http://blog.accepted.com/acceptedcom_blog/2009/8/5/forbes-roi-mba-rankings-for-2010.html I am surprised to see Tuck chip in at number 2. INSEAD leads all non-US b-schools (no surprises here!)
Stanford is beating the likes of Wharton, Chicago and Harvard is a kinda news
I doubt an MD at GS will choose a Stanford MBA over a Wharton/Harvard/Booth MBA
+1
Do you really think it matters which of Harvard or Stanford MBA programs you attend? Also consider this is a ranking of MBA programs, not finance programs.
BTW this ranking is based on ROI, if you haven’t noticed.
IIRC I read somewhere that 50% of HBS kids went to Wall Street. That a pretty significant portion. I can only assume that kids at “lesser” school have the same pipe dreams as the kids at the targets. So it could be natural to assume that as the rankings decrease the # of finance kids moves inversely with the ranking #. Unless of course the school is a known consulting/management/entrepreneurship school. Even those programs are still finance oriented. Iginla2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW this ranking is based on ROI, if you haven’t > noticed. I didnt read it. I will on lunch break
Also remember that Stanford grads have a short hop to any number of Vcap jobs here in Silicon Valley. Or SF for hedge fund positions.
^^ Good point.
And, no one says that finance is always the most desirable field to be in. Many Stanford millionaires are entrepreneurs. In fact, Stanford MBAs make more money than MBAs from any other school, despite fewer of them working on “Wall Street”.
A Vcap friend of mine said he walks by some of the major law firms that advise IPOs to the firms down here and there is a lot of outside money coming into the US for IPOs. I am betting that the hot spot to be will be in positions that actually create something out of nothing, like startup companies with new products and software, vs. the slice and dice of financial products into more convoluted financial products with someone taking a piece out every step of the way. There is no added value to that anymore, just repackaging.
Well, there was a startup bubble in the early 2000s - just like credit derivatives, new companies can draw excessive levels of capital to the extent that they become unnecessarily risky. For an entrepeneurship boom to happen, there has to be some sort of catalyst; the internet, for instance, enabled many people to get rich by creating online services. The next catalyst could be alternate energy or biotech - who knows? It’s not really apparent what it will be or if it will even happen in the next few years.
^+1
I was suprised at how much money some small startup’s (with their founders being under 25) were getting through angle investors or 1st round capital raising. I can only assume that is all being fueled by debt, I doubt anyone with enough money to be investing in companies, would be investing in new companies with unproven technologies.
the movie august gave a decent look of the bubble… kind of happy and sad at the same time… dude had a dream but it was a one of make believe
I think that if an investor can open the right doors, their ROI could be pretty significant, and they probably take a big chunk of the equity. Banks wont finance these ventures nor will they open up the doors to sales, thereby increasing revenue. Im sure there are alot of viable businesses out there that could grow but for the financing.
There are lots of viable businesses that could grow if given more financing. The problem is identifying the 1 out of 20 infant companies to invest in. Even the best VC firms lose money on most of their investments.