<p>Also, take in account that each school has relative strengths that distinguish them. If I wanted Silicon Valley tech I would be hard pressed to choose Harvard over stanford, similarly if I wanted P&G I'd be hard pressed to turn down Kellogg for anywhere else. I personally chose Columbia for its media emphasis and concentration, unavailable at most other schools. So, as with undergrad schools, ranking by group seems to make alot more sense to me than some random ranking with Tuck as #1 and Harvard in the teens.</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad,</p>
<p>What is your basis for Stanford > Kellogg? It seems to me Kellogg's rank is consistently in the top 5 across different publications whereas Stanford's rank is all over the map (top 3 in some, top 10 in couple others, and top 15 in the rest). I have the impression if we take all the rankings out there and average them, Northwestern's rank is in the top 3 and the variance/deviation is small.</p>
<p>the question is why do you care? everyone knows northwestern and stanford are excellent</p>
<p>sam lee, from a "big picture" perspective, nyusternman's recent comment will "trump" any differences that i personally hold b/n Stanford and Kellogg - they are indeed elite b-schools (withouth a doubt top 5 b-schools in the US no matter how you slice it).</p>
<p>that said, it's pretty common knowledge amongst b-school applicants (and recruiters) that Stanford's GSB is THE hardest / most selective b-school to get into, consistently posting the highest GPA/GMAT stats year in, year out - basically each graduating class is generally exceptionally elite (i.e. at least as strong if not stronger than any given HBS/Wharton graduating class). Additionally, Stanford's global reputation is slightly stronger than Northwestern's, giving it a further edge. Given that most of us agree that HBS and Wharton belong in the Top 3, that leaves one slot remaining. </p>
<p>Finally, Slipper also makes very valid comments about each b-school's specific "strengths". Kellogg clearly has a reputation as a leading "marketing" program. Stanford more for entrepreneurship and high tech (given its proximity to Silicon Valley). Well, HBS is also leading marketing school. So if you break it down to marketing (HBS/Kellogg), finance (Wharton), entrepreneur/high tech (Stanford) - you'll see you've got redudancy in marketing (Harvard AND Kellogg) - in which i'm inclined to go with HBS.</p>
<p>So in sum, I'm more inclined to give that remaining 3rd slot to Stanford - which is not to say that Kellogg is not a leading b-school, it absolutely is.</p>
<p>Frankly, if I had to go with a "4th" school, IMO that slot would go to Columbia over Kellogg (again due to a mix of global rep, Columbia's breadth and redudancy issues) - with Kellogg grabbing the 5th slot.</p>
<p>The point is, we are clearly splitting atom hairs at this level.</p>
<p>Perhaps it makes sense to write a slogan for each of the top biz schools,
so the consumers (aspiring students and employers) can easily differentiate. Just like any other generalization presented here: 'consumer beware; 'your mileage may vary'; 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.</p>
<p>Stanford = your ticket to your first job in a start-up; you may also found
a company and become very rich ... google mania.</p>
<p>Kellog = the ultimate in consumer marketing; track to P&G, Coke, Apple etc.</p>
<p>Wharton = World Bank job; or Wall Street if you like that better; read
investment banking, capital markets.</p>
<p>Harvard = fast track to executive suite in corporate america; you get
those jobs and promotions thanks to your buddies and your Dad's buddies;
If you are less of a doer and would rather advise executives in corporate america, can't beat those Mckinsey and Bain jobs.</p>
<p>Chicago and LSE: economics r' us. you may advise governments of countries
(perhaps even Bush or his successor)</p>
<p>INSEAD: I don't get this one; perhaps the EEC attempt at Stanford-like
entrepreneurism</p>
<p>Did I miss anyone?</p>
<p>stern-become a finance monkey or leave</p>
<p>INSEAD: probably the #1 non-US b-school, extremely international, strengths in marketing / consulting, 1-yr program, extremely competitive, "Alliance" with Wharton (e.g. Wharton grads can spend a semester at INSEAD's Europe or Asia campus (Singapore) and vice versa) - in sum, if you have aspirations for an international career, INSEAD is one of the tops.</p>
<p>Basically, if you attend either Wharton or INSEAD, you've effectively got "access" to four global campuses across the US, Europe and Asia:</p>
<ul>
<li>Philly (Wharton)</li>
<li>San Francisco (Wharton)</li>
<li>France (INSEAD)</li>
<li>Singapore (INSEAD)</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/campus/alliance/%5B/url%5D">http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/campus/alliance/</a>
<a href="http://www.insead.edu/alliance/%5B/url%5D">http://www.insead.edu/alliance/</a></p>
<p>Okay, maybe what you said about Stanford is right. But Columbia over Kellogg?? I've never seen any ranking that puts Columbia above Kellogg. I feel you are saying that just because either you went there or it's an Ivy school and you went to one of the Ivies. I am from HK and over there, Kellogg has definitely better rep than Columbia's B-school. I really don't see how it doesn't have better rep than Columbia when year in and out Kellogg makes it to the top 5 ranking of different publications (has had best showing in Business Week) while Columbia falls mostly between 6-10th in most rankings. I'd think Chicago is ahead of Columbia anyway??</p>
<p>I am no expert in b-field; but the following article seems to be inline with what I've seen:</p>
[quote]
The reason that Columbia and Chicago are generally considered just below the other five (Harvard/Wharton/Stanford/Northwestern/MIT) is because they carry somewhat less prestige, as reflected in a couple of key statistics. Columbia used to have a 46% acceptance rate as recently as 10 years ago, far higher than any other top school, admitting nearly half of all applicants. Meanwhile, Chicago consistently has a much higher acceptance rate than any other top school (above 25-30%) and through much of the last 10 years maintained a 50% yield in other words, nearly half of the people offered admission to Chicago choose not to attend. Nonetheless, these two schools are considered among the most prestigious after the top 5, and are even ranked in the top 5 in some finance-heavy rankings
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel you are saying that just because either you went there or it's an Ivy school and you went to one of the Ivies
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I had a nickel for every time someone "assumed" something about me due to my "handle" i'd could retire... jeez I really regret choosing it...</p>
<p>No I did not attend Columbia, and no, that's not the reason why I'd rank Columbia ahead of Kellogg. I gave my reasons for why I would, and don't feel I need to justify my reasons beyond that.</p>
<p>Might I also add that you're a pretty presumptuous person...Do I make assumptions about you because your last name is Lee?</p>
<p>fyi, I am a Princeton and Wharton alum (hence "Ivy Grad")</p>
<p>anyways let's not digress...</p>
<p>Well, you seem to exaggerate my assumption. I said you EITHER went to Columbia OR one of the Ivies. I am right; Princeton is an Ivy! ;)</p>
<p>Anyway, I was just pointing out <em>your</em> ranking contradicts pretty much all published rankings available as far as Columbia vs Kellogg goes. I can't just take what you say about "global rep" as fact when all rankings out there consistently put Kellogg ahead. The peer assessment and recruiter assessment scores (US News 2006) for the two schools are:
Kellogg: 4.7, 4.5
Columiba: 4.4, 3.9
Apparently, your perception of their reputation seems to differ quite a bit (the scores aren't even that close) from what the US News surveyed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford = your ticket to your first job in a start-up; you may also found
a company and become very rich ... google mania.</p>
<p>Kellog = the ultimate in consumer marketing; track to P&G, Coke, Apple etc.</p>
<p>Wharton = World Bank job; or Wall Street if you like that better; read
investment banking, capital markets.</p>
<p>Harvard = fast track to executive suite in corporate america; you get
those jobs and promotions thanks to your buddies and your Dad's buddies;
If you are less of a doer and would rather advise executives in corporate america, can't beat those Mckinsey and Bain jobs.</p>
<p>Chicago and LSE: economics r' us. you may advise governments of countries
(perhaps even Bush or his successor)</p>
<p>INSEAD: I don't get this one; perhaps the EEC attempt at Stanford-like
entrepreneurism</p>
<p>Did I miss anyone?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can agree with that. However, I do feel that I have to stick up for MITSloan.</p>
<p>MITSloan = Technical management, technical management, technical management, especially (but not limited to) operations management, information systems/information technology, supply chain and logistics management, and production/manufacturing management. In these fields, Sloan is unquestionably on top.</p>