Are one-year MBA programs a joke? Northwestern offers one and...

[Anonymous]

I'm from Chicago. I thought the main difference was that the 1 year program doesn't have an internship program so is less ideal for career changers.

[Anonymous]

I do admissions consulting for mba programs.


1) Yes it’s less prestigious than the two year degree; and yes, as a result the gmat scores are far lower. They aren’t reported as part of the “official” average that’s used for school rankings. Some programs don’t even require a GMAT, but for those that do usually up to 100 points below the 2 year Full time student average is fine.

2) It’s often a good program for people who are NOT changing industry or function and are sponsored by their existing employers.

3) The school has policies to try and limit “gaming” - I.e one year mba students can not recruit on campus for internships, have different colored name tags, etc. This doesn’t mean they don’t find a way to do it, but generally speaking it’s a weaker option than a 2 year program - precisely because it doesn’t give you the opportunity to reinvent yourself / do an internship.

4) Realtively speaking Kellogg does more to distinguish a part time program from a full time one and 1 year exec mba from others - most schools do even less and blur the lines substantially. No school that I know of however distinguishes the degree in a material way - it’s still an MBA from a top tier school.

5) The idea that MBAs are worthless is silly. There’s a reason people go and pursue them.

Tl;DR - It’s a strong program that’s well suited to folks who are not interested in materially shifting job function or industry, but the bar is lower for admission as you suspected.

[Anonymous]

The most overrated degree is an MBA, even worthless if you did not earn it from a top 10 school or so. Spend your time and $ on a different graduate program, one that will earn you more advancement, pay, and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do admissions consulting for mba programs.


1) Yes it’s less prestigious than the two year degree; and yes, as a result the gmat scores are far lower. They aren’t reported as part of the “official” average that’s used for school rankings. Some programs don’t even require a GMAT, but for those that do usually up to 100 points below the 2 year Full time student average is fine.

2) It’s often a good program for people who are NOT changing industry or function and are sponsored by their existing employers.

3) The school has policies to try and limit “gaming” - I.e one year mba students can not recruit on campus for internships, have different colored name tags, etc. This doesn’t mean they don’t find a way to do it, but generally speaking it’s a weaker option than a 2 year program - precisely because it doesn’t give you the opportunity to reinvent yourself / do an internship.

4) Realtively speaking Kellogg does more to distinguish a part time program from a full time one and 1 year exec mba from others - most schools do even less and blur the lines substantially. No school that I know of however distinguishes the degree in a material way - it’s still an MBA from a top tier school.

5) The idea that MBAs are worthless is silly. There’s a reason people go and pursue them.

Tl;DR - It’s a strong program that’s well suited to folks who are not interested in materially shifting job function or industry, but the bar is lower for admission as you suspected.

Please elaborate on this. From what I read on the OPs link, it looks like the one year MBAs (which are not the same as exec MBAs or part time MBAs) join the second year class after their summer. So how are they then distinguished from the regular second years?

I'm curious because i am thinking this might be a good option for my DS who is interested in an MBA but doesn't want to take 2 years out to do it. It also makes sense for kids who have done undergrad business, since there is some overlap in the undergrad and masters programs, particularly in the first year.