EMBA: Kellogg vs. Wharton v vs. Booth

Hey everyone -

I'm trying to decide among three schools: Kellogg, Wharton, and Booth for my EMBA.

These are obviously all great places with wonderful faculty and staff, students, alumni groups, etc.

However, having visited all three, it's clear there are some differences. All have pluses and all have minuses. I was wondering what the rest of you think. Some notes and questions I have are below.

The two most important factors for me are: curriculum and networking (both with current students and alumni). Others will, of course, have different priorities.

Wharton:
- This seems to be THE EMBA program. I'm not 100% sure why - Wharton is terrific, but what does it have that the others don't?
- To clarify, it seems to be the most in-demand EMBA program. It has the highest yield (80-90%) and is frequently ranked number 1 among EMBAs. Even something as unscientific as "discussion forum topics" Wharton seems to be the runaway leader in terms of DEMAND for the program. Not saying it's the best or not, that just seems to be its current position.
- Wharton offers a lot of electives. Should I care? Is this actually a good thing?
- Wharton's EMBA in Philadelphia is on the same campus as a) the rest of Penn, and b) the rest of Wharton. Does this help? Or not enough interaction to matter?
- Wharton's curriculum is supposedly the same material and rigor as the FTMBA. Is this true? Is it markedly different at Chicago and Kellogg?
- They put you up on campus with the other students - this seems like a massive plus, both in terms of networking and taking some of the logistical pain out of it.

Chicago:
- Is their EMBA program also as rigorous as their FTMBA?
- They don't offer much by way of electives. This bothers me a bit. Am I wrong?
- The Gleacher Center is in downtown, away from the rest of campus. Is this good or bad?
- There is a new capstone course. That is held out as a selling point - to me it seems like something I wouldn't want hanging over my head for months.
- LEAD. Actually I don't totally know what this is. Any thoughts?
- You are on your own for hotel arrangements. The hassle is one thing, the potential loss of networking is maybe another. Do students interact much in spite of this?
- On the plus side, the Gleacher Center hosts a variety of events as well as other Chicago MBA programs.

Kellogg:
- I know the least about Kellogg but their Miami campus actually appeals to me more than SF (Wharton) and London / HK (Booth) since that would have the most relevance for me personally. (Thinking about where the future network might be.) This is, of course, very much dependent on personal circumstances.
- Their approach to curriculum design seems to be to have more courses (high 20s vs high 10s for Booth, for instance). Presumably they would be shorter and less intense. My initial reaction is maybe this is actually a good thing, since you can cover more ground (e.g. there is a Business Law course that doesn't seem to be offered at the others)
- Relatively few electives
- Rigor? I could be wrong, but it seems to be the least rigorous of the three. Is this good or bad? At this point in our careers, might we not be ready for the 80/20 rule? Most of us at the EMBA level might just need rounding out as opposed to hard-core quant. (Feel free to disagree!)
- I believe they also take care of hotel, which is nice in terms of logistical ease, cost, and facilitates networking.

The above is intended as food for thought / discussion. Any other thoughts about these three programs is much appreciated! It's a difficult choice.

Thanks for reading.