<p>^ It’s probably correlated somewhat, but when you get in the tippy top score ranges, the differences in analytical ability is probably less apparent. </p>
<p>To say Stanford GSB has higher average GMAT scores than Harvard, MIT, Chicago, etc. and claim that their students have better analytical skills is a bit naive. You make it seem so black and white.</p>
<p>The reason Stanford doesn’t have the analytical reputation is because its strengths are not in the analytical business fields (like finance)…Stanford’s strength is its entrepreneurial program - which requires less rigorous analysis. Chicago Booth and Wharton traditionally attract the quant jocks.</p>
<p>As institutions, Yale and Berkeley are in totally different stratospheres. Berkeley is good at a lot of things, even excellent in science. Yale is amazing at almost everything. At the end of the day, Yale is one of the worlds greatest universities/institutions in the world. Others include Harvard/MIT/Princeton/Stanford/Oxford/Cambridge. Berkeley is a good school (excellent in some fields), but not in the same league as the aforementioned. When you tell people that you went to one of the above, it is generally a jaw dropper, people literally do a double take. </p>
<p>Those arguing that Berkeley is superior to Yale are either biased or misinformed.</p>
<p>This is an odd argument to me. I understand that the debate is over which school is the ‘fourth-best’ overall, but we really have not established any objective criteria, which is why I have largely ignored the other debates on which school is “best”.</p>
<p>Business schools are hardly monoliths. There are schools which serve undergrads only, some which serve only graduate students, and some which offer a full range. Some focus on certain specialties, like international business or Accountancy, while others are generalist. And of course we cannot ignore the regional flavor; it is absurd to imagine that a school in New England is going to teach the same way as one in Texas, or as one inf Florida, or one in California, or one in Illinois. Employers also judge candidates regionally; Here in Texas schools from in-state are often preferred to more distant schools. That’s not a knock on any of the schools with strong histories, but at the same time let’s not forget to consider where US News, BusinessWeek, and other publications are based - a certain geographical bias is obvious.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad made one of the best observations in this thread, and as a guy who’s been working for a quarter-century in the real world <a href=“and%20by%20the%20way,%20my%20dad%20went%20to%20Wharton%20but%20found%20out%20it%20does%20not%20impress%20people%20in%20Houston%20as%20much%20as%20a%20UT%20or%20A&M%20grad”>i</a>*, I would strongly advise everyone to test their assumptions.</p>
<p>Consider two students; one goes to a school arguably the #1 school in the country, while the other goes to a school considerd, say, #10. If the student going to the #1 school finishes with a 3.1 GPA while the student at the #10 school finishes with a 4.0, who’s going to get a better job offer? Or what if student 3 goes two years in the military before going to a #15 school, but fininshes top in his class? Do you think that military experience won’t matter to a top employer? Hiring and promotion can be highly subjective, but your school name is just one factor, and one which gradually becomes less and less important next to your actual work and accomplishments.</p>
<p>Other than talking a little slower, how do schools in texas teach differently from those in cali or chicago? What relevant business school serves undergrads only? US News consistently ranks Stanford in the top three because of regional bias? The FT has Wharton #1 bc of regional bias?? (finance bias maybe) Its not a secret that most innovations/businesses/great schools/important things in general come from the two coasts - more specifically cali/the northeast/mid atlantic. These are the country’s knowledge centers, and thus home to the best schools and businesses.</p>
<p>Assuming there is such a thing as good employment in Texas, those looking to go into elite fields do not want to go to second tier schools. There might be some isolated incidents where Texas A&M could be better than Stanford GSB for some people, but these cases would be very few and very far between. Sure some people from west texas regional school of business or whatever will do fine, but this does not mean that the elite schools do not add significant value.</p>
<p>Re the last example; does the middling student from HBS get the better offers or the above average student from Utexas get the better offers? On average it would be the HBS student. Of course experience and grades matter, but does that mean that the quality of the school attended doesn’t??</p>
<p>Depends on the school, but sometimes the differences are significant, especially in method and focus. After all, that’s why schools are rated at all. What you are missing, is that what employers look for differs according to region as well as relevant skills.</p>
<p>
Texas actually fares better than the nation as a whole, and better than California or New York in particular, in executive and professional employment rates. Go look it up. The other mistake you make, is the presumption that a school that is applauded in, say, a New York-based publication, will be universally praised as the best school in all cases. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not at all true. In Medicine, for example, ground-breaking research and innovation comes mainly from Houston, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City, in terms of cardiac, trauma, cancer, geriatric, and orthopedic treatments, medicines, and devices. This is not only the case in terms of medical practice, but also pharmaceutical research <a href=“after%20all,%20trials%20of%20the%20most%20promising%20drugs%20are%20held%20at%20the%20hospitals%20which%20show%20the%20best%20promise%20in%20treating%20the%20targeted%20malady”>i</a>*</p>
<p>Popular magazines like US News are, according to leading doctors, judging on “elitist” and “unscientific” criteria and ignoring salient criteria.</p>
<p>The energy industry <a href=“nuclear,%20oil,%20natural%20gas,%20coal,%20and%20renewable%20sources”>i</a>* is also focused in non-Northeast schools and companies. Texas A&M, Utah, UCLA, Cal Poly, Florida, and Georgia Tech are the leading schools in that industry, and the top energy companies know this.</p>
<p>I could go on, but the point should be clear that just as there are a number of major industries, each with a specific skill-set and experience requirement to excel, so the schools in different parts of the nation excel according to their focus and the effectiveness of their methodology.</p>
<p>And I speak from a quarter-century of work experience - a 4.0 from Texas will get a higher job offer than a 3.0 from Harvard. And five years out of school, the school name only becomes important when sports are discussed.</p>
<p>I do not mean to insult Harvard or other high-profile schools. In general terms and for what they teach, such schools do well. But the notion that any school can legitimately claim to be “the best” of all schools, betrays the inability to grasp the scope and wide horizons of the nation, let alone the world. If you take the time to look up the educations of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 <a href=“I%20have”>i</a>*, you will find not only that most of them never went to a “top” school, you will find that all of the schools put together that are mentioned in this forum as a “top” school make up no more than 28-30 percent of the schools attended by top CEOs, outnumbered more than two-to-one by “ordinary” schools.</p>
<p>There is an advantage to going to a school that is well-known. However, that advantage is smaller than many people believe, it does not apply to any industry where specialized skills or experience is important, and whatever advantage it offers ceases to exist soon after you start your career. From that point on, the school matters no more than what kind of car you drive, it’s flash and nothing more.</p>
<p>You can’t. You couldn’t if you wanted. You would need to get in before you can start disparaging a school such as Harvard, otherwise it’s just ignorant blabber. </p>
<p>In my experience, the strongest life science research centers in the country are SF, SD, Boston, Phila, NYC, DC, Raleigh/Durham.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The average CEO at a F500 company graduated from college close to two generations ago, when going to any college at all was much more of a rarity than it currently is; so their backgrounds are not as relevant to current college students in an era where the world has become much more competitive and it is harder to stand out.</p>
<p>gellino, as a man nearing 50 I can assure that these silly “what is the best school” arguments were just as prevalent 30 years ago as they are today, and my point remains quite valid, thank you very much I will return your disdain and insolence to you, I have no need of it.</p>
<p>In the first place, I did not “disparage” any school, I simply addressed the myth that this school or that is “the best” simply because a few East-Coast publications say so.</p>
<p>I am amused by your notion that I can’t speak about Harvard unless I was accepted there. Think about that - by that “logic” no one could speak about any school other than where they attended; it fails of its own presumption. Also speaking holistically your condition is weaker than mine - if you want to claim that School ‘A’ is better than School ‘B’, the weight of supporting your claim falls on you. You must prove your case, and to my mind you have not. If I were to cite a certain school and claim it was superior to Harvard or Wharton or so on, then I would have to prove my case, but I never made such a claim. </p>
<p>
Not at all. First off, I have presented supporting arguments for my claim that ‘elite’ schools usually fail in the marketplace to offer rewards commensurate with their expense and difficulty, while I have not seen you counter with evidence that shows a superior ROI. </p>
<p>I should also note that this is a discussion board, where members present their opinions and explain their reasoning. You may not like my opinion or agree, but it is hardly “flawed” for me to observe the lack of “elite” schools’ production of top CEOS <a href=“more%20than%20twice%20as%20many%20of%20the%20Fortune%20500%20CEO’s%20went%20to%20%22ordinary%22%20schools%20as%20opposed%20to%20the%20schools%20mentioned%20in%20the%20top%208%20here”>i</a>*, to cite demograohic trends towards a more egalitarian preference in management hiring, or to mention my quarter-century experience in hiring and training managers, and noting the qualities relevant to hiring and promotion decisions.</p>
<p>Disdain and insolence? Nothing I said was either inaccurate or incendiary. As I’ve said before, whenever someone uses the phrase, “I can assure you” or “Trust me” or the like, it means that the person has no tangible evidence for what is to follow. If you think concerns about going to the best school were just as prevalent 30 years ago as they are now, then how do you explain acceptance rates at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn dropping by half in just the last 15 years alone?</p>
<p>If you can put down your attitude for a moment, please consider why I am here at all. I have completed my MBA, after all, and really have no interest in which school is “best” overall, except for this. </p>
<p>I am 49 now, as I have said, and when I chose to go back to school for my MBA I did a lot of research into the best school for my situation. I had a 730 on my GMAT and a solid resume of work, so frankly I had my pick of schools to a large degree. You may or may not be aware that schools nowadays like a broader spectrum of students, so that students who are older and have deep experience they can share are in demand. This is not meant to boast, but to establish the stage, so to speak.</p>
<p>You are correct in saying that schools have evolved in the past two generations - for example, case competitions are a relatively recent development, especially inter-school competitions. But you make a serious mistake in imagining that business schools were not intensely competitive until recently; in fact, such competition goes all the way back to the G.I. Bill just after World War 2, when thousands of men went back to school and there was a flood of government money available. Rankings of business schools by magazines certainly goes back to my high school days in the 1970s, and the criteria used was not significantly different, nor any more or less scientific. </p>
<p>The chief problem for any “Best School” ranking is that the criteria is subjectively selected. By that, I mean that it’s really impossible to use ‘one size fits all’ standards such as these publications use, and apply that to the thousands of students looking for the school that is the best fit for them. How hard is it to understand that the school which is the best fit for accountants is not necessarily going to be the best for finance majors, entrepreneurs, general management or international management majors? How hard is it to consider that sustainability and marketing are not the same thing, and so schools are likely to be different in how well they handle those concentrations. The magazines really treat these important distinctions on a very shallow level, whether you consider the Financial Times or BusinessWeek. </p>
<p>I expect you are also impressed by the school’s reputation in garnering good jobs. That is, after all, the prime mission for the student in many cases, to get a good career out of the degree. But here too we have to watch out for traps in assumptions - most top executives (as in Fortune 500 companies) go to ‘ordinary’ universities, not the big-name schools, and what’s worse, the premium for going to a “top” school ceases to exist just a few years after work begins. What I mean, is that boards and CEOs choose executives on the strength of their work, not the ring they wear. A degree is critical as a credential, but at most it is only one element of several needed to win a position, and the higher the position sought, the less important the school becomes - not because the school is irrelevant, but because the skill and experience sets are overwhelmingly important.</p>
<p>I could go on, but only if you indicate an interest in a discussion that does not involve looking down your nose at someone for a contrary opinion, and one based in reality rather than elitism. The ball is in your court.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, that’s because many, perhaps most, MBA’s at the top schools don’t really want to be top executives at Fortune 500 companies, but instead would rather be consultants or financiers. For all of HBS’s vaunted expertise in general management, the fact is that only a tiny fraction of students actually take general management jobs, nor do most want to, as those jobs are generally considered to be “safety” jobs one takes only if you’re simply not good enough to find something better. To paraphrase Rakesh Khurana, many students (regrettably) don’t see why they should aspire to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 firm and make $2 million a year when they might instead become the fund manager that tells that CEO what to do, on pain of losing investment capital, and make $200 million a year? Either that, or they want to be entrepreneurs who start up a company and flip it to an IPO-fueled millionaire retirement before they’re 40. Or sometimes they combine both: in 2007, over 27% of all founders of venture capital and private equity firms were graduates of Harvard Business School. </p>
<p>But even on its own merits, the fact that twice as many Fortune 500 CEO’s went to, as you call them, ‘ordinary’ schools as opposed to top 8 B-schools seems to actually be strong evidence in favor of the latter, considering just how many more ordinary schools there happen to be. Simply playing the odds would therefore dictate that one should strongly prefer a top 8 school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the fact is that these distinctions in the various programs and the corresponding differences in fit, frankly, don’t really matter much, for the fact is, many (probably most) MBA students (sadly) don’t really care about the academics. They don’t care much about how the strengths and weaknesses that different schools will bring to different subdisciplines. Let’s be perfectly honest - most MBA students are there to network and recruit. MBA programs have been described - unfortunately quite accurately in my opinion - as a 2-year finishing school where, according to Crainer & Dearlove 1999, “…most students simply get drunk”. I have heard it said that if HBS and MIT Sloan didn’t exist, half of the bars and clubs in Boston and Cambridge would go bankrupt. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly agree that the skill and experience set are the most important criteria to getting any top job. But that begs the question of how do you get that skill and experience? Let’s face it: most jobs do not really provide you with strong opportunities to obtain the skills and experience necessary to obtain the top jobs. For example, nowadays, if you want to have a shot at the top private equity or hedge funds, you increasingly need former bulge bracket investment banking experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I’m not going to disparage Texas, for it’s a nice state (I used to work there), the fact is, Texas doesn’t have a dominant financial center such as New York or Chicago and doesn’t have a locus of tech entrepreneurship comparable to Silicon Valley or Boston, and those are the fields that top MBA graduates aspire to enter.</p>
<p>Now, again, don’t get me wrong. I like Texas. I think Austin is a great city for technology entrepreneurship. Houston is the world capital of the energy industry, and Dallas is a major business center. But most top MBA’s prefer to work elsewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know about that. Regarding difficulty, the fact is, with the possible exception of Sloan, the top MBA programs, frankly, really aren’t that difficult, and even Sloan is debatable. The classes, to be honest, aren’t that hard. Nobody ever flunks out, except during the cheating scandals that erupt periodically. Leaves plenty of time for, well, drinking. </p>
<p>Regarding expense, I can agree with you that many MBA graduates from top schools, particularly in recent years, may never recover their investment. But that’s even more acutely true of students from lower-ranked MBA programs. For example, a Harvard MBA doesn’t really cost that much more than an MBA from SMU. Hence, relatively speaking, the top MBA programs still hold the edge.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think he will, at least, on average. That’s because many of the most desirable firms, such as the top VC/PE/hedge funds, won’t even recruit at Texas but will recruit at Harvard. Hence, the 4.0 from Texas won’t even have a chance at those jobs. That’s probably not fair, but that’s how it is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without putting words into gellino’s mouth - and gellino, you can jump in here anytime - I think he was talking innovation in which MBA’s can meaningfully participate. I certainly agree with you that innovation occurs in many places. But few if any MBA’s will participate in pure academic research, whether medical, energy, or otherwise. The entrepreneurial commercialization of said academic research tends to occur in a highly constrained set of locales, i.e. Silicon Valley, Boston, and the like. It has been said that the genius of Silicon Valley as the leading technological innovation cluster in the world is not that it develops its innovations de novo - for it usually pilfers those ideas from elsewhere - but that it is able to discover and commercialize those innovations faster than anywhere else. Excellent ideas may indeed by germinated in Gainesville, Atlanta, San Luis Obispo, but that simply begs the question of why they don’t have their own Silicon Valleys? Why aren’t other nations trying to copy San Luis Obispo as part of their industrial policy?</p>
<p>MBA’s aren’t scientists and aren’t doctors. They’re businessmen. They’re interested in the commercialization of ideas, especially if doing so might make them filthy rich. That’s why MBA grads aren’t exactly flocking to San Luis Obispo.</p>
<p>I really do believe that HBS is really an exception. It’s an amazing business school and offers great, great opportunities for their graduates. Stanford and Wharton too to some extent.</p>
<p>What, am I posting in Russian here? I’m not insulting any school at all. All I’m doing, and you may take it for what it’s worth, is writing as a manager who’s worked for a variety of companies, including a couple multinationals, who has friends and colleagues on all three coasts, who is writing from experience and the comments made by executives who have been to a number of those “top” schools. I’ve never been to Harvard, but I have two friends who have, and another from Oxford. My family has sent kids to Wharton, and I hear personal feedback from colleagues whose kids are going/graduated from Northwestern, Thunderbird, and the Unversity of Hong Kong. I’m not pretending I have all the answers, and there’s nothing wrong with being proud of your school and the work you did there. But the danger in these threads is this drumbeat that “everyone agrees” about which schools are best. Depending on the industry and the specific company, that’s not always the case and while I may well be unpopular for pointing it out, I’d rather make a point you need to hear than have you say, as some folks I personally know have told me, ‘I wish someone had warned me about that when I was choosing my school’.</p>
<p>If I may be so bold, have you considered why my comments are producing such a strong reaction from you? Hit a nerve, did I?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you have not met enough MBAs. Certainly there are those who get the degree only because they hope to be rich, just like some athletes don’t care for the sport but only the money and the glory, and some politicians only care for the power and influence. The MBA is a versatile degree, and many people earn the degree as a necessary credential, but they fully intend to do more than just get rich. Have you noticed how many programs now offer MD-MBA and JD-MBA and CPA-MBA dual concentrations? That’s because there’s strong demand for it, and the MBA component is more than just a way to increase profits. In fact, the lessons from any decent management degree will include emphasis on the personal development of the career businessman, whether it is a focus on product innovation <a href=“one%20reason%20Google%20sponsors%20MBAs”>i</a>, sustainability <a href=“Waste%20Management,%20for%20example”>i</a>, or some other way to not only make a company competitive in its industry, but to change the industry for the better, not only in classic terms but also in governance and CSR aspects.</p>
<p>When I mentioned the medical aspects, I think you missed the business aspects of companies like Pfizer and Merck cooperating with the Texas Medical Center on things like heart medicines and cancer cocktails <a href=“and%20it’s%20MBAs%20who%20manage%20those%20projects%20and%20liaison%20between%20the%20doctors,%20techs,%20and%20the%20boards%20of%20each%20business%20entity”>i</a>*, or patented devices like nano-mycin implants and cardiac EPs. More stage 3 trials of ready-to-market medical products are done in Texas than anywhere on the Atlantic Coast, and the hospitals, product manufacturers, and everyone else involved has their own MBA-degreed agents working to protect their interests and achieve synergy between the groups. </p>
<p>In making my points, I may well have appeared to downplay the value of an MBA from HBS or the other ‘name’ schools. I am well aware of the alumni networks they offer, the name value in getting initial interviews while still in school, and the quality of their educaiton overall. I did not dwell on those points because others have already done so. I must reiterate, however, that it is the businessman who uses his tools to his advantage or missed opportunity; the school itself is passive in that respect and no one should imagine that the school will create any talent or quality which is not already present in the student.</p>
<p>Oh, trust me, I have met plenty. Far more than healthy, I would say. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, for as the standard MBA is commoditized, people are looking for an edge, and dual-degree programs are a way to do it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! Yet interesting isn’t it that the top MBA programs, especially Harvard’s, are now being blamed - and not without justification - for the current financial crisis and the antecedent lack of ethics and emphasis on profiteering and fixation on paper profits and short-term shareholder value at the expense of long-term stability of the world’s capital markets. </p>
<p>Look, MBAGrad2009, I’m not here to defend the ethics of MBA students, nor of MBA programs writ large. In fact, I freely concede that moral problems abound. But at the same time, I’d like to think that I do understand what those problems are, as well as their underlying causes. The truth of the matter is that, at least so far, MBA students are out to generate benefits - usually financial- for themselves and (hopefully) for their firms, with little concern for other matters. In fact, they’re specifically trained not to care about systemic externalities. Maybe that will change in the future - in fact, I hope it does. But I’m not going to hold my breath. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that the examples of Pfizer and Merck actually serve to bolster my position. After all, where exactly are the headquarters of Pfizer and Merck? All in the East Coast. Pfizer’s business headquarters in in Manhattan, and Pfizer’s research headquarters is in Connecticut, whereas Merck’s headquarters are in New Jersey. </p>
<p>Now, certainly I can agree with you that their trials, as well as arguably the initial innovation of Pfizer and Merck may indeed occur in Texas and elsewhere. But the management power of those firms is firmly located within the East Coast. Put another way, as a new MBA hired by Pfizer, your goal is clearly not to end up in Texas. Your goal is to end up in the headquarters in Manhattan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, here I believe you’ve actually contradicted yourself. I tend to believe that the greatest value of any MBA program is regarding the network - a feature that you yourself have agreed is valuable. Yet that is precisely the advantage that a top MBA program can provide. You simply can’t access the HBS network unless you are an HBS grad yourself. That’s uniquely valuable social capital that you could never obtain from any other school, which is precisely a quality that is exogenous to the student himself. Simply put, the most talented student in the world who doesn’t go to HBS won’t have access to the tremendously valuable HBS network, yet an incompetent HBS grad will.</p>
<p>Now, where I can agree with you is that you still have to use the network properly, for there is no doubt that social capital can be squandered just like any other capital can be. But lots of people waste opportunities. I certainly have, and I think we all have. Yet that doesn’t detract from the importance of having those opportunities in the first place.</p>
<p>I understand your point, sakky <a href=“and%20I%20disagree%20-%20most%20companies%20seek%20a%20broad%20set%20of%20qualified%20applicants,%20and%20look%20beyond%20just%20a%20few%20schools”>i</a>*, but I think you failed to note the GPAs concerned. A 3.0 from HBS is the dead last student in his class, by simple mathematical calculation, and a 4.0 at Texas would be first or tied for it in his. I agree that a top HBS graduate will get more looks than a top graduate from a lower-name school, but the school’s name does not mean that grades get ignored, or that a corporation will not be interested in all of the contenders they can find. Certainly I agree that average grades at Harvard or Wharton can still result in interviews from good companies, but average grades at a lesser-known school wil kill off chances.</p>
<p>I disagree that I have contradicted myself at all. The alumni network is a tool, but is no more a magic wand than anything else. I seem to be unclear on that point, that I am writing in this thread primarily to remind students that any notion that some outside force or device will make you successful or even give you a guaranteed interview with a top company is a fairy tale; companies always hire to fill the needs they perceive, and while a school like Northwestern or Wharton may help you get an internship at an East Coast-based bank or venture company, you won’t learn anything that you can’t get at half a hundred other schools, and while the network is a valuable asset, it has a limited scope and some ‘lesser’ schools have done amazing jobs in establishing national and international networks. Texas A&M, for example - I am not about to say that A&M has the best school in the nation in any business field, but the Mays Business School is well-established with Aggies around the world, and so an Aggie MBA provides opportunities in over a hundred countries where names like Tuck and Kellogg would not ring a bell. Again, I am not saying it’s a better school, but size and technology combine to make some schools major players in their own right. A $150,000 a year job straight out of school is a good thing, no matter how you get your shot at it.</p>
<p>No you did not hit a nerve at all. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion of course, however, I happen to think that you are vastly under rating the importance of attending a top b-school. Not all MBA programs are the same and Harvard, Stanford and Wharton are a cut above in nearly every conceivable aspect (school resources, level of professors, student body quality, reputation in marketplace, alumni network, post-grad career opportunities, etc., etc.,) . Now having said that depending on the expectations and goals of any given MBA student, one can certainly meet said goals at a non-elite b-school – but then again no one ever said otherwise.</p>
<p>The bottom line is simple: H/W/S =/= a no-name b-school… and it’s not even close.</p>