Conventional wisdom here would suggest that you need to go to a M7/T10 school to give yourself a decent chance of making it to MBB, You can make it from a T15 school, but the chances are lower.
However, I've noticed on LinkedIn that people from UW Foster (USNR #27) & UM Twin Cities (USNR #32) do make it to MBB (I'm not talking about sponsored MBB kids, but career switchers). Although it seems like they're always in the Seattle or Minneapolis offices. I'm not talking about 1 or 2. These schools seems to send a few grads to MBB every year. I know those are not Kellogg numbers, but what does that tell us about MBB recruiting?
I mean wouldn't it suck if you made it to Wharton and had to settle for a Tier 2 consulting firm while someone from a school ranked #32 makes it to McKinsey?
Now, I know there is a lot more to gain from B School than land a gig at MBB, but it seems to me that where you go to school matters a little less than people think on WSO.
Also noticed that UT Austin McCombs (USNR #17) doesn't send anyone to MBB, but schools ranked lower send a few kids.
Thoughts?
in my limited view, id argue that M7 candidates are increasingly shunning careers in MBB/IB due to the hours, in favor of Tech/Start-ups
There's a trend towards tech/startups but I most certainly would not say that folks are "shunning" consulting or banking. At M7, in terms of number of people recruiting, it's typically consulting>tech>IB.
The numbers don't tell the whole story though. Many people recruit for both consulting and tech (while bankers tend to be all in on banking). From what I've seen, most people would take MBB over tech but might take tech roles over T2 consulting. That's not set in stone though, there are a lot of preferences that come in to play, and most would be 60-70% not 80-90%.
It's worth noting that tech salaries are way up yoy which helps to drive the trend.
Finally, tech has its own culture ups and downs, it's not all 9-5 and beer pong, especially for the post-MBA roles. I'd take the culture at Bain over Amazon any day.
A lot of people try start-ups their first year as a swing for the fences, if it falls through many of those folks try to recruit for consulting or corporates second year.
There are fewer people recruiting for banking, but most of those folks (somewhat by necessity) are much more focused in what they want to do and are "banking or bust".
To @Gibbs - you're right, they're not M7 numbers. I went to Booth. I just checked our last full employment report (2015-2016) and we placed 144 people in consulting, roughly 1/3 of the class. Of those, 73 went to MBB. I'll tell you that probably half the school recruits for full time consulting somewhat seriously at some point, which means that of the 50% that try for consulting, roughly 2/3 get offers, and 1/3 of those offers are at MBB. 70+ candidates from just one M7 vs probably 1-5 from Foster. I'll tell you where I'd rather be recruiting from.
If I were to meet a Foster MBB who landed a full time offer at McKinsey (in a generalist role, not ops or digital) I would not feel jealous, I would recognize that this is probably an absolutely stellar candidate to have landed a spot against those kinds of numbers from other programs.
Finally, at the end of the day, the Booth brand means more on a resume, out of state tuition and expenses at Foster are probably still $150k (cheaper, but not much) and the quality of coursework and talent level of your classmates aren't on par. Also, you might land at MBB, but the network of yours that lands at top jobs is much smaller, also a major factor.
To be perfectly honest - I think I'm happier with my Booth MBA and first year post-MBA T2 consulting gig than I would have been having gone to Foster and landing at McKinsey. I still think my longer term prospects are much better. For context, pretty much every single person at an M7 could probably go to Foster for free. I received multiple free ride offers from 20-50 ranked schools that I didn't even apply to (they found me through GMAC). Taking the sticker price at Booth is definitely not something I regret.
I am actually planning on applying for all management consulting jobs at on campus recruiting, when the time for recruiting comes on my mba campus. I just won't take any consulting offers, outside MBB, OW, LEK, and maybe ATK. If I get interviews at Deloitte S&O, S&, Accenture, E&Y, and other random places, I will give it my best shot to get offers from them, just so I can tune up / prepare my case interviewing skills. Hopefully doing this process will equip me when that big time comes for interviewing with MBB and other big time shops.
Strategy consulting, in theory, is great and intellectually stimulating, with great exit ops. The problem is that outside of MBB, OW, and LEK, most F500 clients will refuse to pay that crazy consulting fee for generic 'strategic' advice. Most tier 2 places will have a mix of strategy & implementation projects, with the latter having higher % of the work. Also, in hard economic times, F500 clients, with their limited budgets, will just refuse to pay millions in fees for 2nd tier consulting services. Which means, when times get slightly tough, tier 2 consulting can't sell work and don't have much projects, resulting in massive layoffs for junior staff. (fresh mba grads) During my time at Deloitte, I've seen too many junior level consultants without deep established internal network (fresh MBA grads) get shafted and fired, due to lack of utilization. Or, they can easily end up in shit projects. These things would never happen at MBB or OW or LEK.
I am giving up a job paying six figures and incurring ridiculous costs of MBA tuition to attend a top MBA, because I'd like to end up in a challenging job post mba where I can learn the most and challenge myself, hopefully accelerating my career and network. The last thing I need would be to end up at a tier 2 consulting shop and suffer prolonged 'bench' time due to lack of projects, or have to suffer through shit project management / implementation work, which wouldn't be too great for my skill set development and just plain job satisfaction. I'd rather pick EB or BB IBD over tier 2 consulting, no question asked. (If I get MBB, I will pick MBB no question over anything else)
For what it's worth, I have some friends that are working in tech now as product managers, ops manager, etc. and they tell me that a large chunk of their responsibility is to facilitate meetings and just make sure that team members got their shit done in time and under budget... which is more of a glorified project management. Based on what I've seen and heard, I would be VERY cautious of any roles outside MBB + OW + LEK consulting, EB / BB IBD, or other selective leadership development / management programs at F500, post MBA.
Some of your points are valid, but overall, your perception is just wrong. I have many friends all over T2 and MBB and am a consultant myself (post-MBA).
I agree with your comment that staffing is probably more volatile at big 4 rather than smaller shops. They definitely hire bigger and fire bigger. Especially Deloitte and Accenture. PwC/Strat& is up there too.
However, Deloitte Monitor, Strat&, Parthenon and ATK are absolutely strategy shops and in league with LEK/OW. S&O blends the line with implementation the most but really, the implementation teams are dedicated to implementation. Strat&, Parthenon would simply not roll consultants onto prolonged implementation projects. Your indication that Monitor/Strat&/Parthenon consultants roll in and out of strategy/implementation is just wrong. These firms keep these groups segregated to protect the higher bill rates for these arms and go to market against MBB. The economics of rolling a Parthenon consultant onto implementation work just don't make sense. And to say that clients won't pay for these firms is also just wrong. Parthenon wins DD work all the time from LEK/MBB/etc. All three of these firms are stronger than OW and LEK either overall or in certain areas. Understood if you have had a bad experience at Deloitte Tech, and you can personally apply wherever you want, but these comments are just wrong.
You can add Accenture to this list for tech as well. They have segregated their strategy team in the last 2 years. They're a market leader in tech strategy.
ATK, by the way, is a pure play strategy firm.