M/B/B Placement statistics at top schools

I guess I forgot to include MIT. Harvard and Stanford don't provide stats for BW, so it wasn't readily available.

I'll upload an updated version shortly.

I couldn't pull the MIT data from BusinessWeek, but I plugged in numbers based on the school's employment report.

I don't have any data for HBS or Stanford GSB, but I think it's fair to say that you'll have outstanding opportunities at both of those schools.

*The spreadsheet has been updated*

Wow thats interesting..., though the rank is a little bit different than I thought it would be for FT % (first table largest to smalles FT%)


School Name FT %
Wharton 58%
Booth 49%
Columbia 49%
Tuck 42%
Kellogg 39%
MIT (Sloan) 38%


I thought Kellogg would be higher ranked. Columbia surprises me.

Keep in mind that more students go to Kellogg for consulting, so the [consulting size] is much larger. Kellogg grads also have access to jobs at top tier boutiques, which may be even more favorable than M/B/B.

Columbia sends a ton of people to McKinsey and I'm not sure if that number includes sponsored students that were at McKinsey pre-mba or not.

The data can certainly be interpreted in a lot of different ways, but you shouldn't assume that your odds of getting an M/B/B offer at Kellogg are worse than they are at Booth. I think this data is probably less skewed for schools outside the M7, where top tier offers are harder to come by.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Kellogg's numbers seemed wrong since I know 40+ went to McK and 30+ went to BCG last year FT so I went to the employment report.

There were 633 fulltime MBA's in the class of 2008 (2Y, 1Y, MMM, JD/MBA, MD/MBA). Of those roughly 215 (34%) went into consulting, nad 101 (47%) of those ended up going to M/B/B. Yes I know some of those would be sponsored but there is no rhyme or reason to how different schools report, so some BW numbers probably include sponsors and some dont. Also if you use the % of the class going into consulting then that includes sponsors, so ignoring those people impacts your final results negatively.

Interesting to look at but I can tell you that if you get M/B/B at Kellogg most likely you would do it at Chicago, MIT, Columbia, Wharton...its just where people chasing those jobs tend to end up at different rates.

Can you include Stern into this data?

Last reply on this was about 18 months ago, so don't hold your breath. For a quick and dirty you could search stern and either m, b, or b on linkedin.

just to this, whartons #'s don't change from big 3 to big 4 so not a single person got hired into booz from wharton? That sounds surprising.

Edit: actually checked in 2009 booz hired 7 full timers

As stated in the document, the content was based entirely on BusinessWeek's top employer data. This wasn't even intended to be a GMATClub document, but GoBruins suggested that I upload it after I shared the results with him over a year ago. I put it together quickly to analyze the approximate percentages for my own research.

The data doesn't include all schools and, quite honestly, it produces an inaccurate picture of causation between attending a school and receiving an offer from any of those firms. I'm happy to leave the document available to others so they can apply the simple methodology to their own research, but I don't think it should survive as a living document to be updated each year with current statistics (or even expanded to include additional schools).

The numbers are interesting, but I think they do more harm than good. The numbers aren't even reliably consistent. BusinessWeek data isn't all inclusive, but even some school's employment reports provide an incomplete data set (UCLA is a good example).