Part time MBA’s are very much looked down upon
Why is that?
I’m from Aus… isn’t a part time MBA the same content and what not?
Yes, it’s the same content.
Just like I said before, debits go on the left, and credits go on the right. (Accounting lingo for those not accountants.) That’s what they taught me at Local State. They teach the same thing at Big Flagship University, and at Harvard. But for some reason, if you learn it at Harvard, you’re worth more money than if you learn it at Big Flagship University or at Local State.
Why that is the case, I have absolutely no idea. But I realize that I’m not going to change the world, so I accept it and move on.
I don’t think CFA is in the same decision bucket as part time MBA. CFA only costs a few thousand dollars and about 500 hours total. You can quit after any level and still show progress from whatever level you have passed. Part time MBA costs like $110k and presumably requires thousands of hours in classes, homework, travel, etc.
Not that CFA time commitment is negligible. It is just a very small decision compared to doing an MBA (part time or full time).
You are missing the point. It is all about people in your class, not what you learn. Anyone can learn debit/credit/a=l+e or w/e
I don’t think part time MBAs are looked down upon all that much anymore. They don’t have quite as much cachet as the full-time MBA, that is true, but the decision not to take two years of earnings off to get another degree makes some sense for many people, and as more people do it, the less stigma gets attached to it.
If a big part of the brand name cachet comes from the selection process (i.e. we didn’t just teach ordinary people debit/credit and a=l+e, but we taught people who demonstrated leadership and high ability before they arrived, and put them in a room where they could become friends with a bunch of other highly capable people), then the part-time MBA from a highly qualified selection process should produce good people too.
This is different from a purely online degree, which in theory can be good, but in practice is hard for evaluators to differentiate from a mere diploma-mill, unless there is some kind of brand reputation that the provider has a strong incentive to protect. Online MBAs are not the same as part-time MBAs that have real class time, even if part-time MBAs do have a large online component. Purely online MBAs do tend to be viewed with suspicion.
I’m going to disagree with both of these.
I studied about 500 hours just for for Level 2 alone, after studying about 250 the year before and failing it. By the time I’m done, I’ll probably have about 1,300 hours worth of study time. (That includes failing Level 2 once.)
Also, I think “I passed Level 1 in 2004 and have had eight years to pass Levels 2 and 3, but I haven’t done so yet because I’m either too lazy or too stupid,” looks very, very BAD on a resume. So I don’t think you can show progress.
I think that passing Level 1 is not that great of an accomplishment–anybody with a Bachelor’s in Finance that studies for a couple of months should be able to pass it. Passing Level 2 is more of an accomplishment, especially those who plan to work only in valuation or M&A. But if you don’t pass Level 3 within just a couple of years, I think a prospective employer would ask themselves, “Why hasn’t this guy crossed the finish line yet?”
In the interim, passing a Level or two might be good, but ultimately, you either pass them all, or you don’t. There is no “halfway” in the CFA world.
I know this is way off topic now but I posted a financial times article a few months back. It did a poll of hiring managers and from what I remember the top ways to advance in your career was something like below…
Get an MBA 2%
Get a CFA or related designation 7%
hard work in your current position 30%
hard work in your current position and find a job in another organization 30%
The rest I am not sure of, but the last two here were the top responses.
seriously, stop saying that credits/debits garbage. That’s for pure accountants. Finance professinals don’t give a damn about it. And clearly, you don’t know that the real value of an MBA is the strength of the school’s recruiting. You can learn off the same textbook as an online MBA, but try convincing top investment banks to recruit heavily off university of phoenix.
I find it hilarious someone mentioned Booth. at that school, they literally make part-time MBA kids wear different color badges to intentionally segregate and brand them as Part-Time.
Talk to students there, and the part-timers will tell you themselves they are looked down upon.
Chad, your model is correct, but assumptions are wrong. Even the most competitive part time programs have acceptance rate of about 35%. I can say that as some one who attends part-time program with acceptance rate of 50
Hence, the statement “accounting lingo for those not accountants”. But it’s something that I think almost all people here understand. It’s universally accepted and widely understood.
I am quite aware of that. But that still doesn’t mean that the value of the education is any greater, nor does it mean that the curriculum is any stronger. And why the recruiting strength should dictate the value of the school is still beyond me. But that’s the way the world is, and I’m not arguing with it, or with you.
Iteracom and CSK are right on this.
Ddrobinett, ranking and full time makes a HUGE difference.
Part time programs have much higher acceptance rates, and weaker comparative statistics. Simply talking to full time vs part time students at a top program will leave you impressed with the difference. Part time programs also feature less teamwork since students are not in close quarters and have less time together outside of class. As a result of that (team work can separate efforts and reduce redundant work) and the general focus / intensity, the projects are less demanding and often cover topics with less depth. Extra curriculars are often not a major factor for part time students, so they miss out on other leadership opportunities and networks. Also, lack of teamwork often creates a weaker, smaller part time network to call on after graduation.
Your understanding of the value of an MBA being only in the facts you learn from books is completely flawed at any quality institution. You gain AT LEAST as much if not more value from interactions with other high caliber students and leaders on a daily basis over two years. You compete with them, you collaborate with them, and you learn from them in the process. It should change not just WHAT you know, but HOW you think. Lower caliber programs and part time programs often miss much of these intangibles, as you have.
Furthermore, the name carries weight because it speaks to a vetting process. You’re dipping into a pool where you know only the top candidates have been selected for leadership traits after extensive application processes and you have better chance of scoring a winner and a leader. If you want a mindless accountant, then sure, local university’s part time mba may be a good place to start your search. But it goes beyond even that. You have now hired someone with a demonstrated lifetime of achievement that lead them there. They now have a huge network of similarly high achievers who will go on to be senior executives in companies around the world. The asset you’ve hired now has the additional benefit of tapping this network for knowledge and insights years down the road. This is invaluable to a company.
You also have professors that can make a lasting impact and are world reknowned in their field and at the cutting edge of research. If you are really into a certain field of study, this can be a huge asset as well.
Anyhow, long story short, there is a huge difference between ranking and full time / part time and employers recognize it as do most others.
Note–I never denied that a full-time student at a “good” program was worth more than a student at a “poor” or “part-time” program. I just didn’t know all the reasons.
I like the way you put it. First time I’d ever heard most of those reasons (except for the “we have the smartest graduates because we have the smartest students because we are the most selective with our applicants” reason).
And debits still go on the left and credits still go on the right.
I don’t know if you have aspergers or just a jerk, but I never see anything positive from your posts. Maybe you should post on zerohedge… that seems to be more your style.
Yes FT>PT, and PT programs are easier to get in to, but everyone has different circumstances. Although you did not allude to any particular inferiority concerning pt booth students, it is laughable to make it seem as though they’re peons.
Iteracom means well and he’s right far more often than he’s wrong. He did not call any students peons. But he did rightly point out the distinction. I think a) this is a busy time of year for people in research related roles and 2) sometimes us older posters become short tempered pointing out things we’ve discussed dozens of times (even though you may not have, just as we were once new). We’re old and crotchety . Our bad.
If you cant say in first 5 mins who is the sucker at the table, that sucker is you
I don’t get how this fits in this conversation?
my tone before was a bit harsh, I’ll admit. It’s earnings season again.
But mostly I just get more feisty when I see people posting misleading statements
* fist bump*