it's good enough

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This solipsism is embarrassing. Younger full-time students are more intensely committed to their educations.

Young full-time MBA students endure a much higher opportunity cost to attend an MBA program than do EMBA students. EMBA students continue to work full-time.

I'm a business professor. EMBA courses must be "dumbed down" technically and generally have fewer contact hours. Students don't learn as much when they have 6-8 hours of class on a Saturday, and have much less homework.

It is no surprise that students who spend 2 years on full-time education learn more technical material than executives who take part-time classes. The hourly opportunity cost is higher for EMBA, so they spend less time. But the marginal impact of knowledge is higher, because EMBA students can immediately put concepts into practice.

Business schools market programs that serve the needs and schedules of students. This is a good thing. But don't pretend executive/online/night-school degrees are identical to full-time counterparts.

Even within a degree program, there are easy and hard classes. When I interviewed Wall Street candidates, I asked students what their favorite courses were, who the professors were, and what the students liked. Students were shocked. I was shocked that they spent 4 years in college and didn't want to tell me what they learned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in person non-executive MBAs mean something. The online MBAs are cash cows for the institutions. The Executive MBAs are cash cows for the institutions.

Prestigious MBAs:
UPenn Wharton
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Chicago
Northwestern
Columbia
Yale
NYU
Dartmouth
Oxford
Insead
LSE

That's it folks!

The most prestigious MBA degree programs are:

Stanford, Harvard, & Wharton

Chicago & Northwestern

MIT

Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, & Dartmouth

LSE & Oxford

Agree with minor tweaks to your prestigious MBA list:
Tier 1: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton UPenn [ultimate bragging rights]
Tier 2: MIT [king of quant]
Tier 3: Chicago, Northwestern [USNWR wrong as 1, 2 more appropriately here seems like USNWR tends to elevate these 2 two]
Tier 4: Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, Dartmouth, LSE, Oxford [Still great, some might put the European schools in Tier 3]

Add Berkeley and Duke to tier 4, both have rising business schools and have help from prestigious parent institutions. Certainly if you'll include Yale SOM, which has a minimal MBA network, Berkeley and Duke belong too.

Bump Wharton from tier 1

It has really devalued the brand by launching the part-onljnr global mba program that is equivalent to the regular mba program

Georgetown mba here again. Yes, no one can tell by looking at me or my career that I “gasp” only went to a top 25 mba program.

My manager, HBS guy, keeps forgetting where I went and saying I went to the business school of my undergrad. (Let’s say it’s Stanford). I never lied but somehow he can’t tell the difference.

Also, I just hired a person from Wharton and BCG. She’s bright but it’s not like I can’t handle working with her and her brilliance.

I never applied to a higher ranked school, because I knew I couldn’t move out of DC. So we’ll never know if I could have gotten into a higher ranked program but I probably could have.

The way this thread reads, though, you would think I went to a degree mill.

Can we just end it and say Georgetown MBA is top 25, is not that prestigious, especially compared to HBS or whatever, or to Georgetown Law or SFS, but is still a very valuable degree?

Anonymous wrote:No one cares where you get your MBA except your classmates you network with at school.

Two points:
- nobody can sit in a conference room and say "that's the person who went to an M7, and wow, that dude went to #26". Seriously, if you are in the same environment, performance has a low correlation to where you went if the school is in the top 30.

- prestige is a double edged sword. Once worked at a place where they made a big deal about hiring a Harvard MBA. They were expecting Superman. They got Clark Kent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in person non-executive MBAs mean something. The online MBAs are cash cows for the institutions. The Executive MBAs are cash cows for the institutions.

Prestigious MBAs:
UPenn Wharton
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Chicago
Northwestern
Columbia
Yale
NYU
Dartmouth
Oxford
Insead
LSE

That's it folks!

The most prestigious MBA degree programs are:

Stanford, Harvard, & Wharton

Chicago & Northwestern

MIT

Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, & Dartmouth

LSE & Oxford

Agree with minor tweaks to your prestigious MBA list:
Tier 1: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton UPenn [ultimate bragging rights]
Tier 2: MIT [king of quant]
Tier 3: Chicago, Northwestern [USNWR wrong as 1, 2 more appropriately here seems like USNWR tends to elevate these 2 two]
Tier 4: Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, Dartmouth, LSE, Oxford [Still great, some might put the European schools in Tier 3]

I would agree with this.

But more generally, if you are not going to one of these schools in 2024, I'm not sure an MBA is worth it. Not even at Georgetown.

And everyone knowns an "Executive MBA" is resume filler.

Agree with the above, except I would put Yale down another level. It’s not as respected.

GU MBA seems like it's for SEC and Big Ten grads seeking to elevate their CVs. Ivy, MIT, Duke and Stanford alums wouldn't bother with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Executive MBA programs ... require an intense amount of commitment, intelligence and time management. ...
Traditional MBAs have the luxury of ONLY being focused on their education.

This solipsism is embarrassing. Younger full-time students are more intensely committed to their educations, and less committed to jobs, family, etc. Older executive students have a higher opportunity cost of attendance, and are limited by other commitments. Executives appreciate their education more, because it is so expensive.

Executive students are weaker technically, but more mature at applications. For example, I assigned a Harvard case about investing in gold. Full-time students did a good statistical analysis showing that gold had low historical returns with high risk, and was not a useful hedge. They abruptly concluded by recommending gold investments because "there is nothing else like gold!" Confused, I retorted "What about silver?" They looked at me like deer in headlights, as though I had asked a trick question. Executives would not be so flummoxed.

Unusual take on "opportunity costs" with which I disagree.

Young full-time MBA students endure a much higher opportunity cost to attend an MBA program than do EMBA students. EMBA students continue to work full-time while enrolled in an EMBA program and are being groomed for promotion. Young full-time MBA students sacrifice almost 2 years of earnings and are not eligible for promotion during their time in the MBA program because they are not working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in person non-executive MBAs mean something. The online MBAs are cash cows for the institutions. The Executive MBAs are cash cows for the institutions.

Prestigious MBAs:
UPenn Wharton
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Chicago
Northwestern
Columbia
Yale
NYU
Dartmouth
Oxford
Insead
LSE

That's it folks!

The most prestigious MBA degree programs are:

Stanford, Harvard, & Wharton

Chicago & Northwestern

MIT

Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, & Dartmouth

LSE & Oxford

Agree with minor tweaks to your prestigious MBA list:
Tier 1: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton UPenn [ultimate bragging rights]
Tier 2: MIT [king of quant]
Tier 3: Chicago, Northwestern [USNWR wrong as 1, 2 more appropriately here seems like USNWR tends to elevate these 2 two]
Tier 4: Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, Dartmouth, LSE, Oxford [Still great, some might put the European schools in Tier 3]

LSE doesn’t have a business school. You’re thinking of LBS.

LSE has a joint MBA with NYU

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GU name recognition (rather than just McD) will help you more elsewhere compared to more regionally known schools like Rice and Indiana.

those three school seems to have fairly similar outcomes at least average salary wise.

Be careful when comparing salaries, because Georgetown places more graduates in DC, NYC, and other expensive East Coast cities. Students from Rice and Indiana who get jobs in those cities will also have high salaries.

The issue is rice and Indiana struggle in even mid tier finance placement vs gtown

Kelley really is a marketing/mid office/cpg/industry focused school even for nyc placements

So there will be a difference in comp between gtown alums in nyc vs Kelley / rice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in person non-executive MBAs mean something. The online MBAs are cash cows for the institutions. The Executive MBAs are cash cows for the institutions.

Prestigious MBAs:
UPenn Wharton
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Chicago
Northwestern
Columbia
Yale
NYU
Dartmouth
Oxford
Insead
LSE

That's it folks!

The most prestigious MBA degree programs are:

Stanford, Harvard, & Wharton

Chicago & Northwestern

MIT

Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, & Dartmouth

LSE & Oxford

Agree with minor tweaks to your prestigious MBA list:
Tier 1: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton UPenn [ultimate bragging rights]
Tier 2: MIT [king of quant]
Tier 3: Chicago, Northwestern [USNWR wrong as 1, 2 more appropriately here seems like USNWR tends to elevate these 2 two]
Tier 4: Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, Dartmouth, LSE, Oxford [Still great, some might put the European schools in Tier 3]

LSE doesn’t have a business school. You’re thinking of LBS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in person non-executive MBAs mean something. The online MBAs are cash cows for the institutions. The Executive MBAs are cash cows for the institutions.

Prestigious MBAs:
UPenn Wharton
Harvard
Stanford
MIT
Chicago
Northwestern
Columbia
Yale
NYU
Dartmouth
Oxford
Insead
LSE

That's it folks!

The most prestigious MBA degree programs are:

Stanford, Harvard, & Wharton

Chicago & Northwestern

MIT

Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, & Dartmouth

LSE & Oxford

Agree with minor tweaks to your prestigious MBA list:
Tier 1: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton UPenn [ultimate bragging rights]
Tier 2: MIT [king of quant]
Tier 3: Chicago, Northwestern [USNWR wrong as 1, 2 more appropriately here seems like USNWR tends to elevate these 2 two]
Tier 4: Columbia, Yale, INSEAD, NYU, Dartmouth, LSE, Oxford [Still great, some might put the European schools in Tier 3]

Add Berkeley and Duke to tier 4, both have rising business schools and have help from prestigious parent institutions. Certainly if you'll include Yale SOM, which has a minimal MBA network, Berkeley and Duke belong too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GU name recognition (rather than just McD) will help you more elsewhere compared to more regionally known schools like Rice and Indiana.

those three school seems to have fairly similar outcomes at least average salary wise.

Be careful when comparing salaries, because Georgetown places more graduates in DC, NYC, and other expensive East Coast cities. Students from Rice and Indiana who get jobs in those cities will also have high salaries.

Anonymous wrote:
Executive MBA programs ... require an intense amount of commitment, intelligence and time management. ...
Traditional MBAs have the luxury of ONLY being focused on their education.

This solipsism is embarrassing. Younger full-time students are more intensely committed to their educations, and less committed to jobs, family, etc. Older executive students have a higher opportunity cost of attendance, and are limited by other commitments. Executives appreciate their education more, because it is so expensive.

Executive students are weaker technically, but more mature at applications. For example, I assigned a Harvard case about investing in gold. Full-time students did a good statistical analysis showing that gold had low historical returns with high risk, and was not a useful hedge. They abruptly concluded by recommending gold investments because "there is nothing else like gold!" Confused, I retorted "What about silver?" They looked at me like deer in headlights, as though I had asked a trick question. Executives would not be so flummoxed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't consider an MBA to be prestigious these days, regardless of the university. Everyone has one. They are as common as BA/BS degrees. Also, most MBA programs can now be completed fairly easily online even from prestigious universities.

My spoiled niece had her retired dad do most of her online MBA work. They are a total farce. And I believe Georgetown has all sorts of online and weekend MBA programs, so who knows who actually did a “real” one. Credentialism has jumped the shark. Too many nitwits with too many bogus degrees.

I think it is relatively easy to differentiate between a full MBA at the business school and abbreviated MBAs at extension schools. I imagine most schools are quite clear about notifying students about how to describe their “degree”. At least at Georgetown they were and I was in the regular full program.

I would never assume an executive MBA had any relationship to a full MBA. It doesn’t make a full MBA useless just because a condensed versions, which can be differentiated, exist.

Doesn’t Georgetown offer both an executive MBA (or profession development / night school) as well as a real MBA?

Are they really much different? Are they perceived differently by employers?

Typically, an executive MBA is more prestigious than just a regular MBA for youngsters with just a couple of years of post-undergraduate degree work experience.

Actually, it’s just the opposite, I see an executive mba as more of an honorary degree. That one is definitely part time or online, and given to people who have already made it to the C suite or senior leadership. The full-time MBAs usually have around 5 years of work experience and actually have to do work in their classes.

Reasonable opinion for one who lacks actual knowledge, but I disagree. Regular full-time MBAs are for those with 2 to 5 years of post-undergraduate degree work experience; Executive MBAs typically require at least 10 years of post-undergraduate work experience and 5 years work experience as a manager or above. all executive MBAs are cohort based and are designed to be part-time as most or usually all participants are working while enrolled in an EMBA program.

Regular MBA candidates would be lost in an EMBA program. Regular MBAs are at the kiddie stage with respect to management know-how and experience.

I got an Executive MBA and this is 100% spot on. Executive MBA programs are NOT honorary in any way. They are serious work and require an intense amount of committment, intelligence and time management. Traditional MBAs would fall apart. Traditional MBAs have the luxury of ONLY being focused on their education.

We had more than a few people who dropped out of the Executive MBA program because they couldn't keep up with the demands.