Droping out of Columbia Business School

I was a tech product manager and want to start a technology company after MBA.

Why not? You are the best judge of whether this or any other program is the best fit for you.

Rankings are not sufficient to determine whether a program will deliver value to a student. This is one of the reasons I detest the whole industry of rankings and people choosing programs based mainly or solely on these elements.

You should be perfectly fine with re-application to other programs. Plenty of other students do so across both undergraduate and graduate, including non-MBA, programs. Many students have suffered at becoming trapped in programs that were not suited to them. Unfortunately, many discover too late. GL!

I have an background in tech entrepreneurship

I want to ask why you feel like Columbia isn't right for you?

Yes, Stanford is the best place for tech startup. I don't think CBS can reach the same level and quality of entrepreneurship exposure as Stanford GSB. So, I support your decision.

Btw. Correct me if I am wrong, I think CBS doesn't seem to have collaborative environment. It is like competition with emphasis on Finance.

When you applied to CBS, did you think of switching to Finance?

Posted from my mobile device

Welcome to GMAT Club and Thanks for your question.

You can definitely do that but you need to be prepared to explain why you felt that CBS did not cut it for you and had a change of heart.
Schools do not see changing/swapping/jumping too lightly because it shows a bit of a lack of research, lack of commitment, and lack of sticking around when things are hard. There are legit reasons for switching but the chances of success are highly dependent on that. It would need to go into the optional essay for sure.

I think there is no downside (CBS won't kick you out) except time, money, and a hope that may never materialize. I would probably consult with an admissions consultant (pay someone $250) and get them to consult you professionally before you go down this path and exert the energy. I have not heard of anyone accomplishing this.

P.S. One could be disappointed with almost any program. If you read through the School Reviews https://gmatclub.com/reviews/business_schools/ and even for HBS/Stanford you will see that the weakest score is given to "Classmates". People get disappointed with other people for many reasons but the main one often is that they don't dig deep enough (I am very guilty of that). However, as I sometimes get to know someone I realize, see, and understand how amazing that individual is and how accomplished they are, despite the fact that they appeared like a jerk at first. I had a very tough first semester during my MBA - in large part it was culture shock, lack of friends, finances, etc. I strongly considered switching but I could not afford it so i sucked it up and let my frustration pour out to start the GMAT Club to help others not make the same mistakes I have made.... it somewhat worked out at the end. I really hope that whatever path you take will work out for you.

I think that is smart, we know that tech/automation is the future for all businesses.

The only industry that will compliment tech is probably finance (not asset management) M&A.

Start by looking at their employment reports, ranking is horseshit, it’s only employment reports that matter.

On the west coast, obviously there are four solid schools for tech, Stanford, Haas, UCLA and USC.

East coast is also getting there but not as fast as the West Coast.

I’d go with MIT Sloan, NYU Tech MBA and Cornell Tech MBA on the east coast.

Rest are garbage for tech.

Posted from my mobile device

I think there is Chicken and Egg here. Do the west coast schools place well into Tech because they are really good or because they are regional and there is not much else of an industry on the west coast?

There is a bit of Biotech, a bit of consulting and finance, but the major employers of MBA's are Tech firms. I don't think that Google prefers to hire from Haas or Anderson or Foster. I am pretty sure they try to get the BEST people. However, if they hire 200 people from Booth, that's 25% of the class. But if they hire 200 people from Anderson, that's 60%

Remember tech and automation is the future, this is the time to go to schools strong in tech or specialized programs.
The more I think about it, specialized programs make more sense because they arrange for resources around tech - essentially cutting out on all the other MBA bullshit. It might not be bad to consider NYU tech or Cornell tech given that both are in NYC - silicone alley, worth looking at their employment reports

In addition, given that you’re already done with the core first year courses and you could get done with your MBA sooner (and cheaper) with the specialized MBA, they make more sense.

Posted from my mobile device

Yes, I remember it since before the .com bust sorry but it is nothing new just like the grass is always greener elsewhere.

At the same time I would be very surprised if Microsoft, Amazon, and other tech companies were not recruiting at Columbia. Also the size of the program, double that of any of the West Coast programs, provides a diversity of students and classes.

One unique aspect of the Columbia NBA is that many live locally in New York and already have a network which makes it harder for outsiders to fit in as opposed to Tuck for example where everyone is new in the woods.

I don’t see how it would be productive to throw away a year of one’s efforts, tuition and time.

Posted from my mobile device

Last year, I got offers from Booth, Columbia, kellog and Haas.
I choose CBS for two reasons
i) Booth and Kellog did not offer any scholarship and Columbia's financial aid was great.
ii) NYC is 2nd largest startup hub.

How difficult would it be to move to stanford or UC Berkeley?

I currently run a seed-stage startup that's just launched and I can tell you straight up that not many people have elaborate education. Most founders I know and I've met don't know much about MBAs and some even despise MBAs as they think its a waste of money.

I think an MBA serves a number of purposes and I agree that location and political influence does impact the decision making process more than most factors but aside from rankings.

For example the LBS and INSEAD alumni community in Australia appear, anecdotally, larger than US school networks - this is based on conversations with alumni, who complain about the lack of aussie US alumns, and my own research.

This could be due to the fact aussies are better enabled from a visa standpoint by going to another commonwealth country, such as the UK, or that a lot of european migrants come to australia.

Anyway I digress...

You need to truly decide whether the value of the CBS network extends to the west coast.

You said you want to start a tech company after your MBA, but WHAT tech?

If FINTECH then I'd personally stay in New York or another financial hub where banks, VCs and other institutions are looking to fund fintech incubators and firms.

There is a lot to consider and I think you need to consult, consult, consult till you make this decision and before you work on your exit strategy.

In my view there are two entirely separate discussions here.

Dropping out of CBS for Stanford is not even remotely the same thing as doing so for Haas. For comparison purpose, below is the number of start-ups backed by VCs on each school over the last three years, according to P&Q:

Stanford: 90
Columbia: 27
Haas: 13

Columbia is generally tied for third-place with Wharton as a start-up launcher, behind Harvard and Stanford only. Even though most schools advertise themselves as Entrepreneurship oriented, the truth is that very few have the resources to back that claim, and CBS is one of those few.

All things considered, though, entrepreneurs are essentially hustlers, and no school will give you your work cut-out for you. If I were in your position, I would invest my time and energy in extracting the most value from CBS during this first-year and, if Stanford continues to be your dream, would give it a try next year. Under no circumstance I would trade CBS for Haas, but that's just my opinion.

Those numbers are just like the ranking survey numbers that US News/Bloomberg/FT pull out of their a$$, there is no traceability.

Posted from my mobile device

Just trying to be constructive here. P&Q is a fairly serious website and the difference between the two schools is wide enough to offset any potential measurement error.

That said, if you know of an alternative data source on VC funding that is even more credible, by all means let us know. My view is that more data is always better than less data for this type of decision.

I came across this report( Source: bit.ly/hswreport )

Top US Business Schools For Funded Founders
US B school ranked by Number of Graduating Startup Founder
Based on the number who raised $1M or more after May, 2018
Harvard: 192
Wharton: 116
Stanford: 112
Kellog: 47
Columbia: 46
MIT: 44
HAAS: 34

I gotta be honest man, pulling ranks about what universities have the most startups doesn't help that much.

Entrepreneurs don't need an MBA. simple.

Genuine Entrepreneurs will make it despite the program the enter into.

I believe H/S/W have selection bias and naturally attract more entrepreneurs to begin with.

Most of the M7 have some form of incubator that you can surely participate in, so is there another reason you're seeking to drop out?

I somewhat agree with you, but don't think it's as black-and-white.

Selection bias is obviously a factor, but it doesn't preclude the schools that benefit from it from having objective advantages over the others.

Be it selection bias or not, having a stronger track-record with start-ups generally translates into better access to capital, mentoring, workforce and suppliers. This doesn't mean a strong MBA is a requirement at all, but if OP can leverage on those resources, he will be better off for it.