Chicago (without $) versus Ross (with $)

Don't make tax considerations for an international, highhopes may end up in Dubai, Monaco or any other tax haven place. Also, it's not about only the "starting" salary, $90k seems much now, but after 10 years it will be more like $13.5k per year (considering debt of 90k, amortization variable for constant payments 10 years 8% Interest Rate). If we look a the US NEWS rankings, it seems that the starting overall salary difference was around $6.4K, whilst by looking at the FT rankings, after 3 years, the average was $22k (both in favor of Chicago). That said I would take those numbers with a grain of salt because of 2 things:
1) I don't know how reliable they are
2) as a Chicago student, I've learned that I shouldn't just look at the mean, but also at other parameters of the distribution

Anyway, you situation is good, congratulations. As an international student (from Brazil), I decided to visit the schools I got into last year as I wanted to be sure with my decision, and believe I did the right thing, but I certainly understand your situation if you can't visit the schools.

terp26, the point I was trying to make was this.

Let's just assume for a second Chicago sends 20 people to McKinsey in a given year and Ross sends 5. It would seem that at least from the perspective of simple statistical probability, you have a better chance at landing at McKinsey out of Chicago. However, McKinsey need not necessarily take 20 people from Chicago in two years, and it may not just take 5 from Ross. So what is the real world value of that higher statistical probability of making it to McKinsey in 2 years from out of Chicago? Dubious.

More importantly, every one knows that Chicago sends a higher number of people to M/B/B than Ross. The numbers don't lie as you said. Why McKinsey chooses to recruit in higher numbers at Chicago? I don't know. Nonetheless, this reputation of Chicago sending boatloads of people into M/B/B quite possibly attracts a self selecting pool of applicants that really, really wants to go to McKinsey. What does this lead to? And I believe this ties in with what rhyme was saying in his post: incredible competition for those 20 spots at McKinsey. Now if like most of us, you're (I don't mean you as in YOU terp26) an average student at a top school, you are going to be competing for those 20 spots with a large number of equally, if not better, qualified fellow students. So does Chicago sending 20 students to McKinsey really mean anything for your own individual chances? Bear in mind Ross does not have as much of a reputation as being a feeder into M/B/B, so a lot more people looking to go the M/B/B route might pick Chicago over Ross (based on those recruiting numbers, which don't lie ) and correspondingly add to the competition for those positions at Chicago.

Now you may say I'm not an average student at a top school, I'm better damn it! Well then, you would have an excellent, excellent shot at McKinsey from both Ross and Chicago.

Final, and somewhat unrelated point to the above. It's true the FV of $90,000 in free tuition at Ross is significant. But what is the FV of the 2 years of your 20's you're going to devote to pursuing an MBA? Those 2 years and your "youth" aren't coming back. Think about your priorities, are you going to business school purely for an education, or for the overall experience? If the former, you will be well served by going to any top 15 school, especially one you won't have to pay for. However, if you're going for the overall experience, it is critical you visit both schools to get a feel of what life would be like. Differences in school culture are real, if often imperceptible. Talking to students IRL, heck forget real life, just seeing the culture some current students project forward on this board will often tell you whether going to school with people like them will be a pleasure or an absolute nightmare. So definitely think about that and don't be swayed by the money too easily.

Personally, I will be a shade shy of 30 when I graduate business school. So I have big plans for the rest of my 20's. Fun and cultural stimulation while I complete an MBA are immensely important to me, and really perhaps even worth $90,000. Just make sure you smartly weigh all the pros and cons. And remember happy MBAs make better MBAs.

(gosh, I don't know where that came from)

wow .. +1 solaris that is a super post.

LOL.

But really, way to be logical at 6am solaris! +1

LOLLLLLLLLL, I nominate that line as GMATClub's new slogan.

The only thing is that you are assuming here that McKinsey defines (in on way or another) a "quota" for each school and then the students from every school compete with their classmates and only their classmates.

It doesn't work like that.

20 from Booth and 5 from Ross doesn't mean that Booth students compete for 20 spots. It means that McK decided than 20 of Booth students "passed the bar" to get an offer while only 5 of Ross students did.

They are all competing against each other, there is no quota for each school.

Now why are there more offers at Booth than at Ross? One of the reasons could indeed be that Booth students were of a higher caliber in the first place (which would not be illogic given the rankings of the two schools and the fact that people indeed look at the career reports when they make a decision) and therefore more of them "pass the bar".

It could also be that coming from Booth gave them an advantage when compared to the ones coming from Ross (because for firms like Mckinsey "the most prestigious the academic pedigree, the better").

In fact it is often a mix of the 2.

The first one is irrelevant at the personal level. Cause either you are of "high caliber" or not, but it is not choosing a school or another (especially when the academics are so close and the caliber of people so close) that will change that.

The second one is perfectly relevant though. And that's why one should aim the highest he can if he wants to pursue "elitist jobs".

That's my opinion, I could be wrong and I don't work for McKinsey. But I work for one of the other 2

NB: I was just answering your argument hereabove, I am not advising him to choose Booth over Ross since $90K is a big amount and that could very well be an important decision factor for him.

Well everyone made the decision when they applied that they were willing to pay full tuition. I agree that if after visiting both schools, not liking chicago or not liking Ross, that decision is easy. Go with where you will be happiest for 2 years. But if you like them equally then you have to quantify what the increased percentage at M/B/B is worth to you. There is a reason why people who want M/B/B go to the higher ranking schools. It is a prestige driven industry. And all those people that are applying to those schools will be the same people that will be working there judging and hiring you. So would you want to go into an industry with 2-3X as many Chicago alums that will look at you in a better light or an industry that hires a significant less number of Ross grads.
Think in 10 years you will be, who knows 35-40. What degree would you want? Where would you think you would have had the best opportunity? How many senior execs will you be close friends with that you met at school?

Oski - I picked 20 from Chicago and 5 from Ross arbitrarily for the pure sake of a simpler comparison.

I actually clarified that "however, McKinsey need not necessarily take 20 people from Chicago in two years, and it may not just take 5 from Ross" so I am in complete agreement with you when you McKinsey does not necessarily define a "quota" of say 20 hires from Chicago; I didn't intend to make an argument to the contrary at all.

terp26, out of curiosity, do you really think it would matter as much where you went to school 10 years into the future, leave alone 35-40?

Let me use an example to illustrate: there are a lot of us here on the board who have found that the "brand or prestige" of our undergraduate institutions did not quite have as much influence on MBA admissions. A lot of us went to not that well-known undergraduate institutions, and will be attending elite MBA programs. On the other hand, some of us went to more "prestigious" undergraduate institutions and did not fare as well. What we did after graduating college dictated, more or less, our...umm...let's call it "potential for future success" - measured right now solely by what business schools we managed to get into.

What makes you think it is going to be any different when we graduate as newly minted MBAs, or 10, 35-40 years thereafter? Should the above, at least to some extent, not suggest that what you do in the 10 years after you finish business school will have more of an impact on your "potential for future sucess" than the brand or prestige of the business school you attended? The better your MBA experience, the closer you would be to your classmates 10 years later - the future senior executives of the world. And I'm sure you'll agree these senior executives would come from both Chicago and Ross in (more or less equally) great numbers.

I'm not debating whether Chicago is a better institution or offers better opportunities at all. Just that all we might read, hear might not always give us the complete picture, or equip us to make the most rational decisions.

I'm going to stop now before anyone else calls me out on saying such things only because I will not be going to a top 10 school.

Yes you said that. And I'm not arguing the "20 vs 5"

But you are also explicitly saying that "higher caliber at Booth than at Ross implies higher competition at Booth than at Ross" and that is true only if you assume that people in a given school compete only with others at their school.

What I was saying is that this is not true.

This is very true. Many of us probably decided to absorb massive amount of debt before we all started our bschool application journey.

However, going to higher ranked school doesn't guarantee everyone a prestigious/in-demand career such as MC, IB, PE, VC etc.

It does give you a slightly better chance of landing those jobs. However, in this job market - competition for few openings at those firms will be fierce. Even starting compensation might be smaller compared to previous years.

In my opinion, if one likes Ross and Booth equally, then he/she should choose based on factors important to him/her at this moment.

1) It's your life, your career, and your MBA degree. If you can live with the MBA degree from either school, then that's all that matters. (btw, difference between Booth and Ross isn't that great. No one is going to blame you if you choose one school over another. On the other hand, if you choose a school like Yale over Ross or Booth....)

2) Is debt management important to you? Then definitely consider Ross full ride. Many people argue that, people can pay off their MBA debt in 3 to 5 years after bschool with good MBA salary. True. But that's 3 to 5 years of life on strict budget, sacrificing vacations, wants and other misc goods in order to balance your budget to pay off your debt. If you end up moving to cities like NYC where your standard cost of living is much higher, you will have even more trouble with your personal finances. After all, US has very low savings rate among its citizens. There is no guarantee that you will pile on more credit card debt in those 3 to 5 years in order to maintain or improve your standard of living. (What about unexpected costs such as hospital medical bills etc?) Lesser your debt now, sooner you can save significant amount for retirement. Everyone has different preference. There is no right or wrong answer.

3) School Culture - bschool is where you will live for next 2 years. Go with your instinct/gut feeling. Which campus did you like more? Which bschool appeals more? If you choose bschool for reasons other than what you originally expected from bschool life, then you will likely experience cognitive dissonance.

So I think all this is boiling down to a couple of factors:

1) Do you like both schools? In terms of lifestyle, culture, location, fit - do you like one more than the other? are they about equal?
2) Which school has better placement into the industry you're interested in? I think it's great to aim for M/B/B but for other firms in that industry (e.g. Booz, LEK, various boutique firms) - which school has better placement?
3) If for some reason you can't do consulting, what's your back up preference? Which school has better placement into that? (Just thinking through considerations for if the ideal option doesn't work out)
4) If you had to, could you take on the cost of paying full tuition? Presumably, like terp26 said, most of us went into this process expecting to pay full tuition....so any money is really just a bonus.

I think ideally, we all want to go to a school where:
- have great opportunities to grow/learn
- have the best odds of landing our dream job
- we'll be best friends with everyone -> have good time
- take on the lowest amount of debt

For me personally, I'd have a hard time picking a school based on just one of those considerations.

Edit: Good job team - way to post within 5 mins of each other.

Oski - I see what you are saying now, and I will defer to your better judgment since I personally do not have first hand experience in MC recruiting.

My theory however had less to do with something as subjective as caliber and more with the self-selection aspect. But yes, you're right that part of my argument does not hold up unless I assume the students recruiting for McKinsey at Booth or Ross are in competition with their fellow students. Credit where it's due.

A line from Legally Blonde? (with suitable changes of course)

To sum it up what rhyme eloquenly concluded, go to Ross and make sure to kick ass there.

We always tend to put our fate in the hands of school brand, while more attention should be paid to how to actually get the most out of school. And that's entirely in our control, unlike the admission process.

I bet the best Ross students can get jobs the average HBS student won't.

But you always have that what if in your head. As with school, why do a lot of us apply to HBS or Stanford even though we all know we won't have a shot at getting in? It's so we don't have the "what if I applied, could I have gotten in?? " mentality. What if you get don't get that job you wanted out of school? Will you be happy with your decision then? Will you be okay with living with the what if I went to Booth scenario would things be different?

Just another thing to think about.

I just want to bring ideas to the table for you. I don't even know what I would do in that situation. Frankly, I am glad I am not in that situation because it must be really hard to decide.

This argument would be really strong if the $$ is same at both Booth and Ross and he is choosing Ross for some personal reason (say the Ross cafeteria makes the best steak ). Here, he knows that Booth might open up better opportunities, but is trying to minimize risk in a bad economy.

Consider this :- Right after an MBA from Booth he has a great idea for a start up, but he cannot do it because he has a loan to pay back. By the time the loan is repaid, the idea will be too old. He is gonna be thinking what if... (you know the rest of the sentence)

PS: Again, I am not making a direct Ross Vs Booth comparison. Just trying open up pros, cons of both decisions.

PPS: No matter what decisions we take, we are all going to have those "what if" moments in life. I don't think a decision or two is going to change that situation for we make countless decisions in our lifetime and even the tiniest of them can take our life in a totally different path.

Great insights in this thread I must say!

I've got a friend who recently graduated from business school and he told me:

Pick the school that, when you look back, you'll think "Even if I come out of it unemployed, I would do it all over again."

Great post solaris!

RF