Hacker News Reader

The statistics from Harvard do not back you up:

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.

I'd like to see stats on salaries 10 years out, MINUS the folks who went into consulting or banking. If you get your MBA and make it into those industries, you're going to see fantastic year-over-year salary/bonus growth. If you, say, go back to a tech company and do marketing or finance, you're not going to see those huge gains, and a top school may not be worth it financially--basically you'd be doing the degree for the career change and not for a salary rocketship.

I saw a few of your comments in this thread and I'm really interested in hearing more about your experience with the MBA. Do you have time for an email? My address is my hn handle @ gmail.

I'd love to see stats on this as well -- does anyone know if they exist, particularly vs someone who stays on a technical track (eng. manager -> director of eng. -> vp of eng -> cto).

Problem is that you're only considering base salary. If you get into IB/PE your annual bonus can be a lot more than that.

And yes, many overlook at the fact most MBAs already had considerable previous work experience.

> Most MBAs don't get the ridiculous, unearned compensation bump that merits two years off and an expensive degree

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.

How long have you been working? Which area of the country? Do you think you could have gotten that 50k bump without the MBA? Thanks...just curious.

> Top MBA schools are basically a 2-year networking event

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])

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDmOgLabl_M

I'm confused that why would someone spend several thousands of dollars just for networking?

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.

It's not about networking but about the network you build. Networks are basically one of THE reasons why some people do better than others. Having a good network is also a huge driver to get a lot of startups off the ground.

It is the number one thing you can never get enough off.

How would an unimpressive person land into a top 5 MBA program? Presumably they'd take someone with solid prior work experience.

Well, those unimpressive people get the needed work experience.

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.

This is pretty accurate. I'd add to the mix "pretty impressive international students" too. They tend to have overcome similar socioeconomic disadvantages* as the middle-class students AND have overcome additional regional, cultural, and language barriers.

*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.

I feel your point about international students may be overstated. A lot of international students who come to places like HBS are extremely rich (some in the sense of owning huge portions of their country and having slaves rich).

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.

It happens a lot for various reasons. Admissions people aren't that good at their jobs, good ol' boy networks, outright cheating on standardized tests (this is a huge problem in Asia), and more than a few "dumb smart kids". Overall, good B schools (well beyond the "top 5", which I'm pretty sure consists of at least 10 schools) are full of pretty sharp folks. Some even brilliant. But quite a few dullards as well make it through the process.

> I know plenty of unimpressive people making $500,000 or more straight out of MBA school.

I assume that's finance. Is it trading, PE, IB or something else?

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.

There is maybe one person per year without PE experience hired into a PE firm large enough to pay someone straight out of an MBA $500k. Maybe one.

I'm talking about all-in numbers, not base salaries.