Jerome Fisher M&T

<p>"Can you please elaborate on that?"</p>

<p>it's just the sort of student that each program attracts and the push from each. If you are part of the greatest undergrad business school anywhere you'll want to leverage it and go into finance. If you are part of the greatest (arguably) engineering school anywhere (bar maybe MIT) you'll want to leverage it and go into engineering. </p>

<p>At M&T the cool and most prestigious thing to do is to work at Mckinsey or D.E. Shaw, at Stanford it's to work at google/apple/cutting edge bio tech firm or start one such firm. I had a friend who did M&T, worked at Microsoft (development) all summers, did cool work there, loved the place but eventually sold to Mckinsey (business analyst) full time. This was back in the day when Microsoft was up there. They got MS more out of personal ambition than Penn leverage. They got Mckinsey because penn opened the door and Mckinsey likes M&T.</p>

<p>I know a few people who are alum/students in each H, S and M&T.</p>

<p>What the person wants to do is really up to them. I'm sure there are people in M&T that don't want to go into Finance but instead like engineering and would like to start their own tech firms some day (that would be me if I get in). </p>

<p>It's all up to the person. I'm sure there are as many people at Stanford as in M&T that go into firms such as McKinsey. </p>

<p>I think its a good idea to have some sort of a vision before you start your college years, as it may help you pick and choose what you take in college.</p>

<p>^yes that's obvious. By that argument though you have people at brown who eventually work at NASA, and cal-tech kids go to law school. But each is clearly better preparation for the other career path.</p>

<p>Certain universities and programs are better leverage than others for getting into certain fields, there is also the natural push to do what your peers are doing/what the university is good at. If you get into both this is a factor to be considered.</p>

<p>I definitely agree with you. People who go to Stanford with the idea of studying engineering and some day going into entrepreneurship will get there money's worth. In fact, I was a Stanford hopeful but was rejected SCEA. Though the preparation might be a bit better at Stanford due to the environment and location, M&T won't do a shabby job I would presume.</p>

<p>"M&T won't do a shabby job I would presume."</p>

<p>no, but M&T doesn't do a significantly better job than most other top places. Technology entrepreneurship is dependent much more on engineering than business at least initially. Penn engineering isn't particularly famous for this, in fact a sizable portion of Penn seas (like Columbia seas) is lured into wall street jobs. Can someone provide an example of a recent, marginally successful tech start-up by an M&T grad, because the program at least of paper is partly geared towards this. I'm not challenging as much as I am curious.</p>

<p>I see your point confidentialcoll. Just wondering, but are you suggessting that it might be better to go to a school like Michigan which has a top engineering program and a top business program if your planning on starting a tech-firm. Like I said, I'm dissapointed that Stanford didn't take me but I have to move on. </p>

<p>Its a decision I have to make in the coming weeks and I'd love to hear what you have to say. </p>

<p>Suprisingly, though, my dad's logic goes against your's. According to him, a business education is equally or even more important than the engineering one. (He's an MIT grad but didn't study any business. Also runs a medium-size business that does fairly well). He always tells me that he regrets not taking business classes in his college years. Marketing is extremely important according to him, and a top-notch biz school such as Wharton would give you a great marketing education. </p>

<p>Initially, coming up with a product can be a tedious task, but if you think about, what you do with that product and how you plan to develop and market it can be even more difficult.</p>

<p>If you want to start a high tech company without any engineering background, coming up with a product is not a tedious task, it's impossible. You would have to rely on others create the product, which will no doubt make them question why they need you in the first place. </p>

<p>Also, without an engineering background, you won't understand the technology or possible applications of your product. You can't market something you don't fully understand. </p>

<p>Obviously the same is not true for all industries, but there's a reason that the vast majority of high tech companies are started by engineers.</p>

<p>your dad, probably said that because after MIT he had his engineering very grounded and understood perfectly well what he was doing (it was probably a good idea that he came up for the business with also). Initially you need a great idea like Microsoft and Google, there's no going anywhere without it, beyond that it comes down to marketing, management, financing etc. like Bill Gates and Microsoft, he's always known to be a better businessman than coder. But these are skills that can be learned outside the classroom, some are born with them, they're obviously skills that can be improved inside a classroom. That's basically where i was coming from saying Stanford is the place to be for engineering / tech start-ups, they churn out more successful engineering ideas.</p>

<p>Yes, you both are right, of course you need a very good engineering education. So I guess you're somewhat doubting the strength of the engineering program at Penn.</p>

<p>My bad, I didn't read your posts on the previous page. I thought you meant starting a company with only a business degree vs an engineering degree. </p>

<p>M&T does offer you a great opportunity and set of skills to start a high tech company, but there are a lot of people in that program choose to go the finance route. That does not mean Penn's engineering program is weak, just as the fact that there are few high tech entrepreneurs from MIT does not mean MIT's engineering program is weak.</p>

<p>It's a semi-concrete fact that Ivy engineering is substantially different from engineering at places like Stanford and MIT. They're geared towards different outcomes.</p>

<p>Haha, fun thing is, i've heard that there are a bunch of MIT graduates being lured into jobs on Wall Street (at least over the past few years)</p>

<p>So would you guys recommend M&T for someone who wants to be a technological entrepreneur? Or is it better to go to more of a tech school such as Olin College of Engineering, RPI, Carnegie Mellon, etc. I know some of you have said Stanford would be best but unfortunately I did not apply to Stanford and I was rejected to MIT.</p>

<p>Thanks for the insight.</p>

<p>nrg, I'm hoping to be technology entrepreneur in the future and at the moment, M&T is my top choice. I was also rejected from MIT and also Stanford</p>

<p>Not everyone can get into Stanford/MIT...so don't think that those are the only successful students out there. Funny story from my HS: last year someone applied EA to MIT and ED to Penn w/ M&T and alternate choice of SEAS. She was accepted to MIT, rejected from M&T, and bound to Penn SEAS b/c of the ED. Another guy last year applied EA to Stanford, was outright rejected, then waitlisted from Columbia SEAS in the RD round, and all set to go to Rutgers when Columbia finally took him off the waitlist. So my point is that most people seem to prefer name recognition over strength of an engineering program (neither Penn nor Columbia are really highly regarded for engineering, but still manage to produce very successful alumni). Even this year, among the MIT applicants from my school (every single one of which was rejected...which is just insane seeing as we got 3 in last year), most of them have Columbia SEAS as their second choice. Our salutatorian applied to Penn for M&T with Wharton as his alternate choice as well as MIT. Predictably, he was rejected from MIT, rejected from M&T, and now heading to Wharton. I suppose he might consider double majoring after he finishes freshman year. Then there are schools like UW - Madison, UIUC, Georgia Tech, VTech, RPI, etc which are certainly better tech schools than the Ivies but not usually on the list of these prospective MIT/Stanford applicants. Why? Because in the end, it's all about two things: a student's individual capacity for success and the name of the school you come from.</p>

<p>nj azn, so you would definitely recommend going for name recognition over say a tech school which is ranked a little higher than the name school? Thats what I've been thinking. Right now my first choice is Penn M&T or regular SEAS, then Columbia SEAS, then Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. Thank you for your insight.</p>

<p>Does anyone else agree or disagree with that?</p>

<p>Toomuchpressure, hopefully we'll both get in and I'll see you there.</p>

<p>^Yes that sounds like a good plan.</p>