It seems that, to be successful in finance, getting an MBA is a foregone conclusion. I cannot figure this out for the life of me. MBA programs are chock full of BS “core” classes, mostly focusing on management and marketing (stuff that a monkey could figure out), with a few finance classes peppered in here and there. It is even more of a mystery to me why people with an undergrad degree in a business concentration get MBAs; who the hell wants to take more marketing, etc? I will graduate in May with an undergrad in finance, and my plan is to go to GA State and earn a MSF to further my finance knowledge. Why would an MBA be looked upon more favorably than myself if I have more specialized knowledge in finance and less BS common sense knowledge in the rest of the areas in finance?
networking + recruitment opportunies As for knowledge gained, it’s useless.
Yes, but why wouldn’t recruiters look more at MFIN or similar programs? I don’t understand paying all that money just to meet people…
MBA programs are societal sorting mechanisms. The point of having an MBA is not the stuff you learn while you’re there. It’s to show that *you were good enough to get accepted in the first place*. Companies know that if they recruit at Harvard Business School, they will find a pool of talented people. This is because Harvard has already spent a lot of resources filtering out all but the best applicants. So instead of going through thousands of applications to find the best candidates, companies can assume Harvard has already done this work. By recruiting at Harvard, companies assume that they have a high likelihood of getting quality applications. So the question is then, why is this specific to MBAs and not other programs like MSFs? This is mostly traditional. Applicants assume that an MBA will open more doors than an MSF. Hence, good MBA programs are generally more competitive than MSF programs. Companies assume that the best applicants would choose an MBA over an MSF, so they hold MBAs in higher regard. Then, the cycle repeats. The networking is a side benefit, but really, the value of an MBA is the change in how people perceive your quality.
I sat in on a mid-semester class in the University of Texas MBA program once while visiting a friend; I think it was a finance class. I couldn’t believe how easy it was.
I second this whole thread. I’ve considered an MBA but the sheer boredom of studying all that all management accounting, marketing and business strategy stuff (which I already covered in 4 years of undergrad) made me want to slit my wrists. I can see why it might be a good idea to do one, but jeez it would be nice if they made it more interesting…
Think ohai nailed it. They also put a heavy emphasis on everything geared to getting a job. Interviewing, presentation skills etc etfc. The rest of us learn by messing up at live interviews. Would be great to be polished, story line, response to standard answers. Just like a professional politician.
If the value of Mba is potential employer’s perception about your professional quality, then doesn’t CFA do a better or equivalent job in this? Just curious about what you guys think. I agree that networking is only a side benefit. ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MBA programs are societal sorting mechanisms. The > point of having an MBA is not the stuff you learn > while you’re there. It’s to show that *you were > good enough to get accepted in the first place*. > Companies know that if they recruit at Harvard > Business School, they will find a pool of talented > people. This is because Harvard has already spent > a lot of resources filtering out all but the best > applicants. So instead of going through thousands > of applications to find the best candidates, > companies can assume Harvard has already done this > work. By recruiting at Harvard, companies assume > that they have a high likelihood of getting > quality applications. > > So the question is then, why is this specific to > MBAs and not other programs like MSFs? This is > mostly traditional. Applicants assume that an MBA > will open more doors than an MSF. Hence, good MBA > programs are generally more competitive than MSF > programs. Companies assume that the best > applicants would choose an MBA over an MSF, so > they hold MBAs in higher regard. Then, the cycle > repeats. > > The networking is a side benefit, but really, the > value of an MBA is the change in how people > perceive your quality.
a lot of firms have taken to MBA for assoicate hiring and it has been like that for some time…so you have to play their game… msf is still a “new” degree and outside of the top programs people dont know what to do with them… princeton does a good job… but its a new degree
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MBA programs are societal sorting mechanisms. The > point of having an MBA is not the stuff you learn > while you’re there. It’s to show that *you were > good enough to get accepted in the first place*. > Companies know that if they recruit at Harvard > Business School, they will find a pool of talented > people. This is because Harvard has already spent > a lot of resources filtering out all but the best > applicants. So instead of going through thousands > of applications to find the best candidates, > companies can assume Harvard has already done this > work. By recruiting at Harvard, companies assume > that they have a high likelihood of getting > quality applications. > Great post. At the end of the day, the hardest part of HBS is getting in. When it comes down to it, the CFA is open to any homeless person that pays the exam fee. For employers who have not gone through the program, they don’t know you can pick up much stronger technical skills vs the MBA.
I used to agree with you guys whole-heartedly. And I still think that MBA programs could use a major revamp. I would like to see something in the middle of an MFE and MBA. But what you guys are missing is the soft skills side. For instance, throughout the course of a Harvard MBA, students make hundreds of presentations on a variety of topics to relatively intelligent peers that will fill similar positions upon graduation. They further develop their professional level social and political skills. These soft skills are impossibly to quantify, yet the further you rise above computational roles in the firm, the more obviously important they are. Even regarding analytics, it’s amazing how many times modeled risks are misclassified leading to improper assumptions. To sum it up: Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MBA programs are societal sorting mechanisms. > The networking is a side benefit, but really, the > value of an MBA is the change in how people > perceive your quality. this pretty much sums up how i see it i’m a finance ugrad w/ IB and Econ minors. i’ve been looking at going back for an mba and can tell you its not only very competitive, but very expensive. i have a very hard time going into an mba program that i know will leave ~$180k of debt on my back when its over. i understand the ‘quality of education’ etc., but that’s the same jargon that blew up the housing bubble. the top mba people i’ve met are generally independently wealthy and in the social elite. this isn’t everyone, but its what i noticed. i’m applying to some local law schools, though, to use my loan/structure/deriv knowledge to double my paycheck.
I agree with Peter Thiel that we are in a higher education bubble. University administrators are the equivalent to subprime mortgage brokers, enticing young people to take on debt of 100k+ marketing this false message that in 20 years this “investment” in human capital will be worth 20x. What a load of crap.
That sounds kind of weird, given how many Stanford graduates he hires for Clarium and Palantir.
Yep, just what ohai said – it’s a gold star that makes you a known commodity.
thommo77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with Peter Thiel that we are in a higher > education bubble. University administrators are > the equivalent to subprime mortgage brokers, > enticing young people to take on debt of 100k+ > marketing this false message that in 20 years this > “investment” in human capital will be worth 20x. > What a load of crap. Did he also say that we were in a hedge fund bubble, such that a guy who founded PayPal but had ostensibly no investing track record could convince a bunch of people to give him $7B, which he subsequently blew up?
Everything depends on your circumstances. Surprisingly, I find marketing strategy interesting but challenging. After I suggested that a Monopoly game in Spanish might be targeting Non-Spanish speaking people who are anticipating that Spanish will become more popular in the States, my professor told me that I should never go into marketing. I think basics of marketing strategy are relativly simple but it takes time to learn soft skills (as Black Swan mentioned).
I think Ohai and BlackSwan nailed it
thommo77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with Peter Thiel that we are in a higher > education bubble. University administrators are > the equivalent to subprime mortgage brokers, > enticing young people to take on debt of 100k+ > marketing this false message that in 20 years this > “investment” in human capital will be worth 20x. > What a load of crap. We are certainly in an educational bubble, I think less so for the more reputable schools/programs though. People are racking up 30-50k in student debt to become masseuses and dental technicians. Many of these students drop out without any type of degree/certification yet amass the debt load. Steve Eisman has a pretty good investment thesis. http://www.valuewalk.com/economic-policy/higher-education-bubble/
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to agree with you guys whole-heartedly. > And I still think that MBA programs could use a > major revamp. I would like to see something in > the middle of an MFE and MBA. But what you guys > are missing is the soft skills side. For > instance, throughout the course of a Harvard MBA, > students make hundreds of presentations on a > variety of topics to relatively intelligent peers > that will fill similar positions upon graduation. > They further develop their professional level > social and political skills. These soft skills > are impossibly to quantify, yet the further you > rise above computational roles in the firm, the > more obviously important they are. Even regarding > analytics, it’s amazing how many times modeled > risks are misclassified leading to improper > assumptions. To sum it up: > > Not everything that can be counted counts and not > everything that counts can be counted. I agree 100%. I passed L1 and 2 of the CFA on the first tries and sat for L3 this past June where I knew the material well despite my band 10 failure. When I started my new job (doing macro research at a hedge fund) when it was time for me to present an idea, my lack of experience was as apparent as could be. I think that unless you come from an ibanking or similar background, you arent taught a lot of the skills necessary for a front office job. There is a huge social aspect to these jobs that most people dont expect, especially coming from the BO where you have very little intereaction with others. Im pursuing an MBA because of these opportunities ie multiple class presentations, case studies etc. There are classes where they specifically teach you to pitch stock ideas to PM’s. I dont see how the CFA or an MSF will prepare you for things like this the way an MBA would. Sure its expensive but if you can get into a good program, I think there is definitely a lot of value added from these programs.