whitman wrote:
I noticed that UCLA Anderson places 76% of its graduates in California, with the remainder going to the rest of the west (7%), 6% to the northeast, 3% to the southwest, 3% to the midwest, .7% to the mid-atlantic, and .4% to the south. I was under the impression Fuqua, Darden, Stern, and Ross were its peer schools, but they all seem to place much more broadly across the US. Is this merely self-selection or a proxy for the value of the school and the reach of their brands? Or is it a combination - i.e. self-selection led to lack of brand recognition outside of California? Lay people/business people know Duke everywhere; does UCLA have the same recognition? It seems more akin to Texas after reviewing the employment report.
I am from the south and either want to work on the west coast or in the south and became concerned when I saw that only .4% of UCLA grads take work in the south. UVA Darden, by contrast, placed 20% in the mid-atlantic, 10% in the midwest, 25% in the northeast, 13% in the south, 9% in the southwest, 14% in the west, and 8% internationally.
I think people choose UCLA because of it's location and cultural fit. The intention is to work in California, the West Coast, or the Asia Pacific region. In my company (Bay Area) I would hire someone that went to UCLA over pretty much any of the schools out east.