<p>Hi guys,</p>
<p>Heres my situation. Im graduating from CSULB the Spring with a business degree in finance. I currently work for Bank of America part-time, but upon graduation I plan on pursuing full-time employment. My question to you guys is should I pursue an MBA or CFA designation. My goal is the become a securities analyst. Thanks for any input or opinions.</p>
<p>both are good and extremely relevant for securities analysis</p>
<p>you can start the CFA right away, best to wait a few years before applying to bschool</p>
<p>one caveat: less than 1 in five will complete the CFA program, most business schools are considerably easier</p>
<p>My background isn’t finance but I’m friends with a fair number of young investment bankers. They’re all working towards completing their CFA as they build up their resumes and gain work experience and then intend to apply to MBA programs. I don’t think it’s an either or type of thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For that statistic to even approach relevance you’d have to look at how many people apply to MBA programs vs. how many ultimately graduate. If you did CFA applications like B-school applications and denied entry to the bottom 30-50% of people trying to sign up for the test (assuming mid-range school - more on that later), the CFA pass rates would look a whole lot better, too.</p>
<p>Even if we take a “mid-range” (caveat later in the post) business school (Ohio State), ignore cross-admissions and assume everyone who was accepted enrolled, we arrive here:</p>
<p>1,020 applicants</p>
<p>29% acceptance rate (ignore that only 58% of those accepted enrolled, we don’t even really have to go there in this illustration)</p>
<p>95% estimated graduation rate (HBS is 98%, Carlson School of Management (Minnesota) was ~93% in 2003, we can assume Ohio State is somewhere in the middle)</p>
<p>= 27% of applicants end up finishing the program.</p>
<p>Keep in mind this is assuming EVERYONE who was accepted enrolls in the school. We can make all sorts of assumptions as to how many “half-assed” applications get sent out to business schools by people who don’t end up enrolling anywhere.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind this is a mid-range school, and that as we go up the ladder, admissions rates fall much more precipitously than graduation rates rise (as you saw, HBS had only 5% higher graduation rates than Carlson School of Management despite admissions rates of 10% and 40%, respectively).</p>
<p>caveat So, yes, you can point out that what we are considering a “mid-range” business school here is actually very elite relative to the hundreds of business schools in the United States, so your use of the category “most business schools” would still technically apply. In this context though, it’s not as clean-cut as you would make it out to be; and the two programs are really not even comparable on a basis of “how many people finish” given the structural differences. However, as was just illustrated, even if you DO compare them on that basis, the distinction is really very small. Given that, I think your use of the phrase “significantly easier,” especially in the context of these boards where people are typically considering higher-end business schools, is inappropriate.</p>
<p>sources:
[BW</a> Online: 2002 Full-Time MBA Profile: Ohio State University](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School</a>
[Carlson</a> School of Management](<a href=“http://www.academic.umn.edu/equity/metrics/CSOM/ur.html]Carlson”>http://www.academic.umn.edu/equity/metrics/CSOM/ur.html)</p>
<p>“Most business schools” was meant to imply the vast majority which are indeed very easy to get into.</p>
<p>Having experience the CFA exams as well as life at what is generally considered one of the most academically challenging business schools, I stand by my claim that most business schools are significantly easier to get into and consequently graduate from (since it is virtually impossible to fail out) than is the completion of the CFA program.</p>
<p>Again, from someone who is from a top business school: within asset management, I would take a CFA charter more seriously than someone who graduated from 4/5 of the b schools out there.</p>
<p>Also, jdp is right, the two are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>If you are seriously interested in asset management, then I would recommend you obtain both a CFA charter and an MBA (or perhaps master of finance).</p>
<p>Is a masters finance and CFA repetitive? UT Dallas’s MSF program has a “cfa prep” track, but it seems like I could just take a prep course at kaplan/self study and save a whole lot of money. Does the MS Finance designation mean anything if its not from a top b-school?</p>
<p>not sure…</p>
<p>Passing all levels of CFA exams won’t mean much without the charter, that means 4 years of relevant experience. Most high level finance jobs require relevant experience.</p>
<p>Since you are a graduate of CSU, it’s better to get an MBA from a top school. Most top finance jobs require a diploma from a name-brand school,which you lack.</p>
<p>cbreeze is mistaken about the CFA exams being meaningless without 4 yrs exp. </p>
<p>From a hiring manager’s perspective, the person who passed the CFA exams but has 3.5 years exp is equally well trained as the guy who has worked for 4 years and thus holds the charter.</p>