[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Business schools usually have a minimum GPA requirement. For example, the one I'm thinking of applying to requires at a minimum 2.5 GPA. The average is 3.3 and they want at least 3.0. The 2.5 GPA minimum is for special cases. It states that in some cases, the absolute minimum GPA is something like 2.5. YMMV though...

*cough*Affirmative Action*cough*

[BMW F22]

^ Lol.

[Oregano123]

The MBA Debate

by Jeremy Shinewald, founder of mbaMission

“Is It Time to Retrain B-Schools?” This simple question was the title of a March 15th cover story in the Sunday New York Times Business section, and the question seems to have struck a nerve among students and academics, who have since been writing Op-Eds and blogging feverishly on the subject.

In brief, the debate centers on whether MBAs are being taught too scientifically and thus on whether this is resulting in the oversimplification of otherwise complex ideas—which in turn leads to solutions that are exclusively financial in nature and that satisfy shareholders only in the short term. Critics argue that some, if not much, of the blame for the current global financial crisis lies at the feet of MBAs, who allegedly failed to think broadly and consider long-term risks.

Harvard Business School (HBS) Dean Jay O. Light was somewhat contrite about the financial crisis, but stopped short of accepting blame, telling the Times, “We lived through an enormous extended period of financial good times, and people became less focused on risks and risk management and more focused on making money….We need to move that focus back toward the center.”

Henry Mintzberg, a professor of management at McGill University, has been a leading critic of the MBA for years. After the technology bubble burst, Mintzberg wrote a book critiquing the MBA, entitled Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. One day after the publication of the Times story, in which he was cited, Mintzberg wrote an Op-Ed for Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, wherein he declared,

“Every decade, American business schools have been graduating more than a million MBAs, most of whom believe that, because they sat still for a couple of years, they are ready to manage anything ... Management is a practice, learned in context. No manager, let alone leader, has ever been created in a classroom. Programs that claim to do so promote hubris instead. And that has been carried from the business schools into corporate America on a massive scale.”

The Times argued that the MBA has declining relevance among employers and that MBAs lack professional standards. In 2005, BusinessWeek made a similar case, declaring “MBA Applicants Are MIA” for a variety of reasons, including that “recruiters [have] a growing feeling that even top-tier MBAs are becoming a commodity.” But as soon as the economy heated up again, firms were hiring MBAs and offering ever-increasing salaries and bonuses.

MBA students have not been taking the Times article lightly. HBS student Jason Bhardwaj seemingly took exception to the Times article, which insinuated that Harvard’s case method in particular oversimplifies management education. Bhardwaj told the Harvard Crimson, “Yes, we are taught to solve problems in as little as 3 hours, but this gives us more of a realization of the true complexities rather than giving us the unrealistic ambition that we can solve real problems in that time.”

Meanwhile, no fewer than six bloggers at Darden (another school that uses the case method) responded to the Times article. One blogger, Jacqueline Grace, argued that the Times might be oversimplifying the issues surrounding case-based learning and groupthink: “It’s rare that within a class of 67 people, all will agree. Therefore, for every person who has a ‘maximize stock price’ mentality, there’s another person who pushes back and challenges us to consider long-term implications of those behaviors. Similarly, while the professor is there to facilitate the discussion, you will often find them throwing in considerations and stretching us to imagine ‘what’s possible.’”

Not all that many years ago, when Enron and WorldCom were the infamous names making headlines each day, business schools began introducing additional ethics and leadership courses into their curricula. Now, many MBA programs are delving into the causes of the mortgage/real estate bubble, focusing on both the financial instruments and the decision-making processes. And, once again, schools are considering reforming their curricula accordingly. Will these reforms lead to the end of speculative bubbles? Probably not. While institutions can educate hundreds of thousands of MBAs, they cannot change human nature.

[Oregano123]

http://www.economist.com/whichmba/think-twice

[Oregano123]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Business schools usually have a minimum GPA requirement. For example, the one I'm thinking of applying to requires at a minimum 2.5 GPA. The average is 3.3 and they want at least 3.0. The 2.5 GPA minimum is for special cases. It states that in some cases, the absolute minimum GPA is something like 2.5. YMMV though...

It's rare that a biz school would have a "minimum" GPA requirement. What they usually have is a 25/75 percentile range. If your stats are below that two ranges, u need to bring something else to the table (e.g. valuable work experience, under represented minority, valuable leadership experience, etc)

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by bmwhype

It's rare that a biz school would have a "minimum" GPA requirement. What they usually have is a 25/75 percentile range. If your stats are below that two ranges, u need to bring something else to the table (e.g. valuable work experience, under represented minority, valuable leadership experience, etc)

You are correct. For the school I'm interested in, they don't follow a set formula. They take everything you submit into consideration and decide whether or not to allow you in. The 2.5 minimum GPA is for some special cases only. They stated that the average GPA of applicants is about 3.3, about 6-7 years of work experience, average score of 550 (maybe the lowest score I don't remember).

So yes you (or I) do have to bring other things to the table to be considered. It's not like if you have a 3.3 GPA you are automatically in.

[double_j]

Work experience counts more than GPA after 5 years or so (and conventional wisdom says that the majority of top tier candidates should have at least 5 years of experience before applying) so your GPA won't mean squat as long as your have something profound or really exceptional on your resume.

You really need something that sets you apart to be considered and GPA isn't usually enough to do it.

For example (these aren't really necessary but I'm just biding time till the weekend). These assume that you meet the informal 'minimum' GMAT requirement for admission (usually going to run right around 700 at the top tier, higher isn't extremely helpful, your score can be lower but not by a substantial margin (and you'll have to back it up with something really good about your application)).

5 to 7 years experience in a corporate environment on a traditional career path, undergrad GPA of 4.0, no accomplishments outside of work, recommendations from old professors and your former line management, good application essays - you don't stand much of a chance at a top tier (unless you know an alum very well or otherwise have an 'in' at the university). Odds are 20/80 against admission.

5 to 7 years experience in a corporate environment but have shown a very fast rise through the organization and can point to very concrete accomplishments and successful project leader roles beyond the 'norm' that prove exceptional talent or leadership skills. Undergrad GPA of 3.5, application is accompanied by a very glowing and personal endorsement from a very senior person at your company - you're probably 60/40 in favor of getting in (65/35 if your company is footing the bill).

5 years 'live' military experience as a squad leader in combat situations, etc., undergrad GPA of 3.0 (even better if West Point or similar), active or board role in a charity to help wounded soldiers, strong application essays and recommendations - you have a fighting chance, probably 70/30 in favor.

4 years of experience, none of it in a traditional corporate arena. GPA of 2.5, but you did manage to start your own company and sell it to Microsoft by the time you were 27 - you're probably in at any school you want (although most in this profile won't want to get an MBA). Odds are 80/20 in favor.

[xsb00st]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

You are correct. For the school I'm interested in, they don't follow a set formula. They take everything you submit into consideration and decide whether or not to allow you in. The 2.5 minimum GPA is for some special cases only. They stated that the average GPA of applicants is about 3.3, about 6-7 years of work experience, average score of 550 (maybe the lowest score I don't remember).

So yes you (or I) do have to bring other things to the table to be considered. It's not like if you have a 3.3 GPA you are automatically in.

Do you mind revealing what school(s) you're applying to? I sure hope 550 was the lowest GMAT score and not the average.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by xs*****

Do you mind revealing what school(s) you're applying to? I sure hope 550 was the lowest GMAT score and not the average.

Lucas College of Business. I checked and it says a competitive score is 550 which probably means you should score at least somewhere around there to be considered.

[xsb00st]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Lucas College of Business. I checked and it says a competitive score is 550 which probably means you should score at least somewhere around there to be considered.

Thanks for sharing. Good luck man.

[Oregano123]

i'll save you lots of money. DON'T GO.

a competitive school sets its GMAT median at around 705 (700 to 710 scores)

[double_j]

Originally Posted by bmwhype

i'll save you lots of money. DON'T GO.

a competitive school sets its GMAT median at around 705 (700 to 710 scores)

They don't necessarily set the score median - it's more of an output of the candidates they end up accepting (almost the same but not quite).

Depending on what you want to do, an MBA may or may not be worth it.

If looking to change fields (e.g., engineering to finance) or to make yourself more eligible for a management role in a technical field from a non-business specific background, then an MBA from any accredited institution will usually make a difference. It'll show a formal exposure to specific business areas (especially finance & accounting) that you might not have received as an undergrad and will help to supplement a non-business specific bachelor's degree (including marketing, management, and econ undergrads).

If you're already in a specific business capacity (e.g., finance or accounting) and are just looking to accelerate your career within the same field, then it might not be worth it. Except for the well-known top tiers that capture attention by merit of name only, most employers (me included) don't place much importance on an MBA as long as you have a qualifying undergraduate degree and decent work experience.

It might sound snobbish but in this case, unless you can attend a 'brand name' university or a very well regarded local institution (local to the place you'd like to work, that is), then an MBA might not be worth the time or money. You might be better served by getting a certification specific to your field instead (e.g., CPA, CFM, etc.)

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by double_j

It might sound snobbish but in this case, unless you can attend a 'brand name' university or a very well regarded local institution (local to the place you'd like to work, that is), then an MBA might not be worth the time or money. You might be better served by getting a certification specific to your field instead (e.g., CPA, CFM, etc.)

Right. The MBA program here is generalist in nature (like Harvard, for example). The purpose is to teach you a little bit of everything so you know how to run a company and not get stuck in one department. For example, if you majored in accounting, it's unlikely that you will become the VP, CEO, or a GM, etc.

The school I'm thinking of applying to is well known and recognized in the Silicon Valley. It's also in the 5% of business schools accredited by the AACSB. Whether I will have full use of an MBA or not is unknown (I might take a different direction later on, who knows). However, I would like to start now and get it done rather than wait and later on need it.