<p>Would it be alright to go for your MBA right after you get your BA. Or should you work first and then go back for your MBA later?</p>
<p>I would say that the market for MBA's strongly tips towards quality. Basically, what that means is that if you can't get into a top-quality MBA program, then it's probably not worth going at all, unless you can get your employer to pay for it. </p>
<p>Now, as far as the top programs are concerned, if you can get in right after graduation, then you should probably take it, unless you have an super-amazing job offer in your hand. I say this mostly because MBA admissions at top programs tend to be extremely fickle. You might get into a program in one year, but not get in the next year, so you "gotta get while the gettin's good". So if you can get in, you should probably take it. </p>
<p>However, that's a very big "if". I wouldn't hold my breath. The top MBA programs almost never admit anybody right after undergrad.</p>
<p>I concur, try to make it a top 25 program at least, and the top 10 are really where you want to be. Just realize that fresh out of undergrad you're going to need to show some solid organizational experience at least (charities, AS, club leadership) combined with stellar grades and a 700+ GMAT score.</p>
<p>Why are there so many unemployed Stanford, MIT, and ivy MBAs? Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit when I say "so many" but I mean compared to what most people believe, even MBAs from top grad schools have a difficult time keeping a job let alone a stable career. And also how come more MBAs are quitting executive positions to open up low technology franchises (e.g. Dunkin' Donuts, Coldstone, Subway, etc.)?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/050602nyt.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/050602nyt.htm</a>
-MBAs and franchises</p>
<p>^ unemployed MBAs</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Social skills. Most 750's just aren't as likeable as say a 600. The few that are are fantastic and become hegemon of the universe etc. etc. but most are book smart and brain dead. Management is more 50/50 understanding people/doing your job. </p></li>
<li><p>CEO makes $200,000? Owner of popular subway store makes $500,000?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>MBA's are usually good at math.</p>
<p>: )</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are there so many unemployed Stanford, MIT, and ivy MBAs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because getting one of these MBA's raises your expectations. You're no longer satisfied with just getting any job. All of these guys can get some kind of job. Those guys are looking for the RIGHT job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Social skills. Most 750's just aren't as likeable as say a 600. The few that are are fantastic and become hegemon of the universe etc. etc. but most are book smart and brain dead. Management is more 50/50 understanding people/doing your job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's irrelevant. I agree that most 750's may not be terribly likeable. But these guys will find it difficult to get admitted to a top B-school anyway. Admission is far more than about just numbers. That's why work experience and work success is so important in getting admitted. B-schools reject plenty of people with great numbers but bad or unproven social skills, as evidenced by mediocre or no work experience. </p>
<p>The point is, it is actually quite rare to find an MBA from a top school who is book-smart and brain-dead. These people tend to not get admitted in the first place. You are far far more likely to find these people coming out from a PhD program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And also how come more MBAs are quitting executive positions to open up low technology franchises (e.g. Dunkin' Donuts, Coldstone, Subway, etc.)?</p>
<p>CEO makes $200,000? Owner of popular subway store makes $500,000?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that it's because franchise ownership really makes more money . Generally, each franchise makes about $50-$75,000 of profit (which is why successful franchise owners own multiple franchise). It's more about having the freedom to do what you want.</p>
<p>I disagree. I think a 4.0/750 GMAT is gonna get you in to a top school. Management at the mid levels is often filled with unlikable anal people. They can easily fake their way through an interview process, especially considering that it is other similar people giving the interview. Interviews don't allow you to show your personality, they allow you to show how quick you are on your feet. Everything is so rigid and formal that a person with a great personality has to quench it in order to properly conduct themselves. That says a lot about the an interviews ability to determine who is likable. </p>
<p>Most people that score very highly do so because they have devoted themselves to academics. Most people that do that, did so because they were lacking in social skills in the first place. </p>
<p>This is not applicable to ALL people, just my experiential data. </p>
<p>The same goes for accountants, the only accountant I know with a highly likable personality lasted 6 months at KPMG before he couldn't take the tedious monotony anymore and quit to open his own mortgage firm.</p>
<p>Hey, I'm likable ;)</p>
<p>Just wanted to say that I disagree with Phear_me. I don't believe for a second that a 4.0/750 is all it takes to get into a top MBA program. It's only one aspect and there are people with 600's that get into harvord over people with 750's it's not uncommon.</p>
<p>ummm ... you're crazy. </p>
<p>If you have a 750/4.0 and some solid management experience, 4 years or so, and can conduct yourself decently, you're a shoe-in for at least one of the top 10 schools, and EXTREMELY likely for one of the top 5. </p>
<p>You wanna know who gets in with a 640? The female minority (which, somehow, doesn't include asians) who grew up in Harlem. That's about it.</p>
<p>An MBA seems so pointless. It doesn't give you any expertise or a leg up in the job market. MBAs are as expendible as a manager at grocery store or fast food joint. You spend two years in school not working hard but rather hardly working. Why? So you can "socialize"? And maybe have connections later on? It ticks me off whenever reading about unemployed MBAs and how more companies outsource accounting, computer/engineering, and even finance jobs to foreign counteries. I'm beginning to think having an MBA is an absolute waste of time and money compared to having a Ph.D, MD, or JD. I bet that with a JD or PhD, you have the same if not better skills to succeed in corporate companies and you have more career opportunities.</p>
<p>Listen, an MBA says the same thing a college degree does:</p>
<p>"I am a member of the cool guy club, from X level institution"</p>
<p>Except for extremely technical degrees, such as engineering and medicine, there's nothing you can't learn at college for $20 in late fees at the public library.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree. I think a 4.0/750 GMAT is gonna get you in to a top school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. You ever wonder why the average GPA and GMAT at even the top schools are not very high? Just take a gander at the average GPA's and test scores at HBS, Stanford, Sloan, Kellogg, Wharton, etc. It's really not that high, especially when you compare it to the top law schools or the top medical schools. The top B-schools generally have entering average GPA's of 3.4-3.6, and GMAT's in the high 600's or low 700's (which is about the 90th-95th percentile). Contrast that with the top law schools that have average GPA's hovering around 3.6-3.8 and LSAT's of around 165-170, which is about the 95th-98th percentile. </p>
<p>Yet that doesn't mean that it's easy to get into the top B-schools. The admissions percentage is still quite low for the top B-schools. That should serve as a strong indication that high GPA and test scores alone are not that important. Trust me. I know. </p>
<p>Look, the fact is, every one of the top B-schools could easily fill their classes with a bunch of guys with superstar grades and test scores. Yet they don't do that. If they did, then their average entering GPA's and test scores would rise to be equivalent to that of the top law/med schools. That doesn't happen. That indicates that grades and test scores are only minor considerations. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you have a 750/4.0 and some solid management experience, 4 years or so, and can conduct yourself decently, you're a shoe-in for at least one of the top 10 schools, and EXTREMELY likely for one of the top 5.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha, but that's not the scenario that was posed. The scenario is that simply having a high test score and high grades would, BY THEMSELVES, get you into a top B-school. </p>
<p>Let me tell you a story. I know a guy who completed his undergrad, his master's and his PhD in engineering at MIT (hence he was "MIT-cubed" because he got all 3 degrees at MIT). Brilliant dude, scored somewhere in the high 700's on the GMAT. Then he decided he wanted his MBA and so applied to the top B-schools, including MIT Sloan and HBS. He got rejected from all of them. Why? Simple. No work experience. His grades were stellar. His test scores were stellar. He was an undeniably brilliant guy. Still, he couldn't get into any of the top programs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Management at the mid levels is often filled with unlikable anal people. They can easily fake their way through an interview process, especially considering that it is other similar people giving the interview. Interviews don't allow you to show your personality, they allow you to show how quick you are on your feet. Everything is so rigid and formal that a person with a great personality has to quench it in order to properly conduct themselves. That says a lot about the an interviews ability to determine who is likable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think your experience has been clouded by your view of boring middle corporate management. Yet the fact is, the majority of students at the elite B-schools are not aiming to enter middle corporate management. Just look at the employment reports of the top B-schools and you will notice that the top 2 destinations of the students are banking and consulting, two industries that place a very strong premium on salesmanship and personality. In fact, the majority of students from the top B-schools end up in either banking of consulting. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You wanna know who gets in with a 640? The female minority (which, somehow, doesn't include asians) who grew up in Harlem. That's about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's not stereotype too much, shall we? I happen to know several white men who are either in or graduated from HBS or MITSloan with GMAT's that were in the 500's and whose GPA's were south of 3.0. </p>
<p>How did they do it? Great military experience. One was a (self-admitted) terrible college student who then later joined the Army, eventually qualifying for the Special Forces, and completing hot missions around the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Another was a Navy pilot who eventually qualified for Top Gun (yes, THE Top Gun), and participated in bombing missions in Afghanistan. These guys have forgotten more about leadership and about managing people in high-stress situations than most of us will ever learn in our lifetimes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I bet that with a JD or PhD, you have the same if not better skills to succeed in corporate companies and you have more career opportunities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Unlikely. Especially with a PhD. PhD's are arguably the least practical degree there is out there. Basically, a PhD prepares you for either a career in academia/teaching, or to take a high-level research position. That's about it. True, some PhD's go on to great business success, but their PhD's had little to do with it. At least the MBA teaches you something about business (along with, yes, all the networking and socializing and carousing). The PhD teaches you almost nothing about business. </p>
<p>Look, the point is, if you want to do a Phd, do it because you truly love the subject and because you really see yourself as a researcher or a teacher. Don't do it because you think it's going to help you succeed in business. The kind of commitment you need to sustain yourself through the PhD requires that you truly love the subject.</p>
<p>Okay, so unless you are in the freaking special forces kicking ass and taking names for the US of A (God bless those guys, by the way) then you better be a minority female with a 640 GMAT. </p>
<p>Also, most of the guys going into B school are not AIMING for middle management, but that's WHERE THEY ARE. </p>
<p>Sakky, will you check out my stats for USC on my post? You seem to be the most knowlegable person on the board.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, most of the guys going into B school are not AIMING for middle management, but that's WHERE THEY ARE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Going into B-school? I don't think so. Most people going into the top B-schools (and I think we've restricted ourselves to only the top B-schools) are either engineers, management consultants, or bankers. Very few people who are in middle management opt for B-school, unless we're talking about an executive MBA program.</p>
<p>I'm in lower UPPER management, and I am opting for B school. But it might be because I am so young.</p>
<p>Just take a look at the class profiles of the various top schools and you will see that the majoritiy of incoming students were not in middle management. </p>
<p>For example, at MITSloan, at least 1/3 of the incoming class were engineers. And then of course you had the huge cohort of consultants and bankers who just finished their 2-3 year analyst gigs and have been shipped off to B-school.</p>
<p>I stand corrected. But engineers are hardly the usual sort that is bursting the personality.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that not every engineer manages to get in. Obviously only those who actually have a life will stand a chance of getting into the top B-schools.</p>