Glad to have 2 great options.
Post MBA goal : Leaning towards Tech PM (CS undergrad, 3 years of workex in software and product roles) but may want to explore consulting/MBB.
I got into stern in R1 and over the last few months, I got used to the idea of studying there (and of taking on the massive debt). The scholarship from UCLA does shake things up a bit and now I'm unsure.
I'm trying to consider the following points to see if sticker price stern makes any sense at all-
- Prestige: Stern consistently ranks better. The recent impression around UCLA hasn't been great either and I'm not proud to admit this but at some level, everything I read on online forums is affecting my perception of UCLA. Not sure how fair that is but I'm having a hard time tuning it out.
- Recruitment - UCLA is known to do well in tech (sort of, I think they've been struggling the last few years?). Stern's employment stats overall are better but specifically for tech, they have a much smaller % of the class going that way. That may be more self selection than anything else. Will the quality (overall pay, number of options etc) of tech outcomes from stern be better than from UCLA? I understand that stern offers a better shot at MBB if I decide to go that route.
- City: Always thought of myself as more of a fit for the NYC vibe over LA but I'm not basing this on much. The same idea extends to post-MBA job geography - I don't have a strong preference. I do want to stay in a city that allows me to save more of my income, taxes and lifestyle costs factored in - Will LA fare better in that regard?
Any help will be appreciated, thanks!
Stats: International Male from Asia, 770 GMAT, 3 YOE.