Schulich is very overrated. people should do their research first before enrolling there.
If you are set on MBA go accounting, MO/BO has the risk that you are actually a lazy person and will not move up/get more experience. No career progression in an average position is pretty much a deal breaker for MBA admissions at any of the better schools. With a CA you are guaranteed ok salary even if you hate your job. If you get stuck in BO you may still hate your job but make bad pay too. I agree that York is hugely overrated. They basically game the rankings (every “diversity” stat possible, and admit low earning students so that it is easy for them to get a pay increase) and leech off of the fact that they are in Toronto. Many of the boutique shops/US based companies have no idea what Schulich even is. Heck, even students at Kellogg have no idea that they have a “partnership” with York.
commstudent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont they bell up at Schulich? “bell up”? You must have went to Queens. A bell curve brings people to a median grade, some come up, some go down. If you’re referring to grade inflation, I would say Schulich deflates grades. Schulich mandates that the class average has to be C+ or B. This means that there are only a few A’s to be had, and very little (if any) A+'s. This combined with York’s retarded GPA system really f’s with our grades. Most strong students finish with a B+ average, top GPA in the class is usually around 8.5’ish out of 9. York IS a sh*t university, but Schulich IS a great B-school. I just feel their lack of co-op really hurts their students op’s when graduating.
does harvard have a co-op program? if not, does it hurt their students’ opportunities upon graduation?
What’s your point? Are you saying that no school should have co-op because Harvard doesn’t? You’re an idiot.
my point is that no co-op doesn’t diminish a students’ chance of landing a good job upon graduation. co-op is just really spoon feeding a job to you by bringing employers to your door step. if you were smart enough you would know where to apply anyway.
Co-op is just a mandatory program, saying that a B-school lacks of co-op, is like saying all the students are lazy and clueless. Also its saying the career centre is asleep. Ivey/McGill/Queen’s do not have co-op and do just fine. Co-op does not make the students better, the quality/talent has to still be there. I know students at SSB with ECs,summer job after 1st year, internship after 2nd, internship now during 3rd year. They use programs like inroads and alumni connections to find good jobs. I also have friends in student government there, the dean is planning to raise tuition fees, startup more clubs and get the name even more out there. Heck isn’t their some kid from SSB with a B+ avg, who created his own trading site and theory, and had offers from ML/DB etc…
I had written a huge post in support of Schulich but then I thought, who cares? We won’t sway any opinions. I am out of there and am happy, would I go there again? Probably not. Not because it was bad but because I should have gone as far away from home as possible given that my parents paid for everything. The school is good, people were good, got good jobs and no complaints. Just stop calling it York, last time I checked Schulich has a 25% higher admission requirement and isnt full of idiots. Thats like calling Osgoode the same as York…I dunno where you went Billwest but for undergraduate business you would be hard pressed to beat it in Canada.
ivey, queens and mcgill are all better. but i digress, let’s not start a school thread here.
and i’m not saying that Schulich isn’t good. i’m just saying that it’s overrated.
Queens kids barely know wacc and McGill is ranked in the 90’s…Schulich may be over ranked as compared to Ivey but lets not drop if 50 places to McGill.
That’s really funny lol… ca-cbv-cfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Queens kids barely know wacc and McGill is ranked > in the 90’s…Schulich may be over ranked as > compared to Ivey but lets not drop if 50 places to > McGill.
It´s 3 years of Big 4 M&A exp enough t break into an Ivy league MBA? ps. There´s actually an M&A advisory team (no DD stuff) in every Big 4
It´s 3 years of Big 4 M&A exp enough t break into an Ivy league MBA? ps. There´s actually an M&A advisory team (no DD stuff) in every Big 4
So bill, you went to McGill huh? I was just in Montreal last last weekend, great city.
i sat in for an interview with a schulich mba grad once. everything was fine until he was asked to do a quick one-page “competency” test. after two BEDMAS mistakes, they didn’t bother reading the rest. hahaha! (obviously not everybody there…but seriously, that’s pretty lame to let someone like that graduate)
ha that’s terrible. That’s why I used a caveat in my previous posts, in that I specifically said undergraduate business. The MBA’s are a bunch of customer service and marketing people with no english skills. That I cannot argue. I should say thats only MBA, not the EMBA. The EMBA is good.
I find it amusing that your argument of schulich is “one of the best” has so many constraints attached - only undergrad, not mba, emba is ok, schulich is not york…
lol this thread is just pissing me off now. I’m done.
Related question - I already have audit experience and am a CA in Canada. I would like to eventually move into a front office role (like everybody else). Right now I am planning to do Level 2, and hopefully Level 3 in the next 18 months. My question is this: Would it be good or bad for my chances of landing a FO role to move from audit into BO right now? I am trying to weigh the benefits of putting a Big 4 name on my resume versus putting a big name bank. In other words, what looks more attractive: CA/Level 3 pass working at Big 4, or CA/Level 3 pass working as accountant at major bank/hedge fund?