Chicago Booth

Well, the BW rankings are complete horseshit. You did see stanford sitting at 9, yes?

Having said that, I don't think H/S/W are in a different class than Chicago. Maybe H/S....W/B. Though I'd actually go H...S...W/B/a few others....10 or so more....everyone else.

But at the end of the day, the rankings are terrible. USNews or bust.

SMU was in top 20... list is not valid

Only thing I would disagree with is saying that Stanford was ranked at 9...BW has it at 5.

It depends on what you're measuring - this would be what I've encountered so far.

In terms of selectivity, the general perception sort of goes 1. Stanford - admissions black box and staggering stats, so it's regarded as the hardest to get in. 2. Harvard - like AAA bonds, HBS buys big names and unblemished track record, sure bets. 3. Wharton - could've been at HBS and Stanford but probably not as community-oriented. 4-9. Chicago, Kellogg, MIT, Columbia, Tuck, Haas (there is some gradation here but not much) - pretty much going to do just as well as HSW in terms of career and placement, but just didn't tick one of the more capricious dealmaker/breaker boxes that HBS and Stanford have.

In terms of how recruiters view you, it is (largely based on the US News recruiter raw scores) 1-2. HBS, Wharton. They stand out as being driven and accomplished. 3-4. Chicago, MIT. They stand out as being exceptionally well trained. 5-6. Kellogg, Tuck. They stand out as being solid, capable, with people smarts and loyal. 7. Columbia. They stand out as aggressive and no BS, but recruiters are onto the whole ED yield/GMAT thing. 8. Haas. Hard working but laid back. Stanford is an absolute wild card here - the talent is recognized but recruiters do not view them as particularly enthused by the vanilla jobs that most b-school candidates go for (all holding out for Apple, Google, VC and PE).

In terms of yield, it is 1. Harvard 2. Stanford 3-9. Everyone else (the top 2 are 80-90% yield and everyone else hovers around 60%, with Tuck the lowest). It's not really worth distinguishing whether most people prefer Kellogg or MIT. Wharton would be the leader of this pack, but enough people choose the others over it to make it blurrier.

those rankings are complete bullshit - obviously stanford should not be #9.... but that said, I think one could make an argument that Booth is up there with H/S/W... from what I've heard it's really a great place to ACTUALLY LEARN a lot about business, economics, etc... H/S have a reputation for being a complete joke in terms of academics ----- I'm not sure how much truth there is to that, but something tells me that the academics at Booth are very, very strong... probably on par or better than H/S.

obviously I realize that networking and career development are 90% of why one goes to business school, so I'm not saying that I'd go to Booth over H/S (I wouldn't) --- but learning something and studying alongside true intellectuals would be a nice plan b --- if I don't get into Harvard (half kidding).

There's no question that Booth academics are on a par with H/S/W.in fact all top 10, I dare say top 20, schools are on a par academically. The MBA education is a commodity - if one is simply after the essentials and has the internal fortitude to complete independent study, 70-80% of the classroom education can be done independently. From what I've seen among colleagues, I'd say there is truth to the notion that more Booth students go to Booth to "learn" and are less cocky than the rest; maybe because they did not get into the other schools or have some sort of chip on their shoulders. That said, International PYMP is spot on..at the end of the day..who really goes to learn. It's about the network. H/S are at the topc for a reason though historically S is a new kid on the block. The Booth network overall has less clout (solid on the street) but is more approachable. My take always was if you get into a top firm after b-school (e.g. Goldman, McK), your firm's network is far more powerful than your schools'.

I tend to agree with seekingalpha2.....firm's rep says a lot... i still get love for my brief stint at JP

The University of Chicago is T-H-E 800 lb. gorilla in the room when it comes to academics and finance. Yes...most of that is fucking ancient history related bullshit, however, schools now-a-days are far more so in the business of selling their brand then they are in the business of education. UofC (and Booth by extension) has positioned itself as a "finance institution" and that is the sort of thing that wins popularity contests like rankings.

The simple thing I usually do for "my rankings" is this:

I look at the career placement, look at the companies recruiting there. If I see Bain/McKinsey/BCG, that school must be elite, thus the total number of students recruited by these firms should give an idea of school prestige/reputation etc.

I did not say the big banks because if let say JP hires people for their back office, it would be mention as JP Morgan hired here, and it would difficult to know whether it was an investment bank job or not.

If an organization like BW tries to incorporate academics and other criteria not related to job placement, it will obviously land you Standford at 9 etc.

what's so wrong with having a strong interest in wanting to learn a lot in Bschool? I feel like I'm someone who really loves to learn and study hardcore and in depth, but I'm not going to grab an advanced managerial accounting or derivatives valuation book and just rip it apart while ALSO working long hours. Plus, consider how many texts you go though in Bschool - that many texts would take forever to learn thoroughly while working.

Also, I think it's a different case if you didn't go to wharton undergrad...in that case Bschoo leducation would probably be fairly superfluous. But what if you didn't study much business, or your undergrad bschool blew giant donkey dick...

I've heard people say that Booth is the best for finance, especially in Europe on the trading/structuring side of things. In that space most people were from Booth or Sloan and noone was from HSW. Agrees with what someone said above that those are the best trained.

I have two serious questions:

1. who is the best for econ?

2. Is it just me, or is there no focus on actual MANAGERIAL skills in Bschool?!?

What about cash flow planning, detailed budgeting (NOT capital budgeting), financial planning and analysis, cutting costs, pricing? I want to learn the technicalities of running a complex business, not just security valuation or generic leadership shit.

I have probably talked about Columbia too much on those site to not sound biased, but I think it is interesting that most people I talk to personally rank it H/S, then W, and then Columbia. Most people I talk to in the Banking and Consulting industry tell me that the hiring opportunities for Banking and Consulting are pretty much equal for the top 7 schools (the real top 7, not the BW top 7). They say that the only difference is PE recruiting, which is irrelevant if you are a career changer with no past experience anyway.