Top 5 B-schools for Real Estate

Top 3 are:

1. Wharton
2. ?????
3. Wisconsin

I'm planning on going to B school for an MBA in real estate and urban land economics from UW for this reason. Their overall grad program is only like top 40 so I guess it's not on a lot of radars here, but UW has an incredible real estate program.

give them a look. it doesn't hurt that Madison was just ranked the number 1 college sports town in the US and consistently one of the best places to live.

Also check out:

UCLA Anderson
McCombs


-Janet
MBA Podcaster

How can USC Marshall possibly be left off the list???

There's good reason for all those schools, and I think it's worth noting that they all handle separate markets. Although big REITs are often national, a lot of the real estate industry is regionally focused.

USC and UCLA have all the southern California real estate firms, which, living in Oregon, I know are strong up and down the west coast for major developments and innovation. Haas has the Bay Area firms, which I also see a lot of around here.

Wisconsin has the Midwest market, largely to itself, in terms of a strong focus on real estate.

Wharton, Columbia, and Cornell are strong for New England. UNC has a great program for the South.

I was also reading on the BW forums posts from a graduated MBA who works in real estate. He emphasized that it is more important to get in to a great school than a school that emphasizes real estate. Of course, all the above are strong schools, so they should still be strong either way.

Do you happen to have a link to this post? I'd love to get in there and read up.

A relative of mine actually worked the real estate division at a bulge bracket bank until he retired. His advice when I was looking at schools is the overall image of a school means more than any specialty ranking it may have. You could go to the #1 school in xxx but if its ranked 35th overall then you will be much better off at a top 10 school. This probably is true for most things, yes some specialties like marketing or management may be different but I dont think real estate falls into that since its not a huge post MBA field.

That's great insight, river. The Here's the link eschn3am:

https://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/fo ... &tid=73960

I'm not part of the other forums because I get better perspective here, but coming from an HBS grad, I think this is worth a look.

I totally agree with river. The doors a top school will help open are far beyond its perceived "core".

L.

Here's a kind of uber-specific scenario question:

Let's say you're going into the family business, and for the sake of argument, let's say that business is real estate. You know you'll eventually be running this company after years of working under the current partners. Would this change your opinion of which school to go for? In your opinion, do you think it'd be better to go to a school with a strong real estate concentration and pick up the rest in the 'real world' or vice versa? Make your connections and learn the general management from a top program and learn the real estate business in the 'real world'?

In this caselet, I would still choose the Veritas Logo over the Wisconsin one. If you want to specialize in Real Estate, do some Real Estate specific courses before, during (electives) or after the MBA, or learn on the job. The general management aspect, however, is very relevant if you are running the company. Plus you can always benefit from having a wide and deep network.

L.

I do know that a Haas student chose Haas over other schools like Kellogg for Real Estate and is loving the opportunities that the program gives him. Of course, both schools are in the top 10 (or top two clusters), so it doesn't matter so much.

I would add an amendment to what river and lepium said. If you're picking between two UE/E schools (say Kellogg and Haas, HBS and Chicago, Wharton or Duke, etc...), and the lower ranked school is much stronger in the area you want to go into, that's good enough reason to pick the lower ranked school (of course, with all the other "fit" criteria matched too). Beyond the top two tiers, I probably would pick the top 15 schools in case I change majors or try something else.

Kry I think choosing the school of "lesser" standing is not so much a big deal once you are talking elite and above. You will have great opportunities. Yes an UE might give you more but it might not be enough to sway you if you love a school. Also the schools region matters. If you want to stay in Cali then Haas definitely has an advantage. However, if you want to go to Chicago post grad then Kellogg will have a huge advantage. Want to go the East coast, then Kellogg still probably has the advantage but if you want Nevada then Haas might be stronger there.

That said I am still a believe in opportunity cost. Personally I could have applied to some elite schools in R2 and see if I could get a scholarship but I am of the belief that any of the UE will be able to make up the difference between 0 in student loans and 80+K worth. I might be able to work a company to foot the second year so if I manage that then its only really going to be 40+k. Chances of landing a job that pays 10k+ more a year is pretty good at a UE. I know some companies do repay student loans over a period of time too.

good points river. I did consider the salary thing too when I said I'm leaning Haas (other than the location, tech, entrepreneurship, yadda...), is that the average salary they pay (especially for people who go work in tech) is not that much lower (sometimes higher) than the UEs... Other than H/S/W, I think the rest of the UE cluster plus select Elites (Haas, Tuck, Ross, Stern) have very similar pay. I believe that Haas' average is higher than Chicago and Kellogg in BW, and 1K lower in US News (if you include bonuses and stuff). Not big enough a difference to forgo $40K of scholarships.

But I know what you're saying river, and I think we're definitely agreeing on this one. One good way is to look at each school's employment report, and check how much the average pay is for REAL ESTATE and let that help you with your decisions.

what about HKUST on EMBA?

I noticed you had Chicago GSB as merely an "elite" school, on par with Haas and Duke, while Kellogg is given "ultra-elite" status in your post. I suppose that's a cross-town dig?

eh? Compared to HBS, all other schools except for Stanford (and maybe Wharton) would be considered "Elite".

I would consider Chicago (and Kellogg) on par or even below Haas in terms of quite a few areas, such as non-profit, tech, and entrepreneurship.

No cross-town dig there, I don't really care much about the relative rankings between Kellogg and Chicago. To me, they're pretty much the same (reputation wise) with very different cultures and strengths.

It sounds like you've badly misjudged the relative strength of these programs. To put in some context (not to brag), I applied to and was accepted at one of the two super-elite schools you mentioned. I have done my fair share of due diligence, and I think you're sending a badly distorted image of both Chicago schools, and the super-elites in general. The gaps between these schools (if any even exists), in terms of overall program quality, are sliver-thin. And, as you can see in the rankings, the #1 seat is often exchanged among a group of 4-5 schools on a rolling basis.

There are certain areas of schools that are better than Harvard (or Stanford or Chicago or Kellogg....) in that particular area. Does that mean the schools in general are better? No.

You're way off the mark if you're putting Chicago (or even Kellogg) on a level with Haas or Duke because "Haas is better in terms of quite a few areas". Especially if you're using examples such as non-profit and tech. DePaul has an arguably better entrepreneurship program than many super-elites, does that mean it's a better school? Hardly.

I understand that folks fall in love with the HBS brand (sometimes for good reason), but let's not get ridiculous here and imply that it is leagues above and beyond any other B-school.