After plenty of research, I’ve decided to look into getting my MBA to try and break into the investment field (I’m a BU graduate, majored in Finance with +7 years of experience mostly as Financial Analyst but 1 year with VC). However, it would make more sense for me to sign up for a part-time MBA program to be able to afford going to school and covering my living expenses.
My question is, do employers have a preference between part-time/full-time MBA programs? I will be considering the top part-time MBAs such as Booth, Berkley, NYU Stern, UCLA, Northwestern etc.
P.S: I understand that there are many advantages to enrolling in a full-time program vs. part-time such as more opportunities to network, access to on-campus recruiting events etc. but I’m wondering if employers have a preference between the two…
Employers don’t have to know, unless if you volunteer it. The degree is the exact same from a part-time program as compared to the full-time program. Executive MBAs are not the same, though.
I cannot agree with your statement. Part Time MBA and Full Time MBA are very different. The latter has much higher average GMAT and GPA among accepted students and most importantly, much stronger students in terms of career and career trajectory.
Also, the name of the MBA schools are different for some schools, a prime example is NYU. Full Time MBA is Stern while Part Time is Langone. One of the reasons I am going for EMBA at Columbia and not PT NYU is because the quality of student body lacks BIG TIME compared to that of FT and EMBA. In PT, you got guys from BO, recruiters, low level commercial brokers, execution traders, IT people…
Yeah sure the books, and curriculum (for most part) might be the same between PT, FT, and EMBA but hey with this logic you can say, “No difference between a Finance major from Stanford and North East Virginia University (or whatever lol) because they use very similar if not same books, identical degree structure, required credits and classes etc”
There is certainly some employer prejudice against part time students, compared to full time students - whether it is due to a perceived quality difference or something else. In fact, this question presumably arose from concern over this perception. However, if the full time program is not an option, then what can you do…
The biggest benefit of the FT MBA is the chance to do internships and networking. You don’t really get the former with part-time MBAs and EMBAs and networking is diminished for both. Some employers will view FT MBA programs more favorably. However, this really only matters for the first job post MBA. After that, no one should care and you don’t have to tell anyone what you did (PT, EMBA) unless you are specifically asked.
if you are killing it at your current job and in your ideal industry/firm then it makes sense to do the PT MBA, but most people in FT MBA are either career switchers or trying to get somewhere better, i.e. going from middle office to front office, general management to consulting, IB to HF, etc. Just do whatever makes the most sense to you!
Yeah. The only people I knew who went for part-time MBAs stayed in-company and the MBA was free. Also, they had to sign a 2 year commitment to stay at the company or face paying the cost of the MBA.
The funds I have worked at and currently work at don’t care between PT and FT only because we cared more about the candidates’ past and current experience. Also, very few of the top MBAs actually offer PT MBA so some of the funds especially the top ones never even have the chance to debate PT vs FT.
As people have said above, if you’re looking for a career change you must go FT.
