Inspired by this thread: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/why-you-do…
Hello Monkeys,
I came across the above thread earlier and was wondering about how to reconcile B-School and a career in banking.
If you begin banking as an analyst and want to go to B-school but still come back to banking is it possible to do so?
If you end up doing that is it smarter to come back to the same firm or go to a different firm?
If you want to move up the IB ladder is it more advantageous to go Analyst to Associate or take the "two-year vacation", go to an M7 and come back as an associate?
Is the credibility than a top MBA gives when you're a VP or MD enough to offset the two-year gap that could have been spent moving up directly and more quickly?
Are the costs you incur as a result of the MBA program worth it down the line and how often do banks pay for their own analysts or associates to go to an MBA program and come back?
Sorry for all of the questions but I'm deeply curious.
Thanks!
bump
I dont think the MBA will give you any more credibility in senior roles. If you go this route, it's a two year vacation to make friends (which may be beneficial to your network but probably not compared to the tuition + missed comp costs).
I would try to go analyst to associate and avoid b-school.
If you begin banking as an analyst and want to go to B-school but still come back to banking is it possible to do so?
Yes.
If you end up doing that is it smarter to come back to the same firm or go to a different firm?
It depends on the firm you are at currently and what your likely trajectory is there vs your LT goals. Most people want to maximize their exit options as they're relatively unsure about what they want to do. As such, going to the most "prestigious" bank helps in this regard. However, being miserable at a job that your at just to "maximize your exit options" is probably not the best way to go, so you have to strike a balance between where you see yourself being happy in the short term and what will get you where you want to go long term.
If you want to move up the IB ladder is it more advantageous to go Analyst to Associate or take the "two-year vacation", go to an M7 and come back as an associate?
I'd argue that for moving up the ladder neither has a particular advantage over the other. If the MBA guy was in banking before, come VP promotion time, you both have the same number of years of banking experience. He's probably a little older and might have family/kids but has a better network from bschool. In the grand scheme of things, two years is not alot of time.
Is the credibility than a top MBA gives when you're a VP or MD enough to offset the two-year gap that could have been spent moving up directly and more quickly?
This kind of implies the answer to the question above was A2A's have the advantage when climbing the ladder. All those two years mean is that your slightly older than people who are on the same track as you. This can be both a positive and a negative. How well you do is dependent on your abilities rather than the path you took to get there.
Are the costs you incur as a result of the MBA program worth it down the line and how often do banks pay for their own analysts or associates to go to an MBA program and come back?
I can't speak to how often banks pay for MBA's anymore. I doubt its common given the preference to promote from within in this day and age. MBA's are significantly more expensive when you factor in the opportunity cost. If you would have been promoted otherwise and making $200k as an Associate, the sticker cost of the MBA is basically doubled. That is awfully expensive for a 2 year vacation.
Thank you for the great response!
I'd say your true "cost" of attending an MBA vs. working for those two years depends on which school you get into. It's going to "cost" more in the long run if you attend UNC versus attending Harvard or Stanford.
I say if you get into H/S/W, go and don't look back.
^^ This is gold. You don't turn down H/S/W.
Can you please explain how it will cost more if one were to attend UNC than H/S?
In my experience, if you're looking to "trade up" to a bigger or more prestigious firm, then going the business school route is an easier way to achieve this than attempting to lateral. Most MBAs recruiting for investment banking are "career changers," so if you have prior banking experience you have a major leg up on your classmates. Assuming that you have strong networking/interpersonal skills (these are weighted much more heavily in recruiting at the associate level than the analyst level), you will likely be very successful in the recruiting process. Basically, you have a good shot at getting offers from banks that you didn't get offers from as an analyst or won't hire you as a lateral analyst.
Similique aut corrupti officiis ea sit. Non omnis aliquam et consectetur aspernatur cupiditate. Explicabo atque eum architecto earum animi.
Eos qui veritatis et veritatis. Autem quaerat est ipsam sit odit porro eveniet. Rerum et sint laborum ut. Quae et nobis aut omnis alias vel.
Et assumenda aspernatur nostrum suscipit vel impedit tempore. Nisi nulla expedita velit sunt corrupti.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...