Trending Content
| +40 | Wharton Huntsman Program vs Yale vs Dartmouth | 43 | 2h | |
| +32 | Umich Ross vs Rice vs Notre Dame Mendoza | 17 | 1d | |
| St Andrews vs LSE vs Middlebury | 19 | 7h | ||
| +26 | Target School Kids Stop Complaining | 6 | 1d | |
| +23 | Imperial College Finance Masters' | 5 | 2d | |
| +20 | LSE BSc Economics vs Cambridge BA Economics | 7 | 1d | |
| +20 | Washu a target school now. | 39 | 2h | |
| +18 | UK/EU MSc's in Finance | 7 | 1d | |
| +16 | Succeeding at Penn CAS? | 3 | 8h | |
| +16 | LSE MSc Finance vs Oxford MFE? | 2 | 2h |
Career Resources
short answer: yes long answer: yes, but it depends a lot
ER/AM isn't a big MBA recruiter so you gotta be more careful with your school selection. But a school's ranking doesn't automatically mean it's good for ER/AM. Kellogg and Booth are both comparable but one is a much better bet due to it's strength in finance. Stern (it's in NYC after all) and Tuck also might be good. 10 to 15 it becomes more difficult but it is still doable. Get a CFA and you'll greatly improve your odds. This is one area where your individual effort will play a big role.
Plenty of research guys and gals out of my program-out of M7, but top 15. As mentioned above, no matter where you are (especially for AM, less so for SS ER), it's a very individual effort. My old employer (mutual fund with about $50B in equity AUM) took maybe 2 kids a year at maximum for research roles in their equity group. Smaller funds will take much less, and larger will take a few more. It's a tough industry to break in to, and the prestige of your MBA matters a lot less than other post-MBA paths.
Fuqua does well and it's top 10, but not M7.
Fuqua does great for investment banking, haven't heard of them doing great in ER/AM though. I was accepted there and don't remember them mentioning ER/AM much, was almost all IB from what I remember.
Outside the M7, Tuck, Stern, Yale, Cornell, Darden, and Anderson do best compared to their peers in AM/ER/etc.
They definitely have a reasonable presence, there are a fair number of guys in both the HF space, insurers (for FI) and AM shops, as to ER they definitely did have some alums in the space. It seemed to be self-selection as opposed to any real issue getting in to it.
Another thing to keep in mind, Fuqua's admissions committee has made it a conscious decisions to make the GMAT a much smaller part of the admissions pie than it's peer schools. It certainly could get a higher average GMAT, but it prefers not to. This hurts it with USNews. I think it's best to compare Post-graduation salary/bonus, and 5 year out salary:
5 year out Duke:$152k http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45efgdm/8-duke-fuqua/
5 year out Stern: $165k http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45efgdm/23-nyu-stern/
Their salaries + bonus at graduation are roughly equal, with Duke a bit ahead by $4k: http://poetsandquants.com/2014/03/13/what-mbas-are-making-at-the-top-50…
Keep in mind Stern costs considerably more than Duke, and the people who graduate tend to live in higher COL area (NYC). Also the 5 year out data does not include bonus (but the at graduation data does include bonus).
Overall, I personally view Duke and Stern as equals, maybe even Duke a hair better since it's more diversified. I think overall this website is a bit too pro-columbia and Stern compared to what the statistics say, I guess due to the NYC finance bend of this site.
@"hamm0" Agreed on placement stats. This is something most poeple don't get. % going to a specific sector is only the numerator. Percentage targeting is the denominator and without this figure, it is impossible to say which school gives better chances for a certain career. For this reason, a school such as Kellogg would be better for IBD then Stern because few people opt for IBD at Kellogg in the first place (@"GlobeTF" Same applies to your school Tuck) and it is a better school.
But going back 15 years for rankings is too far. Regardless, I personally would not view Darden and the like too differently from Cornell.
@"OpsDude" 5 yr salary is just one metric and a much less accurately measured one than avg. GMATs. There are a million metrics so you can't say X is a better metric than Y but GMAT might be one of the more accurate objective measures of school caliber. Regardless, it's tough to decide better between Stern or Duke for No. 10 is because rankings aren't the best way of measuring quality. Tiers or Clusters are a better method and using that, Duke (and probably Stern too) is in the same tier as Darden, Yale etc
I have to agree there is a fairly strong (mostly undeserved) anti-Stern sentiment on WSO. On one hand (horror of all horrors) WSO tends to be a BIT elitist. However, with that said Stern generally gets a bad reputation among this crowd due to a few factors.
1). It shares a city with a perceived much better school, CBS. This isn't like Booth and Kellogg where the difference tends to be on fit more than rankings. But, a very real divide prestige and to a certain extent placement-wise
2). Stern students themselves, anecdotally tend to have a chip on their shoulder. The rest of the top ten are all generally the top choice for SOME of their students, be it HBS, Stanford, or Wharton, but also Kellogg for marketers, Booth for quants, MIT for engineers / innovators, Tuck for the NESAC cadre, CBS for NYCers, even Haas to a lesser extent.
3). Diluted brand. Not only is NYU generally not as well regarded as an overall brand compared to the above, but it has a ton of programmes that the quality can vary wildly (this is less true of the proper full-time programme).
With that said it is still a solid top 14 programme and has done an excellent job of holding onto the top 10 spot for the last couple of years, and can be undersold a bit.
Completely agree, although Kellogg is the first choice for more than just marketers =P
Also agree with your post. Right on the money.
I can understand the hate when NYU is compared to the rest of the top 10 but not when compared to Darden/Fuqua/Ross. This forum usually always advocate for Darden/Fuqua/Ross over Stern. I think all of them are great and it depends on each person's individual circumstances which school will be a better fit.
In general, based on talking to friends and my research, it's best to split the schools into tiers. M7>Tuck/Hass>Rest of top 15.
Specifically most people I talked to have the schools in this hierarchy: H/S/W > Booth/Kellogg/Sloan > CBS > Tuck/Hass > Stern (slightly) > Darden/Ross/Fuqua/SOM (slightly) > UCLA/Johnson > McCombs. Granted the alums/students/friends that I talked to is a small sample size and could have their own bias.
A lot of people on this forum would put Darden/Ross/Fuqua over Stern. To me, Stern has a slight (emphasis on slight) edge over the rest of the top 15 but is in the same tier along with SOM, UCLA, and Johnson. This is not a knock on the schools or anything. I would gladly take an acceptance from either Darden, Ross, Fuqua or Stern.
From a rankings perspective your correct. But the reason people push Fuqua over Stern is that Fuqua is much cheaper (You'll end up paying ~$30k less), has more diverse recruiting (you can get MBB), is (subjectively) more fun, and nice weather. Stern has a lower acceptance rate, and ~25 point higher GMAT, so the students are hypothetically higher caliber (and therefore USNews ranks is higher)....but Stern doesn't seem to be getting it's students jobs Fuqua can't. Plus its completely diluting its brand with its obnoxiously large PT program. I went to Stern undergrad, and went to welcome weekend (BDW) for Fuqua (I ended up going elsewhere). Maybe I'm biased because of my undergrad days, but if I had to choose between the two, choosing Fuqua would be the easiest decision of my life. Plus, I think there's something to be said about being the best school in the South compared to the 6th best school in the North East.
Definitely agree with your first point and I believe in addition to the reason I mentioned above some of this has to do with Stern being a bit off the pace of the other top 9, but having a slight edge, mainly in finance, over the the Fuqua/Darden/YSOM/Ross group.
Second, I absolutely agree with the tier approach you mentioned, though I would argue that CBS, Tuck, and Haas are roughly on the same level, particularly if you look at placement, salary, and ranking. Though, I do recognize that Haas some issues on the first criteria.
Full disclosure: I am attending Tuck for my MBA
I'd say top 20 is worth it, after that really just depends on the name
by AM do you mean actual AM roles or do you just mean 'omg i want to be in ER and eventually make it to be a PM at wellington?' in which case your chances are pretty slim no matter where you go :D
It’s funny how this thread started on topic in reference to AM/ER outside of the M7 and then gradually turned into a full blown rankings discussion. Focusing on AM/ER leads to a different list of schools than focusing on overall business school rankings.
One may have a point in saying that Fuqua is a better overall b-school than Stern, but that point does not hold up for AM/ER. The fact that Fuqua places better at MBB is irrelevant. Stern has better resources and a better location for the unstructured recruiting process of AM/ER as compared to Fuqua. True, Stern does not place well in AM/ER, but that is true of all the non-M7 schools, and at least Stern has the resources for someone to pound the pavement and possibly achieve success.
In my opinion, the best non-M7 schools for AM/ER are Tuck, Stern, SOM, Johnson, and Anderson. I will be starting b-school this fall and hope to break into AM/ER myself. I was lucky enough to get accepted at an M7 school, but I was also looking into non-M7 schools and researching which ones offer the best opportunities. Fuqua, Haas, Ross, and Darden are all strong schools but in my opinion are not as good for ER/AM as the ones I listed.
Agreed. Based on my experience when I was recruiting as a student, the best non-M7 schools for AM/ER are Tuck, Stern, Johnson, SOM and Anderson.
@"Vandelay Industries" @"MBAGrad10" Johnson, SOM and Anderson are not nearly as good as Stern or Tuck for ER/AM. Source: When I went to b-school, I collected a lot of detailed data from career offices and finance clubs at most T15. Also, believe it or not, these schools are also not as good for IB. What this means is that there is a significant drop in success rate for finance job seekers from M7+Tuck (Haas isn't as great for finance) to rest of T15. And this applies to both IB and buy side jobs. Stern to an extent counters this due to NYC and finance focus. So 8 or 9 out of 10 people shooting for IBD may succeed at a better school, the number drops to ~6 at a school like Johnson.
Not sure if you actually read the posts, but no one was saying that recruiting was as good at Anderson compared to Tuck. We were also specifically talking about AM/ER recruiting and among the schools in the tier outside top 10, schools like Stern, Johnson, SOM and Anderson are better for AM/ER recruiting than compared to peer schools like Ross and Fuqua.
Yea these schools have more of a finance focus in the 10 to 15 range. Stern is the most finance-oriented in this group.
No. There is absolutely no data to support this.
This is data I myself obtained from career offices and finance clubs. In Johnson's case, this info came straight from VP of IB in the Old Ezra Finance Club. You won't find this data on P&Q or USNews.
Another two nuances you might not get from headline numbers: i. Success rate differences are even more pronounced for international students between tiers. ii. Higher tier schools place more into higher tier firms. E.g. AS A PERCENTAGE OF IB JOB SEEKERS, Columbia sends more kids to GS/MS/JPM than would a COMPARATIVELY lower ranked school (a higher percentage at such schools would go to a Deutsche or a Jefferies or a Citi). This is to be expected as the avg. Columbia student would be "of a higher calibre" and banks would have more spots. This is no diff. to how a lot more consulting hires at a Tuck or Kellogg would go to MBB than at Ross/Duke/Johnson/Darden/YSOM, for instance.
U Wisconsin applied Security Analysis program. Similar difficulty as a top 15 to get into. Their placements are almost 100% into investing roles.
This is a beaut of a hidden gem
They're actually my best choice at the moment. If I get into every school I apply(unlikely, but we're talking preferences here) I'll be torn between them and Darden. I'd admittedly have a less broad range of opportunities from Darden but the breaking factor for me is the school's culture........and Wisconsin's staff and students have been vastly more positive and helpful than at the other schools I've talked to. Not even close.
The other major factor is that the program is very highly targeted in a way that supports my career goals. My background is military. It's a great resume with some different experiences than most military have, but the feedback I've gotten from military BB recruiters is that while they could easily place me into an operations role any finance intensive role will require me to strengthen my credentials; hence the way I've narrowed my search down to highly specialized MBA programs.
Best of luck with your applications. I mean, any program that's on a comparable level to Darden, UW ASAP program, etc. will allow you to make a successful career transition. Schools and employers love having veterans in their classroom.
Darden is a really great program with a plethora of alumni contacts. You have many more career options (consulting/ibanking/ER/etc), as you're aware, and it places well within the mid-atlantic/north-east. There's probably much more 'diversity' here also. I've spoken to folks from both schools, both helpful were helpful. That being said, there's a certain culture for UW, particularly their ASAP program. It's a lot of white males from the mid-west. Not that that's a bad thing, but just something to be mindful of. The program will primarily place here also (great alum network).
Anyways, consider your end goal, career progression, etc. If you want to do buyside research and you hustle you can get there from both programs. Ultimately your annual comp should be roughly the same coming out of both programs. The only variable here is input cost - ~100k all in for UW ASAP, ~150k all in for Darden (if my memory serves me correctly, this could be low). Always, an NPV analysis between the two favors UW more. So, think about the brand name, where it will place you, etc.
Another food for thought: it is important to look at how many students target a specific industry along with the number of people receiving a job.
I'll use NYU as an example since some of the previous posts discussed Stern and I got accepted into NYU. When it comes to consulting, people fail to mention the fact that a majority of the students aim for finance. Whether this is due to self-selection or applicants aspiring to do consulting choosing to go elsewhere is up for debate. I talked to a couple of Stern students and heard some consistent feedback. Half of the student body are looking for i-banking/S&T/corporate finance positions, with the remaining half targeting other industries/function, mainly consulting, entertainment & media, and marketing/brand management. This past fall, there were roughly 50 students looking for consulting gigs and around 10-15 students received MBB offers (based on students' feedback). This is a 20% rate which is roughly the same as other business schools.
A lot of people counter Stern's strength in finance by saying xxx school could place just as well in finance but don't because the students of xxx school are not interested/targeting finance. The same argument could be made for Stern in regards to consulting. In my opinion, I think the schools from 10-15 provide the same opportunities (consulting and finance) and what it really comes down to is fit and finances. Stern has a small edge in brand and prestige in its group/tier (Fuqua, Darden, Ross, SOM, Anderson, and Johnson) but is negated by the costs. For me, it came down to these factors when deciding to apply or attend NYU versus the other schools:
Btw, I am attending UCLA and got accepted to Stern, Darden, and USC.
This is the ONLY useful metric. It is the ratio that matters and numerator without the denominator is useless in a ratio. It's v. diff if 40 out of 50 kids get IB jobs vs 40 out of 70.
@"SuperMegan" was referring to schools 10 to 15 with that MBB percentage (Stern's peer schools). Yes the percentage of consulting job seekers going to MBB is significantly higher at top 10 (around the ~40% mark, give or take) but I am not aware of any school sending 20% of entire class to MBB (except maybe Tuck)
So how come MBA programs at Emory, Tepper and UNC get no love from rankings and anyone on this site?
Because they are not target programs for selective firms such as investment banks and consulting firms and these are typically the careers WSO members are interested in.
Duplicate. .
Pretty much this.
Success rate is always hard to define. I personally think you should count the number of people who went to the career trek. From there I have seen people (very few) drop out cause they just didn't want to go through it. But lot of people who lose interest fall in the bucket of "wasn't getting traction with informationals or invite only events". Generally that's where the filtering happens and after someone gets 3 or more interview, it's extremely rare to not get an offer somewhere. But for those that changed to corporate finance or tech or whatever between the trek and interview invites, there is lot more lack of traction than just not wanting to do it.
Ut sed rem qui. Amet velit temporibus nulla voluptatem rerum temporibus autem. Beatae odio alias minima officiis qui.
Culpa voluptatem dolorem expedita aspernatur consequatur voluptas. Totam officia dolor in id repellat.
Voluptas dolores dolor est commodi amet. Ex nobis et animi veritatis. Nostrum odio laborum a et. Sint nulla consequatur aut a sit sapiente. Unde id praesentium natus iste consequuntur aut amet. In distinctio voluptates quae unde ipsa velit ut.
Laudantium itaque et est sapiente itaque quae. Minima harum deleniti et mollitia qui. Quis eveniet corporis ut ullam laborum eos consequatur non. Cum et repellat exercitationem dignissimos velit nam. Voluptas voluptatem expedita nisi tempora reprehenderit aliquid unde. Velit voluptas sed voluptatum blanditiis nesciunt et a. Quisquam libero rem dolorum est alias eveniet sed possimus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui sapiente perspiciatis rerum quaerat et qui. Modi sequi cupiditate velit sed. Tempore asperiores repudiandae ullam corrupti animi modi. Vitae inventore qui eligendi voluptatem totam. Placeat enim et quisquam nihil molestias.