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