Thanks for taking time to read my post. My case is quite diffrent. I am a US legal alien with a Bachelors (sociology) degree from Africa and an 2 years experience in non profit work also in Africa. I aim at changing career into business and thus an MBA. I have been targeting Georgia State university Fall 2010 because i thought thats where my GMAT score would allow me. I did my Gmat 1st week March 2010 and got a score of 650 (i was expecting 550 at best) and now suddenly i think my international background and ok score can allow me acceptance to a better school like Georgia Tech or UGA however these schools admissions is closed and even if i got in on space available basis I wouldnt qualify for graduate assistant which I am aiming for. I am now contemplating waiting to apply for Fall 2011 so that i apply for graduate assistant. Low fees is important for me because i aim at returning to Africa after some time and think minimising loans is key coz African salaries no matter how good may struggle to repay US loans. I am already getting offers from good schools like Hult and Mendoza business schools telling me to apply for certain scholarships and fellowships there but the gap between scholarship and fees is still too large. My question is in my sitiuation is the opportunity cost of waiting one year worth it?
Would you wait another year?
Posted Mar 18, 2010 05:45
0
Thanks for taking time to read my post. My case is quite diffrent. I am a US legal alien with a Bachelors (sociology) degree from Africa and an 2 years experience in non profit work also in Africa. I aim at changing career into business and thus an MBA. I have been targeting Georgia State university Fall 2010 because i thought thats where my GMAT score would allow me. I did my Gmat 1st week March 2010 and got a score of 650 (i was expecting 550 at best) and now suddenly i think my international background and ok score can allow me acceptance to a better school like Georgia Tech or UGA however these schools admissions is closed and even if i got in on space available basis I wouldnt qualify for graduate assistant which I am aiming for. I am now contemplating waiting to apply for Fall 2011 so that i apply for graduate assistant. Low fees is important for me because i aim at returning to Africa after some time and think minimising loans is key coz African salaries no matter how good may struggle to repay US loans. I am already getting offers from good schools like Hult and Mendoza business schools telling me to apply for certain scholarships and fellowships there but the gap between scholarship and fees is still too large. My question is in my sitiuation is the opportunity cost of waiting one year worth it?
Posted Mar 18, 2010 06:08
0
Hult is crap. I don't know about Mendoza though. And chances are that Notre Dame might invite you - they're also crap.
I guess you could run a possible scenario - what if you wait a year, would it significantly increase your earning capacity post MBA etc?
Hult is crap. I don't know about Mendoza though. And chances are that Notre Dame might invite you - they're also crap.
I guess you could run a possible scenario - what if you wait a year, would it significantly increase your earning capacity post MBA etc?
I guess you could run a possible scenario - what if you wait a year, would it significantly increase your earning capacity post MBA etc?
Posted Mar 22, 2010 18:21
0
Hult is crap.
That's harsh - care to explain why it's crap?
It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation.
<blockquote>Hult is crap. </blockquote>
That's harsh - care to explain why it's crap?
It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation.
That's harsh - care to explain why it's crap?
It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation.
Posted Mar 22, 2010 18:58
0
Thanks Fishball and Ralph. I am also amazed by the diffrence in opinion about the quality of various programs. I have decided to settle for a college in GA preferably GA Tech or UGA although I will have to wait another year, I figured getting a good MBA with low ammounts in loans is more important.
Thanks Fishball and Ralph. I am also amazed by the diffrence in opinion about the quality of various programs. I have decided to settle for a college in GA preferably GA Tech or UGA although I will have to wait another year, I figured getting a good MBA with low ammounts in loans is more important.
Posted Mar 25, 2010 05:38
0
Well, look at the placement numbers, vs the placement numbers of LBS.
Well, look at the placement numbers, vs the placement numbers of LBS.
Posted Mar 27, 2010 20:44
0
Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS. Particularly given they are focused on foreign students not locals. See: http://www.find-mba.com/board/14744
Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS. Particularly given they are focused on foreign students not locals. See: http://www.find-mba.com/board/14744
Posted Mar 28, 2010 12:52
0
Well, I'm currently on the Hult MBA website now - I'm trying to find the recruitment numbers and companies. Unfortunately I can't seem to find them.
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/MBA2009_EmploymentReport_LBS.pdf
I'm curious to what you mean by "they are focused on foreign students not locals" have to do with when comparing with LBS. LBS is apparently one of the most international programs, so in that sense, the comparison is fair.
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.
On another note, Hult seems to place more into Marketing roles (30%) and General Management/HR (26%) which is approximately half the class.
http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
LBS puts more into Management Consulting (31%) and Financial Services (36%) - with even 24% of the class going into investment banking. I would say that they have far better roles when compared to Hult's Marketing/General Management/HR roles.
I think after looking at those numbers, I would easily pick LBS over Hult any time. Keep in mind that LBS is recognized widely in Europe and parts of Asia. What kind of recognition does Hult have? I'm not comparing renumeration because of differences in cost of living etc, but feel free to look at those numbers if you want too.
Well, I'm currently on the Hult MBA website now - I'm trying to find the recruitment numbers and companies. Unfortunately I can't seem to find them.
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/MBA2009_EmploymentReport_LBS.pdf
I'm curious to what you mean by "they are focused on foreign students not locals" have to do with when comparing with LBS. LBS is apparently one of the most international programs, so in that sense, the comparison is fair.
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.
On another note, Hult seems to place more into Marketing roles (30%) and General Management/HR (26%) which is approximately half the class.
http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
LBS puts more into Management Consulting (31%) and Financial Services (36%) - with even 24% of the class going into investment banking. I would say that they have far better roles when compared to Hult's Marketing/General Management/HR roles.
I think after looking at those numbers, I would easily pick LBS over Hult any time. Keep in mind that LBS is recognized widely in Europe and parts of Asia. What kind of recognition does Hult have? I'm not comparing renumeration because of differences in cost of living etc, but feel free to look at those numbers if you want too.
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/MBA2009_EmploymentReport_LBS.pdf
I'm curious to what you mean by "they are focused on foreign students not locals" have to do with when comparing with LBS. LBS is apparently one of the most international programs, so in that sense, the comparison is fair.
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.
On another note, Hult seems to place more into Marketing roles (30%) and General Management/HR (26%) which is approximately half the class.
http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
LBS puts more into Management Consulting (31%) and Financial Services (36%) - with even 24% of the class going into investment banking. I would say that they have far better roles when compared to Hult's Marketing/General Management/HR roles.
I think after looking at those numbers, I would easily pick LBS over Hult any time. Keep in mind that LBS is recognized widely in Europe and parts of Asia. What kind of recognition does Hult have? I'm not comparing renumeration because of differences in cost of living etc, but feel free to look at those numbers if you want too.
Posted Mar 29, 2010 17:47
0
Very deft analysis, thank you for this.
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
One problematic aspect of placements is that most of the statistics are internal. I'd wager that this is because it's extremely hard for external sources to track this data. Because I'm somewhat of a skeptic, I'm always weary of studies done internally - simply because I don't trust the motivations. That said, I don't doubt that LBS has very high rates of placements.
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.
Very deft analysis, thank you for this.
<blockquote>
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
</blockquote>
One problematic aspect of placements is that most of the statistics are internal. I'd wager that this is because it's extremely hard for external sources to track this data. Because I'm somewhat of a skeptic, I'm always weary of studies done internally - simply because I don't trust the motivations. That said, I don't doubt that LBS has very high rates of placements.
<blockquote>
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.</blockquote>
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.
<blockquote>
LBS' recruitment numbers/companies are here
</blockquote>
One problematic aspect of placements is that most of the statistics are internal. I'd wager that this is because it's extremely hard for external sources to track this data. Because I'm somewhat of a skeptic, I'm always weary of studies done internally - simply because I don't trust the motivations. That said, I don't doubt that LBS has very high rates of placements.
<blockquote>
However, it seems that Hult isn't a targeted recruitment school for organizations such as McKinsey/Bain/Boston Consulting nor are they or finance organizations such as Goldman Sachs. On the other hand, such esteemed organizations do recruit at LBS - as shown by the employment report.</blockquote>
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.
Posted Apr 04, 2010 06:08
0
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.
Fair enough, different student groups have different needs. However, I'm making a big assumption here - that all students want higher paying careers, and to that, organizations such as Goldman Sachs are more likely to pay more. There are plenty of smaller organizations that also offer the same pay levels, but they tend to be very niched and exclusive in their hiring as well.
Look at business schools as a filter for human capital. The top people go to the top schools, the lesser people go to the lesser schools. That would be the first stage.
The second stage would be the recruiting companies. They will take the better crop of students from the top students that go to the top schools. The lesser companies would then take the ... left overs (although I will say that there are exceptions, but a majority of the time this is what happens).
So if you look at it that way, I think it would be possible to say the quality of the students at LBS would be better than that of Hult. Which is important as you would want to be able to learn and network with a better class.
But like I've said, yes, there are exceptions to the norm - but I would say that they are far and few. But unless you have Hult is offering something unbelievable that can never be matched by LBS (cost of attendence aside), it's almost always better to head to LBS.
On another note, I would be more wary of a school that doesn't publish any recruitment numbers. While it's fair to say that the figures are internal, I would like to think/or hope, that there is some sense of accountability with the numbers that are published - perhaps this is where the accreditations come in? But to be honest, I don't know whether the published numbers are audited.
Anyway, you're right in saying it's like comparing apples to oranges.
<blockquote>
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.</blockquote>
Fair enough, different student groups have different needs. However, I'm making a big assumption here - that all students want higher paying careers, and to that, organizations such as Goldman Sachs are more likely to pay more. There are plenty of smaller organizations that also offer the same pay levels, but they tend to be very niched and exclusive in their hiring as well.
Look at business schools as a filter for human capital. The top people go to the top schools, the lesser people go to the lesser schools. That would be the first stage.
The second stage would be the recruiting companies. They will take the better crop of students from the top students that go to the top schools. The lesser companies would then take the ... left overs (although I will say that there are exceptions, but a majority of the time this is what happens).
So if you look at it that way, I think it would be possible to say the quality of the students at LBS would be better than that of Hult. Which is important as you would want to be able to learn and network with a better class.
But like I've said, yes, there are exceptions to the norm - but I would say that they are far and few. But unless you have Hult is offering something unbelievable that can never be matched by LBS (cost of attendence aside), it's almost always better to head to LBS.
On another note, I would be more wary of a school that doesn't publish any recruitment numbers. While it's fair to say that the figures are internal, I would like to think/or hope, that there is some sense of accountability with the numbers that are published - perhaps this is where the accreditations come in? But to be honest, I don't know whether the published numbers are audited.
Anyway, you're right in saying it's like comparing apples to oranges.
This may be true, but without hard external statistics or case studies it's really hard to determine. More fundamentally though - are students who go to either LBS or Hult really interested in how many people get placed at Goldman Sachs? This branding seems more like a marketing ploy than a reason to go to a school - simply because there are literally 1000s of other businesses that will recruit at levels and salaries as GS. GS is just another brand, no more or less, in my opinion.
I'm not arguing for or against either one of these schools - because I think they serve different customers. Like I mentioned in an earlier post here, comparing a top tier school to a lower ranked one is like comparing apples to oranges.</blockquote>
Fair enough, different student groups have different needs. However, I'm making a big assumption here - that all students want higher paying careers, and to that, organizations such as Goldman Sachs are more likely to pay more. There are plenty of smaller organizations that also offer the same pay levels, but they tend to be very niched and exclusive in their hiring as well.
Look at business schools as a filter for human capital. The top people go to the top schools, the lesser people go to the lesser schools. That would be the first stage.
The second stage would be the recruiting companies. They will take the better crop of students from the top students that go to the top schools. The lesser companies would then take the ... left overs (although I will say that there are exceptions, but a majority of the time this is what happens).
So if you look at it that way, I think it would be possible to say the quality of the students at LBS would be better than that of Hult. Which is important as you would want to be able to learn and network with a better class.
But like I've said, yes, there are exceptions to the norm - but I would say that they are far and few. But unless you have Hult is offering something unbelievable that can never be matched by LBS (cost of attendence aside), it's almost always better to head to LBS.
On another note, I would be more wary of a school that doesn't publish any recruitment numbers. While it's fair to say that the figures are internal, I would like to think/or hope, that there is some sense of accountability with the numbers that are published - perhaps this is where the accreditations come in? But to be honest, I don't know whether the published numbers are audited.
Anyway, you're right in saying it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Posted Apr 14, 2010 18:49
0
I think this discussion has come a bit off-track. I dont think anyone would dispute that LBS is a better business school than Hult. You can see that in the rankings.
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
I think this discussion has come a bit off-track. I dont think anyone would dispute that LBS is a better business school than Hult. You can see that in the rankings.
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
Posted Apr 15, 2010 05:38
0
I think this discussion has come a bit off-track. I dont think anyone would dispute that LBS is a better business school than Hult. You can see that in the rankings.
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics
Well, perhaps you misunderstand when I say a breakdown of stats - I'm looking for the hiring companies and how many each company hired from Hult. The link you've given just shows a very, broad picture without the details - which I feel is as if they were trying to conceal information.
Most, if not all, of the top schools which I've checked on, tend to give VERY detailed reports on recruitment. Down to the internship numbers too.
The original comments about Hult and LBS were
"It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation. "
and
"Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS. Particularly given they are focused on foreign students not locals"
So that's why the discussion of LBS and Hult came about.
Frankly, I think any school whose claim to fame is a formerly defunct consulting company, may definitely want to reconsider revamping their strategy.
Very simply, if Hult (formerly known as Arthur D. Little School of Management), established in 1964 has had trouble not only establishing themselves, but also breaking into the top 10 list (with the banking of the world's first consulting company), I would question why?
For comparison, INSEAD (established 1957 - only 7 years before) has firmly positioned itself as a top 10 school, and definitely a top 3 school outside of the USA.
(I'm comparing Hult with INSEAD - because both are 1 year programs, and established with 10 years of each other)
<blockquote>I think this discussion has come a bit off-track. I dont think anyone would dispute that LBS is a better business school than Hult. You can see that in the rankings.
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics</blockquote>
Well, perhaps you misunderstand when I say a breakdown of stats - I'm looking for the hiring companies and how many each company hired from Hult. The link you've given just shows a very, broad picture without the details - which I feel is as if they were trying to conceal information.
Most, if not all, of the top schools which I've checked on, tend to give VERY detailed reports on recruitment. Down to the internship numbers too.
The original comments about Hult and LBS were
"It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation. "
and
"Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS. Particularly given they are focused on foreign students not locals"
So that's why the discussion of LBS and Hult came about.
Frankly, I think any school whose claim to fame is a formerly defunct consulting company, may definitely want to reconsider revamping their strategy.
Very simply, if Hult (formerly known as Arthur D. Little School of Management), established in 1964 has had trouble not only establishing themselves, but also breaking into the top 10 list (with the banking of the world's first consulting company), I would question why?
For comparison, INSEAD (established 1957 - only 7 years before) has firmly positioned itself as a top 10 school, and definitely a top 3 school outside of the USA.
(I'm comparing Hult with INSEAD - because both are 1 year programs, and established with 10 years of each other)
But you said Hult was crap. And i dont think that is the case.
BTW - the School does publish its career stats. http://www.hult.edu/mba-program/your-career/statistics</blockquote>
Well, perhaps you misunderstand when I say a breakdown of stats - I'm looking for the hiring companies and how many each company hired from Hult. The link you've given just shows a very, broad picture without the details - which I feel is as if they were trying to conceal information.
Most, if not all, of the top schools which I've checked on, tend to give VERY detailed reports on recruitment. Down to the internship numbers too.
The original comments about Hult and LBS were
"It's definitely not a top 10 school, but it holds its own against schools in its category - Warwick, Lancaster, etc. Hell, because of the strength of its international program I'd put it up against LBS if you're looking to get a job in China or UAE after graduation. "
and
"Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS. Particularly given they are focused on foreign students not locals"
So that's why the discussion of LBS and Hult came about.
Frankly, I think any school whose claim to fame is a formerly defunct consulting company, may definitely want to reconsider revamping their strategy.
Very simply, if Hult (formerly known as Arthur D. Little School of Management), established in 1964 has had trouble not only establishing themselves, but also breaking into the top 10 list (with the banking of the world's first consulting company), I would question why?
For comparison, INSEAD (established 1957 - only 7 years before) has firmly positioned itself as a top 10 school, and definitely a top 3 school outside of the USA.
(I'm comparing Hult with INSEAD - because both are 1 year programs, and established with 10 years of each other)
Posted Apr 23, 2010 14:34
0
Fishball - you are unbelievably arrogant. I think LBS deserves you, since you obviously either work for them or study there.
Fishball - you are unbelievably arrogant. I think LBS deserves you, since you obviously either work for them or study there.
Posted Apr 23, 2010 18:01
0
Hear hear Sanghai.
Hear hear Sanghai.
Posted Apr 23, 2010 18:39
0
Fishball - you are unbelievably arrogant. I think LBS deserves you, since you obviously either work for them or study there.
So, I back up my case with actual facts taken from the websites, do proper comparisons and you call me arrogant? We're having a discussion here, not a name calling session, don't get personal.
If you really believe that Hult matches up to LBS, and does a better job than INSEAD, by all means, go ahead and attend Hult. It doesn't matter to me where you attend, but it matters to YOU where you attend.
<blockquote>Fishball - you are unbelievably arrogant. I think LBS deserves you, since you obviously either work for them or study there.</blockquote>
So, I back up my case with actual facts taken from the websites, do proper comparisons and you call me arrogant? We're having a discussion here, not a name calling session, don't get personal.
If you really believe that Hult matches up to LBS, and does a better job than INSEAD, by all means, go ahead and attend Hult. It doesn't matter to me where you attend, but it matters to YOU where you attend.
So, I back up my case with actual facts taken from the websites, do proper comparisons and you call me arrogant? We're having a discussion here, not a name calling session, don't get personal.
If you really believe that Hult matches up to LBS, and does a better job than INSEAD, by all means, go ahead and attend Hult. It doesn't matter to me where you attend, but it matters to YOU where you attend.
Posted Apr 23, 2010 18:50
0
"Hult is crap. I don't know about Mendoza though. And chances are that Notre Dame might invite you - they're also crap."
0% fact. 100% arrogant.
I notice you don't deny you are at LBS.
"Hult is crap. I don't know about Mendoza though. And chances are that Notre Dame might invite you - they're also crap."
0% fact. 100% arrogant.
I notice you don't deny you are at LBS.
0% fact. 100% arrogant.
I notice you don't deny you are at LBS.
Posted Apr 23, 2010 21:55
0
Wouldn't you be more arrogant in calling me arrogant right off the bat without asking me why I said those things?
1. Let's look at the placement for those schools. They just don't match up with the better schools. Do you want to start pulling up recruitment numbers to compare Hult with other schools? Go ahead, let's do it. I've proven that Hult's recruitment isn't stellar - with actual facts. Now are you going to call me arrogant for doing so?
2. Let's look at Notre Dame's style of getting students. It's known that ND tends to mass send invitation emails to people who have taken the GMAT asking them to apply. I feel that such a method reeks of desperation.
http://business.nd.edu/MBA/Your_Career/Top_Employers/
Here at the top employers of Notre Dame. Now, they are solid companies, but they pale in comparison when compared to the companies that recruit at better ranked MBA programs.
You sound like a Hult/Notre Dame cheerleader. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings mmkay? Don't cry.
Oh yeah, like I said, it really doesn't matter where you attend. It makes no difference to me whether you're in Harvard, or Hult. But, I feel that if people are asking for a fair opinion, and I'm able to back up my opinion with facts, I should be able to share it.
Wouldn't you be more arrogant in calling me arrogant right off the bat without asking me why I said those things?
1. Let's look at the placement for those schools. They just don't match up with the better schools. Do you want to start pulling up recruitment numbers to compare Hult with other schools? Go ahead, let's do it. I've proven that Hult's recruitment isn't stellar - with actual facts. Now are you going to call me arrogant for doing so?
2. Let's look at Notre Dame's style of getting students. It's known that ND tends to mass send invitation emails to people who have taken the GMAT asking them to apply. I feel that such a method reeks of desperation.
http://business.nd.edu/MBA/Your_Career/Top_Employers/
Here at the top employers of Notre Dame. Now, they are solid companies, but they pale in comparison when compared to the companies that recruit at better ranked MBA programs.
You sound like a Hult/Notre Dame cheerleader. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings mmkay? Don't cry.
Oh yeah, like I said, it really doesn't matter where you attend. It makes no difference to me whether you're in Harvard, or Hult. But, I feel that if people are asking for a fair opinion, and I'm able to back up my opinion with facts, I should be able to share it.
1. Let's look at the placement for those schools. They just don't match up with the better schools. Do you want to start pulling up recruitment numbers to compare Hult with other schools? Go ahead, let's do it. I've proven that Hult's recruitment isn't stellar - with actual facts. Now are you going to call me arrogant for doing so?
2. Let's look at Notre Dame's style of getting students. It's known that ND tends to mass send invitation emails to people who have taken the GMAT asking them to apply. I feel that such a method reeks of desperation.
http://business.nd.edu/MBA/Your_Career/Top_Employers/
Here at the top employers of Notre Dame. Now, they are solid companies, but they pale in comparison when compared to the companies that recruit at better ranked MBA programs.
You sound like a Hult/Notre Dame cheerleader. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings mmkay? Don't cry.
Oh yeah, like I said, it really doesn't matter where you attend. It makes no difference to me whether you're in Harvard, or Hult. But, I feel that if people are asking for a fair opinion, and I'm able to back up my opinion with facts, I should be able to share it.
Posted Apr 24, 2010 10:08
0
You are arrogant because you are stating that all schools other than the very top ones are crap. That is insulting to the vast majority of students who cant make it into the elite institutions. They know their schools are not top-tier. But that doesnt make them or their schools crap.
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!
You are arrogant because you are stating that all schools other than the very top ones are crap. That is insulting to the vast majority of students who cant make it into the elite institutions. They know their schools are not top-tier. But that doesnt make them or their schools crap.
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!
Posted Apr 24, 2010 10:11
0
BTW - fishball before you accuse me of being factless. The top paid banker in teh world last year got an MBA from Hull University. Which i am pretty sure you would think is totally crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia
BTW - fishball before you accuse me of being factless. The top paid banker in teh world last year got an MBA from Hull University. Which i am pretty sure you would think is totally crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia
Posted Apr 24, 2010 10:40
0
BTW - fishball before you accuse me of being factless. The top paid banker in teh world last year got an MBA from Hull University. Which i am pretty sure you would think is totally crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia
So tell me, how many of Hull graduates are on the top? I guess if 1 out of the 19,000 alumni they have makes it to the top then it's representative of the program?
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/alumni.aspx
But any how, before you launch yourself into a rant against me. Let's get this clear.
1. A school doesn't make who you are.
2. Your success depends on your own abilities, especially after 5 years from graduation.
But, that doesn't stop a crap school, from being crap.
Can you look at the context in which I said the school was crap?
1. (I said) "Well, look at the placement numbers, vs the placement numbers of LBS. "
2. (niklas_n) "Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS."
And I presented the facts. Which are actually representative of the schools, LBS and Hult. Put it this way, if you're going to tell me that a Honda can outrun a Ferrari and I present to you the performance numbers of a Ferrari vs a Honda and they clearly show that it's impossible for a Honda to outrun a Ferrari, would you call me arrogant?
<blockquote>BTW - fishball before you accuse me of being factless. The top paid banker in teh world last year got an MBA from Hull University. Which i am pretty sure you would think is totally crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia</blockquote>
So tell me, how many of Hull graduates are on the top? I guess if 1 out of the 19,000 alumni they have makes it to the top then it's representative of the program?
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/alumni.aspx
But any how, before you launch yourself into a rant against me. Let's get this clear.
1. A school doesn't make who you are.
2. Your success depends on your own abilities, especially after 5 years from graduation.
But, that doesn't stop a crap school, from being crap.
Can you look at the context in which I said the school was crap?
1. (I said) "Well, look at the placement numbers, vs the placement numbers of LBS. "
2. (niklas_n) "Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS."
And I presented the facts. Which are actually representative of the schools, LBS and Hult. Put it this way, if you're going to tell me that a Honda can outrun a Ferrari and I present to you the performance numbers of a Ferrari vs a Honda and they clearly show that it's impossible for a Honda to outrun a Ferrari, would you call me arrogant?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/standard-chartered-payoff-butalia</blockquote>
So tell me, how many of Hull graduates are on the top? I guess if 1 out of the 19,000 alumni they have makes it to the top then it's representative of the program?
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/alumni.aspx
But any how, before you launch yourself into a rant against me. Let's get this clear.
1. A school doesn't make who you are.
2. Your success depends on your own abilities, especially after 5 years from graduation.
But, that doesn't stop a crap school, from being crap.
Can you look at the context in which I said the school was crap?
1. (I said) "Well, look at the placement numbers, vs the placement numbers of LBS. "
2. (niklas_n) "Dont look to bad to me relative to LBS."
And I presented the facts. Which are actually representative of the schools, LBS and Hult. Put it this way, if you're going to tell me that a Honda can outrun a Ferrari and I present to you the performance numbers of a Ferrari vs a Honda and they clearly show that it's impossible for a Honda to outrun a Ferrari, would you call me arrogant?
Posted Apr 24, 2010 10:43
0
You are arrogant because you are stating that all schools other than the very top ones are crap. That is insulting to the vast majority of students who cant make it into the elite institutions. They know their schools are not top-tier. But that doesnt make them or their schools crap.
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!
You're jumping conclusions. Did I say that "all schools other than the very top ones are crap"? No, I only mentioned two schools. Nor did I say that students at non top tier programs were crap either. Please, don't put words into my mouth.
Hmm... if a school were really good, top tier or not, would it have.... spare capacity? Would a good company going for an IPO be under-subscribed?
Frankly, like I said, it doesn't matter to me which school you go to. You have to believe that.
<blockquote>You are arrogant because you are stating that all schools other than the very top ones are crap. That is insulting to the vast majority of students who cant make it into the elite institutions. They know their schools are not top-tier. But that doesnt make them or their schools crap.
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!</blockquote>
You're jumping conclusions. Did I say that "all schools other than the very top ones are crap"? No, I only mentioned two schools. Nor did I say that students at non top tier programs were crap either. Please, don't put words into my mouth.
Hmm... if a school were really good, top tier or not, would it have.... spare capacity? Would a good company going for an IPO be under-subscribed?
Frankly, like I said, it doesn't matter to me which school you go to. You have to believe that.
Now you are saying that a school that has to market itself is crap. What would you like a school with spare capacity to do? Not sure what they teach you in marketing in LBS but it doesnt sound like sitting around waiting for applications is the best strategy.
BTW - i am applying to neither Hult nor Notre Dame. Am damn sure you think the school i will be going to is crap as well!</blockquote>
You're jumping conclusions. Did I say that "all schools other than the very top ones are crap"? No, I only mentioned two schools. Nor did I say that students at non top tier programs were crap either. Please, don't put words into my mouth.
Hmm... if a school were really good, top tier or not, would it have.... spare capacity? Would a good company going for an IPO be under-subscribed?
Frankly, like I said, it doesn't matter to me which school you go to. You have to believe that.
Related Business Schools
Notre Dame, Indiana
14 Followers
39 Discussions
London, United Kingdom
168 Followers
475 Discussions
Fontainebleau, France
72 Followers
309 Discussions
Singapore
33 Followers
171 Discussions
Atlanta, Georgia
15 Followers
29 Discussions
Atlanta, Georgia
18 Followers
27 Discussions
Full Profile
Cambridge, Massachusetts
34 Followers
179 Discussions
-94c63.png)
Other Related Content
Feb 07, 2024
London Business School Announces New 1-Year MBA
News Feb 07, 2024
Hot Discussions
-
Dilemma over IE business school EMBA
Apr 05, 2024 280 12 -
Oxford executive diplomas
Apr 01, 2024 259 9 -
Cambridge Judge vs RSM
Apr 09, 2024 265 7 -
How to evaluate IIFT's Executive PGDM
Apr 03, 2024 145 5 -
Mannheim vs WHU
Apr 09, 2024 177 3 -
Take GMAT again?
Apr 23 02:15 AM 77 3 -
City or Manchester for MiF?
Apr 09, 2024 139 1 -
Two MBAs for the price of one
Apr 12, 2024 186 1
