Thinking of doing an MBA: Is an $80K top MBA school better than a $24K online MBA school?
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. "I met two MBA graduates from Harvard - both made VPs at large Canadian companies (i.e. $1B or greater annual revenue) after working 2-5 years as management consultants post-graduation - one is now a divisional president making over $500K in salary along. When I asked one of them (one that is not yet making $500K in salary) about the Harvard MBA difference, he said the brand-name and the network probably set it apart from others, since most MBA schools now uses the same material as Harvard's.   I tend to agree with his thoughts - I never did felt the caliber of my professor had much to do with my ability to apply what I learn to practical use.  In my own MBA education, the professor did more facilitation than ""teaching"".  Apparently that is the norm, as MBA is less about being fed information than it is about demonstrating the ability to analyze and present information.  Back to M.Attia's question, I would go with the highest ranked MBA education I could afford (both financially and lifestyle).  A friend of mine was able to get his employer to pay for the $90K tuition fee from Rotman, along with job security for 5 years (not a bad idea in this economy).  I settled for Lansbridge University in Fedricton because the flexibility of distance learning and cost was important to me, though I was able to get my employer to pay for the MBA after I started (I switched group within the company shortly after I started my MBA and my new boss was able to get the approval without locking me in)."
Instead of saying which one is better, which is too subjective, I think it is more important to understand what these institutions are.  They are kind of different animals. Edward Jones pretty much a full service wealth manager.  They meet with you in person, advise you on what retirement and savings accounts to get, they talk to you to evaluate your risk preferences.  They will talk to you about planning for your kids' college and about your insurance situation. They will probably attend your kids' bar mitzvahs and stuff too.  Of course, this isn't free.  With Edward Jones you will pay a fixed percentage of your managed wealth to them every year.  And they will likely put your money in expensive mutual funds.  And those mutual funds will charge a special 12b-1 fee, which is a kickback to the wealth manager.  Plan on giving 2% or so of your total wealth to the manager per year, plus whatever the mutual funds charge.   I don't have experience with Betterment, but they appear to be a robo advisor.  Robo advisors attempt to do the same kinds of things as wealth managers, but rely on computer algorithms and web pages to give you advice whenever possible.  This makes some sense because most people aren't actually that special in terms of their financial situation.  I don't know their cost structure, but presumably it will be significantly cheaper than Edward Jones.  They will almost certainly put you in cheaper funds (index funds and ETF's).  Think of it as a cost-conscious alternative to Edward Jones. Vanguard is a discount broker and a mutual fund family.  Their funds are among the biggest and cheapest in the world.  Fees on many of these funds will be a fraction of the equivalent funds Edward Jones will put you in.  They will charge you nothing at all to manage your money.  They will give you some assistance and advice if you call them but don't expect any house calls.  They aren't particularly in the business of giving advice.  If you know what you want to invest in, this is the cheapest way to do it by far.  Basically you won't have to pay anything at all except the actual cost of the assets you are investing in. Which is the best?  Depends on your own preferences and ability.  If you do not want to learn about personal finance and don't particularly care about whether you are getting the best return--if you don't mind paying for a personal touch--Edward Jones might be a good choice.  For most people who are comfortable asking this type of question online and interested in learning about finance even a little bit, I'd expect that Betterment or Vanguard will be a better choice.  For people who are willing to learn a bit of finance and manage their own affairs, using Vanguard (or a close competitor, like Fidelity) will ultimately result in the most wealth generated (the least given away to the financial industry). MBA and CFA aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.   MBA teaches you a broader set of skills and, more importantly, gives you access to a network of alumni that can open doors for you. Network is perhaps the most valuable part of top MBA programs.   CFA is a gold standard in finance and would give you a set of useful skills for wealth management.   If you can get into top 10 business schools I would say do both. Otherwise, if you are absolutely sure about money management, then go for CFA. It’s cheaper and you can still  earn income while pursuing it. You really need to back that up. If you are talking about graduate degrees it is a way different ballgame as math and science researchers generally pay similar tuition's after GA and TA stipends are given out.  This takes cost out of the equation and higher prestige generally means accepting better students.  Thus their success become difficult to separate between their ability and the education they got.  As for undergrad degrees, the prestige doesn't matter.  You'll actually find a lot of public universities on those lists right up next to their expensive cousins.  Then there's this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597204575483730506372718.html. Life is a lot more difficult if you accept the constraints that are sold to you. 80 hours per week for a $90k salary is completely unacceptable, imo, unless you're absolutely in love with your job and it's all you want to do anyway.  You can earn money in proportion to how much value you create for people if you offer something of value.  A degree in isolation, even from the best school in your field, is completely worthless though. Strictly from an ROI perspective, this is likely very dependent on your field.  Some masters degrees (quant finance, business, engineering) will be well worth the debt, since a degree from the right university will yield a respectable ROI, whereas other degrees/fields (philosophy, fine arts, etc) will be basically a waste of money. Regardless of the field you can input your information into an ROI calculator and see what you get.  I typically err on the side of using the lowest average reported salary for the degree programs you're considering (self reported salary data is notoriously inflated). Lets do some math. There were 11,620 people who passed L3 last year and became charter holders. Now lets just take the top 25 MBA programs, that'd be 460 people/class graduating to reach this number. Actual numbers are MUCH lower than this.  Trust me, I'm a big fan of the CFA, but I know some really dumb people who are charter holders because they learned to memorize a test. These same people would never get admitted to a top 10, no less 25 MBA program.  One thing I will give you, there are WAY too many MBAs in general (partially because of all the part-time, night-time, executive ones)... But an MBA is very different then a CFA in that its banded by school and category. Everyone with a CFA has the same CFA; however, a Wharton degrees sure carries a lot more clout than a UMD one... "Well, you mentioned McKinsey earlier and that's a consulting firm.  All of them draft from the Ivy's (plus the other top tiers) but it also helps to come from a school that is well known but not an Ivy. (NYU comes to mind)  My friends from CUNY Honors Baruch got jobs in accounting pretty easily as CUNY Baruch has programs set up with different companies and a fairly established network in the accounting field. It's pretty good if all you want to do is accounting.   In my experience, there's less of a ""prestige"" focus with IB's and accounting firms. The top consulting firms, on the other hand, are quite ""prestige"" focused. (worked in one that hired 80-90% from top tiered schools)  It's hard to put an umbrella statement over everything because there are exceptions. And, networking can trump everything.  You should be less concerned about schools and more about grades. A brand name won't help if you have an average GPA. To that point, take a major you'd do well at. Statistics, computer science, mathematical engineering are in demand but your major won't help if the work is too difficult/uninteresting leading to lower grades." &gt; (1) The value of the MBA is in the network  Really?  That's the value?  No, it's the letters behind your name that people look at when you submit an application / resume.  If it's not there they pass you by.  Furthermore, an MBA isn't the only way to build a network.  Also, congrats on finding some great entry level jobs.  When this kid is thinking about his 1st promotion and his peers already have an MBA, he's screwed.  Great for the kids at your school... they're not eligible for anything other than entry level jobs without one.  You're behind the trend.  Sorry, you're giving the kid bad advice.  It will not do him any harm to get it right away. The context actually was higher education and student debt load (which extends to cost). You can try to broaden it but the title of the thread, the linked article, the comment I replied to and my comments all reference higher education and costs. Once again, your comment is correct in a broader context, just not in the one we were in, at least not to all readers clearly.   You want to be right but what you need to accept is that you just flubbed your post (tbh I agree with you on most points here) and should likely add some more detail to your statements. [The website you mention](http://managementconsulted.com/consulting-jobs/2012-management-consulting-salaries-undergraduate-post-mba/# ) has starting salaries for those with undergrad degrees at $60,000, and as I mentioned above are not including bonus or 401k match.  My information is 5 years old now and is not too far off. $60k to work 100 hours a week is not worth it, at least not to me. That's why I recommended to get his/her MBA so they can get into the business at a six figure salary.  Source: I've been in the financial industry for 5 years now. I'm not sure why people are down voting you. There is no question the math and stats will be more intensive than what I used as an undergrad, but most of the programs I have talked to haven't suggested taking calc 3. But then again the programs i'm applying for aren't quant focused ones, defiantly not as quant heavy as a MS in comp finance would be.   Just curious, if your already at a BB how come you decided to go back for the MS and not an MBA? There are well established recruiting paths into the big bulge bracket banks. They recruit heavily from target schools, both undergrad and MBA. You don't just career switch into a front office role.  If you want to become a banker, you would typically enter as an Analyst, with a two or three year stint directly out of undergrad. You would have needed to get top grades from a target school and be successfully chosen from a very, very competitive recruiting pool.  If you already graduated, you will need a few years at a top firm, score 700+ on the gmat, get into a top bschool, deal with similar recruiting situations, and then enter as an Associate from your target MBA.   Competition is so tight I see CFA on everyone's resume. Lots of MBAs.   source: i work at a BB in NYC No evidence of 'elite prep school' so far based on my google search. Princeton and Goldman Sachs take a ton of normal people (extremely hardworking and clever of course but it's not about coming from the right family). It's not Morgan Stanley Comments in the blog are filled with butt-hurt dwllers with an MBA trying to argue his opinion.   Most people in MBA's think they're going to be Steve Jobs. If they're well connected they'll get a good salary but Steve Jobs are guys that start a company rather than go to an MBA. wow thanks for the info. So if i wanted a masters in finance, should i take  math electives to get them out of the way earlier? I'm a senior in high school and I'm very interested in finance, but I'll admit not the best at math..