All in All, if you are 100% sure that you want IBD, I don't see any reason to go to K.
1. style. trying to land a finance job in a consulting school is much easier than in a finance school, because all the top financial institutions did campus recruiting, which means the same opportunities but much less competitors. I got this point from a Kellogg alumni, who I can tell is VERY down-to-earth and who got 3 top IB offers in 2002 as we all know is the worst year for IBers ever.
If you have any professional service background, e.g. finance/accountig/auditing/consulting, you are 90% ensured for an interview for IBD as long as you are in a decent school and your resume does not have stupid mistakes. If not, please do go to W if you really wanna IBD. Reasons: 1) As far as I know, course design and interview training in K are diff from in W. Ppl in top non-finance schools without any previous finance/professional experience are not secured with interviews/offers in IB. W is able to turn you into a finance type person no matter what you did before, as least in perceptions from banks. In K, I am not sure you can have the same handy training and exposure in financial industry. 2) W/Chi/Col students have more chances to get into IBD. Most IBDs in top tier IBs, say gs/ms/ml/lm/ubs/cs/db/jpm/citi, will do campus recruiting in most top schools. But many boutiques only do in several selected schools. W/Chi/Col are must-gos for them. 3) If you get into a top bank, you'll still see much more ppl from W/Chi/Col there, which is apparently an advantage in networking for them. As ppl know, IB is all about relationship and networking. And you might be one of the few K guys there.
2. location, while I don't think Phili is not that bad in terms of job landing given almost all the students in both schools don't have to go to wall street in person, especially in the first and second round interview. Maybe in final round those banks will fly candidates over the wall street, so location doesn't seem to make any difference for me.
Agree. Location seems indifferent in your reasoning above, though I think it does mean sth.
3 campus life, I have to say I place particular importance on it because study there is also living there. I do hope to have enjoyable life experience over the 2 years between two sell-my-soul working experiences back and forth.
Chicago may have more to play with while Wharton is close to many famous tour sites, too. (boston/big apple/florida...) And clearly east and west coasts are the most developed areas in the States. Really depends on your own plan.
4 alumni, Wharton is THE school no other one can compete. I don't know how much it's gonna mean to me. Can any post MBA here shed some lights?
100% agree. HBS alum network is also great but alums seem more pushy. Once they feel you are in not their league, say not excellent/hardworking enough, they tend to leave you behind. I sort of feel that wharton alums are more willing to give you hands when you are in difficulties. Just personal feelings. How to use alum network is hard to say. It might work at the time you never expect.
5 the number of Chinese students is another huge difference between this two schools. Does that mean anything to me?
Don't think it really matters. Job hunting largely depends on your pervious w/e and interviews. For banks in HK, I don't think banks put quota on Chinese for each school as b schools do. They release interviews to all schools at the same time. For banks in the states, it is true that banks have quota on each school. In that case you are competing with all of your classmates, not your Chinese peers only. It sounds weird that banks tend to recruit 20 Wharton Chinese, 10 Chicago Chinese and 5 Columbia Chinese. Just don't see a reason. In term of community, as you are a Chinese, you have plenty of opportunities to join Chinese community. Chinese in b schools are a big community. I am in Col. Welcome to join Col's Chinese community if you feel lonely in K. 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-3-24 11:53:00
