Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mcmoose75 2417 days ago
This is something I wrote for a previous post on Hackernews re MBAs:

I went to one of the top-tier (top 3) MBA programs in the US. The way I've described that value of the top MBA programs is in 3 (roughly equally-weighted) categories:

1) The Education: Getting to discuss business concepts with a group of smart, successful folks for 6-9 hours a day is very helpful. Most of the content, I could get from books/ online articles at a fraction of the price, but spending the time in a focused way is actually helpful.

2) The Network: In terms of network, this isn't some vague amorphous thing at Stanford GSB, HBS, or Penn- it's knowing several hundred other folks who are going to be very successful in their careers. This can be useful in sales, fundraising, finding a next job, etc. and DOES have a tangible dollar value.

3) The Rubber Stamp: Having your resume say "Stanford GSB" or "Harvard Business School" does have value to future employers or customers- it de-risks you as you've been validated by a famous institution, and helps THEM to associate with these famous brands.

For the top 3 programs, even though they're VERY expensive (approx $250k in tuition + living expenses, plus at least another $250k in foregone income for most incoming students, for $500k in actual cost+opportunity cost), they're almost certainly worth it.

For middle-/ lower-tier MBA programs, 2) and 3) above aren't NEARLY as valuable, or perhaps don't even exist- is your "network" from Local State School MBA actually valuable? For these, the only real value is the actual education, and most students would be better served with an online program or just actually picking up some books/ case studies/ reading online articles. There are a few exceptions to the this- for instance, often schools that aren't in the top 3 nationwide can punch above their weight in regional networks. For instance, if you want to live and work in LA (or work in the entertainment industry) I've heard that it can be really useful to go to UCLA or USC for an MBA.

2 comments

Fellow top MBA grad here. Strongly agree with the points above, and I'd add:

4) The Recruiting Pipeline: There is a tranche of very desirable jobs out there that are, de facto, restricted to graduates of the top-N (3 or 7 or whatever) MBA programs. Specifically, associate-level roles at consulting firms, i-banks, and management rotational programs at F500 CPG/industrials/FANG. Especially if you're a career changer (I was a military officer pre-MBA), the 2 years of opportunity-cost are often worth the opportunity set provided by the recruiting platform.

With that said, it's important to note that there's no secret MBA knowledge you'll get at any of these programs, nor will you be coated with magical MBA dust that makes life a cakewalk once you graduate.

> de facto, restricted to graduates of the top-N (3 or 7 or whatever) MBA programs.

Isn't this a problem?

A problem for who?

Certainly not for the MBA programs and their graduates.

Inverting your response gives the answer: anyone for whom those programmes are not attainable, or from which they're excluded.
Right- the current state of affairs serves the top-tier MBA programs, their graduates, and management consulting/ banking/ PE firms very well for the time being.

Top-tier MBA progams' whole pitch is about how getting in to these elite institutions confers massive benefits to the rest of your career- they certainly have no incentive to change any of this. The employing firms get a veneer of shiny "elite" frosting over their staffs (and they're mostly selling the abilities of their staffs)- the current systems serves them very well too. Being egalitarian would have some feel-good optics (maybe), but isn't in the interest of any of these entities.

These old-school institutions aren't where you go if you want something that reflects Silicon Valley-esque "meritocracy", where credentials don't matter and only impact does. That's why this ethos is a big deal, and different than what came before (though it has its own set of issues).

"Meritocracy" itself is a fraught concept:

Although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the term itself was coined in 1958 by the sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

Mcmoose, do you think the University of Michigan has regional appeal that justifies the tuition?
Not Mcmoose; but I would say definitely yes. Top 3 is too high a cutoff in my opinion; I would expand the above sentiments to "top 20"; which would include Ross - especially if you are considering regional appeal and are an industry switcher.
Ross is a good school especially if you want to work in marketing, and has a very strong Chicago network.
I really don't know in that case.