http://tbm.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/03/25/rip-mba This ties in to the various “MBA” discussions on here of late .
i think it should be pretty obvious that MBA as an education is not up to par with its reputation. how many ppl on here took an MBA to gain more knowledge over getting a job. i have yet to meet 1 person that put down 60k+ for an education. everybody’s mindset is on getting the job after MBA, so what do you expect. i would take the MBA for t he same reason. there was only 1 person on here i remember who wanted to go to a school to learn more. the fact that an MBA is the “normal route” to good jobs suggests that those who have money will continue to make money. it doens’t mean they’re brilliant or have the all of the “required” capabilities.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i think it should be pretty obvious that MBA as an > education is not up to par with its reputation. > > how many ppl on here took an MBA to gain more > knowledge over getting a job. > > i have yet to meet 1 person that put down 60k+ for > an education. everybody’s mindset is on getting > the job after MBA, so what do you expect. i would > take the MBA for t he same reason. there was only > 1 person on here i remember who wanted to go to a > school to learn more. I concur. But i still think the author is an idiot for saying that the “MBA” is largely responsible for the current situation . > > the fact that an MBA is the “normal route” to good > jobs suggests that those who have money will > continue to make money. it doens’t mean they’re > brilliant or have the all of the “required” > capabilities.
This article is mostly retarded
“This article is mostly retarded” Great slogan, you can replace article with so many things…taxes, NIT, powerpoint presentations…on and on.
People said the MBA was dead after the dotcom crash, and obviously it survived because people are saying it’s dead again.
Silly. The value of the content of an MBA program (ignoring branding and networking values for now, which are real) is practice in running a business, making management decision, handling operations, teaching real steps for being an entrepreneur, understanding how to market stuff, knowing how to work in teams, resolve differences. None of this is rocket science, but it can take years to build up that knowledge through individual experience. Going through a one or two year program that gets people exposed to this stuff rather than have to learn it through trial and error provides real value. The problem is that people seem to expect that the MBA turns people into magic profit makers. Mostly it’s about reducing the number of stupid mistakes people made. The MBA doesn’t generally have all that much depth for finance stuff, compared to something like even the CFA. It’s a valuable degree, but people seem to have expected more of it than is realistic for it to deliver.
I guess what I would like to see is more specialization in the graduate degree feild. An MBA should be a much later step (like the EMBA) rather than the default, whereas more specialized grad degrees should be pursued (and sought by employers) at the earlier stages.
BS Forgive my potential ignorant question, but is an MBA really that bad as a means to get a breadth of education, and then follow with a designation/certification (ie CPA, CFA, etc) for the specific industry depth? Is there a problem of being too specialized in one body of knowledge?
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess what I would like to see is more > specialization in the graduate degree feild. An > MBA should be a much later step (like the EMBA) > rather than the default, whereas more specialized > grad degrees should be pursued (and sought by > employers) at the earlier stages. That is exactly what I was thinking .
I think the broadness of MBA programs helps in understanding the “big picture” more fully. This is very useful in finance or any other business profession.
This article is mostly retarded. But MBAs are sorta douche bags.
Rich and powerful douche bags purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This article is mostly retarded. > > But MBAs are sorta douche bags.
I think the economy requires “ability to specialize” more than actual specialization. The problem is that vast sectors of the economy can become redundant or obsolete in a very short time - or certainly shorter than the length of a typical worker’s earning life. And yet, specialization generally takes years (like the CFA) to obtain. When policymakers talk about having a flexible workforce, it means that you need a population that can go from filling one need in the economy to filling another. It’s often sold as “we’ll give you 3 months of training so you can go from putting cars together to soldering chips together, because the auto industry is dying but the chip manufacturing industry is still needed.” But maybe we’re talking about “you need 4 years of training so that you mortage-backed-securities professional can now become a neurosurgeon - either that or be a burger flipper and default on your own mortgage.” I think general education with the ability to specialize quickly as needed is more necessary. And mechanisms for doing that specific kind of training may be in demand more… sort of like how “Italian for Spanish Speakers” might be a faster and more specialized training than “Italian for English Speakers.”
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the economy requires “ability to > specialize” more than actual specialization. > > The problem is that vast sectors of the economy > can become redundant or obsolete in a very short > time - or certainly shorter than the length of a > typical worker’s earning life. And yet, > specialization generally takes years (like the > CFA) to obtain. > > When policymakers talk about having a flexible > workforce, it means that you need a population > that can go from filling one need in the economy > to filling another. It’s often sold as “we’ll > give you 3 months of training so you can go from > putting cars together to soldering chips together, > because the auto industry is dying but the chip > manufacturing industry is still needed.” But > maybe we’re talking about “you need 4 years of > training so that you mortage-backed-securities > professional can now become a neurosurgeon - > either that or be a burger flipper and default on > your own mortgage.” > > I think general education with the ability to > specialize quickly as needed is more necessary. > And mechanisms for doing that specific kind of > training may be in demand more… sort of like how > “Italian for Spanish Speakers” might be a faster > and more specialized training than “Italian for > English Speakers.” Hey Bchadwick, You have been very helpful w/ any questions in the past so let me throw this your way. here is the situation. My company will pay for my MBA at the local state university (not awful school but not great and should get in) and since I am not 100% sure that I want to stay in finace my whole life I figure the MBA is a good start. I know that you’re a professor so wanted your take on going to get an MBA over starting a Masters program and than moving onto an PhD program for a track towards becoming a professor. THANKS!!!
At times like this, when even the best companies of 'em all (because lead by someone from an elite MBA school) go down in flames, the thought that MBA’s may be overrated, quickly comes to ones mind. And the recent experience shows this may actually be true. Why did so many executives with high profile MBA’s fail? Especially those sitting at the helm of the banks had the most and best informations available, and yet, they let it all happen! If a CEO (and his C companions) has all these informations and still doesn’T take the steps necessary to prevent worse from happening, then he might have two reasons for doing so: Firstly, if he stops the whole game, he stops the buck from rolling, i.e. he immediatly cancels his (and his friends) chance to reap some profits while the trend lasts. Hence, it is not in his personal interest to cry wolf, because he might get silenced (one or the other way) and the train keeps going without him on board. The other way to look at it is, he had all the right information, but didn’t know how to interpret it. I am more than sure that there are quite a few of those around. But then, the MBA was just good enough for him to land the job, but otherwise his certificate was just as good as the patent for a captain who can only steer in calm water. Pathetic. Crisis or not, MBA’s will continue to be one of the most looked for credentials in the business world. Because there is not much else out there. There are alternative credentials, I know, but how in earnest shall the average guy compete with , say, an Harvard MBA, and even if it just for the connections the one has and the other doesn’t.
NorthernCFA - The academic world has major challenges, and I am not sure that I would recommend that someone become an academic unless they are absolutely sure that this is what they want to do with their life. The comfortable middle-class life that we imagine professors getting, with summers off, 2 or 3 classes to teach per semester, job security/tenure, etc. is rapidly disappearing. Tenure is not being revoked, it’s just not being given very often anymore. On the financial front, universities are in a bind. The cost of tuition has gone up massively, government support has declined (Obama may change this somewhat), student loans are harder to get, university endowments (those that have them) have tanked in the crisis, and the jobs available for graduates may not justify the kind of debt payments that it takes to get a degree. All this means that universities are going to squeeze everywhere they can, and faculty are in a very vulnerable position, made worse by the fact that most of them don’t realize just how vulnerable they are and feel that they are somehow exempt from the laws of supply and demand, when the supply is increasing and demand is starting to fall. Universities are moving to a model where they pay adjunct faculty $5000 to teach a semester course to 80 students, pay no benefit. There will be a few tenured faculty “stars” who serve to brand the departments and draw students in marketing material, and the rest will be paid a pittance and jumping from job to job to cobble together enough to live on. Finance and business professors, as well as law professors, and medicine faculty will be less affected because their students have a chance of getting jobs that can pay off the debt accrued in getting the degree. However, since so many other departments will be changing as described above, it will be tempting for these departments to do the same. The one benefit here is that universities generally attempt to raid the profits of their profitable departments to redistribute to nonprofitable ones, and so one way to have fewer profits to be “taxed” by the university is to pay those professors well. So, long post here (surprise!), but if you want to be an academic, make sure that it’s in a department where there will be demand from students (high paying professional schools). Otherwise, don’t do it unless it’s the only thing you can imagine yourself being happy doing. I don’t think an MBA is worthless, particularly if you are early in your career. You do want to weigh what the value of the knowledge is versus the value of the alumni network and the brand name of the university. A brand name like Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Wharton, etc., is probably worth paying for. However, if you can’t get into a recognizable tier, then it may make sense just to do an inexpensive one just to get the knowledge under your belt. Later, there may be more “executive training” courses that are not full degrees that you can use to top off your expertise and network in specific topics.
bchadwick, Thank you so much for the reply! You are extremly helpful and I would appreciate the chance to email you more about my situation and get some of your feedback as I value the opinion and experience that you have to offer. Thanks again!
As a professor you can make a decent living. As an example, take a look at this: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/publications/salarydisclosure/2009/univer09.pdf Those salaries are in CAD, I'm sure they don't include any other sources of income such as lectures outside the school, independent research (I know this can be some killer ), etc. From what I noticed, Finance profs that teach at top universities make the most. Some profs on that list who taught my undergrad Finance courses also teach the MBAs (at the same university) so perhaps that is why their salaries are skewed to the right. Still, we had this really young prof who was teaching Corp Fin, and he was making $200k in his first year according to that document. According to his CV which is posted on the faculty page, he was a freshly minted PhD.
bchad, I’ve pretty much decided that i’m headed toward academia in one way or another in the future. Been looking at MFins vs. MBAs from the top 3 schools here in Canada and both can run up to $65K. I’ve heard that getting an MFin after a CFA is only useful if headed towards the PhD. As this is my plan, what would you suggest if one was already set on getting a PhD? With a BBA already, I see an MBA as absolutely useless in terms of the incremental learning involved. I suppose the MBA would help me more if after taking it I totally switched gears and wanted to work in the private sector. Finally, if headed towards a Fin PhD, for someone with little past economics education, would you suggest an MAEcon, MFinEcon or MFin? Especially considering the former two are about half the price… thanks, you’re the only one who’s consistently helpful now that JDV is gone…