Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

  1. #41
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Sponsored Ad:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mandalorian View Post
    I agree with you that there is certainly a prestige advantage for the tier 1 schools, you are not alone there, but my point is there is not a disadvantage for the other schools. Also given the size of the programs, I don't think there are really many "average" students out there. It's not like tens of thousands are matriculating every year. Maybe a couple hundred at best.

    The problem with "everything held constant" comparisons is they're too easy and too unrealistic. From the armchair, yes it's tempting to want to exactly rank schools like that, but in the real world it's less clear.
    100% agree, very good reasoning. Very few stellar persons can get have choices between Harvard, MIT, Berkerley vs USC, UCLA, UWSL. In theory, they can. But in practice, the probability of getting admission for both schools is extremely small or nearly zero. One applicant can has admission from MIT, but still can easy be rejected by lower rank school. The application and admission process is not as straight forward as ranking.
    The number of applicants per year increases exponentially, the schools do not need to chase to some students, there are more than stellar applicants than the number of slots they can admit per year. This fact is true for this year, even for A- and B group. Do not count on absolute ranking to apply, spreading application to B group or even C group can increase the chance of admission.
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-09-2018 at 04:28 PM.

  2. #42
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    2


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by Daisy View Post
    doubt it
    I do not doubt it, for sure. Many persons who have strong research experience will make decision by specific advisors not by school reputation

  3. #43
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    4


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    @whatever123

    Hi, may I ask you here what is the difference between quant marketing and marketing strategy?

    Did you apply for both quant and strategy and then end up going to a "strategy" program? Or did you just apply to only strategy programs from the beginning?

    Any advice to new PhD students entering a PhD Marketing program (more strategy track) and the job market later on? I am actually quite confused how do we differentiate ourselves from the quant students... Are we more "soft quant" students actually?

    Also, just curious, do you know how are other marketing faculty at Mizzou?

  4. #44
    Within my grasp! BrazilianPhD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    3


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by macaumoon View Post

    Hi, may I ask you here what is the difference between quant marketing and marketing strategy?

    Did you apply for both quant and strategy and then end up going to a "strategy" program? Or did you just apply to only strategy programs from the beginning?

    Any advice to new PhD students entering a PhD Marketing program (more strategy track) and the job market later on? I am actually quite confused how do we differentiate ourselves from the quant students... Are we more "soft quant" students actually?
    This is actually hard to answer, and you can find some very different opinions about it. I had a Marketing Strategy course where we talked about it.

    What I learned is something like this.

    In the past, Marketing Strategy people could be identified because they were more worried about the questions regarding the topics (strategy applied to marketing resources and activities), and less about the tools (statistics, econometrics). So, they could be worried about the best definition of "brand equity" for example, but not that much about the econometrics behind it. Then, they could be "soft quant" as you said.

    On the other hand, in the past Quantitative Marketing people were mostly worried about the statistical problems, not much the topics. They were more worried about questions like "How to show causality?" or "How to deal with endogeneity?". Just being very good at Math was a great asset.

    However, the huge advancements of statistical software changed that. With the support of those new tools, Marketing Strategy people are now able to do great statistical analysis too. And just being good at Mathematics is not such a huge asset for Quantitative Marketing people anymore.

    So, Marketing Strategy and Quantitative Marketing started to merge. In a way that nowadays they are often the same thing. Or, if not the same thing, a Marketing Strategy researcher is often expected to be able to do a Quantitative Marketing research and vice-versa.

    When I applied, I noticed that very few schools offered both Marketing Strategy and Quantitative Marketing. If there was the option to choose Marketing Strategy, I applied for that. But if there was only Quantitative Marketing, I applied for that instead of Marketing Strategy.

    About differentiating yourself, I guess your papers will talk a lot about that. If I see a researcher with papers like "Improving the statistical performance of...", or "Multivariate approach to...", I think about Quantitative Marketing. But if the papers are more like "Measuring online brand equity" or "Effects of sharing information with distribution channels", I think about Marketing Strategy. But that doesn't mean that the Quant papers are not related to the concepts of Marketing Strategy, and also doesn't mean that the math used in Marketing Strategy papers are soft in any way. It's a matter of emphasis.

  5. #45
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by hngu178 View Post
    I do not doubt it, for sure. Many persons who have strong research experience will make decision by specific advisors not by school reputation
    This is a very specific case and you're basically saying that advisor trumps school. If this is completely true then school rankings wouldn't matter because people would only care about professors. I'm sure this happens, but it's the exception not the rule.
    Anyway, I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 times people would chose Stanford or MIT over UCLA or Cornell, at least for quant.

    Maybe this is not true for strategy and CB, but if this is the case it's probably not a good idea to put strategy, CB and quant all in the same ranking. From the quant side the groups presented are kinda misleading. Maybe this is the problem after all, since there are people here who seem to like it.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 02:36 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 10:13 AM
  3. Maketing Analyst - bold face
    By mbawannabe in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 08:39 PM
  4. university ranking Vs course ranking
    By shank1983 in forum Graduate Admissions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 10:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •