Just curious as to what others think about part-time MBA programs, particularly NYU (Stern). I read recently that it dropped to 25/30 in Business Week’s rankings of PT programs in large part due to the fact that part-time and full-time recruitment is seperate - apparently PTer’s aren’t allowed to interview with full-time recruiters or go to full-time events. This seems to cheapen the experience immensely in my eyes, but I guess if you’re just looking for that “MBA” rubber stamp then it doesn’t really matter. I’m curious to know what others think regarding the value of a PT MBA. DirtyZ
There has been a huge backlash against NYU for treating its PT MBA students like second class citizens. It’s really terrible. I think NYU should be ashamed of itself. I would never consider doing FT at Stern for precisely this reason.
The problem is that NYU almost has monopoly like power when it comes to the part-time MBA market in NYU. As bad as they’ve treated the PT’ers there, I’d still rather have a Stern MBA than something from Baruch or Fordham. You’re right though, it definitely makes me think less of the school, for both PT AND FT.
Well, I think the difference is that a large % of PT students at Stern get some tuition reimbursement from work. Since this is the case, Stern can’t really let them go to sponsored recruiting events. Also, the FT recruiting proccess doesn’t make sense for PT’ers. If you’re going PT, it makes no sense to apply for a Summer Associate position. Furthermore, the “why part-time?” essay is a pretty significant portion of their app, and the answer is usually something like “I plan on gaining experience xyz to fulfill my long term goals, and the only way I can do this is by continuing with my current role.” With this in mind it doesn’t make sense for part-time students to be applying for the same jobs as the full-time’ers…
Can you go at your own pace at NYU - part time?
i believe the gmat score is also significantly lower for PT students. i think the median for nyu is around 700 and my coworker scored a 650. although the sample size is 1, it cheapened the value of nyu mba.
I went to NYU full time, graduated in '01. There was a huge amount of tension between the two programs. The posts above sum up the issues fairly well. The part time program is still very good, and definitely has a monopoly in the city, as mentioned. Many of the professors teach both at night and during the day, but some of the best finance profs (Damodaran) do not teach night classes. That being said, PTs can take day time classes, or at least they could when I was there. i also think the reason for getting a full time MBA is very different than a PT MBA. For what it is worth, I loved my experience at NYU. It is a great school.
cornell - I believe the program lasts anywhere from 2.5 to 6 years, so yes you can pretty much go at your own pace. bmwhype - I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the part-time GMAT avg. was somewhere around 690. However, FT is only 700 so 690 seems a bit high. That being said, I know 4 people in the program, one of whom has a 720 and another with a 710 (I don’t know the scores of the other two but I’d guess high 600’s or low 700’s based on what I know of them). 50-50 - Do you think that going PT lessons the experience or adds less weight to the resume a few years down the road? The one thing I’m most curious about is how the networking opportunities stack up b/t FT and PT.
Avg GMAT, via BusinessWeek = 675. There’s such a wealth of people in Manhattan, that are looking to stay in their current job, while picking up an MBA. They ask the question of “why would I go to school full-time, only to get my old job back?” There’s enough people here that fill that category to fill out a part-time program.
skiloa…say you were an Associate at a good bank…do you think adding a top 5 FT MBA would enable someone to be hired at the VP/Associate Director level (one level about Associate) after graduation or do you think most MBA recruiters only hire for Associate spots? The other thing to think about. Would a top FT MBA enable someone from a good firm (say top 20) to move to top firm (say top 3-5) at the same level. For instance, moving from an Associate spot at a good middle market IB to perhaps an Associate spot for a top tier bulge bracket? If either of those possibilities were probable, a FT MBA might be worth it. Otherwise, assuming you want to stay in your current profession, then maybe PT and the extra years of working would add more value. This is something I’ll have to think hard about in the next year or so.
1st Q: No; unless you have connections elsewhere, which the MBA didn’t really have anything to do with 2nd Q: Yes. If that’s your goal, then FT MBA is worthwhile. I’m in sellside FI Trading, so going to bschool will help me in the future, when I move back to the buyside to be a PM, but whether I go FT or PT doesnt matter. I think that’s true of most capital markets ppl (except those that are looking to move from backoffice to frontoffice). For IB, consulting, accounting and marketing folks, it’s a different story. An MBA from a top 30 program is almost essential. If you’re looking to skip ahead or move roles (from consulting to IB, vice-versa or whatever else), a FT MBA is much superior to a part-time one, as recruiting and networking are so much more emphasized in full-time vs part-time programs. For those part-timers that say that they’re able to do just as much networking and jobhunting as full-timers, they’re kidding themselves.
I agree with everything above. The best reason to go full time and to a top school, is to move up in a career that demands it (most Wall street jobs) or for a complete career switch. The connections and recruiting from a top FT program are worth the $$$. If you plan to stay where you are and it isn’t as emphasized, save your money and have the firm pay for a part time program. I don’t think the FT vs PT is so much an issue on the resume itself. In a few years it won’t matter anyway. FT is also much more fun, in my opinion - it is like reliving college as an adult