cabro57
mrw: you're right on Arizona being the better school than the others mentioned. However, let me clarify what I said: I don't think any of the four schools makes a difference when it comes to PhD admissions, where the GMAT, GPA and the actual courses taken will make a difference. Stated differently, I think that faculty members who evaluate PhD applications will look at someone who was a stellar student in MS Economics from a good, but not great, school more favorably than someone who was an average (or even maybe above average) MBA student from a top 20 school, because the MS Econ background is seen as better preparation to the PhD program.
Feel free to disagree. I think my main point is that while there is always a difference between an "all-star school" (Wharton, Stanford..) and a very good school (such as Rochester, for example), there is not much of a difference between a good school (Arizona) and an average school (SUNY Buffalo), especially from the standpoint of evaluating prospective PhD students. There may be a larger difference when one looks at the _job market_ following completion of an MS Finance program, but the "PhD application market" is not the labor market.
No, fair points all; the PhD admissions market is an interesting, rarified atmosphere to say the least, particularly when regarding the sort of programs that are mentioned on these boards. So your points are likely valid there. I really wasn't trying to fire a shot across your bow, just stating an opinion.
I also should admit, in the interests of full disclosure, that I did some graduate work at the University of Arizona--three years worth, law school--so I was just feeling the sting of my school being lumped in as indistinguishable from "inferior" programs (now I've gone and offended Texas Tech, SUNY Buffalo and UTA grads). So I'm as biased as the fan who paints his face red and blue for the big game; I admit it.