Chicago (without $) versus Ross (with $)

I want to ask unless it is being assumed by everyone, have you visited both schools? And do you feel like you have a good fit at both schools? I would have thought that the environment at Booth and Ross would be pretty different.

Everything aside, I would try to talk more to current students, whether that be reaching through clubs at both schools, since you got an acceptance, I would imagine that each school would accommodate you in your decision.

I would really take a look at both schools. Putting the money aside, how do you feel about each school? Would you go to one over the other or do you like both equally? Which do you prefer for academics, student body, fit, etc?

Don't base the decision just on the $ - I don't think it's worth if you don't like the school at all and will be miserable there.

This is a good question - you to talk to helg - he had a similar decision last year (and chose Booth). PM him, or maybe I can put you in touch directly (im not sure he logs on anymore, does he?)

For what its worth here's my totally 100% honest, mostly factual and only sort of biased reply. First, let me state the obvious: I am of course ignoring all other variables -- eg, I assume you actually LIKE both schools, have visited them, have no other major reservations, etc.

1. Recognize that $100,000 is a tremendous sum of cash and that the choice of going to Chicago (which has many positives certainly) will likely put you in debt for a number of years. Don't just discount that so easily.

2. Further, recognize that getting a job in consulting is going to be 50% prep and 50% luck - did you get a case you liked? Something you knew something about or something truly random? Was the interviewer tired or frustrated? How were you on that day? Did you two 'click' and get along or did you two not connect? Will you have a conflict with a 2nd round and have to pick between going to one 2nd round and another? To what extent does any of this change whether you are at Chicago or Ross? (I'd say none)

3. Getting a job at MBB is the same as 2, but even more variability and substantially worse odds. You have two person first rounds, usually three person second rounds - what are the odds you nail all 5 of those case interviews? What are the odds someone will connect with you 5 times? What are the odds you perform in the top 20% consistently? To what extent does any of this change whether you are at Chicago or Ross? (I'd say none)

4. I can't tell you how many interviews for those three occur at Ross but at Chicago its about 100 interviews for each one (total of 300 interviews), but were talking about ~20 or so people going to each of those firms. That along says your odds of getting MBB are about 1 in 5. If you consider that more than 100 people apply to each, its lower (although if you are dedicated you can pretty much ensure an interview). To what extent does any of this meaningfully change whether you are at Chicago or Ross? Are Ross' odds 1 in 10 or are they 1 in 6? (I'd say none)

5. Don't underestimate your competition. People are smart. To what extent does any of this change whether you are at Chicago or Ross? (I'd say none, realistically people are just as smart at both schools.)

So, hows that boil out for me?

Without sounding offensive - its no reflection on you in anyway: you probably wont end up at MBB at either school. Realistically - everyone thinks they will get MBB, but the truth is maybe 20% do. There's heavy competition for those jobs, and the pure statistics and sheer variability in things over which you have no control (how the interviewer feels, whether or not you get a good case, whether or not you two connect) are totally independent of whether you end up at either school. (Now, there might be a difference in the odds of getting the interview in the first place at one school vs the other - that I dont know. You'll have to do some research there). If you can accept that MBB is going to take as much skill as LUCK -- and no amount of studying or prep can eliminate that risk -- and no school can eliminate that risk --- then I can think of few reasons not to accept Ross (assuming of course you consider everything else on par). So on balance, if I'm totally honest, I'd say you should choose Ross.

Now, it wouldn't be fair to say that without the flipside of the coin.... and I'm happy to make the case for Chicago too - there are a lot of great reasons to come here as well and if im happy to chew you ear off about it sometime. I'd urge you to reach out to helg too.

Fantastic post rhyme +1

Yep, great post Rhyme. I originally voted Chicago, but its easier to say that when my $$ isn't on the line.

What he said.

Thanks for your opinions! I liked the Rhyme's post as well! I already spoke to a student from Chicago, who was in a similar position last year (I suppose there's a great probability that he was helg ). He told me about all the advantages of studing in Chicago (flexibility, faculty, city, ranking), but still he didn't convince me that all these costs $90K, taking into account that Ross is also very strong in all those points.
To my shame I didn't visit any of the business schools because I'm not a US resident and can't afford to travel now (so as you understand money matter to me much). From the info I have I like both schools, though Chicago is obviously better and if I didn't have a scholarship at Ross I would go to Chicago without hesitation.
I agree with ncprasad that current terms of uncertainty affect the decision greatly and it is much safer to enter uncertainty with lower debt.

I agree with Rhyme - both are obviously great schools, and having a full scholarship is amazing. I personally would choose Ross - unless you have a personal preference to attend Chicago because of other reasons that may outweigh the Ross scholarship to you.

Congratulations!

Without trying to downplay the financial difficulty of doing so, if there's any way you can visit - do it. it will pay you back 10x in return. Imagine how you would feel if you picked school X and didn't like it?

$90k in tuition at Chicago vs free at Ross. Remember that when you tax affect that $90k at a rate of 32% (very conservative total rate for your federal, medicare, and social security) you will actually have to gross an additional $132k in earnings before you are able to make up the difference in scholarship vs no scholarship. That is completely ignoring the concept of time value of money, which would make the number even greater. Also, I would have to assume that the cost of living is far less in Ann Arbor than it is in Chicago, which would also further increase that figure.

Financially, it will come down to whether you think that attending Chicago will increase your earnings potential enough, compared to Ross, to make up that $132k + difference. To me, it is really impossible to quantify the tangible long-term value of two quality programs like you are choosing between. But looking just at your stated goal of going into consulting, which is extremely competitive at all the top schools, it could be quite a long time before you make up that amount in earnings.

Basically, I think if you went to Ross you likely would come out with a similar consulting position that you would have had you attended Chicago. As a result, based only on finances and all else being equal, I've got to vote Ross here.

thorough analysis, dilbert. +1

as someone who applied to both - i think Chicago has got to have the edge. If you can figure out a way to pay for it now, I think you should pick Chicago. At the risk of a flame war - the network, reputation etc. is better long term from Chicago. Take a look at the consulting thread in the careers section - i think its the one where someone is answering questions about working in MC - to succeed in consulting and make partner - network matters. I think you come out of Chicago with a more powerful network - smaller than Ross but more powerful. Having worked in the industry I can tell you this is exactly right.

Either way, you have a great choice and are choosing between two great schools. Think of where you will be happier both short and long-term. The 100k is not going to be a big deal over your entire post-mba career. If Chicago gets a loan program in place, you wil be fine.

Student loan interest is tax deductible (phased out at certain income levels) which is a much larger portion of the payment in early years.

You are correct. Unfortunately, the income limits are super low and most top law and business school grads don't qualify.

In 2009, the deduction is phased out (i.e., gradually reduced) for those with modified adjusted gross income between $60,000 and $75,000 if you are single...

...or between $120,000 and $150,000 if filing a joint return.

Yea, and $150K is nothing on a dual income.

I just assumed probably one income on joint return b/c of international status, which could be wrong. However, you at least can probably deduct for the years in school and first year of work since it's only half year.

What rhyme said earlier is something that doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should.

This is precisely why arguments about why school X is "better for consulting" (and thus more deserving of those that hold M/B/B ambitions) because it sends 20 people to McKinsey, as opposed to school Y which "only" sends 5 do not generally stand up to logical scrutiny.

You can only deduct up to $2,500 in student loan expenses in a year. As a student, you are also likely in a lower tax bracket, how much money does that really save you?

I think saying that you have an equal shot at M/B/B from Ross or Booth is just not valid. The numbers don't lie. If there is no difference, why do more people from Chicago get hired for these positions? It's either the students are higher caliber or these companies recruit more heavily at Chicago. Which one would it be?

Nobody denied that he might have a better chance at Booth than Ross. The question is if that tiny advantage is worth spending an extra $90k (after tax) over?

My answer would be 'No'.