Is the MBA an overrated degree/qualification?
"For some situations, an MBA can be overrated in the sense that given the cost of time and money, it isn't going to be a great return in some cases. There can be tens of thousands of dollars and a couple of years to get an MBA that some people believes should automatically make them worth $x more in their salary and life should be simple. I'd likely inquire as to what expectations do you have for what an MBA will do for you. Are you expecting to make connections in getting the degree? Are you expecting to learn about how to run a business from the coursework? Are you expecting something else? Depending on what you are expecting, I could see MBA as being anything from a great choice to a lousy choice for people. As noted by Pete Belford's comment, an MBA from a ""degree mill"" would be all but worthless. Where you go can reflect the value of the education as some universities are known for their program about this such as Ivy League schools." The quality of the MBA is really what decides if it's worth it. You have to make sure the school where you are going to is highly regarded or even prestigious. There is a big difference between what you find prestigious and others find prestigious. The student believing it is an awesome school is not enough, the companies and recruiters must believe it too.  Make sure you do your homework on the ranking of the MBA program. Additionally, your undergraduate plays a role how well your MBA is perceived. A decent undergraduate degree complemented with an MBA from a highly ranked school will put you in a trajectory for a high salary and a management position. There is a distinct difference between 'having a degree' and 'being genuinely smart and business savvy'. If you're genuinely smart and business savvy you could theoretically break into the business world with no degree and make a decent salary. The trouble there is that many people aren't smart and business savvy until they get a degree.  On the other hand, it's very possible to get a degree and be completely oblivious about how to conduct your career (poor resume / interviewing skills, no business sense etc). In that case an MBA might not be totally useful (but probably still will be to a degree). However, if you ARE smart about how you conduct your career, an MBA should help you immensely. It depends on what you want it for If it is just salary then maybe not, for instance, some MBA programs may suggest their graduates make $100,000 per year, but you work in an oil field barely finishing high school and make $300,000 a year.  If you go for the MBA right now, you may miss your chance to work in the oil industry for another few years (or weeks), but at the same time, the MBA lasts forever (although, real world experience is also relevant) and it may give you a leg up when you are 50 years old in the unemployment line (or maybe not, because you are overqualified) everything in life is a cost/benefit analysis Passing the GRE lasts for five years, so keep that in mind
If you can get into the top school, it's a no-brainer to go that route.  An MBA at a top school will not only give you an education taught by world-renowned professors but also a large network of students and alumni. "With any institution or organization, you're always going to have top, middle, and bottom performers. I don't think we should select prospective employees based on schools or brands, but the world is a vast place and having those things like brands as markers or indicators serves as a practical heuristic for recruiters. However, Many of my past colleagues from non ""top brand"" institutions are just as smart and capable. The idea is that the more selective the educational institution, the more likely it is to filter for top candidates who can then be fed into companies down the road. But the reality is that the filter is very narrow due to class size and school size so a lot of equally qualified candidates also get filtered out of the school because of marginal differences or sometimes just random luck. Therefore these incredible students end up attending their next top choice. That's the reason we shouldn't only hire from top schools. More talented people overflow to other schools.   As a side note, Malcolm Gladwell is like the Myth Busters tv show, but for books. Entertaining, but ultimately flawed in several ways that he analyzes statistics and interprets data.   Source: HBS MBA class of 2015. Currently interning at Amazon for summer. Will provide proof if required." I can't speak for all business schools but only my personal experiences as a student and then working professional.   I graduated from a program ranked in the top 5 nationally and interviewed with several top companies (Intel, Ford, Sandisk, BP) right out of college before selecting the firm I began my career with.   As I've moved on to other jobs having this degree has definitely opened doors for me and landed me interviews I might not otherwise have gotten. Plus the program I was in was heavily focused on case studies which is far superior to just lectures and note taking. "Why?  I did comp sci and have an MBA. I also do EMT work as a volunteer in a rural community.  Do my toes are in both pools.  I would really question deeply the motives from moving to business from medicine.  Despite the articles you see, an MBA is hardly the road to riches. Most do okay. Top tier grads are making very good money. These are also a small % of people out there working.  Even those making good money sacrifice that for really shitty hours and shit work for a while until they break into the higher earning spots.  The ""models and bottles"" is exaggerated to beg in with, and less and less common every year.  When someone asks me about getting an MBA or finance I ask why. What us their real reason. If its money, don't do it. Do it because you actual ly love the business of business. I have traded stocks since I was 12. Its always been interesting. If I forced myself to do it for the money, I'd be poor and miserable.  I am not rich. But I am comfortable and I live the life and schedule I want. None of that is from that slip of paper. The knowledge I could have (and did) get on my own.   I trade the markets, do real estate, and have 1-3 entrepreneural projects at any given time. Its the life I created for myself. I found it was really the only  way for me to get what I wanted. My goals never fit we all with institution goals.  TL;DR-  what's your motivation? Its probably a shitty move." "No, getting a liberal arts degree at a non-prestigious university is worthless. You can graduate from an Ivy League school or LAC equivalent with a degree in history/philosophy/English/etc. and go work on Wall Street or in MBB consulting.   There very few fields where you have to be able to step in day 1 and have great technical knowledge. Mostly your degree and school are about signalling* that you can learn what's thrown at you.   EDIT: ""Signalling"" and typos I couldn't correct on my phone." "I have a BA in Economics from the University of North Texas and I think it's a wonderful degree. I paired it with a finance minor. As others have said, the BA degree has more theory and less quantitative skills, but I found the quant skills I learned in my BA (through multiple regression/time series) to be a great start for an entry level job out of college.   I'll also say that while it's not a ""business"" degree, it has major implications in business. No, you won't know accounting, but the theory you learn in economics is applied in accounting, in operations, in finance, in marketing, etc. Honestly, if you're smart and you know how to apply what you learn in Econ, you can do whatever you want." No studies are cited about the education of corporate management.  I bet you'd find a lot of those MBA's have undergrad degrees in engineering and science.  The company presidents where I worked were all former scientists or engineers with MBA's, including two astronauts.  Other aerospace companies were the same. The more technical the business, the more I bet this is true. "Couple things, I will admit I was wrong about the total graduates at each of those programs; however, numbers taper out the lower the program is down to about 250-300 a class. Also, cut each of those numbers down to about 1/2 - 1/3 and you get the group that's actually focused on finance. Many MBAs do consulting, marketing, product development, etc nowadays.  Also I'm a bit offended by you saying I don't understand the CFA. Couldn't be more mistaken boss, I'm siting for L3 in June like you. The requirement is only 2 years in an ""investment decision"" role, this also means A LOT of back office risk guys qualify. That's a pretty fungible qualification, you don't have to be a PM to qualify. I have a buddy who qualified having done 2 years in fund accounting, not exactly sell-side ER.  I'm also going to guess you're a trader/brokerage/Cap Markets guy? If you wanna throw titles around I'm in a front office role at a BB, too, and worked at worked on buy-side research at a &gt;$150bn value shop. CFA is definitely more desired in sell-side markets focused as opposed to IBD where an MBA is more useful (more strategy focused).   The CFA is vital for boning up on quantitative skills an MBA won't cover, I'll absolutely give you that. But a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming a CFA is their ticket to bigger and better things. If you're working in back office risk management, getting a CFA doesn't immediately qualify you to do ER (which is a VERY common pitfall I see). Like an MBA it teaches everyone how to do the same type of analysis, too (another reason  the title means less and less).   Last weekend I had a conversation with a friend of a friend about this very thing! He's sitting for L3 CFA, works back office at a very notable HF, and expects to be moved up (without any indication that he will) to research when he's done. I asked his opinions about things like the European situation, fiscal cliff, and a hard landing in china. Not only was he not familiar these concepts he didn't even know what HFT was. The CFA gives you the tools to analyze the impacts of pension liabilities on EPS, but it still takes a passion about the markets, as well as creative/analytical judgement, to make it to ER.   My only point is an MBA and CFA are very similar in many ways. Both tend to hold their noses way to high, too. It's about what you chose to get out of it and too often people care more about the title than the process, which is why they are still stuck in mediocrity after completing the designations.   Go through a list of the biggest PMs in the business, most don't have either MBAs or CFAs! They achieved alpha by not following standard quantitative models but exploring creative and strategic avenues others undervalue while maintaining strict discipline. A model is a tool to better describe behavior and understanding of markets, it's not a solution." Agreed my friend, and the UK is the country that is the furthest away from the European reality. You have schools charging 1 to 8k for a full years tuition.   I know a case of someone having to sell his home to afford a top MBA in Europe (obviously it paid off), which goes to show how hard for europeans it is to afford US prices for education, meanwhile in the US they just hand it over to you. The problem comes when the Navients of the world come knocking on your door and you can't even save a penny I second the above post. I am a CFA charterholder, and have an MBA.  The CFA Charter is the gold standard for asset management and investment research. Plus, it is a self-study program. You can sit for the Level I exam as a Senior in undergraduate, and this is a huge positive signal to prospective employers. Did you go to bschool? You actually do learn a lot. There are a lot of things that I do know that some of my fellow BA's in Business don't know. (business plan writing, how to properly read a financial statement, promotional strategy creation). Also, I got hooked up with a really cool internship that got me in front of some big VC's. There is value, is it worth the results? No.   But let's be honest here, neither is law school (unless you go to a T14). Have you seen the job market? Brutal. &gt;What, specifically, do you believe it is about the MBA experience (2 semesters of core business skills, and 2 semesters of electives, all taken on top of a bachelors degree) that causes the problem?  Business degrees are incredibly over-rated, I'm speaking as a business owner with quite a few employees here. I speak to a lot of business owners, some with degrees, some without, and most of them say the same - business cannot be taught in a classroom.   The theory side to business is obviously helpful but in no way ensures you will become successful, and they really shouldn't be held with such high regard. In my own company I tend to try and avoid hiring people with business degrees, they tend to be incredibly arrogant (in my experience) and believe they deserve to be treated on the same level as entrepreneurs just because they have a degree. "Why not both?  I have been working and studying at the same time since I was 13... for all purposes, when I finished high school, I was working and studying part time... until I got my B.Sc in Computer Science and Masters in Business Administration (MBA)... developed my career and now I am a senior executive making excellent money and supervising many people.  In retrospect, I want to tell you that the degrees did not help me at all in my career in the sense that did not teach me anything of significance for real work and career life, nor did they lend me my first jobs.   However(!!!), without a degree (piece of paper), I could not advance to my current position because ""degree required for this position"".  One more thing, very important: when I studied for my MBA, and worked full(!) time, I had no choice but to take night classes (City University of NY, Baruch College, one of the best business schools in the country). **This was the best experience I had in all the of my college studies!** Why? Because all(!) the professors who teach in the night were working in the morning in their normal jobs - none of them were tenured professors.   They were real business people, grounded, know what they are talking about, and they were teaching because they loved to teach and share the experience and knowledge. **Do you understand what I am saying here?**  So, I did not get the theoretical nonsense from them. They actually taught us what really happens, the real approach to things, and the real issues to address.  P/S: My son is following my way. Since he was 11, he works in the areas he like (Minecraft) and he made money since then, running classes, getting to know people in the field, getting experience, getting work ethics, etc. If he wants to go to Harvard, fine with me, but I think he just need to go to ""reasonable"" low cost college to get those pieces of papers called ""Diplomas""." You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple. "The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down.    If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in ""Fund #1"" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective).     If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1.    This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep.   I don't think this is manipulative based on costs.    It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both."