<p>"Quaker, what does the Princeton Review rating of undergraduate institutions have to do with anything. And if you truly believe that NYU is more selective than Stanford or MIT, you are seriously disilusioned! LOL"</p>
<p>This was MBA programs, LOL, genius. You may want to see Wall St. statistics and you'll see that Stern is arguably the best in placement. In addiiton, FT and USNEWs both rank Stern in top 3 for finance.</p>
<p>I'm really surprised that you don't include Stanford in the given top five. It's the most selective and the first choice of many of the smartest people I know.</p>
<p>Sakky, I 'm not saying Yale is top 10, but 14 seems about right overall. I've spent a lot of time looking at top B schools, and I'm really impressed. Clearly my NP slant is the key for me, but they are doing a great job. I'm one of the wierd ones who will choose Yale over all the others if I get in.</p>
<p>Quaker, I thought we were talking about Business Week. I know that USNWR ranks Stern #3 in Finance (Again, Chicago and Wharton are always #1 and #2). I never argued that...and I think that in this case, USNWR is actually right in the money. Stern is indeed amazing in Finance and should always be ranked among the top 3 or 4 in Finance. The FT MBA rankings is a joke. The Brits don't know their @sses from their elbow when it comes to American MBAs. They should stick to rating their own schools. Every international ranking is totally flawed and the FT is no exception. As for seletivity, Michigan, MIT and NYU are all very similar. They all have acceptance rates between 18% and 22%. They all have mean GMATs between 695 and 710. And they all have mean GPAs between 3.4 and 3.5. To claim that one of them is more selective than the other is plain impossibe. Stanford is clearly more selective than all three. But who cares. Selectivity means nothing. </p>
<p>Jazzpiano, selectivyt and quality are not related. Cal is more selective than Wharton, Kellog or MIT. Does that mean that it has a better MBA program. Stanford has an amazing student body and an incredible faculty. But the faculty is small and the curriculum is lacking. Furthermore, Corporate America does not favor Stanford. Obviously, Stanford is a very popular choice. Gorgeous weather, great name and amazinf location. But most companies think that their MBAs are lacking something. Clearly, Stanford is the strongest contender for #4. But it is not clearly better than Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, MIT or Michigan.</p>
<p>Is the Harvard MBA program really number 1 over Stanford's. I am not talking rankings, I mean reality.
Aren't the Stanford MBAs the most successful in the last 20 years?
The Google guys, are they Stanford MBAs?</p>
<p>I would say that Kellogg and Wharton are the top 2 and Harvard is 3rd. </p>
<p>As for Stanford MBAs having been the most successful in the last 20 years, I think this is impossible to measure.</p>
<p>Finally, the Google founders went to Michigan (Larry Page) and Maryland (Sergey Brin) ...and then were PhD (computer science) students at Stanford...but I don't think they finished their studies at Stanford.</p>
<p>You can read about their biographies below.</p>
<p>Needless to say, all rankings have their limitations.</p>
<p>To be highly ranked in a "comprehensive" ranking, schools need to be somewhat balanced across the board. There are schools that are not quite so balanced, but may be excellent in a particular area that may be of interest to a particular applicant. So when you say x is school is "better" you need to follow, " for what?". IMO.</p>
<p>There may be some schools that are just "better" in virtually every way. But not quite so many.</p>
<p>Yale SOM grads are highly sought after in the Public Finance departments of Investment banks. If this is your interest there are few places better.</p>
<p>NYU does not have widely recognized programs in marketing, etc. But if your interest is finance that's another story.</p>
<p>If your interest is quantitative applications, Carnegie Mellon is outstanding.</p>
<p>There are other schools I recall as being lopsided in Marketing.</p>
<p>Alexandre, Stanford is the hardest business school to get into in america and is ranked 2nd by usnews and 4th by businessweek. according to the way you're ranking business schools, how is it not an undisputed top 5 school.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see how many of those Michigan MBAs wind up in the midwest offices of those companies.</p>
<p>I'm out here in the Midwest, and I see far more Michigan MBAs here than I ever saw in NYC. Many Chicago MBAs also, but I saw many Chicago MBAs in NY as well.</p>
<p>I think that all the talk of Stanford being the 'most selective' is really missing the point.</p>
<p>First, we have to talk about what is meant by 'most selective'. Stanford may be most selective when looked at using certain numerical criteria - i.e. admissions percentage. However, it is the opinion of many, including myself, that selectivity cannot be measured solely using those criteria. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that when it comes to undergraduate programs, the US Coast Guard Academy is more selective than Harvard College, because the USCG has a lower admissions percentage than Harvard College does. The major problem is that looking at admissions percentage alone does not account for the phenomonom of self-selection, meaning that the applicant pool itself is one that tends to have certain characteristics and has therefore 'pre-selected' itself. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean that Stanford isn't an elite B-school. It just means that looking at admissions percentages alone doesn't quite cut it.</p>
<p>The major problem with your argument is that the coast guard academy's average sat and gpa don't even touch harvards. Stanford's average gmat and gpa are among the highest, it has an admission rate half of hbs, and i assume the quality of candidates applying are equal to other elite schools(of course, with the stanford name). And my argument wasn't just stanford being the most selective b-school in america. by the criteria alexandres looking at(usnews and businessweek rankings), stanford is undisputedly top 5. and I don't see how alexandre can speak for the entire corporate world and say that it doesn't "favor" stanford.</p>
<p>The whole business world probably doesn't "favor" Stanford. The top 10 business schools or so cater to different sectors of the business world. You aren't going to find tons of i-bankers come out of Kellogg. Most of their graduates go into consulting. While Wharton is a perennial producer for i-bankers.</p>
<p>Sakky, your arguements are usually solid pretty solid, bit I disagree here. The quality of Stanford applicants is as high as that at any B school. By all measures, it's simply the hardest B school to get into in the Country. That corporate America is not enamoured with grads, which may or may not be the case, probably has most to do with the fac that few Stanford MBAs want typical corporate jobs. It will always attract the Silicon Valley, venture capitalist, entrepreneurial types.</p>
<p>Well, first of all, Stanford is not the hardest B-school to get into' by all measures'. In 2004, the entering class at HBS had a higher GPA (3.6) than did the class at Stanford (3.57). Secondly, Stanford's admission rate is not half of HBS's. In 2004, the admissions percentage at HBS was 11.6%, at Stanford, it was 9.2%. Go look it up, if you don't believe me.</p>
<p>Thirdly, and far far more importantly, as has been said numerous times on this board, GPA and GMAT are relatively minor criteria for determining who gets into B-school. Far far and away the most important criteria is the quality of your work experience as well as your personal attributes. This is the fundamental reason why acerockolla's objections are problematic. For college admission, SAT, class rank, and those other traditionally academic criteria are king. Not so for B-school admission. After all, think about it. A 3.6 really isn't all that high for an average GPA of an elite B-school - it's certainly significantly lower than that of an elite law school or an elite medical school. Yet the selectivity is still high. That just goes to show you that GPA really isn't all that important when determining who gets admitted to B-school. All of these elite B-schools could easily admit whizzes with super-high GPA's. But they don't want to do that, because they have a different mission. Their mission is not really to admit people who are academic superstars, their mission is to admit people who will do well in business. Just because you're an academic superstar doesn't mean that you will do well in business and vice versa. </p>
<p>The point is that looking at simple numbers alone doesn't tell you a whole lot about selectivity, and that is especially the case when you're talking about B-school. B-schools, unlike law school, med-school, or undergrad admissions, is far less numbers oriented. Numbers are a relatively minor part of the application process. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I have to disagree with Alexandre and agree with the larger point that you guys are making, which is that Stanford is indeed a top 3 school. I would personally place it #2, behind HBS. But in any case, if people get admitted to HBS and turn it down for another school, it is usually for Stanford more than it is for other schools. Stanford and HBS basically vie for the same elite candidate pool.</p>
<p>From my perspective (working in a large corporation that recruits heavily out of most of the schools mentioned in this thread), every school has unique strengths. In addition, like corporations, all schools have unique corporate-like cultures of their own, which is often reflected in the candidates they provide us (cultural traits which may or may not be quantifiable through rankings or studies--something to be considered if you are researching schools). Our company has a large summer MBA intern program as well, and I must say, we delight in watching how students with these diverse school profiles interact, and shine.</p>
<p>Addressing comments about specific schools: No doubt Stanford has a great program, however, we find that the tech-savvy entrepenurial nature of their students often lead them to new technologies and start-ups--therefore, they are not a significant source of hires for us. But would we ever drop Stanford? Never. Their reputation alone will keep major corporations coming. Michigan produces very well-rounded candidates, but maybe by virtue of their location, seem to have more ties to traditional industries (which is great if you need to maximize channel distribution or production efficiencies). Wharton and Chicago--no brainers for finance and M&A. Kellogg is marketing and brand management all the way.</p>
<p>I could go on and on. Bottom line, if you attend any of these schools, you won't be lacking job opportunities (if the economy is in decent shape).</p>
<p>Cheers. Duke here.</p>
<p>Sakky, my evidence is qualatative at best. I graduated from Princeton 5 years ago and live among a largely ivy crowd in NYC headed to B schools. I know not one person who applied to HBS that did not also apply to Stanfrod GSB. Some interested in marketing also applied to K, I applied to Y as a NP candidate, nature lover friends applied to Tuck, quant jocks to C. But everyone who has good grades from a good school, a good GMAT score and good work experience that I know applied to both S and H. Many who got into H did not get into S. Hardly ever the other way around. Only 1 case that I know of. If anyone released the data, I would expect the overlap at H and S would ne enormous.</p>
<p>OK, looks like you guys are all misunderstanding me, or perhaps I didn't properly express myself.</p>
<p>I never meant to say that Stanford wasn't the most selective B-school out there. What I meant to say is that you can't know that just by looking at the numbers. There are other factors at play that cannot be quantified. B-school is one of those schools that is unusually non-numbers-driven, and relies heavily on work experience, which by its nature, cannot be easily quantified into a number. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean that Stanford isn't the most selective B-school out there. It may very well be. My personal opinion is that I don't know if it 's the most selective, and in particular, whether it is more selective than HBS. It might be. It might not be. My basic point is that the numbers alone do not demonstrably prove that it is.</p>
<p>I would agree, and place Harvard and Stanford 1 and 2 respectively. And yes, in my dealings with candidates, they often applied to both. We make far more hires out of Harvard, but we should keep in mind Harvard has a much larger student population.</p>
<p>Stern, pound for pound, overall, is the best MBA program in the country</p>
<p>BTW, love the comment about Tuck nature lovers. I'm curious what your thoughts are on Duke (I probably fit the stereotype).</p>
<p>I forgot to mention. Darden is coming on strong--they work their finance students hard and it's showing...</p>
<p>MONYDAD, why wonder when you can see?! hehe Here are where Michigan MBA's choose to work:</p>
<p>A little over a third of them chose to work in the Midwest, a quarter in the East Coast and another quarter in the West Coast and internationally (conbined). The rest are scatered around the South.</p>