ok, here’s the sitrep. I’m 29 with my CFA, Ivy undergrad. I left my last firm after 3 years (hated it) and I’ve been kicking it at a new shop for the last 6 months. I made a lateral move for more money and because I didn’t get into business school this past year (waitlisted at top 5 schools). My question is: do I reapply to MBA this year or stick to my new gig while going to school part time for MBA at a top program (think NYU and they’ll pay for the whole thing). I’m doing quant research/risk analytics now, but want to move up to running money, and it’s a great firm and they’re growing and I could definitely see myself staying here for a long time. I’m making about 100k base with 50% bonus (not in NYC). I feel like I don’t really need the MBA and the cost benefit analysis just doesn’t add up, but I feel like the MBA is something I’ll want to have in the long term, so why not do it at a top 5 program. Any advice?
The purpose of MBA is to party and build network. If you think your network is strong enough, you don’t need MBA
i’d reapply. if you get in to top 5 then you have a decision to make, worst case, you dont get in and wasted $1K application fees and 30 hours application time. Upside outweighs downside. plus you could potentially defer to 2009 year if you get in 2008 class. i do agree with ymc, i doubt you really “learn”, it’s a resume/career/network plus.
You sound like you’re doing well enough that you don’t need an MBA to break into the insdustry - unlike most folks here. However, look at the jobs people out of the top 3-5 programs land. You could be one of those guys. If that’s what you want, make another run at the full-time MBA. If it is not top notch, it’s probably not worth it given your current position.
Why quit a front office job to get an mba, which immediately after you get your degree you’ll be competing for the same job with your fellow classmates? Build networks, earn a good track record, then start your own quant driven hedge fund.
You seem to like where you’re at and if you have a decent part-time program near you that works that route makes sense.
if you can see yourself working where you are currently for awhile and they’ll pay for an mba at stern, i’d say take that. the point of going back to school full time is to get something better. (its also to take two years off and blow off some steam, but the importance of that is for everyone to decide for themselves.) like someone said, you’d be competing for jobs similar to what you have right now. a bird in the hand…plus you get an mba paid for by an employer you enjoy working for. considering all of that, the only reason i would go back to school for a top 5 mba would be to stroke my ego as i put stanford, harvard, or wharton on my resume, which wears off a lot quicker than you think.
If you want to be in money management for the long-term then I would invest in the MBA. People who say “Your already in a front office position so why would you need an MBA?”, are thinking short-term. A CFA charter is not going to be enough IF you want to compete for the top-tier positions with the top-tier firms down the road, or, if you want to get to the level of DOR, for example. Stacking the odds in your favor is always a smart career move. Having the MBA gives you more leverage when negotiating salary, makes you easier to promote to higher positions within a given firm, impresses clients, and gives you a strong sounding bio. And as someone already pointed out, an MBA gives you a network to work, which is invaluable. Moreover, you’ll probably learn a few new tricks of the trade. The bottom line is that there is no downside to getting an MBA and lots of upside, think about that in an investing context and you will see how easy this decision really is, particularly if you go part-time and have your employer pay for it. Finally, don’t forget one of the fundamental laws of finance: hiring managers love credentials.
I’d reapply to the top 5’s…if you get in, then you have to re-assess. If not, do the part time MBA at NYU (or similar) school and continue on present career path.
i appreciate the advice. my network is pretty good as I’ve worked for 2 top tier firms and my network helped to land my job at one of them and the diaspora from my last firm means that I have friends positioned at other top firms. I’m also on the local CFAI chapters subcommittee and I tend to make pretty good contacts on my own, just through socializing in town. but more importantly, I can’t decide what will be the better learning opportunity and have a better long term benefit. I’ll admit it, I’d like to be lazy and go back to school full time so I can party and have the leisurely lifestyle of a student again (think spring break and travelling abroad) versus working full time and taking classes 2 nights a week plus reading cases, working on group projects, doing problem sets, studying for exams, plus maintaining my normal life. That pretty much sounds like hell to me. But financially and experience wise it definitely seems like the best option (keep raking in bonuses, save $120k, still get degree and learn more on the job, plus i’m getting married so I’d like to have money for a house and kids someday soon). Although going to school in any way seems to severely limit how much independent learning I can do through reading new books, the economist, and generally spending time doing things which broaden my mind, which hopefully will help me to become a better investor. obviously it’s hard to make the decision before you have the options locked down, but I’d rather pursue one course and stick to it than pursue both and have the decision made for me from lack of options. so basically I am assuming that I can pursue either path successfully and just can’t decide which is optimal.
Go for the top 5 MBA then. You’ll have your whole life to repay the costs, and it beats 3 years of part-time study.
it seems to be the only benefit of going back to school full time is 1) the sexiness of having a top 5 school on your resume (which, again, i think will be ‘not tons’ considering what you’ve been able to do so far without one; also, considering nyu is a pretty good school) and 2) the quality of life over the next 2-3 years. if those two things are worth the debt , i’d say go back full time; if not, go part time.
CFASouldier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ok, here’s the sitrep. > I’m 29 with my CFA, Ivy undergrad. I left my last > firm after 3 years (hated it) and I’ve been > kicking it at a new shop for the last 6 months. I > made a lateral move for more money and because I > didn’t get into business school this past year > (waitlisted at top 5 schools). My question is: do > I reapply to MBA this year or stick to my new gig > while going to school part time for MBA at a top > program (think NYU and they’ll pay for the whole > thing). I’m doing quant research/risk analytics > now, but want to move up to running money, and > it’s a great firm and they’re growing and I could > definitely see myself staying here for a long > time. I’m making about 100k base with 50% bonus > (not in NYC). I feel like I don’t really need the > MBA and the cost benefit analysis just doesn’t add > up, but I feel like the MBA is something I’ll want > to have in the long term, so why not do it at a > top 5 program. Any advice? If you want to change careers, then join a FT MBA program. Otherwise, in my opinion, it’s not prudent to to quit a job, that you like, and then compete with hundreds of other top MBA applicants to get a similar job. Don’t forget that the job prospects of MBA students are highly correlated with the general economy. We had a economist from a BB yesterday at our place predicting recession sometime very soon, if we are not already in one. Once you have your MBA, even on a part-time basis, no one is going to ask you if you went FT or PT for this degree. It’s the degree that counts. And for all those people who think that MBA, at a top school, is all party & no work. There is work alright; It’s called getting a job, and it’s a full time job by itself.
As a caveat to the above poster based on something that is anecdotal, my friend who goes to NYU part time has 1 complaint. Recruiting process is not the same for PT and FT, most of the opportunities available for FT students only. Everything else she mentioned is the same…classes, courses, teachers, etc, except for career services. Might want to look into this and if this is true, say f-it to PT.
I have lots of friends who have graduated from top mba programs and have never had an issue finding good jobs, the pedigree does act as insurance in that respect (I wish Columbia would offer PT) my whole dilemma sort of revolves around the need for grad school as well. it seems as if grad school has two purposes, slack off from working to recharge and use it as a recruiting platform, but PT programs seem to do neither. They suck away what little free time you have and don’t give you the benefit of recruitment. Not that I necessarily want/need that right now, but I would like to hope that in 3 years when I am done with this puppy that it might actually have some sort of benefit. I guess it looks nice on your resume to have the MBA but if you’re not going through recruiting it probably means a lot less than your experience and CFA. I don’t understand why MBA programs make this distinction. They probably can make more money from part time students than full time depending on the size of the city and its alot easier to sell someone who has an extra 3 years of experience that they gained during the program.
Many part-timers have a significant portion of their tuition paid by employers. To offer recruiting services to part timers would end any interest employers have in paying for their employees.
that’s a fair assessment, but alot of firms have covenants with employees where they are responsible for repaying their tuition if they leave before a certain peiod (usually a year, but it varies) also, most employers only give the $5,750 or whatever it is today that is good for a tax break from the gov’t, so that’s really no big deal. most grads of top FT programs receive signing bonuses (and get nicely paid summer internships and can get assistantships that can cover 50%+ of their tuition), which go to cover a significant portion of their expenses…
update…so here we are almost 3 years later, kid on the way, have been experiencing some middling success in my current role. I took a hard run at trying to take quant tools to a new level here, but was unsuccessful as the firm wasn’t really ready for it at the time, so I went on cruise control for a while. now, with a change in who i report to and him being given a mandate by the firm to basically do what i tried to do 3 years ago, we’re doing some fairly hardcore quantitative stuff, but i’m not sure that i’m going to be successful long term here as the level of quant is much more for serious phd type quants. so i’m wondering whether i should even remain in this role as i don’t see a lot of upside for me in the long run given my competition for projects and the shellacking the firms assets have taken in the past few years. we’ve shut down a few hedge funds and look to be digging in rather than really building up. so i’m I’m seriously considering going back to school again, but that wouldn’t be until next fall, so I’m thinking about doing a part time/executive program that i’ve already been accepted to. in order to try to mix things up and get my mental juices flowing again and maybe use that as a springboard to either a new role in the firm or maybe as an exit strategy to be a little more marketable to other firms that want someone who is more quant, but will fit in with a more fundamental crowd. the problem is that i feel like i’ll get a lot more out of full time rather than executive so i hesitate to go this route, although the costs are obviously vastly different. any thoughts or suggestions from anyone who has done an executive at this stage of their career and has been either very happy or disappointed with it?
abacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFASouldier Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ok, here’s the sitrep. > > I’m 29 with my CFA, Ivy undergrad. I left my > last > > firm after 3 years (hated it) and I’ve been > > kicking it at a new shop for the last 6 months. > I > > made a lateral move for more money and because > I > > didn’t get into business school this past year > > (waitlisted at top 5 schools). My question is: > do > > I reapply to MBA this year or stick to my new > gig > > while going to school part time for MBA at a > top > > program (think NYU and they’ll pay for the > whole > > thing). I’m doing quant research/risk > analytics > > now, but want to move up to running money, and > > it’s a great firm and they’re growing and I > could > > definitely see myself staying here for a long > > time. I’m making about 100k base with 50% bonus > > (not in NYC). I feel like I don’t really need > the > > MBA and the cost benefit analysis just doesn’t > add > > up, but I feel like the MBA is something I’ll > want > > to have in the long term, so why not do it at a > > top 5 program. Any advice? > > If you want to change careers, then join a FT MBA > program. Otherwise, in my opinion, it’s not > prudent to to quit a job, that you like, and then > compete with hundreds of other top MBA applicants > to get a similar job. > > Don’t forget that the job prospects of MBA > students are highly correlated with the general > economy. We had a economist from a BB yesterday at > our place predicting recession sometime very soon, > if we are not already in one. > > Once you have your MBA, even on a part-time basis, > no one is going to ask you if you went FT or PT > for this degree. It’s the degree that counts. > > And for all those people who think that MBA, at a > top school, is all party & no work. There is work > alright; It’s called getting a job, and it’s a > full time job by itself. +1.
Thanks for the update…I was reading the whole thread thinking it was new! So did you decide to do neither the PT or FT? Why?