Steel wrote:
Maybe, maybe not....
Baxter, Genzyme, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, B&D, Merck, Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer (among other smaller firms) all recruited on-campus for interns and full-time this year at Kellogg. I guarantee all the recruiters from those firms know the value of a Kellogg (otherwise they wouldn't come to Kellogg year in year out).
I'm not saying that the companies don't know who the good schools are, they do, but trust me, they don't think "Well, Kellogg is consistently ranked in the top 10, while Yale has never broken into the top 10, so lets just shred the Yale resumes."
I talked with two people, one at in marketing at big pharma company and one in business development at mid-size biotech and both told me there would be no difference between attending Duke or Tuck. That's not something rankings alone would suggest.
Take a look where
Pfizer recruits their MBAs from:
Quote:
* Chicago University Graduate School of Business
* Columbia University Graduate School of Business
* Harvard Business School
* Indiana University (Kelley)
* University of Minnesota (Carlson)
* Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
* Northwestern University (Kellogg)
* New York University (Stern)
* Pennsylvania State University (Smeal)
* University Pennsylanvia (Wharton)
* University of Virginia (Darden)
Where a pharma/biotech company recruits from often has more to do with alumni contacts than any perceived difference in ranking. That's why Pfizer recruits at UMinn and Indiana (Pfizer had a big mid-west presence at one time). Who knows why they recruit at Penn State, probably some alumni offered to recruit there.
However, it often varies within business function too. Finance and marketing people will often be more sensitive to rankings than say supply chain or business development would be.
All I'm saying is that it's not like IB or consulting. You don't see the drastic cutoff in recruiting based on rank. It's not "M7 or bust".
RF