<p>No, I’m afraid I’m still not willing to agree with you completely, for like I said, salary is an unusually poor way to prove this hypothesis (in order words, its predictive power is extremely weak). Like I said, most manufacturing jobs have higher salaries than do investment banking jobs, but that hardly means that Ibanking actually pays better than manufacturing once all compensation is calculated. In fact, it’s not even a close call. </p>
<p>Having said that, I do (and always have) agreed with you partially, in that even those with limited experience are still likely to benefit from a top MBA program as opposed to just staying in the workforce, if, for no other reason, most pre-MBA jobs are mediocre and hence simply don’t teach you very much. Hence, that reason alone is good enough to attend an MBA program rather than trying to garner more (possibly useless) experience.</p>
<p>Aren’t you guys arguing for the same point? Do these school sites not have the same segmentation by total compensation as opposed to just base salary?</p>
<p>Yes – but the bonuses included in total compensation are typically only signing bonuses. The bonuses that actually matter (obviously the year-end variety once you’ve been working for awhile) aren’t included in the first-year-out-of-graduation figures provided by school sites.</p>
<p>moreover, the sites do not break down more advanced compensation statistics by quantity of pre-MBA experience. The Harvard stats and the Kellogg ones posted are the first ones i’ve seen.</p>
<p>That’s why I started a new thread on the subject, because it was new information that I hadn’t seen anything on before, which contradicted the conventional wisdom around here.</p>