[ghshephard]

Just to put this in comparison - I recently took a two-week networking course (in the United States) for $7300. While this was in-person, with labs/instruction from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM every day, and the class was limited to twelve students, it does put things into perspective.

The real cost, as always, in getting a degree is the students time. Someone capable of getting a Masters degree, can, without too much effort, make $100K/year pretty quickly (If income is what they are interested in).

This is why education is normally inexpensive in other countries - students are having to forego all that income, so it's in the interest of the country, to encourage their populace to become educated - so they subsidize.

I think part of the reason why Education is so expensive in the United States, is they have a fairly regressive tax system, with poor social systems (in comparison to other first world countries). Health Care is expensive, Education is expensive. It's a very difficult country to be poor in.

I'd love it if the $6,600 Master Degree started a disruptive trend.

[johnbellone]

I have been contemplating between getting an MBA or a PhD in software engineering (because I want to teach) for the past few years.

For the latter it would be strictly because I want to create something, be innovative, and give back to my industry. The former - you're really paying for the connections - and possibly a few lessons on economics that have grown dry in your head.

I am justifying the price tag on a two year (night) MBA because I feel like I am getting into that "club" that most of the bigwigs are in.

Am I wrong?

[jmduke]

The common knowledge I've heard about MBAs is that, as you said, you're paying for the connections -- and that the only valuable connections come from the pedigree of a Top 20 MBA program. If you're not pursuing an "elite" program (I'm sure 95% of MBA curriculums are equivalent no matter where you enroll, but the alumni certainly are not), then it's likely not worth the time or money.

[ghshephard]

The variables obviously are Where are you getting the MBA (Ivy League MBAs, even evening ones, have more value), what is the price tag - there is a big difference between a $50K MBA and $200K MBA, and what field you'll be going into.

MBA has very little (some might almost say negative) value in Silicon Valley startup world, but obviously more value in mature companies, or companies that are transitioning from startup->mature (possible exception being the CEO, VP of BizDev/Marketing and possibly VP of Product Management). MBAs have close to zero value for people who wish to be simultaneously tactical and technical. I've never seen a network engineer, or firmware developer get any value out of their MBA. It's really for people who are either going to go into the business side of a company, and/or go into management.

Also - it's important to note if you'll have to quit working while you are getting your MBA - that makes the credential doubly expensive.

[insertdisktwo]

I disagree that MBAs have a negative value in the Silicon Valley. Most investors I know value someone having one business person on the team early on. This person can help drive the validation/marketing/sales side of the business plan forward. People with hybrid skills (MBA + engineering degree) are from my personal experience highly appreciated.

[ghshephard]

I didn't say "negative value in Silicon Valley" (it definitely isn't), but, "Silicon Valley Startup world" (I.E. the first six-eighteen months when the technology is being built).

At one very prominent startup that I worked for, lead by some very, very well known executives (who are extraordinarily prominent in the valley today), there was a general position for the first two years of our company, "Hire no MBAs." They really believed that the MBA was a negative at that phase of the company's history, and were looking for Programmers, designers, coders, systems administrators, DBAs, etc.