Several applicants have asked me to compile a sub-cluster of the top three or so schools of the ultraelites. Intrigued by the challenge, I have endeavored to come up with a stable subcluster of the three top schools. Nonetheless, a stable sub-cluster has not been forthcoming.

The problem is that more than three schools make up the top schools across the most important domains (e.g. finance, marketing, general management, technology, etc.). For instance, it would be difficult to make a sub-cluster that excluded Northwestern as a result of its strengths in marketing and general management. Likewise, it would be difficult to exclude Harvard based on its ability to produce CEOs of major firms. Chicago would be difficult to exclude since it is so strong in finance and quant analysis. A sub-cluster that left out such an outstanding leader in technology as MIT would be difficult to take seriously. Likewise, a sub-cluster that failed to include the impressive learning environment of Stanford would be subject to widespread and valid criticism. In a similar manner, it would be difficult to make a top sub-cluster that failed to include Pennsylvania as a result of the school’s many strengths across domains and its legacy of producing managers. Finally, Columbia is hard to exclude since it offers an ultraelite education with access to what is (arguably) the most important business city in the world.

I invite others to suggest their nominees for a stable sub-cluster but I warn you that it is not easy.

Hi Hjort,

To add a metric to your quest of defining a sub-cluster I would mention yield. As you probably know (but to clarify for other readers that may not) yield [%] is the proportion of students that get admitted which actually go to such school. I recall both Harvard and Stanford are consistently in the 80% region (and most of the remaining 20% is from applicants admitted to the other school or not attending school for some other reason), while Wharton is a little bit behind but confortable 3rd. Kellogg is around 50 - 60% if I remember correctly and the rest comes after.

I know it's only one metric and as so will measure a minor part of the program. However, a conclusion would be that if lots of applicants assess the various schools from which they get offers each year and choose in that order, they may be considering lots of data in the process. A caveat could be that most applicants in the applicant pool wish to pursue career in which those schools are strong (consulting, finance, etc.) but just consider the differences among the three and you'll see the room for that kind of bias is small. It's probably mostly related to the brand mentioned before (when comparing with other schools in the ultra-elite group).

I understand that when analyzing objectively any program one could fail to define conclusively, for eg, why Wharton is better than Chicago (if it is so), but in the end, applicants consistently put their money at Wharton rather than Chicago if given the chance and that's an indicator of some sort.

Anyway, just hinting at another metric to look into and define why these schools could make the top 3 sub-cluster.

Cheers. L.

The problem with Northwestern/Kellogg is that it is relatively weak in finance. Thus, if we include Kellogg we exclude two schools that are far stronger in this domain: Columbia and Chicago. Kellogg share this problem (of sorts) with Stanford in that the are both very strong on the general and soft skills but cannot match the Finance trio (CoChP).

Hjort:

What other cities are great to live in aside from California? Is New York good? What about outside of the U.S?

IMHO, we schould sluster schools based on the strengthety of their brands. Though we can use only relative measures, they might work good in this case.

For example, a person who gets to Wharton and Chicago, is more likely to prefer Wharton. A person, who gets to Chicago and Kellogg, is more likely to prefer Chicago, etc.

Based on the above, the proposed cluster are (with no particular order within the clusters):

Cluster 1
- Wharton
- Stanford
- Harvard

Cluster 2
- Chicago GSB
- Columbia

Cluster 3
- Kellogg
- MIT Sloan
_________________

Too much is not enough...

Another choice of subcluster that comes up relatively frequently is Harvard, Penn, and Stanford (usually rendered as "HSW" or something similar). I have yet to discover why this particularl subcluster seems to hold it "true believers" in such a state of awe.

Remember, if we include three schools it means we have necessarily excluced the others of the seven. Accordingly, Northwestern/Kellogg, Columbia, Chicago, and MIT are all available to unseat any of these three schools.

Stanford, an outstanding school by any measure, is still probably the easiest to unseat (as described in the post above Kellogg can match it in finance and strategy, Ch/Co can handily beat Stanford in finance and hold their own in the softer skills).

Penn/Wharton is a bit tougher since it has so many strengths. However, Northwestern would provide extremely tough competion on the softer skills and Ch/Co are at least as strong in finance. Either way, it is probably not far enough away from the others to justify grouping it separately.

Harvard is a tough case. First, no school can come close to matching its CEO production. Further, the gigantic FT class size means that one has a large number of network opportunities. A perhaps even greater problem in unseating Harvard is that Harvard reveals so little information about its graduates. Thus, it is hard to perform much of any comparative analysis between Harvard and any of its competitors.

OK, so we've managed to pick the top 2, right? About Columbia's yield, I wonder what that figure would be if they did not have their "early decision" program in place. Maybe back to 4th / 5th?

Anyways, nothing is conclusive as explained throughout this post.

Cheers. L.

Agree

Strongly disagree, although based on anecdotal evidence. I think the Chicago vs. Kellogg question would probably come down to the applicant's main interests.

L.

I think it's actually pretty easy:

1. H/S
2. W
3. K, Chi, Sloan, Col

1. Very few people turn down H/S for any other school (occasionnally, though rarely, Wharton)
2. Very few people turn down Wharton for other schools than H/S (yield is low b/c lots of people - including yours truly - only apply to HSW)
3. I see no clear trend here, with perhaps a slight advantage to Sloan

Here's my two cents:

If you are on the west coast, Stanford holds a higher prestige than Harvard or Wharton. I think this partly derives from the selectivity and small class size. The Stanford GSB is the hardest of the 3 to get into. Thus, holding a degree from the school holds a certain stamp of approval that doesn't exist with H/W.

However, Harvard has more famous alumni and a stronger layman name than S/W. There are many Fortune 500 CEOs which come from HBS. This is for 3 reasons:
1.) HBS is an outstanding school with a great network.
2.) Many kids go to HBS who are already and well positioned to take over an empire regardless of their network (ala George Bush). This is also true at S/W, but more true at HBS
3.) HBS class is huge so there is 2-3x higher probability of producing *famous* grads


Here's my ranking:
1.) Stanford
2.) Harvard
3.) Wharton
4.) Booth
5.) MIT
6.) Kellog