More positive information about an MBA

Mr. or Ms. Portb 71 writes, ""I totally agree. Some MBA programs tend to inflate the salary outcomes in order to attract students. What is the USNWR?"
This is a VERY accusatory post. Which schools do this? You better be prepared to back up your statement."

John: Lots of evidence out there, most notably a long and well-researched Page 1 Wall Street Journal story, documenting the large amount of intentional misinformation provided by schools, on things tht US News gives a lot of credit for, but which are not public record, such as the percent of alumni who contribute, and the average size of contribution. Some were very candid in 'fessing up to doing this. And when the person who massaged data for US News quit, on ethical grounds, and then wrote a detailed exposé-type article for the Washington Monthly, and gave public interviews, she acknowledged this phenomenon at work.

 

This is a VERY accusatory post. Which schools do this? You better be prepared to back up your statement.

Why? Is there some sort of top 25 B-school death squad of which we are not aware? Personally, I'd be more paranoid about that guy John Bear is dealing with who claims to have some inside info on degree mills being operated by U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries.

If anything, the numbers in USNews for the top 25 schools are under-indicative of the ability to gain increased salary since it is an average of EVERYONE at Bschool looking for a job--any job....

That's not my understanding. There are standards but they permit schools to completely exclude those who do =not= report =any= salary information or salary information that is not considered "reliable" (what, precisely, is considered "reliable" is another issue entirely). In other words, if a school graduated 300 students in a particular year and received 275 responses, they don't have to count the 25 who failed to respond. Obviously, if those 25 are earning $0, that would (perhaps severely) skew the salary information.

 

"Why? Is there some sort of top 25 B-school death squad of which we are not aware? "

Homer, I'd like to hear which school in the top 25 makes up numbers for salary stats. No death squad...merely interest in your post. Further, any evidence that SALARY numbers are made up are welcome.

As far as the 15% who do not report salaries, it would be akin to counting college students in a leading economic indicator such as unemployment rate. OF course $0 would bring down an average. But if a person is not actively seeking employment and instead seeks further graduate study or become a stay-at-home mom, it is hardly a reasonable indicator of the premium F100, MC and IB firms place on a top tier MBA.

"Lots of evidence out there, most notably a long and well-researched Page 1 Wall Street Journal story, documenting the large amount of intentional misinformation provided by schools, on things tht US News gives a lot of credit for, but which are not public record, such as the percent of alumni who contribute, and the average size of contribution. "

John, you seem like one of the more informed posters on this forum. I specifically am concerned with salary reporting. There has been a lot of noise on this thread about rampant "made-up numbers" and "cherry picking" of reported numbers. I assert that there is little proof that TOP TIER schools engage in these practices. If you, or anyone else has proof one or more does, I'd gladly love to see the name. Which school makes up salary numbers? I don't care if U of Phoenix or Capella makes up salary numbers...my interest is in seeing the proof that any one of the schools in the Businessweek top 30 ranking makes up salary numbers. I am willing to believe it...just give me a name of an institution.

 

Made up Salary stats

Indeed, a case from the late 1990's comes to mind. Pepperdine U, at that time not yet accredited by AACSB, was taken to court by a student for allegedly misrepresenting salary stats and placement %. It was a VERY well known case but I forget the players. The point is, this wasn't even an AACSB school (it is now however, years later) and look at the ramifications of misleading reporting. As it turns out, they did not intentionally mislead, but more or less admitted that some of their reporting was "enthusiastic".

"Enthusiastic" reporting gets you in trouble....much less Dishonest reporting.

 

I doubt any school would just "make up numbers" but that's not to say that the numbers can't be misleading or aren't just plain whacked due to either the lack of reporting on the part of grads or who knows what else.

For example, on Kellogg's web site, base salaries ranged from a high of $143k to a low of $40k (2001). You'll see the same $40k low in USNWR but the high is $150k, not $143k. Further, USNWR's figures are based on the reports of 491 graduates which leaves roughly 140 grads unaccounted for. I don't know what to make of that but it certainly is an awfully high percentage (as in over 20%) to be MIA, so to speak. So, the average base salary for slightly less than 80% of the 2001 class (i.e. those reporting salary information) is circa $95k according to USNWR.

Next we proceed to BW which, as you stated earlier, has Kellogg ranked right at the top. There we see an average base salary of $88k (it went down $7k??) for 2002 grads with 99% seeking full-time employment and 91% receiving offers within 3 months of graduation. So, what, 50 (more or less) grads didn't get offers within 3 months after graduation even though they were looking for a full-time position and graduated from the top ranked B-school? What's that all about?

I could go on but I'm pretty sure you've already gotten the idea. The numbers are just a little bit too screwy for me.

 

"Next we proceed to BW which, as you stated earlier, has Kellogg ranked right at the top. There we see an average base salary of $88k (it went down $7k??) for 2002 grads with 99% seeking full-time employment and 91% receiving offers within 3 months of graduation. So, what, 50 (more or less) grads didn't get offers within 3 months after graduation even though they were looking for a full-time position and graduated from the top ranked B-school? "

Actually you answered the question yourself. USNews data is one year older and INDEED salaries went down substantially for the class of 2002. Two words: Dot and Com.

"Further, USNWR's figures are based on the reports of 491 graduates which leaves roughly 140 grads unaccounted for. "

Again, not everyone leaves business school actively looking for a job. A decent amount become housewives by choice. A decent amount go into Academia. The numbers (roughly 30%) do not appear jarring to me. It still means 70% actively sought jobs. Some went to work for the Peace Core making $40....some went to McKinsey making $120K. Some people were not employed for 3months. Again...Dot and Com and expectations setting....

As for High/Low...figure out if it is absolute or 20/80. This makes a difference. My point stands. Of the 70% actively looking and reporting, a good number went into low paying jobs in public service ON PURPOSE. This actually brings down the average somewhat. The typical Kellogg grad with 5 yrs experience in general can safely expect 80-100K. More importantly, in MC/IB you can triple your salary in three years...these are the stats you DON'T see. Five years down the road these guys are making SERIOUS money whereas anoth Bschool might look similar first year out salaries...but 5 years less f100 contact meansless chance of drantic career shifts.

 

Again, not everyone leaves business school actively looking for a job. A decent amount become housewives by choice. A decent amount go into Academia. The numbers (roughly 30%) do not appear jarring to me. It still means 70% actively sought jobs....

I agree; not everyone leaves actively looking for a job. The numbers, however, tell a different story; =99%= (not 70%) were =actively seeking full-time employment=.

As for High/Low...figure out if it is absolute or 20/80. This makes a difference. My point stands. Of the 70% actively looking and reporting, a good number went into low paying jobs in public service ON PURPOSE.....

As I stated above, the number actively looking was much higher than 70 or 80%. It was the number =reporting= that was considerably lower. Moreover, I have seen nothing indicating that those who went into low paying jobs did so "on purpose".


The typical Kellogg grad with 5 yrs experience in general can safely expect 80-100K. More importantly, in MC/IB you can triple your salary in three years...these are the stats you DON'T see...

Based on the numbers I've seen, there doesn't appear to be a "typical Kellogg grad". The high/low numbers are simply too disparate and the percentage of grads =not= reporting appears to be rather large. With respect to tripling salaries in 3 years, if you look at the web site, the number of grads who went the MC/IB route is lower than you might expect.

 

Good Post.

First point: IB/MC

The top 7 employers at Kellogg were all IB/MC. And this is INTERIM BUSINESSWEEK data for the class of 2002...a very weak year indeed. Note that there may STILL be grads looking for jobs here in November because of unrealisticsalary expectations in a weak economy. None theless, 5% at McKinsey is Damn impressive-especially after the bubble burst:

1. McKinsey and Company 24
2. Bain and Company 12
3. Merrill Lynch 12
4. A.T. Kearney 10
5. Deloitte Consulting 9
6. The Boston Consulting Group 7
7. Goldman Sachs and Company 7

Second Point: 70% versus 99%. Indeed you are correct. Bweek shows that 99% were looking for jobs. (My response was assuming 70% was a valid number or, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the point--see I can admit when I am wrong). Let me say this though. HIGHLY unlikely 99% werelooking for jobs so agreed a botched stat here...whose fault Iam not sure. Besides...it is only November and the stats are not even finalized as mentioned above -- for the class of 2002.

HOWEVER, look at the following from USNews (Now we are looking at complete 2001 data not 2002). It says 87% were seeking jobs. Of those 89% (I assume the cumulative 70+ per cent comes in here) accepted jobs by 9/20/01. It doesn't say that the other 13% failed to get jobs...it says they failed to ACCEPT jobs by 9/30/01. This is feasible and in line with expectations. What about the first set of 11%? Good question. Are the numbers still impressive. YES.

Here they are for the 491 who accepted jobs by 10/2001:

Class of 2001
Number of graduates: 631
Number of graduates seeking jobs: 551 ( 87.3%)
Number of job seekers accepting jobs by September 30, 2001: 491 ( 89.1%)

The following salary profile is based on the numbers cited below of the 491 graduates who reported accepting jobs.

Average Low High
Base salary (491 graduates reporting)
U.S. citizen N/A N/A N/A
Foreign national N/A N/A N/A
Total $94,750 $50,000 $150,000
Signing bonus (388 graduates reporting)
U.S. citizen N/A N/A N/A
Foreign national N/A N/A N/A
Total $25,200 $5,000 $100,000
Other compensation* (177 graduates reporting)
U.S. citizen N/A N/A N/A
Foreign national N/A N/A N/A
Total $26,000 $4,000 $200,000

* "Other compensation" includes other taxable payroll compensation such as guaranteed annual bonus and guaranteed overtime compensation.

Base Salary by Occupation
Marketing/sales (76 reporting):
$85,000 (average), $60,000 (low), $150,000 (high)

Operations/production (5 reporting):
$100,000 (average), $70,000 (low), $123,000 (high)

General management (26 reporting):
$90,000 (average), $50,000 (low), $135,000 (high)

Finance/accounting (126 reporting):
$87,000 (average), $50,000 (low), $120,000 (high)

Management information systems (MIS) (1 reporting):
N/A

Consulting (193 reporting):
$107,000 (average), $60,000 (low), $143,000 (high)

Human resources (0 reporting):
N/A

Other (44 reporting):
$87,000 (average), $50,000 (low), $135,000 (high)

Base Salary by Industry
Manufacturing (111 reporting):
$86,000 (average), $40,000 (low), $150,000 (high)

Service (357 reporting):
$98,000 (average), $45,000 (low), $143,000 (high)

Nonprofit (2 reporting):
N/A

Government (1 reporting):
N/A

Base Salary by Geographic Region
Northeast (144 reporting):
$95,000 (average), $50,000 (low), $135,000 (high)

Middle Atlantic (11 reporting):
$96,000 (average), $80,000 (low), $120,000 (high)

South (13 reporting):
$97,500 (average), $70,000 (low), $113,000 (high)

Midwest (123 reporting):
$97,600 (average), $50,000 (low), $150,000 (high)

Southwest (17 reporting):
$99,300 (average), $75,000 (low), $120,000 (high)

West (88 reporting):
$98,000 (average), $65,000 (low), $125,000 (high)

International (91 reporting):
$85,600 (average), $40,000 (low), $143,100 (high)

 

A couple questions. How can these graduates on the low end of the range afford to repay their massive tuition debt? (assuming their parents or their company didn't foot the bill)I make about the same and I still buy Pabst.

Also, somewhat related, you stated that some chose low paying public service jobs. In that arena of much lower competition, wouldn't a reputable state uni work just as well, in addition to being much more attractive fiscally?

Still, if you have your heart set on playing in the big leagues of investment banking or consulting, a top degree makes it much more attainable. (Even though there are exceptions to this, it wouldn't be wise to bet on yourself being the exception)

I still can't believe you stated less-than top tier MBA's lack value, or an MBA's only purpose is placement. You are, perhaps, looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint (possibly yours?), even though you weaken your own argument by suggesting some graduates choose by their own volition jobs they are overqualified for.

Tony

 

Also, on the issue of tiers. I have 2 friends that are now lawyers in private practice, neither of which graduated from top tier schools. Surprisingly (at least maybe to you), they are both doing very well. Back to the MBA, if you didn't hear me the first time. An MBA, with an accounting concentration, can qualify one to sit for the CPA exam then make a decent living ~50-60,000, or more if one lives in a fairly populous area. Wouldn't having only $15,000 or less in loans to pay back be a better financial idea if one isn't neccesarily shooting for the stars? (you admitted yourself that even Ivy league and the like grads don't always aspire to make the big bucks)

Just some more thoughts.

Tony

 

Very good point Tony, I must say that I've never asked my lawyer neither my accountant the school that they graduated from. You tend to trust more references than degree sources. If one wants to make a living in the private practice then the source of the degree becomes less relevant.

 

Again Good Posts.

Here are my takes in the spirit of debate:

"A couple questions. How can these graduates on the low end of the range afford to repay their massive tuition debt? (assuming their parents or their company didn't foot the bill)I make about the same and I still buy Pabst."

One word. Scholarship. I had a friend...a bleeding heart with Hispanic heritage who went to wharton but accepted a 50,000 salary heading an NPO in Washington working for Gay rights. An Amherst grad, he only went to Wharton because they gave him a free ride. A lot of Scholarships are given out, particularly at the bottom tier one programs (ie 15-25) which I think is great. Still, like I said there is overoptimism on the part of most Type A students about what they can earn first year out of school. The salaries have dropped almost 10% as a result of less hiring at IB/MC and F100. People at low ranked MBA's never have this worry. The salaries and job ops are based on your own job search of the local paper more than likely - because career placement is nonexistent.

"Also, somewhat related, you stated that some chose low paying public service jobs. In that arena of much lower competition, wouldn't a reputable state uni work just as well, in addition to being much more attractive fiscally?"

See above post. Scholarships are given out by 16-25 ranked Private schools (Emory-Goizueta, Vanderbilt-Owen) much more than 16-25 ranked state schools (Purdue-Krannert, Maryland-Smith).

"Still, if you have your heart set on playing in the big leagues of investment banking or consulting, a top degree makes it much more attainable. (Even though there are exceptions to this, it wouldn't be wise to bet on yourself being the exception)"

I think you sum it up in a nutshell. You are exactly right. In every statistical sample there are outliers.

"I still can't believe you stated less-than top tier MBA's lack value, or an MBA's only purpose is placement. You are, perhaps, looking at this from a very narrow viewpoint (possibly yours?)"

It is not an academic viewpoint, nor an altruistic one. If by value you mean you learn something than ok I concede. (Although I consider that to be narrowing of expectations). But let's not kid ourselves....Why do YOU think 90% of people go to MBA programs and shell out the big tuition bucks? While SOME are altruistic, most are simple hard-working, ambitious analysts with success measured to them in metrics less than ideal. But guess what? It isn't an MA in Philosophy. People gots ta make a living, young. And some people (actually most) get an MBA for reasons beyond simply "learning something new".

And yes you get the bonus of learning some management principles. Keep in mind 50% of MBA students already have a BBA or BS in Business though...you do the math on how much they're learning that's "new"..

"Also, on the issue of tiers. I have 2 friends that are now lawyers in private practice, neither of which graduated from top tier schools. Surprisingly (at least maybe to you), they are both doing very well. "

Why would this surprise me - that Law School ranking has different ramifications than MBA rankings? While it makes some difference which tier law school you go to if you want to work for the top 100 firms, Law School is inherently different from an MBA. Having the JD and Bar are an accomplishment in itself that qualifies you to practice law. Med School is even less important with respect to rankings. A doc is a doc as long as the school is accredited. An MBA by itself does NOT qualify you to practice being a CEO nor does AACSB accrdidation. A HS grad can be a CEO. For this reason, lack of ceritification plus the fact that by and large, an MBA is pretty easy to attain compared to a JD, means there is a flight to quality by F100, IB and MC recruiters. They have to deal with clients who many times are MBA's themselves....

Ask yourself this. There are 300+ AACSB schools. Why does US News divide all Medical Schools and Law Schools in Tiers, but only list the top 50 MBA programs? Another Open question for you to ponder....

This said, do not think for a moment the opportunities in Law for a graduate of a top 14 school mirror those of a graduate of a Tier 4 school. The Tier 4 grad will have to work harder to get where he/she wants to be...but hey...it builds character.

Stick to the MBA examples, since my assertion is rankings matter more at the MBA than the JD or definitely the MD. Show me one Capella or Argosy grad at McKinsey/Goldman Sachs for example. Prove to me rankings have no relationship to the desired schools for top paying firms. I will concede if you want to learn "management principles" and care less about "shooting for the stars", Capella or Argosy or UMUC are the schools for you.

"An MBA, with an accounting concentration, can qualify one to sit for the CPA exam then make a decent living ~50-60,000, or more if one lives in a fairly populous area. Wouldn't having only $15,000 or less in loans to pay back be a better financial idea if one isn't neccesarily shooting for the stars? "

Indeed, but that said, you don't even need an MBA to attain a CPA and, "make a good living". Your logic seems to say from the outset "don't shoot for the stars". And there is nothing wrong with that. If being a CPA is your career goal, might I suggest instead an M.Accy from a respected local school in your area...you get a Masters degree plus the ability to sit for the exam. However, a low ranked MBA will not help you...and will most likely even restrict your career opportunities. However, a low ranked M.Accy is not a big deal to corporate recruiters. Seriously.

Again, if your sole purpose is to learn management principles which will help you succeed in your current job, any MBA will do...no one disputes this. But some degrees allow for career switching on a level DL degrees can't (a couple exceptions - Duke Fuqua, Kelley, Florida, Babson, Arizona, etc etc) and for access to top firms. If you're happy and content not "shooting for the stars" why bother discussing the starting salaries of students at a top ranked school like Kellogg? You'll almost certainly never interact with them as equals on a day to day basis with that defeatist attitude - not because you're not smart enough...but because you aren't hungry enough. You measure your success another way. Kudos to you. I mean it.

By the way none of this is to say an Argosy or Capella MBA couldn't become the CEO of a F100 company....just that the cards are stacked against you from the beginning.

 

Quotes originally byPortb71, except when noted

An MBA from a non-ranked school is a waste of money, therefore it is worthless by definition of ROI? Just making sure I understand this concept.

The ONLY point is career placement? Then why does the degree exist at the ¡§lower¡¨ schools, if it is such a sham? Also, why do a lot of job vacancies specify an MBA as a prerequisite? Please see number 1.

I am happy for you. I would always suggest that anyone thinking about grad school pick the best program available to them. I wish you the best.

So we have reached the point of arguing that more education will tarnish your resume (for americans). If there is any logic or proof that supports this statement, I will be the first in line to try to assimilate it.

There is one little aspect called experience, which I hear is rated quite highly in judging applicants. Of course, this non-valuable MBA will probably not help you, even when paired with your extensive experience. Right?

In regards of return on return on investment, 3,000 out of 3,000 programs would fail. If you meant return on investment, for many(admittedly not a high powered investment banker, or the like), it is a better return picking a more economical school.

Actually, this is a point I agree with. Still, some people have gained the knowledge you are talking about through job experience. For these people, this argument is silly. For the unexperienced, this is indeed a good point, although it doesn't only apply to the top ranked schools, rather, it applies to the residential schools.

Why? Shouldn¡'t you go to a school that best interfaces with your strengths and desires, which might include non-regional or foreign distance learning? BTW, I broke 600 easy, does that mean I am inclined to spend 100K on a grad school?

LOL, really, go figure.

So your argument is they should get into as much debt as the can, because the school is ranked?

You never did answer this question.

90% percent of people? Okay, I will ignore the obvious mis-statement. Still, lets consider the percentage that are attempting an MBA, a good percentage are not shelling out the big bucks for it.
¡§People gots ta make a living, young?, well okay. :? Okay, everyone needs to make a living. I am hesitant to even comment on this statement because it is so skewed I am not sure I understand what you were trying to say. 50% you say? So the other 50% do not have a business degree? As to the value, perhaps you should consider the value of learning intermediate business principles for non business majors.

I brought this up for the simple reason you brought up Law School tiers earlier in this thread. I agree, it didn¡¦t help my argument.

We were, and are, talking about the value of an MBA from a less-than top tier school. My statement about the CPA exam was totally in bounds. However, if you want me to defend my statement, I think I am amendable to that. I would advise an MBA over an MaCCy, MpaCC, or equivalent for the sole reason of breadth of knowedge and flexibility if one decides they do not want to be a bean counter. In the states that do not consider an MBA with accounting emphasis as qualification to take the CPA exam, then one of the other degrees may work better for you.

And I thought you stated the only point of an MBA program was career placement (#2). I certainly glad you are coming around. ļ

Yeah, I am locked into my dead-end job because of where I earned my degree. I would advise you to look at the study that puts forth the idea that differences in earnings can be attributed to intelligence, and not necessarily the school attended. I do apologize for forgetting the link to this study.

I never discussed them.

Thank you. However, just because I may not interact with them on a day to day basis, reflects little on your original argument. (#2)

Tony

 

Tony,

Admittedly I deserve that thorough critique. My posts often come off the cuff…stream of consciousness. A reminder to us all that we should all think before we speak – or write (Excuse coming: I pieced that response that you hacked up in about 3 minutes). You’ll have to pardon me though….it is simply easier to say what I am thinking so bear with me. I simply don't have the time to stitch together a well structured response. But here is my response in predictable rambling PORTB71 style:

You called me on the obvious: that on the one hand I assert, in rather scorched-earth fashion admittedly, that only degrees from top 25 schools had significant ROI. This is clearly an exaggeration to some extent I’ll concede, and very numerator biased…but not that far from the truth given that many 11-25 ranked programs give huge scholarships based on GMAT and other factors to whoo you from the top 10 programs.

You point out seeming inconsistencies in my own post where I give in and say “well if you want to learn management principles, get ahead in your own job, blah blah”. To this I say ”Touche”. You indeed found inconsistencies in my arguments and you will again if you see the world as black and white. To that end allow me to concede that my original line of argument lacked focus, and let me be as succinct as possible in redefining that argument. There is a universe of difference between the opportunities afforded a graduate of one of the nation’s top tier Business Schools and graduates of lower ranked Business Schools.

Actually, if your goal is to learn management principles or get ahead at your own firm maybe not. But make damn sure, by the way, that HR is on board with a program like Capella, Argosy, American International etc etc or that the firm is in favor of non accredited AACSB programs or the like as you evaluate programs, and that it costs you less to attend than you are required to make back to pay for it than (perhaps HR will pay for it). I guess, it is not “worthless” nor ineffective ROI from a denominator oriented view if the program cost is zero. But you sometimes get what you pay for in my opinion [Pithy Cliché].

Anecdotally, I worked at a firm that would send its employees to the local respectable, but not top tier, University of a PT MBA (George Washington U’s University’s School of Business and Public Management and Virginia Tech’s Pamplin School). The deal seems great – free MBA, keep your job, school is AACSB accredited – much better respected by recruiters than, say U of Phoenix or something, and, for that matter cheaper even due to the sponsorship.

Problem is, three years afterwards, MBA in hand, each and every one of them is “locked into” their old employer while their buddies who took a chance, quit work, and went to a true top 20 full time [plopping down $150k in the process including opp. costs] ended up changing their careers for the better (MUCH higher salaries, better track at better firms, career changes they desired).

While the ROI works in favor of the GW grads in the short term, three years after the MBA, the top 30 grads are all making between $20k and $75k more than the GW grads – a real example of the alumni network and placement prowess in action. Can the GW grad move on to greener pastures? Sure…it is a respectable pedigree that will pass the bar at most firms (though not all). But the opportunities are less abundant through the alumni network, alumni career office and company ties to the school. Our firm knew this too. And here is the irony.
Our firm wants you to go to a “good” school but not a “TOO good” school, dumb as that sounds.

For example, it refused to pay for students to attend the much higher ranked Georgetown or University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business Part Time (Ranked #25 FT and #13 for its part time program) Why? An HR person at my firm ACTUALLY TOLD ME the firm did not want employees to “Jump Ship” right away after graduating. I responded, “Don’t they have to pay back tuition if they do”? She said yes they do, but that bonuses are so high at top B Schools that other firms are willing to essentially pay you back the lost tuition. BTW, some would argue that even UMD and Georgetown are not truly top tier MBA’s, but that is besides the point.

Note that this has changed a lot. Bonuses at top 25 schools like UMD-College Park and at Georgetown have dropped as have salaries (the economy is tanked). Understand this conversation took place during the dot com bubble when bottom top 25 schools like Georgetown, Maryland and Rochester enjoyed spillover from a dearth of top 10 graduates who were kicking it in San Fran. And there are tradeoffs. And discrete ROI (first year salary) by itself probably is not the correct way to look at it from every angle, I’ll concede. Long term ROI is better. The

<<In regards of return on return on investment, 3,000 out of 3,000 programs would fail. If you meant return on investment, for many(admittedly not a high powered investment banker, or the like), it is a better return picking a more economical school. >>

This is patently false. A recent WSJ study showed that 5 years out of school graduates of Wharton were averaging salaries of $300,000 a year. That’s an AVERAGE BTW. How long does it take to pay back $100K tuition? You do the math.