Business School Rankings

College Search & Selection
61

<p>Sakky, like I said, there is very little that separates #1 from #10. In some aspects, Stanford is the best B school in the nation. I just think that when you take things such as connections to industry, faculty size and quality and curriculum, Kellogg is slightly better than Stanford. </p>

<p>You mentioned yield and starting salaries to prove your point. Although I agree that both are useful stats to look at, they should be properly analyzed. </p>

<p>For example, Georgetown University has a yield rate of 55%. Caltech and the University of Chicago have yield rates of 35%. Does that mean that Georgetown is better than Caltech or Chicago? Of course not. So why do some universities have such an advantage over other universiites of equal (if not greater) quality where yield is concerned? There are logical reasons why the yield rate is much higher at Georgetown. </p>

<p>1) Georgetown is the only top rated university in the nation's capital. Chicago must contend with Northwestern. Same with the MBA programs. Yes, Stanford must contend with Haas, but is the Stanford vs Haas option as compeling as the Kellogg vs Chicago option? </p>

<p>2) Furthemore, most candidates associate the individual graduate program with the overall university. For example, Purdue has a higher ranked graduate Engineering program than Princeton, but given the choice, which school will most graduate school candidates chose? There is very little doubt that Stanford University is better than Northwestern University, and since the MBA programs at both universities are virtually equal, most students would probably prefer going to Stanford or Harvard over Kellogg.</p>

<p>3) Location and climate. Most people would rather be in sunny and warm California than in cold and windy Midwest. </p>

<p>For those reasons, along with a few more I did not think of, none of which have to do with the quality of the MBA programs (or of the overall university), some schools will have higher yield rates than others. </p>

<p>Starting salaries are also telling, but they too must be taken into context. 50% of Kellogg MBAs end up working in the South or the Midwest. 70% of Stanford MBAs end up working in California or the Northeast. Will earning $124,000 (average starting salary + bonus at Stanford) in the Bay area or NYC afford you a better lifestyle than earning $115,000 (average starting salary + bonus at Kellogg) in Chicago or Atlanta?</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
connections to industry, faculty size and quality and curriculum, Kellogg is slightly better than Stanford

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, i think we can all agree that each MBA program has its own unique strength (i.e. Kellogg/marking - Stanford/tech-entrepreneur - HBS/management - Wharton/finance, etc.)</p>

<p>so in terms of connections to "industry", it really depends on which industry and in what capacity. as for faculty size, well, Stanford's MBA class is considerably smaller than most b-schools (e.g. Kellogg's class is nearly twice the size) so is it a surprise that its faculty is smaller? that doesn't mean its "better".</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, Georgetown University has a yield rate of 55%. Caltech and the University of Chicago have yield rates of 35%. Does that mean that Georgetown is better than Caltech or Chicago? Of course not. So why do some universities have such an advantage over other universiites of equal (if not greater) quality where yield is concerned? There are logical reasons why the yield rate is much higher at Georgetown.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But Alex, let's be real and fair. Caltech's overall yield may be low compared to Georgetown, but the average student accepted to Caltech is also more likely to be looking at thick envelopes from Harvard and Stanford... whereas the typical G-town acceptee is likely mulling over offer from a lower caliber of schools (e.g. UVA or Hopkins). That's not really a fair analysis. </p>

<p>
[quote]
1) Georgetown is the only top rated university in the nation's capital. Chicago must contend with Northwestern. Same with the MBA programs. Yes, Stanford must contend with Haas, but is the Stanford vs Haas option as compeling as the Kellogg vs Chicago option?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But the boston area has MIT and HBS - but that doesn't seem to harm either school's ability to draw high quality MBA students... i.e. the "zero sum" theory doesn't really apply here... as you mentioned in the Chicago met. area you've got UChic and Kellogg - but so what? They both draw great classes. Basically, a "build a great program and they will come" kind of applies here, whether you've got 1, 2 or more great programs in the area. I don't see how this hurts / helps any particular program (much less how this is really relevant in a discussion about Stanford).</p>

<p>
[quote]
and since the MBA programs at both universities are virtually equal, most students would probably prefer going to Stanford or Harvard over Kellogg.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are two different, separate issues at play here:
1) The degree of any "halo" effect of a great institutional name
2) The strength of an elite grad school program on a stand-alone basis</p>

<p>1) Of course there are great names which give certain schools an edge (e.g. Harvard, Stanford) - but, so what? i.e. if the best students end up choosing those schools consistently (whether its due to name brand or not) doesn't that mean that those schools are better - at the end of the day?</p>

<p>2) Are you claiming that Stanford's MBA program is, in any way, inferior to Kellogg's on a pure stand-alone basis? I just don't see how it is.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3) Location and climate. Most people would rather be in sunny and warm California than in cold and windy Midwest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, even if its something as arbitrary (and non-academic) as the weather, if more quality students choose to go to Stanford over Kellogg because of weather, why penalize Stanford for yielding more quality students? </p>

<p>The better question is why does Stanford GSB (with all it has going on a quality of life basis) lose out to HBS? Simple: because the power of the HBS name trumps certain "quality of life" pros that Stanford offers (whereas the power - or lack thereof - of a Kellogg name comes up short in the same fight)... put another way, if Kellogg's program offered something more compelling to its Stanford GSB cross admits (by way of brand name or otherwise) more people would choose Kellogg over Stanford (as they do with HBS) regardless of the weather - but since they don't - isn't it reasonable to assume / deduce that Stanford is simply better?</p>

63

<p>The_prestige, my point about yield stands. Duke and Chicago both have significantly lower yield rates to Georgetown. Does that mean that Georgetown is better than Duke or Chicago? I am not attempting to explain the reason for the difference in yield rates because none of us can. All I am saying is that yield rates aren't always telling. They are a fun stat to look at, but they do not dtermine the quality of a school or program.</p>

64

<p>But Alex, you are talking about Overall Yield stats. i agree that those numbers can be misleading.</p>

<p>However, sakky and I are discussing cross-admit yield stats which I believe are VERY telling.</p>

<p>when you have more students choose school X who are accepted to both school X AND school Y, one can logically assume that school X is > school Y.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Will earning $124,000 (average starting salary + bonus at Stanford) in the Bay area or NYC afford you a better lifestyle than earning $115,000 (average starting salary + bonus at Kellogg) in Chicago or Atlanta?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I live in CA, used to live in Chicago, and still have many friends in Chicago; 124,000 in SF Bay Area is actually A LOT LESS than 115,000 in Chicago when adjusted to cost of living. 124K is just 8% more but then housing/rent/gas easily cost a lot more than 8% more in the Bay Area. I don't even know if a124K/yr salary can afford any property with zero down in an "okay" area within the SF Bay Area. I bet the difference in average salary for the general population between the SF and Chicago is higher than 8%. So in a sense, Stanford grads may actually be the ones underpaid.</p>

66

<p>Haha. Let's not get so worked up about MBA rankings. Most of us are not even considering that road yet :)</p>

67

<p>the_prestige and sakky,</p>

<p>The cross-admit yield doesn't necessarily reflect which school is better. Maybe someone was dreaming of making big bucks in high tech virtually overnight like the Yahoo founders and therefore picked Stanford, believing it's a better school for that dream. Or maybe someone just read that Stanford had higher starting salary from the US News and let that play a major factor in my decision, without realizing that after factoring cost of living, the average overall compensation that Stanford grads get is actually less. After all, I'd imagine BW ranking would have already taken the starting salary into account anyway.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
I live in CA, used to live in Chicago, and still have many friends in Chicago; 124,000 in SF Bay Area is actually A LOT LESS than 115,000 in Chicago when adjusted to cost of living. 124K is just 8% more but then housing/rent/gas easily cost a lot more than 8% more in the Bay Area. I don't even know if a124K/yr salary can afford any property with zero down in an "okay" area within the SF Bay Area. I bet the difference in average salary for the general population between the SF and Chicago is higher than 8%. So in a sense, Stanford grads may actually be the ones underpaid

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is true, but keep in mind that this is generally a matter of choice. In a certain sense, I can agree that nearly all people (not just MBA's, but everybody) who live in places like California, NYC, Boston, and these types of glamour places who are effectively 'underpaid'. </p>

<p>For example, I know some people who are working 'regular jobs' around the Bay Area - i.e. working at Fed Ex, as bank tellers, security guards, or working at the mall in the Bay Area. But let's face it. You can have one of these jobs anywhere in the country, and probably for about the same pay. So why stay in the Bay Area to do it? Simple - because the Bay Area is a nice place to live. Once you live there, you don't really want to leave. </p>

<p>What I'm saying is that expensive places aren't expensive simply because of chance. They're expensive because people want to live there. San Francisco is more expensive than, say, Fresno, because, let's face it, San Francisco is a more desirable place to live. </p>

<p>So when you're talking about Stanford grads being "underpaid" in the Bay Area, or Harvard/MIT grads being "underpaid" in Boston/New York, this is true, but that's basically because they are paying a premium to live there. They don't HAVE to live there. The Stanford/Harvard/MIT guy can choose to live someplace else that is cheaper. But the fact is, a lot of them just don't want to.</p>

<p>McKinsey, for example, offers basically the same pay regardless of which office you work at. Yet notice how there isn't a huge demand to get into, say, the Detroit office. You don't exactly have all of these McKinsey people trying to transfer there from the San Francisco or New York or Boston offices. </p>

<p>If you live in a nice place, then part of your compensation is in the form of quality-of-life, specifically, the ability to live in a cool place. That's a form of compensation all by itself.</p>

69

<p>i actually don't know why the bay area is so hyped - i've never seen so many beggars / homeless people in my life.</p>

70

<p>Yeah, the_prestige, but you know why, right? It's because if you're homeless, why wouldn't you want to live in a place with mild weather? Seriously, if you don't have a roof over your head, weather has to be one of the most important factors on your mind if you're thinking rationally (although I agree that many homeless people aren't thinking rationally). </p>

<p>Personally, I don't understand why homeless people from cold cities in the NorthEast don't just all scrape together enough money for a bus ticket to California. Why freeze in the winter if you don't have to? </p>

<p>Couple that with the fact that, until just recently, San Francisco actually handed out something like $300 in cash per month to every homeless person, and I think the appeal of the Bay Area is obvious.</p>

<p>The point is, California is a very nice place to live, including for (and perhaps especially for) the homeless. That's why California is expensive.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
The cross-admit yield doesn't necessarily reflect which school is better. Maybe someone was dreaming of making big bucks in high tech virtually overnight like the Yahoo founders and therefore picked Stanford, believing it's a better school for that dream. Or maybe someone just read that Stanford had higher starting salary from the US News and let that play a major factor in my decision, without realizing that after factoring cost of living, the average overall compensation that Stanford grads get is actually less. After all, I'd imagine BW ranking would have already taken the starting salary into account anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For reasons stated above, I don't think Stanford grads are really getting compensated less. After all, Stanford grads don't have to stay there. They are free to leave. But they don't WANT to leave. Basically, the Bay Area is "compensating" every resident in the form of a higher quality of life (especially in better weather). </p>

<p>I myself have lived in some truly crappy places around the world, because I used to have a job that made me go to these places. After awhile, I determined that while the money was good, the quality of life is just too low. The weather is usually bad in the places I was at, there was nothing interesting to do, you're always bored, so, really, the money doesn't really do much for you. </p>

<p>Hence, I think we can't be fixated on cost-of-living. The fact is, those places with high costs of living are that way because lots of people want to live there. It's basic economics. If nobody wanted to live in the Bay Area, then prices would inevitably drop to the floor. The expense of the area is a simple reflection of its desirability.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
The_prestige, my point about yield stands. Duke and Chicago both have significantly lower yield rates to Georgetown. Does that mean that Georgetown is better than Duke or Chicago? I am not attempting to explain the reason for the difference in yield rates because none of us can. All I am saying is that yield rates aren't always telling. They are a fun stat to look at, but they do not dtermine the quality of a school or program

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not saying that yield rates are completely determinant. They are just one factor. But they are an important factor to consider. Cross-admit rates are more telling, and Kellogg is still not seen as a direct peer competitor by either Stanford or HBS, who basically see only each other as serious head-to-head competitors. </p>

<p>But let's also keep in mind what is meant by 'quality'. This is business school we're talking about. Let's face it. A lot (probably most) B-school students are there not for the academics, but for the networking. Hence, that means that to make your network as strong as possible, you want to go to a school that has the best students. It doesn't matter WHY the best students tend to go to school X. The only thing that matters to you is that they are there. </p>

<p>For example, I may decide to learn to play golf just so that I can meet more successful business executives through golf. It doesn't matter WHY they like to play golf, and it doesn't even really matter that I don't particularly like golf. What matters is that they, for whatever reason, like golf. So if I want to meet them, then I have to find a common interest with them, which means that I have to learn to play golf. </p>

<p>Similarly if HBS and Stanford happen to be located in desirable places, then that will tend to attract better students, which makes it more desirable still. Network effects. The reason why everybody uses MS Office is because everybody else uses MSOffice and you want to be able to share compatible documents with everybody else. In some sense, it's not "fair" that Stanford and HBS are located in nice places near cool, interesting cities, just like it's not "fair" that Microsoft has incumbency advantages. I'm sure that if HBS/Stanfor were located in the middle of a swamp in the middle of nowhere, fewer people would want to go there. So they have an "unfair" geographic advantage. But it doesn't matter that it's not fair. All that matters is that for whatever reason, these schools are desirable, which tends to draw good people, which makes the school even more desirable to you.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Couple that with the fact that, until just recently, San Francisco actually handed out something like $300 in cash per month to every homeless person

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you're kidding me right? no wonder SF is the unofficial homeless capital of the western world - this has to be the most short-sighted public policy ever implemented since prohibition.</p>

74

<p>No bull, it really was happening. $300 a month was actually a round number - some people were actually getting as much as $410 a month. In fact, this issue was a major reason why Gavin Newsome was elected mayor of SF, as his major claim to fame was what he called the "Care not Cash" ballot initiative, in which these payments would be cut in return for greater homeless shelter services. It is still controversial even to this day, and Care not Cash has been repeatedly challenged in the courts (although I don't understand why - since when do homeless people have the "right" to handouts?) </p>

<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/16/BAGVF76LGM1.DTL%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/16/BAGVF76LGM1.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_Not_Cash%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_Not_Cash&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>