(03-17-2017 06:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  This ignores class sizes. Large schools that skew towards grad degrees (i.e. MBA programs) have a huge edge when looking at raw numbers.

The more students a school has, the more grads in any capacity it can expect to have moving forward. That's especially true for masters level business courses that are 1-2 years vs ~4 years for bachelor programs. Also, masters-level business degrees are required to move up in some industries, like finance, which creates a second bias.

The B1G consists of huge schools w/ more of an emphasis on masters programs than the schools in most other conferences.

Calling it the biggest is probably a more accurate title.

Not so fast.

The problem with your counter-argument is that you assume all students enrolled in MBA programs have equal potential to reach the upper echelon of executive finance, the CFO position.


But actually, there are really a finite set of such people with that potential.

And it so happens that those upper crust students are choosing Big Ten MBA programs more than any other! The numbers prove it.

1. No. I'm assuming that a 1-2 year program is shorter than a 3-5 year program. Therefore a 100 person undergrad program that lasts 3-5 years will produce fewer grads than a 100 person grad program that lasts 1-2 years.

2. False. That would be the Ivy League.

Like I said. The B1G is big.

Ivy League MBA programs are just as big (if not bigger) than Big 10 MBA programs. By far the largest 2 MBA programs in the country are at Harvard and Penn.



At the undergrad level, Big 10 schools are much bigger. But at the grad school level, but the only reason Big 10 grad schools are bigger is because they're more comprehensive (i.e. they have programs in almost every field). For individual fields, Ivy League schools typically have more graduate students.