<p>
[quote]
It's by **Patrick Stewart <a href="if%20I%20remember%20correctly">/B</a>. He's a philosophy ph.d turned consultant...
[/quote]
I'm not sure if I'd consider Star Trek to be philosophy, per se. I mean, a little, sure, but nothing you'd get a PhD on...</p>
<p><em>grin</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
It's by Patrick Stewart (if I remember correctly). He's a philosophy ph.d turned consultant who criticizes MBA programs for being nothing more than Rolodex builders. I think the article's called "The MBA Myth."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, even if MBA programs are just Rolodex builders, that by itself is already an excellent reason to attend one. The truth is, a lot (probably most of) hiring, promotion, and deal-making is accomplished through social networks. Surely we've all heard the phrase: "It's not what you know, it's who you know." The truth is, whether we like it or not, a well-connected guy is more likely to get a job over a brilliant and hard-working, but unconnected guy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It takes about one second to think of so many exceptions to this that it's a useless point. Look at Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett Packard, bachelors in business from a non-descript college....If you want to "rise to the top" in consulting or i-banking, this gets to be more true. But the OP pretty much stated he has no interest in that...It's really not about where you went to school if you want to join corporate America, work hard, have the right personality, and want to rise through the ranks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think the assumption is that most MBA students at the top schools don't really want to be CEO's, at least not anymore. This notion has been explicitly stated and explored by leading management scholars such as Rakesh Khurana. Simply put, other career fields, such as private equity, fund management, venture capital, investment banking, strategy consulting, and the like will pay more and provide better opportunities than a traditional corporate management position, even the CEO. The thinking is, why be the CEO yourself when you can be the guy telling the CEO what to do?</p>
<p>Quote:
Maybe MBA's should be called MBS's, Masters in the art of BS'ing? </p>
<p>If a joke wasn't funny the first time, it probably won't be funny the second time</p>
<p>Bush also ran two companies into the ground. Two OIL companies. How the hell do you run two oil companies into the ground, two companies that were funded by daddy's trust fund? It's not like, there was debt to service at these companies or something like that....</p>
<p>Bruce Wasserstein and the CEO of Goldman went to Harvard Law. What's your point? Successful people come from anywhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The thinking is, why be the CEO yourself when you can be the guy telling the CEO what to do?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good question, indeed. Just because you're "at the top" doesn't mean you have it easy. I think CEOs have pretty bad deals at a fair number of companies.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent,</p>
<p>Debt actually might have been beneficial, had the companies had any... even basic understanding of MM tells us that some debt (as opposed to pure equity financing), and the tax shield that accompanies it, is beneficial. The amount you take depends, of course, on whether you're trade-off theory or pecking order or something else, but either way SOME debt might have been useful, at least for optimizing his companies' WACCs.</p>
<p>Then again, it may not have been mismanagement but just a competitive environment that drove his companies out. You can do a lot of things right and still get dumped on.</p>
<p>I don't think the oil-addicted 70's was a particularly competitive environment. From Bush's penchant on spending money irresponsibly, I'd say the reason is cash flow. Although the energy crisis on the late 70's might have done it for him......of course I can only speculate.</p>
<p>Precisely the reason I'm going to law school. To advance, I just need to be an excellent lawyer, that's about it. And kiss a little ass.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent,</p>
<p>Actually, an environment with many people entering could see low economic rents, because you might get closer to competition-- remember that pure competition means zero profits.</p>
<p>Not to say that I think this is definitely the explanation, I just think that it's unfair to assume ill just because he's who he is. I mean, many think that Frank Lorenzo is talented, but others say that he ran Continental into the ground. However, to assume that Continental was all his fault would be faulty as well.</p>
<p>But that's probably stretching things a bit. Lorenzo is by all means a more talented businessman in my mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bush also ran two companies into the ground. Two OIL companies. How the hell do you run two oil companies into the ground
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Were you born in 1993 or something? I'm from that part of the country and everyone lost their asses back in the 80s. The oil business was doing horrible and many good people lost their jobs and businesses.</p>
<p>Hello guys,
I have recently arrived in Houston, Tx. I would like to know that is MBA from HBU is better than MBA from UOH-victoria business school.
HBU has ACBSP accredited while UOH is AACSB accretited. I plan to move globally so How could would MBA from HBU be? Please provide some guidance</p>
<p>Stats I have read:</p>
<p>U of H Victoria
avg gmat: 436
avg work exp: 24 months
avg ugrad gpa: 2.94</p>
<p>HBU
avg gmat: 517
avg work experience: 42 months
avg ugrad gpa: 3.21</p>
<p>Based on that, I'm sure HBU is better. Neither school will have any recognition globally. So, the main thing you would be going to school for is the classroom knowledge you received (and to have MBA on your resume).</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. I m enrolled in Victoria business school n planning to switch to HBU. What bothered me in UOH-V is that I had students in class wid Gmat score of 380- 0 work ex, 400,..... n half of them have got a GMAT waiver. I on the other hand have 1 year Ex, GMAT score of 550 n AWA of 5. My GPA from bachelor's is 3.7.
Now wat I m bothered is about Accredition-
HBU-ACBSP
UHV-AACSB
Now would that make a difference around the world. Would they know about Accredited system. Is HBU a better university to be at?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In initial income, the average at a place like Harvard, Kellogg, or Columbia is about $175K out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>slipper, that also seems incorrect. It's more like 110K. Big difference! Like sakky, i also want to see the link that says MBAs from top-10 schools make 500K/yr. I have a hard time believing it without seeing the source.</p>
<p>
[quote]
slipper, that also seems incorrect. It's more like 110K.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, if you count all forms of income and not just salary, the $175 number is probably more correct. In fact, I suspect it is actually quite low, given the gigantic year-end bonuses available in banking. </p>
<p>The problem is that the those packages are generally based on variable bonuses that are extremely hard to predict in advance. In a bad year, you might get very little bonus. In a good year, you will get a huge one. Hence, from a reporting standpoint, nobody really "knows" exactly what you are actually going to get in your first year end bonus of a finance job, which is why MBA rankings generally (if misleadingly) ignore them entirely.</p>
<p>^^^Thanks!</p>