Talk:Master of Business Administration/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archive of past discussion through October 2006

Since the Master of Business Administration article just underwent a major re-write, much of the past discussion has become obsolete and moved here. Relevant issues remaining with the article have been left on the MBA talk page.

Discussion

The article claims that an MBA is "more prestigious than the equivalent". Is this really the case? Personally, when I hear the words "MBA" my first thought is "ambitious wanker" but that's just me... --Robert Merkel

  • Businesses consider an MBA more valuable than a PhD (in business). A PhD is more about academic research than application. I don't know if I'd say the MBA is more prestigious, but it is definitely considered more relevant. This is probably because general managers need different skills than do academics. --Westendgirl 07:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Survey, say by Open U in UK indicated that MBA is more practical than chartered accountant. In U.S.A., employers recruit CFOs with either top MBA or CPA. In academics and consulting, top MBAs are preferred than any other qualifications. Chrischu
Sounds reasonable, however 'practical' is not synonymous with 'prestigious'. If the MBA's practicality is one of its most prominent features, perhaps that is worth mentioning. --Paraphelion 17:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This may be stating the obvious, but not all MBA's are alike. A clear distinction can be made between exective MBAs and academic MBAs. See strategic management#Teaching strategic management. And some two year MBAs don't even cover the material typically found in a four year B.Com. The best way of assessing how "prestigious" a programme is, is to look at its entrance requirements. In my opinion, a programme that does not require an undergrad business or economics degree is suspect.mydogategodshat 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When Executive MBAs don't require applicants to have an undergrad background in stats or calculus, they typically require incoming students to complete coursework (to a defined standard) before starting the program. The GMAT question is irrelevant, since some of the world's top regular MBA programs (e.g. Harvard) do not require completion of this test. Whether executive or traditional, MBA programs do not usually require an undergrad degree in business or economics. Many masters degrees do not require the applicant to have an undergrad in the same subject. This just means the students have to study harder to cover a larger volume of background material. Some undergrad BCom/BBA material is ignored, because MBA grads will not be working at technical positions, but at management positions, which require different skillsets. (The planning and strategy taught in BCom/BBA is elementary, when compared to that required in an MBA.) Moreover, although the case method promotes real-life examples, the analysis and write-up required is academic in nature. In completing case studies, students must use extensive citation, analysis of the case text, application of models, inclusion of other program content and research, and creative insight. This is not unlike work required in other disciplines. --Westendgirl 19:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not disagree with anything that you have said. However, when I assess the quality of a programme, the first stat I look at is the percentage of students with a business or economics undergrad degree. To me that is more important than mean GMAT entrance score. mydogategodshat 21:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But why focus on an undergrad in business/econ? I can't even think of any schools that require an undergrad in these disciplines. None of Wharton, INSEAD, Sloan, TRIUM, Sciences-Po or HEC requires this particular degree for a two-year MBA program. There are some schools with accelerated programs for holders of BBAs/BComs, but this just truncates the study time. It's not uncommon for other fields to have one-year masters degrees, if the students have certain competencies already.
Because the quality of a programme of study is fundamentally a function of the quality of the students enrolled in it. Any ciriculum must be adjusted to the competencies of the students enrolled. If I see that a particular school requires no entrance competencies in basic stats, calculus, economics, accounting, finance, marketing, or HR, or if I see that only 5 or 10 percent of enrolled students have relevant undergrad preparation, that tells me that a considerable portion of the programme must be alocated to covering fundamental principles. If, on the other hand, a school has undergrad requirements, or has say 80 or 90 percent of enrolled students with undergrad preparation, less time will be spent on the basics. Undergrad preperation gives credence to the term "advanced degree" (or "intermediate degree"). Having said this, I do not want to leave the impression that I think academic preparation is the only useful preparation. Business experience, and the executive MBA programmes that build on it, can be effective. The problem is the variability of the quality of these programmes. Many eMBA programmes are money machines for the university, cash cows in which quality of education is sometimes sacrificed on the altar of low expectations. mydogategodshat 06:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. But, for schools that use the GMAT as an admission criterion, the student's competency in stats and calculus is obvious. Using econ/BBA/BCom undergrads as a benchmark is an odd way to look at things. Even a rigorous, finance-heavy program like Sloan only sees 1/3 of its students come from econ/business undergrads. Have you looked at how other social sciences degrees and arts degrees admit students? --Westendgirl 08:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that a GMAT measures much the same thing as undergrad experience does, and in some ways may even be a better indicator (particularly if you do not have access to actual undergrad performance measures like GPAs). The reason I prefer undergrad qualifications is a GMAT is a single test and as such is subject to more reliability and validity problems than four years of training and testing. Maybe this is just a personal bias on my part. In regards to degrees outside of business and economics, I know very little. mydogategodshat 20:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is stating the obvious, which is why it should be removed. Your statement "but not all MBA's are alike" could be applied to most if not all of academia. --Paraphelion 17:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the best indicator of MBA and related schools is not admission but placement data -- average salaries, number of offers, etc. Different curriculums attract different candidates -- quantitative schools vs. case study, etc. Also to compare you should know something of that school's specialties -- someone with an interest in market research or operations research will choose a quant school, for example. At the middle and bottom market it may not mean much but at the top schools it means a lot. Pmeisel 03:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of MBA education

Is there a place for the late Sumantra Ghoshal's famous article: "Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices"?

I agree, there is a serious lack of criticism about MBA's here. The very fact that it draws criticism is noteworthy let alone the inclusion of such criticisms. Benw 06:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The link above was in the article, but the criticism section was removed. Why is that?

More criticism: Managers Not MBAs by Henry Mintzberg

Not all MBA's are alike

The premier accrediting body for schools of business is the AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). In the US, thousands of otherwise strictly undergraduate institutions offer MBA degrees. These degrees are not AACSB accredited and are, at best, refresher courses in undergraduate business. At worst, the degrees are *less* rigorous than undergraduate business degrees offered at the same institutions. In general, the quality of MBA degrees can be broken down into three categories: non-AACSB accredited (worthless), AACSB accredited but not ranked (definitely a masters level degree), AACSB accredited and ranked (the best MBA degrees). Note that "ranked" means being generally acknowledged as one of the top-20 programs in the country.

Not being AACSB-accredited doesn't necessarily mean the program isn't good, let alone "worthless." The University of Maryland's MBA program was not AACSB-accredited until very recently, and had repeatedly ranked in the top 30 according to Forbes magazine, outpacing a vast majority of then-AACSB accredited MBA programs. In addition, Harvard's business school didn't bother with accreditation until several decades after the AACSB was formed and began accrediting schools. Several employers I've spoken with who hire MBA's from my current business school (The University of Michigan) and others in the region have stated that they seriously consider graduates from both AACSB and ACBSP-accredited programs, and actually prefer dual accreditation. --Fred.

Executive MBA: neutral?

The term "Executive" adds no information. Problem is that there are some EMBA programs that are top-notch. Example: Wharton used to (maybe still does) offer an EMBA that was two weeks of intense training. The program was/is aimed at senior-level executives. Lately, undergraduate institutions have started offering what they call EMBA programs. What they really are are more specialized (read: fewer credit requirements) MBA programs.

With more and more U.S. colleges adopting the name "university," it is harder to distinguish between true MBA programs offered by graduate institutions and "MBA" programs offered by undergraduate institutions. Within the U.S., all colleges/universities are categorized into "Carnegie classifications." The Carnegie classification indicates the type of institution according to the highest degrees offered: I = institution that offers a significant number of doctoral degrees, IIa = institution that offers some doctoral degrees and/or a significant number of masters degrees, IIb = institution that offers some masters degrees and/or a significant number of bachelors degrees, III = institution that offers two-year degrees. Generally speaking, a true "university" is a class I or class IIa institution. Wikiant 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know much about MBA programs, but I find this questionable (and possibly not NPOV):

EMBA alumni directories are generally regarded as the sources of top tier business talent in the world.

There are two debatable points here:

  • That EMBA students are generally top-tier: This point is supported by the business experience requirement for EMBA grads, but can't any school graduate duds now and then, especially for something as subjective as management?
  • That everyone else is not top-tier: Why is someone who gets an MBA fulltime after undergrad and then goes on to a successful business career necessarily less 'top-tier' than someone who waits longer and gets an EMBA after climbing the ladder?

Anyway, the claim is that EMBA are "regarded" as this, so I won't remove it if someone who knows more about business schools can corroborate the claim. --Saforrest 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sentence needs re-write

This is in the beginning of the article: "However, completion of a professional MBA does not usually preclude admission to a Ph.D. (program for research-oriented engagements) although it could be helpful." I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps it means that people with MBAs don't usually go ont to get Ph.D.s (as indeed most people in general don't) but having an MBA can help you gain admittance into a Ph.D. program? Whatever it means, it needs to be rewritten. As it stands, it's both grammatically incorrect and incomprehensible. --68.239.196.248 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence is awful. It currently reads "completion of an MBA does not preclude admission to a Ph.D. program (unless it is a Ph.D. in a Business Dicipline)." Many business school faculty "discovered" their Ph.D. programs while getting MBA's. The MBA is a general professional degree that provides background skills. But it does not cover the same coursework as the first two years of a Ph.D. program.


Average starting salary with MBA

USA Today just published an article about the jump in average salaries for recent MBA grads. I think this is pertinent info for anyone interested in getting an MBA. I think it would be even better if the Wiki article had a section on various average salaries across industries and years of experience, with or without an MBA. But for starters, at least, could we add this bit of info from USA Today?

[1]

edit - I've mentioned the article. I need a better reason than "not encyclopedic" to remove it. :)

Rasi2290 00:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just left a post on your user page going into more detail, but it is important to realize this article is not for people interested in getting an MBA. This is an encyclopedia. This is an article for people interested in finding out what an MBA is. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe an MBA "is" something that boosts your income. Isn't that relevant to what it "is"? If you want to be technical, an "MBA" is some letters printed on a sheet of paper. But there's no need to be like that.Xproudfoot 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What many people don't understand is that starting salaries aren't really meaningful, because many MBA students (particularly those enrolled in part-time or executive programs) already have well-paid professional careers, so they'll skew any measurement of average starting salary. In light of this, I don't think it has a place in this article. I see the article no longer mentions it. -Amatulic 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ACBSP Accreditation

I've added the ACBSP as an accreditation body for U.S.-based M.B.A. programs and business schools, which has become more popular in recent years as an alternative or complementary accreditation to AACSB. While AACSB accreditation is more research-based in regard to requirements, ACBSP accreditation focuses more exclusively on instructional quality, course material, and vocational connections. Here is a link to their website:

http://www.acbsp.org

--Fred. 12:21, 22 April 2006


Spam Warning

The spam warning currently listed on the page is unecessary. All the current external links are legitemate sites for those who are interested in learning about MBAs in their area as business education in general.Elwood64151 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem was not so much the existing links but that people were frequently adding in spam-type links to the list? Paddles TC 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That is why I keep reädding it. -James Howard (talk/web) 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I added GettingToGradSchool.com which is an informational site and has everything about MBA's... not spam. I check once in a while to see how "helpful" the links are. Mikewill949 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed that link because it was presented like an advertisement, calling it an "official" site for the GMAT, which is blatantly false (www.gmac.com is the official GMAT site because they actually administer the test). Wikipedia isn't really supposed to be a portal of links. If that site has something in it that can be referenced in the article, fine, but on its own there's no reason to include it over hundreds of other "informational" commercial MBA sites. =Axlq 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just removed it again. Between me and others, it's been removed 3 times now, and re-posted each time by what appears to be a different sockpuppet. =Axlq 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does "business administration" redirect here?

Many, many prestigious schools offer a BS in business administration, so linking directly to the MBA seems a wee bit odd. I don't know enough about the programs to write the regular business administration article, but I was hoping someone would make the correction.--Bobak 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People Management in MBA

Do they teach how to manipulate and use people in MBA? Unsolicited 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, if you specialize in Human Resources or Organizational Behavior. -Amatulic 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMaster_of_Business_Administration_archive1_30f8.html"