Lowest ranked MBA you would attend

We all know how expensive pursuing MBA can be. Most programs would cost you anywhere from 50-80k a year including living expenses. Then, factor in the opportunity cost of leaving your work for two years, and MBA sure as hell is an expensive credential to pursue.

So, what is the lowest ranked-MBA program that you would consider attending, after factoring in ROI, opportunity cost, and risk/ reward potential?

For me - I wouldn't attend an MBA ranked below U Texas/ UNC range. Getting I-banking or top consulting out of UNC/ U Texas MBA can still be tough, but at least I will get to watch sick sports and have an awesome social life at these schools, which make these two MBA programs worth it to attend in my book.

 
illiniPride:
I wont waste my money on a MBA unless I'm going to a top 5-7 school.

I used to think this way too, but I noticed there are many successful finance and consulting guys from B-schools such as NYU Stern, Duke, Michigan Ross, Cornell, and UNC, all of which are ranked outside top 7.

My guess would be that ultra selective employers such as MBB consulting or elite PE shops don't recruit outside M7, but outside of these small number of employers, it doesn't make that much difference as long as you attend a top 15-20-ish school, but that's just my speculation. I think most of BB's and non-MBB consulting shops still recruit heavily at most of top 20 MBA programs.

Outside of top 20 MBA though, I think all B-schools are just scams desperate to collect your tuition money.

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
illiniPride:
I wont waste my money on a MBA unless I'm going to a top 5-7 school.

I used to think this way too, but I noticed there are many successful finance and consulting guys from B-schools such as NYU Stern, Duke, Michigan Ross, Cornell, and UNC, all of which are ranked outside top 7.

My guess would be that ultra selective employers such as MBB consulting or elite PE shops don't recruit outside M7, but outside of these small number of employers, it doesn't make that much difference as long as you attend a top 15-20-ish school, but that's just my speculation. I think most of BB's and non-MBB consulting shops still recruit heavily at most of top 20 MBA programs.

Outside of top 20 MBA though, I think all B-schools are just scams desperate to collect your tuition money.

Ideally you want to be top 10, to have a shot at the 'elite' jobs/recruiting...but realistically, a top 25 will get you where you need to be if you have more of a regional focus.

For instance, when I apply to bschool, I will be focused on the SE US. Because of this, as school like Vanderbilt or Emory would trump a school like Texas, even though Texas is considering a better program. Dollar wise, I will be spending near the same amount as a top 7 school, so if I can get in, I'm better off going their, because the brand name is substantial enough to still work well in a more regional market...however, a UNC or Emory is going to serve me better in Atlanta or Charlotte vs an MBA from Texas...and vice versa if I wanted to work in Texas.

Also, you might be able to secure more cost reductions/grants/scholarships in the 11-25 range vs the 1-10, depending on the overall strength of applications. I've heard of people considering Vanderbilt, UT, UNC and Emory going to UNC because they reduced the tuition significantly for them. That, of course, may be a unique situation.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
illiniPride:
I wont waste my money on a MBA unless I'm going to a top 5-7 school.

Tell the HBS, MIT and Chicago MBA students who can't pass the technical interviews at the top tier BB energy groups. Sounds like the Rice and UT students made a better choice, judging by the outcome of recruiting week.

Rice/UT alum BB Energy Banker: "How does a change of $100mm in D/A flow through the three statements"?

Ivy League douche bag trying to get a BB energy banking gig: "I am not sure but I go to HBS so people in the north east usually don't ask us technical questions"

Rice/UT alum BB energy banker: "You can suck my left nut because here we are in TEXAS where everything is bigger and better"

 
Ibracadabra:
illiniPride:
I wont waste my money on a MBA unless I'm going to a top 5-7 school.

Tell the HBS, MIT and Chicago MBA students who can't pass the technical interviews at the top tier BB energy groups. Sounds like the Rice and UT students made a better choice, judging by the outcome of recruiting week.

Rice/UT alum BB Energy Banker: "How does a change of $100mm in D/A flow through the three statements"?

Ivy League douche bag trying to get a BB energy banking gig: "I am not sure but I go to HBS so people in the north east usually don't ask us technical questions"

Rice/UT alum BB energy banker: "You can suck my left nut because here we are in TEXAS where everything is bigger and better"

Seeing how I can already answer that question your point doesn't really apply to me.

People here seem incapable of realizing that I am talking about my own situation and not trying to generalize. I will probably be paying for an MBA out of pocket so I want to go to a top school or not go at all.

 
seedy underbelly:
Too freaking expensive to go anywhere outside the top 15.

I seriously think lower-ranked programs need to reduce their tuition, or they are just being scams and screwing with people's future. Imagine going into 150k in debt for a mediocre MBA and ending up in a dead end job with shitty pay. Why anyone would choose to attend Purdue MBA paying 150k is beyond me...

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
seedy underbelly:
Too freaking expensive to go anywhere outside the top 15.

I seriously think lower-ranked programs need to reduce their tuition, or they are just being scams and screwing with people's future. Imagine going into 150k in debt for a mediocre MBA and ending up in a dead end job with shitty pay. Why anyone would choose to attend Purdue MBA paying 150k is beyond me...

But they won't because gullible people will stay pay for them. I agree, they should be much cheaper than the top 7.

 

I personally don't care much who recruits where. I'm pretty sure I won't need business school and will only go to take a break from working and gain access to a new network. I'm also pretty sure I'll be able to get into one of the top 7.

If not, I'll take my money and travel instead while reading a ton and auditing an online class or two. I think it would be pretty cool to live in south/central america for six months and in europe for another six.

 
illiniPride:
I personally don't care much who recruits where. I'm pretty sure I won't need business school and will only go to take a break from working and gain access to a new network. I'm also pretty sure I'll be able to get into one of the top 7.

If not, I'll take my money and travel instead while reading a ton and auditing an online class or two. I think it would be pretty cool to live in south/central america for six months and in europe for another six.

Just get a job in Europe. I work 37 hours a week and get 30 days of vacation in a job I love. For me the decision was to go to bschool or just skip it and take a post-MBA level job here. The international work experience has a lot of value also.

Actually I should get off WSO and head home... its 2:12 on Friday and I'm the last one in the office.

 

The rank of the overall bschool doesnt mean anything. It depends on what you want to do. For example one of the top MBA programs for golf course management is at a MBA program that isnt even top 100. You all are too quick to write of anyone who does not ooze prestige. The fact of the matter is that finance is not the only career path that exists in the world.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

For all you jackassees saying anything outside the top 10 is a waste, work for a few years and see how successful alums from some of those 'middling' institutions are.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

Given my age and career goals, it would not make sense for me to go below M7. I seriously considered applying to tuck, stern, and haas, but tuck's location in the middle of nowhere is a dealbreaker, and the latter two's weakness in buyside recruiting is a non-starter as well.

For MBB and generic banking though, anything in the top 15 would work. It will be harder to get MBB from say darden as opposed to kellogg, but plenty have done it with hard work and some luck.

 
Brady4MVP:
Given my age and career goals, it would not make sense for me to go below M7. I seriously considered applying to tuck, stern, and haas, but tuck's location in the middle of nowhere is a dealbreaker, and the latter two's weakness in buyside recruiting is a non-starter as well.

For MBB and generic banking though, anything in the top 15 would work. It will be harder to get MBB from say darden as opposed to kellogg, but plenty have done it with hard work and some luck.

So for banking and consulting placement, the hard cut-off seems to be top 15 MBA?

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Brady4MVP:
Given my age and career goals, it would not make sense for me to go below M7. I seriously considered applying to tuck, stern, and haas, but tuck's location in the middle of nowhere is a dealbreaker, and the latter two's weakness in buyside recruiting is a non-starter as well.

For MBB and generic banking though, anything in the top 15 would work. It will be harder to get MBB from say darden as opposed to kellogg, but plenty have done it with hard work and some luck.

So for banking and consulting placement, the hard cut-off seems to be top 15 MBA?

For MBB and bulge bracket banks, it will be very tough outside of the top 15. Even at schools like darden/haas/fuqua, MBB doesn't take that many people, so the competition will be keen. I know if I were to go to one of those schools, I would be stressed out about recruiting because I would need to bust my ass off to get a good gig, and my social life would suffer. At the M7, I would still work hard, but due to the amazing OCR, i can relax a lot more and spend my time partying. In this sense, b-school is the total opposite of college. The better the school, the more fun you will have.

 

Wouldn't this really depend on what you plan on doing post mba? Sure if you want to work at the top PE/IB/MBB firm having having a top 5-7 mba is definitely going to give you a great advantage. Even if you go top 20, you can make anything happen with the right connections etc. Suppose you want to work at a lower tier bank or boutique firm? Is a top 5 school necessary?

Maybe you don't want to do banking or PE at all. I think it all really depends on your post mba plans and what you want to do in life

 
Bobb:
Wouldn't this really depend on what you plan on doing post mba? Sure if you want to work at the top PE/IB/MBB firm having having a top 5-7 mba is definitely going to give you a great advantage. Even if you go top 20, you can make anything happen with the right connections etc. Suppose you want to work at a lower tier bank or boutique firm? Is a top 5 school necessary?

Maybe you don't want to do banking or PE at all. I think it all really depends on your post mba plans and what you want to do in life

Yes, I agree with this for the most part. It also depends on your opportunity cost and what you're willing to give up for an MBA. For a lot of people, they are not willing to take out a massive loan and give up 2 years of income for any b-school that is not top 10. Much of this comes down to personal career goals, preferences, etc.

 
illiniPride:
I think my point is being misunderstood. I think all MBA degrees are overvalued so I would rather take a year off traveling than go almost anywhere. This is just my opinion and I had no intention of slighting those who go to schools outside of the top 7.

An M7 MBA is definitely not overvalued. You should really do some more research on this.

 
Brady4MVP:
illiniPride:
I think my point is being misunderstood. I think all MBA degrees are overvalued so I would rather take a year off traveling than go almost anywhere. This is just my opinion and I had no intention of slighting those who go to schools outside of the top 7.

An M7 MBA is definitely not overvalued. You should really do some more research on this.

Overvalued to me. Not to everyone.

 

I cant comment on UNC but Ive heard some strong things about them although they have to compete with Duke and maybe Emory regionally and then for NYC things get much tougher. But in terms if Texas, UT has the best energy finance program. If you want to do energy finance in Houston, youre better off going to UT or Rice. Houston is not dominated by Ivy leaguers and is quite the opposite with most guys being from UT, A&M, Rice as the top schools who quite honestly would rather higher a smart state school kid from Texas than a yacht warrior New Englander who went to Philips. The other beauty about McCombs is that if you are a solid candidate from out of state who plans to stay in state after graduating ie energy finance, they're pretty liberal to give you an instate waiver -- bringing it from 50k to 30k a year for tuition. Couple that with Texas as a place to live after has solid eco growth, low taxes and much cheaper RE andTONS of latinas = winwinwin. Sure it doesnt place a ton of in New York but unless you have a hard on for NYC, who the fuck cares? They still dominate energy banking -- consulting sure could be stronger but Deloitte is still strong even though it isnt MBB, and you can stay in Austin after to live and work. Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all very solid cities and LOTS of tech opening up in Austin. If you want to live in a warm climate low tax state, especially if you want to do energy finance, then UT is top tier -- even for the supermajors rotational programs McCombs has kids going in competing against M7s. Dream job for me would be working at DFA in Austin. fapfapfapfpafpafpap

Disclaimer: Austin gives me a hard on. huge fucking chubber.

 
shorttheworld:
I cant comment on UNC but Ive heard some strong things about them although they have to compete with Duke and maybe Emory regionally and then for NYC things get much tougher. But in terms if Texas, UT has the best energy finance program. If you want to do energy finance in Houston, youre better off going to UT or Rice. Houston is not dominated by Ivy leaguers and is quite the opposite with most guys being from UT, A&M, Rice as the top schools who quite honestly would rather higher a smart state school kid from Texas than a yacht warrior New Englander who went to Philips. The other beauty about McCombs is that if you are a solid candidate from out of state who plans to stay in state after graduating ie energy finance, they're pretty liberal to give you an instate waiver -- bringing it from 50k to 30k a year for tuition. Couple that with Texas as a place to live after has solid eco growth, low taxes and much cheaper RE andTONS of latinas = winwinwin. Sure it doesnt place a ton of in New York but unless you have a hard on for NYC, who the fuck cares? They still dominate energy banking -- consulting sure could be stronger but Deloitte is still strong even though it isnt MBB, and you can stay in Austin after to live and work. Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all very solid cities and LOTS of tech opening up in Austin. If you want to live in a warm climate low tax state, especially if you want to do energy finance, then UT is top tier -- even for the supermajors rotational programs McCombs has kids going in competing against M7s. Dream job for me would be working at DFA in Austin. fapfapfapfpafpafpap

Disclaimer: Austin gives me a hard on. huge fucking chubber.

Open up a prop shop in Austin. I can imagine there would be absurd interest.

 
shorttheworld:
I cant comment on UNC but Ive heard some strong things about them although they have to compete with Duke and maybe Emory regionally and then for NYC things get much tougher. But in terms if Texas, UT has the best energy finance program. If you want to do energy finance in Houston, youre better off going to UT or Rice. Houston is not dominated by Ivy leaguers and is quite the opposite with most guys being from UT, A&M, Rice as the top schools who quite honestly would rather higher a smart state school kid from Texas than a yacht warrior New Englander who went to Philips. The other beauty about McCombs is that if you are a solid candidate from out of state who plans to stay in state after graduating ie energy finance, they're pretty liberal to give you an instate waiver -- bringing it from 50k to 30k a year for tuition. Couple that with Texas as a place to live after has solid eco growth, low taxes and much cheaper RE andTONS of latinas = winwinwin. Sure it doesnt place a ton of in New York but unless you have a hard on for NYC, who the fuck cares? They still dominate energy banking -- consulting sure could be stronger but Deloitte is still strong even though it isnt MBB, and you can stay in Austin after to live and work. Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all very solid cities and LOTS of tech opening up in Austin. If you want to live in a warm climate low tax state, especially if you want to do energy finance, then UT is top tier -- even for the supermajors rotational programs McCombs has kids going in competing against M7s. Dream job for me would be working at DFA in Austin. fapfapfapfpafpafpap

Disclaimer: Austin gives me a hard on. huge fucking chubber.

If you have the desire to live in Texas but the credentials to attend a top 5 school, does it make sense to seriously consider UT MBA or can you recruit at a top school for a Texas gig??

 
txjustin:
Out of the M-7 probably more like top 5, all schools are regional.

That.

Go to the best school in the region in which you wish to live post-grad.

If that is Texas --> don't go to Tuck.

If that is New York ---> don't go to Haas

If that is California ---> don't go to Sloan

Not that you can't get to one from the other, but you're wasting the reason you get an mba...the network.

 

to build on CPH's comments, NYC is really the only metro area that circlejerks to brand name, at least to a strong degree. ive heard of kids from mendoza and kelley all landing solid jobs in chicago alongside ross -- socal is marshall and anderson with stanford and haas thrown in too.

you also have to understand that people at these other schools arent so hype on OMG MBB IBD LALALASUCKSWALLOWYUM so there is less competition as well.

 
shorttheworld:
to build on CPH's comments, NYC is really the only metro area that circlejerks to brand name, at least to a strong degree.

you also have to understand that people at these other schools arent so hype on OMG MBB IBD LALALASUCKSWALLOWYUM so there is less competition as well.

BWAHAHAHAHA
Get busy living
 
ConanDBull:
what part of UNIVERSITY OF PHEONIX do you not understand?

Haha. That's the internet...so it's 'region' is everywhere!

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

fuqua is a target for mckinsey :> and i think BCG is making them one as well. fuqua does very well in consulting for MBB, ross does decent...

for banking anything top 16 is fine.. i really think its more 'top 8' and then a distinction between the top 16 with UT thrown in because UT crushes it in texas and gets really solid jobs and tuck gets all the MBB, IBD, and has a very strong PE program and has investment management-- not HFs

if you want to do investment banking im kind of sure it doesnt matter if youre at HBS or if youre at Fuqua -- okay sure you might get more of an auto in but any of the top 15 you have a really solid chance at it -- i know guys from chicago who went to jefferies so its not like all BB go to the big top schools and then its only MM and jt marlin for non top 8

 
shorttheworld:
fuqua is a target for mckinsey :> and i think BCG is making them one as well. fuqua does very well in consulting for MBB, ross does decent...

for banking anything top 16 is fine.. i really think its more 'top 8' and then a distinction between the top 16 with UT thrown in because UT crushes it in texas and gets really solid jobs and tuck gets all the MBB, IBD, and has a very strong PE program and has investment management-- not HFs

if you want to do investment banking im kind of sure it doesnt matter if youre at HBS or if youre at Fuqua -- okay sure you might get more of an auto in but any of the top 15 you have a really solid chance at it -- i know guys from chicago who went to jefferies so its not like all BB go to the big top schools and then its only MM and jt marlin for non top 8

By target, you mean MBB visits fuqua and does on-campus recruiting. But if i'm not mistaken they don't give out that many offers, so the competition will be a nightmare.

Going from booth to jefferies would really fucking suck.

 
Brady4MVP:
shorttheworld:
fuqua is a target for mckinsey :> and i think BCG is making them one as well. fuqua does very well in consulting for MBB, ross does decent...

for banking anything top 16 is fine.. i really think its more 'top 8' and then a distinction between the top 16 with UT thrown in because UT crushes it in texas and gets really solid jobs and tuck gets all the MBB, IBD, and has a very strong PE program and has investment management-- not HFs

if you want to do investment banking im kind of sure it doesnt matter if youre at HBS or if youre at Fuqua -- okay sure you might get more of an auto in but any of the top 15 you have a really solid chance at it -- i know guys from chicago who went to jefferies so its not like all BB go to the big top schools and then its only MM and jt marlin for non top 8

By target, you mean MBB visits fuqua and does on-campus recruiting. But if i'm not mistaken they don't give out that many offers, so the competition will be a nightmare.

Going from booth to jefferies would really fucking suck.

Dude, I'm fairly certain that most of the top programs have a very similar placement for consulting as a whole. Of course Harvard is going to have more offers, but it also has 2x-4x as many students as many other programs, so on a percentage basis, I think a school like Fuqua would be similar. Ultimately fewer spots, but also fewer students trying to get those spots. Similar thing with Darden. Maybe Darden just breaks down their employment statistics further, but at first glance they have a smaller percentage of people that go into consulting and banking as compared to Harvard...so it appears that Darden students goes into a wider variety of fields when compared to Harvard students. Logically, one could assume that less kids, looking at more options would provide you with a better chance of getting to the place you wanted to be. I don't know if there is a hard cap for MBB and that they only hire 7 people from this campus and 12 from another, but it seems to me if you think you would be competitive at a top 7 school, you could be ultra competitive at a top 15. In some ways, statistically speaking, you might be better off at a Darden or a Fuqua as compared to Harvard. Last year, from Fuqua, McKinsey hired 15, BCG hired 14 and Bain hired 7...that's out of about 400 students. Not sure what Harvard is because I didn't see a firm-by-firm breakdown but Harvard has 900+ students. Just food for thought.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Brady: When is the last time you've gone through life without stressing over the next step? Don't mean this as a dig, just curious.

Enrique: The price is function of supply & demand just like everything else. Demand for B-School in general is high, supply at the elite institutions is low. Therefore demand at the other institutions is also high. They price the degrees where they do because people are willing to pay. I see no reason to regulate that.

 
illiniPride:
Brady: When is the last time you've gone through life without stressing over the next step? Don't mean this as a dig, just curious.

Enrique: The price is function of supply & demand just like everything else. Demand for B-School in general is high, supply at the elite institutions is low. Therefore demand at the other institutions is also high. They price the degrees where they do because people are willing to pay. I see no reason to regulate that.

Fair question. It's just the way I am. I'm always looking for the next goal or achievement. Even when I'm out at a bar, I'm thinking about ways to improve my b-school application and how much fun i would be having at a top b-school.

 
Brady4MVP:
illiniPride:
Brady: When is the last time you've gone through life without stressing over the next step? Don't mean this as a dig, just curious.

Enrique: The price is function of supply & demand just like everything else. Demand for B-School in general is high, supply at the elite institutions is low. Therefore demand at the other institutions is also high. They price the degrees where they do because people are willing to pay. I see no reason to regulate that.

Fair question. It's just the way I am. I'm always looking for the next goal or achievement. Even when I'm out at a bar, I'm thinking about ways to improve my b-school application and how much fun i would be having at a top b-school.

Can I suggest that you inject a healthy dose of not giving a fuck into your thinking? I think you would see a marked improvement to your quality of life.

Try going for a week without thinking about business school and see how you feel. Just try it.

 
Best Response

I wouldn't expect everyone to answer this question the same -- we all have different situations that could benefit differently from different MBA programs. While I definitely hope to get an education out of an MBA, the network and brand name will likely have a much greater influence on my career. Given I'll be paying for my MBA out of pocket and the opportunity cost is high, I'll likely draw the line at the Top 5 or Top 7 schools.

That said, I can see how others may be completely justified in attending a Top 20 or a Top 50 school. There are legions of Fortune 1000 employees out there trying to advance in their careers. It isn't uncommon for an employer to offer promotions or pay bumps to employees who obtain their MBA. Furthermore, most Fortune 1000 companies have education reimbursement policies that reduce the cost of school, and some out-right pay for it. This can be a no-brainer for your average back office employee -- they don't even care about the network nor the on campus recruiting. As for the prestige factor, it's all relative. The finance support staff at a random Fortune 1000 company may think that BC/BU/Babson's MBA programs are top notch and look highly at those degree holders. Sure, HBS will always be a far cry ahead, but that doesn't mean every other school is worthless.

You also need to take into consideration an entirely different market -- the career changers. For many folks, their only shot of getting a job in a business discipline is through an MBA program. Maybe they are stuck in some dead-end job as a waitress because they chose to major in underwater basket-weaving. Whatever the case, a Top 50 MBA could be their path to a corporate job that offers more job security, stable pay, and higher earnings potential. For these people, the $100K cost may be worth it in the long run (and maybe it won't).

Sure, it doesn't make as much sense for someone who is looking to break into IB to go to a top 50, but that doesn't mean these schools don't serve a purpose. There will be people who attend MBA programs and will find they wasted $100K. There will be others that attend the same programs and go on to make tremendous money that more than justifies the cost. The world has winners and losers, and MBA students are no exception, regardless of which program they attend.

CompBanker’s Career Guidance Services: https://www.rossettiadvisors.com/
 

As usual, Compbanker delivers some of the best insight.

I'd like to add that I know plenty of smart people - folks who went to top 20 undergrads and got higher GMATs than a lot of WSO monkeys (including some on this thread) - who are at b-schools barely in the top 20 or well outside them. In most cases, they just didn't take a corporate track or just didn't have what the Sweet Sixteen were looking for, but they aren't people you'd really look down on. If you're a smart person who's been shafted by the underperformimg economy, luck is hard to come by. So a top 50 b-school that enables someone who's jobless or in a dead-end job to enter the corporate track is definitely a good investment. If you make between $0-30,000 and have no transferrable skills or experience on your resume, going to Georgetown, Rochester Simon, Thunderbird, Ohio State-Fisher, Pepperdine Graziadio etc will get you a $70,000 corporate job which sure, can't compare to Bain or Apple Strategy or Morgan Stanley M&A etc, but definitely catapults you.

For those who want to regulate b-school tuition, that's retarded. Go join OWS if that's how you think. There is more than enough public information available for candidates for us to trust the S&D dynamics of this market.

As for me, personally, I can answer this question with my track record. I am looking to finance the MBA myself, and while in an ideal world, I'd be surrounded by great peers, have social options, amazing OCR to get my dream job, and a great brand (ie Top 5) - and indeed, the only non Top 5 schools that truly attracted me were CBS and Haas - I knew that for the MBA to be worth it, I didn't need perfection.

Instead, I concluded that I needed something that had a solid gateway to BB IBD, MC and corporate functions at F500 (the career options were sine qua non) and simply a non-controversial brand my resume to keep it competitive and flexible in the future. That school was Cornell Johnson, which I applied to as my safety that gets the job done, no bells or whistles. I got in with $, and while I would not have been thrilled to attend, I would have been willing. I won't be attending.

I've tried to answer with as much candor and equanimity as I could.

CompBanker:
I wouldn't expect everyone to answer this question the same -- we all have different situations that could benefit differently from different MBA programs. While I definitely hope to get an education out of an MBA, the network and brand name will likely have a much greater influence on my career. Given I'll be paying for my MBA out of pocket and the opportunity cost is high, I'll likely draw the line at the Top 5 or Top 7 schools.

That said, I can see how others may be completely justified in attending a Top 20 or a Top 50 school. There are legions of Fortune 1000 employees out there trying to advance in their careers. It isn't uncommon for an employer to offer promotions or pay bumps to employees who obtain their MBA. Furthermore, most Fortune 1000 companies have education reimbursement policies that reduce the cost of school, and some out-right pay for it. This can be a no-brainer for your average back office employee -- they don't even care about the network nor the on campus recruiting. As for the prestige factor, it's all relative. The finance support staff at a random Fortune 1000 company may think that BC/BU/Babson's MBA programs are top notch and look highly at those degree holders. Sure, HBS will always be a far cry ahead, but that doesn't mean every other school is worthless.

You also need to take into consideration an entirely different market -- the career changers. For many folks, their only shot of getting a job in a business discipline is through an MBA program. Maybe they are stuck in some dead-end job as a waitress because they chose to major in underwater basket-weaving. Whatever the case, a Top 50 MBA could be their path to a corporate job that offers more job security, stable pay, and higher earnings potential. For these people, the $100K cost may be worth it in the long run (and maybe it won't).

Sure, it doesn't make as much sense for someone who is looking to break into IB to go to a top 50, but that doesn't mean these schools don't serve a purpose. There will be people who attend MBA programs and will find they wasted $100K. There will be others that attend the same programs and go on to make tremendous money that more than justifies the cost. The world has winners and losers, and MBA students are no exception, regardless of which program they attend.

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
 

McKinsey & Co., the largest single recruiter of MBAs from top schools, significantly expanded its hires this year at Chicago Booth, Duke Fuqua, Michigan Ross and Berkeley’s Haas School. The global consulting firm’s got its largest supply of recently minted MBAs from Chicago Booth and Columbia Business School where it brought 39 MBAs from each school aboard, according to an analysis by Poets&Quants.

McKinsey’s hires from Booth were up 62.5% from the 24 Chicago MBAs it employed last year. The firm’s hires from both Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and Berkeley’s Haas School more than doubled, to 15 from 7 at Duke and to 16 from 7 at Haas. The only business school whose McKinsey hires went down this year was Wharton which reported sending 38 MBAs to the firm versus 44 last year. Harvard and Stanford do not release information on their largest MBA hirers.

http://poetsandquants.com/2011/11/16/mckinsey-doubles-mba-hires-at-duke…

15 of a 400ish class at Fuqua vs larger sizes at Columbia and Chicago -- sure they obviously pull better at Chicago and Columbia but the conversion rate isnt anything to scoff at and a far shot from 'no recruiting' . If you want to do NYC IBD then sure UT isnt the best for you -- that being said I know guys in everything from power utility coverage groups to FIG at the likes of JPM,, Citi, and BAML. But anything commodity, energy, or the like relatedUT will crush and dominates Houston for all the BBs -- so they definitely arent lacking at all in BB , maybe if you want to do MS TMT but then you shouldnt go to UT for that :)

theres a big misconception about the 'gap' between the 'tiers' of the top schools -- when it comes down to it just target the programs that recruit for what you want to do. it doesnt hurt to go from top 8 to top 16 if you want to do IBD, consulting the same depending on the school. For IM, PE, yes it does -- but the location also matters a lot. you can snag some MM shops in PE from the southeast or in Texas by going to these other schools as well

 
shorttheworld:
Kershner :) already is one

I had a interview there, when I offered to put up several million of my own money into the firm. I didn't feel like I fit in well there. The interviewer I got was rather stuck up about my GPA even though I got a 4.0 in every trading oriented class I took. ECM, Options, and a Bond and deriverative markets class. Anyway it just didnt seem like a place where I wanted to work so I told the guy thanks for his time and left.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

How can you idiots claim it is just the market at work? You realize that tuitions are only as high as they are because they are backed by government supported loans and the debt is not dissolved in bankruptcy? This massively inflates the prices all institutions can charge and leaves few to no alternatives. The system is broke and bankrupting our peers with lifelong debt loads.

 
Jerome Marrow:
How can you idiots claim it is just the market at work? You realize that tuitions are only as high as they are because they are backed by government supported loans and the debt is not dissolved in bankruptcy? This massively inflates the prices all institutions can charge and leaves few to no alternatives. The system is broke and bankrupting our peers with lifelong debt loads.

This.

It's not just supply and demand that dictate the tuition price level. Talking about supply, there are hundreds of MBA programs. There are plenty of seats in MBA.

The key thing is 1) there is no regulation policing the ceiling of MBA price level, 2) Government-backed loans are supplied to anyone who wants to attend law school or MBA, at out-of-control level, hence enabling schools (MBA or law school) to jack up their prices as high as they want, 3) schools are taking advantage of this 'myth' that going to MBA will get you a nice cushy six figure job, hence making their education look like it's worth it despite a ridiculous price tag.

Also, talking about supply and demand, let's face it: there is far LESS supply of seats in medical schools, compared to MBA programs. Most of people who apply to medical schools get REJECTED from every single medical school they apply to. It's because they restrict the supply of newly minted doctors strictly, and seats for medical schools are severely limited. At the same time, cost of attendance for medical schools are almost SAME as MBA, which is fucking nuts and which demonstrates that it isn't just supply and demand issue that is dictating the level of tuition. Additionally, which program out of the two, medical school or MBA, do you think spends more money on its students and hence need to charge more tuition money? Educating a doctor costs much more money (labs, surgery equipment, etc) than this so-called 'masters of business administration' in which half the students never read a single book and get wasted like five times a week.

 

I'd only pay out of pocket for Harvard or Stanford, and maybe Wharton or LBS. Columbia with its value investing center would also merit consideration.

Nevertheless, even for the fabled HBS, I still don't think I would do it. The cost is just too high, and there is no guarantee that you will have a job you like more at the other end. Think of the guys who went to Bschool in '08, thinking the economy would have recovered by the time they graduated.

I think the days of the MBA being required for advancement are waning. It will always help you change career tracks, or make up for an off-brand undergrad. I don't think it will make sense if you are leaving a finance job only to return to finance.

 

Med schools probably price where they do because that is highest amount they can charge without seeing a drop-off in the quality of their admits. But regardless, lets keep the discussion focused on MBA programs.

1) True there is no regulations placing a ceiling on tuition prices, but there are also no regulations placing a floor. I call that a wash

2) Government loans have the net effect of increasing demand by making the funds necessary to attend schools available for a large segment of the population.

3) Whatever "myth" there is about the value of an MBA has little to no effect on supply and would only serve to increase demand.

Your proposed solution to put a cap on the tuition cap on programs outside the top 15-20 would only serve to further increase demand for MBAs while capping the profits of the suppliers. The most likely net result is that new supply would come on line of lower quality to meet the increased demand at the lower prices. Welcome to the new for-profit education boom in online MBAs

Possible solutions I see to lower tuition prices for out of pocket payers are: A) The removal of government subsidized loans. B) The removal of specific corporate incentives to get an MBA (tuition reimbursement, automatic pay raises)

The most important dynamic I see in play here is that demand is much more elastic than supply and any proposed solution needs to acknowledge that.

 
illiniPride:
Med schools probably price where they do because that is highest amount they can charge without seeing a drop-off in the quality of their admits. But regardless, lets keep the discussion focused on MBA programs.

1) True there is no regulations placing a ceiling on tuition prices, but there are also no regulations placing a floor. I call that a wash

2) Government loans have the net effect of increasing demand by making the funds necessary to attend schools available for a large segment of the population.

3) Whatever "myth" there is about the value of an MBA has little to no effect on supply and would only serve to increase demand.

Your proposed solution to put a cap on the tuition cap on programs outside the top 15-20 would only serve to further increase demand for MBAs while capping the profits of the suppliers. The most likely net result is that new supply would come on line of lower quality to meet the increased demand at the lower prices. Welcome to the new for-profit education boom in online MBAs

Possible solutions I see to lower tuition prices for out of pocket payers are: A) The removal of government subsidized loans. B) The removal of specific corporate incentives to get an MBA (tuition reimbursement, automatic pay raises)

The most important dynamic I see in play here is that demand is much more elastic than supply and any proposed solution needs to acknowledge that.

If you made student loans more like a car loan or credit card debt, you certainly would not be seeing the high prices being as common. The government involvement at even the undergrad level is what has required people to get further advanced degrees to differentiate themselves from the rest of the crowd and take on more debt. If the government simply got their nose out of the whole situation, education would be much more affordable at all levels. At this point, you must go to undergrad, which is incredibly expensive almost anywhere, and often must attend some form of graduate school for further advancement. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head for sure, but the government does make it unreasonably difficult for most people to get to more advanced levels without great levels of debt that they will carry for life because of the various regulations placed on student debt.

 
Jerome Marrow:
illiniPride:
Med schools probably price where they do because that is highest amount they can charge without seeing a drop-off in the quality of their admits. But regardless, lets keep the discussion focused on MBA programs.

1) True there is no regulations placing a ceiling on tuition prices, but there are also no regulations placing a floor. I call that a wash

2) Government loans have the net effect of increasing demand by making the funds necessary to attend schools available for a large segment of the population.

3) Whatever "myth" there is about the value of an MBA has little to no effect on supply and would only serve to increase demand.

Your proposed solution to put a cap on the tuition cap on programs outside the top 15-20 would only serve to further increase demand for MBAs while capping the profits of the suppliers. The most likely net result is that new supply would come on line of lower quality to meet the increased demand at the lower prices. Welcome to the new for-profit education boom in online MBAs

Possible solutions I see to lower tuition prices for out of pocket payers are: A) The removal of government subsidized loans. B) The removal of specific corporate incentives to get an MBA (tuition reimbursement, automatic pay raises)

The most important dynamic I see in play here is that demand is much more elastic than supply and any proposed solution needs to acknowledge that.

If you made student loans more like a car loan or credit card debt, you certainly would not be seeing the high prices being as common. The government involvement at even the undergrad level is what has required people to get further advanced degrees to differentiate themselves from the rest of the crowd and take on more debt. If the government simply got their nose out of the whole situation, education would be much more affordable at all levels. At this point, you must go to undergrad, which is incredibly expensive almost anywhere, and often must attend some form of graduate school for further advancement. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head for sure, but the government does make it unreasonably difficult for most people to get to more advanced levels without great levels of debt that they will carry for life because of the various regulations placed on student debt.

I completely, 100% agree with this analysis. Really, cost of tuition even at UNDERGRAD level is insane, if you think about it. Government loans need reforms, and schools need to ask themselves if they are being ethical in jacking up the prices up to the level that we see today.

The reason I brought up medical school is that medical school is arguably only program that can justify its high price tag, for two reasons: 1) limited supply of seats in med school, 2) high cost of running med school and educating doctors.

MBA? come on. It just takes ONE fucking professor in front of like 400 students to lecture. No expensive equipment, no labs, none of that shit needed to run an MBA program. Yet, the asking price is 60-70k a year? This is nuts. You can buy a BMW M3 with one year of MBA tuition, and that's really fucked up if you think about it.

 

2nd the other Illini on this.

Anything but a top five school (Harvard/Chicago/Northwestern/Wharton/Stanford) isn't worth $150K and two years of your life. That said, if you can get in-state tuition and go part-time to, say, Baruch, UIC, or Haas, that could also be worth it, too. I just don't think $160K for an MBA from Columbia is worth it, though.

There's definitely a bubble in education.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
2nd the other Illini on this.

Anything but a top five school (Harvard/Chicago/Northwestern/Wharton/Stanford) isn't worth $150K and two years of your life. That said, if you can get in-state tuition and go part-time to, say, Baruch, UIC, or Haas, that could also be worth it, too. I just don't think $160K for an MBA from Columbia is worth it, though.

There's definitely a bubble in education.

Most would actually consider Columbia to be at par, if not better than, Chicago and Kellogg.

 

Everyone talks about M7 or top 5 or HSW or whatever, but do people not value Tuck that highly? I'm not applying to schools yet so haven't done a ton of research, but on the surface I thought Tuck sounded like a pretty interesting place and somewhat undervalued on WSO for some reason.

Hi, Eric Stratton, rush chairman, damn glad to meet you.
 
Otter.:
Everyone talks about M7 or top 5 or HSW or whatever, but do people not value Tuck that highly? I'm not applying to schools yet so haven't done a ton of research, but on the surface I thought Tuck sounded like a pretty interesting place and somewhat undervalued on WSO for some reason.

Tuck is beast and often written off for being in the middle of the woods and a small school but i can vouch that tuck does as well if not better than a lot of the other schools -- if you look at their % placements vs other schools theyre as competitive if not better, private equity is a hidden strength of theirs and they do decent in long-only asset management. alumni network cant be beaten in terms of its strengths (notice i didnt say breadth or volume) vs HBS even

 
Most would actually consider Columbia to be at par, if not better than, Chicago and Kellogg.
Then most would be wrong according to the rankings and the street's opinion. Most Chicago MBAs went to their first-choice school, but you can't really say the same thing of Columbia students.

The Northeast/Ivies are a market with a lot more demand for education than Chicago which may say something good about Columbia's average student, but Chicago has the ability to attract the very best in a way that Columbia lacks, and the top 5% of the class are what keeps the school at the top of the Businessweek rankings.

As we've seen a few times on this forum, many of Columbia's students seem to take on the same inferiority complex as its admissions committee. Columbia regularly rejects students on the basis that they will be admitted at Wharton or Harvard to improve their selectivity/conversion numbers. I think that's unfortunate. Columbia needs to find a solid niche to attract a better top 5% of the class. What if it became the Christian Ivy? Give kids MBAs, send them off to work with the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, The Salvation Army, International Justice, etc.

I think Chicago's strength is that its modernist values attract a lot of very grounded people. They believe that 2+2 always equals four, no matter what, and nobody can change that. They wouldn't be able to stand a saltwater school, but they thrive at Chicago. A majority of folks who get accepted at both Harvard and Chicago choose Harvard, but Chicago still gets a lot of students- especially engineers and the financially oriented- who choose Chicago over Harvard or Stanford. Outside the top five, you really don't see the same story. A minority of Wharton kids turned down Harvard or Stanford. Same with Stanford students and Northwestern students. I think that's how you define a top school- by how many students never considered or turned down other programs.

Columbia is a great school, but in order to make it into the top five, I think it needs to find its niche and stop seeing itself as "The school that's almost as good as Wharton or Harvard but not quite and we carry a chip on our shoulders for it." Wharton doesn't do it about Harvard. Neither does Chicago or Stanford. Northwestern may do it just a little about Chicago or Harvard, but not much, and they can laugh at themselves.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
Most would actually consider Columbia to be at par, if not better than, Chicago and Kellogg.
Then most would be wrong according to the rankings and the street's opinion. Most Chicago MBAs went to their first-choice school, but you can't really say the same thing of Columbia students.

The Northeast/Ivies are a market with a lot more demand for education than Chicago which may say something good about Columbia's average student, but Chicago has the ability to attract the very best in a way that Columbia lacks, and the top 5% of the class are what keeps the school at the top of the Businessweek rankings.

As we've seen a few times on this forum, many of Columbia's students seem to take on the same inferiority complex as its admissions committee. Columbia regularly rejects students on the basis that they will be admitted at Wharton or Harvard to improve their selectivity/conversion numbers. I think that's unfortunate. Columbia needs to find a solid niche to attract a better top 5% of the class. What if it became the Christian Ivy? Give kids MBAs, send them off to work with the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, The Salvation Army, International Justice, etc.

I think Chicago's strength is that its modernist values attract a lot of very grounded people. They believe that 2+2 always equals four, no matter what, and nobody can change that. They wouldn't be able to stand a saltwater school, but they thrive at Chicago. A majority of folks who get accepted at both Harvard and Chicago choose Harvard, but Chicago still gets a lot of students- especially engineers and the financially oriented- who choose Chicago over Harvard or Stanford. Outside the top five, you really don't see the same story. A minority of Wharton kids turned down Harvard or Stanford. Same with Stanford students and Northwestern students. I think that's how you define a top school- by how many students never considered or turned down other programs.

Columbia is a great school, but in order to make it into the top five, I think it needs to find its niche and stop seeing itself as "The school that's almost as good as Wharton or Harvard but not quite and we carry a chip on our shoulders for it." Wharton doesn't do it about Harvard. Neither does Chicago or Stanford. Northwestern may do it just a little about Chicago or Harvard, but not much, and they can laugh at themselves.

Kellogg is a good program, but it's not top 5. I don't think it even makes top 5 in more than 1 or two rankings. The top 5 US programs right now are: HBS, Stanford, Booth, Wharton, Columbia

The only other programs that might belong on that list longer term are Sloan, Haas, Tuck, and maybe Kellogg (for consulting / marketing).

To answer the original question, I wouldn't take a school that doesn't find itself in the top 5 in some scenario or other. That means the usual suspects: HBS, Stanford, Wharton, Booth, Columbia, Sloan and Kellogg, plus Tuck and Haas.

http://poetsandquants.com/2011/12/08/the-top-100-u-s-mba-programs-of-20…

 

On a side note that people in this thread may be able to help with,

Any resources for courses that help teach programming? I did random bullshit a number of years ago (like early high school) with web dev stuff (php, html, javascript, etc.). I'm considering taking CS classes at random community college or an IIT type college or just getting tutoring from a broke college student on the weekends. I don't care about the paper certificate or degree as much as I do the practical skills that I can use right now. I've tried using books, but the combination of my impatience and the inability to digest all of the syntax and put it all together by myself makes it seem like a class would be worth the few bucks spent.

 

Interesting thread... I haven't seen anyone discuss the international aspect and long term brand appeal... This will not apply to everyone...

If you want to work internationally, does a non-brand name programme make sense at all?

One of the main reasons I am looking to do an MBA or a Masters at a top school is the long-term branding. It helps a bit when you are marketing yourself personally to large investors & clients on big deals.

The branding matters a lot to me given my opportunity cost & the fact that I'm more experienced than most MBA candidates and will likely have to network to get the roles I want (ideally VP+ level in my sector) if my fund idea doesn't pan out. What name I'll have on my resume for the critical next 10 year period in my career matters more to me than how many junior level consultants Bain recruits from the school.

As an example, I keep hearing people talk about Columbia or MIT being lower than Kellogg (the breakfast cereal, right?) ... Outside of the USA, Columbia probably has a far greater cache especially within finance being an Ivy league university. Also spending two years in NYC means that I can hang out/work on ideas with my NYC contacts and stay connected globally. I would go further and say that I would probably go for an Oxbridge MBA over Kellogg even though I know that their programmes aren't as established simply for the brand name and proximity to London (another global hub for me). That would be a bad choice for people who want to work in the US and many other candidates, but it would make sense for me. For the record I'm only applying to Columbia's MBA out of these although I am also applying to HBS/Wharton/INSEAD, etc... and am considering MIT's MFin. These programmes give me career insurance to take another big risk (I've taken a few).

Does that make me a prestige whore? Absolutely, I'm spending a few hundred thousand for a brand name to stick on my resume, what did you expect? Also, If I'm not getting a brand name out of it, I'd rather not do an MBA at all... I would rather do an MPhil in Real Estate Finance at Cambridge than a MBA at Haas, Darden, Fuqua, Tuck, Stern, etc... horses for courses...

Does that make me elitist? Absolutely not. The alternative doesn't work given my situation and goals. I'm better off not doing an MBA at all than doing a non-brand name one. I'm sure there are others of the same view.

 

I think Relinquis has got it right, and to his point, I want to do something domestically and with consumer products long-term; I wouldn't dream of applying to Columbia, but think Kellogg is a great program for me.

To answer the original question: If I'm paying, I'd only go to the 5 schools IP listed (H/S/W/Kellogg/Booth); if I'm sponsored, it's those plus Sloan, UVA, Tuck, Ross. They're all good programs in places I'd really like to live for a couple years, even if they're not quite as strong in my specific areas of interest.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of Starwood Points
 

So wait, let me get this straight. All the people who are claiming MBA tuition should be regulated are also claiming that market forces are not working because the government backs student loans.

Soooooo

Government made the problem and more government is the solution? Yeah, makes perfect senses to me.

 
ANT:
So wait, let me get this straight. All the people who are claiming MBA tuition should be regulated are also claiming that market forces are not working because the government backs student loans.

Soooooo

Government made the problem and more government is the solution? Yeah, makes perfect senses to me.

How about just get rid of excessive government subsidies for higher ed? That would help alleviate the problem.

Again, no one addressed me first point. Does the US actually significantly subsidize business school tuition? Or are these loans only available to undergrads etc. I don't have a problem paying for some students school-but we've gotten a little out of hand with our need to pay for every kids pipe dream of a college education at bumblefuck U.

 
solb22:
ANT:
So wait, let me get this straight. All the people who are claiming MBA tuition should be regulated are also claiming that market forces are not working because the government backs student loans.

Soooooo

Government made the problem and more government is the solution? Yeah, makes perfect senses to me.

How about just get rid of excessive government subsidies for higher ed? That would help alleviate the problem.

Again, no one addressed me first point. Does the US actually significantly subsidize business school tuition? Or are these loans only available to undergrads etc. I don't have a problem paying for some students school-but we've gotten a little out of hand with our need to pay for every kids pipe dream of a college education at bumblefuck U.

Student loans in general can be backed in various forms by the government and those that issue student loans receive various benefits from the government.

Perhaps the worst part is that lobbyist got involved so that the debt cannot be restructured or dissolved in the case of bankruptcy. That is about the most criminal thing I can think of really, when we're bailing out various banks and corporations and/or forgiving various debts in those areas. People get forced into a system where they must take on these student loans to afford ANY university and then face ever greater debt loads as the interest racks up and there is little to no hope in restructuring to assist them in getting on their feet. Truly criminal.

 
ANT:
So wait, let me get this straight. All the people who are claiming MBA tuition should be regulated are also claiming that market forces are not working because the government backs student loans.

Soooooo

Government made the problem and more government is the solution? Yeah, makes perfect senses to me.

I certainly did not say that in the slightest. Maybe you want to actually read what is said other than make pompous assumptions.
 
Jerome Marrow:
ANT:
So wait, let me get this straight. All the people who are claiming MBA tuition should be regulated are also claiming that market forces are not working because the government backs student loans.

Soooooo

Government made the problem and more government is the solution? Yeah, makes perfect senses to me.

I certainly did not say that in the slightest. Maybe you want to actually read what is said other than make pompous assumptions.

Or maybe I am responding to another poster and not yourself. Duh.

 

In reality there are plenty of good MBA programs for normal people. Most of these programs have PT options which are meant for working professionals. If you went to see a decrease in the price of programs you eliminate government backed loans, not regulate prices.

Of course if you eliminate a government service that should have never been started to begin with you will have people complain that the poor wont have a chance to succeed. These people also tend to be the ones who complain about schools charging too much money.

God forbid people have any personal responsibility.

 

I viewed the MBA as less of a"value add" and more of an almost "requirement." It's almost a requisite for many higher-level jobs anyway.

Now, that being said, I did my MBA right out of undergrad. As a result, I went to a school that was a lower ranking, but the cash investment was much lower than some other locations. I was able through the program to get the job that I wanted (not BB, but still doing ER and love my job), and knock out a couple of things I wanted to do additionally while in the two year school stint.

I understand that the top-tier schools are the best MBA programs, and that you are paying for the network. But i don't think that you can completely write off the value of an MBA from a below top-20 school for all people. Isn't the value of the degree really person-dependent?

I congratulate anyone who does go through these programs -- they are challenging to get in to, and are definitely great opportunities. But if someone gets to do the same work that many of the students coming from the top 5-7 programs get to do, can they really be that much of a waste?

 

All of this government-backed loan bashing is a bit off the mark. Take schools like Stanford, Columbia, NYU Stern, Berkeley Haas - a big driver of their 'value' is their selectivity (low admissions rate). You can chalk up part of that to the applicant volume. If people were only planning on financing school with their savings or through scholarships, you'd see a lot less applications, and a lot less "elite" institutions.

Putting a cynical hat on, the more of the plebes you turn down, the more elite you are. If not, you end up being a private school for the rich, not for the talented.

Again with a cynical hat, the plebes won't come if they can't take out a low-risk loan.

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
 
jtbbdxbnycmad:
All of this government-backed loan bashing is a bit off the mark. Take schools like Stanford, Columbia, NYU Stern, Berkeley Haas - a big driver of their 'value' is their selectivity (low admissions rate). You can chalk up part of that to the applicant volume. If people were only planning on financing school with their savings or through scholarships, you'd see a lot less applications, and a lot less "elite" institutions.

Putting a cynical hat on, the more of the plebes you turn down, the more elite you are. If not, you end up being a private school for the rich, not for the talented.

Again with a cynical hat, the plebes won't come if they can't take out a low-risk loan.

Umm the 'plebes' don't get a low risk loan.... In fact, it is riskier than most others considering it can't be dissolved in bankruptcy and is rarely restructured (doesn't have to be legally).

You seem to not understand what the flooding in of government backed aid and policy has done. On its own, it completely diluted the value of most undergrad degrees as it is where having a degree is now about the equivalent of having a high school diploma previously. The problem being that now you're 4 years older and in tens of thousands of dollars of debt on average.

That then helped inflate the need for people to go to graduate school to differentiate themselves within the workplace and continue to advance (or even just start in some cases!). So now they must go and pay crazy high tuition levels because the schools are essentially able to find and admit nearly anybody and everybody because of the very easy to get student loans.

Sure, there will always be value in the elite degrees, but that isn't what this is about. The whole system has fucked the non-uber elite individual to begin with here by dramatically devaluing his undergraduate degree from the get-go, putting him up to his ears in debt, and then forcing him into a situation where a graduate degree is one of the only ways to separate himself from peers.

 
Jerome Marrow:
jtbbdxbnycmad:
All of this government-backed loan bashing is a bit off the mark. Take schools like Stanford, Columbia, NYU Stern, Berkeley Haas - a big driver of their 'value' is their selectivity (low admissions rate). You can chalk up part of that to the applicant volume. If people were only planning on financing school with their savings or through scholarships, you'd see a lot less applications, and a lot less "elite" institutions.

Putting a cynical hat on, the more of the plebes you turn down, the more elite you are. If not, you end up being a private school for the rich, not for the talented.

Again with a cynical hat, the plebes won't come if they can't take out a low-risk loan.

Umm the 'plebes' don't get a low risk loan.... In fact, it is riskier than most others considering it can't be dissolved in bankruptcy and is rarely restructured (doesn't have to be legally).

You seem to not understand what the flooding in of government backed aid and policy has done. On its own, it completely diluted the value of most undergrad degrees as it is where having a degree is now about the equivalent of having a high school diploma previously. The problem being that now you're 4 years older and in tens of thousands of dollars of debt on average.

That then helped inflate the need for people to go to graduate school to differentiate themselves within the workplace and continue to advance (or even just start in some cases!). So now they must go and pay crazy high tuition levels because the schools are essentially able to find and admit nearly anybody and everybody because of the very easy to get student loans.

Sure, there will always be value in the elite degrees, but that isn't what this is about. The whole system has fucked the non-uber elite individual to begin with here by dramatically devaluing his undergraduate degree from the get-go, putting him up to his ears in debt, and then forcing him into a situation where a graduate degree is one of the only ways to separate himself from peers.

Can someone send this statement to the Congress? I am getting fed up having a bunch of retards in office. Not only is our educational costs at insane level, think about health care costs. A third of Americans live without health insurance, and in that respect, many Americans are worse off than fucking Russians. America has one of the highest tax rates in the world, yet I am afraid all that money is being spent on useless retarded shit, like invading Iraq.

Reduce the tuition costs, or let fucking government subsidize educational costs. And yeah, the value of undergraduate degree has decreased substantially over last couple of decades. Nowadays, anybody and his brother has a college degree. It means jack shit.

 
shorttheworld:
tuck isnt the medical school :P lol

I know it isn't. But, if Cornell can move its medical school to NYC, Dartmouth can definitely move its business school to NYC (or at least Boston, or basically anywhere that isn't in the middle of the woods).

 

I would rather take the CFA than do any MBA.

Spending $100K just doesn't seem like a good investment.

If I were interviewing someone for an investment job and they told me they went to get an MBA at a school under the top 10 I would think twice about hiring them. What kind of analysis did this person do regarding his own future that he will be able to make good investment decisions with the firms capital?

 
Poorbanker:
I would rather take the CFA than do any MBA.

Spending $100K just doesn't seem like a good investment.

If I were interviewing someone for an investment job and they told me they went to get an MBA at a school under the top 10 I would think twice about hiring them. What kind of analysis did this person do regarding his own future that he will be able to make good investment decisions with the firms capital?

You mean if they wanted to get into energy banking and were idiots enough to go into 150k debt to attend HBS/MIT or the likes, and when it came down to interviews were less prepared than the guy who went to Rice/UT and got a solid scholarship out of it coming out with a BB energy gig and 40k debt instead of 150k. Yes, I agree, I would never hire them.

 
Poorbanker:
I would rather take the CFA than do any MBA.

Spending $100K just doesn't seem like a good investment.

If I were interviewing someone for an investment job and they told me they went to get an MBA at a school under the top 10 I would think twice about hiring them. What kind of analysis did this person do regarding his own future that he will be able to make good investment decisions with the firms capital?

lol. This is ironic. going to MBA is supposed to help your career, but I can clearly see why going to non-top 10 MBA can actually HURT your career.

 

Tuck is a great school, but I wouldn't go there. location is horrible, boring, and that place has no hot girls. at least if you go to HBS, you will find a bunch of hot college girls in Boston bars, and at Wharton you have Philly at your disposal to party.

if you are good enough to get into Tuck, chances are you are good enough to get into Stern, UVA, and other schools that are more fun to attend.

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Tuck is a great school, but I wouldn't go there. location is horrible, boring, and that place has no hot girls. at least if you go to HBS, you will find a bunch of hot college girls in Boston bars, and at Wharton you have Philly at your disposal to party.

if you are good enough to get into Tuck, chances are you are good enough to get into Stern, UVA, and other schools that are more fun to attend.

That's really funny - I had no idea the location was a big issue for people. I've enjoyed Hanover a lot when I've been up there, although I've never been in the winter so clearly I don't have a full view of what it's like. Beautiful outdoors, and aren't you really close to mountains to ski on? That's a big plus in my view. Also, while I'm not sure what the dynamic between Tuck and Dartmouth undergrad students is (i.e. if they interact at all), Dartmouth definitely has its fair share of hot undergrad girls.

Also - anyone that sees Wharton's location as a plus is, in my view, out of their damn mind. It's clearly a top school with fantastic post-MBA job prospects, but West Philadelphia is a horrible and dirty place, and Penn undergrad has IMO terrible quality of girls in general.

Hi, Eric Stratton, rush chairman, damn glad to meet you.
 
Otter.:
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Tuck is a great school, but I wouldn't go there. location is horrible, boring, and that place has no hot girls. at least if you go to HBS, you will find a bunch of hot college girls in Boston bars, and at Wharton you have Philly at your disposal to party.

if you are good enough to get into Tuck, chances are you are good enough to get into Stern, UVA, and other schools that are more fun to attend.

That's really funny - I had no idea the location was a big issue for people. I've enjoyed Hanover a lot when I've been up there, although I've never been in the winter so clearly I don't have a full view of what it's like. Beautiful outdoors, and aren't you really close to mountains to ski on? That's a big plus in my view. Also, while I'm not sure what the dynamic between Tuck and Dartmouth undergrad students is (i.e. if they interact at all), Dartmouth definitely has its fair share of hot undergrad girls.

Also - anyone that sees Wharton's location as a plus is, in my view, out of their damn mind. It's clearly a top school with fantastic post-MBA job prospects, but West Philadelphia is a horrible and dirty place, and Penn undergrad has IMO terrible quality of girls in general.

if you think girls at Dartmouth are hot, check out girls at UVA, U Michigan, U Texas, and UNC. You will be stunned.

and yeah, girls at penn are busted. (most girls at Ivies are pretty ugly)

 
Otter.:
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Tuck is a great school, but I wouldn't go there. location is horrible, boring, and that place has no hot girls. at least if you go to HBS, you will find a bunch of hot college girls in Boston bars, and at Wharton you have Philly at your disposal to party.

if you are good enough to get into Tuck, chances are you are good enough to get into Stern, UVA, and other schools that are more fun to attend.

That's really funny - I had no idea the location was a big issue for people. I've enjoyed Hanover a lot when I've been up there, although I've never been in the winter so clearly I don't have a full view of what it's like. Beautiful outdoors, and aren't you really close to mountains to ski on? That's a big plus in my view. Also, while I'm not sure what the dynamic between Tuck and Dartmouth undergrad students is (i.e. if they interact at all), Dartmouth definitely has its fair share of hot undergrad girls.

Also - anyone that sees Wharton's location as a plus is, in my view, out of their damn mind. It's clearly a top school with fantastic post-MBA job prospects, but West Philadelphia is a horrible and dirty place, and Penn undergrad has IMO terrible quality of girls in general.

Penn and Dartmouth girls are the same. 70% ugly. 20% hot, but extremely wealthy, so bitches. 10% hot but too into academics/career, basically super uptight.

I'd personally take West Philly over Hanover. Penn's much bigger (law school, tons of grad school programs, bigger medical school), so tons of people to hang out with. Drexel, a decent school, is nearby. And center city has some decent places to hang out. Not to mention NYC is only a 70 minute bus ride away.

I could never live in Hanover.

 

As an international, only M7 schools and Ross is worth the trouble of taking out loans and risking not getting a visa in the US. Below those schools I might as well stay in my own country and attend the top ranked school here. The only problem with the top ranked school in my country is that its MBB recruiting is pathetic. It does well in finance though.

 
IRSPB:
As an international, only M7 schools and Ross is worth the trouble of taking out loans and risking not getting a visa in the US. Below those schools I might as well stay in my own country and attend the top ranked school here. The only problem with the top ranked school in my country is that its MBB recruiting is pathetic. It does well in finance though.

Except that I know plenty of international students at Rice and UT getting top jobs (BB banking and MBB) and VISA sponsorship and maybe a fat scholarship too. Ignorance is bliss.

 
Ibracadabra:
IRSPB:
As an international, only M7 schools and Ross is worth the trouble of taking out loans and risking not getting a visa in the US. Below those schools I might as well stay in my own country and attend the top ranked school here. The only problem with the top ranked school in my country is that its MBB recruiting is pathetic. It does well in finance though.

Except that I know plenty of international students at Rice and UT getting top jobs (BB banking and MBB) and VISA sponsorship and maybe a fat scholarship too. Ignorance is bliss.

I am sure you do. But my long term goal is NOT to stay in the US. For a couple of years maybe and move back to my country. And the only US schools with brand recognition in my country are the M7. I added Ross to the list as I want to experience the whole US college town atmosphere as collegiate sports are not that big of a deal in my country. Plus Ross gets decent MBB recruiting.

I wanted to add Duke to the list but its MBA alums have not been very helpful. I reached out to Ross alums and all of them have been extremely helpful and answered my questions candidly. Heck, Duke alums didn't even reply to me.

 

Tuck is much ebtter than Stern and UVA -- not really a good comparison. i think Stern has a very diluted MBA program between the part timers and all the people they push through it.

CFA is cool if you want to do asset management but its losing its cache even amoung asset managers -- it doesnt help you pick stocks and its more of an oo look at me! kind of thing. a top MBA program is much better to get you in.

and yes as everyone should know UT and Rice dominate houston not expensive ivies :P

 
seedy underbelly:
Haha, UNC is the champion in that regard. When I visited Duke for accepted student days, I ended up hanging out with a decent bunch of visiting students from UNC-CH. Seriously, all 9's and 10's. :/

Yeah, UNC girls are notorious for being slutty and being hot. At UNC, girls to guys ratio is like 35:65, so girls are actually competing for YOU! As long as you are decently in shape and have fun, confident personality, going to UNC will be like shooting fish in a barrel when you go hunting for girls. UNC is ranked top 10 hottest girl campus in the nation, and has sick sports and decent OCR to banks and consulting firms to boot.

I honestly would rather attend UNC MBA over a school like Tuck, even if OCR may not be as good. HBS and Wharton would be just too good to turn down, though. It's a fucking shame I didn't consider this and ended up in a college where 70% of girls look like dudes with long hair. FML

 
Ibracadabra:
UMiami easily has the best combination of academics, party, location and women at the undergraduate level.

Yeah, but U Miami doesn't get much OCR at all to consulting firms or I-banks, I'd assume.

Schools like UNC, UVA, U Michigan, and U Texas get plenty of recruiting from top firms at OCR, yet they're just as fun to attend as any other school out there, which is complete package.

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Ibracadabra:
UMiami easily has the best combination of academics, party, location and women at the undergraduate level.

Yeah, but U Miami doesn't get much OCR at all to consulting firms or I-banks, I'd assume.

Schools like UNC, UVA, U Michigan, and U Texas get plenty of recruiting from top firms at OCR, yet they're just as fun to attend as any other school out there, which is complete package.

At the undergraduate level UMiami ranks 38 by USNews, above Texas.

 
Ibracadabra:
And how do you know that UMiami doesn't place into those?

Simple. IB and consulting firms don't tend to recruit heavily outside top 20 schools for MBA. For undergrad, it's usually top 20 undergrad schools + strong state flagship schools such as UCLA, Berkeley, UIUC, Michigan, UVA, U Texas, UNC that get heavy recruiting from banks and consulting firms.

Most other schools' OCR is a significant downgrade from above mentioned schools. Also, IB in Miami must be tiny as fuck. How many analyst do banks hire for Miami office each year? Actually, does Miami even have IBD?

 
Sexy_Like_Enrique:
Ibracadabra:
And how do you know that UMiami doesn't place into those?

Simple. IB and consulting firms don't tend to recruit heavily outside top 20 schools for MBA. For undergrad, it's usually top 20 undergrad schools + strong state flagship schools such as UCLA, Berkeley, UIUC, Michigan, UVA, U Texas, UNC that get heavy recruiting from banks and consulting firms.

Most other schools' OCR is a significant downgrade from above mentioned schools. Also, IB in Miami must be tiny as fuck. How many analyst do banks hire for Miami office each year? Actually, does Miami even have IBD?

Except that UMiami is in the same top 50 rankings as those schools and above some (Texas). Florida is also the 3rd most populated state. IB in Miami is probably similar to Dallas where is half of kids from Texas end up. The other half is Houston.

 

I have no interest to get into consulting or even i-banking for that matter. Any MBA program will suffice; subsequently, my pocket will be happier as a result.

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
 
shorttheworld:
enrique maybe you should just go to all these campuses and check them out seeing as youre more concerned about getting your dick wet than your career lol

haha. That's my plan, bro. For me, if I don't get into M7, I would rather go UNC or U Texas, than say, Cornell Johnson or Dartmouth Tuck. Sick parties, solid sports, and unbelievably hot girls.

Btw, i hear you're a trader. why do you want to attend B-school? Do you want to change your career into something else??

 

As finance pays less and less, the whole "2 year vacation" will become a shrinking domain reserved for sponsored employees (MC and some F500).

For just about everyone else, this will be about OCR and re-branding in the years to come, especially with a dysfunctional job market.

I should note that by rebranding, I mean the following three broad groups:

1) "I was a top sciences/liberal arts student but my work experience didn't give me enough business exposure/skills so a top MBA will allow me to redirect my career/revalue my resume."

2) "I've excelled professionally and I'm smart but I didn't go to a brand-name undergrad."

3) "I've done everything well but want a chance to reassess my options." (much of the finance crowd falls in here but if bonuses and hiring numbers keep on sliding, this will become a much more expensive 'reassessment' period).

These aren't truly mutually exclusive (someone could have done everything well in school and in a technical role within business but wants to develop soft skills, for example) but overall most MBA students will strongly identify with one of those three groupings.

Thus, the answer to the original question, for most people, is what is the lowest-ranked school that gives you the re-branding and OCR to meet your needs, based on what group you fall into.

For a very small number of folks, only HBS gives them what they're looking for. For an equally small number of others, it's only H/S, or HSW.

However, for the broad spectrum of successful young professionals, the Elite Eight+Int'l Equivalents (M7+Tuck+INSEAD+LBS) is virtually always a non-controversial bet. You'll find that more often than not, students who are currently at HBS or Stanford were more than willing to go to at least one or two out of Wharton, Booth, INSEAD, Tuck, Columbia, etc.

A little further down comes the Top 20ish (the remaining Sweet 16 + regional powerhouses like UT-Austin/USCn or Oxbridge/IESE etc). These will largely do the trick for vast amounts of applicants who are intelligent, hard-working, and professionally successful, but who for some reason or another lack the 'stardust' that the category just above them tend to look for. The GMAT/GPA/years of WE combos tend to be very similar between these brackets (only H/S stand above there), ie, it's almost all in the 710/3.5/4.5 years average range, so the differences are usually company brand, function within the firm, and global experience/charisma/leadership/ECs/unique achievements or experiences.

I should add that I'm totally against the whole 'going to b-school for the dating scene'. All of that makes a lot more sense for female MBA students than male ones, as the ratio is stacked in their favor and almost by definition, girls in the 25-30 age bracket are starting to become women rather than girls, thereby becoming much more interested in precisely the sort of traits that male MBAs offer (pecuniary guarantees, charisma/leadership, socioeconomic status, etc) rather than slumming it up with a dark, passionate biker with half their IQ on a junior year study abroad semester (guys: chances are your girl has done that, though whether or not she chooses to tell you is another story).

Most of you guys haven't actually given names of the lowest-ranked schools you'd be willing to attend, right?

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
 

Et nisi cum id. Tempora hic voluptatem rerum deserunt consequuntur qui in. Consequuntur ratione facere voluptatem temporibus repellat.

Ut officia corrupti ullam est mollitia. Et quam ut dolores libero reprehenderit et. Totam saepe cum explicabo pariatur sed fugiat. Distinctio quia illum saepe. Ut eum temporibus doloribus aut sit minima placeat dicta. Enim voluptatem facilis nihil quo recusandae eius. Officia reiciendis blanditiis repellat nam.

Animi hic blanditiis iste enim. Eos animi necessitatibus excepturi possimus architecto et rerum. Consequatur dolor mollitia mollitia qui aspernatur et pariatur.

Harum suscipit architecto et placeat ea. Illum odio dolores iusto quasi et officiis et. Minus similique mollitia ut aut expedita quia ut. Et sit vero eum vel. Et facere molestias provident dolorum rerum repellat adipisci.

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
 

Consequatur ducimus ut eum voluptas nesciunt. Libero fuga facere vitae necessitatibus reiciendis molestiae. Inventore autem id consequatur. Accusamus sit non reiciendis doloremque similique odit aperiam id.

Laboriosam at quae mollitia nisi necessitatibus. Quisquam id hic praesentium autem. Sit ad repudiandae laudantium quaerat aut explicabo et id. Sed sequi et sint facilis facilis.

Quae aut quo quos. Et necessitatibus aut corporis quis officiis quis.

Quas rerum aliquam dolor harum earum. Odio deserunt necessitatibus neque. Veniam et sit ut in. Consectetur asperiores nostrum magni inventore architecto delectus.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”