is investment banking good enough for top MBAs?

Graduate School Business School - MBA
21

<p>
[quote]
Why is that MBA programs ove the last decade do their best to make mixed programs like MIT LFM and Wharton's MBA/master's engr. curriculum.....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Epoch_dreams, while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're going a bit too far. I don't think anybody is talking about the special 'mixed' programs. They are talking about the standard MBA programs. True, LFM draws mostly from operations and manufacturing (that is, after all, LFM's lifeblood), but the truth is, the regular MIT Sloan MBA program really does have a lot of Ibankers. Heck, truth be told, even LFM has some Ibankers. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's take a look at programs like Wharton's executive MBA program. Only 19% of these run off into finance. Most enter fields into medicine, technology (many into biotech), and other non-finance related areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But see, again, you're choosing a specialized program. EMBA programs tend to cater to the older, more experienced student, but Ibanks don't really want students who are too old. Ibanks prefer people who are young and energetic and (very importantly) don't have kids or other family responsibilities so that they really can do nothing else but spend all their time in the office. So it's not surprising to me in the least to see that EMBA programs don't send that many people off into finance.</p>

<p>However, it is true that when you're talking about regular MBA programs, a lot of people are heading off to finance. At Sloan, it's well over a 1/3. At Wharton and HBS, it's more than that. </p>

<p>Look, nobody is saying that bankers are held to be "so special" or are granting them reverence. I don't think that's what the_prestige is saying. However, I think it is indisputable that Ibanking does indeed give you strong experience that is highly helpful in getting people into the top B-schools. Think of it this way. Bankers make up a tiny tiny fraction of the overall workforce, but comprise a substantial portion of the entering classes of any standard MBA program. Hence, bankers are clearly overrepresented. </p>

<p>Look, come on epoch_dreams, there's no need to single out Ibankers as drones or tools. The fact is, most low-level employees are drones or tools. Entry-level engineering is basically a drone job. Entry-level anything is basically a drone job. Ibanking is no certainly no worse in this regard.</p>

22

<p>Excellent points as usual Sakky.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact is, most low-level employees are drones or tools. Entry-level engineering is basically a drone job. Entry-level anything is basically a drone job. Ibanking is no certainly no worse in this regard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I might add that if you're gonna be a drone, might as well be a highly paid one.</p>

23

<p>Are there exit ops for an analyst that DONT require getting an MBA?</p>

24

<p>CFA with smaller banks. S&T desks also promote people w/o MBAs. Many analyst also head to Law School.</p>

25

<p>what is CFA?</p>

<p>and how about hedge funds? Do you need an MBA for that?</p>

26

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I would have that you of all people would think outside the box.</p>

<p>You fail to see why I even brought up issues like mixed, specialized MBA programs. The fact that Sloan and Wharton are going out of their way to create these specialized MBA programs over the last decade goes to show their psychology. They are interested in diversifying business ideals. In turn they can accomplish this by diversifying their class of business students. </p>

<p>You said that "all entry level jobs are drone jobs". This is very misleading. Take a look at engineering students. Most engineers at top programs have 5-6 years of experience under the belt. The average i-banker who's interested in getting the MBA has about 2 years of experience (most get kicked out after 2 years so that's when they apply). </p>

<p>Engineering student are more versatile in their thinking of what they want to do after graduation. Most i-bankers will indefinitely go back to wall-street. Stats show that most engineers end up becoming execs at fortune 500 companies.</p>

<p>This is the 21st century. Different businesses are cooperating, diversifying, and expanding their borders at more dramatic rate then ever before. Biotech. firms and hospitals are doing business better than ever. The tech. industry has revolutionized certain countries and forged very strong business counterparts across seas (even to the point where governments are making allies across borders). It is today that innovative businessmen not only benefit themselves but millions under them. </p>

<p>This is how to promote and build a healthier world economy - by fostering diverse business ideals.</p>

<p>Now looking at the more experienced, open minded engineer and comparing him with the i-banker with 2 years of experience.....tell me, who exactly will make a better effort to diversity and help pioneer today's expanding businesses.</p>

<p>MIT and Harvard MBA programs strive to create future leaders. An i-banker who demands entry with such limited experience and with such narrow aspirations is but an insult to the integrity of the system.</p>

<p>I really can't blame Monydad because because his vision of today's society is what it was back in the 80's and early 90's. But I would have expected you of all people to have a broader, more precise view of top MBA adcoms in today's society than silly highschoolers like "the prestige". I guess I was wrong.</p>

27

<p>what is CFA?</p>

<p>and how about hedge funds? Do you need an MBA for that?</p>

28

<p>Wow. Epoch...are you that naive, or just idealistic and practicing your rhetoric for a future political campaign? I am puzzled. haha. ;)</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
This is the 21st century. Different businesses are cooperating, diversifying, and expanding their borders at more dramatic rate then ever before. Biotech. firms and hospitals are doing business better than ever. The tech. industry has revolutionized certain countries and forged very strong business counterparts across seas (even to the point where governments are making allies across borders). It is today that innovative businessmen not only benefit themselves but millions under them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My, you sure do have a grandiose vision of business. I don't know whether to applaud you or feel sorry for you. It would actually be kind of cute ... if it was written by a 5th grader...</p>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first and foremost aspiration of any proper "business" is to make money (whether for the owners, partners, shareholders, investors, employees, etc.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Engineering student are more versatile in their thinking of what they want to do after graduation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? More versatile in their thinking of what to do? How so? I'd say an engineering student wants a good job after graduation. But then so does every other graduate (not attending grad school). What exactly is so "versatile in their way of thinking".</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the 21st century.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bingo! You got something right!</p>

<p>
[quote]
MIT and Harvard MBA programs strive to create future leaders. An i-banker who demands entry with such limited experience and with such narrow aspirations is but an insult to the integrity of the system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Geez, if it weren't for your post earlier begging people on CC to educate you on investment banking, one could have easily made the grave mistake of assuming that you actually KNEW something about either: A) business schools or B) investment banking...</p>

<p>
[quote]
than silly highschoolers like "the prestige"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, what the heck do I know? I've BEEN to business school and have actually worked on Wall St. - silly me!</p>

30

<p>Epoch, I had to jump in here because I think that while your vision of what MBA programs are/should be is a nice ideal, the reality is that while most top MBA programs aspire to help create the next generation of leaders, these schools (including their admissions staff) certainly recognize that most students look at business school as either a stepping stone to a promotion/better position in their current field or as a means to change fields. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Your very macro view that it takes visionary thinkers to, as you said, "not only benefit themselves but millions under them," is certainly noble, but when it comes to MBA admissions, an applicant just needs some great work experience, a few solid recommendations, good undergraduate grades and a high GMAT score. Potential for leadership? Sure, that's fantastic. But why would someone coming out of an investment banking analyst program be any less likely a leader than someone coming out of any other job? </p>

<p>Have you considered that not everyone is interested in benefitting the millions under them? Remember that a public American corporation owes duties to its shareholders and no one else. If diversity or crossing borders or making friends serves the bottom line, then by all means it will be done. If you think that by and large corporate America is looking to serve the greater good of humanity in some respect, well, I'm sure the corporation's shareholders would love to hear about that (with a few notable exceptions -- you can talk to Ben and Jerry about that philosophy). </p>

<p>The investment banking "drones," as you referred to them, often were at the top of their classes in college, have certain social and political skills that have made them successful navigating the waters of investment banking, and there is no question that these qualities, among others, make them great candidates for top MBA programs. That is not to say that every investment banker gets into a top MBA program, nor does it mean that many investment bankers coming out of 2-year analyst programs do not need to gain additional work experience before they will gain entry to most top MBA programs. In fact, if an analyst at an investment bank really wants a shot at Wharton or Sloan or HBS, etc., for the most part, they had better put in a few years of work past their 2-year stint in investment banking.</p>

<p>One more point before I get some more work done tonight -- businesses expanding their borders and globalization generally has its downside as well. Talk to the folks who used to have good, solid manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. who are now unemployed since their jobs got moved to Mexico, or to all of the IT, R&D and call center employees who have been replaced by folks in India who are willing to work for a lot less. Many believe that corporate America is selling out Americans at a fast pace. Many also believe that a healthier world economy is not a worthwhile goal when people are unemployed or underemployed here at home. I'm not stating a viewpoint of my own here -- simply pointing out that there are two sides to every story.</p>

31

<p>^ now there's a sensible post.</p>

32

<p>wow, I pulled out a great topic, just learnt alot thx guys</p>

33

<p>to "prestige",</p>

<p>Once again I'll admit that I was initially interested in i-banking before exploring careers after which I no longer care about banking. The fact that you keep nagging this shows you have no rebuttal and your only resort is desperation. It also shows a lack of class and professionalism. My my, you received an MBA? Worked on wall-street have you? For someone who writes like an angry child, this is quite an accomplishment. If someone like can achieve something like this, imagine what the rest of us could do! You are an inspiration to us "prestige". I'm really starting to like you.</p>

34

<p>Sally,</p>

<p>Let's see exactly what you wrote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
One more point before I get some more work done tonight -- businesses expanding their borders and globalization generally has its downside as well. Talk to the folks who used to have good, solid manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. who are now unemployed since their jobs got moved to Mexico, or to all of the IT, R&D and call center employees who have been replaced by folks in India who are willing to work for a lot less.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The IT industry in America is thriving. It pays very well above average and has excellent job security as of the moment. This outsourcing you speak of is actually a healthy phenomenon. By developing healthy relations with other countries we have helped our own country. I am very well aware that there's "2 sides to this" but let's look at this objectively for second and suppress opinion. Here are a few websites including CNN:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/CareerBytes/0305topjobs2005.htm?cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=35105194dde4458586f18f58d164dfbc-207877267-ri-4%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/CareerBytes/0305topjobs2005.htm?cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=35105194dde4458586f18f58d164dfbc-207877267-ri-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What you claim is hurting the American citizens has actually helped them in the long run. This is an extremely important aspect. Businesses stretching their borders is usually, as shown by the IT outsourcing events, is very beneficial to both sides of the party. So "Talk to the folks who used to have good, solid manufacturing jobs here in the U.S." - </p>

<p>yes I'm minoring in Software engineering and I come intact with MANY happy Americans in the IT industry here. Your point is?</p>

<p>Let's move on. You said:

[quote]
Your very macro view that it takes visionary thinkers to, as you said, "not only benefit themselves but millions under them," is certainly noble, but when it comes to MBA admissions, an applicant just needs some great work experience, a few solid recommendations, good undergraduate grades and a high GMAT score. Potential for leadership? Sure, that's fantastic. But why would someone coming out of an investment banking analyst program be any less likely a leader than someone coming out of any other job? </p>

<p>Have you considered that not everyone is interested in benefitting the millions under them? Remember that a public American corporation owes duties to its shareholders and no one else. If diversity or crossing borders or making friends serves the bottom line, then by all means it will be done. If you think that by and large corporate America is looking to serve the greater good of humanity in some respect, well, I'm sure the corporation's shareholders would love to hear about that (with a few notable exceptions -- you can talk to Ben and Jerry about that philosophy).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, MBA programs don't really care about grades (The average GPA for Columbia MBA program is 3.3). It's all about work experience and GMAT scores and rarely other things. Second, when I said be innovative and help millions; I meant it as a way of saying strive to help expand business. For example, someone who graduates from MIT LFM and starts a new tech. company in Silican Valley as opposed to ....becoming an associate at goldman sachs is going to affect far more people (opening up new employment opportunities, etc...) than our beloved i-banker.</p>

<p>What violation of shareholders is involved in this process? I'm not asking for everyone to run off into another country to help the global economy. I'm saying that by simply helping jump start businesses here in America; you will end up helping the global economy. </p>

<p>This innovative idea of building, helping diversify business; jumpstarting new businesses in America (even something like helping make a new bio-tech. company in New York) is healthier and makes a more positive contribution to society then running off to wall-street. I understand that not everyone is interested in this but many are! Many are interested in entrepreneurship. These people have a bigger say and impact on tomorrow's economy because not only are they helping themselves, they are helping many others.</p>

<p>It is precisely these people that MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton programs are looking for. People who are interested in helping build the American and / or global economy. People who original, new ideas. What are you trying to say by telling me that top MBA programs are interested in top of the class students? This is an obvious statement. Everyone who applies to Harvard (or most everyone) will have great resumes and great scores. It is mostly the essays, the personalities that will catch the eye of the adcoms. People with geniune, innovative ideas stand out much more than others.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is not to say that every investment banker gets into a top MBA program, nor does it mean that many investment bankers coming out of 2-year analyst programs do not need to gain additional work experience before they will gain entry to most top MBA programs. In fact, if an analyst at an investment bank really wants a shot at Wharton or Sloan or HBS, etc., for the most part, they had better put in a few years of work past their 2-year stint in investment banking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah well, I hate to tell you but most analysts apply after two years because they don't get handpicked to be associates. In fact, if they did they; and in the ones that do; they don't choose to get an MBA if they're moving up the ladder in an I-bank. </p>

<p>So statistically, most i-banking analysts who apply to top MBA programs have just a two year stint as opposed to most engineers who usually have 5-6 years of experience. Your i-banker who chooses to quit, even though he's offered promotion to associate/VP is but a rare spectacle. Most see MBA as their only means to getting promoted. This is not the case with engineers who apply for the most part with much more experience.</p>

<p>So let's recap Sally:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>When I said be innovative, maybe I shouldn't have said "help millions". I should have said just help develop the American economy. More IT jobs for Americans will help increase the average per capita income. Helping the global economy, it turns out; has actually produced a surprisingly wonderful result in helping the American economy as well.</p></li>
<li><p>How in the good lord's name is helping jump start businesses in the Silican valley or help expand the borders of your company or help diversify your companies services a violation of shareholders????? This is just absurd.</p></li>
</ul>

35

<p>^ ... this has to be the single worst thing ever written in recorded history... nearly every single thing in it is wrong.</p>

<p>we should all take a snapshot, frame it, and marvel at it since rarely does one get to see something so bad. </p>

<p>i don't have time to get into it line by line now, but will get to it when i can...</p>

36

<p>"Once again I'll admit that I was initially interested in i-banking before exploring careers after which I no longer care about banking. The fact that you keep nagging this shows you have no rebuttal and your only resort is desperation. It also shows a lack of class and professionalism. My my, you received an MBA? Worked on wall-street have you? For someone who writes like an angry child, this is quite an accomplishment. If someone like can achieve something like this, imagine what the rest of us could do! You are an inspiration to us "prestige". I'm really starting to like you." </p>

<p>What an Ad-Hominem attack. lol. It's cute.</p>

<p>Edit: and the post to Sally is just sad. lol. The arrogance of a college kid is awe-inspiring (especially since he's addressing an established professional). So many flaws in general, though. Time for more popcorn...:D</p>

37

<p>what is CFA?</p>

<p>and how about hedge funds? Do you need an MBA for that?</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
You fail to see why I even brought up issues like mixed, specialized MBA programs. The fact that Sloan and Wharton are going out of their way to create these specialized MBA programs over the last decade goes to show their psychology. They are interested in diversifying business ideals. In turn they can accomplish this by diversifying their class of business students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Trust me, I understand your point perfectly, I just don't think you're seeing the big picture. In the case of LFM, LFM was not really "created" by Sloan as it was actually created by a consortium of Sloan, the MIT School of Engineering, and (very importantly) LFM's corporate partners. Trust me, I really don't think there is anything you can tell me about LFM that I don't know, but I suspect that there are quite a few things I can tell you. LFM was originally started basically as a response to the challenge from Japanese manufacturing, especally in the auto industry, and how the US manufacturing industry could respond. In the early days, LFM was comprised of almost purely manufacturing and operations managers. Most LFM students were sponsored by a manufacturing company, and would head back to become an ops manager back at their employer. However, lately, LFM has greatly broadened its scope and now brings in a highly diverse set of students including, yes, some bankers. And, yes, some LFM grads head off to bankers. It's not a well-publicized fact of LFM, but it is true. For example, I know 5 LFM'ers who interviewed with Goldman Sachs (although I don't know how many got offers). Then there are others who interviewed with Morgan Stanley, Lehman, etc. </p>

<p>And besides, I think you are also affected by survivorship bias. All you see are the new specialized programs being created that are still alive. What about the specialized programs that got shut down? Stanford GSB, for example, used to have a specialized dual-degree program not dissimilar to LFM, and in fact, in its heyday, was LFM's main competitor. It got shut down a few years ago. In fact, truth be told, there are continuing rumors that LFM will eventually be shut down or at least recast, because LFM is, frankly, running out of money and Sloan is refusing to help. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Take a look at engineering students. Most engineers at top programs have 5-6 years of experience under the belt. The average i-banker who's interested in getting the MBA has about 2 years of experience (most get kicked out after 2 years so that's when they apply).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But don't you see what that means? If anything, this proves my point even further. You don't think that a lot of engineers want to go to B-school after 2 years, instead of 5 or 6? I think all of them would have preferred to go to B-school as soon as possible. The reason why they need 5 or 6 is because they NEED 5 or 6 years of work experience, for the simple reason that their first 2 years of engineering work experience was basically not considered to be good enough to get them in. In other words, sadly, the first few years of an engineering career tend to be so drone-like and lacking important tasks and responsibilities that engineers need relatively more time to amass a body of work that is comparable to what an Ibanker can amass in just 2-3 years. It's sad but true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Engineering student are more versatile in their thinking of what they want to do after graduation. Most i-bankers will indefinitely go back to wall-street.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't what you mean by 'diverse' except to say that I agree that most engineers will not go back to engineering after they get their MBA. This is true even of those who complete specialized programs such as LFM. Trust me, once you get your MBA, you're not going to want to go back to just being an engineer again. </p>

<p>But I don't think this is really 'diverse' as it is engineering tends not to be as good of a job as banking, consulting, or any of those other jobs that you can get after the MBA. A lot of engineers wish they were working as bankers or consultants, but few bankers/consultants wish they were working as engineers. So this isn't really a matter of "diversity" as it is a matter of engineering being a relatively less desirable job, compared to the other kinds of jobs that MBA's get. </p>

<p>Put another way, if a waitress were to somehow get a top MBA and then decided not to be a waitress anymore, is this really a matter of "diversity", or is this simply a matter of the woman deciding that she doesn't want to be a waitress anymore? </p>

<p>
[quote]
show that most engineers end up becoming execs at fortune 500 companies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is demonstrably false. I wish it were true, but it isn't. Take a look at the execs at Fortune 500 companies. Even tech companies tend to be managed by non-engineers. IBM, Dell, Microsoft, Intel, HP, Cisco, Apple, Oracle, Yahoo, eBay, - all of these tech companies are headed by a guy who does not have an engineering degree (or in some cases, no degree of any kind). Granted, there are some that are headed by engineers, notably Google, but there are more that are not. It's sad but true. And of course when you're talking about non-tech companies, then you really don't see that many engineers. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the 21st century. Different businesses are cooperating, diversifying, and expanding their borders at more dramatic rate then ever before. Biotech. firms and hospitals are doing business better than ever. The tech. industry has revolutionized certain countries and forged very strong business counterparts across seas (even to the point where governments are making allies across borders). It is today that innovative businessmen not only benefit themselves but millions under them. </p>

<p>This is how to promote and build a healthier world economy - by fostering diverse business ideals.</p>

<p>Now looking at the more experienced, open minded engineer and comparing him with the i-banker with 2 years of experience.....tell me, who exactly will make a better effort to diversity and help pioneer today's expanding businesses.</p>

<p>MIT and Harvard MBA programs strive to create future leaders. An i-banker who demands entry with such limited experience and with such narrow aspirations is but an insult to the integrity of the system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then what can I say, they are insulting the integrity of the system. I'm afraid I have to agree with sallyawp in that you have presented some fine ideals, but, whether we like it or not, the reality of the situation is quite different.</p>

<p>After all, look at the leadership of the leading businesses and you will see a lot of people who leading companies who are former investment bankers. Take Oracle, the leading enterprise software company in the world (and 2nd largest overall software company to Microsoft). CEO Larry Ellison never even graduated from college at all. The 2 people directly under him, Charles Phillips and Safra Catz, are both former investment bankers (Phillips from Morgan Stanley, Catz from DLJ and CSFB). In fact, honestly, Oracle hasn't had an engineer in a major position of managerial power for at least a decade. The message that Ellison is then sending to the rest of the company is unmistakeable - that at his company, the way to get ahead is not via engineering, it's via finance. You will find a lot of that in the business world - a lot of high executives in the Fortune 500, even at tech companies, are former investment bankers. </p>

<p>Look, epoch_dreams, I sympathize with your position and I wish what you were saying was true. But, sadly, it isn't. Whether we like it or not (and I don't like it), Ibanking is probably a better way to get into B-school than engineering is.</p>

39

<p>"I really can't blame Monydad because because his vision of today's society is what it was back in the 80's and early 90's. "</p>

<p>I very much appreciate that you are not blaming me . For whatever it is you would apparently like to otherwise blame me for were my mental faculties not so frozen in time.</p>

<p>However, for the record, I did not intend to express my vision of today's society on this board.</p>

<p>I expressed some observations limited completely to MBA admissions and finance back in the 80s-90s, labeled them as such, and said that I did not know what was currently going on. I.e. I made virtually no comment on todays' MBA finance situation. Let alone any "vision of today's society".</p>

<p>Then I said that based on the posts on this very board it appeared to me (appeared, not a claim that this was fact) that finance jobs were hotter than ever. The posts I am referring to were made over the last two years. This board did not exist in the 80s and 90s. </p>

<p>This is supposed to be a general MBA board, yet a vastly disproportionate number of posts on this board concern investment banking positions. What else could I conclude? How many posts about careers in Marketing have you read here?</p>

<p>Talking is one thing, the facts are something else. Somebody please list the percentage of generalist MBAs from the top programs who are entering finance jobs. Then we can all pass judgement on how germane my observations of the past situation, clearly identified as such, is to today's factual (as opposed to oratory) situation. IF Epoch_Dreams is correct, then factually a very small percentage of graduates of these programs, in the current "new world order", will currently be shuffling off to I-Bank jobs.</p>

<p>I do have a "vision" as to how this factual, non-oratory, examination would turn out. But as I do not, and did not claim to, have facts I will keep this and other visions to myself.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
For example, someone who graduates from MIT LFM and starts a new tech. company in Silican Valley as opposed to ....becoming an associate at goldman sachs is going to affect far more people (opening up new employment opportunities, etc...) than our beloved i-banker.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, now you're commenting on LFM again, and trust me, I don't think you want do that to when I'm around. You can ask me what's going on with LFM and I can tell you, but since you raised the issue, let me say that LFM'ers rarely start new tech companies in Silicon Valley or anywhere else for that matter. Keep in mind what LFM's mission is. LFM is trying to shunt people to become operations managers of large operations companies - i.e., managing chip fabs at Intel or warehourse routes at Amazon. The top "graduate" of LFM is generally held to be Jeff Wilke, LFM class of '93. Why? Because he's now Senior Vice President of Operations at Amazon. See, THAT is the kind of employee that LFM is trying to create. Not tech entrepreneurs. </p>

<p>Entrepreneurship is not considered a core competency within LFM. Entrepeneurship is not part of the LFM curricula. LFM does not bring in entrepreneurs to speak to LFM. LFM does not promote entrepreneurship. That's not to say that some LFM'ers don't start their own companies, because some do. But it's certainly far far from the norm. In fact, I would surmise that a greater percentage of regular Sloan grads become entrepreneurs than LFM grads do. Keep in mind that LFM's large corporate partners (like Intel, GM, Ford, HP, Dell, etc.) place great pressure on the program to get grads to come work for them as operations managers, and that's clearly not going to happen if they decide to become entrepreneurs. In fact, if anything, you could say that LFM actually DISCOURAGES its grads from becoming entrepreneurs. Personally, I think should not be happening. But I have to admit that it is happening. </p>

<p>In fact, not to rain on the parade, but lately, more LFM grads have been going into investment banking than into entrepreneurship. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your i-banker who chooses to quit, even though he's offered promotion to associate/VP is but a rare spectacle. Most see MBA as their only means to getting promoted. This is not the case with engineers who apply for the most part with much more experience.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, yes, but that's also true of engineers. Come on, engineers who are getting their MBA's are also trying to get promoted too. Either that or switch careers to a better job. </p>

<p>Since you brought up LFM, let's use the example of LFM. The truth is, most people in LFM are former engineers who are trying to get promoted into operations management. In fact, a lot of LFM grads are sponsored by their employers to do exactly that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
- When I said be innovative, maybe I shouldn't have said "help millions". I should have said just help develop the American economy. More IT jobs for Americans will help increase the average per capita income. Helping the global economy, it turns out; has actually produced a surprisingly wonderful result in helping the American economy as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I also think you don't see the value that investment banking provides to the economy. Ibanking makes the American economy highly flexible and provides capital to companies who are trying to expand. You talk about Silicon Valley. Well, the fact is, all of the large Silicon Valley companies would never have grown so large so quickly if there was no such thing as investment banking, as through their IPO, Silicon Valley public companies have been able to garner the capital they need to expand as quickly as they did. They also use Ibanking services to acquire companies to develop the technology portfolios they need. Almost all large Silicon Valley companies have had a long history of acquisition - with Cisco perhaps being the most acquisitive. Acquisitions are enabled by Ibankers. No Ibankers, no acquisitions, and Cisco might still be just a small router company instead of offering a complete portfolio of networking equipment. </p>

<p>But the point is, I don't why you're singling out Ibanking as being any less valuable to the economy as other fields are. Again, let's take the example ripped out of the pages of LFM. Eastman Kodak (the film company) was a former long-time corporate partner of LFM, and employs a lot of LFM grads. Kodak is now in serious financial distress. They have good operations, in the sense that their film manufacturing facilities produce high yields and quick turnaround times (and that is what operations managers do). But Kodak is still in serious trouble, not because of bad operations, but because of bad strategy (in essence, they didn't see the digital imaging revolution until it was too late - think about it, when was the last time you actually bought a roll of analog film?). Even if Kodak had perfect operations, they STILL would be in financial distress because of their gaping strategy problem. Kodak has laid off tens of thousands of people lately.</p>

<p>Hence, one could say that all of that LFM education didn't really help Kodak very much. In fact, one could argue that all of those LFM grads who took jobs at Kodak would have been better off going to Ibanking instead. And one could say that Kodak might have been better off not hiring those LFM grads, and instead hiring some better strategists. Like I said, it's not bad operations that's killing them, it's bad strategy. Having the best run film factories in the world doesn't help when fewer and fewer people want film. </p>

<p>In fact, lately, Kodak has been putting some of its divisions up for sale which, yep, involves investment bankers. For example, Kodak has just recently hired Goldman Sachs to help sell its health imaging business. By doing so, it hopes to get the capital it needs to restructure itself for the world of digital imaging. So one could say that, right now, Kodak needs investment bankers more than it needs operations managers. Again, having the best-run film factories in the world isn't going to save Kodak.</p>