|
I think the OP's point of what an MBA *isn't* is important. I know, on a personal level, a decent number of people with net worth > $10M. None of them have MBAs. I know and am acquainted with several people with net worths in the $50M to $250M range. None of them have MBAs. I live in the same town with (and 'know' on a peripheral level in the sense that I've met them and know some of their family) a couple folks that are pretty loving high on the Forbes list. None of them have MBAs. My intention isn't to make the point that MBAs have zero value, but at the same time I feel like speaking up and saying that they probably don't have the worth that a lot of people put on them and I'm tired of people perpetuating the bullshit lie that 'MBA = business success'. If you're looking to go become a corporate cog and rise a little further than the other guy, sure. That two extra years in school will probably result in a promotion or two; you just might escape CubicleLand and and get one of those offices along the wall. But if you're looking to be a 'baller'? There are a lot more factors at play here. One is the fact that most hyper-successful people are entrepreneurs. They make money with their native smarts and experience running a business pertaining to something they know about. Expecting an MBA to substitute for real-life experience is futile. Better to spend two years real world actually running a business; it will buy you way more benefit. Another is that MBAs are a dime-a-dozen in the real world. I'm serious. It's almost to the point where if you do go decide to become a corporate cog you're practically expected to have one. There are two ways to look at this. One says, "Well I've got to get an MBA because it's practically expected and I won't get anywhere without it." The other says, "VP of WhateverTheFuck is for chumps. You want to be a baller? Quit working for one." To those who are in MBA programs, no offense. I have friends who would rather be immersed in corporate culture than trying to go big on their own and you know, whatever makes you happy. Just don't go trying to convince people that their chances of major-league success in life with an MBA are significantly better than without. KingMorse fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Oct 10, 2008 |
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
So I reread my post from last night and I did sound pretty negative. My apologies, extraneous education is kind of a soapbox of mine. To resummarize my comments: MBAs have value and probably improve peoples' lives, but they shouldn't be mistaken as the sole qualification or route to success. Hopefully that is a little more fair than my words from last night. To answer your question about my 'friends' (I hope I was clear, some I know well and would consider friends, but others are mere acquaintances), most of them have made their money in real estate and/or construction. As a proportion, I would say 80% or so. The others own other types of businesses. As an aside, the part of the country I'm from doesn't have a lot of 'old money' or people who got it through inheritance. The vast majority of successful folks around here are self-made.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 16:18
|
|
|
mongol posted:MBA Student chiming in. I think the other part of my initial post that is important is that a lot of this depends on your chosen route. If you're happy being a part of the machine, you will benefit from an MBA. If you're not, you probably won't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 21:32
|
|
|
Don Wrigley posted:I am going to attempt to quantify exactly what it is you're saying, followed by a question: This is not too bad of a way to say it, but I have some issue with the phrase "one of the best ways". It's *a* way but if you're looking for what's going to give you the highest probability of getting to that top 1% it could very well be something other than getting an MBA. I would also argue that the proportion of people who have MBAs and live in that top 1% is probably not nearly as high as you'd think compared to other college graduates or those with other post-grad educations. I'm telling you, MBAs really are a dime-a-dozen and one is going to only help you if you wind up in a very specific sort of environment. Another way to look at this is that in terms of raw numbers (not proportion) there are probably way more non-MBAs in the top 1% than MBAs. Also as a sort of random aside, if you want to hit that top 1% your chances are way higher going to med school than getting an MBA. Not that those here would be interested in such a thing, I'm just using it as an example. Regarding your other question, I don't know - you'll have to ask someone in admissions at the sort of school you're going after.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 22:25
|
|
|
locdogg posted:Entrepreneurial endeavors would benefit greatly from an MBA. It's a generalist degree and allows for a broad scope of knowledge that would be useful to anyone involved in business. The days of the man in the grey flannel suit are long dead, and while it sounds like you know people who have been very fortunate in their pursuits, I assure you that having an MBA in no way precludes you from non-traditional career paths. I feel that we would have a fundamental disagreement over whether or not "entrepreneurial endeavors would benefit greatly from an MBA". I'd love to get into it, but fear the devolution into flamewar that may result so I'll leave that one alone. It's not that I don't respect your opinion, but that I think it's almost a religious-type issue and as a whole I stay away from those on internet forums. If you really want to make your case I'd love to hear what you have to say but please understand that I may excuse myself from further discussion in this specific area. As for the idea that an MBA doesn't preclude you from a non-traditional career path: well, duh  That obviously wasn't my point. It's about whether or not it'd be a waste if you plan to pursue such a career path. xdimitrix posted:You also have to remember there is a huge survivorship bias when you look at all these rich people and see that they all started their own businesses. It's akin to observing a lot of rich people won their money in the lottery, then concluding the lottery is a good way to get rich. I actually touched on this in one of my posts. I said, "Another way to look at this is that in terms of raw numbers (not proportion) there are probably way more non-MBAs in the top 1% than MBAs." Which is to admit that, I'm sure there are a higher proportion of (but not necessarily more) MBA-holders who attain at least some minor level of success compared to 'drop-outs' (c'mon, that was kind of a cheap shot you made there). We might look at this though as an exercise in risk management. If I'm the sort of guy with a lot of confidence in myself and a desire to make it huge, I would probably be better off skipping the MBA and spending my time building a business. Conversely, if I am the sort of person to let other people worry about the heavy stuff and job security means more to me than making it huge, I'd probably be better off at a big company with an MBA. Risk, reward. I'll go along with the idea in your example that the mean might be higher for those 500 MBAs but there's a decent chance that the median wouldn't. Different strokes for different folks. Along these lines, I think your point of survivorship bias is valid but it doesn't necessarily go against what my 'big point' has been. Namely, that unless you plan to work in the corporate world, the MBA may not be for you. Granted, I probably distracted from this point and opened myself up to your (again, valid) survivorship bias point by hauling off with all my anecdotal evidence so I apologize for getting off-message. Let me try to illustrate my beliefs on the matter yet another way: Group A: Bunch of random MBA students. Group B: Bunch of non-MBA college graduates. If we look at these groups, we'd probably see the following: 1. Among low-performers, the success of both groups is pretty similar. The average low-performer in Group A might one additional promotion over their lifetime so the MBAs may have a slight advantage. Also, most low-performing Group A types probably have a night-school-type MBA as opposed to one from somewhere like Harvard. Their MBA is even more of a 'rubber-stamp' affair. This would also contribute to a lack of difference between the groups. 2. Among average-performers who specifically go out into the corporate world, Group A has a significant advantage. We're probably talking the difference between making $60-75,000 and making $100,000. 3. Among average-performers who do not join the corporate world, things probably are similar to our low-performing group. An MBA doesn't help much in industries/cultures who don't appreciate them. 4. Among above-average-performers who join the corporate world, again Group A has an advantage but perhaps not as much as for the average-performers because these folks have more native ability in their favor. It's probably more hit-or-miss with these folks on whether the person above them sees the MBA as a big deal since these people are already outstanding. 5. Among above-average-performers who do not join the corporate world, an MBA could be practically worthless. With the resources they already have at their disposal, their time is probably better spent in the real world. That's my 'big point' in a nutshell. Locdogg, I hope you and others don't think I'm attempting to disparage the MBA; I just want to expound on the point you made in your very first post as to what an MBA's good for. An MBA is two years and a pile of money and going after one is a decision about which one needs to consider all the angles. Let me add that I'm really enjoying this thread. This is a topic that's always interested me, as I took quite a different path than most of my friends. Though we all did different things, we did them because that was what was going to make us happy. Life is about trade-offs, and what's good for one person isn't necessarily good for another. KingMorse fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Oct 11, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Don Wrigley posted:You're treating all MBAs as equal in your posts. Try to differentiate. If you look at my post later where I spell out low-performer/average-performer/et cetera I do differentiate and accommodate for the fact that higher performing people are more likely to have a more valuable MBA.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 18:26
|
|