Hey guys, I have a question related to post MBA salaries/career potential. First my profile: CFA charterholder, 4.5 years of work experience at a FoF, now working as a senior corporate bond analyst making about 80k/yr workng in a city with a low cost of living. I’m estimating that by next September, if I move to a city like San Francisco or NYC, I could make around 100-110k due to higher cost of living and the extra work experience I would have.
I’m also toying with the idea of applying to an MBA program. I’ve already taken the GMAT (730 score) and have a 3.65 GPA, however from what I’ve read, due to the ultra-competitiveness of top programs, I think my no-name undergrad and work experience from no-name companies kill any chance of going to a top 5 program. So I think maybe a top 10-15 program might be more realistic.
When I look at the starting salaries for these programs, they don’t appear to justify the cost of the program and the 2 years lost work experience. I know the standard response is better long-term growth/network, but has anyone ever quantified that? It would be a huge risk to drop the cash, lose 2 years of experience and salary for possible faster salary gains in the future. I did find an article on business week about long-term MBA pay: “New MBAs from Tuck earned the most of any of the schools on the list, $131,000, but at 20 years their median pay of $172,000”. I’m sure with just the CFA I could earn more than 172k with 20 years exp. I know my boss did with a lot less years of experience. I’m not trying to start another CFAvsMBA arguement (nor about hacksaws), more like, is the MBA worth it for someone already in Investments who can already make a similar starting salary. I know I’ve read similar things here from Ibanking people questioning the MBA, because they can just continue working another 2 years and out-earn MBA grads who join their firms.