I’m stuck between these schools and can’t really decide. Cost wise, UCLA is about 15k more expensive per year, which is a small factor. I like both schools but i’m not too sure because UCLA doesn’t have a business school, but rather a business-economics major (economics+management+Accounting) ,while UMD has Smith. Is it a better idea to get an undergrad business school degree (smith) or to get an undergrad LAC business economics degree if I want to get on the Consulting/IB route. I know grades/internships are as important as the school, but is UCLA worth going to, knowing that i sacrifice my opportunity to go to Smith? Also, what is the job recruitment like for Consulting/financial analysts/IB at either school?
Thanks!
Any advice is appreciated
bump
I can tell you a lot of recruiters hire from Smith. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago that listed UMD among the top schools recruited from for business. But I know almost nothing about UCLA, so I can’t compare them. If you want to work on the east coast, UMD might be better. West coast, maybe UCLA? I really don’t know. Good luck.
UCLA is ranked better, there is no debating that. Now if you want to work in investment banking or high Finance I suggest UCLA because the extra cost will be worth it. Smith does not place well in IB. However, if you want to do anything else, I suggest UMD.
@McIntireguy123, even though UCLA only has an econ degree, is that still better than smith for IB?
Absolutely. For IB its the prestige of the school that matters. IBs recruit heavily from HYP and I dont think they have undergrad business programs.