I find the idea that BAH is school elitist to be funny. In the sector where I work (defense), BAH is basically a bottom feeder like everyone else (SAIC, LM, Leidos, NG, TASC, Raytheon, etc.) these days.
Lockheed, Northrup, and Raytheon are bottom feeders?
In some areas, especially in intelligence analytical support, it has been trending that way. They have to compete with the low cost outfits when currently the government is awarding most contracts only on basis of cost.
Look at what happened just now with United Launch Alliance (LM and Boeing) dropping out of the USAF launch contract because they know they couldn’t compete against Space-X’s proposal since the USAF said the contract would be awarded on the basis of cost as the most important consideration.
50N’s maxim: “there are two dangers to one’s own propaganda- first is that your competitor might actually believe it, second (and more dangerous) is that you might believe it.”
No school is as good as it claims, although they might be very good indeed, and those with outrageous prices are sometimes forced to outrageous claims as justification.
So who is not a bottom feeder?
Companies with niche specialties that provide services that customers can’t get elsewhere. Palantir comes to mind right away.
From those 2 schools I would say they are similar: once you have the qualifications (course work + stellar GPA’s), everything will hinge on your technical interview. Which in other words mean, which school will allow you to be happier and be more productive so you can learn the most?