MIT Sloan and Columbia >>>>> Booth and Kellog

Subscribe

So I've been reading a lot of the posts on this forum, and noticed that a good number of people (or at least the trend) seemed to perceive Booth and Kellog as a solid top 5 schools over MIT Sloan and Columbia. My post is going to focus mainly about these 4 schools I just mentioned and provides some thoughts on why, based on some objective reasoning and data, I think Booth and Kellogg are hugely overrated compared to MIT/Columbia (as in the quality of business schools overall, not in any specific area such as HF/PE/VC..), both academically and prestigious wise. Don't get me wrong, I think Booth/Kellog are fantastic business schools, and their parent institutions at the undergrad and grad level are top-notch too, but as a BA from the top consulting firm (M/B/B) graduated from a top 10 undergrad, I'm just having a really hard time placing them ahead of MIT/Columbia. I will also touch on my thoughts (backed by some simple admissions data) on the ranking of M7+Tuck/Hass/Stern, or the solid top 10 U.S Business Schools

The biggest reasons I've seen so far that put the 2 Chicago schools ahead of MIT and Columbia are:

1: Booth is great for finance blah blah blah
2. Kellog is a great marketing school blah blah blah

kk, i get that UChicago's got a huge reputation/ranking boost after its alumni David Booth donated 300M to the business school and renamed itself to Booth in 2008. I also admit that Kellog has been a strong player in the business school education for an even longer time. But I want to just elaborate on 3 points to back my argument that MIT Sloan and Columbia simply dominate Kellogg, and to a lesser extend, Booth, as business schools, and also on the parent institution level

First - the huge brand dilution due to Booth's and Kellogg's part-time MBA programs. Geez, don't even get me started on counting the types of part-time MBAs there are in these 2 schools.

Booth: Evening MBA, and Weekend MBA
Kellogg (even worse): Evening MBA, Weekend MBA, and 1-year accelerated MBA!

I believe from the school's perspective, it's perfectly ok and makes sound business sense to have these part time programs, and they do serve a market where full-time working professionals want the additional knowledge while staying on payrolls. However, for the purpose of ranking bchools based on its academic merit and overall perception, part time programs have a significant negative effect on the overall qualities of the business schools (to a more extend, the flagship MBA program of the school), because the less impressive students now have the chance to be branded with Booth or Kellogg MBA, which is great for them, but not for the full timers. There's a simple reason why Harvard is indisputably the best business school no matter how you look at it: it protects its MBA brand like no others. I know people will argue that the part-timers at Booth and Kellogg don't really socialize with the full-timers, and they are effectively 2 separate communities who do things on their own, and that part-timers don't have OCR blah blah blah. However, it doesn't rid the fact that part-time programs make the school simply less selective (without even mixing into the full-time problem admission stats, which I will get into later), and dilute the school's full-time program brand. I'm sure all the part timers will have no problem saying they got their MBAs from Booth or Kellogg once they graduated (without ever implying or mentioning that they did part-time), and most of the employers won't even be able to distinguish the differences from full-time folks, and frankly I don't know why companies would even care at that point. However, the truth holds that part-time programs make the caliber of the students at Booth/Kellogg a lot weaker, and in the long run will hurt their brand.

2. Selectivity (only based on the full time MBA data, will be even worse for Booth/Kellogg if one were to blend in the part-time admissions data). I pulled the admission data from each of the top 10 schools off the latest USNews BSchool ranking (2013). I think it does a really really great job ranking these schools this year, and the data itself is really self-explanatory: Harvard is the king of the jungle and stands on its own league, with the largest number of applicants (the popular highschool prom queen), highest yield (strongest interests and commitment to go regardless of admission decisions anywhere else), and second highest selectivity (Stanford beats it, but only due to the terribly small class size).

Now, Hass/Tuck/Stern I think nicely round up the top 10 schools, and they kinda compete with themselves (please, no Ross/Darden/Fuqua etc. talk here, they are not top 10, and Ross's over 40% acceptance rate nicely fits its public school status. Darden and Fuqua with 27%ish acceptance rate just don't make them elite at all).

Now for the MIT Sloan/Columbia v.s. Booth/Kellogg topics. I'm gonna pick on Kellogg here first just because it's got the worst "admission stats" among the 4. The almost 50/50 yield simply DESTROYS its brand/competitiveness. With a selectivity stands roughly at 1/4, i can't even imagine the kind of people going to Kellogg if you factor in the stats from Kellogg's 3 part-time MBA programs. Remember, the 50/50 yield is for its full-time MBA program (oops for Kellogg). The data clearly signals that Kellogg is STRUGGLING in attracting top talents and retaining admitted students. It also suggests what the market (students) is thinking.

I didn't pull similar admission data from previous years but i have high-degree of confidence that the situation would be similar for the M7s, unless someone can prove otherwise.

(Full-time MBA data)
Schools Total Accepted Enrolled Selectivity Yield USNews
HBS 8963 1029 919 11.5% 89.3% 1
Stanford 6716 474 398 7.1% 84.0% 1
Wharton 6408 1283 837 20.0% 65.2% 3
MIT Sloan 4133 645 413 15.6% 64.0% 4
Kellogg 4930 1127 625 22.9% 55.5% 5
Booth 4031 929 575 23.0% 61.9% 6
Hass 3352 461 240 13.8% 52.1% 7
CBS 5409 1126 741 20.8% 65.8% 8
Tuck 3907 615 322 15.7% 52.4% 9
Stern 2502 510 282 20.4% 55.3% 10

(Edit: i just realized the table formatting is messed up after submitting. I attached a snapshot of this table to this post)

Now the same problem isn't as bad for Booth, though still trailing behind MIT and to a less extend, Columbia: MIT's 15.6% acceptance rate stands as the 3rd most selective school among M7, and its 64.0% yield is only slightly behind Columbia's 65.8%.

To put it simply, MIT and Columbia dominate Booth among all criteria: Compared to the 2 schools, Booth has fewer # of applicants, nearly 8% less selective compared to MIT, and the lowest yield among the 3. MIT and Columbia dominate Kellogg even more in this regards

Someone might argue that all these admissions data don't directly translate to ranking or prestige of these business schools. However, these admissions data directly reflect the sentiment of the market and how the participants of the market (students) are shopping for their be-loved business schools. It's really simple: the better students go to the better and more selective schools, more often the case to offset some occasional outliners (family/location preference issues blah).

Lastly, I want to briefly touch on the academics aspect. After talking about caliber of students, i want to mention the caliber of the faculty at each school.

MIT Sloan: academically speaking, the faculty at Sloan, and to a broader extend, MIT, probably has the brain electricity to power the entire 50 states of America. (ok fine, i exaggerated there a bit). Modern finance, for example, sees MIT Sloan as its birth place: Fischer Black, John Cox, Robert Merton, Franco Modigliani, Stewart Myers, and Myron Scholes, to name a few names, are all affiliated with MIT via education or being on the faculty. As a result, many breakthroughs in financial economics are associated with MIT faculty, including: the Black-Scholes/Merton option-pricing model; the Modigliani-Miller theorems; continuous-time models of consumption and portfolio choice etc.

I don't even need to talk about the Econ department at MIT (Robert Merton, Ben Bernanke got their PhDs in econ at MIT, to name a few). It's arguably THE best on the planet. Granted, UChicago Econ is in the similar league too, along with Harvard/Stanford/Princeton Econ.

Now, please note that I'm simply talking about the finance academic strength of Sloan, which doesn't necessarily translate to finance placement in the industry due to various reasons (Harvard, Wharton, I'm looking at you). Though I believe MIT Sloan graduates who choose to be finance practitioners are doing great.

In other major areas of business such as traditional corporate jobs/tech/consulting etc., MIT Sloan is simply the best among the 4 schools we are talking about here.

Columbia: Again, another great business school with long tradition and heavy focus on Finance research ( Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, along with current faculty members such as Robert Mundell, Joseph Stiglitz and Edmund Phelps). Its overall academic capability and reputation in the financial industry are top-notch (Warren Buffet anyone? Henry Kravis? Vikram Pandit?), .Plus its Ivy League status and great undergrad reputation will be a BIG bonus point if you ever change your mind on finance and want to do something more "traditional".

UChicago: fantastic econ department ,overrated business school (only compared to MIT, to a lesser extend, Columbia)

Kellogg: so........what's Kellogg known for again? marketing? is that a thing you study at school? what??? lol.

In my humble opinion, what makes a business school strong and better, in a sustainable way, are:

1. The overall caliber of your peers (who you spend 99.999% of the time with in school, and who grow careers with you): MIT/Columbia > Booth/Kellogg
2. The overall caliber of your alums (the quality of alums depend on the quality of current students, who become alums upon graduation). Hence selectivity of admissions is IMPORTANT.: MIT/Columbia > Booth/Kellogg
3. The overall caliber of the faculty (this matters more on the institutional level for those who value intelligence and knowledge development, less so for those who simply want to hit it and quit it (with a better job)). I'm sure most people would like to claim that they go to a smart school too: MIT/Columbia >= Booth >>>> Kellogg
4. Career service; important factor, but is marginal in terms of driving the quality of a business school education. In terms of finding jobs, the school's brand, your OWN networking/interview abilities, alums (who, at the end of days, decide where to recruit and how many spots to allocate) are far more important. Career service can help you better prepare for your own school's OCR, but it's not a big differentiator that can significantly impact the quality and ranking of different schools. If you are in MIT Sloan, your Career service can help you be a better candidate against your OTHER MIT Sloan buddy for the same OCR interview, not the guy from Columbia or Booth: MIT = CBS = Booth = Kellogg
5. Besides the above 4 factors that in my humble opinion have the most weight on judging the quality of a business school, all other factors such as geographical preference/family issue things in that nature, while important on an individual level, should have marginal/minimal impact on the overall perceived quality of business schools.

With all that being said through out my post, i think it's relatively easy to conclude that, as a business school OVERALL, in additional to the reputation/academic strength of the parent institution, MIT Sloan/Columbia >>>>>>>>>> Booth/Kellogg

I welcome thoughts and comments.

Attachment Size
Bschools Data.PNG 12.88 KB 12.88 KB

Comments (87)

 
Best Response
Apr 23, 2013 - 12:37am

Ok. When I first saw this post title, I cringed and thought "oh god, another immature college jackass making a dumb argument." After reading this, however, i must admit that it is fairly well written although i don't agree with a few of the points.

In full disclosure, I'm a HYP ug alum, econ major, who work in BB trading in NYC and recently got into wharton, booth, and columbia (DAMM YOU HBS!!!). And i have a ton of friends at top schools, so i have a pretty good pulse on this topic as well. Since i'm a finance guy i did not apply to kellogg but seriously looked at mit sloan. I ultimately decided against it because of its lack of grade non-disclosure and the cutthroat environment i witnessed during my visit.

Now onto your arguments. I do agree that the presence of part-time MBA programs somewhat dilute the booth/kellogg brand, but i don't see that having a long-term impact on those schools' name brand and market power. Furthermore, I think you underestimate how much of a game changer David Booth's $300 million donation was. Aside from the name change, the money allowed the school to hire better faculty, expand resources in every area including marketing and entrepreneurship and revamp its career services. By all accounts, Booth probably has the best career services after perhaps HBS. Booth's Chicago location and high rankings (you may disagree with the rankings, but they are what they are) have further added to the school's luster. Simply put, I think Booth is the hottest b-school right now, analogous to Stanford at the undergrad level. Even here in NYC, lot of the people in my circle see Booth as the best b-school for finance jobs after hbs and wharton. I think Booth has surpassed Columbia, a school i see as old, past its prime, stale, and in decline. The ivy league brand? Who freaking cares. The school is overly dependent on NYC finance and has gotten slaughtered in the last few years with placement. It's one-dimensional and like Stern and London Business, relies WAY too much on location to bolster its status. Also, Columbia's low acceptance rate and high yield is almost entirely due to early decision, which is a freaking joke.

Onto MIT Sloan. I like the school a lot. Its cerebral culture, rigorous curriculum, Boston location, and unique essays/cover letter appeal to me. But something is missing here. They're strong in tech and consulting, but it has much to be desired in other areas. Even in finance, a supposed strength, it doesn't place as nearly as well as booth and columbia with coveted hedge funds and investment management jobs. And I think it loses out to even tuck in private equity. Of course, there is more to a school than finance placement, but Sloan is not as well rounded as Booth. It also loses points for being in the same area as a certain business school across the river, hence leading to many Sloanies' inferiority complex. At least in Chicago, Booth and Kellogg are the kings of the hill.

In addition, these schools don't necessarily have the same applicant overlap, so i don't think you can infer that much about selectivity or quality of the students. For instance, a finance guy who wants to stay in the east coast may apply to columbia but not booth. A diehard chicago person may apply to booth and kellogg but not columbia or sloan. A techie may apply to sloan but not the others, and so forth. I think you oversimplify what the acceptance rate is telling you.

Finally, I think booth/kellogg/sloan more or less have the same caliber of students (maybe columbia if you take out the early decision admits), and people's preference between those will vary depending on their career goals, personality, interests, etc.

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 12:56am

Decent level of analysis but too much focus on data without the why, nor what the data means. Did you consider that CBS has a early admit program which helps them not only decrease the acceptance rate while also boosting yield? What about the fact that people prefer to live in NY or BOS over CHI, or even MI, VA, NH, NC - those are huge reasons that explain not only application numbers, which correlate to selectively, but more importantly yield. These things don't imply a school is more elite, they just represent lifestyle decisions. As for whether or not the weekend/night programs dilute the brand, obviously they don't because recruiting is remains top noche. Granted anecdotal, but I've never heard anyone say, yea but they have a night program too. You also aren't taking into consideration class size, which has a major impact on selectivity and yield, this goes for all programs, would Hass, Tuck, Stern have the same numbers if their class sizes were more in the 450-550 range that is typical of the other schools (including F/R/D). I'd guess no way.

At the end of the day all those schools are elite and they all get the same jobs and essentially the same brand perception. Its like arguing that a 760 is better than a 750 or a 740. It is irrelevant and only argued by crazies. The only 3 schools that get legitimately better placement are H/W/S. Otherwise its all the same with marginal differences, even at Ross/Darden/Fuqua.

The real question is why do you even care? This is not some giant conspiracy theory that created in your long diatribe.

 
Nov 1, 2013 - 9:50pm

When choosing among these schools it's worth considering Kravis' and Perelman's recent $100 million donations, the new building planned and the impact of each on the future of CBS and its network.

The CBS alumni (recent ones at least) I know seem very loyal to their school and go on about fond memories from school - follies, rugby, etc. Do others see a negative commuter impact?

I visited Booth and Columbia recently and felt the on-campus community felt strong/tighter at CBS. I loved Booth (they have a great sales pitch) but many students I spoke with (small sample size) would come to campus just for class, then go home/downtown.

Do others here, perhaps from NYC/CHI, have insight into how immersive the campus/student life is at those schools?

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 1:43pm

State of Trance:
State of Trance:
Kellogg also has a very loyal alumni body which is not quite the case with CBS.

Gr8 monkey shit at me for saying the truth. WSO has gone to shit. If u can’t hear the truth then dont post threads like these.

State of Trance is right about the Kellogg student body. Not sure about CBS (although my friend who goes there absolutely loves it), but Kellogg alums are up there with HBS alums when it comes to B-school pride (and helping others from Kellogg - at least in consulting)!

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 1:48pm

State of Trance:
State of Trance:
Kellogg also has a very loyal alumni body which is not quite the case with CBS.

Gr8 monkey shit at me for saying the truth. WSO has gone to shit. If u can’t hear the truth then dont post threads like these.

Plus, apparently, there is a Buffalo Wild Wings near the campus of Kellogg. CBS definitely can't claim that.
''You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.'' — President George W. Bush 0.5 bb
 
Apr 23, 2013 - 1:19am

Another thing to keep in mind is that being elite/prestigious - although as said above its splitting hairs - is not something that changes from year to year. Its institutionalized. All of your data points are static and don't encompass the historical traditions of Booth and Kellogg or any other program for that matter, both of which have held numerous number 1 rankings within the last 20 years. Alumni don't look at how the schools are now, they think of how they were when they were there. These perception shifts are slow at best.

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 1:22am

ke18sb:
Another thing to keep in mind is that being elite/prestigious - although as said above its splitting hairs - is not something that changes from year to year. Its institutionalized. All of your data points are static and don't encompass the historical traditions of Booth and Kellogg or any other program for that matter, both of which have held numerous number 1 rankings within the last 20 years. Alumni don't look at how the schools are now, they think of how they were when they were there. These perception shifts are slow at best.

Yes, booth and kellogg have held a #1 position at some point in a ranking while columbia never has.

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 5:41am

mbavsmfin:
ke18sb:
Another thing to keep in mind is that being elite/prestigious - although as said above its splitting hairs - is not something that changes from year to year. Its institutionalized. All of your data points are static and don't encompass the historical traditions of Booth and Kellogg or any other program for that matter, both of which have held numerous number 1 rankings within the last 20 years. Alumni don't look at how the schools are now, they think of how they were when they were there. These perception shifts are slow at best.

Yes, booth and kellogg have held a #1 position at some point in a ranking while columbia never has.

Maybe, but nobody in their right mind thinks that either of these schools is actually a #1 school.

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 1:23am

I may not agree with your findings, but I respect the fact that you've put a lot of time and effort into this analysis.

With that said, I'm not sure that you've exhausted the reasons why people go - or don't go - to a given business school. Brand dilution, selectivity, and academia; sure, these are great reasons to consider a business school good, but what about things like plain ole placement, how well these schools set you up career-wise, or even just how much you think you'll enjoy life at a given school? How about price versus financial aid?

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 10:32am

Kellogg is a friendlier place and has a Buffalo Wild Wings right near campus. Good enough reason for your typical banking/consulting exits.

Array
 
Apr 23, 2013 - 11:15am

abacab:
Kellogg is a friendlier place and has a Buffalo Wild Wings right near campus.
That is the single most compelling piece of information about which b-school to attend I have ever read. Maybe we can come out with a ranking of b-schools sorted by distance to a Buffalo Wild Wings??? It would surely surpass US News rankings in short order.
''You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.'' — President George W. Bush 0.5 bb
 
Apr 23, 2013 - 11:22am

Dubya:
abacab:
Kellogg is a friendlier place and has a Buffalo Wild Wings right near campus.
That is the single most compelling piece of information about which b-school to attend I have ever read. Maybe we can come out with a ranking of b-schools sorted by distance to a Buffalo Wild Wings??? It would surely surpass US News rankings in short order.

People eat at Buffalo Wild Wings?

 
Apr 23, 2013 - 5:38pm

you go get an MBA from a top 15 for career advancement, network, and maybe learning something. nobody cares what school you went to 10 years after your MBA so long as you went to a decent school. More importantly WHAT did you do after you got your MBA? Don't worry so much about the rankings man, the numbers are arbitrary

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 1:30pm

To the OP.... It should be "to a certain extent", not a "certain extend...." you did that twice. Otherwise though, I do tend to agree with some of this... the part time programs are a real drain on the prestige.

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 7:05pm

International Pymp:
the part time programs are a real drain on the prestige.

Are they though? Purely anecdotally, I have never heard anyone say but yea, Kellogg, Booth, Haas, Stern, UCLA has a part time program so they aren't as prestigious. I really don't think it is a big deal whatsoever, zero impact.

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 7:53pm

ke18sb:
Are they though? Purely anecdotally, I have never heard anyone say but yea, Kellogg, Booth, Haas, Stern, UCLA has a part time program so they aren't as prestigious. I really don't think it is a big deal whatsoever, zero impact.

I agree. Sure, the part time programs are less selective, but they're serving an entirely different (and older) customer segment. It's not like the PT programs are just a bunch of rejected FT students trying to game the system. The students have entirely different needs and the programs are different enough to ensure that can't happen.

 
May 6, 2013 - 2:57pm

ke18sb:

International Pymp:

the part time programs are a real drain on the prestige.

Are they though? Purely anecdotally, I have never heard anyone say but yea, Kellogg, Booth, Haas, Stern, UCLA has a part time program so they aren't as prestigious. I really don't think it is a big deal whatsoever, zero impact.

Yes, I believe they are. And I'm not hating on Booth of Kellogg, one of my older brother's attended one of these schools and had a great experience.

What I'm saying is not that anyone ever says "yeah, but the part time program..."... but what happens is that when you meet a Kellogg graduate, for example, it's kind of a crapshoot whether or not you're gonna be like "wow, this is a smart and interesting, impressive person". PArt of the reason it's a crap shoot is because there's a lot of less qualified people from the part time programs. I don't care which program they came from, my point is that it's not "guaranteed" (okay, it never is, but close) that you're gonna find these people intelligent. In this sense, the brand is diluted. If you meet a kid from H/S/W who's not a URM/fem/combo, you're going to be impressed with their intellect and background the vast majority of the time. At least this has been true from my experience.

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 8:39pm

Arguments rely on two fundamental axes: truth and validity. The OP's claims are creaky on both of these axes, though more on the truth side than the validity side (some of his claims, such as having a superior student body, alumni base and faculty will translate into a better school are valid; the claim that CBS and MIT outdo Booth and Kellogg in those areas is of extremely, EXTREMELY questionable truthfulness - anyone who knows formal logic can understand this).

These schools are in a comparable tier: they are the non-HSW part of the m7 (they compete with each other for students who were WL'd or dinged at HSW, for the most part). Within that, the OP has made a curious choice. Booth and Kellogg are key drivers of the prestige of their parent institutions; Sloan is not a key prestige driver for MIT and CBS runs the opposite (brand subsidization by association with its parent institution). In particular, CBS has consistently been relegated to the bottom of this bracket and faces plenty of competition from the likes of Tuck and Haas. They're all fine and comparable schools, but the OP's isn't a very balanced position: most people would back the Chicago-based horses in this race, but the OP is making a hard claim that Sloan and CBS are SIGNIFICANTLY AND NEARLY UNQUESTIONABLY BETTER, which, well, means I guess you can please some of the people, some of the time...

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.
 
Apr 28, 2013 - 8:51pm

^^^jtb makes a good point regarding the prestige of the b-school vs its parent institution, especially the undergrad.

Booth and Kellogg are unquestionably more prestigious than uchicago and northwestern undergrad. That is certainly not true with MIT, where the undergrads think they're smarter than the sloan MBAs (many of them take sloan mba courses and think they're a total joke). And with columbia, the undergrad program has surpassed the b-school in terms of prestige.

 
May 10, 2013 - 11:37pm

mbavsmfin:

^^^jtb makes a good point regarding the prestige of the b-school vs its parent institution, especially the undergrad.

Booth and Kellogg are unquestionably more prestigious than uchicago and northwestern undergrad. That is certainly not true with MIT, where the undergrads think they're smarter than the sloan MBAs (many of them take sloan mba courses and think they're a total joke). And with columbia, the undergrad program has surpassed the b-school in terms of prestige.

Is that right? Isn't uchicago top 5-7?

 
May 11, 2013 - 2:25am

sonibubu:

mbavsmfin:

^^^jtb makes a good point regarding the prestige of the b-school vs its parent institution, especially the undergrad.
Booth and Kellogg are unquestionably more prestigious than uchicago and northwestern undergrad. That is certainly not true with MIT, where the undergrads think they're smarter than the sloan MBAs (many of them take sloan mba courses and think they're a total joke). And with columbia, the undergrad program has surpassed the b-school in terms of prestige.

Is that right? Isn't uchicago top 5-7?

Booth is a solid top 5 b-school while uchicago undergrad is somewhere in the 7-10 range (yes, i know US News has them ranked at #4, but their college rankings are a joke). HYPSM have been and always will be the top 5 colleges. Also, in the city of Chicago, Booth is the ultimate gold standard and the envy of every professional. UChicago undergrad does not garner anywhere near the same level of respect.

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 9:34pm

I always try not to respond to these, but I'm becoming more and more convinced nobody actually makes an effort to research these things and um.... talk to people in their freaking target industry / target firms so I'll interject.

If people want to argue about whose cafeteria has the best paninis and whose call center convinces the most alum to donate, fantastic. Have at it, gentlemen.

For those that are concerned about what type of job opportunities you'll have in the program, a high-level view of that information is public.

http://www7.gsb.columbia.edu/recruiters/sites/default/files/pdfs/employment_report_2012.pdf

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/employmentreport/industry.aspx

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/cdo/employment-reports/current-reports-mba.php

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/career_employer/Employment_Statistics.aspx

As you'll see, Columbia and Booth absolutely crush Sloan in both banking and buy-side gigs. Kellogg shouldn't even be in the conversation and strictly from the numbers looks more appropriate for consultants or marketing professionals.

From there, I'd encourage people to reach out to those in the various IB/IM clubs at each of these schools to talk about recruiting. Even better, leverage your contacts in your target industry to chat with them about recruiting, reputation, and how each of these schools may stack up to get that first post MBA gig. After that, it's pretty much on you to be successful or not. It won't be due to the name on your resume or the "helpful" people in your alma mater's career services office.

 
Apr 28, 2013 - 11:23pm

seantsghost:
As you'll see, Columbia and Booth absolutely crush Sloan in both banking and buy-side gigs. Kellogg shouldn't even be in the conversation and strictly from the numbers looks more appropriate for consultants or marketing professionals.

The OP wasn't talking about prestige for finance, rather general overall academic prestige. The fallacy in your argument that Columbia and Booth absolutely crush Sloan and Kellogg in fiance recruiting is under the extremely false pretext that 1. those jobs equate prestige above others (which IB definitely is not - though buyside is probably the hardest to break into, anywhere) and 2. an equal percent of kids at each school want those jobs and thus have more limited access at Kellogg and Sloan. The reality is those employment reports just reflect, by and large, the self selecting nature of the students. For example Kellogg absolutely crushes MBB, which are unquestionable way harder to get into / more prestigious than IB, outside of GS/MS.

 
Apr 29, 2013 - 1:14pm

I'm sorry, I was under the assumption (mainly because this post is on Wall Street Oasis), that a decent definition of "better" would be which school can help you get a job / a better job in finance. Not which one is "more prestigious."

And you're right... kinda. The self-selection at many of these schools comes full circle though - most large AMs aren't recruiting at Kellogg, almost no HFs are looking for Kellogg MBAs, and fewer banks come on campus. Whether they're not recruiting there b/c they don't think as many students are interested doesn't matter - they're still not recruiting there.

 
Apr 29, 2013 - 3:35pm

seantsghost:

I'm sorry, I was under the assumption (mainly because this post is on Wall Street Oasis), that a decent definition of "better" would be which school can help you get a job / a better job in finance. Not which one is "more prestigious."

And you're right... kinda. The self-selection at many of these schools comes full circle though - most large AMs aren't recruiting at Kellogg, almost no HFs are looking for Kellogg MBAs, and fewer banks come on campus. Whether they're not recruiting there b/c they don't think as many students are interested doesn't matter - they're still not recruiting there.

When I was looking at the placement reports, I was surprised that PIMCO, a mutual fund that actively recruits MBAs and hires a good number of them, does not even recruit on-campus at Kellogg. I guess this just shows how weak Kellogg is in the AM space, perhaps even weaker than tuck and haas (maybe on par with stern?).

Also, MIT Sloan placed a higher % of grads into IM than Columbia. Interesting.

 
Apr 30, 2013 - 12:47am

Website focused on finance is focused on finance.

Both when talking about recruiting, and when talking about academic prestige. OP discussed Sloan's academic merits in finance and economics, but not so much other business subjects.

Kellogg owns marketing. Kellogg does OK in operations. MIT has a strong operations department. Stanford and Harvard are strong on the softer side, including study of organizations, business psychology (things like negotiations, employee motivation, etc.), and Kellogg performs very well here, too.

Here I'll make an equation: business != finance + economics

Personally I'm waiting for a class on how to be salesman, supported by research of course. It seems most high-level positions come back to revenue generation, so I'm waiting for these b-schools to have classes in salesmanship. Underrated skill in academia.

 
Apr 30, 2013 - 12:53am

BigPicture:

Website focused on finance is focused on finance.

Both when talking about recruiting, and when talking about academic prestige. OP discussed Sloan's academic merits in finance and economics, but not so much other business subjects.

Kellogg owns marketing. Kellogg does OK in operations. MIT has a strong operations department. Stanford and Harvard are strong on the softer side, including study of organizations, business psychology (things like negotiations, employee motivation, etc.), and Kellogg performs very well here, too.

Here I'll make an equation: business != finance + economics

Personally I'm waiting for a class on how to be salesman, supported by research of course. It seems most high-level positions come back to revenue generation, so I'm waiting for these b-schools to have classes in salesmanship. Underrated skill in academia.

Getting into a top b-school is mostly knowing how to market yourself. It's a lot of fluff. So I would say the students at these programs for the most part have pretty good sales/bullshitting skills.

 
Apr 30, 2013 - 10:45am

mbavsmfin:

BigPicture:

Website focused on finance is focused on finance.

Both when talking about recruiting, and when talking about academic prestige. OP discussed Sloan's academic merits in finance and economics, but not so much other business subjects.

Kellogg owns marketing. Kellogg does OK in operations. MIT has a strong operations department. Stanford and Harvard are strong on the softer side, including study of organizations, business psychology (things like negotiations, employee motivation, etc.), and Kellogg performs very well here, too.

Here I'll make an equation: business != finance + economics

Personally I'm waiting for a class on how to be salesman, supported by research of course. It seems most high-level positions come back to revenue generation, so I'm waiting for these b-schools to have classes in salesmanship. Underrated skill in academia.

Getting into a top b-school is mostly knowing how to market yourself. It's a lot of fluff. So I would say the students at these programs for the most part have pretty good sales/bullshitting skills.

Sounds like it should be true, but it's not true. Being a good salesperson and being eloquent or being good at bullshitting are not the same thing. It helps to be eloquent to be a good salesperson, but it's not sufficient. It's more about developing relationships, creating a sense of urgency, and asking for the order. These are skills that most recent MBAs lack. Marketing =/= sales.
''You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.'' — President George W. Bush 0.5 bb
 
Apr 30, 2013 - 1:44pm

BigPicture:
Personally I'm waiting for a class on how to be salesman, supported by research of course. It seems most high-level positions come back to revenue generation, so I'm waiting for these b-schools to have classes in salesmanship. Underrated skill in academia.


Booth has a few classes along this line:
Data Driven Marketing
Commercializing Innovation
Entrepreneurial Selling
 
May 7, 2013 - 12:01am

I think multiple people took my post the wrong way. I 100% realize there are (1) plenty of "polished" and very smart kids at part time MBA programs and that (2) there are plenty of URMS at the top of the class that are total hitters at MBA programs. My only point was, and again, I'm just trying to be an objection onlooker here, is that, because of the way admissions to these places work, if you choose an Asian or white guy from H/S/W randomly out of a set you're 90%+ gonna get a guy who really impresses. If you add URMs or if you look at a school with people who are in the part time program and you select from that pool, the percentage goes down to some degree. Because it's (1) a bit easier to get into part time programs (2) a huge amount easier to get in if you're a urm.

 
May 7, 2013 - 12:35am

International Pymp:

I think multiple people took my post the wrong way. I 100% realize there are (1) plenty of "polished" and very smart kids at part time MBA programs and that (2) there are plenty of URMS at the top of the class that are total hitters at MBA programs. My only point was, and again, I'm just trying to be an objection onlooker here, is that, because of the way admissions to these places work, if you choose an Asian or white guy from H/S/W randomly out of a set you're 90%+ gonna get a guy who really impresses. If you add URMs or if you look at a school with people who are in the part time program and you select from that pool, the percentage goes down to some degree. Because it's (1) a bit easier to get into part time programs (2) a huge amount easier to get in if you're a urm.

Kudos. You nailed it.

The same principle applies to elite undergrad as well. At my collge, I met very few non-urm/legacy/recruited athlete who was not amazingly impressive in some way.

 
May 7, 2013 - 12:37am

I can't bear to read the entire OP. I think the sentiment that Sloan is underrated is generally right -- it's a great program. I also think that Columbia is generally overrated. It's convenient for folks back east so i guess that counts for something. You're going to get a few bright finance ppl who want to stay in NY. But generally, I don't think it has nearly the same self-selection bias that you see among Booth, Wharton or Sloan applicants. I'm biased against Kellogg as a matter of rivalry (I went to Booth), but i think it's a great program if you go there for the right reasons. What else... oh yeah, rankings really don't matter.

 
May 7, 2013 - 4:17am

jankynoname:

I can't bear to read the entire OP. I think the sentiment that Sloan is underrated is generally right -- it's a great program. I also think that Columbia is generally overrated. It's convenient for folks back east so i guess that counts for something. You're going to get a few bright finance ppl who want to stay in NY. But generally, I don't think it has nearly the same self-selection bias that you see among Booth, Wharton or Sloan applicants. I'm biased against Kellogg as a matter of rivalry (I went to Booth), but i think it's a great program if you go there for the right reasons. What else... oh yeah, rankings really don't matter.

I agree that Columbia is overrated, with the exception of the value investing program. It's way too one-dimensional and has relied on the ivy league brand and NYC location to keep it afloat. I was very unimpressed when i visited there and met with the students.

 
May 8, 2013 - 11:12am

jankynoname:

I can't bear to read the entire OP. I think the sentiment that Sloan is underrated is generally right -- it's a great program. I also think that Columbia is generally overrated.

mbavsmfin:

I agree that Columbia is overrated, with the exception of the value investing program. It's way too one-dimensional and has relied on the ivy league brand and NYC location to keep it afloat. I was very unimpressed when i visited there and met with the students.

My experience with CBS alumni is that the school has a great appetite for very wealthy families, and they might lower their standards and then compensated with standard applicants. I am not talking about the Bush or alikes, but the typical millionaires from 3rd world countries, who get to UG in the US in medium-good schools, got OK grades, OK GMAT, worked in the US for a few years (yet nothing exceptional) or in their family business back home. They love CBS (Ivy league pedigree, New York City location and not very hard on the quant side - it is not MIT -) and CBS loves them (potential donors and don't bother much with career services). You see an overrepresentation with this background at CBS. Also CBS has this early decision that is another form of extortion (you gotta pay the deposit before any other school accepts you), but works very well for this kind of profiles.

 
May 10, 2013 - 4:54pm

When I was applying to MBA programs, another set of statistics I made was % of graduating class going to bulge-bracket firms, M/B/B, and Google. One interesting factoid I found was that Columbia and Kellogg both overstate their placement stats at M/B/B because they include pre-MBA M/B/B folks who are sponsored and are returning to the same firm in their stats (this is a huge percentage of those going to M/B/B at Columbia in particular).

MIT Sloan and Chicago do not do this; those going to M/B/B as reported in their career services reports are all career switchers...

 
May 10, 2013 - 5:04pm

AriZGold:

When I was applying to MBA programs, another set of statistics I made was % of graduating class going to bulge-bracket firms, M/B/B, and Google. One interesting factoid I found was that Columbia and Kellogg both overstate their placement stats at M/B/B because they include pre-MBA M/B/B folks who are sponsored and are returning to the same firm in their stats (this is a huge percentage of those going to M/B/B at Columbia in particular).

MIT Sloan and Chicago do not do this; those going to M/B/B as reported in their career services reports are all career switchers...

You sure about this?

I imagine that CBS J-Term and Kellogg 1-Y might do this, but why would either of those schools report differently than the rest of the M7?

 
May 10, 2013 - 7:09pm

holla_back:

AriZGold:

When I was applying to MBA programs, another set of statistics I made was % of graduating class going to bulge-bracket firms, M/B/B, and Google. One interesting factoid I found was that Columbia and Kellogg both overstate their placement stats at M/B/B because they include pre-MBA M/B/B folks who are sponsored and are returning to the same firm in their stats (this is a huge percentage of those going to M/B/B at Columbia in particular).
MIT Sloan and Chicago do not do this; those going to M/B/B as reported in their career services reports are all career switchers...

You sure about this?

I imagine that CBS J-Term and Kellogg 1-Y might do this, but why would either of those schools report differently than the rest of the M7?

Yeah this seems like a pretty doubtful claim to me as well. I see lots of "facts" posted that never seem to have evidence supporting them.

 
May 11, 2013 - 1:56pm

There isn't consistency across the M7 - Harvard for example doesn't disclose stats for specific firms at all.

Compare Kellogg's career report on their website - 55 McK hires, 43 BCG, 35 Bain - to what they told Businessweek (which excludes sponsored folks) - 37 McK hires, 34 BCG, 23 Bain - its a huge difference.

Also you are correct that Kellogg 1yr and Columbia J-term are part of the distortion - both schools include within their overall MBA career reports they don't break out separate reports for each program.

 
May 11, 2013 - 12:54am

AriZGold:

MIT Sloan and Chicago do not do this; those going to M/B/B as reported in their career services reports are all career switchers...

Do you have the specific links that state this. I was alway under the impression that all schools include sponsored kids in their employment reports (and why wouldn't you). I hadn't heard of this being broken out anywhere.

 
May 11, 2013 - 1:13pm

Sure, but I'm not able to post links, and trying to modify the links isn't working. Is there a trick I should know about?

For e.g. MIT you can call them directly and ask, for Columbia just look at their 2012 career report - out of 60 McKinsey hires, 27 were sponsored by McKinsey pre-MBA (and a majority of BCG and Bain hires were sponsored). For Kellogg, they report 55 in their 2012 career report, but if you look at Businessweek which excludes sponsored from their data its only 37. Plus, since Kellogg lists all the student names in their career report by employer, you can just google a bunch of them.

Dividing McKinsey hires by school by students/year:
1) MIT (ex-sponsored) - 30/402 = 7.5%
2) Wharton (ex-sponsored) - 53/802 = 6.6%
3) Chicago Booth (ex-sponsored) - 28/571 = 4.9%
4) Kellogg (ex-sponsored) - 37/784 = 4.7% (55/784 = 7.0% with sponsored)
5) Columbia (ex-sponsored) - 33/744 = 4.4% (60/744 = 8.0% with sponsored)

There are lots of adjustments to get this perfect, such as backing out sponsored folks from the denomitator too and adding other firms, but still... interesting eh?

 
May 11, 2013 - 1:48am

AriZGold:
who are sponsored and are returning to the same firm in their stats (this is a huge percentage of those going to M/B/B at Columbia in particular).

There are two reasons... and both related to NY. Those firms have more analysts in NY than anywhere else, so some people might want to continue there during grad school (personal reasons, whatever). Columbia is the only choice.

Second is international students (I am international myself) love Columbia because of the NY factor.

Specially for Europeans and Latin Americans, location is very important (I would say for Asians doesn't matter that much). Most Europeans would never think about going to grad school in a place like Hanover, New Hampshire or Ithaca, NY no matter how good the school is.

So when you are taking a 2-year holiday from MBB, in Europe the idea is that if you go to the US (and not INSEAD) and you can't get into HSW... you go to Columbia and enjoy NY. Columbia has a huge hedge over "lower" M7s (Booth/Kellogg/MIT) in Europe just because of the NY location.

 
May 11, 2013 - 3:25am

Also, how is it possible that we can waste so much time nitpicking about something like this? The only people who really care about this are alumni of these schools because they get to feel "better" because their perceived position of themselves relative to alumni of others schools has increased. I guess that makes sense given how much ego everyone in finance seems to have. No one, I repeat, no one otherwise gives a shit. In the end, it's all about FIT and PREFERENCES. All four are roughly equal in general and you'd go with the school you prefer more (assuming you have a choice) or you go for the school you get into. Whatever. What are we really trying to accomplish here? So Sloan and CBS kids can feel better about themselves?

 
May 12, 2013 - 10:58pm

As someone who will be attending Sloan this fall, this is a just silly. All these schools are peer schools and have their own strengths and weaknesses. I know of a few cross-admits that we won from those schools and some we lost.

Based on the way you approached this, it seems like you already had a conclusion (listed in the subject) and simply wanted to find every angle to support it. Regardless, these are all fantastic schools with top-notch students that open up many doors. Let's leave it at that.

 
Mar 14, 2017 - 11:06am

kingfalcon:

As someone who will be attending Sloan this fall, this is a just silly. All these schools are peer schools and have their own strengths and weaknesses. I know of a few cross-admits that we won from those schools and some we lost.

Based on the way you approached this, it seems like you already had a conclusion (listed in the subject) and simply wanted to find every angle to support it. Regardless, these are all fantastic schools with top-notch students that open up many doors. Let's leave it at that.

As a CBS admit you're spot on. Outside of HSW i would have gone Sloan if i was interested in tech or entrepreneurship, Kellogg or Booth if my wife wouldn't have divorced me for moving back to antartica and ended up choosing CBS for value investing or REPE (totally different but exploring both). Too many people focus on a few stats that can easily be inflated. Every program has strengths and weaknesses, figure out what you want and find the school that's most aligned with your interest.

 
Sep 10, 2013 - 4:15pm

As someone going through the bschool application process / decision, I wanted to note that OP totally neglected the fact the Columbia DOES infact have a part time program, the only difference is it is housed within the executive program and not called a PT program for marketing & ranking purposes. The weekend program is the same thing as the Booth PT and Kellogg PT Weekend progam except it requires 3 courses a week instead of 2 which is why students finish within 2 years not the 2.5 for the other Programs. Additionally, those students CANNOT participate in OCR if they are being supported by their company just like the other programs.

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/programs-admissions/executive-mba/options-locations/saturday

 
Sep 13, 2013 - 3:43pm

I find this post biased. I and two friends visited Wharton/CBS separately, we participated in the school admission events, sit in classes, talked/emailed students. And all three of us prefer CBS than Wharton, I'm a marketing background, my friends are in finance and tech.

The level of energy, quality of class discussion, interesting, committed students, well-organized school events, Columbia is so much better.

I also visited Stanford and Hass, and Stanford is by far the best and Hass is a lot below CBS/Wharton.

 
Sep 13, 2013 - 5:05pm
Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

October 2020 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (17) $704
  • Vice President (46) $325
  • Associates (259) $228
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (37) $203
  • 2nd Year Analyst (145) $159
  • Intern/Summer Associate (136) $141
  • 1st Year Analyst (569) $129
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (549) $82

Leaderboard See all

1
LonLonMilk's picture
LonLonMilk
98.3
2
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.3
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.2
4
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
97.8
5
redever's picture
redever
97.7
6
Addinator's picture
Addinator
97.6
7
Edifice's picture
Edifice
97.6
8
NuckFuts's picture
NuckFuts
97.5
9
frgna's picture
frgna
97.5
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
97.4