The MBA Thread

The most flabbergasting part of school is the level of education, you could seriously learn this stuff on your own part time. yes having a promiment, dynamic and cool professor is nice and all, and if you need structure and due dates maybe it will help you, but this is not rocket science, not even close.

I should have done a co-term Masters right out of undergrad, forget this MBA crap.

Originally Posted by Crosstalker

Click to expand...

pebblegrain hit the nail on the head.

Even at the top B schools, you don't really learn much.

It's a networking experience, nothing more.

I am not sure if you are serious or not, but using your argument (which I do not necessarily agree with), going to a local part-time MBA is not the right move. The networking opportunities in a part-time MBA, which are usually not cohort-based, are not even close to those in a full-time MBA.

Networking is fine at a top 10 school, and a fine reason to go. If I wanted to start a company I could probably pick 50 people at random out of a super-elite school and the company would do just fine.

But going to, say a #25 school. Do you really trust U Indiana Kelley MBAs with your future? This is the problem which I did not anticipate before doing an MBA. I would not trust half of these guys to do my laundry. Therein lies the problem with anything outside the super elite.

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

Click to expand...

But going to, say a #25 school. Do you really trust U Indiana Kelley MBAs with your future? This is the problem which I did not anticipate before doing an MBA. I would not trust half of these guys to do my laundry. Therein lies the problem with anything outside the super elite.

My experience with the cohort of 'super elite' MBAs is that they're pretty ******* dumb too.

I've heard that and you could be right, but think, if HBS is ******* dumb, how much further down on the dumb scale is Notre Dame

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

Click to expand...

The most flabbergasting part of school is the level of education, you could seriously learn this stuff on your own part time. yes having a promiment, dynamic and cool professor is nice and all, and if you need structure and due dates maybe it will help you, but this is not rocket science, not even close.

I should have done a co-term Masters right out of undergrad, forget this MBA crap.

MBA courses are about teaching concepts within a context. Clearly you can learn many of these concepts on your own. The context is provided by the professor as well as by your peers who share their experience. Class discussion is the main reason to attend a full-time top-10/5 program where the quality of the students and their diverse backgrounds elevate the level of discussion .

Originally Posted by Pennglock

Click to expand...

My experience with the cohort of 'super elite' MBAs is that they're pretty ******* dumb too.

I am not sure I can attest to the quality of people and how dumb they are (since maybe I am dumb myself), but many of the students in the top-5 programs are fairly smart. Probably they do not belong to the 99% percentile, but they are pretty smart and committed.
Many... but not all.

The MBA experience will vary greatly based on the expectations and experiences of each student. I really enjoyed my MBA and were able to get a huge boost from it in terms of income and career progress, even though I was already on top of my class (a top 10 school). However, some of my friends believe they didn't get much out of it at all. I do agree that there are some dumb MBAs. I think that is because the schools believe in mixing up the backgrounds of students in each cohort and that leads to admitting a bunch of students with totally irrelevant backgrounds but good leadership potentials, etc. Business Week has the best forum for those interested in MBAs at http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-bschools/start/

Originally Posted by cross22

Click to expand...

The MBA experience will vary greatly based on the expectations and experiences of each student. I really enjoyed my MBA and were able to get a huge boost from it in terms of income and career progress, even though I was already on top of my class (a top 10 school). However, some of my friends believe they didn't get much out of it at all.

I do agree that there are some dumb MBAs. I think that is because the schools believe in mixing up the backgrounds of students in each cohort and that leads to admitting a bunch of students with totally irrelevant backgrounds but good leadership potentials, etc.

Business Week has the best forum for those interested in MBAs at http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-bschools/start/

There is a huge difference between average students and top students even at top schools. It really is mindblowing sometimes. I've seen people who got in on some combination of factors and were total failures. And some were absolutely brilliant. But anyway, it really is sort of simple. Top schools offer amazing resources, reputation, etc. It makes a lot of difference, but it is up to you to take advantage of everything there is out there - from networking to leadership to recruiting.

Has anyone here enrolled in a 'Global' executive MBA - Kellogg, Georgetown-ESADE etc? If so, opinions on the experience, especially the quality of instruction, would be most helpful.

Originally Posted by cross22

Click to expand...

Business Week has the best forum for those interested in MBAs at http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-bschools/start/
Yeah, great stuff. http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx...ools&tid=85486

Bumping old thread. I recently scored well on the GMAT; however, my splits were a little off. My quant percentile was 77%, which was lower than I was scoring during practice tests (typical percentile ranking of 86-93%). Thus, I'm not hurdling the traditional 80/80 split level. Is this cause for concern if applying to top-5 MBA?

I had a 3.9 GPA in Finance in undergrad from top 25 public undergrad business school (i.e. not highly reputed). All things being equal, should I consider additional certifications to lend more credence to quant sufficiency, or should I consider retaking the test? My aggregate score was right in line with practice test scores, but my splits were typically more normal during practice runs.

If anyone is in the know or can offer advice, I'd be much appreciative.

Thanks

Originally Posted by fairholme_wannabe

Click to expand...

Bumping old thread. I recently scored well on the GMAT; however, my splits were a little off. My quant percentile was 77%, which was lower than I was scoring during practice tests (typical percentile ranking of 86-93%). Thus, I'm not hurdling the traditional 80/80 split level. Is this cause for concern if applying to top-5 MBA?

I had a 3.9 GPA in Finance in undergrad from top 25 public undergrad business school (i.e. not highly reputed). All things being equal, should I consider additional certifications to lend more credence to quant sufficiency, or should I consider retaking the test? My aggregate score was right in line with practice test scores, but my splits were typically more normal during practice runs.

If anyone is in the know or can offer advice, I'd be much appreciative.

Thanks

I'm going thru apps right now as well. I'm guessing if you did a 77% percentile in math and presumably well on the verbal, you're at about high 600s overall? Unless you have some kick ass work experience or you slaughtered a bunch of terrorists in the war, I would say retake the test. That's well under the averages for Stanford/HBS/Wharton, and your undergrad school probably bumps you down even more. Someone correct me, but from everything I've heard from current students and alumni, the criteria for admissions is 1) gmat, 2) brand name of company and job function, 3) school and major, 4) gpa, 5) extracurriculars.

Originally Posted by bananananana

Click to expand...

I'm going thru apps right now as well. I'm guessing if you did a 77% percentile in math and presumably well on the verbal, you're at about high 600s overall? Unless you have some kick ass work experience or you slaughtered a bunch of terrorists in the war, I would say retake the test. That's well under the averages for Stanford/HBS/Wharton, and your undergrad school probably bumps you down even more. Someone correct me, but from everything I've heard from current students and alumni, the criteria for admissions is 1) gmat, 2) brand name of company and job function, 3) school and major, 4) gpa, 5) extracurriculars.
I'm not an expert at all, but I made a 710 or 720 and was rejected from UGA's Terry College of Business (admittedly not a very prestigious school, though I am really enjoying my time here) twice before getting in to do my JD/MBA. They seem to value work experience much more highly than GMAT score (although I had tons of internships, I had little to no "industry work experience.")

I think that's a completely different situation thoguh if you didn't have relevant full time industry work experience. Almost every program i've looked at really required some level of work experience after college.

Originally Posted by bananananana

Click to expand...

I think that's a completely different situation thoguh if you didn't have relevant full time industry work experience. Almost every program i've looked at really required some level of work experience after college.

That's true; JD/MBA joint degrees are probably a little unique.