<p>If we’re still analyzing prestige, i think the best university to analyze would be Stanford. It is the youngest, most prestigious university in the world. HYP are its elders by anywhere from 150-250 years, and yet it is their peer. How did it do that? Was it the fact that it was given a large endowment? Well, Chicago, Emory and Duke were given similar endowments, and they aren’t peers of Stanford or HYPM either. So what explains the difference? Well, like anything else, there are a number of reasons behind that.</p>
<p>I mainly think it was the fact that Stanford basically started Silicon Valley and got a reputation for churning out billionaires, and other prominent alumni. These students might have flocked to Stanford instead of the ivies due to its strong academics and sunny California weather (how many people ‘like’ NE winters?) The other ivies were able to churn out more famous alumni due to their age and, essentially, lack of competition. That is not the case anymore, but their reputations, and resources, remain.</p>
<p>“Nouveau riche”? Vanderbilt has historical prestige among a VERY old-money crowd in parts of the midwest and south, in my experience. People who could buy and sell half of you for breakfast.</p>
<p>“Nouveau riche”? Vanderbilt has historical prestige among a VERY old-money crowd in parts of the midwest and south, in my experience. </p>
<p>Not in my experience Pizzagirl. We each have our experiences. But that proves that Vanderbilt is not universally prestigious socially…not in the Midwest anyway. I have no experience with old money in the South, but I am certain that Vanderbilt will receive far more widespread prestige there.</p>
<p>“People who could buy and sell half of you for breakfast.”</p>
<p>I doubt that Pizzagirl. You know very little about my financial background, let us leave it at that. ;)</p>
I’m not claiming that Vanderbilt is just as prestigious as Stanford or Rice is more prestigious than Cornell. What I’m saying is this:
It’s pretty easy to produce evidence that Vanderbilt measures up to several of the Ivies based on indicators many people seem to consider significant. If you think prestige has to do with selectivity - as many people apparently do (rightly or not) - then Vanderbilt ought to be considered very prestigious. If you think prestige has more to do with research production, then there too, Vanderbilt ought to be considered about as prestigious as a couple of the Ivies. </p>
<p>The hiring patterns of a few banks is one way, I suppose, to judge college prestige. Fine, if that’s important to you, and fine too if the OP had expressed interest in a career in investment banking. In that case, it would make sense to gently break it to him, “Buddy, if you go to Vanderbilt, even a smart guy like you might have to settle for a career in law or brain surgery”. However, he did not show the slightest interest in that field.</p>
I think its fair to say that we both feel very strongly about our respective opinions so its time to substantiate our arguments with some facts I think.</p>
<p>
Almost all of the rankings and data points I’ve seen point to the fact that Booth/Kellogg/Columbia/Sloan/Tuck have a tremendous advantage in terms of international brand, job recruiting, and selectivity. Lets just focus on the different overall rankings out there are job recruiting figures since the purpose of a professional program is to advance one’s career in a certain field so placement figures are of paramount importance.</p>
<p>Lets see where Ross stacks up with Booth, Columbia, Kellogg, Sloan, and MIT when you average out the 5 major business school rankings (USNWR, Financial Times, Businessweek, The Economist, and Forbes):</p>
<p>Just like how Nate Silver was able to predict the 2012 Presidential Elections with pinpoint accuracy by realizing that no one poll can truly capture an accurate result and that an average of all the major statistical studies needs to be considered to form a sound conclusion, the folks at Poets & Quants give us an overall ranking that captures the true reputation of the top 100 business programs vis-a-vis each other.</p>
<p>
I know you will protest the above ranking Alexandre so lets just examine how many Associates the major management consultancies picked up from all the business schools here in question:</p>
<p>** Total Big 3 Firm Hires in 2011**
Kellogg: 88
Booth: 76
Columbia: 60
Sloan: 55
Ross: 40
Tuck: 24</p>
<p>So, in management consulting, Ross is superior to Tuck but clearly a significant step behind Wharton and the rest of the M7. Harvard and Stanford didn’t release the list of top firms that hired their MBAs and total figures but I think we can safely assume that they would trump Ross.</p>
<p>Now moving on to Finance, lets look at how the major Bulge Bracket investment banks hired across the spectrum of top b-schools.</p>
<p>The companies I have included in the tally is JP Morgan, Citigroup, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Credit Suisse.</p>
<p>In finance, Columbia and Booth blow Michigan out of the water and while Kellogg trails somewhat, its because all of its graduates want to be consultants instead of bankers. Tuck graduates mostly go into Investment Management I believe.</p>
<p>Overall Consulting + Finance Hires
Columbia: 168
Booth: 142
Kellogg: 101
Sloan: 55+x (x signifying unknown amount of banking hires but lets assume its somewhere between Columbia/Booth and Kellogg)
Ross: 61
Tuck: 37</p>
<p>Only someone who isn’t up-to-date regarding business school reputation would suggest that Ross is on par with Booth, Kellogg, Columbia, and Sloan. The M7 exists for a reason Alexandre; the job recruiting and alumni networks these schools have are unparalleled. </p>
<p>Even Pizzagirl, who never brings prestige up in any discussion at all, would scoff at the idea that Kellogg and Ross are peers. Its like comparing Columbia Law to Duke, Northwestern, Michigan, or UVA Law.</p>
<p>“Just like how Nate Silver was able to predict the 2012 Presidential Elections with pinpoint accuracy by realizing that no one poll can truly capture an accurate result and that an average of all the major statistical studies needs to be considered to form a sound conclusion, the folks at Poets & Quants give us an overall ranking that captures the true reputation of the top 100 business programs vis-a-vis each other.”</p>
<p>Where MBA rankings are concerned, I only trust BW and the USNWR. I don’t see US publications ranking British programs, I am not sure why we should trust British magazines ranking US MBA programs. And Forbes is…a joke? I have often said that averaging the BW and USNWR rankings yields the best ranking for MBA programs. Ross would be ranked somewhere between #7 and #12 when averaging those two rankings. That shows how tiny the gap is between top 15 MBA programs. </p>
<p>“Total Big 3 Firm Hires in 2011
Kellogg: 88
Booth: 76
Columbia: 60
Sloan: 55
Ross: 40
Tuck: 24”</p>
<p>Don’t forget that Kellogg, Booth and Columbia are 20%-25% larger than Ross. When adjusted for size, Ross is comparable to Columbia and Tuck and only slightly lower than Booth and Kellogg, which is exactly what I said; that Ross is on par with several “M7” programs for Management Consulting, Tech and Manufacturing jobs. I admitted that Ross is not that strong in Finance, so I am not sure why you bothered bringing it up. Those interested in Finance are better served attending Wharton, Booth, Stern or Columbia. I stand by my initial statement, and your figures prove my point; several “M7” programs are not significantly better than Ross, which explains why some Michigan alums choose to attend Ross over some “M7” program</p>
<p>“Even Pizzagirl, who never brings prestige up in any discussion at all, would scoff at the idea that Kellogg and Ross are peers.”</p>
<p>I actually respect Pizzagirl, and I doubt she would “scoff” at such a suggestion. Kellogg and Ross are peers. I am the first to admit that Kellogg has the edge reputationally. If you look at several of my historic posts in the MBA forum, you will clearly see that I rate Kellogg higher than Ross, and rightly so. But Ross is not far behind. It is quite common for Michigan alums to choose to return to Ann Arbor rather than choose an MBA program that is only marginally better.</p>
<p>“Its like comparing Columbia Law to Duke, Northwestern, Michigan, or UVA Law.”</p>
<p>Reputationally (according to legal scholars, lawyers, judges and Big Law), Michigan Law is on par with Chicago, Columbia, NYU and UVa and slightly better than Duke and Northwestern. Below is the average reputational rating of those law schools according to the most recent Law school ranking:</p>
<p>Tk, no one questioned the claim that Vanderbilt is a prestigious school. I think everyone who posted in this thread has all confirmed that Vanderbilt is prestigious. So, let’s not debate about that. How prestigious is it was the question, and that’s what we will discuss here. Let’s review. The OP asked, is Vandy as prestigious as the Ivy? I said there’s no doubt that it is a good school like many top LACs that are attracting some of the most qualified students. But despite that, it seems to have a deficient in brand power that the Ivies have because the top employers do not consider it the way they see and view the Ivies, top publics and top LACs. Their hiring patterns were my evidence that Vandy, despite its high admissions selectivity, is only second option for many of these top companies, and that says a lot about their prestige. As a result, their graduates are way underrepresented at the top 3 business schools (and even at the top 3 law schools), because the top grad schools are requiring their candidates to have at least a stint at a top company. I have no doubts that Vandy is full of wealthy people. But the Ivies (and Stanford) are full of wealthy people too, yet they’re dominating the student bodies at the top professional schools.</p>
The only thing that matters when considering a law school is its reputation in the job market and maybe its reputation in academia (only matters to a very select law students who want to pursue this route).</p>
<p>Lets just entertain your notion that what legal academics think matter and look at the Peer Assessment portion of the USNWR 2013 ranking:</p>
<p>The above ranking still shows the schools that I argue are better than UVA and Michigan still score better (Columbia, Chicago, NYU). These form the T-6 law schools.</p>
<p>As far as employment goes, lets turn to Law School Transparency and rank these schools by how many of their graduates are employed in JD-preferred jobs (Big Law, Clerkship, and Public Service) and are not “Underemployed”.</p>
<p>Alexandre, no matter how you slice or dice it, Michigan is not a top 6 law schools and its peers are remainder of the T14 besides Cornell and Georgetown. There is no difference at all between Michigan and Duke/Northwestern Law (in fact UMich might be slightly worse). Michigan’s big law placement has been lagging for the last couple of years since it doesn’t have a home market which is detrimental during tough economic times. You can see how well Northwestern does-it completely dominates the Chicago legal hiring market.</p>
<p>I will address your Business School rebuttal soon Alexandre but my issue with you is that you rely too much on peer reputation rankings when you are not an expert in the field and thus don’t know where the cutoff point is between schools in different fields.</p>
<p>I don’t blame you though; no one can be an authority on school reputations in every single industry/academic field so I understand why you make some mistakes. I am an authority on law school however as I recently went through the law school application process so the information is fresh in my head and my reputational knowledge is fully accurate.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexander that there’s a significant drop in prestige after HSW (Big3). And, although Haas is slightly stronger than Fuqua, Tuck than Johnson, Booth than Ross, Kellogg than SOM, I’d say they’re all still peers to each other. </p>
<p>Goldenboy, why did you intentionally omit Fuqua’s numbers in post 227? Were you afraid that people will find out how you have been pushing it only to find out that it did not live up to your expectations?</p>
<p>“Alexandre, no matter how you slice or dice it, Michigan is not a top 6 law schools and its peers are remainder of the T14 besides Cornell and Georgetown. There is no difference at all between Michigan and Duke/Northwestern Law (in fact UMich might be slightly worse). Michigan’s big law placement has been lagging for the last couple of years since it doesn’t have a home market which is detrimental during tough economic times. You can see how well Northwestern does-it completely dominates the Chicago legal hiring market.”</p>
<p>You obvously know little about Law school goldenboy, despite your alleged law school admissions experience. All the informative discussions I have had with experienced lawyers suggest that there is no such thing as a T-6 law schools. You are the only person I have heard use that term as though it were a tangible fact. The general perception is that after YHS, there is little difference between the remaining T-14 law schools, and that Michigan is definitely one of the stronger programs among them the remaining 11. And your sources are as laughable as you are. It is almost as though your trust them simply because they validate your beliefs. According you to “Go-To Law schools”, Yale is #15! LOL! Are you kiddding me? Anybody who looks at it can tell you that it measures the graduates’ interest in big law, not big law interest in the graduates. The LST report is also a joke. Yale again does relatively poorly. 6.5% under-employed. Using your sources, one would choose Duke over Yale in a heartbeat!!! And Cornell is at 20% under-employed while Georgetown is at a whopping 23% under-employed. According to that gem of a source, George Washington is a significantly better option than Georgetown for Law school. Just because you went through the Law school admissions process for a few months does not make you an expert. In fact, based on the sources you are quoting, I should say your research was conducted with alarming incompetence. The people who respond to the law school ratings I posted above have decades of experience in the field. They have actually hired lawyers, taught law and practiced law at the highest levels. You are right, I am no authority on law schools, and it is high time that you stop pretending to be one. I will stick what the real experts say, not to your shallow and superficial observations based on a few months of poorly-conducted research.</p>
<p>“I will address your Business School rebuttal soon Alexandre but my issue with you is that you rely too much on peer reputation rankings when you are not an expert in the field and thus don’t know where the cutoff point is between schools in different fields.”</p>
<p>I do not see what there is to address. I stated that for MBAs seeking careers in management consulting and corporate jobs in industry, a Ross MBA is not significantly weaker than a MBA from a few “M7” programs and Tuck. If you read what I said, I clearly stated that Ross is weak in Finance. The data you provided for placement into top 3 consulting firms, when adjusting for size of MBA class, proves my point. Ross is not weaker than Columbia or Tuck and only insignificantly weaker than Booth and Kellogg. I suppose you are going to conjure up some other obscure report than “proves” your point. There is nothing you can say that is going to prove that Ross is significantly inferior to several “M7” schools and Tuck. Heck, Ross did as well as Kellogg and Tuck (when adjusting for class size), even when including your finance placement figures. I stand by my comment. Once you get past Harvard, Stanford and Wharton, the difference between top 10 or top 15 MBA programs is marginal. Perhaps , as you suggested above, Duke alums jump ship for the opportunity to attend an MBA program that is only marginally better than their own, but that is not the case with most Michigan alums. So do us all a favor and stop attempting to prove something that does not exist. Let us instead return to the point of this thread; Vanderbilt and the Ivy League.</p>
Tuck superior to Haas? lol… You’ve go to be kidding me, Goldenboy! </p>
<p>Sure Dartmouth-Tuck is slightly superior to Duke-Fuqua, but definitely not to Berkeley-Haas. At the very best, Tuck is just as good as Haas. Even Columbia is not superior to Haas. At the very best, Columbia is just as good as Berkeley-Haas.</p>
<p>O.K., I can accept that hiring patterns might be useful (to some degree) as an “outcomes” metric for assessing college quality … or prestige … or something. The value of such a metric is hard to judge because it is so hard to tease out the differences attributable to characteristics of students admitted (selection effects) from differences attributable to institutional impact (treatment effects) or career preferences. Also, its relevance may be limited to people interested in the career fields you’re tracking. You seem to think a few New York “bulge bracket” investment banks are some sort of indicator species that deserve special focus. Why should anyone believe that? </p>
<p>According to several metrics that appear to be related to public or academic perceptions of prestige, Vanderbilt University is virtually indistinguishable from several of the Ivies. These metrics include average entering student test scores (V=Stanford) for selectivity, endowment per capita (V > Cornell) for institutional wealth, total research expenditures (V more than 2X Princeton) for research activity, etc.</p>
<p>Are the bulge bracket “indicator” firms ignoring these similarities, bypassing some highly-ranked schools like Vanderbilt to focus exclusively on others? Maybe. Where’s the evidence for this? How would we know it’s not because Vanderbilt students prefer other career opportunities? Maybe there is a mania for jobs at BB firms that has taken hold in some schools (like the Ivies) but not others. If so, why should we consider the maniacs good academic role models? </p>
<p>I don’t think you’ve shown any data that even documents the hiring patterns you’re describing. I don’t deny such patterns exist, but it might be helpful to show their extent if you want to keep pursuing this line.</p>
<p>“You seem to think a few New York “bulge bracket” investment banks are some sort of indicator species that deserve special focus. Why should anyone believe that?”</p>
<p>Thank you. You’ve articulated this very well. </p>
<p>RML, few people turn down McK, et al because to go on the interview they had to be interested in a career there in the first place. You seem to think that these are automatically-preferred jobs. They aren’t. (I myself turned down BCG and what was then the consulting division of Arthur Andersen.) You keep ascribing some magical status to these particular careers / industries. They’re important to the people that they are important to, and they are unimportant and irrelevant to anyone else. The OP did not indicate any interest in those industries, so why should he care?</p>
<p>tk, from what I know, very, very few people turn down an offer from McKinsey, Goldman and the like. It’s a school’s pride to be able to send graduates to those companies in horde, that’s why they often include it in their marketing paraphernalia. The top students know that a career at those companies would then determine where their futures are going. If the top companies are seeking for Vanderbilt grads, I’m 100% sure that they’ll be able to snitch the top grads of that school easily, regardless how rich those students are. But those companies don’t. Vanderbilt does not dictate this pattern, the top companies do. So, the fact that only few Vandy grads are at those companies is a reflection of the companies’ less interest in seeking Vandy grads, not the other way around. What does that tell me? Simple. That Vanderbilt is not prestigious enough, so they don’t seek Vandy grads as much as they do Ivy grads, or even, Duke grads. It makes sense, right? </p>
<p>Someone suggested that perhaps Vanderbilt grads would rather attend law school. Yet the figures I’ve provided would tell that even at the top law schools [Harvard & Yale (and I supposed it’s also true at Stanford Law)], Vanderbilt grads are way, way less represented too. Duke, for example, has about 3 or 4 times as many as has Vanderbilt at both law schools. How different are those Vandy peeps from Duke peeps that they seem to ignore every brilliant opportunity that many Duke grads would die for to have? </p>
<p>You’re really quite unsophisticated if you don’t realize that there are plenty of great opportunities in the world beyond banking, consulting and law. </p>
<p>A college in which everyone flocks to the same professions and the same few schools is not a GOOD place. It’s the society of lemmings. Far better to be at a school with kids who want to do all different things, some of which will make a lot of money and some which won’t.</p>
<p>“TI, from what I know, very, very few people turn down an offer from McKinsey, Goldman and the like. It’s a school’s pride to be able to send graduates to those companies in horde, that’s why they often include it in their marketing paraphernalia. The top students know that a career at those companies would then determine where their futures are going.”</p>
<p>Lol! Remind me again why alumni magazines do cover stories about their alums who are doing INTERESTING things, not doing profiles on the students who wound up at McK. </p>
<p>I know tons of McK folks, I work with them all the time professionally and my BFF is a McK person. They are not as impressed with themselves as you seem to be by them.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I never said the OP was interested in a career in banking/finance. He never actually mentioned what career path he’s interested in. But just because he didn’t say he’s interested in banking/finance I cannot use it to prove a point. From what I know, a lot of Harvard grads weren’t originally thinking of going to banking/finance. Many of them have gotten interested in banking only when they’re already in Cambridge, or were about to graduate and saw it and found out that those top banks were offering something hard to ignore. Most 17/18 year olds don’t even have a clear career path that’s why many students shift programs. But that’s not the point. The point is – those companies can easily snitch top grads from any school on earth. That’s the point. Therefore, if these companies are interested in Vanderbilt the way they’re interested in Stanford, the Ivies, or Duke, I don’t think they couldn’t be successful in stealing Vandy’s best in joining with them.</p>
<p>Vanderbilt are way less represented at the top business schools, top law schools, and perhaps even at the top med schools. They’re also less represented at the top companies, and so on. So what are you actually suggesting now, Pizzagirl? That the top grads of Vanderbilt vanish on earth after graduating? lol…</p>