<p>Rank these schools in attractiveness to B-Schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn (Wharton), Duke.</p>
<ol>
<li>Wharton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
</ol>
<p>Harvard=Wharton
Princeton=Yale
Duke</p>
<p>Here's the breakdown of 2004 Wharton MBA admits by undergraduate institution:</p>
<p>
[quote]
1 University of Pennsylvania 50</p>
<h1>2 Harvard University 30</h1>
<h1>2 Princeton University 30</h1>
<h1>4 Cornell University 25</h1>
<h1>4 Stanford University 25</h1>
<h1>6 Duke University 20</h1>
<h1>7 Columbia University 15</h1>
<h1>7 Dartmouth College 15</h1>
<h1>7 University of California-Berkeley 15</h1>
<h1>7 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 15</h1>
<h1>7 University of Virginia 15</h1>
<h1>7 Yale University 15</h1>
<h1>13 Brown University 10</h1>
<h1>13 Georgetown University 10</h1>
<h1>13 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10</h1>
<h1>13 University of California-Los Angeles 10</h1>
<h1>13 University of Chicago 10</h1>
<h1>18 Northwestern University 5</h1>
<h1>18 New York University 5</h1>
<h1>18 Penn State 5</h1>
<p>No other university contributed more than 4 students to Wharton's entering class of 850 students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do keep in mind, however, that Penn has (1) probably a disproportionate number of applicants and (2) a degree of "home court advantage". In any event, I hope that helps.</p>
<p>Other factors to keep in mind are undergraduate class size as well as location of the school (east coast students more likely to apply to east coast schools).</p>
<p>does anyone else have any ideas?</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that Harvard and Stanford have their own top business schools, which may have special attraction for undergraduates from those institutions, just as Wharton does for Penn undergrads.</p>
<p>^^^^^exactly</p>
<p>going into this thread, i thought it would be easier for HYP students to get into business school (or a good job) than it would be for wharton students. so your saying im wrong?</p>
<p>One also needs to keep in mind that certain schools simply have more students than others, and therefore would be expected to send more students to a particular graduate school just by virtue of sheer numbers. For example, Penn has nearly twice the number undergrads that Harvard does, and nearly 3 times the number that MIT has. That fact alone would mean that you ought to expect more Penn undergrads at Wharton or any other graduate B-school than Harvard or MIT undergrads.</p>
<p>From what I hear, very few Wharton undergrads actually go for the MBA....they take classes many MBA students take in the first place.</p>
<p>Exigent, as I said on another thread, I think the number is about 1/3. </p>
<p>The fact that Wharton undergrads take many MBA classes is not particularly relevant, for the simple fact is that, like it or not, the MBA isn't really so much about classes. Rather, it's really about networking, contacts, and access to the career office. A lot of MBA students spend very little of their time studying, instead choosing to spend it building their network and shmoozing with recruiters. Makes a lot of sense too - what's the point of getting perfect grades and then not getting a job? Better to just barely pass your classes while getting the exact job that you want. This sort of attitude is compounded further by the practice of many leading B-schools of grade nondisclosure, where your grades can never been seen by any prospective employers. Honestly, how hard are you really going to be studying if you know that nobody will ever be allowed to see your grades? </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Plenty of Wharton undergrads go to banking or consulting as analysts. Yet the fact is, as an analyst, you can't just decide to stay. It's not really up to you. Analyst positions generally last about 2-3 years upon which the top 5-10% are invited to stay on as associates, and the rest are effectively "fired" (in that they are released with the expectation that they will head off to B-school). So if you're in that 90-95% of people, and you want to continue to work in consulting or banking, then you really have no choice but to get your MBA. You can't just say "Hey, I have a Wharton BS degree and I already took lots of MBA clases, so I should be allowed to stay in the company". If you're not in that top 5-10%, then that's it. You're out. And if you want to get back in, you now have to get your MBA. That's how it works.</p>
<p>Another informative post from our CC resident expert, the inimitable "sakky" :p</p>
<p>So for students who say "I don't want to do undergrad business because I will just get an MBA" is that a mistake? I mean if they think they are going to get the business education in an MBA program, but they spend all of their time not studying in lieu of partying and schmoozing, then why not just do business as an undergrad? At least then you'll put effort into your education.</p>
<p>With regards to Wharton alums - most of them CHOOSE to leave I-banking and consulting (like tons of other alums from other schools) because they get burnt out, or because they see it as like a residency program before they go off and do something they actually care about and see as a career. For most people, the i-banking and consulting are first jobs, not necessarily a career.</p>
<p>For those I know in i-banking who chose to stick with it, they've been able to move up just fine to associate positions without being asked or told to get an MBA. I think MBAs are more of a necessity for consulting (in which case many consulting companies will pay your tuition), much less so for banking.</p>
<p>It doesn't really matter - Your GPA and extra curricular activities will play a much more important role in your admissions than the "prestige" of each of those 5 top-tier universities.</p>
<p>Princeton alums may even have an advantage over Harvard alums (with the same GPA) due to Princeton's reputation of being a much "harder" school.</p>
<p>sakky-Great post, but the era of grade nondisclosure at b-schools is over (starting with the class of 2008).</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky-Great post, but the era of grade nondisclosure at b-schools is over (starting with the class of 2008).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. It is true that Wharton has formally ended grade nondisclosure, but in a practical sense, it still exists with only minor tweaks.</p>
<p>Check out the 3/20 blog here that explains it all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your GPA and extra curricular activities will play a much more important role in your admissions than the "prestige" of each of those 5 top-tier universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this, but I would say that all of that pales in comparison to your work experience and leadership experience, which are far and away the most important attributes to get you into B-school. I've known super-genius engineers and scientists at MIT who've completed their PhD's and then applied to MBA schools (including the MIT Sloan School) and couldn't get in. Why? Simple - no work experience. Heck, I've even known people who have gotten admitted to the PhD program at the Sloan School but couldn't get into the MBA program at Sloan. Again, it was because of lack of work experience. Business doctoral programs don't care very much about work experience, but MBA programs do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton alums may even have an advantage over Harvard alums (with the same GPA) due to Princeton's reputation of being a much "harder" school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/princeton.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/princeton.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html</a></p>
<p>I am well aware of Princeton's new grading policy that will attempt to cap grade inflation. We shall have to see how well that works. My take is that the cap of 35% A's is still pretty high. I know a lot of MIT and Caltech students who would love to be in a class where 35% of the grades are A's. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't see MBA programs really crediting students for surviving 'hard' programs. If they did, then I have to imagine that the top MBA programs would be absolutely filled with MIT and Caltech alums. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So for students who say "I don't want to do undergrad business because I will just get an MBA" is that a mistake? I mean if they think they are going to get the business education in an MBA program, but they spend all of their time not studying in lieu of partying and schmoozing, then why not just do business as an undergrad? At least then you'll put effort into your education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's for the simple fact that, right or wrong, a lot of future bankers/consultants/whatever just don't care about a business education, whether it is obtained in undergrad or in an MBA program. They're not really there to learn anything, at least not in an academic sense.</p>
<p>The sad truth is that a lot of business classes really aren't very useful or practical. It's sad to say, but it's true. The truth is, there are many many things that comprise a business degree that, quite frankly, you will never use and that are not particularly helpful. Much of the value of a business education consists of the networking opportunities and, probably the most important of all, the 'market signal' that you were good enough to get into that school in the first place. For example, one McKinsey recruiter once frankly stated that if McKinsey could just get a hold of the list of people who were admitted to HBS (including all of the people who actually matriculated at HBS as well as all of those people who chose another school or chose not to go to school at all), then McKinsey wouldn't even bother to recruit at HBS at all. They would just recruit people off that list. Hence, what a lot of companies are really doing is they are leveraging the school's admissions office as an 'outsourced HR department'. By graduating from a big-name school, you are signalling to the market that you were good enough to get admitted in the first place, which means that a lot of the company's initial screening and recruiting has already been done. You've been "pre-screened" by the MBA adcom.</p>
<p>In fact, I've seen this precise attitude among many students at the top MBA programs, in that the hardest part of the program was simply getting in. Now that they are in, they can basically socialize, network, and enjoy life for 2 years, and also, on the side, pick up some business knowledge. But only on the side. Heck, I distinctly remember one Wharton MBA student who was actually drunkenly bragging about failing a class, for the simple reason that he just didn't put in any effort into the class. But of course, with grade nondisclosure, it really doesn't matter if you fail a class, and so it's not surprising in the least that a lot of students choose not to care about their classes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For those I know in i-banking who chose to stick with it, they've been able to move up just fine to associate positions without being asked or told to get an MBA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's quite odd considering all of the Wharton BS alums who I know who went to Ibanking and are now getting or already got their MBA's at Sloan or at HBS with the express intent of going right back into banking. </p>
<p>
[quote]
think MBAs are more of a necessity for consulting (in which case many consulting companies will pay your tuition)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would actually treat these tuition-reimbursement programs quite cautiously. Almost all of them have clauses that basically bind you to the company for a set number of years, and companies will often use that as leverage to simply pay you less of a bonus or a salary increase later on, knowing full well that you can't really threaten to leave the company because you are bound. </p>
<p>I think that the better deals are the full sponsorship programs, in which not only will companies pay for your tuition, but will also pay you a full salary while going to school. Yep, you are actually MAKING money while getting your MBA. But obviously these programs tend to bind you extremely tightly to the company, to the point where you can probably expect only a minimal raise (or perhaps no raise at all) once you graduate.</p>
<p>I think if you are smart enough it is probably better to get a Ph.D. in Business/Economics/Management (at Harvard or Stanford GSB or Sloan). Then you would be teaching MBA's. The "only" downside is three extra years that you lose. But you also actually get to learn something about business.</p>
<p>(Believe me or not as you wish, but I know more about Business Economics as a third year Caltech undergraduate than you learn in MBA school. If you care about knowledge or intellectual legitimacy, MBA is not the way to go.)</p>
<p>Sakky-Thanks for the blog link. At Wharton, I'm afraid the incentives for grade disclosure look sort of like a prisoners dilemma... If everyone "cooperates" and doesn't disclose grades, everyone benefits. But there's a high temptation to "defect" and disclose grades, to get a competitive advantage over peers for the very competitive jobs (ibanking, right?). Once some people start disclosing, that will induce more people to disclose, until grade disclosure becomes essentially required by recruiters.</p>
<p>However, I've heard that at Wharton, students disincentivize disclosure by banning students who do disclose from parties/extracurricular groups/etc. Not sure how that's enforced (and I know of no similar thing at Harvard).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think if you are smart enough it is probably better to get a Ph.D. in Business/Economics/Management (at Harvard or Stanford GSB or Sloan). Then you would be teaching MBA's. The "only" downside is three extra years that you lose. But you also actually get to learn something about business.</p>
<p>(Believe me or not as you wish, but I know more about Business Economics as a third year Caltech undergraduate than you learn in MBA school. If you care about knowledge or intellectual legitimacy, MBA is not the way to go.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but like I said, a lot (probably almost all) of business is not really about what you know. Rather, it's about WHO you know. In other words, networking. </p>
<p>The truth is, you really don't have to know very much to be highly successful at business. You just have to know a lot of important people, and have a forceful and charismatic personality. That's why a lot of downright brilliant people would make for very poor businessmen. Business is not so much about having brilliant ideas as it is about convincing others that your ideas are brilliant, which has a lot to do with marketing and salesmanship. </p>
<p>I'm also not sure that the business PhD's are better for everyone than the MBA is. They are certainly better for SOME people, but not others. For example, if you happen to be that highly social, highly shmoozy kind of cat, I think that the MBA would be far far better for you. Every PhD, including the business PhD, is inherently a lonely and somewhat antisocial affair. Think of it this way. While you're alone in your room wrestling with your dissertation, your MBA colleague is at a social function glad-handing people. </p>
<p>Furthermore, every business doctorate program I've ever run across will strongly push its students into academia. That is, after all, why business doctoral programs exist. Hence, if you want to get a business doctorate on your way to McKinsey or Goldman Sachs, you can do it, but the road will be lonely. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky-Thanks for the blog link. At Wharton, I'm afraid the incentives for grade disclosure look sort of like a prisoners dilemma... If everyone "cooperates" and doesn't disclose grades, everyone benefits. But there's a high temptation to "defect" and disclose grades, to get a competitive advantage over peers for the very competitive jobs (ibanking, right?). Once some people start disclosing, that will induce more people to disclose, until grade disclosure becomes essentially required by recruiters.</p>
<p>However, I've heard that at Wharton, students disincentivize disclosure by banning students who do disclose from parties/extracurricular groups/etc. Not sure how that's enforced (and I know of no similar thing at Harvard).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would think that it's a matter of 'social shunning'. For example, if you become known as the guy who broke grade non-disclosure, then that would hurt your relations with others, because the student body as a community decided to enact this rule that nobody would disclose grades, and by breaking that rule, you are basically signalling that you don't wish to be part of that community. You have to remember that much of the value of the MBA is in the networking, so if you become known as 'the jerk' or 'the rule-breaker' among your peers, you are basically hurting the value of your degree. </p>
<p>I would say that breaking ranks by disclosing your grades in defiance of what the student body has decided is a pretty short-sighted move. Sure, you might get the job you want, but 5 or 10 years down the line when you want to contact some of your old Wharton classmates and they don't want to talk to you because of your reputation as a rule-breaker, then that's what the chickens come home to roost.</p>
<p>Do you think the end of nondisclosure will change the HBS atmosphere, since there's no student agreement to nondisclose? The HBS students I talked to last week (I'm renting their apartment for the summer!), were concerned about this. One of them said she wouldn't have come, if grades were able to be disclosed.</p>