McCombs vs. Anderson

Question

Hi all, 
Can anyone offer advice for someone deciding between McCombs and Anderson? I'm looking to transition to investment management post-MBA. Anderson has a better finance brand than McCombs although investment management (specifically the investment fund) might be better regarded @ McCombs. qual of life i'd definitely give the nod to Austin over LA. network? UT seems very regionally focused -- highly regarded in tex, southeast. anyone know about UT in the midwest? UCLA clearly a better global presence and strong all over the west coast.

I think long-term I'd like to end up in SF or Chi.

Very appreciative of any advice/suggestions or thoughts on things I should consider.

GMATLA · Answer

I would have to go with Anderson on this one (I know I may be biased) buuut, if you are considering SF for a career, UCLA has a big presense there. Also, UCLA has a better global and national reputation, ranking, and finance program than McCombs. UCLA is the best MBA program in southern california so they are recruited by all the best and largest finance firms in the area (many of which are for jobs in SF). LA will always have that connection in SF. Some of the part time students even commute from SF on the weekends.

A university like McCombs tends to be more regional based (similiar to USC in Los Angeles). They have a great repuation in their region, but outside it can be more challenging. If you want to do investment management (or any finance) outside of Texas, then why go to a regional university? UCLA has a better presence in California, SF, and nationally than McCombs would ever have.

When it comes to Bschool and finance, you want the best brand repuation and recognition on your resume. UCLA will always have that reputation as being one of the greatest schools in the country regardless of if people know Bschool rankings. When someone reads your resume later no one is going to say "wow, UCLA, 17th ranked by business week vs McCombs 25th... etc etc". They are going to to say "wow, this guy has an MBA from UCLA, great school... (or) wow, this guy has an MBA, never heard of McCombs"

Just some advice from a guy in SoCal... Best of luck to you.

method · Answer

I disagree with UCLA being thought of as a national school and Texas being thought of as a regional school. They are both strong regional schools that have some competitiveness on the national scale. There is no "wow" factor coming for attending UCLA over Texas, but that said, I do believe Anderson is the better business school for finance and west coast placement.

MIXEDin86 · Answer

If $$$ is equal I’d go with UCLA over Texas. The two B-schools are near equal in my eyes but if you want to be in San Fran, UCLA has the better Cali presence, especially in Finance. The only people in CA who are going to know of UT’s academic strength are people that also went to b-school or law school or something. I’m from So Cal and I had no clue about McCombs until I started this whole process. If somebody would have handed me a resume with a UT MBA 2-years ago and said McCombs was as good as Anderson or Marshall, I would have told them to shut their dirty little mouth, haha. That said, if enjoying the MBA experience if a big factor and you wouldn’t mind doing Finance in UT’s region, I’d say go for McCombs. The UCLA folks are just a little bit, uhhhh, pretentious for my liking. They think they’re Harvard west or something, when in reality, they barely make the top 3 in California b-schools. You would have a BLAST in Austin, and you know this! Austin’s easier on the bank account, too.

method · Answer

The best sandwich I've ever eaten was a torta in Austin. That's gotta be worth something :-D

ykfdf · Answer

A university like McCombs tends to be more regional based

McCombs vs. Anderson

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards