Grass "looks" always greener on the other side. I want you to seriously answer this: A 2 year MBA will set you back by 150k in tuition and living. Plus, assuming your opportunity cost at 100k per year (salary and bonus combined) would set you back by a combined total of 350k. Meanwhile, if you put 2 years in your current firm, you might get a promotion. This is all assuming you are a beginner, hardly profitable trader. If you are a successful trader and continue to make solid money, your bonus could be upwards of 200k. That completely changes the equation. Compare this to doing an MBA. What will it give you? Yes, you will get some contacts, you will get to know people, but so what. You will have to spend a lot of time on courses not directly of interest to you like HR, Marketing, Strategy etc. etc. Please answer this: Instead of doing an MBA, why not put all your effort at your current firm and try to become a super star trader earning millions. Of course, with the kind of firm you mentioned, a million is completely reasonable to expect if you are a solid trader.
+1 Hype surrounding an MBA program makes it hard to believe above, but mostly curriculum in trading/investment management in top 25 programs is not as strong as you can find in CMU/MIT quant programs. Exceptions would be couple of programs only like CMT and MIT.
You raise some very valid points, so I will address them. First, although it's theoretically possible for a superstar trader at a top prop shop to make seven-figures, those days of huge bonuses are pretty much gone. I mean I have friends who worked at these shops and made a killing during the "easy" money days of 2008 and are now semi-retired. Prop trading landscape has shifted significantly since then. With lower volume and vol, more regulations, etc., I'm not quite sure that we will see those days again. I'm pretty confident that at my firm the only ones making seven-figures are the owners. Heck, look at GETCO's financials when they bought knight, and it's obvious how much profit margins has shrunk in the last few years. Second, there are indeed a lot of classes in b-school that will not be directly related to my core interest, but I don't mind getting a broad general management education. Moreover, there is a big difference in curriculum and course offerings between the likes of wharton/booth/mit on one hand and say hbs/kellogg/tuck on the other. The latter are focused on consulting, general management, corporate strategy so have few interesting finance courses. The former, however, have a lot of upper level finance courses I can choose from, so academically I would be more than satisfied. Third, I agree that the short-term costs of doing an MBA is well into the six figures. With high tuition and cost of living, it's definitely a big sacrifice. However, I remain convinced that a top 6-7 program is worth it given my professional goals. If you wish to make a career transition, an MBA is probably the best way to go about so, especiall for fields such as banking, buyside, consulting. Given that my core interests are aligned with investment management rather than trading, that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. And long-term wise empirical studies have shown that a top MBA is always worth it. I have yet to meet a student or alum of these programs who regret attending. To put it bluntly, even if I were making say $500K/year as a trader, I would gladly leave that to go to b-school at say harvard, stanford, wharton, booth.
Errata in last line: it should read as: Exceptions would be couple of programs only like Chicago and Wharton.
Good point here There are people who regret doing their MBA from harvard, however it is hard to find them because of cognitive dissonance and social issues. First, it is hard to be critical of the choices one makes in their lives. Otherwise, this leads to cognitive dissonance - an internal struggle and who wants to struggle internally against themselves! Secondly, consider the social issues about admitting that your Harvard MBA was an inferior choice. Imagine yourself 10 years down the line admitting before an audience that going to HBS for an MBA was a sub-optimal decision. You need to be a superstar to admit this (like a company CEO). If you are just average (middle/senior manager in your career in 10 years), then you won't be able to admit it for the fear of being branded as another loser. Lastly, your example of 500k current salary is absurd. That makes your opportunity cost to be 1.15 million (500+500+150k) over 2 years. I can bet that average starting salary of top 10 MBA's in the Wharton/HBS class is lower than 500k. And salaries increase comparatively slowly in an investment management firm (examples are PIMCO etc.) I hope you are not an ET troll and I am not wasting my time writing down some critical points to think about for you. Anyways, ultimately its your career - but getting contrary advice/viewpoint almost always lead to a better decision. Good Luck!
On a somewhat related note, there was a story in the paper yesterday about Thunderbird (the grad school, not the fine wine). They're really hurting and have partnered with a for-profit institution; alumni fear their degrees will now be devalued. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...63496621812.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top
The MBA on the whole is indeed oversaturated. The top schools however (top 10, maybe top 15) are still worth it though. For MBA, the long-term value drops sharply as you go down the rankings.
There are still many ppl with top tier MBAs who can't find work or have had to take lower paying jobs in this slow healing economy. Something to think about....