This is so weird, because I was just reading this article today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23468789/

Here's an excerpt:

Lately it seems that everyone and his or her brother has been going back to school to get an MBA, but the importance of this higher degree is getting diluted, and it’s never really been a guarantee you’ll get that plum executive job.

Believe it or not, the majority of CEOs running major companies in the United States do not have MBA degrees. Research done by BusinessWeek magazine in 2006 found that fewer than one in three executives who hold high level positions in corporate America had an MBA.

probably because many CEOs went to school in a time where MBAs werent the norm, or even the requirement. their years of on-job experience, 10-15 years down the line to get to executive status, theres no need or time to get one. and certaintly not needed, since a CEO is making the kind of money an MBA would warrant.

no one is doing the degree for the experience. go get an MFA then.

http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/mba/adm...nance/cost.cfm
Wharton is $71k yearly

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/aboutstern/
interestingly enough, Stern is cheaper at $40K yearly (perhaps they didnt factor in housing costs?)

http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/costsummary.html
HBS is $77k yearly

http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/admiss...d/tuition.html
Tuck (Dartmouth) is $70K yearly

http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/mba/lea...ition/expenses
Columbia is $74K yearly

so umm yeah. not off the mark by that much.

True, true. Also, many of the CEOs of major companies started the companies themselves or their families did, and didn't have to climb the corporate ladder the way a lot of people have to now.

I'm seriously considering getting my MBA. Yes, I'm an architect, and I'm not looking for a way to hop onto the fast track of the corporate ladder. No, I've learned that most architects don't know how to run a business. Many are arrogant and never really had to learn how to make a profit. Most architecture firms--even the big name firms--aren't pulling a profit, their employees aren't getting anywhere near the standard benefits, and morale is low.

At my firm, it's a little different. The people in charge actually have business training in addition to their architecture backgrounds, and you can totally see the difference. My only problem is that I want to go to a good business school. I don't need to go to HBS, Stanford, Columbia, or Stern, but I can't see spending all my money going to a fly-by-night B-school.

yeppers... and my figure is guesstimating a tuition increase by next year since that is when I will likely start if I don't get this gig I put in for.... and books.

I'm looking at a few schools in my current area that are good schools , but that may change if I have to move for work.

I agree.

Plus, the top execs and CEOs not having MBAs doesn't mean that those they employ won't be required or "required" to have an MBA. Even if the MBA isn't a requirement, I've seen many announcements that say "100K...10 years experience...MBA a plus" and it really is a plus. You will be dealing with an aspect of the job that the CEOs won't be and you won't be competing with the CEOs but instead with others for the top jobs and business leads. That's why there's a corporate division of labor.

Those are, without a doubt, outstanding schools, but there are many other well-regarded schools that will give you a great education, good contacts and will "look good" on your resume and cost for the full degree what the schools above might cost you yearly, if you either don't get into those programs or don't want to be paying loans until you're 70. If you haven't looked at them yet, here's US News & WR's list of top MBA programs and BusinessWeek's list of top Executive MBA programs:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gra...rank_brief.php
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/03/emba_rank.htm

It all depends. If you want to work in New York, DC, or Chicago, good luck on getting a "top job" coming from a regional or less-regarded school. Plus, the top 20 schools on the US News list are still $40K/year or more--even the state schools. If you know you're going to stay in your region, maybe a second-tier school will work for you. But, you can't honestly tell someone who wants to be an i-banker in Manhattan that they "can go to any school," 'cause they can't.

An Executive MBA isn't even the godsend that people make it out to be, unless again, you're sticking to your region, or if your company's paying for it and you intend on staying at your company for the long term. My ex-boyfriend graduated at the top of his eMBA class at Cornell (a top-ranked traditional MBA program), but he expected the job offers to come rolling in when he finished. Last I heard, he was still at the job he hated, still expecting the big offers to come in. Luckily his company paid for the degree, so he isn't in debt for it. An eMBA isn't going to offer you the same opportunities that a full-time MBA will.

I probably sound like a real jerkoff, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart, in part because I'm considering an MBA, and also because I'm an unrepentant school snob.

Baby, you know I'd take caaaare of you!

I have often thought of going back to school to get my MBA. However, when I was an undergrad we were told that it is best to get a few years (5 to 10) of experience in a real work environment before you get into an MBA program.

As for how important an MBA is... it really does depend on the company size. For example, smaller companies are less likely to require an MBA for their executives.

Hi dukedg,

To address the first paragraph- it is very true that there has been a rush of people going for their MBA. But I would argue this is all the more reason to get one. It is becoming a standard expectation as college has become so much easier for reasons that would take a whole other thread.

And the article is right- the MBA is no guarantee of a great job. But not finding a good job is entirely the student's fault in the present job market. The world is full of unemployable people- even in MBA programs.

What is important is opportunity. At Texas, there is an entire career center in the business school and top companies flock there to interview MBAs and undergraduates. Every week there are interviews to be had- and it all comes right to you. Some other departments like Engineering are much the same, but most other students don't have this luxury. And so anyone who finishes an MBA at a good school in a decent economy (which we are in for the purposes of employment at this level) has no good excuse for not finding an acceptable job.

As for the majority of CEOs not having MBAs- I can believe that. Others have given 2 of the best reasons- 1, the MBA was fairly rare when many people of typical CEO age were graduating and getting out into the world and 2, a lot of companies are family owned-run or promote from within.

Plus, the number of really great companies with opportunity for advancement and quality management are limited. If you want to work in the best companies today, you need a graduate degree- and in the future being bi-lingual or multi-lingual will become even more important than it is now. Finance and accounting are also more important. With SOX, revenue accounting issues with complex new technology products, the growing complexity of debt financing and global companies with increasingly complex international accounting and tax issues- the finance and accounting areas are where the big demand is now. I have seen a great surge in CPAs who rose up in companies on the accounting and finance side becoming CEOs.

Point being, I can believe that fewer than 1 in 3 top executives have MBAs. But among high quality companies with growth opportunity for new employees- it has been my experience that most have MBAs, and certainly the ones who advance quickly up the ladder.

There is no substitute for a good work ethic and experience. I have put people in accounting/finance roles who did not even have undergrad accounting degrees because they were really smart and worked hard- and did a great job.

But in the long run, there is not much time to get to the top if that is where you want to go. I was rare in getting my MBA right after college- most people work a few years first. So by the time most people finish an MBA in their mid 20s, they have about 15 years to really progress to the VP level ranks if they want to be CFOs or CEOs someday. That can come even faster in the startup world- a lot faster.

If you want to move that fast and be in position for a solid career at the upper eschelons, the MBA is really critical.

Many companies, for example, take newly hired MBAs and put them on rotation for 1-3 years working with management in different departments. It is a rare chance to see the whole company and establish a network of support directly with upper management that almost noone coming in at the entry level will ever have a chance to achieve. And it comes right away- you don't have to work 10 years to get there.

In a practical sense, the real value of an MBA is time. Assuming one is a good candidate- it gets you into a new job at a higher level much faster, and precious years are spent building from that higher starting point instead of slogging it out in entry level assignments trying to get noticed.

But that does not mean all MBAs will get to the top or that non-MBAs have no chance. It is just a matter of improving the odds.

That is definitely something several of my MBA-grad friends will attest to. In the MBA program, a lot of what they went through were real-world examples & discussing how certain companies do things certain ways, so if you jump into the program right after undergrad, you might not have as much to contribute compared to your peers.

My two cents. Graduate, Get a Job, Wait a year until you have enough tenure to be reimbursed for education and let your employer pay for it.

No, you will not live on campus. Yes, you will be distracted by your full-time job. But, you will be able to bring something to the table during your class discussions and help out on projects.

Nothing peeved me more than to have a recent grad without any business experience to be on a project with me. They could not contribute a thing and we ended up assigning them the busy-work. Trust me, you will get a lot more out of your education and you will be less in-debt.

Interesting topic. I had a lunch meeting with my director today and this was one of the topics. His view was that in the technical arena, what was more important was having the technical knowledge and completing a MS in a technical area. He felt it could be an asset, but didn't seem to be something that was absolutely necessary for those in technical fields looking to move up.

Any thoughts? Anyone in a technical field go and get an MBA later?

I totally agree. If you have an employer that will pay all or some of the education, go for it.

My employer no longer foots the entire bill which is kind of a bummer, but they do pay up to a certain amount.

For the friends that I had that graduated recently, their entire program was paid for provided they passed all their classes with good grades and stayed with their company for 5+ yrs after they graduated, otherwise they would have to pay it back.