mNeo - a few thoughts, I’ll recount personal experiences since that may give you additional insight:
Sloan: Since MIT is one of my target schools - obviously I've got a pretty high impression of it. One of my colleagues at work is from Sloan and he's a great down-to-earth guy. I also talked to another alum at Sloan - and my impression of the school has only gotten stronger. The strong east coast entrepreneurial network that Sloan offers alone makes it an oh-I-so-wanna-get-in kind of a school. I understand the "geek" factor at Sloan with lots of engineers in the mix. But it's not necessarily a bad thing - I mean if entrepreneurship is your target, then why close a door to the easiest form entrepreneurship of our times: technology? I think with your credentials, Sloan would be good target.
Chicago: One of my buddies goes there - and he's psyched about it. It's numero uno on the BW lists et al. But somehow, the entrepreneurship focus isn’t as chiseled out as some of the other schools. With a quantitative focus, I think it’ll be a great learning atmosphere. It’s not one of my targets, but who knows I may change my view at some point.
Tuck: My line manager is a Tuck alum. He’s a fantastic chap – and a great consultant. I’m sure Dartmouth had something to do with that. But in discussing my bschool plans, he actually discouraged me from applying there for two reasons: (a) it’s in remote wilderness, and Tuck may not be the ideal place given my affinity for big cities and social interaction (he knows it ‘coz I crib when client engagements—as they invariably turn out to be—are in middle-of-nowhere small towns) (b) It’s got far fewer seats – my efforts would be best invested elsewhere. Both of which make sense. So depending on how much of these resonate with you – you can make an informed decision on your application to Tuck.
Kellogg: Think it’s a great school. One of the partners at my firm specifically asked me to apply there. But limited time and divided focus are both not good things – which eventually made me drop Kellogg from my target list. Also, just from a pure “perceptivity score” (again – just personal judgment here, no scientific basis at all), I feel Kellogg has withered down a bit in the recent past.
Hope this helps.
mNeo wrote:
Sorry for posting a newbie question. Now that Columbia has put me on the dreaded waitlist, I need to add one more school to my portfolio. My very basic requirements from the schools are:
* Bright fellow students who would have similar interests
* School's clear focus on Entrepreneurship (Kellogg's brochures, info sessions and alumni do not talk about entrepreneurship at all, which is a warning-sign, for example)
* Very frequent opportunities to connect with VCs (Tuck may have some problems because of its location?)
* Opportunities to develop my soft-skills -- usually underestimated skills that a successful entrepreneur needs (My interaction with MIT Sloan's students has kept questioning if there's a chance you get in 'nerd' and get out 'nerd' from Sloan)
The schools that I am considering are: MIT, Chicago, Kellogg and Tuck (
I am intentionally keeping UC Berkeley out of the race. If all else fails, I may have to apply to UC Berkeley's part-time program in Feb 08. Thank you for the great idea, prasad .. see I am not applying to the same round as you, so we can still be friends.)
I've been trying to pick one school from these 4 for a long time .. but every few days, my opinion changes. When it comes to my MBA dreams, you guys know about it as much as I do. So, maybe I should leverage things you guys learned about these schools in your researches. So what do you guys say? 2007ers? 2008ers? Which school would you recommend for me?
ps. I have time to apply R1 at MIT. But in case of other schools, I'll apply R2 only.