Columbia vs. Booth

I feel that while the difference is nominal between the two schools, Booth has more PE firms coming to the school directly to hire as compared to Columbia. At Columbia a lot more participants find their PE jobs through their personal network.

You can look at the school alums on LinkedIn at the top 5-7 PE firms (Apollo Global Management, BlackStone, Carlyle, KKR, TPG, etc), to know what school would work better for you.

A little research I did a few months back showed that most PE firm founders are from Harvard or Chicago Booth.

I did another finding exercise from information given on the BlackStone group website to understand where “our people” got their MBAs from, the results were as Harvard > Wharton > Columbia > Stern > Booth
https://www.blackstone.com/the-firm/our-people

But remember, Harvard, Wharton and Columbia have 800-900 participants, so absolute numbers maybe larger from these three schools.

At Bain Capital, Booth has an edge over Columbia. But if you look at the LinkedIn profiles of Booth or Columbia alums (or some of the other school alums) at most of these PE firms, it looks like they started in IB and then moved to PE.

Booth is a winner for me here

Posted from my mobile device

I would check the employment reports for the firms you like.

For instance, this year CBS placed a handful of students on internships or full time roles at KKR, while Booth placed none. I’m sure Booth has an upper hand on many shops, especially those based on the midwest. In my experience, though, Columbia’s placement on the megafunds is significantly stronger.

Posted from my mobile device