WSJ Annual MBA Survey: Implications for Undergraduate College Search

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
I love it how Ross is left out of the equation. Very few recruiters would leave Ross out of any top 5, let alone top 10, ranking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My apologies but I don't exactly make the rules. And Ross isn't left out -- just recognized as one of several schools that are often observed in the top rankings but aren't always listed. I agree that any numerical cutoff can be arbitrary but at the end of the day, a line is still drawn.
I don't doubt that Ross is tops across recruiters' lists but if one is making a list of the top number of X schools, it is exclusionary by nature. So if we're accounting for the top five (and the undisputable top three are HBS, Stanford, and Wharton) you have Chicago, Columbia, Kellogg, Sloan, and Tuck to battle it out for the remaining two spots. It's the nature of numbers that it's inevitable for very excellent institutions such as Fuqua, Haas, and Ross to be left out.</p>

<p>As an aside, there are no biases on my part against Ross or any public schools. I'm myself am a proud "product" of a public institution (undergrad); while I ultimately chose to matriculate at another b-school, I would be very happy to call myself a Ross MBA.
The association with Michigan football this year, however, is another story... ;)</p>

42

<p>alexandre,
Given our historical battles and my different perception of U Michigan to yours, my agreement with calicartel and slipper certainly won't surprise you (although I might have argued for the inclusion of Haas in that top group). IMO U Michigan's Ross is a player on the national b-school stage and does well, like many b-schools, in recruitment. But outside of you and others that have a direct link to U Michigan, I have almost never heard that school mentioned as in the Top 10, much less the Top 5. Maybe we just travel in different circles. </p>

<p>Again, despite our history, I don't say this with antipathy. I do believe that Ross is a very strong b-school, but when you actually dig into the reality and the data that is commonly used to judge schools and build arguments in support of a school's position (and this is even more true for the undergraduate school), then U Michigan's comparative numbers are revealed as very good, but not exceptional. For the graduate Ross school, the only category that I saw in which Ross scored in the top 10 was its cost (Ross is the 2nd most expensive b-school in the country). I know you want Ross to be included in the very top group, but please give us something tangible and measurable that supports this view. Your opinions are nice, but I respectfully ask, what backs them up? </p>

<p>Now, having said all of the above, I still think that there are not great differences among the top group of 20+ schools and you will find reasonable to excellent numbers from each at the most competitive employers (and that certainly includes students from Ross). IMO, if Stanford or HBS is a 10, then none of these others would rank below an 8 and undoubtedly, they have many, many students that get hired alongside the Stanford/HBS grad. And then once the job starts, who the heck cares?</p>

43

<p>Hawette, I was not stating my opinion. I was stating fact. Recruiters tend to rank Ross among the top 10 and generally among the top 5. If you look at the USNWR or BusinessWeek rankings, you will clearly see that recruiters rank Ross among the top 5. The USNWR Recruiter Assessment Score for Ross was 4.4 (tied with Chicago, Sloan and Kellogg) in its latest MBA rankings. Only HBS, Stanford and Wharton got higher Recruiter Assessment Scores. </p>

<p>Overall, BW ranks Ross among the top 5, both according to the latest ranking and historically. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/06/full_time.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/06/full_time.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/ranking_history.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/ranking_history.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Overall, the USNWR has ranked Ross has high as #5, but generally, between #8 and #12. </p>

<p>But in terms of recruiter ranking, Ross is almost always ranked in or around the top 5 MBA programs.</p>

<p>This said, I agree that there is virtually no difference between the top 10 or top 15 MBA programs, but I do not think it is right to claim that Ross is not a top 10 MBA programs when clearly, the vast majority of corporate recruiters believe it is. With a standing endowment quickly nearing $500,000,000, a nearly completed $150,000,000 state-of-the-art facilty, one of the largest and most recognized faculties in the Business field and one of the strongest corporate networks to be found anywhere, I can assure you that it is not merely my opinion of the program that makes it a top 10 program.</p>

44

<p>alexandre,
This "argument" is not worth it for either of us. You and I will not resolve the issue of Ross's strength in a national context and frankly, I think it is immaterial. It's a good b-school, students from there are in the conversation and that's all you can ask for. After that, it is up to the student.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that there is great unanimity in the names that make up the WSJ Top B-School list and those in the Business Week ranking. While there are differences in order, the first 20-22 schools are virtually identical. This pattern continues in the USNWR Graduate Business School ranking. People may quibble about which school is ranked # X, but there is clearly a broad consensus in these rankings on which are the top graduate b-schools. </p>

<p>For fun, I created an average ranking for all 3 rankings (WSJ, BW, USNWR) for the 19 schools listed in the WSJ ranking list. I also added in three of the WSJ regional b-schools (Emory-Goizueta, U Texas-McCombs, Indiana-Kelly) that make the other two lists. I think the averaged results are pretty close except that Stanford's very weak WSJ score drops them to a lower rank than I would expect. </p>

<p>1 MIT (Sloan)
2 U Chicago
3 U Pennsylvania (Wharton)
4 UC Berkeley (Haas)
5 Dartmouth (Tuck)
6 Harvard
7 Northwestern (Kellogg)
8 Columbia
9 U Michigan (Ross)
10 Stanford
11 Duke (Fuqua)
12 U Virginia (Darden)
13 Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)
14 U North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler)
15 Yale
16 NYU (Stern)
17 UCLA (Anderson)
18 Cornell (Johnson)
19 USC (Marshall)
* U Texas (McCombs)
* Indiana U (Kelly)
* Emory (Goizueta)</p>

45

<p>

You grossly understimate the prestige of Wharton. It has the largest, most published, and most cited business school faculty in the world. Its admissions (acceptance rate, yield, average GMAT, etc.) and placement stats (average starting salary, # of job offers per graduate, prestige of employers, etc.) are far more comparable to Harvard's and Stanford's than to those of the other 5 schools you mentioned. With few exceptions--that generally also affect the rankings of Harvard and Stanford--Wharton is generally ranked in the top 3 in US rankings. In the Financial Times (of London) ranking of global MBA programs--probably the most widely read and respected international ranking of MBA programs--Wharton has consistently been ranked the #1 program in the world since the ranking began almost 10 years ago:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In terms of international reputation and alumni placement, Wharton has long held a position only matched by the likes of Harvard.</p>

<p>And in general terms, the long history of prominence of Wharton's alumni--going back 50 years or more when schools like Stanford, Kellogg, Haas, and Chicago were still only regional powers and continuing through to today--again puts it in a unique category with the likes of Harvard:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wharton_School_people%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wharton_School_people&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For many years, Wharton and Harvard were THE two nationally known names atop the MBA pantheon, long before names like Kellogg, Haas, Sloan, and even Stanford were known for business or, in some cases, even existed. The data today clearly establishes that Wharton is still there.</p>

<p>And if you still don't believe it :) , read this:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wharton_School%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wharton_School&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

46

<p>I agree with 45 Percenter. Along with Harvard, Wharton is the premier name in Business education, just like MIT in Engineering, Yale or Harvard in Law and Harvard or Johns Hopkins in Medicine.</p>

<p>At any rate, very little separates the top 10 MBA programs, so it is really pointless to argue about the little differences.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
Let's take a look at for example the caliber of the students who go to their respective b-schools.</p>

<p>GMAT:
Harvard = n/a
Stanford = 720
Wharton = 713
Berkeley-Haas = 707 (2006) 710 (2007 entry)
Dartmouth-Tuck = 710
Columbia = 706

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You do realize that the difference between a 700 and a 720 GMAT is roughly 93rd percentile vs. 96th percentile, right? That being said, please don't tell me you're using GMAT scores to evaluate the caliber of students at a school -- once a score is in a certain range, the absolute number really doesn't matter.<br>
Using metrics like standardized tests alone are unreliable because they're too easy to game -- for example, if Haas wanted to add a little pop to their ranking in USNWR, all they'd need to do is only accept students with 740+ GMATs with 3.6+ GPAs... and give them all hefty grants and merit scholarships to better the chance of matriculation. With small class sizes of 200+, this type of a solid profile <em>on paper</em> wouldn't be too hard to manufacture.</p>

48

<p>Ultra Cali, if you adjust for cost of living and industry allocations, you would see a far different picture.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
[2. Berkeley-Haas is again in the top 8.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I was to look at starting salary alone, I would honestly expect Haas to be higher, given that it's in an extremely high cost-of-living area. You'll notice that the rest of the schools on your list tend to feed their graduates* into similarly expensive geographic areas (not factoring industries or functions as that would even further complicate things) which helps to explain the relatively high base compensation.</p>

<ul>
<li>Kellogg/Chicago GSB's (and Ross, if it was on the list) lower cost-of-living (relative to much of the NE and most of CA) geographic location in the Midwest should probably lead to an upward adjustment of their salaries when doing comparisons against these schools</li>
</ul>

50

<p>And ultra cali, here's something else to consider in terms of academic prestige: in the specialty rankings by US News--</p>

<p>Wharton is ranked among the top 3 in FOUR specialties (Finance-#1, Marketing-#2, Accounting-#2, International-#3);</p>

<p>Harvard is ranked among the top 3 in THREE specialties (Management-#1, Nonprofit-#2, Entrepreneurship-#3);</p>

<p>Stanford is ranked among the top 3 in TWO specialties (Entrepreneurship-#2, Nonprofit-#3).</p>

<p>Also, remember that Wharton's faculty is THE most published and most cited business school faculty in the world.</p>

<p>The point is that while all of these are excellent schools and no doubt serve their students and graduates extremely well, Wharton has a longstanding breadth and depth of leadership in business education--plus prestige and name-recognition among the general public--that separates it from most of the others, and places it in the highest tier of MBA programs along with Harvard and Stanford, similar to the highest undergraduate tier of HYPS etc.</p>

<p>BTW, I did go back and read your post #22, and realize that you previously acknowledged this. :)</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
As for the other point: Aren't Chicago, Kellogg and Ross grads usually end up in highly urbanized/mega metropolis areas after MBA where the cost (of everything) is pretty similar to LA/Bay area??

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No -- check my post #46 to see the data for Kellogg. You can probably see similar break outs on the other school websites. And "urbanized/mega metropolis" areas are different from "high-cost-of-living-urbanized/mega metropolis" areas. In other words, places like Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Philly are huge, sure, but on the whole are still not nearly as expensive as places like SF/Santa Clara, Los Angeles/OC, and NYC.</p>

52

<p>Peer Assessment Scores:</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 Stanford University 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>5 Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4.7/5.0</h1>

<h1>5 University of Chicago 4.7/5.0</h1>

<h1>7 University of California-Berkeley (Haas) 4.6/5.0</h1>

<h1>8 Columbia University 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>8 Dartmouth College (Tuck) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>8 Duke University (Fuqua) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>8 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 Cornell University (Johnson) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 New York University (Stern) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 University of California-Los Angeles (Anderson) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 University of Virginia (Darden) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 Yale University 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>17 Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper) 4.0/5.0</h1>

<h1>17 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Kenan Flagler) 4.0/5.0</h1>

<h1>17 University of Texas-Austin (McCombs) 4.0/5.0</h1>

<p>Recruit Assessment Scores:</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University 4.6/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.6/5.0</h1>

<h1>3 Stanford University 4.5/5.0</h1>

<h1>4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>4 Northwestern University (Kellogg) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>4 University of Chicago 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>4 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross) 4.4/5.0</h1>

<h1>8 Dartmouth College (Tuck) 4.3/5.0</h1>

<h1>9 Columbia University 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>9 University of California-Berkeley (Haas) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>9 University of Virginia (Darden) 4.2/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 Duke University (Fuqua) 4.1/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 New York University (Stern) 4.1/5.0</h1>

<h1>12 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Kenan Flagler) 4.1/5.0</h1>

<h1>15 University of Texas-Austin (McCombs) 4.0/5.0</h1>

<h1>15 Yale University 4.0/5.0</h1>

53

<p>Wow. The scores are similar. ;)</p>

54

<p>Generally speaking, Peer Assessment Scores and Recruiter Assessment Scores will not differ too much one from the other.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Peer Assessment Scores:</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 Stanford University 4.8/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.8/5.0

[/quote]
</h1>

<p>
[quote]
Recruit Assessment Scores:</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University 4.6/5.0</h1>

<h1>1 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.6/5.0

[/quote]
</h1>

<p>


</p>

<p>I rest my case. :D</p>

56

<p>


</p>

<p>Actually, what the WSJ quoted recruiters as saying about Stanford grads was that they have an "elitist attitude":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=stanford%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=stanford&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But similar comments were also made about Wharton--"Students' sense of entitlement"/"Over-emphasis on Wall Street and consulting":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=upenn%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=upenn&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and Harvard--"Entitlement attitude":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=harvard%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool07/interactivetools/search/reputation.asp?school=harvard&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So Stanford's not really unique among the top 3 in that regard.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
In the West, Wharton has little "power" compared to Stanford (or even Haas).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not that I think you have any statistical evidence to back this up (and nor do I think anyone has any similar evidence to argue against it) but as a native Californian from the Silicon Valley, it's been my experience than Wharton (and a small handful of other schools other than HBS and Stanford GSB) have plenty of "power" against Haas **among recruiters<a href="we're%20not%20talking%20the%20random%20cute%20girl%20at%20the%20bar%20or%20Grandma%20Dorothy%20on%20the%20street">/b</a> in the West. Now, I'm not saying that it/they will consistently beat out Haas on it's own turf -- I'm saying that Wharton and a few others can more than hold their own versus Haas. In other words, I feel that you're grossly underestimating the industry recognition of other top b-schools outside of their immediate geographic areas.
By using your logic, one could claim that Haas would be relatively unsuccessful placing its graduates in Los Angeles, given the presence of two very well-respected b-schools in Anderson and Marshall -- obviously, that's not the case.</p>

58

<p>


</p>

<p>If that were the case, I doubt that Wharton would have had sufficient brand power to have opened it's very successful "Wharton West" campus in San Francisco several years ago:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/campus/wharton_west/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/campus/wharton_west/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

59

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=394638%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=394638&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Post #3 appears to shed some light on exactly what the WSJ rankings are evaluating -- and perhaps more importantly, what they are NOT evaluating.</p>