I think most criticisms I have seen of MBAs is not of the degree itself, but of the associated costs and the amount of debt the program leaves you with.
The part I find unsatisfactory about MBA training is that it seems to be two degrees fused at the hip. Some people pursue one because they want to work in finance, whether as traders or analysts or some sort of deal-makers. Others pursue one because they want to be managers or executives in industry, running companies that are responsible for a wide variety of products or services. It seem like these two tracks should be disentangled.
Sort of the same problem as being ready to program anything, without any particular domain knowledge.
I think software development is less guilty of this, because the usual refrain is "if they're good, they can learn the specific stuff on the job." So the industry (generalizing here) might not always hire for expertise, but it does clearly value having it long term.
On the other hand, MBA's were invented with the idea of "general management" as a career. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't. Even in the elite business schools I've spent time around, I don't often see a culture of valuing expertise. The MBA's I've met who did have domain/discipline expertise either already had it going into their MBA program, or specifically sought out optional classes for it.
All of that said, if you pay attention, MBA usually have a lot to offer in teaching soft skills. I've seen Harvard Business School's curriculum, and I genuinely believe that classes to teach communication and negotiation should be undergraduate core requirements rather than attached to an expensive secondary degree. I wouldn't have paid HBS's asking rate for that kind of training, but if I had that in undergrad, I would have been much more effective coming out of college.
I think this discounts how similar most of the code written at different companies is, the nuances determined by business rules that are established elsewhere in the org chart.
On the topic of business rules though: I don't think it's just business rules. As engineers, we're much better at our jobs when we can internalize the customer mindset, and that takes time. I recently switched industries, and my ability to make architectural decisions is noticeably weaker because I don't have the long view of my problem domain yet. Some PM's like to think that they have that all covered (in my experience, that happens about 50-75% of the time), but even technical PM's don't spend that much time thinking about the architecture, so in my experience it still falls on the engineer to spend some time thinking about the what/why and not just the how.
I think that applies to MBA's too. Business often look pretty similar, but technical and industry expertise makes all the difference.
It's generally hard to absorb the full value of classes like these in undergrad without having any real life experience so to speak. That's why the top MBAs require applicants to have at least 3+ years of a solid career to help them achieve the full value of the courses they will take
Like most degree programs, there's a core set of business classes and a variety of electives allowing you to specialize[1].
[1] Example: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/academic-experienc...
tl;dr if you are confident an MBA can create a step increase in annual comp of even $10k, the cost is more than covered over the remainder of your career.
10k/year is far more than the value of the median MBA. Especially, when you adjust the numbers for inflation and expected raises.
But yes, if you plan to go to law school solely because you want to make money, it's not worth it unless you go to a top school or graduate at the literal top of your class.
No degree guarantees you a job, there's always work and ambition and a lot of luck and timing that factor into anyone's career success.
There are plenty of executive MBA and part time MBA programs from reputable schools (not just for profit and online schools) that would allow you to work and go to school. There are some that only meet on weekends.
The one person I know that got an EMBA from a decent respected school is a manager at a FAANG. Total comp is somewhat higher than mine, but he is also on the west coast where the cost of living negates much of the difference and if I went into consultancy, it would negate all of the difference.
In many schools there is no external difference between full time and part time (evening) MBA programs. You walk out the door of both programs with the exact same degree. Nobody outside the program will ever know which path you took to get the degree.
Will they not notice the overlap between a job and the programme?
By all general measures, company sponsorship in any significant manner is shrinking[1]. I believe the US employer education assistance tax credit is limited to around $5,250[2] per individual per year. Companies that will foot the entire bill for an executive MBA program seem to be few and far between.
[1] https://poetsandquantsforexecs.com/2014/07/22/how-to-get-an-...
[2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-benefits-for-education-info...
These roles are rightly challenged by many on HN since they aren't "true" technical architecture roles, for example. Even so, they do exist to support the businesses that create them until there is rationalisation during a recession when many of these roles are jettisoned.
After staying at one job for way too long 10 years ago, I’ve hopped jobs 4 times, pursuing that strategy (and learning about modern architecture) and have seen jumps of $7K, $10K, $25K, and $20K. Unless the market sours, I should be able to put together a resume and skillset to get another $25K bump as a consultant within the next 3 years.
This isn’t in Silicon Valley, NY, or DC.
I can’t see an MBA helping.
I do feel it’s nice to have that base business, accounting, finance, general management knowledge as a foundation to use to understand things, but is it $150k + $opportunity cost of 2 years worth of education? Not sure...
Then again, as someone above pointed out, I knew why I was getting an MBA. I can teach myself tech, but some of the business aspects are a pain to teach myself so I paid someone else to teach me those.
I tend to think personally that law and MBA grad degrees do generally tilt toward benefiting top schools but I'd never suggest that was an ironclad rule.
For software development, from personal experience of going to an unknown state school in the mid 90s, I was just as competitive with people coming from well known schools within three or four years. It probably would have helped with me landing that first job.
In my current job, to the degree my educational pedigree made any difference at all, it was my undergrad because that's where my hiring manager went. However, I'm sure there are many cases where business school networks associated with top schools can be important.
I did learn a lot that helped me years later.
To add to that value, if you become a team lead and have management responsibilities or have to manage budgets, it becomes even more helpful.