<p>Gellino, I definitely agree that MBA rankings are not very accurate, but they are far more accurate the the USNWR undergraduate rankings. I cannot think of a program that is ranked more than 4 or 5 spots from its rightful place according to the reliable MBA rankings.</p>
<p>And Gellino, like I said, I do not agree that the majority of MBAs want to pursue a career in VC and PE. Most MBAs want a career in management track. I personally do not agree with you that Tuck is superior to Haas. Those two programs are roughly equal. And it is a good thing too since the entire financial sector is going to be restructured in the years to come. Until that happens, confidence in the marketplace will never return.</p>
<p>Alexandre, most MBAs aren’t in a position to go for VC or PE. However, would you disagree with the statement that the majority of MBAs at top MBA programs wanting those jobs?</p>
<p>Yes Venkat, I would disagree with that statement too. I have known dozens of MBAs at top MBA programs and only a handful were interested in VC/PE.</p>
<p>Is there a better way to approach this? Would it be fair to say that most MBA students looking to do finance related stuff (and are not returning to a company after MBA because they received funding) would like to go into VC and PE? As an undergrad a bunch of my friends looking to go into banking are doing so just because they want to make their way into VC or PE after a few years.</p>
<p>From my experience, about a third of MBAs want to pursue a career in Finance with probably a third of those at the most wanting to branch off into PE/VC. As such, I would estimate that only 10%-15% of MBAs really want to pursue careers in PE/VC.</p>
<p>Who said I love Tuck, I have no particular affiliation with, or affinity for the school. I am simply stating that to me, and to those that I know, it is more desirable than Haas.</p>
<p>That’s you storch, and you are entitled to your opinion. I personally think Tuck is a notch below MBA powerhouses such as Booth and Kellogg and Ross. In the end, our opinion (and that of those we know) does not matter. Our opinion is based on our personal preferences, experiences and geographic affiliations. What matters is reality. There is no true or legitimate evidence that supports either my opinion or yours.</p>
<p>Then, why are you asking for specific evidence from me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Numbers for donations for a just graduated class are always inflated and compromised. If you’re trying to prove that Tuck is inferior to Haas, alumni giving is an argument you want to stay away from. Tuck has been the #1 MBA school in percentage of alumni giving by a wide margin for years. I read something recently that said that over 60% of alums have donated to Tuck for each of the past 15 years, while no other school has even cracked 50% over that timeframe. </p>
<p>In my experience, I have certainly never seen peers, colleagues, classmates view UMichigan as an MBA powerhouse akin to UChicago, Kellogg and above Tuck. While as anecdotal as anyone else’s “proof”, the only ones I knew who went there were rejected by some combo of the other three (among others, ie, Wharton, Columbia).</p>
<p>The key to choosing the best school starts with finding what is best for you. Identify what your chosen field requires and what the leading companies in your industry are looking for, and then find the school that offers what you need. IMIO, depending on some magazine or publication to find out where you should go to school is sad, really. Imagine you’re accepted at, say, Tuck, and on your first day the professor asks you to tell the class why you chose Tuck. Would you feel proud in saying ‘uhhh … this magazine I read said it was pretty good’? Or would you rather be able to explain what you want to accomplish, and show how the school you chose is the best in that field?</p>
<p>“In my experience, I have certainly never seen peers, colleagues, classmates view UMichigan as an MBA powerhouse akin to UChicago, Kellogg and above Tuck. While as anecdotal as anyone else’s “proof”, the only ones I knew who went there were rejected by some combo of the other three (among others, ie, Wharton, Columbia).”</p>
<p>And my experince, nobody would lump Tuck above Ross and on par with Booth and Kellogg. That was the point I was making Gellino. If it were up to each of us, there would be clear biases, such as claiming that Tuck is better than Haas or vice versa…or that Ross is better than Tuck and vice versa. Those programs, along with Columbia are all on par with each other. Those are all top 10 MBA programs that are not quite among the top 5.</p>
<p>Again, you’re going back to the ancient times. </p>
<p>15 years ago, Haas wasn’t in the top 10. 15 years ago, Yale SOM wasn’t in the top 15 or 20. But that was 15 or so years ago. </p>
<p>Today, as we are talking about TODAY, Haas is now a solid top 10 business school and Yale is now a top 15 business school. </p>
<p>15 years ago, Tuck was probably already a top 10 business school and was probably superior to Haas. 15 years ago, Haas couldn’t pull off a 100% alumni giving rate. 15 years ago, Tuck was already having a 60% alumni giving rate. But, again, that was 15 years or so ago. </p>
<p>Today, Haas can now lure all its students to give back to their alma mater school. Today, Haas grads can command salary scale that only top 10 business school grads can ever ask. Today, Haas is a solid top 10 and is now receiving applicants of the highest caliber and graduating students that can command some of the highest pay jobs out there. </p>
<p>Today, Haas is no longer what it used to be. For today, Haas is slightly superior to Tuck, and two very credible league tables support this claim.</p>
<p>How is citing something from this year ancient times? That Haas had every student contribute $1 is meaningless in a discussion of which is the better school. It is typical for the most recent class at B-school to have 100% participation. The real distinction is how many contribute once they’ve left school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can keep repeating all you want; it doesn’t make it any more accurate. Are those the same credible league tables that rank UChicago above Harvard and Kellogg above Stanford? Two other relative comparisons where candidates put no stock in what the published rankings say.</p>
<p>FT’s Global MBA Ranking (2009) has Tuck ranked no. 13 (with a 3 year average rank of no. 12) vs. Haas which is ranked a lowly no. 31 (and a 3 year average rank of 29).</p>
<p>No offense meant, but the reason why nobody here take you seriously is because you rely too much on FT league table. I bet even the dean of the business school that you went to wouldn’t take FT seriously. I wonder if your dean knows that you actually do. lol</p>
<p>You’re inventing stories obviously. Either that or you’re grossly misinformed. </p>
<p>The entire Class of 09 was able to pull off a fund with an amount of $84,285 with 100% participation rate. There were only 249 full-time MBA grads at Haas. So, do the math. </p>
<p>But then again, you missed my point again as you repeatedly have done so in the past. I was obviously providing that information to question Storck’s claim that Tuck is a more desirable business school than Haas is. So, then I asked him how are we going to measure the desirability of the school. I know that there are many factors on how to measure that and one of which is the alumni giving rate. In this sense, there is no question that Haas grads have found their alma mater school a desirable school to go to or they would not have given back a gift to the school. </p>
<p>
Really? Now show me that Tuck’s recent grads have done exactly the same as what Haas grads have done recently. I need proof, not your usual imagination… </p>
<p>
LoL…
It wasn’t me who rated Haas higher than Tuck; USNews and Businessweek did, alright?
You only made me repeat that. </p>
<p>
Then what about USNews’ ranking where Haas outranked Tuck? LoL …</p>
<p>I would measure desirability in the following way: if you were admitted to each school, which would you attend?
Re: the transparent gimmick of 100% donating, with the median likely being a couple hundred dollars… who cares?? this means nothing.</p>
<p>Alexandre is right, I cannot “prove” Dartmouth Tuck is superior to Berkeley Haas - the two schools are remarkably close in most statistics. I can simply say that in my experience - one that has included a lot of people holding and aspiring to hold an mba - Tuck is uniformly viewed as the more desirable school to attend. Clearly that experience has not included people such as yourself.</p>
<p>the_prestige, you were obviously referring to me, so I’ll answer your post. </p>
<p>First of all, I’m not a Cal fanatic. Like I said, I’m here because I sensed it that state universities are gravely being prejudiced by some unreasonable members of this forum who’re trying hard to be “elite” students/people. So, I’m not here just for Cal but for justice and truth that elite state universities richly deserved so. </p>
<p>Second of all, I did not overrate Berkeley-Haas and my claims are well justified by two very credible league tables, unlike you and your cohorts which only plucked out your ideas from your own imagination. </p>
<p>Again, Berkeley-Haas is not better than Northwestern-Kellogg, Columbia, Chicago-Booth, MIT-Sloan, and even more so HWS. So, how was I overrating Berkeley-Haas when I never claimed it’s better than any of those business schools? </p>
<p>Third of all, you never really presented any solid evidence why I am wrong and you were right. As far as I’m concern, your claims were all based on your personal experience and opinion. Unfortunately, your personal opinion does not reflect the real data. Thus, your personal opinion remains just your personal opinion. </p>
<p>And, lastly, my claims have proofs. I did not invent what I said. My statements are basically a repetition of what the two most credible league tables have declared.</p>