<p>jhaverford - you bring up some interesting points, and I think it’s good to have an earnest discussion of Chicago’s placement strength. I’ve started several threads like this in the past. Also, as a Chicago alum, I want Chicago to rank well everywhere - from PhD placement to MBA placement to happiness surveys of its undergrads. </p>
<p>Having said this, and to use a bit of legalese, I don’t think your argument (that Chicago places students at a lesser clip than Columbia, Duke, etc. into top MBA programs) is ripe yet. </p>
<p>In the past (i.e. up until maybe 2007), I have no doubt that all of Chicago’s peer schools placed much better than Chicago for any professional school - law, medicine, business, etc. What you don’t account for, however, is the drastic change that Chicago has undergone in the past 5-6 years. During this time, Chicago has transformed itself from being a graduate school-centric institution with the College as a bit of an afterthought to focusing much more strongly on the health of the College. Myriad new amenities have been built for students (new gym, revamped study spaces, new dorms, new arts center, etc.). New programs have sprung up that never existed before (expanded career services office, more chances to pursue pre-professional interests, etc.). The admissions rate has absolutely plummeted and the caliber of incoming students has increased (in 04-05, Chicago accepted around 40% of applicants, now, that number is around 15%). </p>
<p>On the other hand, Harvard today or Princeton today strongly resembles Harvard or Princeton in 2005 or 2006. ~6 years ago, these schools existed to produce leaders across every industry, and they look to do the same today. Contrast this to Chicago - in 2004 or 2005, the stated goal of the College was to produce scholars, grade inflation had not fully hit, and the admissions office did not focus on “big numbers” admissions policies. </p>
<p>Fast forward to today, Harvard, Princeton etc. look quite similar, and Chicago has changed considerably. They’ve started a much more conformist admissions campaign, targeted students with more pre-professional interests, and focused more on accepting students who can emerge as leaders, rather than just future eggheads. </p>
<p>The study you cite - feeder schools for HBS’ and Wharton’s class of 2013 - features a high number of students who graduated college from 2004-2007. The average age of a b-school student is around 28. So, when you compare Duke and Chicago in 2004 or 2005, you’re kind of comparing apples to oranges. </p>
<p>To conclude my argument, let me say this: Have Duke, Columbia, Brown, etc. historically placed much better than Chicago for business, law, med, etc.? Probably yes. At the same time, I’m much less interested in that as I am about how well Chicago is positioned to close the gap in the years ahead. Overall, no school has appreciated as well in the past 5-6 years as Chicago. (Penn has enjoyed a very good decade, but Chicago’s done especially well over the past half-decade.) Chicago’s moved up the US News rankings, gained some luster due to the Obama connection, and re-formatted its policies to fall in line with its peers. Accordingly, if the Wharton or HBS Class of 2017 or 2018 still features a big disparity, then I’d be concerned. </p>
<p>I tend to think, though, that with larger class sizes, more grade inflation, savvier students, and more of an emphasis on pre-professionalism, Chicago has made significant strides in the past few years in terms of professional school placement. </p>
<p>As of right now, even the meager data presented isn’t that surprising. What’s much more interesting, to me at least, is how the new and revamped Chicago continues to improve within the market in the years ahead.</p>