vik218
Hi everyone, I got into the Booth Weekend MBA and UCLA Full Time MBA and I'm having trouble deciding between the two options... I am based out of Canada at a Boutique IB shop in M&A for the past 2.5 years and would like to work at a HF. Location isn't a preference but the HF's in Toronto are very small in AUM, staff, and there are only a few out there so the MBA would help make the transition easier. I'm also not looking to get a job at place like Citadel, SAC, Wellington, or anything, but at a reputable fundamental value fund where I can learn the business and get some decent experience and grow within the industry. I know I will have to network to land such a job and the schools will not provide much assistance with this but I was hoping to tap into the alumni networks and work my butt off to get in... With UCLA, I may be able to land an internship but with Booth this probably won't be possible since the structure isn't there and the PT students don't have access to FT internships. The other downside is the lack of depth in the Booth weekend MBA experience, which the full time programs offers... What do you guys think would be my best option forward? thanks!!!
Congratulations on the admits!
The Weekend MBA and FT are very different animals. You seem to understand the difference (Weekend does not offer internship, recruiting events, or much of networking - it is a program that assumes that you want to keep your current job (with the hope of a promotion upon graduation). Usually the PT and Weekend programs are also easier to get into as they tend to be more regional and location is more important than rankings or other elements - schools not worried as much about rankings or prestige. Having said that, Booth is still going to have a strong brand name and ability to tap into the network, but FT guys do have a bit of an annoyance with PT programs since the caliber of classes is often meaningfully different (can't speak about Booth in particular here as I am not familiar with their weekend/PT programs but you can see that they don't report Average GMAT on the Weekend program vs. FT, though the range of the GMAT scores is also less. FT has 570 - 780 as their range and 726 average) and there was a fuss about PT students not mentioning PT on their resumes. A lot has been said and floated around about PT/Weekend vs. FT programs. The challenge will be working, flying to school, doing homework, have team meetings, and networking at the same time. Just a lot of work!
On the UCLA front, yes, it is ranked not as high but it is a FT program, which is almost higher, giving you more time to focus on your resume, network, and weaknesses. You have an opportunity to do an internship which tends to be easier to find than a job, but at the same time, I don't know how many Hedge Funds hire at UCLA. My guess is not many since most people hang around CA after graduation.
If your goal is to return to Canada and work there in HF, then Booth is probably better as it would allow you to keep working, keep networking, and keep you in Canada. If you are planning to move to the States and work in HF in the US (
most are on east coast though a few are in SF/Bay Area - even some in Chicago). I would probably still suggest Booth due to proximity and greater alum base penetration - Anderson is not well represented on East Coast or Mid-west and the trade off of an internship is probably not that big of a deal taking into consideration it is going to be pretty darn to score to start with, so may as well shoot for the job from Booth vs. Internship from Anderson.
You have additional value of keeping your day job and making money while you go to school 1-day a week
P.S. The only assumption I am making is that you have an easier way to get a job in US being a Canadian resident. Sorry, not well up to speed on that - perhaps you can share how hard/easy it is to get a work permit for Canada citizens.
That's my analysis.