Tough call...

I voted for Tepper.
1. You are accepted there
2. A little bit of money is better than no money
3. I did like Tepper way better than Johnson when visiting
4. Tepper is a great school to develop quant skills
5. The number going into Consulting is 33% at Tepper vs. 23% at Johnson

Thanks for the responses. I guess the only thing tha hangs me up on the consulting numbers at Tepper is that the may include some pretty heavy IT consulting rather than strategy work. I have no interest in IT work at all

Take a look at this article. It's not yearly stats, but they did a search of LinkedIn profiles and found out how many alumni from a given school work for a given top consulting firm.

https://poetsandquants.com/2014/01/17/wh ... onsulting/

So I just got the admit from Cornell and am still considerin this decision. I did not receiver a scholarship offer but here is what is giving me a hard time when trying to decide:

While Tepper has better placement in consulting for FT positions, they place weak in consulting internships. Conversely, it seems that almost everyone that gets a FT consulting offer at Cornell had an internship in consulting as well. I know that FT offers are ultimately what matters, but it is my understanding that most firms will do a tuition reimbursement for retuning intern's 2nd year tuition. There seems to be a higher chance of this at Cornell which would make up for the lack of scholarship.

Tepper: 15% internship, 31% FT
Johnson: 19% internship, 23% FT

Thoughts?

Posted from my mobile device

I wouldn't overthink this aspect. Personally, I say remove $$ from the equation and think of where you'll be happiest. Yes the MBA is a means to an end, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy your experience.

In the end, both schools will get you where you want to go if you put in the work. It's too easy to get caught up in the numbers.

Any other thoughts on this? Still lost on my end

I'd probably go to Cornell. What's getting missed in all of this is, two variables:
1) self selection
2) quality of consulting jobs

If you look at schools ranked poorly, in the 50's and 60's, most of them also send 30% of their class into consulting. But they are different caliber of jobs. The same thing is going here for Tepper. Cornell, despite sending a lower percentage of the class into consulting, sends many more people in tier 1 and tier 2 programs. Looking at employment report and class sizes, you have about a 50% higher chance of getting into a tier 1 or 2 firm from Cornell than Tepper. To me, that's worth an extra 10% cost of a MBA (the $20k scholarship you're giving up).

Interesting, how do you know Cornell sends more to tier 1/2 firms than Tepper? Where can one find this information? The only thing I can find is Businessweek, where they provide "Top Employers/Numbers Hired" - and they say that Tepper sent 7 students to McKinsey and Johnson, if any, sent less than 6.

I based it on the linkedin analysis posted above.

Those are some interesting numbers, but does anyone have any idea how accurate they are?

Its surprising to me that Indiana and Texas have such a high percentage in the non MBB consulting roles. How competitive is it to land the non MBB consulting roles?

The thing people tend to forget about consulting, especially in non-MBB, is that there are things other than management consulting at this firms. Many of these firms have HR and IT consulting, which is less competitive than management/strategy consulting. Likewise, many of these firms have non-client facing research positions, that are likewise not as competitive. Most of the tier 2 companies are also accounting firms, so people aren't even necessarily going into consulting when they head back to them. Lastly, outside the very top firms, things tend to be more regional, so in high population areas without a top school (e.g. Texas), the regional schools do well, but in that office only.

When researching UCLA, I reached out the management consulting firm, and was able to get break down of the type of roles. Actually, UCLA was MUCH more transparent than Duke (which is surprising, since UCLA does worse in Consulting), which was one of the reasons it made my choice to attend Kellogg easier - I didn't really fully "buy" the quality of positions in consulting Duke was getting students, since they wouldn't share those details. By comparison, 25% of the MC roles at UCLA were for non-MC positions.

Good point, how were you able to break down which roles were management consulting vs other types of consulting?

I asked someone in the consulting club. I was actually impressed how transparent they were.

So you are saying 75% consulting jobs out of UCLA is for MC? That's quite good actually.