Which MBA?

[SVG84R]

My undergrad results : 2nd lower hons
gmat first attempt : 480

can any1 recommend any uni where i can do MBA? I know local unis r hard to get in.. any aus/UK unis?

thanks..

I know my results r bad...

for private mba( those that do not require GMAT) are really not so good. for those that require GMAT score, your score is too low. You may want to consider retaking them

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

My undergrad results : 2nd lower hons
gmat first attempt : 480

can any1 recommend any uni where i can do MBA? I know local unis r hard to get in.. any aus/UK unis?

thanks..

I know my results r bad...

Save the money..

 

[pinkpiglet4]

How abt uni of bradford MBA offered by MDIS? Is it good? Lets just say i need a MBA to secure a govt job.. thanks. Or any uni that u al can recommend?

 

[dareaper]

How abt uni of bradford MBA offered by MDIS? Is it good? Lets just say i need a MBA to secure a govt job.. thanks. Or any uni that u al can recommend?

Don't think a MBA will help in securing a govt job. What gave you that impression?

 

[dareaper]

Save the money..

Hey lee_tired_sheep, between a Stanford MSc and a NUS MBA, which has a better chance in landing an associate consultant role with MBB?

 

[Kyoji83]

No MBA in the world can help you to secure a government job.

However for education providers in Singapore, I will advise you to get a full time MBA from NUS, NTU or SMU because it is the only MBA that is recognized by Singapore government.

So don't try to phase your words or lie to us that you needs a MBA to secure a government job when you do not even know which MBA is recognized by Singapore government.

How abt uni of bradford MBA offered by MDIS? Is it good? Lets just say i need a MBA to secure a govt job.. thanks. Or any uni that u al can recommend?

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

Hey lee_tired_sheep, between a Stanford MSc and a NUS MBA, which has a better chance in landing an associate consultant role with MBB?

Stanford msc hands down. And a post mba applicant would not be eligible for an AC position anyway.

 

[dareaper]

Stanford msc hands down. And a post mba applicant would not be eligible for an AC position anyway.

hmm thanks! was doing some research, and it seems like some consultancy firms (eg LEK) will lump MSc applicants together with fresh grads into the entry level position (BA) in the firm regardless of any prior industry work experience by the applicant. Is this an accurate reflection of the management consultancy industry in general? McKinsey's website seems to paint a slightly different picture, but I am not sure if the definition of "experienced hire" in the consultancy industry refers to consulting experience?

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

Yes it is unless you have 5+ (my est) of pre masters experience.

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

If you're coming out of school then you're a campus hire not an experienced hire. Experienced hires can come from consulting or industry.

 

[dareaper]

If you're coming out of school then you're a campus hire not an experienced hire. Experienced hires can come from consulting or industry.

Thanks! The clarification is enlightening. I have worked for ~7.5 years in the aerospace industry, and just got an admit to a Stanford engineering management MSc program. I am interested in checking out management consulting as a possible career switch, but was just wondering how useful the MSc will be (even with the branding) if it is only able to get me into an entry level position at the higher tier firms versus a NUS MBA that can possibly get me placed into a full consultant role (~ 2 levels above entry level?) at a lower tier or boutique consultancy firm. Seems like the MSc may still be a viable choice!

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

What kind of msc? I'm assuming it's conducted in Palo alto?

 

[creeksg]

Thanks! The clarification is enlightening. I have worked for ~7.5 years in the aerospace industry, and just got an admit to a Stanford engineering management MSc program. I am interested in checking out management consulting as a possible career switch, but was just wondering how useful the MSc will be (even with the branding) if it is only able to get me into an entry level position at the higher tier firms versus a NUS MBA that can possibly get me placed into a full consultant role (~ 2 levels above entry level?) at a lower tier or boutique consultancy firm. Seems like the MSc may still be a viable choice!

Is your Stanford MSc an online degree? If so, I think NUS MBA may be a better choice. IMO there is a big difference in perceived prestige between 1) a full Ivy undergrad, 2) an Ivy MSc and 3) an online degree. An MSc is usually much easier to gain admission compared to undergrad, as most MSc are cash cows for the university. Unless we're talking about top MBAs where admission rates can be lower than for their undergrad programs.

I was actually considering applying for the Stanford MSc a while back but backed out after careful thought.

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

Online? Don't bother..

 

[dareaper]

Is your Stanford MSc an online degree? If so, I think NUS MBA may be a better choice. IMO there is a big difference in perceived prestige between 1) a full Ivy undergrad, 2) an Ivy MSc and 3) an online degree. An MSc is usually much easier to gain admission compared to undergrad, as most MSc are cash cows for the university. Unless we're talking about top MBAs where admission rates can be lower than for their undergrad programs.

I was actually considering applying for the Stanford MSc a while back but backed out after careful thought.

Well, besides the minor point where Stanford isn't an Ivy League uni, admission statistics for top tier uni's undergraduate are always worse (ie lower acceptance %) compared to their MSc programs (see link for the Stanford MSc's admission statistics). I agree that statistics for MBAs, MDs, JDs may be even worse than undergrads admission and that most MScs are cash cows for all universities since they usually do not provide financial aid to MSc students. Unfortunately I can't turn back time and choose to go to a more prestigious university than NUS for my undergraduate, so the comparison between a MSc and undergraduate education at a top tier university is pointless.

So that brings us to a comparison between the Stanford MSc, or a local part-time MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) (Feel free to provide more pro local MBAs argument since you didn't exactly mention why you think the local MBA option is better).

Since my employer will only pay for a part-time or distance learning masters, there isn't many other options available unless I want to fork out the 60~100k (not counting opportunity cost and living expenses of 100-200k) out of my own pocket for a full time program. Hence cost is not a concern for the comparison between the MSc and the part-time MBA. GMAT (740) or GRE (162V/170Q) is also not a limiting factor.

I applied for the Stanford MSc (see link for more info if interested) via their Honors Cooperative Program (HCP), which is a part-time/distance learning option for students working at some companies. For students in the bay area/palo alto (this comprise the majority of the HCP students), they can attend the lectures in person (or watch the recording online), and they will have to take the exams together with the full time student on-campus (students further away requires a proctor for invigilation). HCP students and full-time students do take the modules at the same time, and are graded upon the same criteria. Does this make the MSc an online degree other than the factor that I plan to complete most of the courses online as compared to a degree that's offered fully online (eg. Northwestern's online MPP) without a brick and mortar equivalent?

My concern for taking the MSc mostly via distance learning is mainly the loss of the networking with professors and other students as compared to taking a local part-time MBA. I guess in my decision analysis, this loss of networking is something I find difficult to "price" appropriately. Not being on campus also limits the cross faculty modules available (eg won't have access to Stanford GSB's modules), and lack of access to campus recruiting. If I do take up this MSc, I do plan to do one to two quarters at palo alto while working remotely (my work is somewhat flexible, and only requires my laptop and an internet connection), though it is still far from a perfect solution to the loss of networking.

Hence I am still considering the pros and cons of the MSc and the local part-time MBA
Opinions are welcomed, and may help in influencing how I "price" in the cons of doing the MSc through distance learning despite the brand name.

What kind of msc? I'm assuming it's conducted in Palo alto?

It is conducted in Palo Alto, though I plan to complete most modules via distance learning while spending 1-2 quarters at Palo Alto. I also have the choice to convert to the full-time program if I am willing to pay for the tuition fee (~60k sgd) and living expenses (~20-30k sgd) out of pocket though.

 

[creeksg]

Well, besides the minor point where Stanford isn't an Ivy League uni, admission statistics for top tier uni's undergraduate are always worse (ie lower acceptance %) compared to their MSc programs (see link for the Stanford MSc's admission statistics). I agree that statistics for MBAs, MDs, JDs may be even worse than undergrads admission and that most MScs are cash cows for all universities since they usually do not provide financial aid to MSc students. Unfortunately I can't turn back time and choose to go to a more prestigious university than NUS for my undergraduate, so the comparison between a MSc and undergraduate education at a top tier university is pointless.

So that brings us to a comparison between the Stanford MSc, or a local part-time MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) (Feel free to provide more pro local MBAs argument since you didn't exactly mention why you think the local MBA option is better).

Since my employer will only pay for a part-time or distance learning masters, there isn't many other options available unless I want to fork out the 60~100k (not counting opportunity cost and living expenses of 100-200k) out of my own pocket for a full time program. Hence cost is not a concern for the comparison between the MSc and the part-time MBA. GMAT (740) or GRE (162V/170Q) is also not a limiting factor.

I applied for the Stanford MSc (see link for more info if interested) via their Honors Cooperative Program (HCP), which is a part-time/distance learning option for students working at some companies. For students in the bay area/palo alto (this comprise the majority of the HCP students), they can attend the lectures in person (or watch the recording online), and they will have to take the exams together with the full time student on-campus (students further away requires a proctor for invigilation). HCP students and full-time students do take the modules at the same time, and are graded upon the same criteria. Does this make the MSc an online degree other than the factor that I plan to complete most of the courses online as compared to a degree that's offered fully online (eg. Northwestern's online MPP) without a brick and mortar equivalent?

My concern for taking the MSc mostly via distance learning is mainly the loss of the networking with professors and other students as compared to taking a local part-time MBA. I guess in my decision analysis, this loss of networking is something I find difficult to "price" appropriately. Not being on campus also limits the cross faculty modules available (eg won't have access to Stanford GSB's modules), and lack of access to campus recruiting. If I do take up this MSc, I do plan to do one to two quarters at palo alto while working remotely (my work is somewhat flexible, and only requires my laptop and an internet connection), though it is still far from a perfect solution to the loss of networking.

Hence I am still considering the pros and cons of the MSc and the local part-time MBA
Opinions are welcomed, and may help in influencing how I "price" in the cons of doing the MSc through distance learning despite the brand name.



It is conducted in Palo Alto, though I plan to complete most modules via distance learning while spending 1-2 quarters at Palo Alto. I also have the choice to convert to the full-time program if I am willing to pay for the tuition fee (~60k sgd) and living expenses (~20-30k sgd) out of pocket though.

First off, I agree with most of your points. I agree that since your graded with on-campus students, your calibre is measured on the same level as on-campus students, and in this regard, whether or not your degree is taken online, distance or on-campus is moot. However, you're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince the recruiters. How confident are you that they won't can your resume once they realize that you're working in Singapore and taking a US masters at the same time? Since Stanford doesn't maintain an offshore campus here the only conclusion is that this is an online degree with no real-world interaction with students/instructors.

Now considering the tier 1 firms (I can really only speak for banks but I assume MCs are in similar circumstances) have no shortage of qualified applicants, the question is whether the 'stigma' of an online degree will ding your application. That is the crux of my argument and it's open to debate. But from my interactions with recruiters (banking), this does matter a lot. You will not have the luxury of such a lengthy defense when your resume is being screened. Whether or not such a 'stigma' is justified, is besides the point, because such is the reality in recruiting. I'm all for MOOCs and online education, but again my viewpoint is not shared by recruiters.

Look at the previous poster's one line response: "Online? Don't bother". This is about the amount of time the recruiter scanning your resume has to form a first impression. Just for this reason, I would argue that any local brick-and-mortar will be more valuable for recruiting than any "online" education. The definition of "online" is gray, as you rightly noted. But if the recruiter thinks so, then it is.

 

[lee_tired_sheep]

If you don't have access to on campus recruiting, then from a job search perspective it might as well be an online program, whatever shade of grey it may be in other respects.

 

[Kyoji83]

Base on pinkpiglet4's case, both Stanford MSc & local part-time MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) are useless because is not recognize by Govt Sector & it only take a Bach/Hons degree to apply for a Govt job. So I will recommend him or her to work for a while in Govt job (using his/her Bach/Hons degree to secure the job) before applying for full time MBA sponsorship by his/her company.

Well, besides the minor point where Stanford isn't an Ivy League uni, admission statistics for top tier uni's undergraduate are always worse (ie lower acceptance %) compared to their MSc programs (see link for the Stanford MSc's admission statistics). I agree that statistics for MBAs, MDs, JDs may be even worse than undergrads admission and that most MScs are cash cows for all universities since they usually do not provide financial aid to MSc students. Unfortunately I can't turn back time and choose to go to a more prestigious university than NUS for my undergraduate, so the comparison between a MSc and undergraduate education at a top tier university is pointless.

So that brings us to a comparison between the Stanford MSc, or a local part-time MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) (Feel free to provide more pro local MBAs argument since you didn't exactly mention why you think the local MBA option is better).

Since my employer will only pay for a part-time or distance learning masters, there isn't many other options available unless I want to fork out the 60~100k (not counting opportunity cost and living expenses of 100-200k) out of my own pocket for a full time program. Hence cost is not a concern for the comparison between the MSc and the part-time MBA. GMAT (740) or GRE (162V/170Q) is also not a limiting factor.

I applied for the Stanford MSc (see link for more info if interested) via their Honors Cooperative Program (HCP), which is a part-time/distance learning option for students working at some companies. For students in the bay area/palo alto (this comprise the majority of the HCP students), they can attend the lectures in person (or watch the recording online), and they will have to take the exams together with the full time student on-campus (students further away requires a proctor for invigilation). HCP students and full-time students do take the modules at the same time, and are graded upon the same criteria. Does this make the MSc an online degree other than the factor that I plan to complete most of the courses online as compared to a degree that's offered fully online (eg. Northwestern's online MPP) without a brick and mortar equivalent?

My concern for taking the MSc mostly via distance learning is mainly the loss of the networking with professors and other students as compared to taking a local part-time MBA. I guess in my decision analysis, this loss of networking is something I find difficult to "price" appropriately. Not being on campus also limits the cross faculty modules available (eg won't have access to Stanford GSB's modules), and lack of access to campus recruiting. If I do take up this MSc, I do plan to do one to two quarters at palo alto while working remotely (my work is somewhat flexible, and only requires my laptop and an internet connection), though it is still far from a perfect solution to the loss of networking.

Hence I am still considering the pros and cons of the MSc and the local part-time MBA
Opinions are welcomed, and may help in influencing how I "price" in the cons of doing the MSc through distance learning despite the brand name.



It is conducted in Palo Alto, though I plan to complete most modules via distance learning while spending 1-2 quarters at Palo Alto. I also have the choice to convert to the full-time program if I am willing to pay for the tuition fee (~60k sgd) and living expenses (~20-30k sgd) out of pocket though.

 

[dareaper]

First off, I agree with most of your points. I agree that since your graded with on-campus students, your calibre is measured on the same level as on-campus students, and in this regard, whether or not your degree is taken online, distance or on-campus is moot. However, you're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince the recruiters. How confident are you that they won't can your resume once they realize that you're working in Singapore and taking a US masters at the same time? Since Stanford doesn't maintain an offshore campus here the only conclusion is that this is an online degree with no real-world interaction with students/instructors.

Now considering the tier 1 firms (I can really only speak for banks but I assume MCs are in similar circumstances) have no shortage of qualified applicants, the question is whether the 'stigma' of an online degree will ding your application. That is the crux of my argument and it's open to debate. But from my interactions with recruiters (banking), this does matter a lot. You will not have the luxury of such a lengthy defense when your resume is being screened. Whether or not such a 'stigma' is justified, is besides the point, because such is the reality in recruiting. I'm all for MOOCs and online education, but again my viewpoint is not shared by recruiters.

Look at the previous poster's one line response: "Online? Don't bother". This is about the amount of time the recruiter scanning your resume has to form a first impression. Just for this reason, I would argue that any local brick-and-mortar will be more valuable for recruiting than any "online" education. The definition of "online" is gray, as you rightly noted. But if the recruiter thinks so, then it is.

Haha interestingly, I also agree with most of your points. Especially regarding the stigma of the online aspect of the MSc and that you won't be able to argue with the recruiter about his or her perception. On the other hand, part-time MBAs also have a stigma attached to it, albeit not as bad as an "online" degree. A local part-time MBA would probably have no chance at a tier 1 bank or MC anyway. So on this point, both choices are somewhat equally bad.

So maybe its a question of which is worse? After all, its free sponsorship with no bond attached (though I am still bonded with the company for ~1.5 yrs due to other stuff), so I might as well learn something and get a degree with my free time

Appreciate your opinions! Thanks!

If you don't have access to on campus recruiting, then from a job search perspective it might as well be an online program, whatever shade of grey it may be in other respects.

Hmm, actually I am not too sure if there is indeed no access to the campus recruiting program. The website stated that enrolled students that's on campus are eligible for campus recruiting, not too sure if part-time students on campus are also eligible. Anyway have sent the career service department a message to clarify this. Thanks!

Base on pinkpiglet4's case, both Stanford MSc & local part-time MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) are useless because is not recognize by Govt Sector & it only take a Bach/Hons degree to apply for a Govt job. So I will recommend him or her to work for a while in Govt job (using his/her Bach/Hons degree to secure the job) before applying for full time MBA sponsorship by his/her company.

Uhh how is this related to pinkpiglet4? Were you confused? No govt jobs were in any part of the discussion.

 

[Kyoji83]

I mean because of pinkpiglet4's case on Stanford MSc vs local MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) because he needs to secure a Govt job, this Stanford MSc vs local MBA debate have started however it does not contribute to his question.

So I add in the debate as part of the discussion that for his case, it is the full time local MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU) that will help him over Stanford MSc & part time local MBA (NUS/NTU/SMU).

Haha interestingly, I also agree with most of your points. Especially regarding the stigma of the online aspect of the MSc and that you won't be able to argue with the recruiter about his or her perception. On the other hand, part-time MBAs also have a stigma attached to it, albeit not as bad as an "online" degree. A local part-time MBA would probably have no chance at a tier 1 bank or MC anyway. So on this point, both choices are somewhat equally bad.

So maybe its a question of which is worse? After all, its free sponsorship with no bond attached (though I am still bonded with the company for ~1.5 yrs due to other stuff), so I might as well learn something and get a degree with my free time

Appreciate your opinions! Thanks!



Hmm, actually I am not too sure if there is indeed no access to the campus recruiting program. The website stated that enrolled students that's on campus are eligible for campus recruiting, not too sure if part-time students on campus are also eligible. Anyway have sent the career service department a message to clarify this. Thanks!



Uhh how is this related to pinkpiglet4? Were you confused? No govt jobs were in any part of the discussion.