So in other words, if it were impossible for you to get into any of the schools ranked roughly 1-20 (yes I know rankings vary, but just roll with it) would you still go to school and attend a lower-ranked school?

Hopefully nobody who is planning on going to a lower-ranked school is insulted by this. (There is a good chance I will end up not getting into any top schools, so this is part of the reason I am asking).

No I wouldnt Infact its top 10 or burst for me

No, I wouldn't. I don't think it would be worth the money, time and effort to do so. I don't think it would open any real doors or create the high powered network I would seek.

I see a lot of resumes from people with MBAs from no-name schools, and they are interviewing for positions more junior than my own. They also don't seem to bring anything especially impressive to the table when it comes to analytics, and my firm pays no premium whatsoever to these candidates. Their MBA is an irrelevant blip on their resume - often listed at the bottom, and we don't even consider it a factor when making a decision.

Things may be different elsewhere - maybe its just my firm - so I could be wrong - but from what I've seen, these people have no more leverage, negotiating power, better prospects or salaries than those with no MBA.

Let me jut go ahead and apologize to whoever this offends. Like I said, I may be wrong - this is just been my exposure and experience.

Especially for people like me who are totally lost in career
and want MBA for all the wrong reasons (easy money and stuff)
A good brand is imp

I don't know if many people on this forum go to Vault.com but they have tons of interesting info.

So top consulting companies like McKinsey hire people from top 10 b-schools and they pay them like 100-140K (w/ bonus) right out of school, these are rough numbers.

But then there are a ton of other consulting companies that take MBA's from schools ranked down through the 40's, and these companies pay like 90-120K. So let's say a person enters a consulting company with an MBA, and stays there for four years, the person at McKinsey may be making like $300K at this point, while the person as the less prestigious firm may be making like $200K.

These are all rough numbers as I said, but I really think for someone who wants to go into consulting, you don't have to have a top school on your resume to get a good ROI.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

1) Consulting salaries unlike other industries has weaker corelation on name and reputation of the company than the quality of work u do
2) 4 years is a long time and a genuinely talented candidate can overtake an elite MBA at least in a field of consulting

I think a good measure for ROI would be the immedaite placement. How u take it from there is entirely in ur hands.

For me the reason for the top school is to get a high flying start in a diff industry despite a messy career progress behind me.

If not top 10 school I wont mind working in my company which is the Big 3 in IT consulting.

An interesting link
http://www.careers-in-business.com/consulting/mc.htm

I agree with rhyme. Depending on where you are in your career, its possible that only certain schools can give you the ROI and opportunities you're looking for. My company hires from top schools for both undergrad and MBA recruiting. Additionally they take some MBAs from high quality schools that are not considered "elite" but those people enter at nearly the same position as the undergrads from top tier schools. I'm 25 and have several 28-30 year old Thunderbird, UNC, and Georgetown grads who are at the same level as me. If I went to those schools I'd probably get a high quality education but I'd have to work hard to even get an interview for a position thats comparable to the one that I'm leaving. Thats simply wouldn't be worth the time, effort, and money invested in this endeavor.

Yes, indeed.

to add to that These are names (elite institutes) that you carry thru out life.

Imagine 20 years down the line there would a article on front page of WSJ
and only 3 bullets between ur name and ur life story

johnnyx9
1) CEO XYZ Billion USD company
2) HBS MBA
3) BS and MS MIT

Thinking in Consulting and ROI I think INSEAD is the way to go, right? But it is a top school anyway.

I wouldn't do an MBA from a non top school because of some reasons (personal ones):

1) I am not interested right now in be an eterpreuneur and I am interested in Finance or Consulting, which means I will be employed so IMO brand is something very important for my goals.

2) For those who do not have US or European citizenship, the "easiest" way to have an international career is by having MBA from a TOP school. Especially in UK.

3) I will take the loan, and only Top schools have guaranteed ones for all nationalities. And one could also try the fellowships.

4) Thinking only at how much one would invest, sometimes the not so TOP schools are as expensive as TOP ones, and there are reasons for them (the TOPS) to be expensive: caliber of faculty, facilities, career services department, etc, etc, etc.

If I were to open my own business them I would consider other alternatives.

Where does the top 20 end?

That's the One million Pounds question

I saw here (I think it was rhyme who wrote) that the real ranking is:
1) The one I got accepted
2) The other one I'm in
3) The WLs
4) the others
...
...
100) one that dinged me...

It was that or something very similar to that.

From Business Week -

MBA US School Rankings
Ranking Name
1 Chicago
2 Pennsylvania (Wharton)
3 Northwestern (Kellogg)
4 Harvard
5 Michigan (Ross)
6 Stanford
7 MIT (Sloan)
8 UC-Berkeley (Haas)
9 Duke (Fuqua)
10 Columbia
11 Dartmouth (Tuck)
12 UCLA (Anderson)
13 Cornell (Johnson)
14 NYU (Stern)
15 Virginia (Darden)
16 Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)
17 North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler)
18 Indiana (Kelley)
19 Yale
20 Texas-Austin (McCombs)

and other rankings?
well, it really depends on one's prospects I guess, but if it makes top 30 of every ranking it will probably be good enough...
the ranking of rankings issue maybe.

For the purpose of this discussion its probably most useful to think of schools within and outside of Hjort's super-elite and elite cluster. In reality, there's a more natural break after the top 15 schools or so.

Venky,

That was a helpful link, some great info, thanks.

Yeah I guess given my situation it would still be worth it to go for a non-top school. I'm sure it would be a harder road, but I'm confident I could be the cream of the crop at whatever school I end up at and make the most of it (although I'm sure everyone feels the same way!)

I totally hear you on the "carrying the credential around the rest of your life" thing. Even if I hit the lottery and could retire tomorrow, it would still be nice to be able to carry around a graduate degree from a top school.

I think Usnews.com rankings are relatively more reliable
I dont think there is any justice in ranking michigan above stanford
what say folks???

LOL

great thread.

I think there is still decent ROI at middle-ranked schools. And the specific ROI self-selects the class. eg Rhyme would never be able to justify leaving his job to go to one of the lower ranked programs because those are the people applying for positions at or below him currently.

Schools also account for the ROI with class size. That is why Harvard is the biggest, and lower ranked schools are the smallest... so that everyone has a chance of getting a job.

Overall bschool seems to be a functional market. Now LAW schools, will accept hundreds of people they know will not get firm jobs at lower ranked schools. I think that is a travesty because most people will not get their monies worth if they are not in the Top 10% of lower ranked schools or top 30% of middle ranked schools. Bschools, generally, have a much less emphasis on grades.