I don’t think you (or most people, for that matter) can ever presume that they “will” get into a top program. As you already know, and as you and I have discussed privately, it’s about much more than just numbers, pedigree, etc. I’m pretty involved with my school’s admissions process and, at least for my school, it is my impression that the candidates that are tend to be most preoccupied with numbers tend to miss other things that matter such as intangibles, quality of presentation, continuity of career story, and an overall “wow” factor that we often look for as a proxy for leadership capabilities. Things like GMAT scores can be cultivated over several weeks of reputation; intangibles take a career or potentially a lifetime to cultivate. In the end, it’s often the the less quantifiable characteristics that separate those that get in from those that don’t.
Yes, I’m very aware of the nature of the admissions process. My point was that academically I’m on par with the full-time programs since one of the concerns recruiters have about part-timers is that they aren’t “smart” enough and not as strong analytically.
I’m finishing up my part time MBA at Ohio State, which is not in the same tier as Booth, Kellogg or Ivy, it is still pretty respectable (part time is 8th, full time is 27th). I would agree with what everyone has said, that the full timers tend to be, on the median, a bit smarter overall, and much stronger analytically. However, I have noticed that they tend to lack perspective when it comes to application in the real world. In my Valuations class, for example full time students have a hard time understanding basic assumptions that part timers, and people on this forum especially, understand very well. For example, several of them couldn’t quite grasp the idea of using a terminal growth rate that was around that of the general economy, that it is impossible to be substantially higher in perpetuity, or how we can forecast sales for sure (reminded me of that Vicki post) One even asked, “how do we know that in 5 years the company is going to grow at a steady 3% per year, every year?” When these people look down on me for being a part timer, it makes me want to slap the sh!t out of them with my charter!
KSC - I have a few friends that recently graduated from Booth’s PT program and I am pretty sure they used OCR to get jobs.
What type of jobs did your friends in Booth PT recruit for? How successful were they in getting jobs?
They both got jobs, one was in Accounting and the other got one in digital marketing or something like that.
I wouldn’t agree that general FT candidates are smarter than part-timer. The only difference I see and guess is part-timers really juggle with their time. Having a full-time job on the side, most of them just cannot dedicate enough time to do all the required readings, or assignments. That makes all the difference. They are not intellectually inferior to any of the full-timers just choose to do the part-time programme for one reason or another.
I also think they should be respected even more than those full-timers as it is definitely more challenging to work and study at the same time.
To be fair though, the median GMAT of booth part-time is about 30 points lower than full-time, a HUGE difference. I think the top 10-20% of part-timers is comparable to the full-timers, but there is no doubt that the median part-timer is of lower caliber. I live in Chicago and know tons of people from both programs, so I’m pretty confident about this.
It is stupid to argue whether or not PT is as smart/capable as the FT students. This is not objective and can’t be proved. Everyone in this thread is just using anecdotal evidence.
The bottom line is that the FT program draws applicants from the entire country and internationally as Booth is one of the top MBA programs. The PT program is drawing from an applicant pool of people located in and near Chicago. The FT program obviously receives more applicants and therefore can be more selective in its admissions making it more difficult to get admitted.
Employers know this and are going to view PT students as “worse” than FT students on average. Is this fair to everyone? No. There are plenty of very smart people in PT MBA programs because the opportunity cost of giving up 2 years of their salary doesn’t make sense. But at the end of the day it is what it is.
Yep. Just like the top 10 in the Forbes 400 are worth an average of $48.6b. #6-10 are worth a piddling $41.5b, which is a HUUUUUUUUGE difference!!! There’s no doubt that the average 6-10 is of lower caliber.
Of course, when we’re talking about people worth _forty billion dollars…_does it really matter? Just like…if you scored 720 (as opposed to 750), then you’re still in the 94th percentile.
An employer could do a lot worse than picking one of the smartest 6% of all grads in the US.
Don’t take this personally, but this is one of the dumbest posts I’ve read. You seriously just compared the net worth of the 10 wealthiest person in the world to the median GMAT scores of 600+ people b-schools classes. When there is a 30-point difference in median GMAT scores, that is statistically significant, and from the standpoint of selectivity, it’s also a huge difference.
I get what Greenie is trying to say, but 7.1B is a huge difference. I would consider hacksawing IRL if someone would give me that money.
Congratulations, this thread successfully got me to get out of long-time lurking on this site and to actually post. I graduated from the Booth part-time program five years ago. I am also a CFA Charterholder. This is what you need to know about Chicago Booth:
Degree granted between FT and PT program: Identical
Coursework: Identical (and in the same pool as FT).
This makes Chicago Booth different than many part-time programs.
The coursework is really what separates Chicago Booth from other programs. Look at the courses offered and who is teaching those courses. I would argue that there is no other program in the world that offers the opportunity to take those types of analytical finance courses from that quality of faculty.
The two big differences are:
Admissions requirements. These are vastly different. I would say the difference shows up more in pedigree of firms worked for and undergraduate institutions attended than in average scores or GPA. While the average GMAT scores of FT was almost 30 points higher than PT when I matriculated, the PT admissions office would qualify this and say that the average FT applicant takes the exam almost 3 times where for PT it is like 1.4 times.
The Internship – The MBA internship is really a unique thing that affords one to have an extended job interview/tryout in an industry or function where the candidate may not have any prior direct experience. The value of an MBA internship is tremendous.
What are the implications of this?
If you want access to the best MBA finance education in the world then PT at Booth is an amazing option.
If you dislike your current position and want a complete career switch then PT at Booth might work but may not be as good of an option as a lower ranked FT program. I know of individuals that moved into highly sought after Investment banking associate and strategy consulting positions but these were exceptions not the rule. The full-time admissions office has done a level of screening for potential employers that you will not have gone through and employers know this.
If you are good then you can overcome the differences in admission by stating your GMAT/Undergrad GPA on your resume. Since everyone is graded in the same pool. you can put Honors or High Honors on your resume to distinguish yourself that way. Now for OCR there is grade non-disclosure.
I work in a niche part of the asset management industry and was not a career switcher so I did not participate in OCR. My employer paid for almost all of my studies and I got a truly amazing finance and economics education that has served me well.
^ Great first post.
I was being sarcastic. What I was trying to convey was–arguing the difference between a 720 and a 750 on the GMAT is pretty small, considering the overall picture.
And statistically significant does not mean economically significant. Did you know cars are (on average) $38 cheaper in Milwaukee than they are in my hometown on Dagobah? It’s true–and it’s statistically significant.
I’m still not flying to Wisconsin to save $38 on my next Bugatti, though.
Anyone else starting school this week?
But that’s a stupid comparison. Everybody knows that the shipping from Milwaukee to Dagobah will run you a good $40 easily, maybe as high as $45.
It think United runs specials between Wisconsin and the Sluis Sector a couple of times per year.
I knew Greenman was from Dagobah…my next question is, why get a Bugatti when you can just use The Force?
Weak in him the force is.
Thanks for your input. Do you by any chance have a thorwaway e-mail account where I can e-mail you with a few questions?