Want to work in Europe / LATAM / UAE: IESE<br>want to work in US: McCombs<br><br>IESE is Elite in Europe&nbsp;<br>McCombs is very good in US<br><br>for me it really boils down on region where you want to end up + if you are looking in specific careers (e.g. MBB) where IESE might have a leg up (although again primarily in their Euro-Offices)

Hard pick but I would pick McCombs because salaries in the US are higher than you will ever find.&nbsp;

Iese MBAs have higher salaries than McCoombes. Look at the FT ranking for salary data.&nbsp;

Duncan short maybe but long term no way (and if you include tax even less)!&nbsp;

I would go with IESE.&nbsp; Primarily because:<br><br>1) You're probably a native Spanish speaker so can easily get a job in Spain.&nbsp; <br>2) Spain will grant citizenship to Latin Americans (Spanish colonies) who live/reside/work in Spain for just 2 years.&nbsp; This will give you an EU passport which will be very valuable if you plan to stay there.&nbsp; <br>3) IESE probably has a larger network in Latin America than McCombs.&nbsp; <br><br>In terms of salary info, I would not suggest using FT as a resource since it uses converted PPP data.&nbsp; The numbers there are not real US dollars but adjusted dollars.&nbsp; This creates distortions in the salaries if compared across countries.&nbsp; Does any person really believe that IIM-A grads have higher salaries than INSEAD or Northwestern?&nbsp; Or does it make sense that FT says CEIBS grads make more than London Business School grads?&nbsp; That's all inaccurate since the PPP conversion factors use local baskets of goods to make comparisons, which is not the same as the typical consumption of an MBA grad.&nbsp; <br><br>If you need salary data, go to the school's actual websites.&nbsp; At IESE, the median salary for those who stay in Spain is 65K Euro or around US$74K, which is pretty low, especially if you stay in Barcelona.&nbsp; <br><br>https://media.iese.edu/upload/EmploymentReportClassof2017.pdf<br><br>You will get a lot more money after McCombs, but given the visa issues in the US combined with the guaranteed EU citizenship in Spain, I would choose IESE.&nbsp; <br>

Great comment above. Saying that IESE grads earn more than McCombs grads is wrong as it adjusts to PPP. I would still vote the US as almost all the management of large companies is there and not in Spain. Ok, you can go for Spanish firms but almost none have a dominant multinational presence (except Inditex and a few others).&nbsp;

[quote]Great comment above. Saying that IESE grads earn more than McCombs grads is wrong as it adjusts to PPP. I would still vote the US as almost all the management of large companies is there and not in Spain. Ok, you can go for Spanish firms but almost none have a dominant multinational presence (except Inditex and a few others).&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>This comment is not fully thought through. Obviously PPP adjustment is critical to compare salaries (based on the basic fact that cost of living greatly vary) thus IESE yields much better salary prospects adjusted for where you end up working.<br><br>In general I would say IESE is the better quality program here (both are good though) especially considering that companies like McKinsey or BCG have dedicated on-Campus recruiting for IESE MBAs as well as prominent LDPs.<br>For combs in contrary McKinsey for example only has a dedicated recruiting page for UoT undergrads.<br>Therefore as a conclusion:<br>both schools are good / it depends where you want to end up. IESE is Elite (although primarily in Europa / LATAM) which is reflected by the presence on campus for top tier employers (e.g. MBB, …) recruiting MBAs whereas McCombs is very good but not Elite in their market.<br><br><br>

Agreed but do you prefer a solid presence for the US market or an elite position in Spain?....&nbsp;

I agree with DACHMBA's comment about the usefulness of PPP calculations. Other things being equal, there is no advantage to earning 30% more in Austin if your cost of living is 35% higher than Madrid. Austin has some advantages (property is still cheap, commuting is easy) and Madrid had others (healthcare, safety). There's a big difference for some Spanish speakers in being in the capital of the Spanish-speaking world, with high culture in Spanish, from Austin, where most people don't speak Spanish and the cultural infrastructure is not that of an imperial capital.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

The issue is not the cost of living adjustment, but the use of PPP.&nbsp; There are many ways to adjust for cost of living, but FT uses PPP, which is primarily used by the World Bank and IMF to adjust for GDP and not MBA cost of living.&nbsp; PPP is weighted in each country based on the basket of goods that a country produces.&nbsp; So in Singapore, for example, where cars are prohibitively expensive, only the upper class has access to cars.&nbsp; The vast majority don't own cars and thus, the price of cars (astronomical in Singapore) has a lesser weight on PPP compared to somewhere like the US.&nbsp; That is why the PPP numbers used by the IMF and World Bank actually say that Singapore cost of living is significantly lower than US cost of living (approximately 38% lower).&nbsp; That makes no sense whatsover for any international professional (like myself) who has worked in Singapore before. Singapore is way more expensive that living in the US if you take into consideration having a car and having a lifestyle that MBA's expect. &nbsp; It's the same thing with the China and India numbers being stated at FT.&nbsp; The PPP numbers create a distortion.&nbsp; It would have been better if another type of adjustment had been used.&nbsp; <br><br><br>I am not the only one who noticed this issue.&nbsp; This is one of the big flaws in the FT rankings.&nbsp; Even Duncan pointed that out in a previous thread (link below).&nbsp; The Economist also pointed out how the PPP basket of goods method is flawed (it doesn't use executive or MBA-type consumption).&nbsp; <br><br><br>Rather than downvote me, I think it would be better if people in this forum try to do more research without relying on just FT numbers.&nbsp; It is not hard to go straight to the school for questions on salaries.&nbsp; You can also reach out to current students who understand the actual cost of living.&nbsp; There are also better cost of living websites like numbeo and expatistan.<br><br><br>Below are some references/discussions on this PPP distortion.<br>https://www.economist.com/whichmba/rankings-handle-care<br><br>https://find-mba.com/board/general-forum/ppp-is-distorting-the-ft-emba-rankings-31865<br><br><br>

[quote]Agreed but do you prefer a solid presence for the US market or an elite position in Spain?....&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Just quick (as I am just on mobile thus leaving aside the PPP discussion for now):<br><br>I think this statement should rather be rephrased as:<br>Do you prefer to be Elite in Europe / LATAM or good in US as this is how the situation can be best described.<br><br>IESE‘s reach is by far not limited to Spain which is illustrated by 1) on campus recruiting of gold-tier employer (McKinsey, Roland Berger, BCG,…) 2) top leadership development Programmes (Amazon Pathways, Samsung,…) and 3) the Long standing tradition of one of the leading MBA programmes in Europe.<br><br>I once ran the numbers for my region (German-speaking Europe) for Tech and top tier consulting within the top euro MBA programmed IESE was competitive with LBS/Insead (especially when norming them for class size).<br><br>For me it really depends and boils down on where you want to work:<br>Europe / LATAM: IESE<br>US: McCombs<br><br>McCombs is also a great School in a great market but when you want to end up with for example MBB in Dubai IESE is the better choice.<br>

A classic example of the 'your mileage may differ' phrase is this scenario:-<br><br>[quote]That is why the PPP numbers used by the IMF and World Bank actually say that Singapore cost of living is significantly lower than the US cost of living (approximately 38% lower).&nbsp; That makes no sense whatsoever for any international professional (like myself) who has worked in Singapore before. Singapore is way more expensive than living in the US if you take into consideration having a car and having a lifestyle that MBA's expect.&nbsp; &nbsp;<br>[/quote]<br><br>I think it's the case that many MBAs don't have cars in big cities with extensive public transport like Berlin, Hong Kong, London, NYC, Singapore, Seoul, Tokyo etc. For some people that is a hardship and for others it's a bonus. In Singapore and many European countries, it's a public policy goal to reduce the numbers of cars.&nbsp;<br><br>I think it's a bit odd for the OP to be considering two such different regions as Texas and Catalonia. If you want that Texas lifestyle (big house, air conditioning, car journeys, more evident difference between rich and poor) it certainly mosts much more to have that in a larger, compact European city.&nbsp;

[quote]<br>I think it's a bit odd for the OP to be considering two such different regions as Texas and Catalonia. If you want that Texas lifestyle (big house, air conditioning, car journeys, more evident difference between rich and poor) it certainly mosts much more to have that in a larger, compact European city.&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br><br>Yes, you make a good point there.&nbsp; The lifestyle in Catalonia/Madrid would indeed be very different from that in Texas.&nbsp; Absolutely that should be a consideration for them.&nbsp; <br><br>One thing I noticed though - even though in big cities with good public transport there is no need for a car, it is still seen as a status symbol.&nbsp; You only need to look at the rich/wealthy in Hong Kong, Singapore, London, etc and almost all will have cars not because they need them, but because they are convenient and a signal to everyone that they can afford it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The same with mainland China, you can survive riding a bicycle, but the upper class will not want to do that.&nbsp; <br><br>It's the same with houses.&nbsp; All else equal, ownership of a detached house in Hong Kong, London, Singapore, etc., reflects your status in society.&nbsp; It's not something I necessarily support or disagree with, it is what it is.&nbsp; <br><br>People can choose to live very simple yet very fulfilling lives and that sometimes is the best for some or even many people.&nbsp; But if you choose a simple life, you can do that easily without an MBA or without moving up the career ladder.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br><br>What I am saying is that a lot (but not all) of MBA's, all else being equal, would prefer owning a nice car and nice house versus using public transportation and renting a condo.&nbsp; That may be a generalization, but I have yet to meet an MBA whose goals don't involve one or both of those goals in life.&nbsp;&nbsp; The nature of an MBA attracts people who prefer visible wealth (houses, cars, sending kids to private school) more than the average Joe.&nbsp;&nbsp; As such, an MBA-preferred basket of goods should be the one used to compare cost of living.&nbsp; The Economist article emphasizes that.&nbsp; I am almost 100% sure a lot of prospective international MBA students want an MBA precisely so they will have a better car, better house than the average person in their respective countries (who may be riding bicycles or sharing an apartment with 4 people). &nbsp;&nbsp; If they were satisfied with an average lifestyle, then they would not need the MBA in the first place.&nbsp; <br>

This would be a great discussion to have with all those MBAs who own detached houses in Hong Kong.&nbsp;<br><br>PS Is that a minus on the heart icon? We have down-votes now?&nbsp;

[quote]This would be a great discussion to have with all those MBAs who own detached houses in Hong Kong.&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br><br>An MBA with a detached house in Hong Kong would probably be too rich to post on this thread LOL.&nbsp; They have better use of their time.&nbsp; In Hong Kong and Singapore, detached housing exceeds $10 million.&nbsp;&nbsp; My best friend lives in Singapore as an MD and even he can't afford detached housing (only row housing).&nbsp; But this actually supports my point.&nbsp; Who actually believes Singapore is cheaper than the US?&nbsp; Or believes that Shanghai (where housing is just as steep) is 1/3 the cost of living as other developed countries?&nbsp; Because that's what PPP is saying.&nbsp;&nbsp; PPP is absolutely not the way to go when comparing cost of living for MBAs.&nbsp; <br><br>You can't tell me that the average MBA student in Singapore or Hong Kong prefers to live in a high rise condo with 5 other people versus living the detached dream?<br><br><br>https://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/hkg<br><br><br>

The average MBA who chose to study in Hong Kong has a vision of success in which an slightly above average MBAs apartment there is more valuable than a slightly above average MBAs detached house in Texas. And, indeed, the property market agrees with them. Your mileage may differ.&nbsp;<br>

[quote]The average MBA who chose to study in Hong Kong has a vision of success in which an slightly above average MBAs apartment there is more valuable than a slightly above average MBAs detached house in Texas. And, indeed, the property market agrees with them. Your mileage may differ.&nbsp;<br> [/quote]<br><br><br>I'm not sure I understand your last point. If (following your HK example) an apartment in Singapore is more expensive than a detached house in Texas, then that supports my argument that Singapore cost of living is way more expensive than the US. &nbsp; PPP says it's the opposite.&nbsp; It says Singapore is 38% cheaper than the US. &nbsp; <br><br><br>I also want to understand why you were using Texas to represent the United States vs Singapore cost of living.&nbsp; Remember that the US also includes San Francisco, New York as well as Fargo North Dakota and Detroit Michigan.&nbsp; All vastly different in terms of cost of living.&nbsp; Guess what --- PPP assumes that cost of living is the same across cities within the US.&nbsp; Absurd to make that assumption.&nbsp; Living in Texas is not the same as living in New York.&nbsp; Same problem within Spain - cost of living in Madrid is not the same as A Coruna.&nbsp; <br><br><br>I don't rank MBA programs for a living, so I don't know how to solve FT's PPP distortion issue.&nbsp; The better way would have been to show actual salaries in real dollars and let the consumer decide how to translate /weigh it for cost of living. I think prospective MBAs are smart enough to figure that out with their own research that cost of living is different across cities and to plan for that based on their living preferences.&nbsp;&nbsp; PPP should not be part of the equation at all.&nbsp; What's worse is that you cannot find the actual dollar (non PPP adjusted) salaries on FT's website.&nbsp; It's not among the data choices.&nbsp; Someone should ask them to put that back.&nbsp; I have a feeling FT got pressured by some schools to measure them solely on PPP to make them look better.&nbsp; <br>

<div>The OP is admitted to McCombs, which is the business school of the University of Texas: that's why I am using Texas as an example.&nbsp;<br></div><br><div>In terms of execution, it's very easy for the FT to use off-the-shelf PPP data. Creating an MBA cost of living index sounds like a thankless task, especially because not all MBAs want the same lifestyle. The EUI index for the expatriate cost of living sounds like the sort of thing you suggest. It reflects, for example, the cost for US companies to fund for staff in Paris with big houses, cars, and private schools and healthcare which a Parisian MBA would not typically invest in. It's a different lifestyle from the local one.&nbsp; &nbsp;</div><br>Sorry if I misunderstood your point about housing. I thought you were saying that almost all MBAs would rather have a detached house than not as an example of the sort of lifestyle advantages that are more available in most of the US where land and housing are more affordable than the rest of the developed world. In contrast, living in an apartment (which most MBAs do in the cities I mentioned) is framed as less attractive. You seem to reason that because that US lifestyle is more costly to replicate outside the US, the other person should attend UTA rather than IESE. Sorry if I misunderstood. I think you were suggesting that apartments in world cities are simply overpriced and represent avoidable higher cost: I am suggesting that they are different value propositions, not simply more costly. Your mileage may differ, and not everyone is well advised to choose a dramatically foreign [to them] lifestyle in Texas because of features (big houses, spaces for lots of cars) which might not figure on their value curve.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><div>
</div><div>
</div>

[quote]
<div>The OP is admitted to McCombs, which is the business school of the University of Texas: that's why I am using Texas as an example. <br></div><br>You seem to reason that because that US lifestyle is more costly to replicate outside the US, the other person should attend UTA rather than IESE. <br><div>
</div><div>
</div> [/quote]<br><br>I am not sure I understand.&nbsp; Did you even read my original reply to OP?&nbsp; I said he should go with IESE and I even listed the reasons why.&nbsp; <br><br>My original comment was not to use the PPP numbers at FT when looking at salaries.&nbsp; It had nothing to do with University of Texas vs IESE.&nbsp; <br><br>That's why I find it incredibly strange you kept on comparing Singapore with Texas.&nbsp; Makes absolutely no sense to me. <br><br>Regarding the distortions caused by PPP, it was not only the Economist that agrees with me, but even you posted in the past that it was causing distortions in the FT rankings.&nbsp; So I find it amazing you are suddenly supporting PPP. <br><br>Because of these reasons, I am not sure you are Duncan himself.&nbsp; Are you possibly a ghost writer who is doing this on Duncan's behalf while he is away on vacation? <br>