I have an acceptance from Columbia and am currently in the interview process for Wharton, so this is a bit premature, but I'd like to get some guidance on the differences between these schools for my career goals.

I'd like to work at a hedge fund post-graduation (likely value or event-driven). Currently, I am at a well known fund in an investment role, but not doing direct investment research. So I have to make a functional, but not an industry pivot to get the role I want.

Wharton has a great reputation and the undergraduate network as well, which is very strong. Columbia has a great value investing program (though not quite sure how the industry views it) and is located in NYC, which provides great access for school-year internships. It also seems to have a decent hedge fund network.

I live in NYC now and would have a personal preference to stay (family, etc.), so unless Wharton provides me with a meaningful advantage vis-a-vis career options or a fellowship, I'd probably choose Columbia. What do others think?

Oh and I am also in the process for Chicago, but have largely discarded that option because of its location an its poor placement into hedge funds (career report shows only 2 people took jobs in HF/Mutual Funds in each of 2011 and 2012). Am I crazy for doing that? Is there something that I'm missing? TBC - it's a great school, but it just seems like Columbia is the stronger choice for what I want to do.

I am still s junior in college and will not apply to business schools for a good 3-4-5 years but I cannot see how can any school besides the Harvard name outweights the Columbia NYC advantage when applying to hedge funds , i-banks, VC and so on.. I am not even sure that Wharton is a better option than Stern in that regard.

Think of all the time and money you will lose traveling to NYC for interviews...

No difference. Both schools are good enough to get you an interview if your CV is right.

From then you are on your own

I would probably say that Wharton has the stronger alumni base however