<p>That actually would be quite difficult, at least from a political level. Each of Harvard’s schools acts as a barony unto itself, and jealously guards its own prerogatives. If HBS were to attempt to tap the funds of the greater university, then the university would surely demand that HBS relinquish some of its suite of exclusive rights. {I know I would if I was the Harvard administration.}</p>
<p>As a case in point, HBS has its own gym that is open only to members of its own community. The HBS gym is not just any gym, but arguably the best gym in the entire university. HBS students are allowed to use any gym of the entire university, but regular Harvard students are not allowed to use the HBS gym. Similarly, HBS has its own dorms, which only HBS students are allowed to reside within, and they are unquestionably the best dorms of the entire university. Astonishingly, many of the dorm rooms go unfilled. Yet other Harvard grad students, such as the GSAS students, lack sufficient dorm space. </p>
<p>If I was the central Harvard administration, and HBS requested funding from me, I would immediately demand that they release control of their exclusive dorms and gym. That’s something that HBS is keenly loathe to avoid because they view those assets as key to the development of the business school community. If that means that other Harvard students are stuck with crowded facilities while HBS has plenty of slack, hey, that’s not HBS’s problem.</p>
<p>Thanks for that illuminating post. Interesting, but certainly not surprising given that political maneuvering seems to drive most everything these days. I assume this is not unique to Harvard?</p>
<p>The point, of course, still rings true re: HSW > Haas as the b-school endowments appear to correspond highly to those of their parent universities. HBS is extremely wealthy, Haas a small fry.</p>
<p>^ Did you read what I said on post #17? If you missed that part, let me post it again for you: I never claimed and will never ever claim that Haas is superior to HBS.</p>
<p>I hope that settles any doubts you have about my stand on this.</p>
<p>I’m not aware of any other business school that has its own gym separate and exclusive of the greater university proper that is of such high quality that it has been described as having ought to “…be part of the US Olympic Federation’s elite training facility” (P.D. Broughton, ‘Ahead of the Curve’). Suffice it to say that the rest of Harvard covets access to the gym and that is something HBS will never surrender without a huge fight.</p>
<p>I talked fairly recently to a senior technology company leader, a graduate of Wharton, who said his school specialized in people who make money by moving it around, but that Haas grads by reputation were known for creating wealth by creating companies and innovating. It was pretty clear that he thought Haas offered something superior, and yet he wasn’t down on his own school.</p>
<p>I would take any ranking with a big grain of salt, but to conclude unsystematically that a ranking has no validity because it doesn’t mirror one’s preconceptions is intellectually silly.</p>
<p>Each ranking has its biases, and so long as you know what those are, you can use rankings to your benefit.</p>
<p>That’s all very nice and good, but at the end of the day, the simple litmus test is that the majority of HBS grads in any given year would have gotten into Haas, but that simply just cannot say be said on the other way around. Basically, HBS / Stanford GSB / Wharton are all superior to Haas… and it’s not close.</p>
<p>The fact that there is a current backlash against Wharton and the finance industry in general is absolutely a function of the state of the current market environment – basically, it’s popular to take anyone remotely related to Wall Street, take him out back and beat the ***** out of him.</p>
<p>This guy wasn’t in finance. He was criticizing his own. And he was senior at a large semiconductor manufacturer not based in the Northeast. </p>
<p>For you, the ivy league will always trump anything else. Your bias is pathetically obvious. There are answers out there that aren’t so obvious.</p>
<p>I think you need to look at what people want to accomplish. Numerically speaking, Haas is up there in terms of difficulty to get into. And yet I’ve known plenty of people who have opted to go to the Ivy League. And yet I’ve also known plenty who have opted to go to Haas. And yet I’ve known people who regretted both choices and others who were happy with what they choose.</p>
<p>RML; I simply don’t believe your stats about the “at least” 7 HBS students that you know who couldn’t make it into Haas. This runs contrary to everything I have ever seen regarding business school admissions, and I have much more experience in this area than you do. There is a reason why 9.1/10 accepted students attend HBS and 5.4/10 accepted students attend Haas.</p>
<p>GPAs and GMAT scores are similar at most top ten schools. A much more telling statistic than the GMAT or GPA statistics you quote incessantly is how much people actually make after graduating. All 720 GMAT scorers were not created equal; the better applicant - of two who score a 720 - is more likely to go to Wharton than to Haas. This truth is manifested in employment data.</p>
<p>According to the FT:
Three years out Wharton grads are on average making- 169,784
Three years out Haas grads are on average making- 137,699</p>
<p>These numbers are adjusted by employment field, meaning that Wharton’s finance skew has been adjusted for. You can quote all the crap about GMAT scores being similar that you want, but the reality is that the quality of people from these two schools is very different and it shows in the jobs they get. If you had ever actually gone to business school you may have known this already. </p>
<p>Final thought: the adjusted pay difference between Wharton and Haas is the same as the difference between Haas and Boston College.</p>
<p>I look forward to your response that will consist of the nonsensical pasting of ineffectual information found via Google.</p>
<p>Let’s commence with the bull for a moment shall we? Every single post you make in the MBA forum is an attempt to try and elevate Haas to the H/W/S level. </p>
<p>Frankly, it’s laughable. I laugh out loud sometimes. That is the harsh truth. The irony here is YOU are doing Haas the disservice in the end. Look, Haas is a solid program – no one is saying otherwise. But why do you feel the need to try and loop it in with Harvard, Wharton and Stanford? </p>
<p>And in the end, what is the point? Does it make you feel better? Just say it out loud for a moment: Harvard, Stanford, Haas. I mean, c’mon, that’s some comic gold right there. It’s a joke, right?</p>
<p>I am not saying Haas is on par with any of the top 3 (HSW) in terms of prestige. I believe Harvard is the best business school on earth followed by Stanford. Although HSW are considered that top 3 best b-schools around, I’m not also convinced that Wharton is as great as HBS. There is a gap that separates the 3 of them which it is noticeable just like there is a gap the separates Wharton from Haas. </p>
<p>Having said that, I believe that Wharton is superior to Haas, but I don’t believe that - today - Wharton is substantially superior to Haas or to any school in the top 10. Yes; it Wharton is still superior to the rest of the top 10 b-schools but not substantially anymore. If you’re mentality is dictating your thoughts that no school can be as great as Wharton then you’re a close-minded person, and that you’re not willing to assess b-schools based on their face value but by your old mentality engraved in your antiquated mind. </p>
<p>The number of MBA applicants has constantly increased as well as the QUALITY of these applicants. There is limit to what HSW can absorb, and therefore, anyone who did not get into any of these schools is not inferior to those that have been admitted and enrolled. The data will show that there is very little difference that separates Wharton and the rest of the top 10 bschools. I can show stats to support this claim, but it’s useless to show them to you since you’re close-minded.</p>
<p>Storch, FT is crap and old data. Let’s use the latest one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m not forcing you to believe me. But if in case you would, I’m telling you that they’re real people who are now MBAs. The 5 people who didn’t apply to Haas were my former colleagues at P&G who don’t have solid math/science backgrounds. There is a notion the runs in our heads that those who would thrive at schools like Haas, Sloan and the like are those who are math-sy (quantitative) persons. We could be wrong, but it’s what Haas has lead us to believe what they really are and how they are different from a school like Wharton. So, those who have legal management or mere management, for instance, as their undergrad major aren’t likely to thrive in schools like Haas as Haas’ curriculum and thrust is leading through innovation. How would you fit in at Haas if you have political science as your undergrad major, for instance, and your work experience is in marketing management? Maybe you will thrive at Haas, but don’t you think you’re better off not being at a school like Haas and HBS has accepted you? </p>
<p>
Really? How well do you know me?
Can you prove this?
No offense to you, but so far, the only person on this board whom I think has more experience than me is sakky, and sakky is known to be an anti Berkeley person. I don’t always agree with his constant “assassination” of Berkeley’s image and good name on CC, but I would admit that he has more experience than I do. But you? I don’t know. Convince me that you’re more experience than me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree but the main reason for that is derived from the fact the HSW are more prestigious schools than Haas. Do you really believe that Wharton provides better education than Sloan or Columbia or Tuck, for instance? I don’t think so. The reason why there are more people who would choose to go to Wharton than to those schools is because Wharton has a more solid, established name. Other than that, I don’t see any strong reason that would lead me to believe that Wharton is substantially superior to any of the top 10 bschool.</p>
<p>Why is the FT crap, and how is it old data?</p>
<p>Regarding experience with b-school admissions: I know you haven’t gone to business school and that I am at a top school where I spend my day surrounded by top business school students. Your statement about “quants” thriving at Sloan/Haas is simply wrong and demonstrates your poor understanding of what these schools are actually like. The reality is that the hurdle for quantitative skills is quite low, even at the most “quant” intensive business schools.</p>
Uhhhh… You don’t know me, dude, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. I suggest we stop talking about ourselves and just focus discussing about the topic. </p>
<p>
Because every other data available are saying differently from that of FT’s.
Aside from that, Harvard isn’t number 1 in that survey and Stanford isn’t in the top 3. That won’t pass in the _prestige’s litmus paper test.</p>
<p>For the record, I don’t consider myself to be an ‘anti-Berkeley person’, and in fact, I’ve publicly defended Berkeley on quite a few occasions. If anything, I consider myself to be a Berkeley-neutral person, who merely serves to correct misinformation. Unfortunately, much of the misinformation that abounds on CC regarding Berkeley - and probably every other school - is asymmetrically positive in nature, which then means that I’m usually placed in the position of having to temper the zeitgeist. But that’s hardly my fault: it would be far preferable that the conversation remain neutral in the first place. After all, the purpose of a discussion board is to inform and debate, not to propagandize. Every school has its faults, and it is far better in the long run to air those faults publicly than to attempt to conceal them only to have prospective students find out about them the hard way.</p>
<p>While I won’t dispute the existence of certain people, I would argue that what you’re describing seems to be a mere case of misinformation or misunderstanding on their part. The field of innovation encompasses far more than strictly technical innovation, and in fact, much, arguably most, new innovation is non-quantitative in nature. New management processes, new leadership techniques, and new sales/marketing tactics are all examples of innovation. Heck, arguably the most innovative endeavor in human history is artistry - painters, sculptors, film-makers, dancers, musicians, all try to out-innovative each other every day, yet hardly any of them do so through quantitative techniques. {Heck, I would argue that somebody with an arts, but not a quant, background would actually be morecomfortable, not less, in a business school that emphasizes innovation than in one that does not.} </p>
<p>The Ipod, for example, has been widely touted as a prime example of recent innovation, with Apple being named Fortune Magazine’s #1 Most Innovation firm for several years running now on the strength of the Ipod. Yet the fact is, the Ipod was never a true technical breakthrough, digital music players having been invented many years previously. Nor was the Ipod an initial success, garnering only modest sales from its 2001 launch and through 2002. What sparked the Ipod’s success was the launching of the ITunes version for Windows and the resulting tightly coupled and intuitive package of music distribution and portable play for most users (who tend to be Windows users). The Ipod story is therefore a case of strategy & marketing innovation far more than it is a case of technical innovation. Nor is the Iphone a true technical breakthrough: smartphones with full mobile data connectivity and a rich ecosystem of mobile apps had been prevalent in Japan for years. Again, the success of the Iphone has more to do with strategy and marketing innovation than in true technical innovation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, actually, that’s a different question, which pertains to whether you should attend Haas if you’ve already been admitted to HBS given that you’ve applied to and been admitted to both. However, in your example, those 5 people didn’t even apply to Haas in the first place. We don’t know whether they would have gotten in had they applied. I suspect they would have, but we’ll never know. </p>
<p>I certainly agree that you shouldn’t apply to Haas in the first place if you wouldn’t feel comfortable studying there - although, as discussed above, I don’t believe that to be a serious problem. But that’s different from going to HBS because they couldn’t get admitted to Haas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I have to agree with RML on this one. I doubt that too many people truly believe that HBS and Stanford are worse business schools than London Business School, yet that is precisely what FT would have you believe, not only in the recent ranking, but in the 3-year ranking as well. London Business School is a fine school, but come on, it’s not that good.</p>