Career Path Impact on Choosing Ultra Elite vs. Elite with $

I’m curious what people think about the tradeoffs when deciding between an Ultra Elite school and an Elite school who is offering scholarship money. For the sake of argument, I’m going to write some thoughts on a couple career paths, and for the sake of simplicity I’ll start with assuming full tuition scholarships. Obviously, each school has its own strengths for different career paths, so I will try to pair groups of schools with similar strengths to the extent that I can. I welcome your comments on the four career paths as well as various school comparisons, and please feel free to suggest a specific school comparison or a different scholarship amount if you think it’s more illustrative.

Intended banking career: Chicago/Wharton vs. Stern with full tuition. Obviously these are all top finance schools.
Ultra-Elite argument: Earning power is going to be extremely high, therefore the $ offered by Stern is less relevant.
Elite argument: The banking opportunities offered by Stern are said to be nearly identical to those at Chicago/Wharton, and $100k in “today’s dollars” is still a LOT of money (insert bad carry-trade or US Government debt joke here).

Intended consulting career: HBS/Kellogg vs. Darden/Ross/Tuck with full tuition. All of these schools are known for having strong general management programs which are well-suited to management consulting.
Ultra-Elite Argument: Consultants are constantly trying to sell new business and convince clients they know their stuff. A degree from an Ultra Elite arguably adds some weight to these encounters that Elites can’t match.
Elite Argument: Similar argument to the Elite argument used for banking, although earning power is somewhat less in management consulting so the argument is stronger for this career track.

Intended non-profit career: Kellogg/Columbia/Wharton vs. Yale/Ross/Fuqua/Haas with full tuition. All of these schools have “Gold” Net Impact Clubs, so they’re strong in at least one area of non-profit/social enterprise/development.
Ultra-Elite argument: While these Elites have strong networks in the non-profit sector, working in the social sector often means working with people who don’t have MBAs and/or aren’t familiar with which schools are the best MBA programs. Generally this favors the Ultra-Elites, although it perhaps hurts Kellogg some and benefits Yale some (just my impression anyway).
Elite argument: Given that these careers have significantly lower earning power, the money is much more persuasive than it is for banking or management consulting.

Intended entrepreneurship career: Stanford/MIT vs. Haas/Duke with full tuition. I’m less informed here, but it’s my understanding these are the top entrepreneurship programs in each tier.
Ultra Elite Argument: Venture Capitalists place a premium on the quality of the management team of any start-up, and going to an Ultra Elite school allows you to differentiate yourself as the best of the best, thus making it easier to attract capital to your start-up.
Elite Argument: Obviously starting your own business requires start-up capital. Is your personal savings enough to pay for business school AND a start-up’s initial costs? Maybe, but mine sure isn’t. Going to an elite with a scholarship helps you save your cash for your business and avoid interest payments on debt, which your new business is also likely to need. The elite argument is especially strong if you plan to be an entrepreneur in the tech sector for Haas (although Stanford is also very strong here) or in the health sector for Duke.