JohnJohnJ wrote:
So MIT Sloan is slightly (per employment reports) better than Stern for PE/VC, but remember a lot of these kids that go to PE/VCs (from Sloan and Stern) usually go to smaller PE/VCs. You go to bigger name PE/VC if you’re from Harvard/Stanford and sometimes Wharton.
Now is Sloan $200k better than Sloan in this market? Hell no!
If you don’t get into PE/VC straight after your MBA, the path traditionally taken by others is - work in IB for a few years and then transition to PE/VC. Example, if you go to the Blackrock website, an large number of employees are from Harvard, Wharton and then followed by Stern/Columbia - that’s partly because of their large presence in NYC
Also, NYC is always better than Boston for jobs.
Posted from my mobile device
I would disagree on a few things. Blackrock is the world's largest asset manager, most of it is in passive index investing. Indeed based in NYC, but not a destination where many top MBAs want to end up.
I am of the opinion that if you go to a top MBA, in a few years the money you used to pay for it will not mean as much. So I would vote for MIT Sloan here. If it is your dream school, then go with it and don't look back.
Now in terms of clean energy/sustainability investing, I'd say MIT has the edge. Look at the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative, Sustainability Certificate, Clean Energy Prize, etc. MIT carries weight in the field. You'll always have that badge of honor, and with a great cohort of smart people. It is incredibly hard to get into Sloan, and you finally made it. Go with it!