MBA-does the school matter?

[mward04]

For folks attending business school only, I think it matters, but what about for MD/MBAs who plan to practice clinically?

What about for MD/MBAs who don't plan to practice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Twitch]

I'm wrapping up my MBA this Fall from a top twenty school and here are my thoughts on your question:

There are always exceptions, though a reasonable person would agree that a highly ranked school is able to attract and retain top notch faculty. In business school, unlike med school, attendance is typically required since you may have to argue your case or POV in class. Half the grade depends on what you say in class. So faculty matters. Course offering, facilities, etc, IMHO isn't quite a product differentiator.

With that background info, you need to ask yourself do you really want to get the most bang for your buck going through b-school? Would it help you in your medical career? I believe so. Some classes are amazing not just because of the course content but who teaches it. If you just want to learn some basic P&L concepts, marketing, finance, HR, etc - any b-school can teach you that. If you want more, find a school with great faculty (and a professional student body because they add as much to the classroom experience).

Good Luck,
-Y_Marker

 

[mward04]

I think it is a waste of time to get an MBA to help you manage a practice more effectively. An MBA degree is generally not directed toward small business management. I think you can get most of the knowledge you need by reading books and taking a course here and there. And, if you do decide to get an MBA, I don't think it matters much where you went to school because the content is largely the same.

On the other hand, if you are going to enter the corporate world, it DOES matter where you go. You can verify this by comparing the starting salaries at top 20 schools vs. the also rans. Also, you can compare the types of jobs taken by graduates of top 20 schools -- it is a very different list.

What about doing something in the middle, say healthcare administration for a large hospital (and you are still practicing)?

 

[surg]

If you are going into the traditional MBA-feeder job world (consulting/ i-banking/ etc.) directly brand matters. There's the top 3, the top 12-14 (who all think they are top 10) and the top 25-30 (who all think they are in the top 20. These pedigrees open doors that their non-pedigreed brethren can't open, both via on-campus recruiting and probably most importantly, their alumni networks.

For MD/DO-MBA's that want to access those jobs, the same basically applies, IMHO at the entry level. At the upper levels, your job history to date probably makes the most difference.

For those that want clinical jobs running small practices, etc. I tend to agree with flindophile that an MBA is not necessary, but if you must get one, virtually anywhere is fine. If you want to run a big hospital system, I've never found brand name to hurt. A friend of mine has a DO, an MBA from a top-10 school, and an MPH from Harvard, and inevitably, he says that the Harvard name seems to impress over any of the other things. He has held a number of VP level jobs in large health systems now. Of course, if you look at most physicians that run most health systems, very few have formal business training. As a recruiter once told me, if they choose a physician, they assume they need to beef up the COO position, and if they choose a non-physician, they tend to try to beef up the Chief Medical Officer position.

 

[Aucdoctobe]

This is a good topic. I wanted to answer earlier but I've been too occupied with the Caribbean forum.

I took the GMAT and scored very high. Yet, I also had some financial obligations, which required that I work fulltime and earn money.

So, I bypassed the opportunity and went to an unknown little state school. It allowed me to work while I completed my MBA. What I found is that it really doesn't make a difference where you go. It depends on the individual.

People from schools like Harvard, Yale, Emory (yes you Michael), do well. But that has more to do with the individual than the school itself. Individuals that are dedicated, hard working, focused are going to do well no matter where they go. After all, most of the faculty from state schools comes from schools that are in the top 10 business schools (amazingly). They teach the same thing that they learned.

If an individual is truly dedicated and good, it won't make a difference. I went to Cameron University for my MBA. I had to fight through some classes (especially working). After I finished, I received 2 nonsale job offers at 45K a year, which is REALLY good for the Midwest. I also had numerous consulting/sales opportunities at many major financial companies. Being licensed in insurance with an undergraduate background in biochemistry also opened up some rather great opportunity in the health insurance industry.

I had some major, Fortune 500 companies who were interested in me. I had good recs from my job and proved that I was a hard worker. That is what counts.

In total, I spent 12K on my MBA as opposed to someone who would have spent 45-60K somewhere else. I got all kinds of experience and job offers. Hell yeah it was worth it!

 

[surg]

As to the question of whether you learn the same thing no matter what school you go to (which is a slightly different question that whether WHAT you learn determines success). I went to a top 10 B-school and had the chance to chat with many of my profs. The ones who had taught at other b-schools often commented on how much more in depth they could teach the classes at a "top" b-school. This is probably a combo of a number of factors:
1) quality of students: regardless of how good the profs are, b-school learning is often done in a collaborative environment, especially at case-based schools. While the best students at each school are pretty comparable I would guess, the median student is what you have to judge when talking about in-class discussions.

2) depth of electives: at many of the upper b-schools, those that are in finance electives are making finance a career and look for high end/ in depth coursework. A Univ. of Chicago grad is going to far out class virtually anyone at financial theory

3) expectations: profs expect more from "top" b-school students, so even if they aren't better, they get pushed harder on average.

Having said all that, I still stand by my previous comment that unless you are looking to make your MBA studies the primary hook for how you get your 1st job, the b-school is probably not as important as you might guess. You definitely need to factor in your own personal situation. Aucdoc made the right choice for him. I would guess that his job opportunities hinged MORE on his work recs, than his MBA studies. For others, a day, exec, or even online program might be a better choice depending on your goals. Just for reference, the top 10-15 MBA schools all average >85k for their students (plus bonuses, which gets you to the >100k that most of them report). However, believe me, those jobs don't just fall out of the sky anymore, you have to work to snag them, even at the Harvard/Wharton/Stanford's of the world.

 

[Aucdoctobe]

Interesting and very good argument...

I didn't know the pay was 85K-100K. It doesn't suprise me. They are the top 10 schools for a reason. I know many MBA graduates from lower top tier schools that couldn't even get jobs.

Now, to put one thing in perspective: A salary of 45K in Oklahoma city is comparable to a salary of $116,910 in New York City. So, there really wasn't a difference in income. Source: http://www.bestplaces.net/default.asp. If I had been on the East Coast, my income would have been a lot higher. Plus, keep in mind that these were nonsales jobs. I've found that incentive pay generally meant high pressure sales/comission (AKA FINANCIAL SERVICES). I would try to steer clear of those jobs.

Now, about the teachers adjusting their method for the audience.. Surg has a strong point. I took honors classes and regular classes. There was definitely a difference in the way the professors taught.

In the end, I find myself agreeing with Surg (I think). It depends on the individual. For some people, going to a top recognized school is going to get them further. But there are many other options that could have awesome results. I speak from my own experience in the corporate world. In the end, hard work overcame everything else. But it never hurts to start well by going to a school with a lot of contacts. I personally love the fact that I only had to spend 12K (it helps when your medical education is costing you 190K).

Good Points!

BTW, I didn't know that Chicago was recognized as being the best in financial theory. I thought it was NYU!

 

[Aucdoctobe]

Just for reference, the top 10-15 MBA schools all average >85k for their students (plus bonuses, which gets you to the >100k that most of them report). However, believe me, those jobs don't just fall out of the sky anymore, you have to work to snag them, even at the Harvard/Wharton/Stanford's of the world.

Is it just me or has anyone noticed that a Nurse Practioner or Nurse
Anesthesiologist makes more money and is in greater demand than a top MBA graduate?

Kind of makes you wonder!

 

[surg]

Well, it's all about the upside I'd guess.
One I-banking recruiter told me, if I could stick it out in I-banking through the first few years, then the average comp package after the first 5 yrs or so was easily over 500k and in good years might approach 1M. Last year CSFB guaranteed 1st yr associates a min of 200k (that's the level you hire in at post-MBA).

Of course, during the tech implosion, bankers were getting laid off left and right, so higher risks should get higher rewards, right? Basically, just like in medicine there are those that go for the big bucks (I-banking/Management Consulting) and those that go for the little bucks (non-profit/etc.) The spread is just bigger. For a reference point, here is Stanford's report for 2003 (a recession year). they had a range of 42k-175k for base salaries with a median of 100k base and 35k bonus/other comp. Very few, if any, of these were sales jobs.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cmc/reports/report03.html


As to U of C, hard to argue with learning the Fama-French model directly from Fama, having a tradition of more Nobel prize laureates than any other business school. (Disclaimer: I have never attended U of C, and am in no way affiliated with them, merely have great respect for what their faculty has accomplished.)

 

[Aucdoctobe]

Well, it's all about the upside I'd guess.
One I-banking recruiter told me, if I could stick it out in I-banking through the first few years, then the average comp package after the first 5 yrs or so was easily over 500k and in good years might approach 1M. Last year CSFB guaranteed 1st yr associates a min of 200k (that's the level you hire in at post-MBA).

Of course, during the tech implosion, bankers were getting laid off left and right, so higher risks should get higher rewards, right? Basically, just like in medicine there are those that go for the big bucks (I-banking/Management Consulting) and those that go for the little bucks (non-profit/etc.) The spread is just bigger. For a reference point, here is Stanford's report for 2003 (a recession year). they had a range of 42k-175k for base salaries with a median of 100k base and 35k bonus/other comp. Very few, if any, of these were sales jobs.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cmc/reports/report03.html


As to U of C, hard to argue with learning the Fama-French model directly from Fama, having a tradition of more Nobel prize laureates than any other business school. (Disclaimer: I have never attended U of C, and am in no way affiliated with them, merely have great respect for what their faculty has accomplished.)

Quite Impressive Surg. I had read of employers concentrating most of their efforts on the top few schools, but I didn't know it until now. I had also heard of Stanford having exceptional opportunities due to their location and reputation. The results speak volumes, especially since it was a recession year.

Still, I would like to make a few points.

Most MBA programs will not have those sort of opportunities. I had heard that the top 5 or so provide this in recession time. I know of many people who graduated from the lower upper tier MBA programs and had to find themselves a job.

So, it leaves us with the question: What about people who go to MBA programs that are not in the top 10 or so, roughly? It's hard to get in those programs even with an outstanding GMAT and GPA. The majority of MBA's won't graduate from those programs.

Also, while I do see the advantage of those programs, I still believe that a person can have the same success with even a lower tier or middle tier ranked program. A proven job record will speak volumes over everything else. This goes for stocks, management, sales, consulting, ect...

Interesting about Chicago.. I had heard that the best internships were provided by NYU seeing how it is the financial capital of the USA (though Chicago is obviously not a slacker). Also, bare in mind that we have a different investment theory. NYU is the best for technical analysis (my favorite).