Getting into a Top 5 MBA Program

I think Chicago's climb seems to coincides with the new building, they probably revamped the curriculum. It definitely has moved up and now is firmly on par with MIT and Kellogg. If I wanted finance I think it would be my top choice of the three.

Going back some years of the BW rankings...boy did it jump around a lot.
2004: 2
2002: 2
2000: 10
1998: 3
1996: 8
1994: 3
1992: 2
1990: 4
1988: 11

Remember GSB is #1 on BW, its a good ranking but I think the default one is still usnews. It seems to have the order the way that people truly view the school. HBS, Stanford, Wharton, then the competition begins. So they can advertise they are #1, but in reality very very few people would pick it over HBS or Stanford. I think if Rhyme had gotten into HBS last year, even he would have gone and he is the biggest cheerleader of GSB.

that is true, but the surprising thing is, H/S/W is only in the past 3-5 years. In the 90s, Stanford was #1 all the time by US News, Harvard dropped to #5 at one point, and MIT has been #1 before. For us, none of us would ever consider Harvard not in the top 3 and would go to MIT over H/S/W (you and me not included, river ). Harvard only took the top spot from Stanford in 2004, something very recent.

If things can change that drastically in a few years, specific rankings don't really matter. Hjort's cluster system is a better indicator, but even then, Tuck, Haas, and Duke used to be more in the M7 than Columbia. The top 6 or so are pretty stable, but the rest fluctuates wildly.

Some examples, in 1995:

https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1995/mitranking.html



Who knows what the landscape will look like in another 10 years. Moral of story, go to the school that fits you best and can get you the job you want in the future. Rankings will change, and sometimes even the mighty H/S/W won't be in the top 3 by most publications.

Some more rankings from US News, 1994-present (missing 2000-2001 for some reason), Stanford was #1 for the longest time in the 90s, Haas was in the top 10 almost every year, and Anderson was close up there too. Duke was solidly in the top 10, and Tuck was pretty amazing too.

https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1994.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1995.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1996.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1997.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1998.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_1999.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_2002.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_2003.asp
https://contractintelligence.com/news/ra ... s_2004.asp

I think the negative opinions a vast number of people have for HBS just because it is the old boys ivy league school is what hurts it. Besides Bush went there, so it can't be that impressive of a school.

oh boy... Bush just brought down HBS and Yale...

Nice avatar Kry, I am assuming thats UCLA.

Growing up in Mass, Harvard is pretty hated by most people. I could see a lot of recruiters feeling the students have a sense of entitlement because they go to HBS...which would hurt their rankings.

Thanks river. I vowed to only have an avatar when I finally get into a school, so here it is. Even if I don't end up at UCLA in the end, they did admit me first, so they deserve some publicity and love from me.

But yeah, one reason I don't like HBS is due to the same reason you just mentioned, from the students I have met from there.

This is a perfect example of letting a few bad apples ruin the bunch. The few HBS grads I know are very genuine and helpful. On top of that, I received a warm welcome from all the HBS students I met during my visit to campus. After sitting in on a class, a few students went out of their way to come up to me and answer any questions I had, it was a very surprising experience. Even if I do not get in, I will have a very high opinion of HBS and their students. I haven't run into the pretentious ones yet, which is maybe why my opinion hasn't been tainted yet.

forcefeed duplicated kwam's avatar...confusing.

Modified, hopefully that'll clear up any confusion. I might switch back to kwam's though, its sweet!

See, I kind of take exception to that. If you want to learn from people with strong backgrounds in quantitative fields, I agree, Chicago is great. But again, the top I-Banks will hire from all of the top schools. And if you don't have a finance background, you will really stand out at a school like Kellogg, where there isn't as much competition for these jobs.

Now, sure, there might be more opportunities to work at a PE shop or hedge fund at GSB. But again, the elite firms are going to pick people with prior experience at a Wall Street firm. Why? Because they can (more supply than demand).

I think both schools provide a similar quality education, albeit through different teaching formats. And maybe the experiences of the students are different because of it. But when it comes to job prospects in anything - i-banking, consulting, and even marketing, i think it is more similar than different. I just think it's funny how people think that they will have these better opportunities at one school vs. the other. The same firms for the most part go to both schools. IF you want to work at McK or Goldman or Google, you will have your shot at BOTH schools.

Again, it's all about fit fit fit. For those who are fortunate enough to visit schools, I recommend you interact with the students. The GSB admissions staff is by far the most active of the M7. No other school has anything like the 'GSB Live' program. I was very impressed by it. But I kept reminding myself that it was a recruiting event with the intent to 'sell' me.

I highly suggest interacting with students after classes - I think it is in these more informal settings that you get the most accurate read of things.

That is true, Kellogg does place well in finance...it might actually benefit a career changer since you are right there wont be the competition. However, I think that Chicago is known as a finance powerhouse so for someone who is already in the field it is probably a better place to be. Look at the list of goes to those schools and its similar, the big banks just spend more time at Chicago and some of the more elusive jobs in finance are more likely to come out of GSB. The same holds true if you want marketing that any top school will get you there but Kellogg is where most people who are going into marketing want to be.

You are 100% correct about going with fit, but that is really tough to decide even with admitted students weekends and everything like that. It probably takes showing up and becoming part of the community before you are 100% certain you fit. I have met people who were intimidated by the quant heavy nature of Chicago and MIT but ended up loving it, some even questioned if it was right for them because of that. Some people are nervous that a Kellogg may be too "soft" but show up and are really pushed academically. Each school has their stereotypes and though a lot of that is probably partially true, its probably greatly exaggerated too.

You bring up an interesting point, how many people at GSB pursuing finance careers have a Wall Street background? Similarly, how many K students pursuing marketing jobs have marketing backgrounds. I would imagine less than 50%.

Curious to see Rhyme's take bc mine is an educated guess based on meeting up a with friend from GSB while he was in NYC during 'Bank Week' (the week GSB students travel to NYC to meet with Wall St. firms).

I wonder the marketing placements out of MIT Sloan?

I would assume its pretty good for tech marketing.

I know that !

I haven't had time until now to read all the things in here, and they are very interesting. One thing that I thought very interesting was the endowment numbers, Pelihu mentioned about Darden at another thread. I'd like to know how GSB and Kellogg use their endowments in percentage for their PT and FT programs, perhaps it's silly to compare the way they did on this "research", I mean I don't think a school would provide, for instance, many scholarships for "Part-timers", so analysis is biased. Executive programs for instance are "coin-slots" for schools, they earn a lot with it as they can charge as much as, or more than, a FT MBA, while they need to "spend" much less time with students in terms of faculty time and especially Career Service. I'd like to know how the figures have changed during these 6 or so years.

Anyway, the M7 cluster is there, with the HSW almost always on top, Kellogg and MIT always among the Top 5, and GSB and Columbia struggling for their places, well GSB have already done that (I know I'm biased but the BW ranking just proves it).

Thanks for the interesting reading nervous and everyone else here!