Why not just apply to Phd program. Better yet go see the graduate advisor. If you are brilliant and do well in your first year of masters course work they’ll let you go straight to a Phd
I hear PhDs aren’t really taking people right now. Universities have lost a lot of money, and many have cut non essential funding dratsically.
If you have a Bachelors degree in Management, what further knowledge would you get from an MBA? Finance wise, would an MBA give you more knowledge than the CFA program? I think the ability to do real projects may help you learn more than the CFA program.
here is an interesting article on MBAs: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85ccf3d8-1749-11de-9a72-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Those that asked for my email… brucebiz_wi at the yeah who place. If you write there sure and say something recognizable in the subject line, because I get a lot of spam at that address. The chart of professors’ salaries in Ontario is encouraging (maybe I should pack my bags and go there). Just remember that there is survivor bias in there, and possibly representativeness bias. MLA asked “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…” For that, I don’t really know enough to say. MFinEcon sounds most appealing to me, but I don’t know enough about a Finance Ph.D. program to say whether that will set you back, be ok, or whatever. You might just try to get in touch with some finance professors in a Ph.D. program you are shooting for and just ask them their opinion. That can be useful because when it comes time to apply for the program, your name is already familiar to them and it gives you an extra edge. Remember that the Ph.D. can take around 4+ years to do if you include the time doing Master’s level work, and it can leave you overqualified for pretty much any other job except teaching and researching at a university. It’s true that Finance and Econ Ph.D.s have better consulting options, though.
thanks guys. i appreciate the input 
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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… Fin vs Econ just depends on what interests you. However, getting your masters in the same field as your Phd should save you some time in terms of coursework.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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… Fin vs Econ just depends on what interests you. However, getting your masters in the same field as your Phd should save you some time in terms of coursework.
ditchdigger2CFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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? Well, I mean I did say there is value to an EMBA, so I do think there’s value to adding breadth to your education. I also don’t think want to demonize the MBA, I guess what irks me is not the MBA, but simply the amount of people with MBAs. I just think the generalist to specialization ratio in our work force is hurting us, because lets face it the complexity of today’s world is astounding. Also, the quality of the CFA program can essentially serve as a specialized MS for someone who takes it seriously as you mentioned. The problem is that the vast majority of people with MBAs working in finance haven’t taken the additional time and legitimate interest to properly specialize (could even be done independently of a degree or certification on your own time). Thus with the stakes as high as they are, you have managers guiding industries oblivious to pitfals of growing magnitude. What matters is not the form of education in which you’ve gained your specialized expertise, but simply that people take an interest in understanding what they do rather than simply collecting a paycheck. The other option of course is to simply limit the level of complexity at which we allow industries to operate, but this isn’t viable for obvious competitive reasons.
Black Swan, I like that analysis (even though I like to be a generalist myself). I don’t feel so bad now that you whupped my butt in the first round of the coin flip tournament. Even though we weren’t arguing against each other directly, I think we may be able synthesize our positions on generalist vs. specialist. You point out that “the complexity of today’s world is astounding.” I agree, and often use this to point out that you need generalists because specialists often miss out on the complexity outside of their specialization and how those things can impact them. You are arguing, presumably, that the complexity requires specialization to manage it, and I can see that point too. My argument was that we need generalists that are capable of becoming rapidly specialized where needed, but retain enough general knowledge that they can do that again elsewhere as necessary. The key is the speed with which someone can become specialized and yet draw on general knowledge. It’s a rare quality, I think. Most generalists want to stay general, and most specialists want to stay specialized, but the mix is what the economy really needs.
All those ‘high paying’ Prof jobs… good luck in getting those. First of, because of those high paying salaries and the pension/benefits that come with it, it is getting that much harder to get any form of tenureship. Kind of like the Union, each generation makes it harder for successive generations to get that position.
i would hope that most professors aren’t in it to make dough.
Aristotle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All those ‘high paying’ Prof jobs… good luck in > getting those. > > First of, because of those high paying salaries > and the pension/benefits that come with it, it is > getting that much harder to get any form of > tenureship. > > Kind of like the Union, each generation makes it > harder for successive generations to get that > position. That’s what I meant about “survivor bias” in the table… Aristotle says it more clearly than I did.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Black Swan, I like that analysis (even though I > like to be a generalist myself). I don’t feel so > bad now that you whupped my butt in the first > round of the coin flip tournament. > > Even though we weren’t arguing against each other > directly, I think we may be able synthesize our > positions on generalist vs. specialist. You point > out that “the complexity of today’s world is > astounding.” I agree, and often use this to point > out that you need generalists because specialists > often miss out on the complexity outside of their > specialization and how those things can impact > them. > > You are arguing, presumably, that the complexity > requires specialization to manage it, and I can > see that point too. My argument was that we need > generalists that are capable of becoming rapidly > specialized where needed, but retain enough > general knowledge that they can do that again > elsewhere as necessary. The key is the speed with > which someone can become specialized and yet draw > on general knowledge. It’s a rare quality, I > think. Most generalists want to stay general, and > most specialists want to stay specialized, but the > mix is what the economy really needs. I guess my fault with your argument comes down to a classic case of ability verus reality. Yes, it is great that this mass of MBA students has the ability to specialize and move from niche to niche. But the reality is none of them are then taking the next obligatory step and truly specializing while they occupy those niches. Rather we have an enormous team of all talent and no practical skill.
I would agree that the traditional MBA format is weak training for those with 4+ years of work experience. Some schools are looking to revise their program format; Substituting the “case study” method for real project/consulting learning. I was accepted to some of the top schools worldwide, but took a chance with the newer format. I have not regretted it! I just finished a product development deliverable with my team, and we presented our idea in front of 3 VCs and a former big bank CEO! That certainly beats reading an outdated Harvard Business Review Case any day.
I would agree that the traditional MBA format is weak training for those with 4+ years of work experience. Some schools are looking to revise their program format; Substituting the “case study” method for real project/consulting learning. I was accepted to some of the top schools worldwide, but took a chance with the newer format. I have not regretted it! I just finished a product development deliverable with my team, and we presented our idea in front of 3 VCs and a former big bank CEO! That certainly beats reading an outdated Harvard Business Review Case any day.
I would agree that the traditional MBA format is weak training for those with 4+ years of work experience. Some schools are looking to revise their program format; Substituting the “case study” method for real project/consulting learning. I was accepted to some of the top schools worldwide, but took a chance with the newer format. I have not regretted it! I just finished a product development deliverable with my team, and we presented our idea in front of 3 VCs and a former big bank CEO! That certainly beats reading an outdated Harvard Business Review Case any day.
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MBAs are sorta douche bags. You guys are saying with more elegance what I said. 