markbot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my opinion, if you are going into finance > (which u are since you are studying for the CFA), > the top MBA programs are Wharton, Chicago, > Columbia, MIT, Harvard & Stanford. Harvard and > Stanford are not known as finance schools though. > Personally, I think Wharton and Chicago are the > top 2 schools in finance. Columbia is a top school > in finance by default since it’s in NYC, although > for some odd reason there is so much online hate > for the school. > > Add in Northwestern for general management or > marketing…and those are generally considered to > be the top schools. > > My personal appraisal of Harvard grads is that > they have a lot of confidence in themselves and > are real asses…but really don’t know jack about > finance. > > When I become a MD, I’m going to recruit from > Chicago, Wharton, Columbia, & MIT. well, i’ve met some harvard mba’s who don’t know much about finance as well as those who do. this is probably true of every school you mentioned. i know several dozen people who did or are doing their mba’s at harvard, which i’m pretty sure has the greatest number of ex-PE and ex-bankers in their class every year (with perhaps the exception of wharton)…and i’m pretty sure that these people know more than “jack” about finance. otherwise i’m in the wrong industry
there are always exceptions. also, just because someone used to be in ibanking or pe for 2 or 3 years doesn’t mean they actually know finance that well. for example…bankers routinely forecast only 5 years of b/s and i/s and then have the firm enter steady state…with a ridiculously high steady state growth rate. to balance this irrational growth rate they have to use a cost of capital that was absurdly high. but in any case, Harvard MBAs generally know less finance than Wharton MBAs is my experience.
top 5 is usually in this order h s wharton mit uchic
markbot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there are always exceptions. also, just because > someone used to be in ibanking or pe for 2 or 3 > years doesn’t mean they actually know finance that > well. for the most part, it does. not sure what they’re getting paid for if they don’t. banking analyst programs give you the most rigorous training in finance coming out of undergrad, and PE just builds off of that. not sure what models you have seen but transactional models, particularly those on the buy-side, are often much more complex and dynamic than equity research models, which are generally operating models. why? b/c laying on different capital structures and financing scenarios can create multiple scenarios above and beyond your simple three-statement model > for example…bankers routinely forecast only 5 > years of b/s and i/s and then have the firm enter > steady state…with a ridiculously high steady > state growth rate. to balance this irrational > growth rate they have to use a cost of capital > that was absurdly high. bankers are trying to sell companies. what do you think they did? why does it surprise you that they use optimistic growth rates? 99 out of 100 CIM’s use “optimistic” scenarios, which is why it should be up to the strategic or equity sponsor to do more detailed diligence, which is what we do every day. in addition, companies generally do and should be geared to deliver results in 3-5 years. why is it a meaningful exercise to forecast annuals beyond that? what makes you think that someone with an MBA or who’s passed the CFA or has some other arbitrary qualification can be any more “accurate” in predicting what a company will do 6+ years down the line? > but in any case, Harvard MBAs generally know less > finance than Wharton MBAs is my experience. my point was that there seems to be a lot of reverse discrimination against harvard, stanford, and other top schools on these boards. not sure why it’s so pervasive, but i think it’s silly and people need to get over their personal insecurities
> I have known many, many investment banking > analysts from bulge brackets with top gmats and > top grades from very good schools that did get > into their top choices. > I-bankers are compared against I-bankers. That’s why they don’t all get in to their top choices. If you’re a paperboy, you’ll be compared against fellow paperboys/girls, not I-bankers who’s superfical stats will be higher.
I have to admit my prejudice against HBS. I think they are the scum of the earth.
>In my opinion, if you are going into finance (which u are since you are >>studying for the CFA), the top MBA programs are Wharton, Chicago, >>Columbia, MIT, Harvard & Stanford. Harvard and Stanford are not >>known as finance schools though. Personally, I think Wharton and >>Chicago are the top 2 schools in finance. Columbia is a top school in >>finance by default since it’s in NYC, although for some odd reason >>there is so much online hate for the school. Yeah, in general I agree with this. At the finance schools, you’re likely to have more alumni in finance jobs, who will help you get finance jobs. The finance and investment clubs will be real solid. And the school’s general finance rep will probably help in your career. But there are some compelling reasons to think about going to a “non-finance” school and still wanting to go into finance. 1) Your finance background and finance aspirations at a non-finance school may help you get admitted easier. 2) It will be eaiser to get on-campus finance jobs because there will be less competition. I go to a “consulting” school, and the competition for the Bain, BCG, and McKinsey jobs was intense. But getting the Goldman and Lehman IB jobs wasn’t so bad. 3) At the same time, the recruiting will more more than sufficient. I don’t have much in the way of a comparison here, but I know that every school in the top 15 gets tons of banks (we’re talking >20). The investment management firms can be a little bit more selective, since they have fewer hiring needs, but it will still be good. Everyone who works at it will get a great internship. 4) You’ll have a better chance of standing out, i.e. earning a leadership role for a finance-related club or getting picked for a finance-related competition. (BTW, the competitions look great on the resume and sell well in the interviews). 5) The classes are quite similar, especially the cores. When you’re applying, it’s easy to dream about all the derivitives classes you’re going to take with the Nobel prize-winning profs. Once you get there, it’s more about finding the most interesting profs (whatever the dept) and taking those classes. Since I have a CFA, I’m looking more at the strategy classes and “soft skill” classes like negotiations than the tax accounting or other finance classes. Bottom line: the top finance schools are great and I’m not trying to diminish them. I just want people to know that top “non-finance” schools can be great for finance people too.
markbot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to admit my prejudice against HBS. no need for the confessional, it was abundantly obvious
> The investment management firms can be a little > bit more selective, since they have fewer hiring > needs, but it will still be good. Everyone who > works at it will get a great internship. Could you give an example of what investment management firms (traditional AM, HF or PE) come to your school and for what positions are available for the graduates who have a pre-MBA asset management experience. Thank you.
Is it a myth that you get better chance of admission if you are non resident (i.e. British applying to US Business school verse versa)?
Agree with MPT for the most part. I’ve spent way to much time looking at this myself and I’d rank them as follows (based on reading a ton of crap and talking with a bunch of people who work in NYC that went to these schools) 1. Harvard 2. Stanford 3. Wharton 4. Chicago 5. MIT 6. Northwestern 7. Columbia 8. Dartmouth 9/10. (take your pick) Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, Virginia, Yale, Duke I think after the top 8, the next 12 or so are all about equal in terms of prestige and it becomes a question of the region that you want to work in. I think there’s a large drop in prestige after the top 8, and then again after around school 16 or so.
here’s my order of preference: stanford harvard penn berkeley columbia nyu yale dartmouth mit though i’d never admit it to an interviewer or recommender, one reason why i’m looking into grad school is that i’m looking for a way to justify a 2-year break from the work-force. that’s why i’ve weighed location a bit more heavily than most.
Let me guess. You are trying to go to Berkeley. if location mattters…how come u ranked tuck?
Interesting, it looks as though all good MBAs are in the US. How about LBS?
I love it when people talk trash about HBS. Let’s be clear here. Of those that get in, very few choose to turn the opportunity down. To this day I only know of one person who turned down HBS (and that was for Stanford) - I worked for a company that sent a lot of folks to tops MBAs and I wrote many a rec (so I have a decent sample size) When it comes to name brand HBS carries a lot of weight across industries (not just finance, as is the case with several “top 5s”) and across countries. For instance in Europe great schools like Stanford or Chicago or Northwestern are less well recognized. That said, if you are singularly focused on Finance (and heavy quant at that) HBS may not be the best choice for you.
i know there’s a lot of discussion about each school having its unique “specialty” or whatever, and it’s certainly something worth playing up in the apps…but speaking candidly, i would be fine getting into at least one of H/S/W, and i wouldn’t think that any one of those schools would open doors that couldn’t be opened by the others
theKing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting, it looks as though all good MBAs are > in the US. > > How about LBS? Great school, I would place it in the top cluster, but the discussion here has been very US centric. There are many international schools that consistently make top rankings, LBS, INSEAD, HEC, CEIBS, IMD, IESE and are definitely worth a look.