Undergrad path for MBA admissions

<p>Once again, the USNews has nothing to do with this argument. I don't like it, nor do I dislike it. I just disregard it all together.</p>

<p>"My local community college and Michigan are equivalent institutions." I love your rhetoric, I really do. I'm sure something we WOULD agree on is that community colleges are no where near research universities; so such abundant exaggeration is uncalled for in the context of this argument.</p>

<p>And I won't judge people just like I said I wasn't going to do. If you're saying people pick Harvard because of its academics, you're judging them. Who says they don't like Boston? Who says they aren't prestige-whores? Who says their family isn't making them go to Harvard? You can't pick just the reason that conforms to your argument best.</p>

<p>"If Harvard and Michigan really are equivalent institutions, then there really is no reason for people to prefer one over the other." You said it best.</p>

<p>Sakky, I do not consider UC-Benz a "brother in arms". I agree with most of what he has to say. I do not agree with almost anything you say. So no, UC-Benz and I have nothing to sort out.</p>

<p>I also never said Michigan graduates did better than MIT graduates. I said that Penn, Cornell and MIT graduates weren't doing better. But I should have removed MIT from that group. The only reason I put MIT in there in the first place was to explain that at MIT, way more students graduate in Engineering and technical fields than at Michigan. But MIT graduates do earn more upon graduation...mainly because they primarily accept jobs in the Northeast, which is much more expenssive than the Midwest, which is where most Michigan graduates decide to work after graduation.</p>

<p>Finally, it is not merely "my sources" that say that Michigan is one of the top 10-15 undergraduate institutions. It's not like I have an obscure group of professional friends that meet once a week in some cave and drink wine and recite poetry and say that Michigan is on par with the lower Ivies and other great universities. It is what the collective agree upon. Maybe you know of a group of several professionals who firmly believe Michigan is not a top 10-15 undergraduate institution, but I do not. I rely on what thousands of corporate recruiters and academics say.</p>

<p>you people must have too much free time, or too little stuff to do. :) j/k.</p>

<p>Nothing to sort out, guys?</p>

<p>To paraphrase uc_benz - "For undergrad, Harvard and Michigan are basically equivalent".</p>

<p>To paraphrase Alexandre - "For undergrad, Michigan is not as good as Harvard"</p>

<p>Is that an unfair characterization of your arguments? If not, then tell me how that is not a difference of opinion. In which case you do indeed have something to discuss amongst yourselves. Come back to me and tell me whether Harvard and Michigan undergrads are equivalent, or whether one is better than the other.</p>

<p>Now to uc_benz - you also said it best. True, some people pick Harvard for reasons other than academics. On the other hand, you must concede that some people pick Michigan for reasons other than academics - a big one being the price tag. It is obviously true that a lot of Michigan residents go to Michigan because it is cheap for them to do so. Yet I think you are in quite thin ground indeed if on an academic standpoint, Michigan and Harvard undergrad are truly equivalent institutions. But don't just take my word for it, look at what Alexandre has said. He himself has said that HYPSM are at a level higher than Michigan is. Again, like I said, looks like you two have something to sort out.</p>

<p>And consider your other reasons as well. You say that some people choose Harvard because they are prestige-whores. But that only begs the question of why doesn't Michigan have more prestige than Harvard does, so that the prestige whores would want to go to Michigan? You also say that some people go to Harvard because their parents want them to go there. But again, why is that? Why don't you have all these parents compelling their kids to go to Michigan then?</p>

<p>Finally you say that take my old quote and say that if there is no difference between Michigan and Harvard, then there would be no reason for anybody to choose one over the other - and then you say exactly. Exactly what? It only proves my point - that people tend to prefer Harvard over Michigan. So let me ask you - why is it that Michigan tends to lose more students to Harvard than vice versa? Why is is that more Michigan students would rather be at Harvard than vice versa?</p>

<p>Now, to Alexandre, let me ask you, if MIT was (magically) transported to the Midwest, are you seriously trying to say that MIT engineering graduates wouldn't still make more than Michigan engineering graduates would? In other words, what I'm really getting at is, are you really trying to say that Michigan's engineering really is equivalent to engineering at MIT? If so, well, I suppose you have the right to that opinion, but I think you would agree that that isn't exactly a mainstream opinion.</p>

<p>And finally, the dispute is about the whole top 15 institution idea. Again, I never said that Michigan was a bad school - the dispute is over it belongs in the top 15. I also have the opinion of a large aggregate (read thousands) of recruiters that say that their top 16 would consist of the schools I mentioned before - the 8 Ivies, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, AWS, and maybe Berkeley and then Duke. That's 16 schools right there. Hence, Michigan is not in the top 15. But I don't think that's that bad. I completely agree with you that Michigan is one of the best schools out there. I just don't agree that it's in the top 15.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also have the opinion of a large aggregate (read thousands) of recruiters that say that their top 16 would consist of the schools I mentioned before - the 8 Ivies, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, AWS, and maybe Berkeley and then Duke.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you work for a survey company?</p>

<p>"For undergrad, Harvard and Michigan are basically equivalent".</p>

<p>ummm no.... as a high school student, I will choose Harvard over Michigan any time, and I am very confident that my peers will do the same. However, I've seen many many kids in Austin who got into University of Michigan, but chose UT Austin instead.. will they make the same decision if they got acceptance letters from Harvard? I don't think so.
Undergrad institution is not just about professors, funding, etc... one of the most important thing we, high school students, consider is the levels of peers we will encounter in our prospective colleges, and Michigan definitely loses on that criteria. I know that Univ. of Michigan is very respectable college, but don't argue the obvious..</p>

<p>Yeah, so you proved my point. I'm talking JUST about academics; nothing more, nothing less. I would pick Harvard over UMich just because I like Boston better than Ann Arbor. But I would go into Harvard knowing I could get the same type of education at UMich.</p>

<p>We've kind of veered off-topic here into a general comparison of undergrad programs. Getting back to the original post...</p>

<p>I think the stats posted early in this thread by Alexandre are quite interesting. I'd say that like many elite vs. non-elite comparisons, the seeming differences between undergrad schools would be reduced if the data were adjusted for incoming student quality. Past studies have shown that long-term salary differences between grads of elites vs. non-elites were far lower if one compared comparable incoming students. E.g., on average, a 1550 SAT valedictorian with superb EC achievements who attends a decent public university will probably earn as much in the long run as if he attended a more selective college. (That's not to say that there aren't huge differences in the undergraduate experience at different schools.)</p>

<p>I'm guessing that if the Wharton acceptance data was adjusted for incoming student (HS grad) quality, the disparities between the elites and non-elites would be far less. There might still be differences, but they might not be as apparent.</p>

<p>UC_Benz, to answer your question of whether I work for a survey company, why don't you ask the same of Alexandre? He's the one who first talked about how he hast the backing of all kinds of recruiters who say that Michigan is definitely in the top 10-15. Funny how I don't see you question him with the same fury you question me. Allies of convenience, perhaps? </p>

<p>However, the last 3 posts are indeed veering towards a much more interesting topic, and that is the nature of academics as a whole. Again, I never said that Michigan was a bad school, in fact, I think it's a quite good one. The question to me is whether it is as good as some of the others, namely places like Harvard. And let's indeed restrict ourselves only to the academics. </p>

<p>I don't disagree that you CAN get just as good of an education at Michigan as you can at Harvard or anywhere else. But that's not really the point. The question really is, statistically speaking, what are the chances that you will? Anything CAN happen, the question is what is likely to happen? For example, a guy who is unusually resourceful, dedicated, and brilliant can probably get just as good of an education just by reading books from the local library as he can at the best school in the world. But that doesn't mean that everybody should trade school just for a library card.</p>

<p>The reality of the college academic environment is that it is profoundly affected by the quality of the students around you. This is something that seems to be rather poorly understood by those who have never been within a college campus environment. Yet surely you all remember having a particularly good round-table discussion in, say, English class, where some of your students really had a lot of interesting things to say, and you really learned a lot from the other students. The better, more prepared, and more creative the other students are, the better your education gets. On the other hand, you must agree that the opposite is true - when the students are not that good, they are less prepared, when some of them haven't even bothered to do the reading, then it is your academic experience that gets impaired. When you're the only one that is saying smart things in a discussion, and nobody else is saying anything good, you really aren't learning much. </p>

<p>Furthermore, most of the academic experience of any particular college takes place outside of the classroom. Remember, college is not like high school. In high school you go to school, and then you go home. You live at your college. So you are hanging around other students all the time. You spend a minority of your time in the classroom, and you will spend most of your time hanging out with the other students. When those other students are sharp and well-prepared, then just by hanging around them, you will tend to learn more. When they are not that good, you tend to learn less. </p>

<p>Finally, let's not discount the ever-present social factors. Let's face it. Human beings are social creatures and tend to copy what they see around them. When somebody sees everybody else around them studying hard, accomplishing important things, and so forth, then they will tend to do the same. But when somebody sees people not really studying very much, blowing off class to go to parties, and the like, then that person will tend to do so also. </p>

<p>The upshot is that if you want to maximize your chances of getting a strong academic experience, you want to be in a school with a highly selective and well-stoked student body. Let's face it. On average, the quality of the average student at Harvard is higher than that at Michigan. Hence, you will tend to get a better education if you go to Harvard, for all the reasons I mentioned above. That doesn't mean that you can't get just as good of an education at Michigan as you can at Harvard. If you happen to be an unusually mentally strong and confident person, you can get a tremendously strong education at Michigan, or anywhere else for that matter. But the fact is, most people are not unusually mentally strong and confident. Hence, you should do what it takes to improve your odds. </p>

<p>Look, at the end of the day, nothing guarantees that you will get a strong education. Nothing. There are no guarantees in life. But what you can do is improve the odds. I am perfectly willing to say that attending Michigan-Ann Arbor improves your chances of getting a good education over attending, say, Michigan-Flint. That's what we're talking about - you can't get a guarantee, but you can move the odds to your favor.</p>

<p>Now to Roger_Dooley - you have also hit upon an important point. Yes, some of the difference in schools has to do with the simple quality of the students. Hence, student quality matters. However, keep in mind, it matters both ways. In many ways, elite colleges are a signalling mechanism to employers that you happen to be of a certain quality. That's why employers tend to prefer to hire Michigan graduates over Michigan State graduates, on a per-capita basis. And that's why they really like hiring, say, Harvard graduates. Hence, one important reason for you to attend the best school you can get into is to signal to employers that you happen to be a member of the pool of top people. Employers are more assured of the quality of students coming out of Michigan than out of Michigan State. So if you are good enough to get into Michigan, but elect to go to Michigan State, then you will have problems in signalling to employers that you are just as good as those guys coming out of Ann Arbor. A lot of those employers will simply think that you went to Michigan State because you weren't good enough to get into Michigan. Whether you think that's fair or not fair, that's what will happen. By associating yourself with a more selective school, you are signalling to the market that you are a member of a more select group of people.</p>

<p>There's not point in trying to deflect the heat to Alexandre, I have barely read any of his posts, so I don't necessarily agree or disagree with what he has said. But anyways, let's just drop that subject.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is something that seems to be rather poorly understood by those who have never been within a college campus environment.

[/quote]

I've been going to college for two years now, I KNOW what college is like. </p>

<p>And to address each of your points:</p>

<p>I'm a senior in high school and I'm in some upper level courses that have juniors and seniors in COLLEGE in them. Now with all due respect, they are perfectly capable individuals, but they're definitely not "cream of the crop." So? This has nothing to do with the discussions in class; they contribute tons of material to the discussion, and I learn a lot from it. I think it depends on the professors and how much they push the students to gain more knowledge.</p>

<p>I don't buy the whole "social imitation" idea. Sure that may be prevalent in things like fashion, but you either want to study or you don't want to study. Just because my friend is studying doesn't mean I am going to study; I'm either going to do it because I want to, or I'm not going to do it because I don't want to.</p>

<p>Come now, uc_benz, I think you must agree that if your discussion was filled with guys who kept saying brilliant and creative things, you would be learning more than if the students are not that good. The quality of the material matters. I don't disagree that it depends on the professor and how much they push the students, but it is still clearly true that it also depends on the quality of the students as well. The professor can be great, and can push the students as much as he wants, but if the students aren't that good, then the quality of the output will still be not that strong. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. What's better - having a prof who is good, and students that are good, or having a prof who is good and students who are not that good? I'm not saying that you don't learn anything from what you have now, but you must agree that you'd probably learn more if the other students were better were saying even more cogent stuff. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, the college is a collegial experience, no pun intended. You don't just learn from your profs. In fact, only a minority of the education has to do with the profs, simply because you spend only a minority of all your time in college with the profs. You are not in college just to learn from the profs, you are also there to learn from the other students. And that happens best when those other students are good. </p>

<p>And finally, come now, you seriously don't believe in social imitation? It's nice and idealistic to say that you either want to study or you don't, but the fact is, even that is affected by what you see around you. You might say that you want to study, but then when you see other people around you drinking, partying, and generally goofing off, that tempts you to do the same. You begin to ask yourself, why the heck am I studying this boring book when everybody else is having a good time? Or let me make it even more vivid. When your roommate is waving NFL tickets in front of your face, it's a very very hard choice for you to make to turn them down to study. Yeah, you can do it, but you gotta admit, that's a very tough choice. And a lot of people are not going to be strong enough to make that choice. It's easier (still not easy, but easier) to quit smoking when nobody around you is smoking - it's far more difficult to quit smoking when everybody around you is smoking.</p>

<p>Look, it's simply idealistic to say that you are just going to do what you want to do. The fact is, what you want to do is impacted by your social environment. No man is an island. The social environment to some extent, determines what all of us want to do, because human beings are social creatures and tend to find comfort in whatever the crowd is doing. Maybe you happen to be one of those mentally tough and confident people that I was talking about before, and so you have no problem in going against the crowd. But you must admit that a lot of people aren't like that. A lot of people are influenced by what the crowd is doing. </p>

<p>And even if you do happen to be one of those mentally confident and strong individuals, you are still impacted by what the crowd is doing, because the crowd will dictate what the other students around you will tend to do. So you might study because you have chosen to study. But if the rest of the environment is not as studious, then some of the other students will tend to not want to study, and like I said before, that hurts your overall academic experience. So maybe you turned down the NFL tickets to go to study, but the other guys didn't, so when it comes to the class discussion the next day, less people have anything good to say because they were all watching football instead of studying, and so you ended up learning less. You still learned something, but not as much as you could have if everybody had studied also.</p>

<p>Well Sakky, neither of us are going to give up our position, so there's no point in arguing any longer. Let bygones be bygones.</p>

<p>So with that said, I'm going to switch the subject a little bit.</p>

<p>How hard is it to get a job in hedge funds? The top companies are usually Caxton, Andor, and Citadel. I suppose it would be extremely hard to get hired out of undergraduate work, but what about after obtaining an MBA?</p>

<p>Still fairly difficult. Obviously it depends on many factors, like which B-school you are coming from, your experience in financial-services, your grades in MBA financial classes (one of the few instances where grades in an MBA program really matter) and so forth. </p>

<p>Getting a job at a hedge-fund out of undergrad is quite difficult, but not impossible. Again, much of it depends on, well, which undergrad program you're talking about. I know that Citadel recruits at Harvard and MIT. </p>

<p>The traditional path to getting into a hedge-fund is to first establish your chops in a more traditional finance field like I-banking first. Maybe that's the field you should be targeting as that field is far more friendly towards recent college graduates.</p>

<p>Sakky damn dude. How much time do you spend preparing what you have to say and actually typing it?</p>

<p>I’m currently a senior in high school and in the midst of applying to college. Though initiating my undergraduate education is my foremost concern at the moment, I’m also interested in eventually pursuing an MBA. My questions are, how do adcoms at top business schools feel about Political Science majors, and military service as a commissioned officer as work experience between college and business school?</p>

<p>if you mean as an OCT and an NSF combat 2LT/LTA, I'm guessing not much difference compared to a combat 3SG or a clerk CPL. In terms of 'work experience', because you know and I know that 'work experience' or even appointed leadership experience in a military bureaucracy has very little to do with real career experience. but it sounds nice, doesn't it? if only they knew.</p>

<p>Sakky & Alexandre:</p>

<p>After reading through 4 pages of your posts (which translate into about 40 normal CC threads) I was hoping to get a sense of where you rank undergraduate business and econs programs, across LACs state schools higher/lower ivies et al. Just the top 20, with some explanation.</p>

<p>There is a big difference between top Business programs and top Economics departments. Far more top universities and colleges have Economics departments than Business programs. For example, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Northwestern, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wesleyan etc... all have excellent Economics departments but none of them have undergraduate Business programs. As such, the difference between the top 5 Econ departments and the #20-25 Econ departments is insignificant. On the other hand, the difference between the top 3 or 4 undergradfuate Business programs and undergraduate Business programs that are not ranked among the top 10-15 is actually significant.</p>

<p>I personally recommend Economics as an undergraduate major. It is more challenging, more analytical and more versatile. Also, as mentioned above, you have access to more top universities if you major in Economics since about half of the top 20 universities do not even have Business as an undergraduate major.</p>

<p>Top Business Schools:
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross)
University of California-Berkeley (Haas)
New York University (Stern)
University of Virginia (McIntire)
Carnegie Mellon University
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Kenan Flagler)
University of Texas-Austin (McCombs)
Indiana University-Bloomington (Kelly)</p>

<p>Other top Business programs:
Cornell, Emory, Georgetown, Washington University</p>

<p>Top Economics Departments
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
University of California-Berkeley
Yale University
Northwestern University
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Columbia University
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of California-Los Angeles
Cornell University
Duke University
Brown University
Johns Hopkins University
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of California-San Diego</p>

<p>Other excellent Econ departments:
Amherst, Dartmouth, Haverford, Pomona, Swarthmore, Texas-Austin, Washington University, Wesleyan, Williams.</p>

<p>I am sure I am missing several top programs, but those are the main ones.</p>

<p>Invictus, I think that Alexandre's list of programs is pretty solid.</p>

<p>Great list, I'll definitely look into them. It would be really cool if you could make some comparisons between them though, to get a sense of where they stand in relation to each other.</p>