|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
22 Jun 2007, 21:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
We've been down this road before, but this is an interesting topic so I thought it would be fun to look at it again.
Within General Management there is basically a one-school zenith- HBS. All of the rest of the ultra elite (and yes, I mean all of them) are nowhere near HBS in terms of major CEO production with HBS producing roughly three times as many CEOs as its nearest rival. The next closest group consists of Stanford and Penn/Wharton. However, as suggested above, these two schools combined do not produce as many major CEOs as HBS alone. Further, the distance Harvard and Stanford and Wharton is far greater than the distance between Stanford/Wharton and Columbia/Chicago. Columbia and Chicago each produce about half the number of major CEOs as Wharton or Stanford. Among the ultra elites, Kellogg and MIT round out the group (but elites such as Darden and Tuck do at least as well as these last two ultra elites).
Within General Management there is basically a one-school zenith- HBS. All of the rest of the ultra elite (and yes, I mean all of them) are nowhere near HBS in terms of major CEO production with HBS producing roughly three times as many CEOs as its nearest rival. The next closest group consists of Stanford and Penn/Wharton. However, as suggested above, these two schools combined do not produce as many major CEOs as HBS alone. Further, the distance Harvard and Stanford and Wharton is far greater than the distance between Stanford/Wharton and Columbia/Chicago. Columbia and Chicago each produce about half the number of major CEOs as Wharton or Stanford. Among the ultra elites, Kellogg and MIT round out the group (but elites such as Darden and Tuck do at least as well as these last two ultra elites).
25 Jun 2007, 21:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Interesting analysis, Hjort, thank you.
While I was researching schools, I was under the impression that Kellogg was stronger in general management than Columbia, Chicago and MIT, and positively on a par with Wharton. In retrospective, the main difference I can think of between my perception and your analysis is that I considered MC placements to be an indication of general management pedigree.
MCs definitely don't run companies, but they do get to advice CXXs and organizations in general in several issues which would be considered general management issues. On the other hand, their generalist approach is limited as consultancies (and consultants) need to specialize (at least a little bit) and they won't get close to managing all aspects of an organization. In the end, MCs would just advice organizations on the best courses of action for a certain situation but would fall short of running the organization.
L.
While I was researching schools, I was under the impression that Kellogg was stronger in general management than Columbia, Chicago and MIT, and positively on a par with Wharton. In retrospective, the main difference I can think of between my perception and your analysis is that I considered MC placements to be an indication of general management pedigree.
MCs definitely don't run companies, but they do get to advice CXXs and organizations in general in several issues which would be considered general management issues. On the other hand, their generalist approach is limited as consultancies (and consultants) need to specialize (at least a little bit) and they won't get close to managing all aspects of an organization. In the end, MCs would just advice organizations on the best courses of action for a certain situation but would fall short of running the organization.
L.
