terry12 wrote:
Congratulations on getting into Chicago and Columbia, they're both terrific schools.
I haven't gotten in anywhere tbh.
terry12 wrote:
Second, I think the choice between HBS and UCSD is clear for most.
Which is why I made the comparison. Oversimplification is often an effective debating tool, at least in my experience. The point is, when it comes to a large quality gap, weather doesn't even begin to factor into the decision for any one. Why? Because, at the end of the day, weather is simply not important.
How does that apply to a Stanford vs. Columbia, for example? Simple, even with closely matched schools, even if you convince yourself that you are picking one over the other for weather reasons, there is probably some other reason. We aren't deciding where to go for spring break here. We are deciding who to shell over huge sums of money to for better jobs post-graduation. The decision an individual candidate is going to make is always going to boil down to maximizing that equation. An earlier poster who was "pro" weather even boiled it down to weather somehow meaning he/she was going to be more successful (not that that makes any sense mind you).
terry12 wrote:
Re-reading my post, I don't think I indicated that weather was the sole reason for choosing a given school. But what about deciding between schools that are pretty evenly matched? Say Wharton vs. Stanford, or HBS vs. Stanford? Or Tuck vs. Haas, or UCLA vs. Darden? Weather and lifestyle are definitely reasonable factors in deciding between those schools. Perhaps that's not true for you (and that's fine), but I do know that it's true for many people.
Lifestyle might be important, yes. Weather factors into lifestyle, true. But weather, on it's own, is not a legitimate reason to pick one school over another. Even lifestyle is going to be a secondary factor. Once again, you didn't apply to business school to go to awesome keggers. If you really wanted that, you could move to Scottsdale.