Booth Vs Sloan

In which case my advice would be go with your heart. Both are fantastic schools and you can't go wrong with either, so choose the one where you feel you would fit best ie Booth!

When you have two schools that are roughly equal as far as prestige and where they can take you, you should go with your heart, as Dom said.

Also, I was curious, so I looked up the employment reports for Booth and Sloan to see how many people they send to VC. Booth - 2.3%, Sloan - 1.7%. The number for Sloan was for VC/Hedge Fund/Private Equity, so you don't really know how much of that was for VC. If you want to get into VC eventually, I think it can only help to have some classmates who are already in the field and may be able to help you out. I vote Booth. Good luck!

Thanks bdepp, appreciate it

Posted from my mobile device

Congratulations on two amazing offers! Honestly you really can't go wrong. There are a few differences, though, which may be helpful to consider. If you definitely want to be in the Boston area long-term or the Chicago area long-term, it may help to consider the school which will offer the better local pedigree.

Booth and University of Chicago are especially strong in Chicago. University of Chicago is definitely a big part of city's collective identify and a degree from this institution really means something there, especially in finance circles. The Chicago business world is dominated by people who went to Kellogg and Booth, perhaps more than Boston/Harvard, SF/Stanford, Altanta/Emory, Houston/Rice, etc. People who are 100% sure that they are lifers in Chicago sometimes turn down Harvard or Stanford to attend Booth for this reason. Similarly, MIT and Sloan may resonate more in Boston than Booth, but given the other strong schools in the NE nearby that local this pedigree might not matter quite as much. Plus, there are a lot of prestigious degrees floating around in Boston generally so it's probably less of a distinction between the two but still something to consider, especially from a recruitment and alum perspective.

The other big thing you should think about is Grade Non-Disclosure, something which the two schools handle differently and something which has a giant impact on school culture. Grade Non-Disclosure (GND) is part of Booth's culture. Boothies aren't supposed to include GPA on the resumes or coverletters. There are other "signals" that they can use to message tip-top grades, but the difference between a student at the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile isn't going to be obvious to recruiters. If you are sure that you'll be at the top of your class, or you want to make academics the biggest part of your MBA experience (at the cost of say, networking/recruiting/traveling/leadership ventures/etc.), you might like being able to write "GPA: 4.2" on your resume. If you'd rather blend into the average and not worry so much about grades, or use the time when grades don't really matter to take really rigorous coursework that challenges you without having worry about making an "A" then you might prefer GND. MIT believes that students "own" their grades and can/should be able to share what they want. The result is that grades are important to recruitment and there is more competition in the classroom. Many Sloan students enjoy the rigor and healthy competition that this environment creates. Totally up to you, though, there's no "right answer" regarding GND and there's no "right answer" between Sloan and Booth. Both are excellent!

How am I to trust a Jon Frank’s judgement/opinion who replied to a post from 2014? Lol.

Posted from my mobile device