<p>Does anyone?</p>
<p>"Right, I'm the stupid one because I don't aspire to work for someone like you. Yep, I'm definitely stupid. Have fun getting your MBA at a prestigious college, assuming you'll even have the credentials to get in (unlikely)."
I don't work. But one day, i might get an MBA, although i think ide rather get a PhD cause ide love to teach and do research, especially for think tanks and stuff.</p>
<p>But im amazed that you think MBAs are pointless. </p>
<p>"Does anyone?"
Quit dodging questions</p>
<p>a grad school should be gone to for name brand recognition. undergrad for the education, but grad school for the name. and the network.</p>
<p>I hate writing on this type of topic because inevitably it comes across as elitist and potentially offensive. On the other hand, its important for driven students to understand how things work.</p>
<p>I feel as if an MBA from a top 10 school is for all intensive purposes a different degree than one from the top 25, and even further from the rest. </p>
<p>At a top 10 school expectations are MUCH higher. An MBA is not about the education, its about the network and the stamp of approval. An MBA makes you legitimate in the eyes of top firms and it gives you a big edge. In initial income, the average at a place like Harvard, Kellogg, or Columbia is about $175K out. At the 30th school its $85K. But that is only the beginning. Ten years out, the average top ten MBA makes about 500K. Outside the top 25 its more like 120k. Why? Because top MBAs, who are on the fast track, see their salary increase about 25-50K a year depending on their job. Middle management MBAs are stuck in the 4% a year game. 120K is alot, don't get me wrong, but its not what most top 10 MBAs are looking to make. </p>
<p>Top MBAs plan on making 300K-1M+ within ten years whether its within industry, as an entrepreneur, or within finance. You are expected to become an executive. You are expected to have incredibly high aspirations. Likely, the MBA will be significant in getting you there. Even for entrepreneurs the MBA has tremendous value. Lots of people raise VC money for businesses, but top MBAs are far more likely to get that type of financing. </p>
<p>In terms of financial worth, a top MBA is one of the best investments you can make. You have to spend money to make money. The 300K an mba costs (I'm factoring Salary, etc) is nothing when you look at how much it accelerates your career. The only people for whom a top MBA is not worth it already work in finance (and likely went to a top ten undegrad) and are making about 250K-1M a year in their twenties and the MBA would stall them. </p>
<p>At a lesser school you are far more likely to enter "middle management" and be led by others. Unfortunately many graduates of lesser MBA schools don't even realize what they are missing. </p>
<p>Top MBAs are the leaders. You only get one shot at an MBA. If you get into a top 10 school in my opinion you'd be making a big mistake if you didn't take that opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ten years out, the average top ten MBA makes about 500K.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Do you have data that backs this up? I have seen some information from Wharton that suggests that this figure might be true, but I have never seen data about this topic about other schools in the top 10.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing your statement. I would just like to know where you got your information.</p>
<p>Alchemy, you don't know anything about the real world. You're still just a starry-eyed kid living off a pipe dream. And you clearly haven't studied Spence's Singal Theory, intertemporal budgeting, or decision making under uncertainty or you would understand the value of a Wharton MBA. Then again, Maclaster has never been known for it's econ department, so I can't blame you.</p>
<p>But honestly, what brilliant idea do you have for a small business? Because I was thinking of starting the next google, I just don't know the specifics yet <sarcasm></sarcasm></p>
<p>I actually would like to start my own business. But I would rather start a financial advisory firm than a bakery. I kind of need a CFA/MBA to have any credibility. </p>
<p>When you make an argument about the better of 2 investments, try to use economic reasoning by calculating the expected value of each. Silly anecdotes are worthless.</p>
<p>HAHAHA Wutang,
You just moved up a notch in my book. For a while there I thought you were just angry all the time about McGill and stuff, but wow, you are so much cooler now.</p>
<p>I don't have to argue with wutangfinancial. He'll destroy his own argument before it begins by making an ill-informed statement!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alchemy, you don't know anything about the real world.
[/quote]
wait for it...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're still just a starry-eyed kid living off a pipe dream. And you clearly haven't studied Spence's Singal Theory, intertemporal budgeting, or decision making under uncertainty or you would understand the value of a Wharton MBA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wait for it...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then again, Maclaster has never been known for it's econ department, so I can't blame you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There we go.</p>
<p><em>stops being silly</em></p>
<p>I know the value of a Wharton MBA,
wutangfinancial (nice Chappelle reference by the way).If you want to start a financial advisory firm you should get a Prestigious B-School MBA. If you want to make a crapload of money and don't have any particularly innovative ideas (and in some cases, even if you do), you should get a Prestigious B-School MBA. I probably should have added the words "for me" (a person who probably won't require a Prestigious B-School MBA for a variety of reasons) on my posts. My mistake. Sorry. Don't bite my head off. </p>
<p>BIGTWIX: Can you see wutangfinancial's prostate yet?</p>
<p>Wutang is certainly correct that Spence's Singal Theory, intertemporal budgeting, and decision making under uncertainty are all relevant. However, interpreting and applying them either empirically or analytically to this problem do not guaranty that every thoughtful person will arrive at the same conclusion. If you really care to understand what is known about the topic, rather than simply looking for ex post rationalization for your established position, you should consider starting with Pfeffer and Fong (2002, 2004) and Ghoshal (2005) and then considering the responses, such as Kreps (2002). To summarize, it's not clear one way or the other, so if it seems clear to you, you're probably missing a few things.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Businessweek published a list of the top MBA salaries ten years out. Harvard topped it with a little over a million. The top ten averaged out to a little more than $500K. Also, if I remember correctly UNC's average ten years out was $220K</p>
<p>~waiting for Alchemy to post his long list of business accomplishments~</p>
<p>Why would I bother posting my long list of business accomplishments? Even if I did, you wouldn't believe me unless I provided you with proof, which I wouldn't since I don't intend to reveal my identity on an internet forum.</p>
<p>I don't believe that's the reason you won't post them. Thanks anyways, Mark Cuban.</p>
<p>The benefit of a top name MBA is not in the quality of the education (because many top schools are much like lower level schools) the benefit lies in the connections you establish once you graduate. The alumni network at Harvard, Stanford, Wharton etc... is extremely tight--people donate a lot of money and they get amazing turnouts for reunions. A close friend went to Harvard and another to Babson (part-time) and their courses were very similar. They are both very successful and make about the same $$. The Harvard grad has better connections via the alumni group...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Businessweek published a list of the top MBA salaries ten years out. Harvard topped it with a little over a million. The top ten averaged out to a little more than $500K. Also, if I remember correctly UNC's average ten years out was $220K
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Do you have a link for that? Or the article's name? Or anything at all that could help me find that article?</p>
<p>Slipper1234, the closest I could find is the article "What's an MBA really worth", from the 9/22/03 issue. This does seem to coincide with what you are talking about, in that it interviewed graduates of the top 30 MBA programs from the Class of '92 (hence, about 10 years out).</p>
<p>But it doesn't indicate that Harvard was "over a million".</p>
<p>Furthermore, I am rather disturbed by the selection bias. Seems to me that strong evidence exists that the sample data is skewed towards those who are successful (for if you're not doing well, you're probably not going to be easy to find). </p>
<p>"Several institutions -- Harvard Business School, University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, MIT's Sloan School of Business, Yale School of Management, and University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business -- did not want their alums to be surveyed and therefore declined to assist BusinessWeek in reaching the 1992 class. In those instances, BusinessWeek compiled a list of 1992 graduates via publicly available information. We were able to reach more than half of the '92 class at Harvard. For MIT, Wharton, and Yale, we reached about one-third. The response rates averaged about 30%. At USC, we were able to contact less than 25% of the class, and fewer than 30% of those responded, so USC alumni feedback is included only in aggregate data"</p>
<p>I have read the one that Businessweek put out on salaries 5 years out but not the one ten years out. The survey I read was very recent, just a few months ago.</p>
<p>Hi all! I appreciate all the responses and this is indeed a very interesting discussion. Maybe I should have talked about my situation first. I have an Economics degree from a state university, my area of expertise is financial analysis, and I notice that many jobs in financial analysis prefer a MBA. My career path will probably be-> Senior Financial Analyst->Financial Manager-> CFO if everything works out. I used to work for a small bank where the CFO had no college degree. I have absolutely no desire to work for an investment bank, I consider myself educated financially, read the Wall Street Journal, IBD, Fool.Com religiously and feel like I have a clear understanding of financial markets and investments, however, I truly value my personal time, family and I cant see myself being a "corporate rat". Unfortunately, there is just too much BS in the financial sector and I don't want to be another one of these "glorified pimps". The way some people try to glamorize "investment bank" jobs makes me laugh. If you are willing to be a slave of an investment bank, working 13+ hours/day and weekends, good for you. Anyways, a MBA for me, would mean simply a "distinction" from a financial analyst that has earned only a bachelor's degree.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Well, that clears things up. You don't need a "name MBA." Your career path is a very set one. In particular, I have noted that CFOs don't seem to embark on the path to that position by obtaining a name MBA. (This is anecdotal, but I have seen the resumes of many, many CFOs.)</p>
<p>Again MBAs serve essentially two, perhaps three, purposes:</p>
<p>1) to turbocharge the career of someone who wants to switch fields, particularly into i-banking or consulting. This purpose particularly requires a name MBA to be most optimal.</p>
<p>2) to provide the education and credential for someone who wants to accelerate or progress along a chosen path or in a chosen field. This doesn't require a name MBA. </p>
<p>3) to provide one with a network that can have lasting benefit. The more name an MBA for this purpose, the stronger the network is likely to be. However, if one doesn't do well in one's career, this network will be of limited help anyway.</p>
<p>You don't need a name MBA.</p>
<p>^^^ It does clear things up but I still disagree about the choice to not go for a name MBA.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether you go into a full time program, or a part-time program (which I'm guessing you will do), your biggest expense will still be your time, and I recommend making the most of it.</p>
<p>Your goals sound great, but I think it's easier said than done to become a CFO. It will most likely require you to switch jobs a few times, and I think a name brand MBA would serve you well for a career in corporate finance.</p>
<p>Are you planning to stay with the company you are now with? I would hope that you would not limit yourself, especially since it sounds like you want to be more than simply a corporate lackey.</p>