Newly minted MBA? It's the best job market in years
bbc.com
bbc.com
I find this somewhat troubling. Trust an old-timer: When the circle comes around to the point where it tips toward hiring MBAs again, it's time to sell and take cover. A couple years after they destroy the economy again, you come back in and buy. Not necessarily a bad thing - for everything there is a season - just something to be aware of.
When that bubble pops many of these towns, MBA's etc. will be faced with tough job prospects.
In terms of bubble, the low yields on junk debt globally are a really, really big problem. An angel investment in a small startup that folds, or a VC investment in an instant unicorn (term I saw on TC recently) that imploads, your money goes to $0. Or maybe you lose 50%, 60% on a public tech company. On debt, this will impact everything from the money markets holding business and individual cash to the institutions, both public and private, that think business is good because they depend on high risk low cost finance to perform their day to day operations. 2015+ is very scary even for bears.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3014543/detroit-is-going-bankrupt...
"This site was created for the BBC’s International audience by BBC Worldwide. Some elements including spelling and grammar may deviate from those found on our UK sites. BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC). No money from the licence fee was used to create this website. Instead this website is supported by advertising outside the UK. The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."
Is this a new thing to let UK folk see the content, presumably without the ads?
At any rate, hurry up and graduate right now with an MBA in BBC Studies so that you can capitalize on a high valuation in the current market with synergistic timing for first to market strategies that optimize for and leverage the BBC Studies MBA multi-billion dollar social niche! You'll make the world a better place!
What's a CS major in the Midwest make with 2-5 years of experience make? What will they make with 4-7 years of experience?
The new MBA in banking will make 200+K with large rises. Consulting perhaps a little less, but great upside for those who make partners.
The other value for technical people is getting in to new areas. A CS major who learns Marketing and Finance may make a better CEO down the line. (Or a CS major who doesn't like coding any more) The MBA is the easiest way to make the switch.
Contrary to the unfortunate opinions of many here on HN (I get it, I am a former engineer), there are more good MBAs than bad ones. What I can say with certainty, is that I have never spent time with a smarter, more motivated group of people than I did in B school. That includes my time at NASA and working at couple startups. It's a unique experience, and to me at least, worth the cost even with zero financial return. But if you want to make more after B school, it's easier. Not everyone chooses to.
ymmv
Some generalizations....
1 - MBAs tend to be risk averse.
2 - MBA career choices tend to be driven by who shows up to recruit at their campuses.
3 - MBAs tend to be value capturers and maximizers rather than value creators.
4 - MBAs tend to have debt load and follow who pays cash. (This ties with #1)
Does this mean they are all evil? No. But you get what you pay for. A fancy MBA won't create the next great thing, but could help the current great thing be a little more predictable in hitting earnings.
For what it's worth, Amazon seems to like quantitative MBAs. Google seems to like them with CS undergrads. Apple doesn't seem to care for them too much. Does that make any a black and white model?
1) The drought. Though it's part of a longer term trend, the drought will be the cause for everyone moving out. Expect memes about having a swimming pool or watering your lawn back east.
2) Mortgage brokers again. Housing in the Bay is crazy right now, just as it was in 2008. Expect them to be blamed once more.
3) Brogrammers. Idiot kids from B-list Ivys, Duke, or the like came out to the Bay, were very bro-y (sexist, racist, drunk, foolish, etc) and killed the golden goose with their bro-ness.
If the rest of the US really takes a hit, expect stuff about 'too big to save' instead of 'too big to fail'. This is real bad and I hope it does not come to that.
What I'm saying is that the techy-Social bubble's blame may fall on the brogrammers as an emblem of a larger and more complex problem.
Suffice to say though, I think most people on HN these days are competent enough to know there is a bubble and the end is not 5 years out, but less than 2
Who is really to blame? The structural problems in the way we handle things in general :p
Anecdotal but heres my story regarding them: Recruiter was very excited to fly me to Seattle. I attribute the MBA to that(CS Undergrad). Unfortunately I find a common stigma attached to the MBA for technical roles. During my Technical Program Management interview none of the interviewers had a business degree. PhD in cs, and an MIS, but I didn't connect much with 2/4 of the interviewers. 'So you don't want to be a developer anymore' was one of the opening comments I received. To address this i'm currently working on an intermediate step (title=founder?) to further distance myself from pure dev and thinking about PMP & Marketing certifications to help downplay the 10 years work experience developing.
On the other side of the coin, they say that Amazon hires only one out of every 5 candidates, my sample size of 1 is too small, and I cant claim I aced every conversation.
The degree (even from a top school) doesn't really seem to help out here in the Bay Area (maybe Seattle too, I've never been there). The banks and consultancy firms would rather you had a finance or consulting background, and won't hire you unless you're fresh out of MBA school. The tech companies either can't get over their anti-MBA stigma (as if merely getting the degree makes you suddenly forget math/engineering fundamentals) or just assume you went back to school because you were a bad coder.
Most tech companies seem to have a "Chinese wall" between the tech side and the business side, and there aren't many roles out there with the opportunity to overlap. Unless you want to do a start-up, where everyone wears many hats, but I like to be able to pay my mortgage and eat.
A few years later (still a Software Engineer), working for a different (much larger) company, I decide to pursue management positions again. I go and get myself an MBA (part-time, so I could continue to work). I had a few interviews for management positions at my current company during my MBA studies, but ultimately no dice. I was laid off (as part of a mass layoff) more or less immediately after graduating.
Now, I no longer care. I've become a pretty good Software Engineer so I think I'll just stick with that. I let the PMP expire (it takes time and money to maintain, consider that), though I'm afraid I'm stuck with the MBA (at least my employer had paid for it). The need to explain why I got an MBA (4 years ago) during job interviews and reassure potential employers I'm really a nerd with no management aspirations is the only lasting effect of the degree.
(I'm not saying I know anything about the value of having this certification in terms of career prospects. What I do know is that you get to memorize a ton of horseshit to then spit it out in a brain-damaged multiple-choice test, and instinctively - not based on experience - I wouldn't want to manage a project in an org which values the "PMP" label, because it sounds like the kind of project where every pencil/square of toilet paper/etc. counts, the thing as well as the org in general being barely profitable.)
Then there's all the other companies out there that employ software development teams, and probably pay 20-40% less than the aforementioned behemoth firms on average. If you work at one of those companies (and I do), Amazon's compensation package seems incredible. But maybe a bit less incredible if you divide it by the actual number of hours worked. Amazon is notorious for being a workaholic environment.
If you go to a top-5 MBA school, the opportunities are ridiculous. I know plenty of unimpressive people making $500,000 or more straight out of MBA school. But it needs to be a top school, and there are a lot of factors (e.g. work experience) that are socioeconomic rather than merit-based.
Top MBA schools are basically a 2-year networking event. I know a couple economics professors (at top MBA schools) who refuse to teach MBA students because they're sick of having the students demand of the Dean that they reschedule exams and classes to accommodate their leisure travel, and having the students win.
Most MBAs don't get the ridiculous, unearned compensation bump that merits two years off and an expensive degree, though. If you make $500k with no skills whatsoever, then you can probably pay it off. If your next gig comes in at $75k, that isn't bad by most peoples' standards, but it'll make it hard to pay off the student loans.
http://www.hbs.edu/recruiting/data/Pages/detailed-charts.asp...
10 years down the line the spread between having an MBA and not will be significant, but right after MBA school very few people (10%?) have a starting salary of even $200k. I'm sure there is a guy that came out and made $500k, but it's not anyone outside of the top 10% within the the best program in the country.
I'm considering getting an MBA (I am currently a senior software engineer, previously have been a mechanical engineer). I know that for myself personally, an MBA would definitely be a financial setback over the next 3 years. Long term, 10+ years out, it would be a big gain. I'm considering doing it, but the cost is turning me off a bit.
As another anecdote, the best "business" guy I know from my graduating class (in fact, the valedictorian from a class of 5000 people) is also considering an MBA. He is in the same boat that I am - the salaries for most people upon MBA graduation are lower than our current salaries. So what's the point? Yet 10 years from now, not having an MBA will be a liability, because other people with MBA's attribute their success to them and are skeptical of those without.
And yes, many overlook at the fact most MBAs already had considerable previous work experience.
yup not top 5 school for me (top 20 maybe?), but my requirements were: set schedule for entire program (firm end date) where I didn't need to pick and schedule individual classes (cohort) and needed too be able to keep my full time job (nights & weekends). Had SUPER supportive wife, first kid born in yr 2 of the program. Was 90k with my total cost around 55k - had decent paying tech gig before hand. Luckily I landed 50K bump in pay at next gig (from 80 to 130), so it didn't take long for the investment to pay off. Should have networked more. Still introverted, but more likely to jump into starting something.
So you're basic assumption is that there is zero to low value in actually attending the class and learning from professors? I'm confused that why would someone spend several thousands of dollars just for networking?
Why not do it you're self? Try think of creative ways to hustle. In the book Education of Millionaires [1], there was a then young and inexperienced entrepreneur who needs to connect with other already successful entrepreneurs. He cold called every CEOs of the 30 under 30 and convinced them to join a free ski trip with a group of young successful CEOs. He also found companies to sponsor the trip. Basically, he created a valuable network out of nowhere from this smart hack.
I bet if one spend 6 months full time hustling/connecting with people, one will get more value while spending less per unit time compared to a MBA. Not to mention if it is best use of time to go all out networking for an extended period of time.
In my view, networking is best done intermittently while doing something that produces value, like creating a startup or organizing a non-profit. In this case you have some context to network for. You'll know better about why and how to do networking and get more value.
[1] The Education of Millionaires, Michael Ellsberg (The author's talk about how to do networking is also very good [2])
It is the number one thing you can never get enough off.
For one, for the people who can pass the socioeconomic component of MBA school admissions, the costs are a rounding error. For the middle-class students who get in on merit, the connections are worth it.
Two factors amplify the strength of connections. One is nostalgia. There's a reason why college connections run deeper than grad-school connections, which run deeper than work connections. People tend to want to be around those who were with them back in the "good old days". The second is what I call "soft extortion", but that term might be too cynical since it's always implied. If you went drinking with someone on a regular basis and tried to run game on the same women, you both know things about the other that create a bond of "necessary trust". If you ever tried to pull something out on the other guy (i.e. hard extortion) in order to get a favor, you'd lose his trust and friendship. However, the fact that this capability theoretically exists tends to create bonds, due to peoples' aversion to cognitive dissonance. ("I trusted him enough to get piss-drunk with him back in school, so I should trust him on a $500-million deal.") Soft extortion is an extremely powerful force; it's why fraternities use humiliating initiation rites.
The "work experience" component of MBA admissions is socioeconomic. It's often worked out while these kids are still in school, that they'll do job X for 3 years and then get sent to Harvard MBA school. And while some rich kids are also impressively intelligent and creative, those tend not to be the rich kids who go to MBA school. So you get a mix of reasonably impressive (or lucky) middle-class students and unimpressive rich kids.
*I'm _cautiously_ using the word "disadvantages" here since in all honesty we're comparing really lucky students with middle-class backgrounds to ultra-lucky students with filthy rich backgrounds.
Read about Harvard "Section X" for example. It is an elite enclave of students within HBS who outspend other HBS groups (who spend a lot anyway) by a mile.
I assume that's finance. Is it trading, PE, IB or something else?
All of the above. It's harder for an idiot to get rich in straight trading, because there is a merit factor in that game. PE is a big one. Lots of highly-compensated but unimpressive people in that industry.