I live in California and am considering Berkeley Haas vs UCLA Anderson. Assuming that I have relevant work experience in front office finance and want to just do a part-time program, which one would serve me better?
I plan to stay in the investment management industry. I only plan to live in Southern California however in the US. Outside the US, I am also considering a career in East Asia (possibly for a few years before returning to the US or permanently if it works out well)
Which one would be better for me? The cost is the same for both programs.
I don’t know that there’s much difference between UC-Berkeley and UC-Los Angeles. If you already live in LA, and plan only to live in LA, then I’d go to UCLA.
I wouldn’t pick a school based on a faculty member, even if it is a reknowned author. Most of the time, these people have jobs simply because they are good authors, not because they’re good teachers. In fact, a lot of them don’t teach at all. They only publish, because a school’s “grade” is based more on its publshing than its students’ abilities.
To me the choice is clear. Haas is ranked #7 versus Anderson’s #14. Much bigger endowment, etc. Haas also, at least among those people I know, is slightly better-known. If it doesn’t make a difference to you personally, I’d go with Haas.
Haas is indeed higher ranked but I know location is important too. Plus, these are part time MBA programs anyway sso I don’t know how much the rankings matter. These aren’t full time MBA programs and so in my view, rankings are not very relevant. Most people pick their part time programs based on the best school in their proximity. Also to the other person’s comment about the endowment size, I understand why it matters from the standpoint of the overall school but from the individual’s perspective in a part time program, it doesn’t matter.
I disagree with this, for the reasons Numi mentioned. Part-time MBA is not the same as full-time MBA, and endowment is probably irrelevant to you, except that it might reduce your costs.
Also, what is really the difference between #7 and #14? At first glance, it may sound like a lot. But if the difference can be quantified as “earnings per year”, then the difference may be a mere thousand dollars a year–hardly worth uprooting yourself halfway up the coast.
The one thing that you should look at–recruiting. Who recruits at Berkeley that doesn’t recruit at LA? This will be the biggest difference.
If you’re intent on focusing on Finance for the rest of your career (and have the pedigree for admission) then you should be looking at the Hass MFE program instead of the MBA program.
By the way, did you even get into (or even apply) to these programs? Do you have the GMAT, undergrad and relevant work experience to realistically gain admission?
I was kinda wondering the same thing. Because 99% of the time, when people ask, “Should I go to Harvard or Wharton?”, they haven’t been accepted or even applied. They’re just asking as if it was a fact that they’re gonna get accepted.
I take it for what it is–a purely hypothetical, academic argument.