pelihu wrote:
Well, I think that some jobs are clearly better than other jobs. Of course, different people value different things, but some of the standard concerns are money, chance for advancement, amount of responsibility, satisfaction from work, stature gained through work, working conditions and hours, perks, location, and a bunch of other stuff that each person considers.
Some jobs have a lot of things going for them. Google, for example has great perks, great pay (compared to comparable jobs), great working conditions and an exciting brand to work for. Goldman offers huge compensation, and lots of respect, which helps offset (for some people) the long hours. McKinsey offers good pay, pretty good working environment, lots of responsibility and almost immeasurable career advancement possibilities into any number of fields. P/E companies offer off-the-charts compensation. It's no surprise that these are some of the favorite destinations for the most sought after candidates.
I think that other jobs can justifiably be categorized as less desirable. I attended an info session for Chicago hosted at Pacific Gas & Electric. I guess as part of the deal, the VP of PG&E got 5 minutes to speak to the applicants about their management training program. There was a palpable sense of "stop wasting our time" from the perspective Chicago applicants in the room. I believe the job he was describing offered considerably less pay, responsibility, future advancement possibilities and respect that most people in the room were looking for. Was the job itself bad? No, I think that 95+% of the general population would line up and fight for this job, but people with the credentials to get into Chicago were looking for "better" options.
I think it is fair to categorize the "best" jobs as those that have the most competition. I believe that Goldman, Google & McKinsey receive hundreds and hundreds of apps for each open position. It stands to reason that they are able to thus pick and choose the best candidates from their huge applicant pools. The market says that these jobs are the best.
I think it is true that students at schools outside the top 15 or so (let's just say ultra-elite and elite) must rely on more than just the brand name of their MBA program to land the best jobs. Grades, prior work experience, networking, strong interview skills and other factors will help you land the best (again best means most competitive in this example).
I would break it down like this roughly.
Ultra-elites
Will make you competitive at almost any job in almost any industry, regardless of your background. Kellogg student that wants an I-bank interview? You won't have much problem. Chicago student that want to get into consulting. Sure thing. H/W/S students will have the additional benefit of being competitive for ultra-highly-super-competitive jobs. Many hedge funds hire just a few people a year, from among H/W/S students and a select few from Chicago, Columbia & MIT maybe.
Elites
Will make you competitive for most jobs in most industries. I believe that location and school focuses start to matter at this level. It might be a more difficult task for Cornell, Duke & NYU students to land jobs in California; while UCLA and Haas clearly have less pull in certain regions when compared with other elite schools. Also, Darden, for example, is known to produce great consultants with their case study method, while Michigan can compete with almost any school in general and brand management. At this level, I believe that nearly all students will be able to land jobs that most would consider really competitive. The exceptions would be those that have really poor interview and social skills; if a person sucks at interviewing, they will suck at every single interview. I recall a girl from law school who died her hair purple. Seriously, if you really want a job, consider working on things that are keeping you from being considered - like grooming & appearance, social skills and interview skills.
Anything lower
I know, there are lots of different levels below elite. As I have suggested in the past, anyone considering schools below the elite level should have their next steps planned out carefully. The top 10% of students at most schools will probably have shots at some of the best jobs. You'd need to consider the overall package of grades , GMAT scores, work experience, interview skills, personal networking capabilities, appropriateness of location, etc. If you want to work around Los Angeles and have good work experience, using a USC MBA to tap into their strong local alumni base probably makes sense. If your goal is to get into an I-Bank in New York, you should realize that the only two things that can really help you get there from any of the schools in this range would be a really high GMAT score and experience in the industry. You generally cannot career-switch into I-banking or top level Consulting or top-level management track with degrees from non-elites unless you have an ultra high GMAT which can help you land an interview, and top-level interview skills to help you seal the deal.
Frankly speaking, as much as I admire your analytical and writing skills and read your posts with interest , I am quite sick of you promoting "High-GMAT-Score-Importance" at every possible opportunity; whether it is getting into an ultra-elite or an elite school and now getting a sexy job....and I am sure a very “high-GMATâ€