<p>Maybe, it’s just because of what I wanted to do, and I did initially go into PE out of MBA, but any role where you are entrusted to be making investment decisions (whether it was PE, VC, HF, IM) I thought were the hardest to get and the most impressive to hold as to me that bears a lot more responsibility and trust in judgement than an associate in IB garners. </p>
<p>From my perspective, it was much tougher to get a job at Fidelity in IM than JPMorgan in IB out of b-school, but maybe I thought that just because my pre-MBA background was in IB and then HF. It seemed to me from my MBA class that anyone who wanted a job in IB got one, but that for IM, whether it was HF, MF, other that it was more difficult and not everyone got what they wanted. I would be curious to see other people’s take on it. Maybe, I was just dead set against going back into IB and I had already done it, so that it didn’t seem that impressive or selective to me. However, I thought that the smartest people seemed to be the ones who had been in IB pre-MBA, who were now looking to do something else post-MBA.</p>
<p>My point is simply that if you are making a trinity, it has to include Columbia. You can take out Stern or Chicago but Columbia definitely belongs there.</p>
<p>Sloan doesn’t belong in the discussion at all.</p>
<p>I’ll make a few very broad, “big picture” comments (take it for what its worth):</p>
<p>1) The spreadsheet is nice and you obviously put in a lot of effort pulling that together, but it’s really only relevant in the bizarre world of CC MBA discussion threads – and even then – its only marginally useful.</p>
<p>2) What I mean to say by that is – you can crunch numbers until you are blue in the face and do all of the analysis you want – but the reality is none of it is going to create some kind of sea change against the prevailing market views regarding b-school rankings and reputation (you could, of course, print out your spreadsheet, laminate it, and carry it around with you for illustrative purposes – but I’d strongly advise against it).</p>
<p>3) For example, let’s say you crunched all the numbers, had tons of datapoints in there, and the net result was that NYU was no. 1 and Haas was no. 2. Do you really think people are going to believe that Haas is the second best b-school in the country? (just a small joke folks)</p>
<p>4) Having said that, I think you already know the answer as to what you should prolly do, which is: wait for Wharton, if you get off the waitlist (prolly not likely) go there. If you don’t and you get into Kellogg – at that point you’d have some debating to do – but not until those things happen.</p>
<p>5) At the very “worst”, you go to Stern which is a great option in the grand scheme of things and seems to be a solid avenue for the things you want to do.</p>
<p>6) The final option, though extremely risky, if your heart is really set on Wharton, you could try and defer NYU (not sure what that process is like or if you have to put up a deposit of some kind though I’m sure you prolly do), re-apply next year, but I’d only do that under special circumstances – i.e. after having a discussion with Admissions, tell them you were accepted to NYU, had your heart set on Wharton, would rather re-apply with the thinking that you’d receive some due consideration for the fact that you were waitlisted, etc. etc. But like I said, this is extremely risky with no guarantees and serious downside risks (i.e. you may have to give up your “bird in the hand” and potentially lose a year with nothing to show for it).</p>
<p>Denzera,
What your stats don’t tell you is how many career switchers were able to switch to VC/PE/IM (and other buyside fields) successfully from each school assuming that you are a career switcher. I know for a fact these jobs are very difficult to transition in for career switchers. IB, on the other hand, welcomes them. Perhaps this explains why gellino thinks IM is not an easy field to get into.</p>
<p>The fact that Stern places so many in IB may tell you that many career switchers attend Stern and those who have pre MBA IB/PE/HF/IM experience may have chosen to attend HSW.</p>
<p>Your angst with Stern, I must say, is a little silly.</p>
<p>prestige - the real debate will be if I don’t get into Wharton and I either get into Kellogg, or the startup i’m working at gets funded and I need to debate deferring a year and re-applying, perhaps having a shot at places I’d prefer to Stern.</p>
<p>and that’s the real question right now, is what would be the magnitude of the marginal improvement to my career opportunities if I take another year, re-apply, and get into top places. What’s the real difference between Stern and H/S/W/Columbia and so forth? That’s what I’m trying to get at.</p>
<p>Sure, I’ve dug up a bunch of statistics but I’m not trying to prove anything by them. I’m just surprised by the lack of any available stats that clearly show where Stern is lacking (except, perhaps, in diversity of careers). I don’t have any means to show that Stern is better than the traditional Top 8, but I also don’t have any means to show that Stern is measurably worse. Which is part of why I’m asking advice: What’s the real difference there? How sure do you think I have to be of admission next year in order to defer a year?</p>
<p>Denzera, look man, it really all depends on your priorities (i.e. how fast you want to get your degree and get back to making dinero vs. looking at grad school as a strategic investment).</p>
<p>The fact that you have been waitlisted at Penn and accepted at NYU proves you’ve got what it takes to get into Penn. On the downside, it also demonstrates that there is a risk that you may not get into Penn next year as well (i.e. that your stats are probably at the cusp of someone who is a definite admit vs. good enough).</p>
<p>If you decide its worth the risk, you have to ask yourself a number of questions, most importantly, “What can you I do (if anything) over the next year to improve my candidacy vs. the competition – which might have been a weakness this year.”</p>
<p>At any rate, you are in a solid position having NYU in your back pocket.</p>
<p>Denzera, more quick thoughts… (it’s ultimately a personal decision)</p>
<p>1) If you want to go in to PE/VC, I’d probably wait to hear from Wharton, and re-apply to HBS/Stanford GSB… (I’d probably hire a good, or a couple, admissions consultants…)</p>
<p>2) If you feel unhappy now at the thought of having to “settle” for Stern (which is a great school! I mean, it’s not Haas…), I’d think twice about enrolling…</p>
<p>Have you tried deferring NYU… a good reason would be if you get funding for your startup…</p>
<p>But like cbreeze said: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would definitely not waste my time waiting to hear from Kellogg…</p>
<p>Don’t get bogged down in details, go to NYU, get a job at a bulge bracket and work for a couple years, move on to the buy-side… provided the economy picks up, the Stern MBA won’t keep you from getting an elite job…</p>
<p>(Then again, take all this for what it’s worth…it’s free advice after all…)</p>
<p>thanks guys. it’s hard for me to get an objective opinion at this point - Stern’s been selling me for months and there’s a lot of emotional investment wrapped up in things at this point.</p>
<p>My “stats” aren’t the real issue - 780 GMAT, 3.9 from Columbia in math, no spots on the transcript. I think my biggest problem is (1) lack of rapid promotion at work, i.e. i’ve gotten decent reviews particularly at Deloitte and my freelancing clients love me, and when I got hired by Deloitte I got a title promotion and 20% raise, but haven’t really worked enough to get (or deserve) a promotion to what would be, at this point, the post-MBA title. Many people my friends at Wharton know who came from a consulting background were coming as Managers or Engagement Managers and such, and had worked 7 years in consulting and were clearly marketable as heck. That’s a little different from the “2 years at McKinsey, get hired as an Associate” ideal that may have been a trend over much of the last 15 years. Furthermore, (2) I’ve bounced around in my career path a little bit and haven’t really shown supreme focus. 10 months at a consulting firm; 6 months studying/freelancing/interning; 20 months at another consulting firm; now i’m freelancing again… if I defer, and continue at this startup, I’m risking my job history looking “like a dog’s breakfast”, to borrow Montauk’s phrase.</p>
<p>Other data points would include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>It’s very unlikely a deferral from Stern would be approved, as they usually only do so for extraordinary circumstances like health of the applicant, health of close family members, or compulsory military service. “My startup got funded and they need me” probably is going to look a little crass by comparison. I can make an argument that the appeal is drawn from a sense of business ethics and professionalism - don’t leave coworkers who need you in the lurch to selfishly pursue a degree - but it’ll ring a little hollow when they have a class to fill.</p></li>
<li><p>The biggest enhancement to my application, if I make a new one, would be that my CEO would write me a killer recommendation essentially saying “Steve came in and saved our business in the following ten ways, plus he’s a fun guy”. And I’d have a variety of experiences to draw from for essay fodder, everything from recruiting stories to contract negotiations to defending patent applications to forging a pricing strategy. But it still wouldn’t be proof that I’ve got a consistent and long-term career strategy.</p></li>
<li><p>Might it be worth paying a Sandy Kreisberg or the like the $300 for a Ding Report and get an honest evaluation of my re-application chances to H/S/W? I suppose for most admissions consultants, it’s their slow season and they’re more likely to spend more time on me for less money – but I clearly picked the wrong one last time around and really have to question the value I’m getting for my money.</p></li>
<li><p>I may have what it takes to get into Penn, but there is a lot of statistical noise in the admissions process and there is a chance I wouldn’t improve my results the second time around. There is the lost year of post-MBA salary and career advancement. That’s why the real burning question in my mind is, what is the real magnitude of career-opportunity difference, for someone in my position, between Stern and the Harvards and Stanfords? Will I have a much better chance at a buy-side investor position post-MBA, or do those just go to the people with the appropriate backgrounds, of whom there are many at HBS/SGSB? That’s what all the numbers in the world haven’t been able to illuminate for me.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Denzera, you’ve got some serious thinking to do, but frankly, only YOU can know the answer to those questions – which are serious ones, and it’s right that you take them seriously.</p>
<p>I’d feel uncomfortable swaying you one way over another because there are so many moving pieces to consider each with their own particular “weighting” as it were – and only you can prescribe the proper value to those weightings… Add to that mix, the “unknowable” future, and really, there are way too many variables at play. For instance, let’s say you forgo your tremendous opportunity to attend NYU (and let’s face it, after consideration, its unlikely if they will give you a deferral that they would accept you again), and you wait a year and you apply to Penn (+H/W/S) but you don’t get in to any. What then? Do you have a backup plan and would you trade that scenario in for a “bird in the hand” at NYU? If the answer is “absolutely not” – I want to take the best shot at Penn that I can or I will always regret it – if your answer isn’t close to that, then you have to seriously consider the risks of forgoing NYU… See what I mean? That’s just ONE scenario.</p>
<p>There is no RIGHT answer. You’ve got to assess everything that is important to you, your goals, your priorities and weigh them in a realistic light. Going to NYU isn’t going to limit someone who has the proper motivation and ability. Wharton isn’t going to give someone who lacks proper motivation and ability a free pass to coast through life. Where you graduate is absolutely a critical factor for your first post-MBA job and then decreases significantly after that – because, let’s face it, it’s what you actually do at work that is going to make the difference between success and failure in any given job.</p>
<p>You will realize many years down the road, little grasshopper, that even though this single decision seems like THE momentous one which will ultimately seal your fate between success and failure – it’s absolutely not. You will have plenty of much more important decisions ahead of you. </p>
<p>If it’s any consolation, you are already ahead of the game at this point – you are a bright guy, are graduating from Columbia with solid stats and promising work experience with an open invitation to attend a top 10 b-school – the world is your oyster brother.</p>
<p>Denzera, I’ll just comment on breaking into VC specifically which I have experience with after spending a long time on Sand Hill Road. Your plans for an M&A role post-MBA, which Stern should give you access to, definitely makes sense for PE. Just take a look at the background of Silver Lake associates. Almost all of them come from TMT ibanking groups at Goldman and JPM. But to get straight in there, you basically need to go to Wharton as you can also see from the backgrounds. If you’re satisfied with tech-centered PE, then Stern will be a legitimate path as long you’re able to get that top M&A position afterwards.</p>
<p>Now, VC. Few of the real players in VC have been ibankers which you probably know. Also, in VC, there is no guarantee or even likelyhood of promotion from an analyst/associate non-carry position. Doing ibanking will not get you a place at the top VC firms since there is very little extra value you can add as a finance concentrator. However, you can probably get a position at SOME VC firm as an analyst after ibanking, but this is probably not where you want to be…in the VC world you’re either with the best or struggling. There is surprisingly little valuation done in VC – a portfolio company’s future is so variable at the investing stage that it’s just a waste of time, similar to trying to calculate the exact trajectory of a dropped dice to circumvent using probability. </p>
<p>So, if you want to break into the PE world your path is fine. The value of HSW is opportunity for a position in PE directly after an MBA, but since you don’t have the necessary pre-MBA experience anyway, going to W won’t be much more advantageous.</p>
<p>If VC is your goal (and I mean the real firms) then Stern will probably not be of much benefit. You’re better off trying to get a lot of operating/bizdev experience at top startups and F500s, or start a successful company in a hot sector. The only education that will really make any difference in getting a VC position is an H or S MBA, or a grad degree from MIT/S.</p>
<p>LOL! Good ol’ Sandy… If you have the $300 laying around, I don’t see why not. (Though, honestly, I don’t know how much ‘extra time’ you’ll get just because it’s the slow time of the season… i.e. don’t expect the experience to be pleasant…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, Denzera, if what you are saying is true (stats/exp) you have the credentials to get into HSW. (You may just need substantially better essays.) Then again, it’s only up to you, and you alone, to figure out whether it’s worth the risk. </p>
<p>Lastly, I have no idea who 1337 (above) is, but her advice seems spot on.</p>
<p>OK gang, end of a long night here in noo yawk, but the spirit’s moving me at the moment… and let me say that the Haas jokes are hysterical.
prestige, you absolutely mean well, but for fark’s sake i’m not 16. i’ve been employed full time more or less since 2000, even if my BS degree (aptly named) was conferred in 2006. i’m trying to make an optimal decision here, i’m not some starry-eyed teenager - though I realize that’s the usual demographic you’re speaking to around these parts. when i cut out the condescending BS, your posts are very helpful and clearly drawn from some well of knowledge… but do we really have to go through the “grasshopper” routine?</p>
<p>In any case, yes, the future is unknowable. No, I wouldn’t want to trade my current situation for one where, a year from now, I have ZERO admissions to top places rather than the current singular one. Mine is not a question that can be answered with certainty - not even by myself, much less the lot of you, however much you may enjoy throwing around on the MBA board. But what CAN make a difference, and a positive one, are musings on the differences between what I have (Stern) and what I think I might be able to get (H/S/W).</p>
<p>I went to an elite college full of elitists. I’m well aware of the usual (and not widely discussed) benefits of attending a top institution. Your brain gets wired to think faster, more accurately, more witty, avoid fallacies, yadda yadda. You meet people who are the future movers-and-shakers of the world, who become not just inspirations but your friends for life. You gain access to the people who have gone before you, with whom you have instant credibility just because of the fact - which sounds simplistic when put this way but shows the power of the brand - that you went to the same school as they once did. And that extra brain gear and those friends and that alumni network mean something and are worth something. It’s obnoxious to discuss in polite company, but I understand the argument for how valuable that is, and belatedly agree with it.</p>
<p>The same is true for MBA programs. WuSTL’s MBA program is not going to challenge me intellectually, introduce me to the same caliber of future leaders, or get me access to the same potential advisors or business opportunities, as your classic ‘top MBA programs’ (insert Haas joke here). Whatever career goals I might set for myself may not be impossible with the proverbial third-tier MBA, but they will be much easier at a better school. The brand name itself is a door-opener. Within NYC, sure, everyone echoes the “Stern is a great school!” meme, but it may not help worth a darn if I’m negotiating a business deal in Raleigh or Lima. Whereas the Harvard mystique grows the farther you get from Cambridge, to the point where chinese mothers are all but naming their sons ‘Harvard’.</p>
<p>1337hax0r’s post makes the case that for an eventual switch to an LBO firm, Stern -> M&A is a perfectly fine (even excellent) path, but if I’m dead set on a switch into VC, unless I can get into H/S, I’m better off not bothering with the MBA. Which suggests I need to get deeper into those fields and consider what I would really enjoy the most. The problem is that the best way to do so is with an internship in the field, which would necessitate the MBA in the first place. Maybe I should just soak in as much career evaluation and counseling advice as I can get from Stern in the next 3 months, and make the call then.</p>
<p>But in the meantime, what would really - sincerely - help me is getting more opinions like 1337hax0r’s. If her (?) POV is the consensus, that a non-H/S MBA won’t really enable a VC career, that’s a powerful data point. At the same time I’ll be [talking</a> to the VC people at Stern](<a href=“http://people.stern.nyu.edu/spec/]talking”>http://people.stern.nyu.edu/spec/) and seeing what they think. But if people feel strongly that the difference between Stern and H/S is those fields is one of interest, as opposed to one of opportunity, that will weigh in my thinking as well.</p>
<p>Denzera, I was trying to give you food for thought and try and steer you away from the minutiae – the stats and figures and rankings, etc. Please don’t take it the wrong way – if you felt my post was condescending in any way (which I absolutely did not intend) please accept my apology.</p>
<p>My advice is to look at things with both a realistic and “long term” view. The realistic one says that if you don’t go to NYU now, you will not receive a second shot later. The realistic one says your odds at H / W / S, while pretty decent, are still not outstanding. Which is why I had counseled in seeking a dialogue with Wharton’s admission office to give you a better feel for where you stand and if there are certain things you could do over the course of the year (should you decide to do so) which would place your candidacy in a stronger light. Stanford is prolly the toughest MBA program to get into. Your odds knowing nothing else are very slim. HBS isn’t that much easier, but certainly worth a shot if you are going a second round.</p>
<p>The “long term” view is that in my experience, those who really want something – those who are truly focused and committed – end up getting what they want regardless. It’s just a matter of perseverance and willingness to sacrifice. There isn’t anything that you COULDN’T do from this point forward regardless of whether you even go to b-school much less NYU vs. Wharton. That is the “long term” view. And in this context, it really doesn’t matter in the long run as long as you’ve got the basic skills, drive and determination. </p>
<p>My advice is to talk to as many people as possible about your situation (which you seem to be doing) but at the end of the day, it simply comes down to whether you are a risk taker or not – and if you find those risks acceptable given the potential reward.</p>