If you don't have a job in Chicago, it does not make sense to apply to a part-time program in Chicago. And, it will be difficult to be accepted to a part-time program in Chicago without a job (and a good reason for wanting p/t v. f/t).

I am a Booth alum and I think it is THE school to go to for finance, but, with that said, I agree with the earlier posters and believe that if you want to stay in Southern California, you should attend USC or UCLA. If I were you, I might consider Booth or Wharton (or HBS/Stanford) as FULL time options, but, I don't see how part-time makes sense at all. People who attend the part time programs at these schools usually intend to work and stay in the Chicago area.

And, keep in mind that recruiting can be regional as well. Booth has fantastic career services but it was still difficult to be placed in a West Coast office as many of those spots were saved for students at West Coast schools (I ended up in consulting and not finance but consulting firmst wouldn't place Booth students in SF or LA so I had to be based in NY with a project in SF!!). This may not always be the case, but, it is something to think about.

Thanks for your input Jessica. I work for a national firm that would allow me to transfer to the Chicago office for school, so being employed in Chicago is not a problem. As much as I would love to do a full-time program, a part-time MBA just makes more financial sense for me. I have a friend in Booth's P/T program now and she raves about the program's flexibility and course offerings.

I know Booth doesn't place a lot of graduates in California compared to UCLA. I guess my question (and this is probably a regional specific question) is if a recruiter in Southern California were to look at my resume after graduation (not using campus recruiting services), would having Chicago Booth on my resume make me stand out more than having UCLA Anderson on there, especially for a finance job. That is what's attracting me to Chicago right now.

One thing that you should consider when thinking about part-time programs is that you mentioned that you want to make a career change from accounting into i-banking or private equity.

Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it will be difficult to make that transition without the benefit of the summer i-banking internship that a full-time program offers, regardless of what school you go to. Actually, it's hard enough with that internship!

People may post that they know of a friend of a friend who managed to make a career change from accounting or another back-office position into that field without an internship, but know that those people are the exception to the rule. (And private equity this is even rarer).

Just something to think about when considering full-time vs. part-time.

If you can easily transfer your job to Chicago then I think that a Booth MBA might be a good degree for you. As I said earlier, as an alumna, I am a bit biased, but, for finance, I really think it is the place to go and it probably has one of the top (if not THE top) p/t programs out there.

While I think USC or UCLA would be perfectly good for what you are trying to accomplish (a finance job in SoCal), there is no way that a Booth MBA would hurt you in achieving your goals. The benefits may only be marginal for you, but, were your life to someday take you in another direction, a Booth MBA might be more impressive outside of SoCal than would USC. And as you said, you already have the CA network - can't hurt to expand!

Why don't you see if you get in, visit all the schools and talk to a few recruiters and make your decision then. It can't hurt to apply!

Probably no right answer on this one to be honest, but in my view:

If you are looking to do venture capital/entrepreneurship, socal schools are better -- great recruiting networks, lot of students trying to do the same thing. If you are trying to do this from Kellogg/Chicago, you'll always have to be trying to take trips/build relationships from afar, no matter how those shools are.

If its finance, chicago gsb name is unmatched. If its marketing, i'd say a tossup as this depends more on you vs. anything you can learn from a school. Marketing (probably another thread in itself), especially given New Media, has really become something that people do not look to b-school to source. Agencies are now the hot beds for the marketing talent.

Best of Luck!
Aveek Guha, President, www.mbadaycamp.com

I'm in LA as well, and my best friend just graduated from UCLA Anderson, and my roommate just graduated from USC Marshall, so I've seen their experiences. Both schools have excellent SoCal networks, and if you want to stay here, either school is a great choice. They both ended up with great jobs in LA.

I have another good friend who went to Cornell, knowing all along he wanted to end up in LA, and a year later, he still hasn't secured full-time work in finance (despite networking like crazy). His advice, for what it's worth: if you know for sure you want to be in LA, don't go anywhere except UCLA, USC, or Harvard.

Thanks everyone for the advice. As much as it hurts me as a Trojan, I've decided to enroll in UCLA's part-time program. Went to a welcome event for the new FEMBA admits and it was just a good fit. The majority of the students are from SoCal or the west coast, which is a big positive for me when talking about future network. Employment statistics and job placements in the LA area are outstanding. I'm happy with my decision and can't wait to get started in September!

Trojan4Life wrote:I just got accepted to UCLA FEMBA (part time) program for fall 2010. Now I got to decide if I want to complete the Chicago and Northwestern part time applications which are due in a couple of weeks, or just accept with UCLA. I definitely want to stay in SoCal long term.

Congrats, can you post stats? I will be applying for the FEMBA and USC.PM for Fall 2011 shortly...

southbaynic wrote:I'm in LA as well, and my best friend just graduated from UCLA Anderson, and my roommate just graduated from USC Marshall, so I've seen their experiences. Both schools have excellent SoCal networks, and if you want to stay here, either school is a great choice. They both ended up with great jobs in LA.

I have another good friend who went to Cornell, knowing all along he wanted to end up in LA, and a year later, he still hasn't secured full-time work in finance (despite networking like crazy). His advice, for what it's worth: if you know for sure you want to be in LA, don't go anywhere except UCLA, USC, or Harvard.

It depends on the type of job you want. For general management and industry, UCLA/USC may be better than some top 10 programs, but for finance, MBB consulting, and tech, you're still better off going to Wharton/booth/Kellogg/Sloan/maybe Haas. Even the Mckinsey/BCG/Bain offices in L.A. have way more students from the M7 b-schools than UCLA/USC. In MBA recruiting pedigree matters A LOT, so as a general rule you should attend the best school you get into.

https://lastchancemba.blocked

Sorry for bumping an old thread. I'm currently researching UCLA Anderson. I like socal but don't have a particular regional preference. There are some good things about the program, but I'm still concerned with its relative name brand and prestige in the rest of the country and recruiting for investment management and MBB consulting.

https://lastchancemba.blocked