xsx107 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) Delete Edited February 14, 2023 by xsx107 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkboy2019 Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 There needs to be a distinction between CB and Quant. And within Quant, a distinction between empirical and analytical modeling. Also, HBS doesn't place as well as places like CMU, Columbia, Duke for quant. One of my advisers told me not to attend HBS if I can get accepted at CMU, Columbia, or Maryland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateOrNever Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 There needs to be a distinction between CB and Quant. And within Quant, a distinction between empirical and analytical modeling. Also, HBS doesn't place as well as places like CMU, Columbia, Duke for quant. One of my advisers told me not to attend HBS if I can get accepted at CMU, Columbia, or Maryland. I'm curious how one would separate quality of students from the value-add from a particular program when looking at placements. The number of quant students to look at at each school can be quite small... My own subjective ranking is similar to the OP (but with "UCLA?" replacing "Duke?") but is based primarily on gut feeling rather than any good or useful metric. (And the poor proxy of econ rankings, since I'd be taking a lot of econ classes as a quant student. Which I irrationally value even while knowing rationally that it is a poor proxy.) One of the marketing faculty I spoke to advised me to not bother applying to CMU whereas mkboy (& their advisor) has it above Harvard. I feel like many subjective rankings could be colored by some weird unrepresentative data point despite our best efforts to be scientific in our judgments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkboy2019 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I'm curious how one would separate quality of students from the value-add from a particular program when looking at placements. The number of quant students to look at at each school can be quite small... My own subjective ranking is similar to the OP (but with "UCLA?" replacing "Duke?") but is based primarily on gut feeling rather than any good or useful metric. (And the poor proxy of econ rankings, since I'd be taking a lot of econ classes as a quant student. Which I irrationally value even while knowing rationally that it is a poor proxy.) One of the marketing faculty I spoke to advised me to not bother applying to CMU whereas mkboy (& their advisor) has it above Harvard. I feel like many subjective rankings could be colored by some weird unrepresentative data point despite our best efforts to be scientific in our judgments! It's nearly impossible to measure since student quality depends on too many un-quantifiable traits like creativity and presentation skills. I think the main difference is that my advisor is an empirical professor and I'm interested in empirical work. CMU is known for empirical IO and machine learning so I don't think they are great for structural stuff at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateOrNever Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 I think the main difference is that my advisor is an empirical professor and I'm interested in empirical work. CMU is known for empirical IO and machine learning so I don't think they are great for structural stuff at all. It could also just be that there is an apparent gulf between what my professor thought my qualifications are and what the adcoms think, as most of the schools she urged me to apply to rejected me outright without an interview! So maybe she told me not to bother applying because she thought I'd be a shoo-in at a top 5, and has since been proven wrong haha. (Yes, yes, rejections aren't necessarily due to lack of qualifications, admissions are an idiosyncratic black box, etc etc.) But to return to the point of the thread, I don't really know that it's even that useful an exercise to rank programs, as the difference between top 10 and top 20 seems to be dwarfed by your individual ability, ability to publish in "A journals", presentation skills, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XanthusARES Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 But to return to the point of the thread, I don't really know that it's even that useful an exercise to rank programs, as the difference between top 10 and top 20 seems to be dwarfed by your individual ability, ability to publish in "A journals", presentation skills, etc. Truer words have rarely been spoken on here. All of your tier 1 and tier 2 schools will place you well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.