<p>I'm thinking about attending Stanford for MBA in a few years. What do you guys know about the admissions process, student life, atmosphere, etc. at the business school?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/</a></p>
<p>If you're looking for the best MBA program - consider Chicago. Only a Wharton MBA rivals a Chicago MBA...nothing else comes close.</p>
<p>I know the top two are Wharton and Chicago (Chicago especially if you're concentration is in Finance/Economics) but for the ideal combination of weather, location, atmosphere, academics, etc. I truly believe Stanford is the best school in the world. It's my dream to come here one day. My second choice is Duke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're looking for the best MBA program - consider Chicago. Only a Wharton MBA rivals a Chicago MBA...nothing else comes close
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's an interesting statement considering that Chicago GSB routinely loses cross-admits to HBS and Stanford. HBS, in particularly, has a 90+% yield, far higher than any other B-school. I suspect that numerous people at Chicago GSB (including several of my friends) would rather be going to HBS, but didn't get in, yet relatively few students at HBS would rather be going to Chicago but didn't get in.</p>
<p>^^ yield is often a measure of prestige, not of quality. Chicago also has an undergrad yield in the 30%s, though it's obviously an Ivy-caliber school. Everyone here knows that Chicago lacks prestige but is easily a top-10 school, in many areas (from linguistics to economics).</p>
<p>Business schools care a lot more about yield. </p>
<p>People at the GSB seem to have a really great experience there. They are one of the few groups of graduate students who seem to have time to have fun, too.</p>
<p>sure, HBS has got its name and prestige, but if we are concerned about quality and success after school, I believe Chicago provides a similar foundation as does Harvard/Wharton/Stanford. A Chicago degree is usually results in awe</p>
<p>The "Accidential Investment Banker" describes SBS as the Yale Law School of business schools. Very appropriate - small, non-competitive, very intellectual as far as BSchools go, diverse class with a bent towards entrepreneurial and nontrad interests. Ok Bschool campus but gorgeous university campus. </p>
<p>Admissions - </p>
<p>obviously the hardest to get into of all the top schools. It's been that way for the last 25 years. Moreover, Stanford has the lowest volatility of total applications of the top 10 schools (ie, apps may go down, but not to the same extent of H or P (Wharton) or M or K. </p>
<p>Very selective; Interviews and a few VERY important essay questions. Appl process is focused on finding out what you want to do with the degree, showing what vision you have for your future. The GSB wants doers and ground breakers, not people who simply want to trade up in the corporate world. </p>
<p>Student Life/Atmosphere - relaxed, non-competitive environment. Life happens on campus and off (homes in the hills above Silicon Valley with hot tubs, gardens, etc. - the myths are true)</p>
<p>Lots of independent study, consulting gigs nearby. Can spend time with local start ups and VCs too.</p>
<p>Other -</p>
<p>School loves joint degree applicants and programs. Stanford overall is very interdisciplinary. Gives students lots of freedom to do what they want to do.
The new curriculum will only reinforce that approach.</p>
<p>Competition -</p>
<p>Harvard. Better name, worse experience. Huge alum network + but Boston winters + huge class + case study method for all classes + bitter "chip shots" in class. The only place Stanford looses candidates to and visa versa. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania (Wharton). Great name. Broader academically than H or S. Very diverse student population. A bit more relaxed than H but not as much as S. </p>
<p>All other schools are meaningfully less prestigious than the triumvirate -</p>
<p>Columbia - very NYC, Wall Street focused
MIT - top notch, hard core quant (what else would you expect)
Chicago - extremely good school, much better than Northwestern in my view
Yale - strong in finance, strategy; low rankings but it is YALE
Northwestern (Kellogg) - very good, but I think a bit overrated</p>
<p>Key metric - where does McKinsey/Bain/BCG or Goldman/Morgan Stanley or Google/Apple go to hire???? Their top picks are S H P (W). That tells you alot</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ yield is often a measure of prestige, not of quality. Chicago also has an undergrad yield in the 30%s, though it's obviously an Ivy-caliber school. Everyone here knows that Chicago lacks prestige but is easily a top-10 school, in many areas (from linguistics to economics).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yield is, by definition, a measure of desirability. Despite Chicago's undisputed strengths, Chicago has a number of weaknesses - the most prominent one being that it has a well-trod reputation for not being a particularly fun school to be at. All other things equal, why go through a grind if you don't have to? If you can get a top quality education * and * have an (relatively) enjoyable time, why not take it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
sure, HBS has got its name and prestige, but if we are concerned about quality and success after school, I believe Chicago provides a similar foundation as does Harvard/Wharton/Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's not what you said. What you said in post #3 is that, apart from Wharton, nothing comes close to Chicago GSB. Now you're saying that Chicago provides a similar foundation. That's quite a big difference. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A Chicago degree is usually results in awe
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More so than a Harvard degree? Or a Stanford degree? Or an MIT degree?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "Accidential Investment Banker" describes SBS as the Yale Law School of business schools. Very appropriate - small, non-competitive, very intellectual as far as BSchools go, diverse class with a bent towards entrepreneurial and nontrad interests. Ok Bschool campus but gorgeous university campus
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the analogy breaks down in a crucial way. YLS has a significant edge in terms of desirability (read:yield) over any other law school. But Stanford GSB does not have a desirability edge over all other B-schools, and in particular, does not hold an edge over HBS. Stanford's yield is something like 80% or so, whereas HBS's is around 90%. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Key metric - where does McKinsey/Bain/BCG or Goldman/Morgan Stanley or Google/Apple go to hire???? Their top picks are S H P (W). That tells you alot
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, these days, none of these companies are the truly most desirable of MBA employers. The true plums in the mix are the swashbucklers in private equity or hedge funds. Venture capital had its day in the late 90's and is still quite desirable, but not as much as PE or HF is these days. </p>
<p>And the truth of the matter is, HBS is, frankly, a better place to be for PE or HF than Stanford is. Wharton is probably HBS's closest competitor in this sphere. Stanford is strong, don't get me wrong, but HBS is still where PE and HF is largely centered.</p>
<p>As a case in point, I happen to know a business doctoral student whose topic of focus is the sociological organization of the PE industry. He chose HBS for his doctoral studies for one simple reason - he intends to leverage the HBS alumni network throughout the PE industry to get his data. If you need to leverage the PE network, HBS is the place to do it. </p>
<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I like Stanford. Some of my friends went to Stanford. Stanford is a fantastic school, no doubt. All I'm saying is that HBS is pretty good too.</p>
<p>Sakky - your points are interesting but off base. </p>
<p>Re your responses to my post, 1) i didnt make the analogy bwtn SBS and YLS, the book did. Nor does the book really explain the analogy, so I listed my thoughts on the it's validity. And in that regard, it's spot on.</p>
<p>YLS is indisputably the top of the law school universe although it's not a head on competitor fot H or C or N or P. Y produces lots of policy/government/theory types (via the most intellectual school + selective process in the field). Stanford Law is kind of similar, but not are purely intellectual as Yale.</p>
<p>Stanford (like all Bschools) is commerce oriented. If any of the top schools have strong policy/nonprofit angles, it would be Stanford and to a lesser extent Yale.</p>
<p>2) Re yield, *** :-) Stanford has had the #2 yield among top schools for decades and HBS has been #1. Likewise, Stanford has been the most selective for decades and HBS has been #2. These two schools loose students to eachother and VERY occasionally to other places. All that says is that they are the top two in the triumvirate which includes Penn (Wharton). [for the record, please refer to exhibit A - my earlier post]</p>
<p>RE employers, you point has a bit of validity but not much relevance given that few PE shops or hedge funds hire MBAs right out of school and the aggregate numbers hired are small. Compared to what the top Ibanks recruit (hundreds per year) or the top corporates or tech firms, PE/VC/HF shouldn't be a critical decisioning factor re Bschools. Once an MBA has landed at a great place, established his reputation and built contacts, it's easier to transition to one of these principal investing shops. </p>
<p>And BTW I dispute whether Wharton places better than Stanford in those areas. Either way, the point is kind of moot since pound for pound, S and H own the field anyway.</p>
<p>Overall, please stop trying to pump up Harvard. THe OP has asked about the environment at the Stanford GSB. IF you want Crimson, post on that part of the board.</p>
<p>"Yield is, by definition, a measure of desirability."</p>
<p>If prestige makes a college desirable, then yes.</p>
<p>"Despite Chicago's undisputed strengths, Chicago has a number of weaknesses - the most prominent one being that it has a well-trod reputation for not being a particularly fun school to be at."</p>
<p>I'm not arguing about the reasons for Chicago's lack of prestige -- I'm simply saying, yield isn't something to go by.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford (like all Bschools) is commerce oriented. If any of the top schools have strong policy/nonprofit angles, it would be Stanford and to a lesser extent Yale
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to beg to differ. And so do the rankings:</p>
<p>USNews, Premium Edition, 2007, Business Schools - Nonprofit subcategory:</p>
<ol>
<li> Yale University (CT) </li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> Northwestern University (Kellogg) (IL) </li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor (Ross)<br></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
RE employers, you point has a bit of validity but not much relevance given that few PE shops or hedge funds hire MBAs right out of school and the aggregate numbers hired are small
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't that I can agree that this point does not hold much relevance. Let's face it. In recent years, PE and HF firms are EXACTLY what many (probably most) elite B-school students want. Speaking specifically about PE, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the overwhelming majority of students at HBS are members of the private equity club and have expressed tremendous interest in joining PE. The same is also certainly true of hedge funds. Now, I agree with you that only a minority of students will get PE or HF offers. But that's really the point. The point is what students WANT as opposed to what students will actually get. </p>
<p>I think a proper analogy here would be to look at the number of college football players who will make it to the NFL. Obviously only a infinitesimal percentage of all of the college football players in the country will make it, and even if we're talking about those schools that are "NFL factories", only a minority of players at those schools will make it. But I don't think that makes the point less relevant. If anything, it probably makes it MORE relevant. When the odds are so small, then anything that helps you to boost your chances is desirable, even if your resultant chances are still relatively small. Aspring players know this, which is why they strongly prefer to attend colleges that are known NFL-factory schools. After all, if nothing else, you will be able to tell yourself that you gave yourself the betst possible odds to make it to the NFL by playing for one of those schools, and if you still don't make it, fine, at least you gave it your best shot. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Compared to what the top Ibanks recruit (hundreds per year) or the top corporates or tech firms, PE/VC/HF shouldn't be a critical decisioning factor re Bschools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that this serves to reinforce my point above. After all, we are talking about schools like HBS and Wharton. It's not like MBA grads from these schools are exactly hurting for jobs if they don't make it to PE/VC/HF. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Overall, please stop trying to pump up Harvard. THe OP has asked about the environment at the Stanford GSB. IF you want Crimson, post on that part of the board.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I wasn't the one who brought it up first. It was brought up by other people (implicitly). When people say that School X is better than any other school out there, that implicitly invokes all other schools out there. And besides, you're continuing to bring HBS up (posts #9 and #12). And you're complaining that I'm bringing it up? </p>
<p>Look, it's one thing for people say that Stanford has attributes X,Y, and Z without making any other reference to any other school. That would be fine. But when people claim that Stanford is better relative to HBS on various metrics, those claims become fair game.</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>Point by point:</p>
<p>Nonprofit and public management -- nice snapshot, but historically Stanford and Yale have led the charge in this area among the business schools. Harvard, Columbia and Michigan have also been near the top, but not at the top.</p>
<p>Just for fun, I'll trade you another ranking:</p>
<p>From "Beyond Pinstripes" (which is far more transparent than US News)
The Measures</p>
<p>The ranking assesses schools across four criteria:</p>
<p>Student Opportunity (25%): measures the number of courses with social and environmental content
Student Exposure (25%): indicates the percentage of course time dedicated to considering social and environmental issues
Content (25%): reflects the degree to which courses illustrate the value of integrating social and environmental considerations into business decisions
Research (25%): is indicative of the number of relevant articles published in leading peer-reviewed management journals
Rank University Location Student
Opportunity Student
Exposure Content Faculty Research </p>
<p>1 Stanford USA<br>
2 ESADE Spain<br>
3 York (Schulich) Canada<br>
4 ITESM (EGADE) Mexico<br>
5 Notre Dame (Mendoza) USA<br>
6 George Washington USA<br>
7 Michigan (Ross) USA<br>
8 North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler) USA<br>
9 Cornell (Johnson) USA<br>
10 Wake Forest (Babcock) USA<br>
11 UC Berkeley (Haas) USA<br>
12 Nottingham UK<br>
13 Virginia (Darden) USA<br>
14 Western Ontario (Ivey) Canada<br>
15 Boston College USA<br>
16 Erasmus (Rotterdam) Netherlands<br>
17 Colorado (Leeds) USA<br>
18 New Mexico (Anderson) USA<br>
19 Asian Institute of Management (SyCip) Philippines<br>
20 Portland State USA<br>
21 Yale USA </p>
<p>Re PE/HF/VC:</p>
<p>My point still stands. MBA applicants should go to the top ranked schools that fit their personality and interests. It's great if those schools are big long term feeders into the principal investing world (a la Stanford, Harvard, Penn).</p>
<p>But it's not very wise to make a Bschool choice primarily based on employment trends 5-7 years out of school. A kick ass performer from Chicago or Columbia or MIT can make his/her way into principal investing as good as anyone from S/H/P. A school's name/network is helpful, but principal investing wants top performers more than anything else.</p>
<p>Finally, Sakky at least have the b*lls to admit you're trolling for Harvard. Come on.....your post strains credibility. No one in this thread is bashing H implicitly or explicitly. And discussing the virtues of Stanford isn't putting down other schools. Only the thin skinned or insecure would take that point of view. </p>
<p>Again, if you want to convince to OP to go to H, then do that. Don't lauch stealth attacks against Stanford because you prefer Cambridge. </p>
<hr>
<p>For the OP, my advice, is talk to as many alums as you can to get a sense of how happy they were there and what the MBA degree has done for them professionally.</p>
<p>Also, visit if you can. Get a sense of the faculty's accessibility, student life and the facilities. That will help you make an educated choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Point by point:</p>
<p>Nonprofit and public management -- nice snapshot, but historically Stanford and Yale have led the charge in this area among the business schools. Harvard, Columbia and Michigan have also been near the top, but not at the top.</p>
<p>Just for fun, I'll trade you another ranking:</p>
<p>From "Beyond Pinstripes" (which is far more transparent than US News)
The Measures</p>
<p>The ranking assesses schools across four criteria:</p>
<p>Student Opportunity (25%): measures the number of courses with social and environmental content
Student Exposure (25%): indicates the percentage of course time dedicated to considering social and environmental issues
Content (25%): reflects the degree to which courses illustrate the value of integrating social and environmental considerations into business decisions
Research (25%): is indicative of the number of relevant articles published in leading peer-reviewed management journals
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, we weren't talking about "social and environmental" issues previously. We were talking about nonprofit/policy, of which social/environmental issues are just a subset. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. There are plenty of nonprofits out there that almost certainly do not qualify for high marks in a 'social and environmental' measure. As a case in point, consider the American Petroleum Institute, which is basically the trade group that represents the oil industry. I doubt that anybody would seriously consider the API to be the vanguard of social or environmental change, nor do they pretend to be. They're an industry trade group that is out to represent their constituents, just like any other industry trade group. But they're still nonprofit organizations and still engage in deep policy analysis and advocacy. That is there raison d'etre, after all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, Sakky at least have the b*lls to admit you're trolling for Harvard. Come on.....your post strains credibility. No one in this thread is bashing H implicitly or explicitly. And discussing the virtues of Stanford isn't putting down other schools. Only the thin skinned or insecure would take that point of view.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come now. If I'm "trolling" for HBS, then you're similarly trolling for Stanford. I am actually quite neutral towards HBS. </p>
<p>And you really want to argue that nobody is bashing HBS? How about the statement of "If you're looking for the best MBA program - consider Chicago. Only a Wharton MBA rivals a Chicago MBA...nothing else comes close.", in post #3? Isn't that an implicit bash on HBS right there - that it doesn't even come close to Chicago? I think that's a pretty black-and-white bash right there. So how exactly am I "straining credibility"? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, if you want to convince to OP to go to H, then do that. Don't lauch stealth attacks against Stanford because you prefer Cambridge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that the OP should necessarily go to H over S, nor do I necessarily think that he should. I agree with you that he should make a balanced and informed choice. Maybe that means picking H over S. Maybe it doesn't. </p>
<p>And what of these "stealth attacks"? Have I said anything factually wrong about Stanford? In fact, I like Stanford a lot. </p>
<p>However, I do believe that people should be able to read a wide variety of opinions. Why even have a discussion board if you can't read a wide variety of opinions?</p>
<p>"Oh come now. If I'm "trolling" for HBS, then you're similarly trolling for Stanford. I am actually quite neutral towards HBS. --</p>
<p>Nope. I'm a Stanford alum who gave the OP my views on the Stanford experience, answering the questions which were asked. Not boosting the GSB, just providing info.</p>
<p>And you are certainly not neutral on HBS. You claim the Chicago/Wharton statement was H bashing, but the more neutral way to describe it was Chicago boosting. EVERY other bschool alum could have taken offense, but only you did and only for H. While I found it curious, the statement was one person's opinion. I focused on answered the OP which few people on here have done. </p>
<p>YOU focused on defending/trumpeting Harvard with several spurious statements. </p>
<p>Do everyone a favor - if you want neutral info, provide such (rankings, school summaries, statistics, etc). And don't boost H or bash others. </p>
<p>However, if you aren't neutral as you claim (which is rather evident from your rantings) them please say so and post your little heart away with the virtues of HBS> but do it on another site, where someone has actually asked for that dribble.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nope. I'm a Stanford alum who gave the OP my views on the Stanford experience, answering the questions which were asked. Not boosting the GSB, just providing info
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I too am just providing info. If you don't like the info, feel free to not read it. I don't have a gun to your head. But let the people who want to read it be allowed to read it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And you are certainly not neutral on HBS. You claim the Chicago/Wharton statement was H bashing, but the more neutral way to describe it was Chicago boosting. EVERY other bschool alum could have taken offense, but only you did and only for H. While I found it curious, the statement was one person's opinion. I focused on answered the OP which few people on here have done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am using H as an example. I could have invoked a slew of other B-schools, but I think H was the clearest one, otherwise, I could have easily gotten into the muck of trying to having to argue whether Chicago was really better or worse than, say, Columbia. Why risk having to do that when you can just use a single clean example? </p>
<p>
[quote]
YOU focused on defending/trumpeting Harvard with several spurious statements. </p>
<p>Do everyone a favor - if you want neutral info, provide such (rankings, school summaries, statistics, etc). And don't boost H or bash others. </p>
<p>
[quote]
YOU focused on defending/trumpeting Harvard with several spurious statements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you believe I have made spurious statements, then feel free to identify them, and we can ascertain what the truth really is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do everyone a favor - if you want neutral info, provide such (rankings, school summaries, statistics, etc). And don't boost H or bash others. </p>
<p>However, if you aren't neutral as you claim (which is rather evident from your rantings) them please say so and post your little heart away with the virtues of HBS> but do it on another site, where someone has actually asked for that dribble.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, YOU do everyone a favor and stop telling other people what they can and cannot say. You're not a censor, you're not a mod, so what gives you the right to tell others what they can write? Last time I checked, I have the right to freedom of speech, which means that I can post whatever I want, as long as it is within the terms of service. Like I said, if you don't like it, fine, don't read it. Nobody has a gun to your head. </p>
<p>You can post whatever you want, and I can post whatever I want. I don't tell you what can post. Don't tell me what I can post.</p>
<p>The honorable and appropriate thing to do is answer the question from the original post. The OP simply wants to know about the environment at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Not Harvard, not Penn not Columbia. And if you are compelled to add text about other schools, there are much more sophisticated and thoughtful ways to do so (compared to how you write).</p>
<p>Ultimately, the information for the OP is what matters. We're supposedly all here to share information which answers people's posts. That's what C Confidential is all about and why it's a step above other college boards. </p>
<p>Answering the OP should be straight forward....it's just not that hard. The reason you can't do that is because you have absolutely nothing of value to add to the OP's question. </p>
<p>You are simply trolling for HBS. Please be an adult and admit that fact.</p>
<p>Then PLEASE stop posting. Thanks very much.</p>
<p>** It's very simple r&b**</p>
<p>DO NOT tell me what to do. Do it again, and I will take it up with the mods. Since you apparently seem to not believe in the principle of freedom of speech, why don't you, as you say, "be an adult" and admit that fact? </p>
<p>You don't like my posts? You don't think they add value? Fine. The answer is simple. Don't read them. Simple as that. Other people don't have to read them either. But am I perfectly free to post whatever I want. You have no right to tell anybody else what they can and cannot post. Try it again, and I'll bring in the mods. </p>
<p>Besides, I would venture to say that at least 75% of all threads in CC deviate from the original question. This one certainly did. For example, did PennPenn's response directly answer the original question? I don't think so. Yet I don't see you harrassing him about it. Why not? In fact, the only reason I got into this thread was because of what PennPenn said. If you don't like my presence in this thread, then rather than take it up with me, you should take it up with the person whose post brought me into the thread. Take it up with the person who caused the thread to deviate in the first place. But you won't do it. What's up with that? So I guess it's alright for HIM to make a deviation by discussing a sub-branch topic, but not alright for others to discuss that new topic. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is this. You don't have the right to tell people what they can post. It's that simple.</p>