Well stated, I especially agree with the part about not having to put up with the corporate/political crap. That's huge.
You are wrong, yet again. The income potential everyone points to for indy traders is very illusory because one blowup, one accident etc and your indy career is gonzo. At a top tier firm, you can make a few mistakes and you'll still be OK, get hurt in a car accident and you still have a real income. I would bet that the number of millionaires created by top tier firms dwarfs the number of millionaires created by indy trading. So, if you play percents, thats your answer. Maybe thats why grads of top schools run to top tier firms and not to prop shops or FX bucket shops.
i'm not playing %, obviously arcade trading not for everyone, select few succeed. there is no shame in working for someone else 12 hrs a day.
Problem with business is ... it isn't school and it doesn't happen in a textbook. You learn by doing. Anyone can pick up a book and read about so called "best practices". Best practices are relative: they depend upon who calls them "best". A whole bunch of the professors at Stanford couldn't run or develop a business if they tried: others can. So, what are you paying for ? Like I said, If you cant manage your career without an MBA the nthe problem is not the lack of a degree .....
Who cares if they accept 8% of their applicants ? There is nothing magic at Stanford - the same information is availble elsewhere. Dont get hung up over stanford, harvard, etc. If this is your focus - how "competitive" the school is then become a football player. You dont need an MBA to make money and have a good career. Its up to you, not your credentials.....
You are putting a lot of faith in the school and its network. I've seen it first hand have you ? Your own initiative and connections can get you as far as the career office and alumni connections. If this network is worh 300-400K to you then by all means pay for it. In my opinion, it is not.
PRT, I call them as I see them. In this case I have been to the mountain and the experience was well worth the time and the money. If it didn't do it for you -- I assume you have an MBA from a top 10 school? -- then I'm sorry to hear that. Sam
Hasn't the value of the MBA become dilluted over time? It is my impression that it was a bigger deal in the 1980s than it is today. It seems to have become a collasal marketing effort to convince many 25-30 year old men and women to pursue the advanced degree. Now, I know that we are debating top tier programs, so I guess this is what's at stake, but it does seem somewhat related. It would appear to me that the best route are these financial engineering programs. They appear more rigorous and industry specific.
I would question the assumption that if you left a 100K job to spend a year in school that your opp cost is 100K flat. It is not. Much of that 100K goes to taxes, expenses and much less goes to actually building your net worth. If you are saving 25% gross/year, then maybe the opp cost is 25K, but def not 100K. Other than that, best of luck to you! BTW: I read stats on HBS grads... in tech bubble times they were neting 130K in first year (average) and ~250-300K three years later. Anyone here a top bschool grad? What's your take on the salary/cost benefit analysis?
No. PhD.... and I taught at Stanford - which incidentally is a great school ... but ... its only a school. If you really believe that the only way you can succeed in business is if you have a "top Ten" MBA then in my opinion you have already lost the race .......