<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t hesitate taking Yale SOM over Haas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither would I. But, more importantly, I wouldn’t hesitate to ignore RML’s absurdity–and I don’t. (Not that anyone at this point pays any attention to whatever RML says, but just saying…)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t hesitate to ignore wildflower’s absurdity–and I don’t. (Not that anyone at this point pays any attention to whatever wildflower says, but just saying…) lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Will that make Yale SOM superior to Berkeley-Haas? lol</p>
<p>Let me tell you what. What you think is better does not matter here. What matters here are the facts. Not what you think. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better than what you think? Why thank you.</p>
<p>I wrote: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, RML replied (if that can be call a ‘reply’ and not another act of absurdity and childishness):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proves my point.</p>
<p>Then, Wildflower replied (if that can be call a ‘reply’ and not another act of absurdity and childishness):</p>
<p>Proves my point.</p>
<p>“Better than what you think? Why thank you.”</p>
<p>Please read the whole paragraph. Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does matter because it sounds like you haven’t been around enough high-caliber MBA candidates to have an idea where they apply and where they enroll and continue to resort to UG thinking; being more concerned about this year’s acceptance rate and avg GMAT and making a big deal between a 12% acceptance rate and a 15% acceptance rate and a 712 and 714 GMAT. These things are not what determines admissions and are not what make one business school regarded as better than another. Berkeley has a higher GMAT and lower acceptance rate than Wharton and Kellogg too but it doesn’t make the latter lesser schools than Berkeley either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, people who actually have top MBAs and work with those who do as well, in addition to recruiting from these schools to appreciate the differences in comparison to RML, who has none of this context and doesn’t seem like he’s even from this country to have any real understanding of the nuances between the schools.</p>
<p>Anyone tried ranking the FT ranking by “salary today”. That is the average alumni salary three years after graduating. Probably this is imperfect, but it does offer some interesting stats. For ex, Yale is > than Haas or Kellogg (can’t say I’m surprised). Michigan is terrible (again this makes sense). Not sure what’s up with HBS at #4 tho.</p>
<p>3 year average rank School name Country Salary today(US$)</p>
<p>4 Stanford University GSB U.S.A. 173,935
1 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton U.S.A. 170,210
3 Columbia Business School U.S.A. 168,073
4 Harvard Business School U.S.A. 164,783
12 Dartmouth College: Tuck U.S.A. 158,089
10 MIT Sloan School of Management U.S.A. 155,811
9 University of Chicago: Booth U.S.A. 154,340
6 Insead France / Singapore 148,490
10 New York University: Stern U.S.A. 147,784
14 IMD Switzerland 147,655
3 London Business School U.K. 147,134
- Indian School of Business India 145,727
24 UCLA: Anderson U.S.A. 144,949
65 University of Cape Town GSB South Africa 143,693
15 Yale School of Management U.S.A. 142,948
21 Northwestern University: Kellogg U.S.A. 142,378
29 University of California at Berkeley: Haas U.S.A. 138,422
19 University of Oxford: Sa</p>
<p>^^^ at first blush seems like a decent “back of the envelope” ranking.</p>
<p>H / W / S and Columbia in the Top 4 (just as I had argued earlier). Then Tuck, MIT, Chicago, INSEAD, NYU, IMD, LBS. That’s a pretty decent top 10 (aside from NYU, but I think the obvious regional bias explains a lot of that). Yale is ahead of Haas (and Kellogg) but again, regional bias prolly explains a lot of that as well – but Kellogg being squarely outside the Top 10 – this again backs up my earlier claims that it is generally pretty overrated.</p>
<p>^A regional bias is probably why Columbia comes out in front of Harvard too. Otherwise, that seems like a pretty accurate ranking to me. </p>
<p>It’s surprising that Indian School of Business would be #12 in salary. Not too many of their grads must be getting jobs in India to be coming out that high.</p>
<p>the_prestige,</p>
<p>Please look at the recruiter assessmet by USN; Kellogg is among the very top in terms of peer/recruiter assessment and employment placement rate. I don’t see you draw a quick conclusion out of it for some reason. </p>
<p>Anyone that has taken basic statistics should already know nothing can be concluded from the small salary differences among the top schools given how salary depends a lot on the industry and geographical location. What industries were chosen at what %? Marketing, consulting, or investment banking and other financial services? If you live in LA/NYC and you earn just few thousands or even 20K more than your buddy in Chicago, you may actually be poorer than your buddy.</p>
<p>Please bring us some more sophisticated analysis because frankly, I am tired of coming here to point out all those obvious flaws. Honestly, I do expect a lot more from a Yale grad and I am sure you can do a much better job if you can set aside your strong bias.</p>
<p>Sam, take it easy man. </p>
<p>1) It isn’t “my” ranking, someone else posted that sorted list
2) I did say “back of the envelope” at the very outset of my post. Perhaps you don’t understand what that means – again, it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less
3) If anyone has a major bias, take a hard look in the mirror. Nothing sets you off more than a small dig at Northwestern. It’s just one guy’s opinion, nothing less, nothing more.
4) I didn’t go to Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it really surprise you though? The top IT related jobs (be it consulting, programming, engineering, etc.) go to a disproportionate number of Indians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but still better than Cornell or Duke: 2 schools that I have great difficulty accepting as elite (that is, top-10) schools.</p>
<p>Regarding salary rankings, would you say that schools that have a higher proportion of students going into banking have higher average salaries?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it does because most people with an MBA aren’t going into IT-related jobs; especially programming or engineering. In many cases, that’s why they’re getting an MBA is to get away from the fields.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone on here was saying that Cornell and Duke were top 10 MBA schools. Personally, I’ve always thought of them as in the #11-15 range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To an extent, but I don’t think IB salaries are materially different than consulting, PE, VC, HF, IM in the first couple years. It would be more than marketing and some other roles and after the first few years would be more than consulting and probably the average of HF, VC, PE, IM but maybe not the top 10% in those sectors.</p>
<p>This thread is an abomination, but:
I think this board has already covered recruiter-driven assessments ad-nauseam. As sakky explains more eloquently than I can, such a poll has a ton of bias in it because the students that are most “attractive” to recruiters are the ones with fewer opportunities, and who have a greater propensity to accept any given offer they receive. They may not be the most talented or capable students, because such a more-talented student would have many more opportunities and will thus be very demanding in terms of job function and compensation.</p>
<p>In a parallel universe, if MBA students were subject to an NFL-style or NBA-style “draft” where companies could get them, at predefined pay scales, automatically upon selection, then perhaps recruiters’ preferences would mirror the effectiveness of each MBA program. In such a universe, I have little doubt that Harvard and Stanford graduates would go first. But in a world where students have tremendous control over for whom they work after graduation, such a system isn’t possible, and recruiters’ preferences provide no really useful data for prospective students to follow.</p>
<p>Sooo Stanford grads make 31k more than Kellogg grads bc they’re bankers in LA/NYC??? I don’t think so…</p>
<p>I have a very good understanding of basic (and advanced) statistics, and many of these differences are indeed statistically significant.</p>
<p>As I said these ratings are imperfect (regional bias certainly does factor), but a few stats in here are pretty telling.</p>