cnc2 wrote:
It does kind of come full circle - you go to a "brand" school, only to then realize that at the end of it all, it still comes down to you, the individual. It's easy and convenient to blame pedigree (or lack thereof), nationality, demographic profile, etc. for lack of success, when it's the hard truth of looking in the mirror at yourself and believing that it's all on YOU to make it happen (and hoping for luck along the way) that is what will allow you to succeed. Brands don't change you. You change you. Or to put it another way, it's not about what you *have*, it's about what you *do*. Character, integrity, discipline, vision and luck all matter more for success than anything else -- something that most people probably already know, but are somehow deluded into thinking otherwise when they are faced with the prospect of getting a top MBA."
I do agree to some extent with his comments, however, I still think that:
1) An Ultra Elite / Elite MBA will
probably help you get better / more interviews than a lower ranked program. Of course, once in the interview, it's mainly you and not your school that counts.
2) He mentions that HBS and Stanford students were jobless around 2001. However, he fails to provide overall figures and, most importantly, he fails to mention how the average HBS / Stanford student fared in comparison with the students from lower clustered schools. I mean, yeah, it could be the case that 20% of Stanford grads had not found a job in a bad year. But if 20% of Stanford grads did not find a job, then I'd expect 50%+ of Thunderbird grads to not find jobs.
I insist on my perception that it's all about probabilities. On a bad market, I estimate that the probability of landing a nice job is higher from a better reputed school than from a lesser reputed school. On a good market, it should still be the same.
Cheers. L.