Got Email?

Due to overwhelming popular demand (er, an email from a friend), I've added a 'Want Updates?' section. Now you can get email updates whenever I post or set up an RSS feed through web services like your My Yahoo or Google pages.

To the Right, Please

If you haven't noticed, I've created several school hyperlinks on this blog. After taking an initial pass through top-tier programs, this is my rough-cut target list. I chose these among all others for basically the reasons I cited in my previous post, but without quite the same rigor that I'll use to make my final cuts. I know enough about each to say that they have the potential to fit me really well - but I want to go into more detail as I narrow from here. Obviously I can't apply to all thirteen, so I'll use the next few posts to announce my final five (maybe six) first-round targets.

Oh, and why five or six? Well, I think that's about as many applications as I can complete given the requirements at most schools. Each asks for at least two personal recommendations, which means that I'll have to ask my bosses and co-workers to write several rec's. Honestly, I can't impose on the same two people six times, so I'll have to spread my requests around. These people are already doing me a huge favor; I don't want to tax them or take advantage of their generosity. Also, most schools want four or five essays. Because I want to give each essay question honest, individual attention, I don't think I have the time or emotional energy to write more than six-times-four good samples.

Stay tuned for my picks!

The Five E's. Wait, there's only four E's ...

After my last post, I started jotting down different attributes that I want in a B school. As the list grew, I began grouping and distilling. Eventually I had five key categories:

• Education
• People
• Employment
• Exposure
• Environment

Education includes a school's strengths, curriculum, teachers, academic strategy, and study aboard/external project opportunities.

Most importantly, I want my professors to be business practitioners. They can't simply be ivory tower egg-heads who publish first and teach second. If you think that's an easy criterion, the truth might shock you. As surprising as it sounds, a 2005 Harvard Business Review article by Warren Bennis and James O'Toole suggest that B schools have "lost their way" for exactly that reason. "Today's business schools are packed with intelligent, highly skilled faculty with little or no managerial experience," they suggest. Thus, "instead of measuring themselves [B school professors] in terms of the competence of their graduates or by how well their faculties understand important drivers of business performance, they measure themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research." Thankfully, many schools have taken this article's warning to heart and revamped their faculties and curriculums to deliver a more practical education. Those schools that seem to have done this best will definitely climb higher on my list.

I'm also looking for a school with excellent strategy, management, and supply chain departments. I also want a flexible curriculum that will give me a solid business base but also allow me to specialize in a few key areas. Luckily, most of these attributes aren't hard to find at the top programs. Likewise, several schools offer opportunities to work on a project team and solve a real-world business problem - some programs even offer the chance to travel internationally. So far, I haven't found a top program that doesn't meet that requirement.

Considering People, specifically students and alumni, means taking into account the attitudes of the folks I'll be living and working with for 18 months. When I think about the people I want to be around, I think of collegiality, humility, and intellect. Conversely, I'd rather not attend a school where cut-throat competition and arrogance dominate people's interactions. After all, I'm not just there to bone-up on book learning; I'm there to meet people that will become my friends, mentors, colleagues, and business partners.

I want to feel the same way about the alumni network. I can't overstate how important I think it is for my school to have loyal, accessible, involved alumni. Not only are these the people that I'll call for advice or a job interview - these are the emissaries of my school to the world. The contributions they've made (of the damage they've done) will directly impact the value of my degree.

Examining Employment simply means looking at employment rates, job placement, and salaries. Those are simple, as most are quantifiable and, frankly, very good at all of the top schools. However, this also includes a school's career services department. Some schools are known for tremendously resourceful career programs that help students not only when they graduate, but years later. Others seem small, disinterested, or clumsy. I'll insist on the former.

A schools Exposure means it's reputation, it's international/national/regional presence, and it's name recognition. Yes, this is where rankings matter; as a school's rankings go, so goes its reputation. My undergraduate experience taught me to be wary of regional programs that have little clout beyond their immediate surroundings. Harvard's reputation spans the world. The University of Texas, while a tremendous program, still struggles to gain notoriety beyond the western United States. Likewise, I've learned to value a name that everyone recognizes. Duke, for example, carries weight that other schools do not, simply because it's a household name. It's no fun explaining where you went to school. This is perhaps the most superficial of my criteria, but it's undeniably important to me.

The last criteria - Environment - includes the school's urban/rural surroundings, facilities, weather, and region. I've been to New York City a few times and, while I liked visiting, I didn't get the feeling that I'd like living there. That makes it easier for me to move great schools like NYU and Colombia down a little. Tuck, on the other hand, is in a very rural part of New England. While ultimately it's other attributes make it a strong contender, living in Chicago sounds like more fun than living in Hanover, New Hampshire.

I terms of weather, I'd like lots of sun and mild temperatures (who doesn't?), but I'll only be there for 18 months, so I'm sure I can stand a brutal Northeastern winter or bitter winds on the shores of Lake Michigan. Of course, the region of the country has an effect on the weather, but it also has an effect on people and attitudes. Not to make sweeping generalizations but, in general, East Coast and West Coast mentalities can be starkly different. I grew up in Colorado and was educated in Texas, so those regions are obviously more familiar and comfortable for me. Although, perhaps experiencing the East Coast might help me grow as a person, as well as a student.

A Rank by Any Other Name

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."
- Machiavelli

Business school rankings are everywhere.

Among many others, BusinessWeek, US News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Forbes, and the Economist each have their own respected rankings. Each elevates a select few programs to a yearly (sometimes bi-yearly) pantheon of greatness. And, of course, each brews these lists using different (sometimes only slightly different) ingredients.

US News uses a quantifiable combination of incoming class GMAT scores, GPA's, percent of applicants accepted, employment rates, salaries, and dean/director survey results. The Wall Street Journal uses recruiter feedback. The two lists are different, but not so much so that the top 15 schools (or so) don't show up (mostly). In other words, if you take a step back, the lists don't change much from publication to publication, or even year to year.

These rankings have their critics, of course. It doesn't take a PhD in sociology to know that people too often turn appearance into reality. At their heart, these rankings are based on opinions. Even a student body's average GMAT score reflects the opinion of those students who apply at - and eventually attend - their institution.

That, then, raises some key questions - questions that will eventually make a big difference when I whittle down my list of target programs.

First, do rankings really matter at all? If so, how much do they matter and which rankings matter to me?

The answer to the first question is, my opinion, 'yes,' they matter. They matter because most people think they matter. Employers will pay more for a top-10 MBA, on average, than they will for a top-25 MBA ... more recruiters visit top programs, expanding the opportunities for top-flight students ... the brightest students are attracted to the top programs for the reasons I just mentioned, and so on.

The fact is, the more highly ranked your program, the better chance you have of finding a cool job and making more money. It's that simple.

I know; you're about to say that I think this because I read it in the same magazines that sell me rankings. That might be partially true, but I also know several people who have experienced this phenomenon. Many of my co-workers have an MBA from the University of Denver's Daniels School of Business. While this degree seems to provide its applicants with a very good education, it doesn't seem to lead to the jobs so many of them would have hoped. Too many settle for less money, less responsibility, and, frankly, less job satisfaction than their top-tier MBA counterparts. Does this mean they're any less adept at solving business problems? I seriously doubt it. It does mean, however, that the perception in the market, the career services at their school, and their alumni network are simply not as strong as they are at the Harvard's and Stanford's of the business world.

Then again, those who push rankings as a good assessments of a program's inherent merit would say that rankings do what they're supposed to do: reflect superior quality. That's a chicken/egg argument and, frankly, I'm not sure it matters. All I know is that, while my friends who went to Daniels seem to have received a great education, my friends who went to Stanford, Kellogg, and Duke also got great educations - and much cooler job offers. And, by the way, these programs all cost about the same.

So, if rankings matter - at least to me - then it's logical to try to find the degree to which the various positions make a difference in overall job satisfaction (including salary, opportunity, etc.) Rather than peal apart the numbers -and I'm sure many have - I'm going to give a gut assessment that seems to resonate with others: I'll go top-15, top-10 if I can, or I'll reconsider going at all.

Movement within the top-15 is, of course, the topic of much angst, argument, and speculation. US New ranks Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton in the top-5 virtually every year. BusinessWeek shuffles all three around, but they always land in the top ten. The Wall Street Journal usually ranks these three in the top-15 but, nevertheless, they almost always remain above that 15-slot watermark. Programs like Michigan seem to float from #1 (WSJ) to #11 (US News). Kellogg and Tuck hang around in the top 5'ish, UCLA and, on occasion, the University of Texas, seem to hover around the lower 15.

That's a long way of saying that the lists change, but they don't change a great deal. Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, etc are almost always in the top-15. Notre Dame, Daniels, and the University of Illinois - all good programs - are almost never ranked that high.

I hope these schools get a fair shot but, honestly, I'm glad there's a little continuity. That makes building my list a lot easier. But it still leaves me questioning which lists and, ultimately, which individual programs, fit me best.

For example, if I simply wanted name recognition, I could Google "business school" and use the top hits as my list. Here's what it would look like:

1. Harvard
2. Wharton
3. Stanford
4. Colombia
5. Michigan
6. University of Washington
7. NYU
8. University of Texas

Other than U of W, the list looks pretty familiar, doesn't it?

How about if I used the WSJ's information on recruiting numbers to determine my list? Ranking schools as a percentage of the class that gets hired with top strategy firms (my goal after graduation), the list looks like this:

1. Wharton (18%)
2. Kellogg (14%)
3. Columbia (12%)
4. MIT (11%)
5. Dartmouth (11%)
6. Chicago (6%)
7. Michigan (6%)
8. Yale (4%)
9. Duke (4%)

(Stanford and Harvard don't report employment numbers by firm, but I'm sure they'd make this list's top-5)

This list could show up in any respected publication's rankings and be taken very seriously. In other words, there's no magic list that provides all the answers. Dissecting each ranking with excruciating detail is probably going to confuse an applicant more that it will help reveal the "right" school.

Of course, I'll use the lists above and I'll consider what BusinessWeek and the WSJ say. Ultimately, however, rankings are simply a way to quickly gather the general body of institutions from which I hope to eventually choose one. Beyond that, rankings are interesting, but can't possibly tell the whole story. Thanks to rankings, I have a general target group. Now each program's individual strengths - academic approach, teaching focus, student collegiality, alumni network, location, etc - have to inform my next decision: where to actually apply.

"New Graduation Skills"

The Economist's perspective on reshaping MBA programs ...

As a hopeful applicant, I'm not excited to see business school applications approaching 2001/2002 levels. But as a buyer, I'm very happy to hear that the perceived value of an MBA has rebounded.

Still, I agree with Paul Danos, Tuck's dean, when he suggests that recent application trends track economic cycles, not curriculum reform. To his point, the "Going back to school" graph seems to negatively correlated with the health of the US economy. In other words, as people were losing their jobs in 2001 and 2002, business school applications were "significantly up" and in 2000 and 2005, when the economy was strong, applications were flat. Business school is a great time to ride out a recession if you're job is in jeopardy, so the simplest explanation of the the application trends align with Mr. Danos' theory. While I'm encouraged by the changes, reforms simply haven't had enough time to impact the overall demand for MBA's.

So what? Well, predictable supply and demand trends like these suggest that the value of the degree flows from more established perceptions, not short-term operational corrections. In other words, most people are applying to business school based a long history of return-on-investment, not because the degree has become inherently more attractive. While curriculum reform may one day drive demand for the degree upward, today and for several years to come, perspective students will rely on decades of employment trends to decide whether to get the degree.

While the current wave of reforms won't alter my decision to go or not go, it will effect where I apply. I'll want to see programs taking real steps to address the concerns raised by this article, particularly around practical experience and ethics. Schools that haven't devised creative, aggressive ways to improve these areas will undoubtedly fall off my list. Luckily, the top programs seem to universally acknowledge the need for change. Tuck's Global Consultancy course or Kellogg's Global Initiatives in Management, for example, send students abroad to help companies solve pressing issues. That sounds pretty real to me.