Is it still a smart decision to go to Stanford if you don't plan on staying in the West Coast? Harvard is my first choice, but if I don't get in, is Wharton/UChicago/Kellogg better if I want to be in the Midwest or East Coast?
I'm currently in the PE/VC industry (leaning more towards VC but not pure early stage) and I know regional networks are important. From a recruiting perspective, would I actually be at a disadvantage when trying to get into East Coast or Midwest firms? Even if recruiting isn't an issue (I can see how the Stanford name can carry a lot of weight), is it even smart to make all these connections with people who will most likely be in Silicon Valley only to leave? I don't mind spending 2 years on the West Coast at an amazing institution, but don't really want to stay there long term so I'm questioning if I should apply.
Thanks for any insight.
hi Charm~ please look at their career surveys, and see how many actually stay in the bay area/california. that should help you alot with your decision on whether or not applying.
in my opinion, why not apply?
i think this thread is massively premature, but i agree with this poster. when i was doing bschool research i found this interactive map: http://alumni.gsb.stanford.edu/about/alumni.html
one soundbite from it:Geographic Location o 21% of our alumni live outside the U.S.A. o 26% of all alumni live in the Bay Area; and 44% live elsewhere in the U.S.A.
If you want to stay on the East Coast, go with the school with a stronger network there. Harvard has bigger classes, and a large percentage of this already big class size stays on the East Coast.
If you get Stanford, but don't get HBS, then it gets tough between Stanford and the other 3. I might still take Wharton, but it's never easy to pass up the prestige of Stanford for Kellog/Booth.
I guess it becomes H, W, S, Booth, Kellog for your situation.
Thanks for the above comments!
If you want to be in PE/VC, go with Stanford or HBS, regardless of where in the globe you want to be. The brands are unmatched in the industry. Top PE and VC firms on the East Coast and Midwest have tons of Stanford grads.
How much more reputable are Stanford and HBS vs. Wharton? I always thought the three were equally prestigious, but I keep hearing that H/S are a tier above Wharton. True?
yeah, HBS and Stanford are a slight notch above wharton, although the latter is better in finance. those two are tougher to get into, thereby getting a more impressive student body. and a decent number of PE, VC, and HF, only recruit at HBS and stanford.
Definitely take H/S if you can get it; the geographical concerns are overblown.
With that said, you should totally consider W/K/Booth as other options given your VC aspirations, as well as how competitive it is to get into any of those schools.
If you're not 100% sure you want to go into banking, Booth and Kellogg (along with Harvard) are arguably the two or three best schools in the country (three if you count Harvard). If you're 100% sure you want to go into banking and stay there, Wharton would probably be the best choice.
Between Northwestern, Chicago, and Harvard, it's first a regional thing and second (for the Midwest) a more quantitative (Chicago) vs. non-quantitative (Northwestern) sort of thing.
If you want to do VC anywhere in the US, Stanford is your best option here. UNLESS you want biotech VC, in which case Kellogg has the slight edge with your criteria.
Ut qui minima quibusdam et. Sit sed qui praesentium aliquam non et impedit quod. Repellendus soluta et vel et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...