<p>The top 2 are pretty much agreed upon. The third is debatable but most will lean to a certain school. What, in your opinion, is the 4th best ALL-AROUND (i.e. no posts saying it depends on this or that) business school in the US? Give a reason why if you want, particularly what sets it apart from other contenders for the spot.</p>
<p>i'm curious as to which school you are referring to as being a "debatable" 3rd? </p>
<p>HBS / Wharton / Stanford are the undisputed big three. the fact that you are asking which is the "4th best b-school" only serves to re-emphasis this fact.</p>
<p>and to answer your question, I'd say Columbia or MIT.</p>
<p>I would say that Wharton is #3 with some distance behind Harvard and Stanford. I knew many in my MBA class that would be in the #4-8 range that were accepted at Wharton but didn't go, but none that were accepted to Harvard or Stanford. It's funny because I would generally say that MIT and Columbia are #7 and #8 on that list. I think for the combo of acceptance rate, avg GMAT, avg salary that Tuck would be #4 but that Kellogg is generally ranked higher in BW, USNWR and may only have a higher acceptance rate, lower avg salary because it is in the midwest and less students go into IB, MC from there and is generally regarded a little more highly, is a little more known and probbaly wins more cross-admit battles; so overall, I would consider Kellogg to be #4. </p>
<p>However, I have seen so many random admissions results of people accepted at Wharton, rejected at Tuck and MIT; accepted at Kellogg, rejected at Wharton and Tuck and accepted at Tuck, W/L at Wharton and Kellogg, that I don't think there is any really clear pecking order. From what I have seen, one thing that is consistent is the only ones I've seen going to UChicago didn't get into any of the other top 7. Someone posted a stat on here a little while ago showing 15% of Harvard and Stanford going into PE, 8% going into PE out of Wharton and 6% going into PE out of Kellogg, Tuck, UChicago, MIT, Columbia. To me, that is the accurate relative pecking order.</p>
<p>^^^ i wholly disagree that there is a "some distance" between Wharton and H/S. Whatever distance there may be (if any) it certainly isn't as large as the big 3 vs. the rest of the US MBA programs. In finance circles, for instance, Wharton is still the place to be. For b-schools HWS = HYP. Period.</p>
<p>Kellogg is overrated IMO, particularly by Businessweek (same goes for Chicago). I agree that Tuck is probably underrated in general. But for my money outside of H/W/S, if I had to pick, I'd go with Columbia or MIT, probably in that order and then possibly Chicago, Tuck (even though its not an M7 school) and then Kellogg (hence making it #8 on my US list)-- but my bias is influenced by my having spent a large portion of my career overseas (in Europe and in Asia) so, again, anyone can make a credible argument for any of those schools from #4-7 either way. Having said that you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that any of those schools would legitimately replace HWS -- and this is the point. But strictly speaking b-schools in general on a global scale, outside of H/W/S, one could also make a very reasonable argument placing one of the top international b-schools such as INSEAD / IMD / LBS on par with any of the schools #4-7 as well (hence further distancing H/W/S from the crowd). For instance, if I were a prospective MBA student today and had to choose a b-school outside of HWS and I had aspirations for pursuing an international career, I'd choose INSEAD (which has one of the strongest reputations in Europe and Asia PLUS you have the option of taking classes at Wharton via the Wharton-INSEAD alliance) over Kellogg in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>harvard or bust bro</p>
<p>sigh</p>
<p>From my perspective, the credentials of my friends and colleagues that went to Wharton were not as strong as those that went to Stanford or Harvard and the acceptance rate when I was applying at Wharton was the same or within 1% as Kellogg, Tuck, MIT, Columbia, while Stanford and Harvard were a cut above and this is coming from someone that works in finance. I don't know what an M7 school means but I think the mentality of Stanford, Harvard, Wharton or don't bother existed for my Dad's generation but isn't as applicable any more. Curiously, he also thought Columbia was considered #4; however, until the mid-90s, its acceptance rate was still ~ 50%. It's funny that my #4-8 would be the exact opposite of yours. </p>
<p>I don't know anything about the relative merits of INSEAD but would grant you that Kellogg and Tuck are both relatively stronger in the US than abroad; even though both schools have 30%+ international students. Aren't INSEAD, IMD, LBS not getting close to the same caliber of student as any of the #4-8 U.S. schools? Aren't their GMAT avg for example below even schools like UVA, Duke, Cornell?</p>
<p>^^^ which is precisely why I am partial to Columbia / MIT for the #4 slot. Both those schools enjoy reputations which travel exceedingly well inside the US and internationally.</p>
<p>p.s. your old man sounds like my kinda guy... i admit i am very "old school" in many ways.</p>
<p>Kellogg is #4.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aren't INSEAD, IMD, LBS not getting close to the same caliber of student as any of the #4-8 U.S. schools? Aren't their GMAT avg for example below even schools like UVA, Duke, Cornell?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here are some basic stats:</p>
<p>FT's Global MBA Ranking 2009:
Business</a> school rankings and MBA rankings from the Financial Times</p>
<p>Businessweek
Business</a> School Rankings and Profiles: EMBA, Executive Education, MBA, Part-time MBA, Distance MBA</p>
<p>I couldn't find the GMAT numbers from the FT site, but the Businessweek site did provide GMAT numbers (mean):</p>
<ul>
<li>Chicago: 713</li>
<li>Tuck: 712</li>
<li>Kellogg: 711</li>
<li>MIT: 708</li>
<li>INSEAD: 700</li>
<li>Columbia: (no mean disclosed -- range 660-760)</li>
<li>Duke: 696</li>
<li>Cornell: 694</li>
<li>UVA: 693</li>
</ul>
<p>Not only are INSEAD's GMAT numbers higher than Duke, Cornell and UVA (not the other way around), the weighted salary ($) ranking from the FT site also has INSEAD ranked higher than Kellogg, Duke, Cornell, UVA. But again, its a different market in many ways. If I knew that I was never going to do business in an international setting -- i.e. I never had any intention of leaving the US or doing business outside the US, then obviously we are having a different discussion (e.g. Kellogg would likely rise in my list). The reality is we are in an ever increasing global economy and if I were a potential business school student, international reach and reputation would be an important factor to me.</p>
<p>So, I guess INSEAD is lower than the #4-8 US schools but higher than #11-13 US schools. </p>
<p>Do people in the US know anything about INSEAD? In four Wall St positions, I've never come across anyone from there to even have an opinion.</p>
<p>That's a loaded question as I've already stated from the outset that from a purely US perspective it's a different conversation. At the risk of hijacking this thread from my personal perspective having spent the better part of the last 10-15 years living and working abroad (London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore) I can state that INSEADs rep is as strong as an b-school outside of HWS (and perhaps MIT and Columbia) -- its no. 5 ranking in FT's global MBA rankng is a case and point and it's certainly stronger than Kellogg or Tucks (not to mention that I've come across many more INSEAD grads in my travels - come to think of it I have yet to meet a single Kellog grad overseas and Ive met 1 from Tuck) - so again it depends on your perspective. Back in the States? Different story as I've said a number of times already. </p>
<p>Frankly, I have much more international view on nearly every topic at this point so it prolly won't mesh with a purely US-centric one. Besides outside of HWS my main point was that things are much more wide open for debate nothing less and nothing more.</p>
<p>Are the ones you've met from INSEAD originally from the US or abroad?</p>
<p>I'd say about 3 out of 10 roughly from the US? Which makes sense its student body is the most international of all b-schools. A quick check on their website shows that the class of 09 had 81 countries represented. Btw the average GMAT score on their website for the current class is 704.</p>
<p>I'd say NU-Kellogg.
then Chicago, then Columbia then Berkeley-Haas=MIT-Sloan=Dartmouth-Tuck>Ross=Stern</p>
<p>kellogg is at least four if not higher...</p>
<p>I think after the top 3 it depends on what you intend to do. If forced to choose I would say Kellogg and Columbia, then MIT and chicago, then Tuck. But none of these are that far from the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I couldn't find the GMAT numbers from the FT site, but the Businessweek site did provide GMAT numbers (mean):</p>
<ul>
<li>Chicago: 713</li>
<li>Tuck: 712</li>
<li>Kellogg: 711</li>
<li>MIT: 708</li>
<li>INSEAD: 700</li>
<li>Columbia: (no mean disclosed -- range 660-760)</li>
<li>Duke: 696</li>
<li>Cornell: 694</li>
<li>UVA: 693
[/quote]
</li>
</ul>
<p>It's amazing that the avg GMAT for Kellogg, Tuck, UChicago, MIT, Columbia are all within five points of each other. I think Harvard and Wharton are also in this range too. It almost seems suspicious to me; especially since I've seen some with mid-600 GMATs get into Harvard, Wharton, Kellogg, Tuck and others with mid-700 GMATs get rejected by those schools that it all works out so closely.</p>
<p>GMAT is such a poor measure of B-school selectivity (much less value). it's such a minor aspect of what turns an admissions decision.</p>
<p>agree with Denzera. i remember back in the day when i was applying to b-schools HBS didn't even look at GMATs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
agree with Denzera. i remember back in the day when i was applying to b-schools HBS didn't even look at GMATs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They're still all ~ 15-20 points above the next tier of schools mentioned above (Duke, UVA, Cornell), so there is some correlation between GMAT and selectivity or general reputation. However, it is interesting what you say because UChicago has the highest GMAT of that #4-8 group there and in the time I have been aware of MBA school selectivity, UChicago has historically been the least selective of them. It just is amazing to me how their GMAT avgs work out to be so on top of each other, though.</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard was a holdout that didn't require the GMAT until the late-'90s.</p>