KnowledgeKick

I believe that. I work for a GREAT company and I'm sitting for the Level I CFA in Decemeber. I'm sure these will dramatically improve my chances of a better school. However, I still won't be accepted into Wharton or HSB so I'm at an impasse.

These better schools also require much more money and I'm not going to be able to stop working fulltime anyway. I don't want to make excuses, but that is my honest assessment of my situation.

Bill73

"However, the reason why I am looking into an Online option is because I'm working full-time as a first year analyst."

I know people that went to part-time MBA programs at night, and it didn't seem to give them a career boost at all. Perhaps the actual knowledge learned at school helped them on the job, but I don't think any of them actually left our company for better opportunities.

Bill73

Personally, I wouldn't tarnish your resume with an online degree from a less well-respected school.

If you want to learn about financial modeling or corporate finance, buy some textbooks online and self-study at home.

KnowledgeKick

Thanks Bill. To be honest, I do most of my learning on my own. I enjoy self-teaching.

The ONLY reason I want to get my MBA is because I want more interviews for higher-paying jobs.

After doing some simple cost-benefit-analysis in my head, I figured that dishing out $30k-$40k for an average MBA would certainly pay for itself in a few years.

I trust everyone's opinion, but it's hard for me to accept that this wouldn't benefit me.

ECAdmStudent

Change "would certainly" to "could possibly" and your statement is true... :P

Bill73

"The ONLY reason I want to get my MBA is because I want more interviews for higher-paying jobs."

Then you need to work for awhile, get great letters of recommendation, do well on the GMAT, and go back to a full-time program.

When you say you're an analyst, do you mean that you are a financial analyst? Are you doing budgeting and forecasting for a company?

KnowledgeKick

Unfortunately, no. Back office, entry-level analyst position at BB.

sakky

If employers truly wanted applicants with integrity, and presumably successfully filter out those who lack integrity, then pray tell, why is the business news so rife with stories of corporate malfeasance? Why has Barclays agreed to fines of over $400m and counting regarding the manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR, with the accompanying participation of other banks yet to be revealed but sure to come? Why just last week did GSK plead guilty to criminal charges and agreed to disgorge $3 billion - the largest settlement both nominally and after inflation adjustment in the history of the pharmaceutical industry - for extensive violations of the False Claims Act and the Food Drugs and Cosmetic Act? Why is the Board of Duke Energy being accused of "corporate deceit" over the recent merger and accompanying CEO 'bait-and' switch with Progress Energy? Why just last month was the former head of McKinsey and director at P&G, Goldman Sachs, and American Airlines convicted of 4 counts of felony securities fraud and conspiracy?

Or simply consider the entire rationale behind marketing and advertising, for which firms spend billions of dollars per year as a matter of course. Let's be perfectly honest: most advertising is predicated upon elaborate misdirection and misrepresentation. Movie trailers are deliberately designed to show you only a movie's most interesting segments - sometimes even including segments that don't even appear in the movie at all (although in fairness sometimes the trailer was produced before the movie's final edit was completed). And when exactly has anybody ever bought a fast food meal that actually looks as delicious as it does in the commercial?

If firms are allowed to withhold information to present their best possible image to customers through clever advertising, then I frankly don't see what is so outrageous with potential employees doing likewise when trying to obtain employment with those very same firms. A resume is, like a movie trailer, merely a marketing document, nothing more.

ECAdmStudent

@Sakky: Are you seriously suggesting that companies don't care about whether their entry-level employees have integrity or not?

I'm not saying that companies, employees, or recruiters don't lie. But if they see you lying or attempting to deceive them, God help you.

sakky

ECAdmstudent, you tell me. If firms truly cared so much about integrity, then why exactly are corporate scandals so pervasive? Wouldn't firms have always screened out such miscreants from working for them in the first place? Let's be blunt: firms are not exactly paragons of ethicality. What gives them the right to judge others regarding their ethics?

But that's the crux of the issue: why exactly is it deception or lying? In the scenario in question, the OP would have graduated from the University of Michigan. Granted, he didn't graduate from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, but he never claimed that he did. So where's the lie? Where's the deception? Frankly, if the problem is with brand confusion between Flint vs. Ann Arbor, then that's an issue that the greater University of Michigan system must deal with internally.

The bottom line is that the hiring process is a business transaction, nothing more. This is not a testament to God. You're under no obligation whatsoever to provide complete information to a potential employer, for after all, do you think that employer is truly providing complete information to you? You are perfectly entitled - and indeed should be expected - to put your best foot forward and make your candidacy look as attractive as possible. That's savvy self-promotion.

Bill73

"If firms truly cared so much about integrity, then why exactly are corporate scandals so pervasive?"

I think it's called the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.

My friend once interviewed for a financial analyst position at a company, and he walked out of the interview because after the interviewer described the job in more detail, it was actually a general ledger accounting job.

ECAdmStudent

@sakky, I'm not saying that it's immoral - I'm saying that as an attempt to be self-promotion, it's not particularly savvy. Any recruiter worth their salt will see though that ruse in an instant.

Whatdidyou

An MBA from a non-top 25 school isn't worthless. Can be risky though - so make sure you don't pay too much - get stipends...etc - some MBA programs subsidize alot of their MBA student's cost of attendance. And work your butt off - get active, make connections, get great grades...etc

I've definitely seen students go back and get their MBA at a non-"top" school, and then leave with a much better paying position and with better growth opportunities. So, it can definitely pay off.

But at the same time getting your MBA doesnt guarantee anything. So don't view it as your golden ticket.

sakky

Well, hey, there are plenty of recruiters clearly not worth their salt. After all, Scott Thompson apparently fooled the recruiters, human resources staff, and the board itself of Yahoo regarding the filling of the CEO position itself about having a computer science degree. It required the intervention of an outside activist hedge fund to bring his degree inconsistencies to light. If companies apparently can't even be bothered with checking the backgrounds of their CEO's, what does that imply about the scrutiny they apply to their entry-level hires?

Besides, many 'recruiters' are just regular people who happen to have hiring responsibilities, but have little knowledge or interest in the various types of college brand signals. For example, I can think of a number of managers who had never even heard of MIT, with some even thinking that it stood for the Milwaukee Institute of Technology, and even after learning the school's true name, they still were unfamiliar with the brand. Yet their responsibilities include the hiring of engineers.

Well, then perhaps this is merely a difference of opinion between you and I, for I would actually think that would be very savvy indeed. After all, the OP can't legitimately be accused of lying regarding the scenario in question; he does legitimately have a degree from the University of Michigan, as UM-Flint is legitimately part of the University of Michigan. He doesn't have a degree from UM-Ann Arbor, but he's not claiming that he does.

Now if you insist on calling that 'deception', fair enough, but I hardly see how that deception is any worse than the corporate deception at the heart of every-day Madison Avenue advertising campaigns. Just as we all know (or should know) that the burger that appears so delicious in the fast food commercials looks nothing of the sort in real life, recruiters also ought to know (or should know) that candidates should be expected to be having themselves appear as attractive as possible.

Moreover, what's wrong with that anyway? Shouldn't people be trying to actively market themselves? If companies are free to market themselves, why not job candidates?

barrk123

It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, savvy or not, lying or not

If they find out they may not hire him because of it, plain and simple