<p>Had a thought that I would like to hear opinions on it...</p>
<p>Lets say there are two people, Man A and Man B.</p>
<p>Man A is a straight A student at a very good state school majoring in Finance. After 5 years in the workforce he is making $65k. He then gets an MBA at a good state school and gets straight As again.Now he makes $80K.</p>
<p>Now, Man B goes to a tier 3 school gets a 3.70 GPA and works for 5 years making $50k. Then he applies to Wharton for his MBA and gets in. After he graduates he is making $125k.</p>
<p>Why such a high salary compared to Man A? What is the business justification in this? Techincally, Man A could of went to Wharton too, since his GPA was higher and his undergrad was better. What did Man B gain intellectually at Wharton to now almost make double what Man A is making? </p>
<p>Also if you say connections.... isn't that foolish since Man B technically is not the most talented?</p>
<p>“Why such a high salary compared to Man A?” This is a straw man. Why doesn’t Man A go to enough recruiting events to land the same job at $125K as Man B at Wharton?</p>
<p>“What is the business justification in this?” Because Man A signed too early and didn’t hold out for a better paying job. And Man A’s employer was shrewder than he was.</p>
<p>None of this is related to Man B. Rightly or wrongly, in the business world, an MBA from a top ten pgm matters and is paid a premium.</p>
<p>You’re using false equivalence again, WH. I hope when/if you get to BSchool and do case studies – you’ll be better at comparing apples to apples.</p>
<p>I agree with @T26E4. I will also add that there is an underlying implication that Man B did well enough at Wharton to impress the new employer and get the big salary. Since the people attending Wharton are very high achievers, he must have held his own quite well. If he was in over his head that badly and was in the bottom half or worse in his class, he most likely wouldn’t get that plum job. So in fact he did show his talent level, while Man A has not yet demonstrated it, at least not by this kind of path. It may take him longer to get to the “big bucks” through showing he has superior talent in his job.</p>
<p>Now is it possible to be mediocre at Wharton and still get that kind of job just because you went there? Sure, if the new employer is lazy in checking Man B out. But who said life is fair? Man B was clever enough, lucky enough or some combination of the two to recognize the value of a brand name and leverage it into a better job. That alone would differentiate him from Man A.</p>
<p>What would be your alternative? To have some all knowing, all seeing government board that decides what is the most “fair” result for everyone?</p>
<p>T26- Good points, my only counter is when Man A applies for a job at a Hedge Fund Firm , his resume will not stand a chance to Man B’s resume. This is an error on the recruiters part because he/she can’t realize Man A could of went to Wharton too & could in fact be the smarter of the two.</p>
<p>That makes it sound like it’s all about “being part of the social club” then about ones God given talents. But I recognize that’s how the world works.</p>
<p>This is a great question as it gets to the root of a fallacy that CC propagates: that a solid education depends on the material you learn and master, and that top schools ride on their ‘brand’ and ‘reputation.’ Have you spoken to any Man A or Man Bs?</p>
<p>Man B has confidence and an assured demeanor. He has worked alongside some of the best of the best- rolled up his sleeves and seen how captains of industry attack problems. He better understands the limits in a somatic way.</p>
<p>I once test drove an MG with a friend who owned several. The seller was an airline mechanic- always fixing and selling cars. After the test drive the seller asked how it went. My friend said that the clutch stuck a bit as it was depressed. The seller said he had fixed up many MGs and they are all like that. My friend, without hesitation, looked him in the eye and matter-of-factly said “no, they’re not.” Just that simple. There was a perceptible shift in that moment.</p>
<p>That is the difference between Man A and Man B. There is a fungible qualitative difference in those who are admitted to and who graduate from top programs compared to those who learn the material and theory from non-top programs. Hiring managers know this difference, on average, from experience.</p>
<p>Knowing this, if Man A was capable of attending Wharton, yet did not, what does that say about his judgment?</p>
<p>ItsJustSchool - Great theory and ideas… its almost sounds like going to Wharton for an MBA creates a shift in the way you carry yourself and see yourself which translates into a positive self-fulfilling prophecy. As people now treat you like leadership. People at the top of a company def act confidently and have certain mannerisms even if the decisions they are making are bad. </p>
<p>ItsJustSchool - to answer your second question : (if Man A was capable of attending Wharton, yet did not, what does that say about his judgment?) to me it means he is a “work bee” type and not a “top leadership” type.</p>
<p>Qualitatively, I’d say that Wharton surely will attract recruiters from more companies with higher paying positions than the good public BSchool. Thus, it may be more likely that Man A can only vie for fewer high-paying positions versus Man B at Wharton. </p>
<p>From the recruiters’ side, their budget may be limited so they go for where the biggest return can be had. Might there be some super-genius, great fit executive out at Iowa State? Sure. But their recruiting managers know that the average quality of resumes at Wharton and Ross and Kellogg will be higher — thus they schedule trips to Philly, Ann Arbor and Chicago. And not Ames. But the graduate of Iowa State isn’t kicking himself b/c a NYC hedge fund didn’t fly-in to recruit either. He/She is probably perfectly fine with the more regional recruiters at the career fair.</p>
<p>Regarding post #8, I had asked this question of someone, and he told me they confront themselves and their limits; and that they have amazingly top leaders (president of whatever- coca-cola, GE, Exxon-mobil, etc.) fly in for a couple of days and work case studies with the class, shoulder-to-shoulder. The students learned how these people solve problems and learn they have similar tools. They learn, internalize really, that they are capable of these things. Rather outsized, actually, and prepared to work in certain environments of that scale. Much of the learning is somatizing the reality of what it takes to be a top leader, and understanding one’s own strengths and limits- well beyond the subject matter of the texts.</p>
<p>Other B-Schools prepare for perhaps a different scale. If you want to lead up a small local enterprise, with managable work hours and limited travel, perhaps Wharton is not your ticket.</p>
<p>Usage, while incorrect, is regional and may seem correct in one’s local context, @sorghum. OP, the correct usage is not “could of went,” but “could have gone”. Another midwesternism I have heard is “that’s all the further he could of gone” rather that “That’s as far as he could have gone.” If you are not from there it sounds very strange; if you are from there it sounds normal.</p>
<p>JustOneDad, yeah that’s what the young George Bush said when he was put in charge of a bunch
of companies that he drove in the ground,lol…That guy intellectual is a genius wouldn’t you agree?? I don’t buy it that the best and brightest are always the ones that get the top jobs…the fact is the system isn’t perfect…which is fine…</p>
I would venture to say that some
of the best perks of going to a top MBA program are the networking opportunities and the recruiting opportunities. If Man A’s goal was to increase his salary, going to Wharton over a mid tier Bschool is the obvious choice.
Man B must have been very talented because he was accepted into a very competitive MBA program. He also must have been very talented for him to be worth $125k.
my apologies in advance for steering the conversation a bit off course: I disagree with @ItsJustSchool 's note about regional uses and adoptions of language. Certainly it happens but there are few acceptable circumstances where regionalisms in written form. “Could of” is incorrect almost universally as written text – no way to get around that fact.
Funny thing is I would equate CC and other informal fora (texting) as being places where the fidelity of using “could of” versus the correct “could have” can be excused. For the OP, I’d just suggest he pay attn to this phrase choice when writing/typing in other contexts.
I feel it is rather harsh for an adult to make a vague reference mocking an adolescent, without any real kindness or teaching value behind it, which is what I felt happened in the posting by @sorghum. My intent was not to excuse, but rather to guide. I was very clear that the usage is incorrect. Here is what I said:
My we all have a supportive and prosperous New Year!