MBA applications are on a decline. What do you guys think the root cause is behind that? Is tuition getting too expensive? Are the applicants hesitant to pull additional loans after continuing to pay back UG loans? MBAs aren't too attractive/sexy anymore -- ROI isn't worth it?
Thoughts?
| +153 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 57 | 7h | |
| +115 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 58 | 5h | |
| +80 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 57 | 6h | |
| +38 | Ranking banks that went under | 20 | 11h | |
| +34 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 18 | 10h | |
| +32 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 15 | 17h | |
| +30 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 21 | 1d | |
| +26 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 2d | |
| +26 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 19h | |
| +23 | What are hours like at BBs in London? | 47 | 19h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Top MBA's (the ones that actually matter) are getting ridiculously expensive. Take into account being out of commission for two years, and that adds up to a hefty pile of money, which...
...will take you ages to pay off, because the ROI is not there. 98% of employers and mentors I've met, told me they could care less about the MBA, be it target or non-target. The reasoning is typically either - "I've been in the business for XX years and did just fine without the MBA", or -"I took an MBA and know how little it accounts for. Show me your street-smarts". Which brings me to....
MBA is about networking more than it is about learning anything of essence (uness you're coming in with zero business experience or bottom-line common sence). Most of the topics are easily pick-upable in a couple months of self-studying. Not to downplay the networking element of it, but It seems like even non-target graduates are landing dream positions fairly easily these days, meaning networking, too, falls under one's personal merit.
If you're about those 3 letters - CFA is almost uniformly better than the MBA and still holds value in most minds.
CFA is not equal to an MBA - how fucking hard is it to understand. No one gives a fuck in a lot of Financial jobs about the CFA, and that's coming from someone who HAS the CFA... Just like one is not mutually exclusive from the other...
The value and merit of an MBA are questionable and it all depends on your individual circumstances. The $250k price tag over two years + foregone earnings is hard to swallow. For someone who needs a break it's nice, you just lose $250k partying. The merit of a top MBA or not is also quite self evident, if you are looking to Network you might as well get the best Network - if this is what you are trying to get out of an MBA.
lmao triggered
CFA isn't that bad to at least try out. I think people on here expect it to get them into RenTech.
EDIT: Never mind.
I cannot read the article because of WSJ's stupid paywall, so I did some Googling. I assume the article did not differentiate between top MBAs and lower ranked MBAs because otherwise, the article is just flat-out wrong. Of the top 25 MBA programs, only six (most notably Tuck) experienced declines in MBA applications from 2016 to 2017 (source...there is a nice chart on the second page).
I do not think it is surprising that in a strong economy such as this one that MBA applications at lower ranked programs are down. People enrolling in lower ranked MBA programs are trying to build up their toolset and move up in the corporate world, not move into IB or PE. When it's a job seeker's market out there, like it is now, the tradeoff between leaving work for two years to pursue a degree is just not worth it as much as when the market is tanking and it's a hirer's market. You will probably find similar stats for certificates, night classes, etc. People "tool up" during down times, not good times.
If you truly believe the economy is heating up, wages should be going up, so the benefit from going back to get an expensive degree is less appealing all else being equal
The only answer to this question is: it depends.
I think the sub-25 full-time MBA programs are widely accepted as falling short of a worthy ROI if accompanied by burdensome tuition. The legitimacy of the payoff from top-25 programs depends on your plan for recruiting and post-MBA plans.
Anecdotally, I went to a deep non-target undergrad and worked in a position far removed from financial services. The "lowliest" investment bank on the street would laugh at a transfer application or a networking call. I took a dumb math/english test called the GMAT, showed up at a top-10 MBA program, and months later received offers from top tier banks for an Associate position (including Evercore and GS). I will pay back my $150k in a few years and the argument around ROI for me personally is easily settled.
At this time, there are too many variables involved to make a broad argument one way or another about top tier MBA programs.
Yeah in that case it's an easy call. For me, not so sure. Going to be moving to associate at a top BB next year so I don't need an "in" from B-School, but I'm somewhat concerned that without a top MBA my options might be limited, especially in terms of PE and CO exits if I don't make VP quickly or just want to leave.
Just not sure the 600k ish is worth it (tuition + conservative foregone earnings), especially since I would probably come back to the associate level after MBA, eseentially just wasting two years and shit load of money. If someone paid for my B-School or I could come back at the VP level or something, I would definitely do it though. I really want the network and the soft-skills if it can financially/career wise make sense
Perfect response.
If you want to do buyside you 100% need to do it BEFORE an MBA. Nowadays any top bschool will be full of ex PE guys looking to go back so you'd be at a huge competitive disadvantage. I think the ppl that get the most out of an NBA are trading up / around (PE -> HF, mediocre PE/HF -> top PE/HF, marketing/non profit -> consulting/ banking).
In the long run the time / learning cost is everything and the financials not so much (assuming you stay in finance where comp baloon quickly)
For some reason I read this in an Indian accent..
And then there is the case of part-time MBAs......................
Columbia MBA apps down 19% for Class of 2014 (Originally Posted: 09/03/2012)
http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/mba/admissions/classprofile
Columbia applications down from 6669 to 5409 - about 19% .
Selectivity, assuming they accepted 1060 students (as they did last year) to give them the target size of 750 students, jumps a massive 4 percentage points in one year to 20%!
Gmat avg, 80% range and Gpa all remained the same however.
edit: Hi Businessweek!!
Looks like Brady convinced all of the WSO demo that HBS is the answer to our prayers.
A year ago I would have made a snarky comment about Columbia with my state school background, but said comments would make me an asshole now that I am in grad school and have to be more respectful.
First off, how did HBS, Chicago Booth, and Sloan applications look? There is a bubble in education right now, and top tier MBA apps may have gone down.
One of the big drivers of insecurity on the personal level is trying to copy/be somebody else. When I was in junior high and high school, my parents would always compare me against this other kid in my grade. They wanted me to be like him, and it drove me crazy.
Columbia needs to stop trying to copy Harvard. Chicago and MIT to some extent did that decades ago when the East Coast schools switched to a more postmodern ethos and Chicago stuck to a more conservative philosophy.
What if Columbia's philosophy became the notion that your life's worth is defined by how much you make other peoples' lives better. Columbia can become the NGO MBA school and attract a bunch of people who will turn down Harvard for CBS, not unlike the ~50 who turn down HBS for Booth.
Princeton and Yale don't try to copy Harvard. Stanford, MIT, Chicago, and Wharton don't either. That's why they're destination schools for various disciplines. Columbia's attempts to copy other schools rather than stand in its own right unfairly undermines the confidence of their students and breeds insecurity.
If you know somebody that knows somebody on the Columbia board, consider giving them an idea:
"Columbia: Men and Women for others."
When life is about other people and THEIR struggles, it's tough to have an inferiority complex. Especially if you have an MBA business schools">M7 MBA or top ten undergrad degree. Columbia students are too smart (many being smarter than me) to be saddled with worries that their school might not be as good as Harvard or Stanford or Wharton. Their school should be their school, and it stands for something that no better school stands for.
I at least feel that way about Illinois. Illinois stands for business and engineering competence among the middle-class, and I would not willingly trade that degree for one that had MIT or Harvard on it.
Let's have Columbia be the Ivy that stands for philanthropy. Five years after it loses its copy-Harvard-and-Yale-and-other-schools strategy, it will be mentioned in the same sentence as those schools.
Columbians should be proud of the fact that they went to Columbia, which stands for Philanthropy (or something else). Harvard doesn't stand for that, and Columbians would like to keep their degrees, thank you very much, not trade them for another school's. People that brilliant shouldn't be reduced to that level of insecurity.
IP, where do you get the stat that ~50 people turn down HBS for Booth? This seems too high to me. Per HBS' wesbite (http://www.hbs.edu/about/statistics/mba.html), their yield for class of 2013 was either 81% or 89% (they report 89% but if I do the math, it calcs to 81%... not sure what the delta is). Anyway, this implies that between 110-215 people reject HBS each year.
I believe ~100 people get into both HBS and GSB each year, based on friends' experience, the Facebook group for cross-admits (how pretentious!), etc. My understanding is that ~70% of this group chooses GSB. Let's haircut that to ~50% just to be conservative. That leaves us with ~60-165 other people who reject HBS.
Especially if the right number is on the lower end of that range, it seems highly unlikely that 50 of them are going to Booth. Some will go to Wharton or other schools. Some will get promoted at work and not go at all.
Not a big deal but just curious where you got this number. My (unfounded) guess is that the number is more like 5-10 people. Maybe 20.
19% more people are missing out on the best 2 years of their lives
Harvard went from 9134 to 8963, decrease of 2%
Wharton went from 6442 to 6408, decrease of 0.5%
Stern went from 5222 to 3907, decrease of 25%
Not sure about other schools, but this may be a NYC phenomenon.
(I thought the Yale MBA stood for philanthropy?)
Apologies, Stern went from 4416 to 3907, decrease of 11.5%
Only school I won't apply to in the M7. In fact, you couldn't pay me to go there.
Lee Bollinger is an idiot.
Are people just thinking H/S/W or bust these days? Or Chicago > NYC? No stats out yet for Booth or Kellogg. Curious where these ~1,200 applicants went.
As a CBS '15 applicant, not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing...
What no one likes to party anymore?
Wonder if it was more to do with the downturn on Wall Street. Potential students saying fuck ibd and wallstreet i'll go to to So and So B-school and get a job at F500 or Bain/Mckiney, etc.
On that note wonder if Stanford applicants went up.
btw anyone got the yield rate stats from the m7.
EDIT: found 1.5 year old info for it if anyone else is interested http://poetsandquants.com/2011/04/22/the-50-most-selective-mba-programs…
"So and So B-school" and get a job at F500 or Bain/McKiney?
Since when did so - and - so bschools place into Bain/McKinsey (try to spell it right)? I'm so confused by these banker types that think top consulting firms are a fall back option for people who couldn't do banking. You do realize they are at least as competitive, right?
Interesting that MBA apps were down this past year, even though the economy is still fairly weak.
My guess is that booth/kellogg are taking a lot of cross-admits away from columbia. Booth especially has been on the rise and is very close behind Wharton. Columbia's main problems are that its building is very old and outdated, but more importantly, it lacks the sense of community that pervades other b-schools.
There is no way ~50 people turn down HBS for Booth every year. I'd love if that were true, but it's not even remotely possible. That would be approaching 10% of the incoming Booth class and almost 5% of HBS admits - just no way IP. I'd be surprised if it is more than 10 students in any given year.
The stats are wrong. It compares applicants for September and January terms last year with applicants for September term this year (applications are still open for January term)
http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/news/item/7229822
This article should be deleted
It looks to me like the 5409 accounts for both August and January, according to the class profile page. J-term apps are open for the current cycle. Are you sure they're still open for last year's cycle as well? Even if they were, that'd only account for very few apps.
MBA Student Profile — Class Entering 2012 (January and August)
Applications Received 5409 Class Size 741, divided into 11 clusters January Entry Class Size 196, divided into 3 clusters August Entry Class Size 545, divided into 8 clusters
http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/mba/admissions/classprofile
These stats don't take the J-Term into account. J-Termers start in January of 2013 and are part of the Class of 2014. Their applications are due in October, and a solid chunk of them don't apply until close to the deadline. They account for 1/4 of the class, and a similar fraction of the applicants. Therefore, CBS will have a comparable number of applicants this year as they did last year - likely more...
It includes 2012 J-term numbers according to the heading.
Some evidence suggests that this year's droughts were predicted by models on global warming. If that's the case, expect food prices to skyrocket further. At some point, the question will be whether you'll be able to get grain through millions of hungry Pennsylvanians to New York City. The grain distribution system could break down and that would present a terrible threat to capitalism in the US. If peoples' kids are hungry, they really don't care about property rights, and you quickly spiral into anarchy and feudalism. I don't make this prediction lightly, but I think it is within the 1-5% range of possibility that there will be a lot of starving BSD traders and bankers in NYC.
So my suggestion is to take Jim Rogers' advice. If you go back to school, there have probably been worse grad school ideas than studying agricultural science at the University of Iowa.
As for Jim Rogers, both he and John Stossel would do better to stick to their areas of expertise instead of counseling the next generation to simply go be farmers or plumbers....and leave that to Larry the Cable Guy. Education in general is due for a wakeup call, no doubt about that, but getting back to the topic at hand: I'd be very curious to see where the current graduating class, both Columbia and top 20 overall, is heading. My guess is that there's less interest in finance at the time, and also that since the economy isn't as craptastic as a couple of years ago that somewhat less people are hiding in grad school, but I don't have any hard data on that last point.
Most hijacked thread ever
i dont mind, it has good info that pertains to the overall higher education market.
link to this thread in businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-30/columbia-nyu-mba-applic…
@UFO, the private sector is too small and risk-averse to solve our energy problems. The solution is going to come from big government, if it does come. Just look at Yucca Mountain. It's in the middle of the desert, but it still manages to get blocked by people living hundreds of miles away. Now imagine a private entity were building it. The political situation would be even worse.
Maybe one solution would be to site Yucca Mountain in Antarctica, but we signed a treaty stating we wouldn't do that. Regardless, there isn't going to be a private solution on the energy front when we're struggling to build five new reactors.
The good news is that we will probably need to print trillions over the next decade to offset the reduced velocity of money. Why not have the fed invest directly in Yucca Mountain and a new fleet of nuclear reactors rather than buy mortgage bonds? We can have the public sector build out ~200 plants over the next two decades and then start to sell them off if/when inflation starts to hit. Instead of having a USD backed by gold, it can effectively be backed by energy.
Again, the only people I really see winning over the next thirty years are middle-class farmers in the Great Lakes region. When Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio wake up to the fact that grain is as precious a commodity as oil, they are going to make like Alaska on oil and tax the hell out of corporate farming and large out-of-state landowners if they don't ban it outright. That's going to drive up grain prices on the coasts to the benefit of smaller landowners with the benefit of the Great Lakes' wet climate.
I'm still waiting for responses to the jemokes who thought the stats weren't accurate or that 50 HBS admits go to Booth each year.
Seriously IP, you should publicly admit that you 100% made up that number. It undermines your otherwise relative credibility on this site.
A possible simpler way of looking at energy is the way the gov't has done many mega projects: define parameters and contract it out. Private industry tends to be much better at creativity and execution, and is often guided by individuals seeking a profit. Government gives structure and stability better on a macro scale, and the public debate is usually the starting point for those concepts to take shape....as well as the funding. In my mind, after this cooling period blows over, it's likely that industry will pick up, but when the next boom is is anybody's guess.
On a side note, the article AndyLuis posted mentions WSO....sweet!
this is an interesting development but the headline can be easily misinterpreted to suggest that it is now easier to get in.
selectivity is not so straightforward. my guess is that the decreases at columbia and stern came mostly from the large pool of frivolous NYC-driven apps that would've been auto-dinged anyway.
that's why there is no impact on "student quality".
The film Inside Job is responsible... Columbia should fire those profs and restore CBS' reputation.
speaking of admissions, have any ED candidates been informed of interview notifications yet?
government backed by energy...this isn't really that crazy of an idea on the surface. The economy based around electrons & BTUs and not gold or guarantees, is interesting. The problem with this is in the negative externalities that would be difficult to value, as it would have to be done politically. I agree with the statement regarding the cheapness of food,water, and energy being the key drivers of a strong economy though. Our electric grid is only mildly more sophisticated than it was 100 years ago, which stifles a lot of economically sensible projects.
I posted in another thread about this, but I imagine that one of the factors that is contributing to this decline is the lack of merit aid (~$10K per student, most likely less for ED applicants) given to admitted students versus that for other B-Schools:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/12/mba-scholarship-arms-race/
MBA tuition increases have come nowhere close to post-MBA salary growth, after adjusted for inflation. This is a problem, as schools continue to hike tuition (covering ridiculous administrative waste and hiring useless deans and career services staff) while companies are more or less staying put.
The "value" of the MBA ultimately hinges upon 3 key factors: i) your current compensation and your long-term career goals, 2)whether the MBA will help you achieve those goals, 3) the quality of the school.
To follow up on point 2, the MBA is very useful for career switchers who are interested in industries that aggressively recruit at b-schools, mainly consulting, F500 rotational programs, banking, and some tech (mainly in marketing or product). I highly recommend applicants to have a list of companies they want to work for, post-MBA, and do research on whether they hire from the schools you're interested in attending.
The MBA is losing its luster in finance. Banking recruiting is down, and S&T and AM recruiting is virtually non-existent. At the elite schools, you'll have some big mutual funds and hedge funds come to campus, but if you don't have the right set of pre-MBA experiences, you're not gonna get it. What's happening with banks is that they are promoting undergrad hires and recruiting from STEM masters/Phd programs, as opposed to MBAs.
MBA is still a lot of fun, but that should not factor into your decision to attend. It really is a case-by-case basis, which is why the question of "Should I get an MBA?" is nearly impossible to do justice unless I am acutely aware of the person's circumstances and aspirations.
MBA applications last year down 10% YoY (Originally Posted: 09/14/2011)
Better hopes for us all this year?!
Business School
This is very interesting. I have noticed a decent amount of people from top MFIN/MFE/etc. programs get into AM/HF/etc. roles. Do you think this is because firms view them as more quanty and less expensive to their MBA grad counterparts? I still think MFIN/MFE/etc. programs aren't very useful for the BB IB prestige whores on the site.
I'm in a MSF program now (Baruch) and even though it's not like Princeton or whatever, people on the street are still super impressed I am doing it. It's far less expensive than an MBA (but again, it is Baruch). It's also jammed with really, really smart quanty types.
I was just reading this article. Some of the comments are very interesting. On the 3rd page of comments, there are a few who graduated from Top 10 who regret the decision to obtain an MBA.
Keep in mind that people lie. Just because they say they graduated from a top 10 mba online does not make it true.
"But even though M.B.A. application volume has slumped, most schools report the quality of candidates, based on their GMAT scores, undergraduate transcripts and work experience, is getting stronger."
Killjoy
Honestly that sounds like admissions-style boilerplate to me. Of course they're not going to say "this year's crop is weaker" and the simple math is that if applications dropped 10%, the average school is going to have to be less selective. That said, I'd bet this impacts second-tier and strong third-tier schools more than the truly elite programs.
Read somewhere law school applications are down 11% (cant find the link).
Over saturation. I just posted it on my site. Nice little mention of the MIT Master in Finance program!
Guess it is gaining ground on Princeton. Wonder what their applicant pool was like.
Not surprising, and par for the course in my opinion.
At the very beginning of a down cycle (i.e. 2001 dotcom crash, 2008 credit crisis), there's usually a spike in applications, as young folks panic and want out sooner than later (they see the writing on the wall, and feel they can hide in school for 2 years hoping the market will turn around when they graduate). But when you're knee deep in a downturn, applications do drop (2003-05, 2010-12), since on the margins, those who have a decent job (or survived the layoff cycle) may be more willing to hold onto it rather than risk going back to school (especially when they hear current students aren't exactly getting amazing job offers like they would in good times).
Over the longer-term, b-schools will have to change it up though. Maybe the full-time MBA becomes less of the "anchor" and they start offering more different kinds of programs that may not be degree-based (i.e. module-based learning where it's more like an exec MBA, where folks go to school like on a "retreat" for a month, who knows).
Also, the tuition costs are getting out of control, not just at top schools, but everywhere.
They also have issues with diversity -- basically, American applicants have been flat or even decreasing (Asian-American applicants still remain strong, but everyone else seems to be flat or declining in interest level). And globally, they're getting a deluge of Indian applicants (all engineers), China is flat and declining, Korea/Japan also don't have the craze for the MBA like the Indians do, and they haven't made much inroads in boosting interest from European applicants (especially western Europeans) or Latin Americans. So that is something they have to figure out, or else longer-term applicant volume may continue to decline (except for the Indians).
I thunk one thing with mBAs and all degrees is that too many people see the only financial reward and cost as what you're Going to make right out the gate but you honestly have to think of it as having your life stamped with whatever brand you get and same for undergrad and hopefully that brand will control and open doors for the rest of your life
Alex I was sitting in a Columbia class today and was amazed by the Chinese contingent in there ranting about visas
I think a lot of people go into mbas not knowing what they want really even at top mbas. I highly doubt the marketing and other kids are as focused as the finance seekers are
To be fair, most people never really knew what they wanted when they decided to go for an MBA since the dawn of time.
The difference between past generations and the present though is opportunity cost.
Consider this:
When I was thinking of applying to schools in the 1990s, here were the numbers:
pre-MBA salary: $40-60K for most jobs other than banking; IBD was around 70-90K all-in (base+bonus) tuition: $20-25k each year, or $40-50K for both years post-MBA comp: $90-120K for the middle 80% (i.e. not including banking, but most post-MBA jobs for top schools).
So in those days and before, you didn't really have to think about the cost. Also, it was pre-9/11, when the immigration visa issue was not quite as f*cked up and pretty straightforward.
In that scenario - there was no real downside for "not knowing what you wanted to do" -- the ROI took care of itself since most people could see a huge bump in their comp, and the cost while large wasn't prohibitive (again, considering the difference between pre- and post-MBA comp across all industries).
Now fast forward to now.
A lot of folks applying to b-school now are making $70-120K already if they're consultants, engineers, corporate people, etc. The IB/PE kids are making more than I ever did back in the 90s.
The tuition has doubled to $50K per year, or $100K total for most schools. That's tuition alone.
And yet, post-MBA comp has stayed pretty flat for the past 10-15 years. It's basically in the same range, +/-$10K or so. Again, the IB/PE post-MBA comp may be more than it was years ago, but the pre-MBA IB/PE comp already is pretty high, and so the differential isn't quite as drastic as it was 10-15 years ago between pre- and post-MBA comp for IB/PE folks.
So the difference in pre- and post-MBA has narrowed to the point where many applicants won't really see much of a bump in total comp (and some may not see any at all -- i.e. some Indian engineer making $120K at some tech firm, and then doing an MBA so he/she can get a McKinsey job that pays basically the same). And yet, the cost of education has DOUBLED.
So in this scenario, you do have to have a better idea of what you want. And on top of that, the internationals have to be more aware of the immigration visa issues post-9/11 that have been much more difficult to handle for many US companies.
Which is why I really hammer it in with my clients to get a clue about WHY they are applying, and that they are absolutely sure about doing it. There is still a real benefit if you want to make a career switch, but again, it's not like in the old days where you can just go in totally clueless (like I was haha) and expect an automatic boost in ROI without having to worry about it at all.
Cost/benefit didn't really matter in the past, but it matters now.
Fuck. And I had just "officially" decided to wait until next year or at least second round to apply. Why god - more uncertainty!
The whole idea is that once the recession blows over, less people would be hiding out in grad school thus opening up more options. But now it's just not so cut and dry, and for the first time I can't read the future trends as clearly and no one else seems to be able to either.
q34 63 3wsdfjhikl~!~!!!!!!!!!! explticative
Saw this article yesterday, glad to see it on here.
I know several people who were, as most of you said, hoping to "hide out" in B-School until the uncertainty blew over. Well, time's about up for them and things aren't looking any better. Now they're graduating $50,000 more in debt and with only slightly better prospects.
I'll certainly be going to B-School because several companies view masters-level degree as a requirement for advancement, but my current focus will be gaining employment and paying off my undergrad debt. Not looking like I'm going to benefit from this lull in applicant numbers.
im anonymous monkey now? lolwut
the top schools have seen large increases in applications, only the very low ranked schools that have no ROI have seen drops
seems like B-School app volume is down this year (Originally Posted: 10/02/2010)
Seems like this year, there is a decline in applicants from B schools. Here is a recent article about some schools including Wharton and Johnson which have seen a double digit drop. http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2010/bs20100812_392560…
I guess a lot of Bank analysts are either staying on as 3rd years, getting direct promotions, or moving to the buy side & F500. I also think that due to the bleak economy, fewer people are looking to leave their current jobs and take a chance on b school, whether it's by asking for references from their managers or just not willing to give up their pay for 2 years (esp with big college loans).
This is definitely not 08-09 days over again where people tried to take cover for 2 years. Seems like the short term (2-3) year trend may be a decline in B-school apps.
What does everyone here think?
Good for me; less competition.
i second that :P
less competition sure, but not by much... besides, the quantity could be lower but quality could be better which would then imply more competition.
MSF is the way to go. Nova, motherfuckers!
I feel MBA is nothing but an glorified networking event, that last for two years. It teaches you nothing that you can't learn yourself.
But, having said that, MBA programs brings in the best brains from diverse backgrounds on their campus and being in constant interaction with them for two or so years helps in improving your thought process, gives you fresh perspective to looking at problems. Never again in your life you are going to have that many smart guys in that small a space.
Quia non quis id illo et aut autem. Dolor molestias saepe amet deleniti.
Cupiditate velit pariatur labore enim fugit laboriosam. Sequi accusamus dignissimos quis iste consequatur voluptas blanditiis mollitia. Voluptatibus nihil voluptatem quos perspiciatis. Possimus voluptates dicta dolores temporibus repudiandae. Sint aut quo aut ducimus ipsa.
Voluptatibus veniam dolore omnis aut enim. Quia cum iste quo porro reprehenderit soluta. Et saepe ducimus distinctio. Et voluptate sint quia ut. Est eius aut dignissimos eveniet quod sed. Quisquam consequatur non inventore ea cumque non ipsam. Suscipit et laborum fugiat quidem.
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...
Voluptates ut iusto autem molestiae aspernatur quibusdam qui. Sequi perspiciatis et quis id cum voluptas distinctio. Maiores modi quod aut sint nihil ipsum facere. Tempora molestiae deleniti doloremque quia dolor.
Eum dignissimos architecto sunt quaerat atque eum quod. Est sint vero ea praesentium est distinctio consequatur eveniet.
Eum et odit placeat voluptatem quo inventore sed. Ut et eos illum animi beatae amet. Quia ut laudantium dicta et.
Dolorem et saepe ducimus labore. Magni quis ut est. Soluta et consequatur ea explicabo exercitationem magni ipsum. Animi quia accusamus consequatur deserunt reiciendis eveniet eum.
Qui enim ut nesciunt nam. Quis vel quia deserunt.
Ducimus asperiores quaerat temporibus saepe. Velit velit qui facere ullam. Est ut exercitationem alias quis quia voluptatem officia. Quis dolorem voluptatibus commodi voluptatem.
Ipsam libero labore impedit sunt dignissimos. Dolores consequatur ipsum consectetur aut quasi. Et aut aliquam soluta voluptatem. Aut repudiandae sed cum asperiores ut. Molestias eos quaerat non necessitatibus accusamus similique.
Nihil quo velit nihil id voluptatem. Ea ut facere sed vitae ipsam eaque. Esse dolores recusandae minus ducimus id ut et.