CDF

Cass is very highly regarded in OT circles in the US and would be considered a top placement for our (UTD Top 15) OT graduates. They have a number of highly research-active folks publishing in A-journals so if that is your area of interest, you might find a gem of an advisor. However, if you're straight strategy or micro-OB, you might not find you have an advisor there who has the research relationships to get you back to the US. Check the co-author networks of faculty you're interested in working with to see who/where they are connected to. Lastly, I agree with the comments above. It is no longer INSEAD/LBS or bust... American b-school research focus has been exported globally (for better or worse) and there are more programs that would make you competitive at US schools.

Thomas - prestige and research interests are not correlated. Well, only in a very distal sense are they related. If you are looking to apply to doctoral programs, worry much less about a faculty member's prestige and much more about your research fit with theirs. You need to find the various faculty who are writing about the things you are interested in researching, or whose research is very near the topic you're interested in. There is much already said in this forum and elsewhere on the internet about research fit, so I won't go into it any further. But a final cautionary note: an advisor's prestige can in some instances work against you, particularly if they are always out of town at speaking events or other things and don't have time to mentor you in the craft of academic scholarship.

This is great advice and very helpful as I'm in a very similar situation. I've been accepted to a UTD T10-ranked large state school program in management and a smaller program in the Pacific NW that usually ranks between T50-80. Why the dilemma? The smaller/lower-ranked program has extraordinary depth in strategy and sustainability/social issues (my primary research interest) and some well-known scholars in this niche field, and it's in a city/region I would love to live in. The T10 program has a larger faculty with broader focus, some superstar faculty and potentially influential committee members, curriculum structure that will give me an early start on research, but I might not be able to focus very deeply on the area in which I hope to develop a "research identity". Both have strong resources in qualitative training (important to me) although the T10 is probably stronger. Funding is relatively equal at both, and I may be able to negotiate my way out of the extra TA requirements at the T50-80. Both have track records of co-publishing with students, although the topical fit is stronger at the T50-80. I'm a little concerned about being a cohort of 1 at the T50-80 school, while I'd be one of 3 or 4 at the T10 school. The T50-80 school is fighting hard for me, while the T10 is enthusiastic but wouldn't be devastated to lose me. Is it realistic to think I can choose the T10 school and maintain research relationships with faculty at the T50-80 school since they are doing exactly what I hope to do? Or does the opportunity to develop a clear research identity in a smaller program help you get T50 placement and overcome the disadvantage of lower rankings? And if I were to choose one school and after 6-12 months decide I'd made mistake, is it likely the other school would allow me to transfer? Any feedback/thoughts are welcome.

I agree with @tm_associate and would add that I learned a TON about the nuanced differences between programs by having multiple conversations directly with faculty at each school. When I started having those conversations, they understood I wasn't a grad student yet and didn't know the difference between micro and macro, or what boundary-spanning and multi-level analysis are, and why those are important to the decision of which program to choose. They were happy to talk through these topics and what I learned was illuminating (in a different way from my conversations with current students and alumni). If you already have offers, don't be afraid to ask questions - you won't look dumb, you'll like like you're wanting to make the most informed decision possible. :-) BTW - from these conversations, my own overly-simplified impression of differentiators is that PSU is great for people who are boundary-spanners and folks interested in qualitative, UMD is more quant and boxed in, and MSU most well-known for micro. Also, each of these programs appears to have a very different character when it comes to mentorship and availability of faculty. It just depends on what is important to you.

My understanding is that Penn State M&O offers are out but not all have been accepted yet (campus visits still in progress). You might want to contact the program director to ask about the waitlist.

I just spoke to one of the strategy faculty at UNC who said they've had one person already accept an offer and a second offer was extended but not yet accepted. So if you applied there and haven't heard anything yet, it's not likely you will anytime soon.

Have any strategy applicants heard anything from UNC or CU Boulder?