I received admits from both these schools but can't seem to decide where to go. As a major, I am undecided between finance and consulting.
Here are the stats (I have highlighted the favorable one in the head to head):
Quantitative:
Composite Ranking (Poets & Quants): Marshall (28) vs Foster (24)
Class Size: Marshall (216) vs Foster (139)
Fees (Two years, tuition + additional program fees): Marshall ($117,700) vs Foster ($84,258)
Avg salary (inc bonus): Marshall ($116,011) vs Foster ($118,759)
Percent empl. at graduation: Marshall (55.2%) vs Foster (82.4%)
% empl. after 3 months: Marshall (80.2%) vs Foster (95.8%)
Cost of living: Marshall (LA) vs Foster (Seattle)
Qualitative: Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these
Brand name, recall: Marshall vs Foster
Depth of alumni network: Marshall vs Foster
Functional diversity of employers: Marshall vs Foster (mainly technology)
Geographic diversity of employers: Marshall vs Foster
Faculty: Marshall vs Foster
Courses: Marshall vs Foster ...more or less equal
I think you might see the conundrum. Foster is more likely to land me a higher-paying job, while USC's brand and alum network might be helpful to move to a different city later on. USC competes with Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA while Foster is probably the best in the Northwest.
Also, since I am an international applicant, does MBA brand name matter more for me in terms of getting jobs?
Any advice and/or insight is greatly appreciated. Separately, does anyone know why Foster has shot up the rankings in recent years?
Here are the stats (I have highlighted the favorable one in the head to head):
Quantitative:
Composite Ranking (Poets & Quants): Marshall (28) vs Foster (24)
Class Size: Marshall (216) vs Foster (139)
Fees (Two years, tuition + additional program fees): Marshall ($117,700) vs Foster ($84,258)
Avg salary (inc bonus): Marshall ($116,011) vs Foster ($118,759)
Percent empl. at graduation: Marshall (55.2%) vs Foster (82.4%)
% empl. after 3 months: Marshall (80.2%) vs Foster (95.8%)
Cost of living: Marshall (LA) vs Foster (Seattle)
Qualitative: Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these
Brand name, recall: Marshall vs Foster
Depth of alumni network: Marshall vs Foster
Functional diversity of employers: Marshall vs Foster (mainly technology)
Geographic diversity of employers: Marshall vs Foster
Faculty: Marshall vs Foster
Courses: Marshall vs Foster ...more or less equal
I think you might see the conundrum. Foster is more likely to land me a higher-paying job, while USC's brand and alum network might be helpful to move to a different city later on. USC competes with Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA while Foster is probably the best in the Northwest.
Also, since I am an international applicant, does MBA brand name matter more for me in terms of getting jobs?
Any advice and/or insight is greatly appreciated. Separately, does anyone know why Foster has shot up the rankings in recent years?