whitman
For me, with no geographical or industry preference, I'd put the figure around a 50% scholarship to drop from tier to tier. For example, I wanted to go to Haas, Anderson, or Foster, and had in my head that the roughly equivalent point for them would be no scholarship at Haas = ~$40,000 at Anderson = full ride at Foster. It turned out I got denied at Haas and Foster but got $60,000 at Anderson, but that was the matrix I had established for myself.
Pardon the delay - business trip got in the way.
Thank you for being open and taking a position. The more I have been applying some kind of a system, the more I have been wanting to change it but the new US News rankings have really messed the whole thing up. One of the ideas is to run trade off analysis on alums/graduates and check their perception and then do the same for applicants and run 10-20 simulations on each, establishing the exact value and position of each school.
You have definitely motivated me to complicate the system:
I like the concept of diminishing returns (less linear system such as a diminishing difference such as:
HBS vs Top 10 - 100% scholarship to be on par but perhaps only 75 or 50% to be on par with top 5.
Top 5 vs. Top 15 - 50% scholarship to be on par (which means each position is wroth 5% of scholarship)
Top 15 vs. Top 25 - 40% scholarship (each position is worth 4% of scholarship money)
Top 25 vs. Top 35 - 20% scholarship (each position is worth 2% of scholarship money)
Top 35 vs. Top 45 - 12%, and so on.
Just need to build a chart and perhaps come up with an equation.
Then there are variables such as staying within the same industry or targeting a region the school is strong - that should be a reduction of 10% scholarship perhaps to make it equitable (anyone feels it should be more)?
If staying within the same industry, then probably another 10% reduction?
Thanks for your ideas and your Anderson post - they are this a better post.