<p>Hi all, </p>
<p>I applied to 2 business schools to pursue an MBA degree full time in late Round 3 and was admitted to the Part Time program FEMBA at UCLA (16th) ( was Denied for full time program) and the Full Time MBA program at UCSD (60th) with a fellowship covering first year tuition and subsidized housing (I pay $500/month for a single).</p>
<p>UCLA offered no Grants/Fellowships or Housing.</p>
<p>I am currently in Financial Analyst in the Software industry, but i would like to pursue banking/ financial services post MBA.
My GMAT was 660, it was my first and only test.</p>
<p>I understand that it will be an uphill battle at either program, but I would appreciate any insights or advice to make this decision eaiser.</p>
<p>Please feel free to share your thoughts on this post. if you have a question that needs to be answered I would gladly share my input as well.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone!</p>
<p>It doesn’t seem you’ve put your whole focus in applying to MBA schools. Most applicants would take test preps or retake to try to get a GMAT >700. I doubt either program would put you in a better position to get into the finance field.
Most people who want to change careers go to a MBA program to take advantage of on campus recruiting (OCR), that’s why they go to a targeted school.
If I were you, I wouldn’t attend either program but try to retake GMAT and apply EARLY for 2015 admission.</p>
<p>UCLA has top notch MBA program. UCSD just is new so there is no comparison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The full time program yes. The part time FEMBA program not so much.
By attending the part-time FEMBA program, you cannot take advantage of any summer internship programs which is key to getting a full time offer in a new career.</p>
<p>But if he can take time off to do the summer internship than that is better. I mean at the end of the day UCLA MBA is much better than UCSD MBA(because it’s new, same with UCI law school).
I agree if he can reprep and get better GMAT but what if he doesn’t want to do, no money, who pays for the MBA program, etc… There are many factors.</p>
<p>
The UCLA FEBMA is for Fully Employed MBA students. No company recruits there for summer internship, that’s the point. OP wants to switch industry, he needs a program where the banking industry will come to recruit.
This kind of MBA is for people who are not switching careers but needs some courses or extra credential to ascent to the next level in their current field/work.</p>
<p>He won’t get in to IB through the PT program (or rather, it’s very unlikely), but other financial services (commercial banking, PWM, etc.) with his financial analyst background are possible. Personally, I think that PT MBA is lower risk. However, flying in to attend Chicago Booth on the weekends may be worth it for the network in finance. UCLA would have a stronger network in SoCal, though.</p>
<p>2nd year usc mba pt student here. There are a few of my classmates who secured an internship at JPM and received a ft offer. It can be done. Just hard.
I think reason why not a lot of people go to ib after usc ucla mba is not because we are not a target. Bulge bracket banks come to recruit every year at usc. Its because:
1-west coast people dont want to move east where the industry is. People who do move come back after a year or two and this is a big expense for banks.
2-after a mba you will learn that there are jobs that pay well (although not as well as ib) and give you work life balance (eg: Why would you work 100hrs for 300k when you can work 40-50 hrs for 150k?)</p>
<p>$300k in NYC is not that lucrative, IMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Idk, I think 300k would be a lot for most people. Unless the “Dr” in your title refers to being a neurosurgeon or anesthesiologist and you happen to make more, that sort of income doesn’t exactly put you in the poorhouse. Of course, if you meant $300 on the other hand…</p>
<p>Oops, I just resurrected a super-old thread. I can see why it happens now. CC, what happened to you? The Alexa rankings don’t bode well for you at all. </p>