to CFA or not, experienced professional

CFA General
#61

No. I understand that skills is not the end-all-and-be-all of MBA education. How to work in teams and how to be a leader in the business world is important, and even key in the best programs. But I know someone who did a PT MBA at London Business School. This guy is one of the smartest people I know - Stanford undergrad, UC Berkeley for a Masters’ degree early in his career, and then did a PT MBA. Clearly he could have done a FT MBA if he could have afforded to stop working (he had a wife and child and had been working in nonprofit work before).

There was still a ton of team work he had to learn and manage remotely. And in the modern business world, a lot of relationships are remotely managed. How do you get stuff done when you can’t just call up and say “let’s go meet in the library and work this out?” That’s a useful skill, and you can argue that a lot of full time people don’t develop it.

These teams still had to get stilt done in time and deliver quality and manage leadership and delegation and coordination of projects. It wasn’t just hanging out and listening to pre-recorded videos online and sending in a paper that might or might not have been written by the students. And there were plenty of times where it was necessary to get together in person and over the course of two years it did create important bonds with classmates. Sacrifice your weekends to study several times a month, while working a regular job? That hurts enough to create a “band of brothers” feel.

In fact, when I compare it to what my friends at Columbia Business School report about their FT experience, it sounds like there was a lot more serious work getting done, and a lot less time trying to figure out how to hook up with your classmates after getting wasted at a dance. And yet the relationships forged in PT are also very strong and useful for him.

So I don’t buy that the coursework is shoddy education because it wasn’t done smack in front of the professor, and I don’t buy that not being able to sleep with your classmates means that the networking opportunities are inferior. Or that leadership only happens over long periods of face-to-face intereactions. It is true that FT programs are trying to set up protectionist measures so that FT students feel more special and privileged, but I’m not so sure that these will be sustainable over the long term, particularly as more and more PT students graduate and make their way into the business world. If PT students are miffed that they didn’t have access to FT students in their networking, how eager are successful PT students going to be to take a networking call from a recently graduate FT student. FT probably does have the advantage now, because there are more FT students higher up in the pipeline, but it’s advantage is on ground that will get increasingly shaky over time, and the appearence of any disruptive technologies may shake it up even more.

Ultimately, I don’t see these protectionist measures as sustainable. I think it’s only a matter of time before they start to crumble, primarily determined by how many PT students actually become successful over time. We are probalby not there yet, but I’m sure it’s already started.

Also, PT is not exactly the same as an online MBA. Most PT programs I know about are “hybrid models.” But the onine part of hybrid models is actually a useful part of modern business experience and training.

#62

That’s a nice anecdote, but anecdotes =/= statistics. I gave you the stats, we know FT students are rigoursely screened into the programs, creating stronger student bodies.

We know that most business is still done face to face, and students still work remotely in FT programs, so we get that too. I never said the FT alumni network is not available to PT students so you’re whole “miffed” example doesn’t hold water. It is just not nearly as strong or wide reaching of a true network (ie people you know vs people you’re cold calling / swapping business cards with).

My points from the prior posts stand. Your argument is basically built on one anecdote that lies contrary to the general statistics, and some line about “school dances” that’s a lame characterisation at best. I never said coursework is shoddy because it wasn’t done in front of professors, but I did give a dozen good reasons why it wouldn’t be as good, which you chose to ignore. I’ve networked pretty hard through AF and the CFA for 5 years, and I’ve gotten a handful of real life networking contacts, that aren’t half as useful as the dozens I developed during a full time MSF in 1 year. So I am well aware of what a couple weekends a month as a “band of brothers” (a term often used on AF) gets you. Basically you’re saying programs that are less intensive and have lower quality admissions standards will somehow erode the barrier to the FT programs. If this holds true, then it’s only a matter of time before Penn State’s FT program (with lower quality students and a less intensive process) catches HBS’s FT program. Sure, I can come up with anecdotes from PSU that surpassed HBS counterparts as well to make my point.

Anyhow, nice try. If you’re actually going to address the evidence, the statistics, and the arguements I’ve laid forth fine, I’ll play ball. If you want to offer anecdotes and twist my points, not so much. Same thing if you want to lecture me on the wonders of the internet via an online forum.

#63

Don’t take this so personally, BS. This is not an attack on you and your value as a thinker or businessperson. I even agree with you that - for now - FT has the advantage. My main point is that this advantage may be increasingly difficult to defend and even now is likely slipping, so saying “of course FT is better than PT” isn’t as obvious as it sounds.

I don’t know many people who have done PT work, but I do know from this anecdote that a lot of the facile generalizations that people like to make about PT programs aren’t necessarily true. We need to compare the post-MBA performance of high caliber PT people with similarly qualified (at admission time) FT people to come to a real determination about the value of PT vs FT, rather than just assume that PT people are nothing but lightweights who wouldn’t survive the rigors of a FT program and therefore only have other lightweights to network with and practice leadership skills.

A basic statistics class should cover this kind of logical requirement in order to control for other variables.

And yes, anecdotes are not proof. But statistics can hide as much as they reveal. Statistics don’t tell you about process, about cause and effect, about how the independent variables connect to the dependent variable. You pretty much have to assume the process when setting up a model to test. Gee, that sounds kinda subjective, doesn’t it? So called “anecdotes” reveal a lot about how things actually happen, provided they are not cherry-picked. And remember, it only takes one black swan to disprove that “Black Swans Don’t Exist,” even if that black swan is only an anecdote. So anecdotes aren’t useless; they’re just easy to misuse. But, actually, so are statistics.

And my point about hooking up with other students is simply to point out that more time face-to-face does not automatically equal higher quality networking, particuarly in a world that is more and more virtual. We assume “hey, they hang out in classes day in and day out, so of course the networking is better.” But are these the people that it’s most important to network with? Are the professors the ones that are most important to network with? Perhaps it’s the alumni? And maybe - in the digital age - the alumni can be found by methods other than asking the FT career office for a list of names. Or maybe alumni actually want to network with new graduates when looking for staff to fill. And if more PT people are graduating than FT people, well, maybe that means more networking opportunities with PT people down the line, particularly if the PT people are miffed at the FT people for treating them as second class citizens and they are growing at a faster rate than the FT pool.

Again, it’s about how the field is changing over time, and also what opportunities are available to the person who is applying. Maybe this person wouldn’t be Goldman material even with a FT program. In that case, a PT program might actually advance them enough for their needs and be appropriate. Factor in the opportunity cost of the FT program and it may well be the best choice in a particular case.

And even if we do agree that, say Booth FT > Booth PT, or a Columbia FT > Columbia PT, to what extent does a PT at a high-prestige school compare to FT at a school that’s one (or more) tiers down. To the extent that you assume that PT candidates are less qualified than FT ones, the question of whether PT at a better name beats FT at a lesser one, may be the real choice that they face and therefore the more important comparison.

#64

I read this for a while, and eventually stopped reading. But again, I don’t think that your points are mutually exclusive.

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that FT>PT, at least as it is perceived by the market. I think we can all agree that all else equal, FT is much better. However, since all things are not equal (FT requires that you pay big bucks and stop working, while PT lets you keep working and probably pay lower costs), the PT might actually be a better deal.

To Chad’s point, I have a PT degree from Local State, and it has kicked my earnings power into a whole new level. So even my PT MBA is good, since I’ve moved from crappy retail “Ameriprise” jobs into a whole new role as accountant/analyst. It has probably increased my earnings power by 100%, within less than 2 years. (I went full-time to the part-time program.) I don’t think most people who are in FT programs can say the same–that finishing your FT MBA can double your salary.

However, I knew that going to a “good” MBA program was not an option for me, because of my lack of “pedigree”. Most people who have the option of going to a FT program would not be faced with the same constraints that I was. They would have “good” undergrad degrees from “good” schools, and have a few years experience in a “good” job. So, to BS’s point, it seems like we’re talking about two different dynamics. Those who double their salary by going to Local State’s PT program won’t be the same people that will be accepted to Wharton.

And to Chad’s point, I think that purely in theory, you can get the same education and knowledge be reading online publications as you can in a classroom. (Just like, in theory, the Marines are a “superior” fighting force to the Army, because they aretrained to be an “invading”, not an “occupying” force.) However, in practice, potential employers seem to value the FT MBA’s more, for whatever reason. (Just like, in practice, the Marines and Army are doing the exact same job while in the Middle East.)

#65

I agree with your argument to here. And this was not the argument Bchad was making, he was literally trying to equate the two, or at least later on, to argue that the two would become equivalent.

This works if you assume you can teach at bunch of people with statistically lower academic qualifications at the same depth and with the same speed in a less intensive environment as you can FT students. This doesn’t really align with anything you said before, either, where you were outlining distinctive differences. It also only works if you assume learning is limited to the curriculum.

#66

Not equivalent. I’m only saying that it’s easy to say “of course FT is better than PT” and point to the obvious arguments, but in my experience, things that seem this obvious aren’t always the case, because there are a ton of questionable assumptions and stereotypes that go into the logic, stereotypes that FT programs have high incentives to maintain if they can. Stereotypes, like legends, often have some vague connection to an underlying truth, but they typically overstate it, and command a lot more attention than they really deserve, so it’s worth investigating what the assumptions are.

I took more effort in outlining the contrarian case and why it is not implausible that the difference will shrink to a point where the difference in cost (assuming those differences also remain similar to today’s costs) may be far larger than the difference in value.

And I highlighted that this question is almost always asked by a person who is trying to decide either 1) if a PT at a better name school is better than a FT at a lesser name schoool, or 2) if FT at a school is worth the extra expense vs a PT at the same school. Those answers are often unique to the candidate and depend on what their prospects and desires are in the first place and not the more abstract question of whether FT is better than PT if you could do anything you wanted.

#67

Wow this is a great discussion. Clearly people feel passionately on both sides of this argument.

To be clear, I am defending the the part time program at Booth. Many folks are reading this post to get intel on it, so I feel it’s important to cover both sides sufficiently.

The respective sizes of the full time and part time program are roughly the same. This means that in terms of the aggregate alumni population, roughly 50% of the folks with the Chicago MBA are part timers. If you would, please go into LinkedIn and tell me who attended the part time program and who attended the full time program. You can’t. Or, wait, maybe jobs will tell you? Ok. Tell me which of the following three people attended the part time program:

[1] Howard Marks, Founder, Oaktree

[2] Peter G Peterson, Founder, Blackstone

[3] John Corzine, Governor, Chair, Goldman Sachs

[4] David Booth, Founder, Dimensional Fund Advisors

[5] Harry McMahon, Vice Chair, Merrill Lynch

The programs are EXACTLY the same courses with EXACTLY the same professors. In fact, full timers and part timers can and do take classes at Gleacher and Harper, respectively.

So again, you can bash the part time students all you want. It’s true that part timers can’t participate in OCR. But if the only reason you’re going to business school is to get your first job, well, you’re an idiot. The value of the degree comes in the brand and the network over the entire course of your career, and the latter is a function of hustle and willingness to help others. Most full timers disappear into 100 hour a week jobs and lose touch with most of their classmates, just like part timers.

So let’s stop equating the quality of the program with the quality of the students. They are not the same thing.

#68

@Beta Private: Tell me–which one of the following people dropped out of school and don’t even have a bachelor’s degree:

  1. Michael Dell
  2. Bill Gates
  3. Mark Zuckerberg
  4. Paul Allen
  5. Christy Walton
  6. Larry Ellison

Answer: All of them. Zuckerberg is the poor man of the group, with a mere $10 billion in net worth.

See? We can all find outliers to fit our needs. A few select examples does not the rule make.

I thought this was part of the assumption. I thought the question was, “Is a PT school as good as a FT school?”, not, “Are PT students as good as FT students.” This is why I think that Chad is correct–in theory. Like I said before, debits on the left and credits on the right. The University of Phoenix can teach me this just as well as Harvard can.

However, I think Black Swan is correct in practice. The market values the full-timers more than it does the part-timers–for whatever reason. We could argue why, and whether that’s justified or not, and whether it perpetuates social differences in the classes, etc. etc. However, at the end of the day, a full-time program will pay more dividends than the part time.

I could not disagree more. The quality of the program is entirely based on the quality of the students.

The reason Harvard is the best is because it has the best students. Those who CAN go to Harvard, DO go to Harvard. Those who can’t get into Harvard go to Flagship University. And those who can’t get into FU (no pun intended) go to Local State University. And those who can’t get into LSU go to a for-profit online school.

I’m not trying to bash FU or LSU or the for-profit schools. I went to LSU and am all the better for it. (And for the record–in retrospect, I think I could have gone to Harvard.) But those who went to FU or Harvard already have better jobs than me, and will continue to have better prospects for their entire life.

#69

I agree with this fully. I’m not personally convinced that FT is unilaterally better than PT, but those who do the hiring disagree, so what I think is totally irrelevant. Oddly enough, those who do the hiring are usually former FT’ers, so they certainly have an incentive to keep up the pedigree of their school, whether it deserves it or not. (Not to mention that they will probably try to buy a seat for their offspring at their brand name school someday.)

This is also something worth noting. I don’t ever recall somebody saying, “I got accepted into Harvard Business School. Should I go there or go to Local State’s part-time program?” The two programs are focused on two very different types of people, and both types of people benefit from the differing programs.

I, for one, would never have been accepted into Harvard, so I didn’t even apply. I’m proud of my MBA from LSU, and have benefitted greatly from it. Iteracom would have scoffed at my LSU MBA, and rightfully so, because it probably would have been a total waste of his time and money.

#70

I’ve noticed this myself, it’s very puzzling. The attacks always end up directed at me . Maybe because you have "boardmember’ attached to your user name?? and @BetaPrivate, I still very much disagree with what you posted . What you said:

I disagree with nearly everything you say here. First.,a lot of people go to bschool to graduate and leap into a good job. ESPECIALLY in today’s world, an MBA’s value heavily comes from the strength of a school’s On-Campus Recruiting. If you want to be an entrepreneur, then obviously the OCR is useless to you. Fine. But again, very few people go this path.

Further evidence is when the economy goes down the crapper, there are suddenly jumps in bschool apps. People want to graduate and use that degree to leap into a job at graduation. And that “Networking value” you mentioned, is built most strongly among the Full-Timers who spend a lot of more time in class projects and hanging out. part-timers surely don’t get as much.

Additionally, many of those Part-Time names you listed are people who already made it. The part-time MBA was handed to them on a silver platter so they could turn around and say “yes I have an MBA”. The MBA was after the fact. It didn’t propel them to success.

#71

Many people probably feel it’s not such a good idea to tick off someone with “boredmember” after their name, but everyone seems to love BS anyway.

He deletes someone’s post, and I get called “b gay-ass chad” because of it. Boredmember or not, the crowds love BS.

Hats off to you, bro… It must be the ultras! :wink:

#72

It must be “boardmember” title; otherwise it doesn’t make sense that people still love BS after he has taken down his girly photo.

#73

What you get from it is what you bring to it.

#74

I stick to what I said. It’s the same degree. Period. There is a continuous focus on hiring for the first job. Your first job absolutely does NOT define your career. It’s what you do 5, 10, 15 years after you graduate. All those guys I mentioned busted their humps, were not given things on a “silver platter” and yes, having an MBA from UofC down the road DID enable them to obtain their posts. I refer you to read Peter G Peterson’s autobiography, where he talks about his experience as a part timer - and how important it was to his career.

Five years out fo school no one cares, and no one knows. Seriously.

I went to an ivy league and worked at a bulge bracket investment bank doing M&A prior to school. Then I worked at a hybrid merchant bank doing deals and co-invests. With a bunch of full timers from UofC, actually.

But you are correct on that count, that many in the part timers are “sub par” as compared to the full timers. Mean GMAT is 700 vs. 720.

Again. it’s the same degree. That’s a fact, not up for debate. My diploma will read exactly the same. It doesn’t say 'part time on it" It also doesn’t say “executive education program” or whatever you are trying to imply.

From the website /programs

"Chicago Booth offers a complete range of Full-Time MBA, Evening MBA, Weekend MBA, and Executive MBA programs.

All programs offer the same powerful, effective business education that prepares you to solve the greatest business challenges. And each will transform the way you think about business. All our programs offer the same degree, taught by the same world-class faculty, with the same peerless standard of quality. Only the format differs. You choose the one that meets your interests, goals, experience, and availability."

#75

I haven’t taken the GMAT. How big is the difference between 720 and 700 on the exam (or 700 vs 680)?

And to what extent do those GMAT differences predict success 5 and 10 years out?

Serious question, I just don’t know what to make of those numbers…

#76

Percentile wise, 700 GMAT is 92nd percentile. 720 is 95th percent.

I have no idea about predictability.

#77

By the way, I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of your for your great contributions on here. I went through the CFA process back in 2008/9 and was a major lurker. I spent a heck of alot of time on here when I just had no juice left to study, and read many of all of your posts during that time.

#78

It appears the argument has been outlined pretty well.

So ultimately, if you don’t believe all the mumbo jumbo I wrote in my first post on the second page about the intangible and experiential aspects of the MBA, and you view it from a curricular standpoint - like most other masters degrees - then a part time MBA would be equivalent or at least make more sense from a cost perspective.

If on the other hand, you do agree with my view (which I still hold strongly), then the two are not even comparable.

Two other notes. Beta Private pointed out that FT and PT students at Booth may each take classes at the other’s facilities. This is true, but with a caviat. You may only enroll in classes at the other facility after the students belonging to that respective school have each completed their enrollment (bidding) process. So you are picking through left overs at that point. It is not the same as full access.

Regarding the GMAT difference between 20 points. Bchad, I’d consider it about 1 standard deviation. I’m fuzzy on my statistics, but I think that about correlates to a bump from the 90th percentile to the 95th percentile. But even more importantly, I don’t believe Booth posts PT statistics, but some of the other premier schools I gathered data on have as much as a 50-60 point difference. That’s pretty massive.

#79

This is starting to beat the dead horse. But that description from booth s own website is not telling people about all the additinal value a full time offers. It might be same teachers and hw, but man you said It yourself: MBA has a networking value. No part timer can have that chance to build that camaraderie full timers get. This is simply something not written on the diploma. And if what BS just said above is true about class picking order, thats even greater evidence on the segregation. Its almost like the school is using the part timers to just generate incremental revenue and fill in the gaps like some airline with some empty seats

#80

Same classes, Same professors. Different campus.

I network with both full timers and part timers? Fortunately, most full timers don’t feel as passionately as the two of you when it comes to the difference. I go to many of their functions and hang out with them downtown on the weekends . You know what else? For the PE guys, I help them get jobs and internships as most of my clients are middle market PE funds and I have personal relationships with the professionals at the funds. Funny thing is, most full timers actually compete against each other for jobs, and their relationships with each other are just as competitive as they are collaborative.

Networking continues long after school. And alums bond and network across programs after you graduate. As I said, after that no one cares and only the biggest DBs care when they’re in the program.