Hi. Im a US citizen, have the generic bachelors degree from a US university, etc etc. I am interested in getting my MBA (not necessarily for trading, but possibiliy. I think more about international business, but finance is interesting). From what I can tell, MBA programs in the UK (and Australia i think) are generally 1 year programs opposed to the 2 year programs we have here in the US. I will not be going to a top school, or anywhere near a top school, so the obvious Ivy leagues in the US are not an option. Im wondering if anyone knows about perceptions of foreign acquired MBAs in the US job market. Are MBAs from the UK looked down upon? The same? With the exchange rate, UK MBAs are a bit pricey, but the shorter timeline is very attractive. I need to research more about Aussie programs, but any information or opinions would be helpful, thanks.
Most MBA's in Australia require you to have a graduate diploma (usually two years part time) to do your Masters so I don't think you will be able to reduce your time frame to MBA if that's your aim. Runningbear
Some basic thoughts. 1. Unless you go to Insead do a two year program. 2. Get into a school with brand recognition or don't go (imo). The cost is too high for just the education and the generic MBA tag. You can almost always get a major corporation to pony up later for most of the fees for a part time program. 3. I went to LBS (London Business School) back in the early '90s and came back to work in the US in private equity. It took a bit of scrambling but basically it worked like a charm. However, that was at the beginning of the boom years. Timing is important. 4. If you go to an international school make sure you are fluent in another language by the time you finish -- 2 is better. Just my $.02
i think Oxford and Cambridge will surpass Insead and LBS in the next 5 yrs. they have only been around a few years and already jumped in the top 30, they are both 10 month programs. Another way to go is to get a MSc in Finance and Eco, or Finance and Acct from London School of economics, if you do that you can get an MBA from Chicago in 12 months, they have an alliance.
Thanks for the replies guys. But keep in mind any "good" school (London Economics, Insead, etc) I am not going to get into. I have my reservations about getting an MBA due to the same reason sternlight mentioned - if its not a top school, its the cost benefit analysis doesnt look nearly sexy, BUT probably still worth it even with a generic MBA since my emphasis will probably NOT be in finance but international business since thats where my little bit of experience is. Getting around with a non-ivy bachelors nowadays is pretty useless, so it seems to be my only real option traditional-career wise. Or i can just be a rock star. Interesting about the Australian requirements. Ive lightly browsed around some of the MBA program websites, but didnt see anything obvious like this. Im not quite sure what it means to tell you the truth... Or, Canadian programs might be somewhat interesting. I understand theyre quite a bit cheaper (paying for the program isnt a problem for me, but cost benefit analysis is), and have decent average starting salaries.
Could be...definitely not one to predict the future. The argument has been that proximity to the City will give the edge to LBS -- over Oxbridge. Not sure that really carries that much weight but that's what I heard. My personal viewpoint is that 10 months is not nearly long enough for a quality course. Too many things will get left undone and there will be zero breadth. The MSC is a more interesting comparison as the focus is narrow and students come in so well prepped in Maths. However, the other end of that range is that true quants are now Phd's... Back to the original filter on "not a tier one school" I'd suggest researching companies that pay for employees to do a part time program and go that way. Admission tends to be a bit easier as the fees are higher. And of course, the cost/benefit is far superior. And as I pointed out, learning a few languages in the interim is time well spent.
I asked an "international staffing manager" (basically headhunters mixed with HR) in my family who blows through zillions of resumes for international high level exec types for a medium-large engineering/consulting firm about the prestige factor for advanced degrees. They said of course it plays a factor given similar competition, but this qualitative value is insignificant compared to the binary value of: have / have not. So apparently at least in the engineering consulting business, the prestige and school ranking is a lessor factor than the obvious salary discrepancy found in the finance sector. Also, this person is generally hiring people with 10+ years of experience, so that is weighted much more than their grad school ranking at the time, so this might be another reason.... Since im not neccesarily set on finance, any thoughts on this? Perhaps the gigantic starting salary difference we see in fresh MBAs school rankings is more prevalent in finance? Ideas?
Forget the UK! Reputation of educational institutions lags reality often by at least a century. "Venerable" institutions of learning seem often to have become old-age asylums for friendly well connected establishment characters. Honorary degrees are liberally bestowed in a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" manner. (Easy, fast-track "earned" degrees for foreign politico's and their kids as needed.) The Middle-age old principle of ABSOLUTE independence between University Faculty and Government has totally disappeared. Universities in Europe, UK certainly with the top, have become subservient tools of political cronyism.
With all due respect, this is a comment from someone who knows nothing about the matter under discussion.
Yes, This is true. Over time, expertise/track record outweighs credentials -- especially in technically oriented positions. However, at first companies are trying to hire "young guns" for entry level management positions and academic ability is one of the key delineators (i.e. good schools). This is as true in management consulting as it is in finance as it is in management training programs for post-MBA graduates. Ten years out is an entirely different ballgame. That's what you did with your MBA. So, I take your friend's comment to mean not having an MBA from a top 10 school is surmountable. My sister has her own firm and is very well off. She didn't even finish secondary school. She laughs at my MBA (as she hires talent where she needs it). But I digress. Specifically, there is no question in my mind that an MBA from a top 10 school (all other things being equal) is preferable to one from a second tier school. There is some question as to whether an MBA from a second tier school has a better payback than going to work now, doing a part-time programme, and getting your company to pay for it.