I've been at CG for nearly three years and am considering my plans for the next few years.One option is an MBA. I was wondering if anybody here has any experiences to share in:- Full time vs part time / distance learning MBA programmes- Whether your consultancy firm has helped with funding, time off etc and under what retainer conditions.Thanks in advance

If you are able to complete an MBA full-time then I would certainly take that option but it obviously costs alot more.I would also take time to consider which university you would like to attend - have a look at the various rankings that are available and choose the best one that your personal circumstances will allow.I am due to finish my distance learning MBA next April, it's taken almost two years and it's great to see the end in sight. At times it's a lonely, gruelling experience, as you are unable to share experiences with other students in the same way that you can on a FT or even PT course.It's certainly had a very beneficial and positive impact on my life, although if I had had the time and money I would certainly have gone full-time...I think there is still a 'kudos factor' associated with the type of course and university.

I'd have to agree with part of what Dragon says here, but disagree with the other part. I'll agree that kudos may well be attached to the institution where you're doing your MBA - however, when you consider that there are literally thousands of MBA programmes, anything in the top 30 or 50 or 100 has got to be worth it's salt!I must disagree with the view that they type of course affects anything. The MBA programme is the same, and one is not more or less difficult than the other - it's just taylored to suit your way of working and current capacity. At the end of the day, only someone incredibly short-sighted would think that your full-time MBA is worth more or less than the next person's part-time or DL programme.An MBA is an MBA. It's the school that counts more than the delivery method.B

I completed one year DL before switching to full time MBA. In terms of content DL and full time are similar. However the full time MBA is a completely different experience.Things you will get from a full time MBA that you won't from DL: working with people from a wide range of nationalities and industries.....team working......debating case studies......presenting and arguing your case......a network of career oriented people......and (from a good school) a brand that gets you interviews. A full time MBA changes your outlook whereas DL just adds some knowledge.That said I would only consider the leading MBAs (top 5 UK or Europe. Top 25 in the US). Beyond that their brand value declines exponentially.......though I expect the course content is similar.

Excellent point. there is no denying that the experience is different depending on which format you choose. Only the DL version is limited in this respect though, as the PT or modular versions have this level of interaction.Also, some schools only accept students after they have been in the business world for a while. Others take MBA students straight out of undergrad. I think you'd get a richer and more rounded education in the former environment ...Based on your assessment JJ, you'd consider the following schools as leading MBAs:IESE Business School - University of Navarra 1 Dartmouth College - Tuck School of Business 2 Stanford Graduate School of Business 3 Chicago, University of - Graduate School of Business 4 IMD - International Institute for Management Development 5 Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management 6 Harvard Business School 7 New York University - Leonard N Stern School of Business 8 Michigan, University of - Stephen M Ross School of Business 9 California at Berkeley, University of - Haas School of Business 10 Cambridge, University of - Judge Business School 11 Columbia Business School 12 Virginia, University of - Darden Graduate School of Business Administration 13 Henley Management College 14 UCLA—The Anderson School 15 IE - Instituto de Empresa 16 Pennsylvania, University of - Wharton School 17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT Sloan School of Management 18 Cranfield School of Management 19 London Business School 20 Ashridge 21 INSEAD 22 Cornell University - Johnson Graduate School of Management 23 Yale School of Management 24 Emory University - Goizueta Business School 25 Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School 26 Washington, University of - Business School 27 Carnegie Mellon University - Tepper School of Business 28 Duke University - Fuqua School of Business 29 York University - Schulich School of Business 30 (these are the top 30 per the EIU rankings).B

This is a very odd ranking. Few people would put IESE as top worldwide; or Henley as number one in the uk.Also I think ranking is not absolute but depends on your requirements. For the most enriching experience you might decide to go outside your own country. The key is to stick with a top branded school for what you want to do.

JJAs with any survey you need to take the source into account, clearly as an experienced consultant with CG I shan't be teaching you to suck eggs when I point out that you need to think about how the survey was conducted and what the questions were like.Economist Intelligence Unit (www.economist.com) is a fairly swept up organisation in it's own right, but the survey itself also includes current and former students in the collection process. I'm not sure how that inherent bias is mitigated, but its reasonable to assume that it is.It looks at the cultural and experience diversity of the student and faculty populations, which is one of the reasons that IESE comes out well.Bear in mind that European courses tend not to accept candidates fresh from a first degree in the same way that US courses do, which will give better results from the survey, and they'll tend to have a reasonably high ''international'' intake where a US course will have a fairly low proportion. Whilst I haven't seen objective evidence I am hearing anecdotal evidence that it is reducing as a result of recent security related issues in the US.But rather than use just one survey, have a close look at several. FT also has one and I'm sure if you cig around the sources you'll find a couple more.

JJ, ignore my point about being experienced at CG, mild loss of track on my part. Although the point applies, with an MBA you should appreciate the limitations of surveys.

The order notwithstanding, these are the top 30 schools globally according to Economist Intelligence Unit. If one comes out at #3 and another at #17 that doesn't mean (IMO) that the 3 is better than the 17. My point is, if it's in this list, it's a top school. On pretty much any ranking (EIU is the one I looked at for this post), you'll find these schools so there is an element of consistency.BTW, Henley comes out as #2 UK - Judge at Cambridge is #1, though a lot of folks might plump for LBS - on this ranking LBS comes 20th in the world (4th UK, after Cranfield). Depends on the survey questions, respondents and analysis criteria I suppose.

Im sorry but you are all very misled. The above rankings do not hold at all. As a recruiter for one of the worlds top strategy houses, I can confirm that the widley held ranking for business schools is that used by Business Week. I am sure Beng will agree. LBS is ranked 5th in the world - not 20th. I am sure that if you speak with any recruiter at firms such as J&J, McKinsey, BCG, Google, Goldman Sachs etc you will find a common agreement on MBA rankings. Anything out of the top 15 US or top 10 international is NOT seen as a target mba as far as we are concerened. Much the same way, we shy away from distance learning mba's. The whole point of the degree is to learn from those AROUND you, as well as your teachers. A common question raised on entrance essays is " what can other students at xx GSB learn from you this year?" A DL mba shatters this aspect and is frowned upon my many firms. If you dont have time to do it properly or in the right place then you should question why you should be doing it at all.

Dear MBA recruiter, I think your view is fine if you are the only supplier to the highest paying companies, but beyond that, ie the real world, I think your approach is short sighted. I don't deny that the top BS provide the best education (by definition!), but they do so removed from the workplace, and without the mutiple demands and distractions of the world that executives/consultants have to contend with on a daily basis. So the risk is 'ivory-towerism', and that graduates have only proved themselves in the BS, not the real world - visit any BS and you will see what I mean. Recruiters need to think more laterally around issues such as course content, can it achieve independent accreditation or not - this is an 'acid test'. Also, what does it say about the students if they can mangage their careers, workloads and study simultaneously? Can we dispel the notion that DL students study in glorious isolation, as well; study groups, tutorials, residentials, on-line conferencing, quality study materials and sheer individual initiative allow students to apply what they are studying, in a real context and drawing on more than sufficient similar examples from other business areas. This allows them to form a balanced view - a valued ability in business, and something your posting lacks.

Dear MBA Recruiter: I agree with Nic on this one.In addition, your view seems to be somewhat jingoistic ("Anything out of the top 15 US or top 10 international is NOT seen as a target mba as far as we are concerned"). In the first instance, last time I looked, the US was only one country on our planet and US programmes should therefore be included in the total list on a par. Secondly, your statement implies that the US programmes are viewed as better than the non-US programmes. Don't forget that the US schools often take students straight out of undergraduate degrees, while many "international" or European-based MBAs won't consider students unless they have a previous degree AND X amount of real business world experience. The European programmes are therefore likely to provide a richer learning experience and so, by your own definition of the value being derived through learning from those around you, may well be better in developing future business leaders and managers.Third, the Business Week list (which you happen to use) suddenly becomes the widely held view. This detracts from other rankings such as the EIC, FT, WhichMBA, etc. which are all valid.My original point in this whole debate was this: these are all excellent schools. Anything in the top thirty or so will give you a great education.As for whether Beng agrees or not, I'm not bothered. No offense Beng, but MBA Recruiter tried to rope you in as the all-seeing-eye to give his/her argument some sort of tenuous credibility. I don't buy it.B

MBA Recruiter - you clearly don't work in recruitment. Recruitment agencies don't target the top MBA schools - the whole point is that the top firms already do that themselves, a lot more cheaply and efficiently. Any headhunter worth their salt knows that you add value and win business when you get the client candidates they wouldn't be able to get themselves.

The true test of whether a Bschool is elite is or not is by looking at the list of companies that recruit from that school. If McK/3Bs appear on their list of regular recruiters, then they belong to the elite list. If the best MC firm they can come up with is KPMG (or none!), then you guys are smart enough to make your own judgement. Ask the Career Center of the Bschool of your choice for a list of employers that recruited from them in the last 3-5 years. That should end all debate.As far as the US market, "MBA Recruiter" is correct. McK/3Bs routinely recruit only from the top 15 Bschools as published by Business Week. You guys can all scream and yell and call me a liar, but it is what it is. As far as those considering lower tier Bschools or DL, you have 3 choices:1. Quit your job and go full-time. However, this option should be taken only by those who are accepted into a top 10-15 Bschool. If not, it won't be worth it. Stick with your day job.2. Go to a top 10 Bschool's part-time program, such as Northwestern, Chicago, NYU, UCLA, etc. We really don't make a distinction between full- and part-time programs when hiring. We just look at the Bschool.3. Go to a lower tier Bschool or DL program. Sure, you won't have to quit your job, but don't wonder why McK/3Bs are ignoring your resume.I wrote a rather long thread a few months ago about the reasoning behind the elitism in schools...and there's a sound reason behind the madness. If someone can find it post the thread number, that will help everyone else.

It's ignorant posters that spread false information -- like Nic and Boxershorts -- that get my blood fuming. But I'll play nice this time and spare the insults.I just re-read Nic's and Boxershort's comments, and their opinions betray a total and complete ignorance of the "real" world that they claim to represent.First, the top Bschools are not removed from the workplace. On the contrary, the top Bschools require a minimum of 2-4 years of post-undergrad work experience, and must demonstrate career advancement and leadership if they actually want to get accepted. Have you actually seen the profile of the typical HBS, Wharton, Stanford, etc. MBA student? Besides the requisite GMAT and undergrad GPA, these guys typically already have 4-8 years of professional experience, have been promoted once or twice in their "brief" career (some actually running their own businesses), are ALREADY making $60-80k per year pre-MBA, hold leadership positions outside of work (e.g., charitable foundations and NGOs), etc. The typical top tier MBA student is an overachiever by anyone's definition. Ivory-tower? What the F are you talking about? These students have already proven themselves many, many times in the business world PRIOR to even going to Bschool. Many can afford the fees not because they have wealthy parents, but because they socked away enough from their relatively large salaries to begin with, or have their employers pay for it. Employers pay for their tuition because they're usually the "highest potential" employees at their firm. Better to pay for their Bschool and possibly have them return rather than lose them forever. Second, only second and third tier Bschools take students straight out of undergrad without any work experience. Boxershorts, do your homework, for Petessake. You can check out any of the top 15 Bschool websites for the minimum requirements for acceptance yourself. It's public information. Not a single one of them will even consider an applicant without a minimum of 2 years (although 4 is the de facto minimum). Third, different publications use different metrics to rank Bschools. But the universally accepted ranking is Business Week. You can ask any top tier MC firm or bulge-bracket IBank on both sides of the pond. Again, you can scream bloody murder, but it is what it is.Now, there is something to be said for those who can balance school, work, and family life. That's why we recruit from the part-time programs of the top 15 Bschools. Why should I hire someone who got his MBA part-time from the Univ of Phoenix (the top for-profit DL school in the US which some quarters consider a diploma mill) when I can get someone who got his MBA part-time from Univ of Chicago or Northwestern? It's all about the caliber of the students pre- and post-MBA. By selecting from the top schools, we are assured of getting the best of the best. The Bschools are, in essence, doing the preliminary screening.

Hi Beng: Now that I've read both your diatribes, I'd like to clarify a few points.1. You've missed my point. I said any school in the top 30 on any of the lists I mentioned is going to be an excellent school and you'll get a great MBA from them (and these lists will broadly correspond with each other - give or take a couple of position switches, etc.)2. An MBA is an MBA. I have one from one of these top schools and I know the materials from the DL, part-time and full-time from my B-school are the same. The level of student interaction varies, sure, but it exists in all versions of the programme.3. American b-school programmes are not de facto better than non-US programmes.4. McK hiring or not hiring regularly from a b-school does not elevate the status of that school. I have worked for a household name IBank before consulting and it is about the ability of the person at the end of the day, not the school they went to. The old-boys network is disappearing - in every sense.5. I agree that some firms do look at the school, but it's not the sole screening activity that goes on.6. I agree that some schools in the US (and yes they are usually the "better" schools) do have more stringent entry criteria and require business expeience as well. As a rule, however, American programmes take kids straight out of a first degree (22-23), while European schools typically don't take people until they have more experience (28-32).7. I don't recall mentioning ivory tower.8. I never claimed to represent the "real world" - what is that, anyway ;)Your type of comments are ignorant in a differnt way to what you suggest mine are, in that they invalidate wholesale the efforts, energies and qualifications of countless quality people who are doing great jobs as consultants for their clients.At the end of the day, this is what matters. Nothing else. I don't define success by working for a McK or 3B or any of the other "top tier" houses. Nor in terms of money (though $60-80K is not as impressive as you seem to think).Have I made things better for my client? Do they trust my advice and judgement? Will they work with me again?These are, for me, the questions that count. Though a lot of attention is paid to it, a lot of the other stuff is noise.B

B,1. I actually beg to differ that "any school in the top 30" is equally excellent. They are all good schools...but NOT equivalent, as you imply. There is a mountain of difference between the #1 school and the #30 school. If you consider HBS or Stanford in the same league as Univ or Iowa or Univ of Washington, then you're an -----. 2. Getting an MBA is not just about getting an education. It's first and foremost about the caliber of students they attract, and hence the alumni network. If you think a Univ of Iowa MBA will give you the same level of access as an HBS MBA at the top tier MCs or IBanks...then again, you're an -----. 3. I never claimed that US Bschools are better. Business Week publishes a SEPARATE ranking of international Bschools. They make no attempt to rank US vs. European Bschools. Do you even read Business Week???4. Of course it's all about the ability of the person. But this Board is all about how to get your foot in the door...and I challenge anyone who went to a DL or third-tier MBA get into top MC straight out of Bschool. It does happen, but what are the odds? Maybe 1 out of 1000 for a DL grad, vs. maybe 1 out 20 for an HBS grad. You make your decision on which odds you prefer.5. Have you worked at McK/3Bs? I say this again -- we ONLY recruit from top 15 Bschools for NEWLY-MINTED MBAs. Obviously, if you are an experienced hire with a super-stellar track record in MC or industry, then maybe the Bschool name matters less. Also, if your desire is Big 4 and not McK/3Bs, then you don't need to to go to a top 15 Bschool.6. I'll repeat myself again -- the top 15 Bschools do NOT admit students straight out of college. Maybe the next 16-30 Bschools, but not the top 15. Should I repeat myself again?Your comments are plain ignorant of the "real world" of top tier Bschools and top tier mgt consultancies. If you don't understand this very simple concept, I doubt you went to a top 15 Bschool, nor worked for a top IB or MC. You can call me elitist, but I say it like it is so everyone can aim for the right goals. Do not shortchange yourself thinking that a DL program can get you into McK/3Bs, because it won't!!! Obviously, if McK/3Bs is not what you want, then you have more degrees of freedom.

Beng, I think you need to calm down - your 'blood might be boiling' but I suggest this is a self inflicted condition! Also if you read the postings more calmly you wouldn't find yourself arguing with points that were never made. I'm not prepared to get into a p***ing contest with you (to drop to your vernacular), but I suggest you reread what you have said. For my part I did not criticise top-BSs, on the contrary I have admired their output and graduates already on this site. The point about 'ivory towerism', (and I apologise for using a perjorative cliche to establish a point), is that case studies are either real and timely, or not - that's just a fact. What I do take exception to is people rubbishing a perfectly valid approach, ie DL, on the basis of ignorance. I would wonder about any consultant I employed who was unable to take a balanced view, particularly after mixing his facts and messing up the analysis, as you have done. When the advice degenerates into an insulting and foul-mouthed diatribe any client (at which ever 'end' of the market) would be right to ask you to stop what you are doing - something I suggest you consider doing now!

Nice.

Beng: Suggest you need to take a couple of chill pills.I don't appreciate being called a liar, btw. I worked for a global IB and went to a b-school that is top ten on some lists and certainly top 30 on all of them. Your insinuations are more than a little insulting.Who died and made you the sole arbiter of opinion, anyway?Where does it say this forum is only for entry-level MCs? I approach it as a forum to discuss consulting as a career for all consultants. A place for open and honest sharing of views and advice.And no, McK or 3B is not what I want. Contrary to your apparent opinion, this does not make me able to crawl under a snake without knocking my hat off.If I were a client of yours and you acted with me the way you have done in this thread, I'd fire your ass and then I'd get you fired from your firm...A little free advice for you: a rethink of your modus operandi might be in order, my friend.

I think this discussion is all getting a bit polarised, not everyone has any interest in working for the big strategy shops and different MBA delivery methods have different things going for them.Full time you get a commited experience, you're working very closely your peers for between 12 and 24 months so you gain a lot from the close relationships and develop a very strong network as a result of that. However since you're only really focusing on the course you get rid of the biggest interfering factor of actually holding a job down as well. It's expensive but there are funding approaches than can be used and the returns should allow that to be recovered in a reasonable timeframe. Exec and DL delivery takes longer, and has different pressures. You probably get a less close set of relationships and the network opportunities are different, but you get to apply the learning in the real world straight away and learn from that experience in a different way. the pressure of making a mistake in a real situation, rather than on a case study, is a whole different ball game. Not so much the risk of getting a bad mark, but risking losing your job.......I any case it really depends on what learning style the individual prefers and what the aspirations are post course. Is the course to broaden a discipline specialist into a more generalist, or to provide a basic education to someone on their way up the food chain?Notwithstanding all of that the various ranking systems are useful, although personally I'd compare a number of them to get a more complete picture. One needs to be aware of the cultural imperialism associated with each ranking system and dependence on one alone leaves the user vulnerable.The better schools will provide a more rounded development opportunity, with a cohort which provides a mix of individuals to gain from and contribute to and delivery options which allow the candidate to optimise their learning. Picking the right school and delivery method needs some self awareness on learning styles, strengths and weaknesses. DL probably isn't the best approach for someone who learns most by discussion, whereas a highly collaborative approach may not be best for the ''book learner''.Essentially horses for courses and thank the gods that we're not all the same for it would be a very boring world if we were.

Hi Random: What a great response. Eloquent. Gracious. Accurate. Perceptive.Thanks for the insights. You learn something every day, and I believe I have learned something here...