no money) and Anderson (with a full tuition fellowship). I, similarly to the OP, am aiming for a product management career in a technology or entertainment company on the West Coast. All things considered, then: turning down the #4 school in the country for the #14 school (and pocketing the cash) makes a lot of sense for me.

Moral? Context is everything.

I agree with your point that context is everything. That said, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree your point that people are suggesting Kellogg based on a myth that higher ranked schools yield higher salaries for the same positions. Perhaps that is a myth (I've heard it from time to time), but no one in this thread intimated that as a reason to choose Kellogg over Anderson.
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2012
Posts: 64
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [2] , given: 13

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2013, 08:27
2
This post received
KUDOS
kingfalcon wrote:
I agree with your point that context is everything. That said, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree your point that people are suggesting Kellogg based on a myth that higher ranked schools yield higher salaries for the same positions. Perhaps that is a myth (I've heard it from time to time), but no one in this thread intimated that as a reason to choose Kellogg over Anderson.


kasonhills mentions the 'long term payoff' of a top 5 school. And boothcornellrock talks about recouping the tuition difference in a couple of years. I believe they are relying on the higher expected salary numbers attributed to higher ranked schools to make those comments. (Either of you, feel free to let me know I'm misreading you.)

And I think those higher EV numbers are misleading, was my point. As long as (A) you know what you want to do: industry, job title, geography and target company list; and (B) two schools give you reasonably similar access to the same recruiters (those who match the A attributes) -- then the EV of those two schools, for you, is roughly the same. No matter ranking. After that, getting the job, excelling in it, getting promoted, and every dollar of lifetime earnings is on you, not the school or its ranking. That was my point.

The EV numbers are relevant, by the way, if School A cannot give you the same chances of getting into Dream Company/Dream Job. E.g. you are dead set on working at McKinsey. Well, Kellogg can get you there. Hult cannot. That's a real and significant difference, and impacts your personal EV of business school.

That said, I should reiterate that there are legit reasons to pick a higher ranked school beyond access to particular recruiters or placement stats. If you don't quite know what you want to do. If you think there's a chance you'll switch careers, or switch geographies. Or if it makes you feel better to have a more prestigious brand on the resume. All these are legitimate factors to consider.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2013
Posts: 119
Location: United States
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 23

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2013, 11:45
1
This post received
KUDOS
cole2012 wrote:

That's where employment statistics play a MUCH more crucial role than US News or Bweek rankings can ever play. Because if you happen to know what you want to do - both industry and function - then you can be scientific about your chances. You can scour LinkedIn. Compare placement reports. Model it out. The work is worth it. And if you do that for Anderson and Kellogg, you happen to find that Anderson fares very well for what the OP has already decided he wants. Kellogg places a little better for tech in Seattle, but not by much. Anderson places better in Silicon Valley/San Francisco; and Anderson dominates totally in SoCal/LA. This is a function of the school's curriculum emphasis, strong regional network, and geographic advantage that allows students to frequently be in the faces of potential recruiters. All this matters.

Of course, my points are only salient if you know what you want to do. If you're someone who really doesn't know, and want to keep all options on the table, then the advice to go after the largest possible brand holds a lot more water. And naturally, if you want to be a banker on the East Coast or go into pedigree-hungry MBB consulting, then Anderson loses. And if you want to be in the Midwest, then Anderson gets decimated. But that's not the OP's situation.

Personally, I'm currently deciding between Kellogg (with no money) and Anderson (with a full tuition fellowship). I, similarly to the OP, am aiming for a product management career in a technology or entertainment company on the West Coast. All things considered, then: turning down the #4 school in the country for the #14 school (and pocketing the cash) makes a lot of sense for me.

Moral? Context is everything.


When I talk about the long term pay off I'm talking about the doors that Kellogg can open that Anderson may not be able to do. Down the road if one wants to switch careers, geographic location or even just move to another company the Kellogg brand on the resume will facilitate that dramatically, especially outside of California.

Also, when you look at the context, Anderson has much better placement in California because its much more of a regional school. I think something like 72% of grads stay in Cali. Kellogg has much more broad national recruiting. Does this mean that a Kellogg grad would have a harder time landing a job in California? No it just means less are looking for jobs there.

Now of course this doesn't mean the op should or shouldn't do one or the other, I'm just saying I'd pick Kellogg over Anderson for the 40% tuition. In your case where it's the full tuition, I'd havea harder time deciding.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 May 2011
Posts: 67
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q V
GMAT 2: 630 Q V
GMAT 3: 660 Q V
GMAT 4: 680 Q V
GMAT 5: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.12
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 21 [1] , given: 1

Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition) [#permalink] New post 25 Mar 2013, 13:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
100% go to Kellogg's DAK II in a few weeks. This should validate any hunches or doubts you have.

My guess is many of the popular Bay Area tech firms recruit at both schools. The following are some bay area tech companies that recruited for summer internships this year at Kellogg: Google, Facebook, Apple, LinkedIn, Salesforce, Cisco, Zynga, Intel, Symantec, and Adobe.

I can see Anderson having an advantage for finding a job at a Bay Area start up because of proximity. Often, you need to network your way into start ups and being closer to the Bay Area makes it easier. Though it's definitely possible at Kellogg, especially with the expansive alumni base in the area.

I chose Kellogg without $ over a full ride at another school because I felt the caliber of students and alumni at Kellogg was higher and the number and breadth of companies who came on campus to hire were larger. Having said that, I think 40% at Anderson is compelling if you know CA is where you want to stay and tech is what you want to do since Anderson does both well.

Still, I voted Kellogg on the poll :)

Posted from my mobile device Image
Re: Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition)   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2013, 13:14
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic UCLA ($$) vs. Kellogg for Finance rchan411 4 27 Mar 2014, 18:55
6 Experts publish their posts in the topic UCSD - Rady (half tuition) vs UCLA - Anderson (no $) onsomniac 10 23 Mar 2013, 20:15
1 UCLA vs NYU vs Kellogg chenster75 5 30 Mar 2011, 12:38
1 UCLA vs Kellogg vs Booth JinJJa 9 17 Feb 2010, 03:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Kellogg (no scholarship) vs. UCLA (40% tuition)

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.