Distance MBAs Mentioned in Wall Street Journal

Exactly. Is the focus of this article focused on entry-level candidates?

NYU found, Mr. Fraser says, that part-timers weren't a good match for many recruiters who were looking for younger, less experienced full-time students.

Sure, if you're 24 years old and starting your career, I do believe that a B&M MBA from a good school will boost your prospects more than an online or part-time program, especially if you're joining a consulting firm where the MBA provides basic abilities that are then developed in accordance with the company's methodology.

However, for someone who's 34 (or 44 or 54) and well-established, they may cringe at the thought of spending 2 years locked in with 20ish students with no real-world experience. I noticed this during my in-residence - some of the questions/comments from the younger students definitely wouldn't be asked by an experienced manager. I believe that if you're going to take an online route you should have at least 5 years of practical experience and an environment where you can apply concepts as you learn them.

Immediate applicability to enhance my professional skills will show me the value of my education.

This quote makes me laugh:

"Come on," one respondent said. "Anyone in the world can do an online M.B.A. It's a commodity." Another said he had been asked to teach courses in online programs for which he felt unqualified, leading him to conclude that they are "scams."

In my own personal experience at the in-residence at Indiana, and 3 weeks so far of Economics and Stats, it's not trivial -- and certainly not a "scam". Is it the same as attending Bloomington for 2 years? Possibly not, but I'm not complaining.

Cheers,
Mark

 

Would they be hired?

As I was curious, I took a look at the Marakon site where Ms. Massad recruits.

Would these people likely be hired by Marakon today?

#1's education
B.A., Philosophy, Amherst College

#2's education
B.A., Public Policy Analysis, College of William and Mary

#3's education:
B.A., Business Administration, Gettysburg College

The first 2 are partners and the 3rd the CFO!

Granted, there are some impressive resumes amongst the leadership there, but it goes to show that you can't make general statements when your own partners don't meet your own hiring standards today!

Cheers,
Mark

 

That's life, I'm afraid.

Dr. Fauss-tus,

Trouble is, it's the ATTITUDES that actually matter, not whether the attitudes are grounded in fact.

You doubtless ran into the same thing with your law degree; not a THING wrong with the University of Arizona's ABA accredited law school, but...well...it ain't NYU (or Yale or Hahvahd or wherever). The fact that the legal education you received is indistinguishable from Hahvahd doesn't matter. The fact that your law license is indistinguishable from the Havahd graduate's (assuming he passes the Bar) doesn't matter. YOU didn't go to Hahvahd (or Yale or wherever).

It isn't just business and commercial firms, either...guess where most federal Supreme Court and Court of Appeals clerks come from?

The exact same kind of prejudice works against graduates of evening J.D. programs. "Well, we really PREFER graduates of full time day programs because...well, just because!"

 

That's life...con't

And the thing is cumulative. The guy who GETS the Court of Appeals clerkship now has a VERY valuable credential that you and I could likely never obtain; "HE'S clerked for a FEDERAL JUDGE at the appellate level. You haven't." Guess who gets the job in the Wall Street financial firm?

"HE has a very DISTINGUISHED career. HE clerked for the Court of Appeals AND worked as a senior associate with Craven, Swine & Less. YOU haven't." Guess who gets the appointment as a U.S. Magistrate or Bankruptcy Judge?

Oh, yes, it's all prejudice and it's all unfair. But I really don't see how to change it; prejudices don't arrive through reason and experience and they aren't likely to depart through reason and argument.

 

Dr. Osborne:

Actually, I don't disagree with a word you say. In fact, I acknowledged it in one of my posts. It's something that must be reckoned with. The fact is that a fair percentage of recruiters--rightly or wrongly--have a bias against degrees obtained in a non-traditional manner. That will have an effect on many with DL degrees; it's inescapable.

But that said, I don't think this is a permanent phenomenon, at least not at present levels. DL will only grow, even among top schools. It's only a matter of time until those who received their MBAs in night school or weekends or online start reaching the ranks of upper executives. The real quality DL programs such as Duke, Indiana, and ASU haven't been around long enough to produce such hotshots. That will likely start in the upcoming decade. But once it starts, you watch those recruiters change their tune. Not all of them--as the traditional delivery mode of education will be more common amongst the top students for the foreseeable future--but enough that it will stop becoming the factor that it is.

I think it's largely a non-issue, as most who seek an MBA through an Exec or PT or online program are already in management or already established in their company or have a network built up. They don't have to play the game with the recruiters--they bypass them.

 

Dr. Fauss-tus,

You are probably right on all counts.

Really, though, what you are saying is that the student doesn't become qualified through his D/L degree so much as the D/L program helps him to make best use of his existing reputation and position.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Actually, I thought he was saying that ... the student doesn't become qualitified through his D/L degree so much as the D/L program becomes qualified through the achievements of its students.

 

Dr. Osborne:

Nope, nothing wrong at all. For the most part I think that's an accurate statement.

Now how are you gonna bring that LL.M. back to life? I can't imagine that you couldn't get the gist of that English style of legal writing and pass those exams. You write and reason well enough, can't imagine those Brits having an advantage over you that couldn't be overcome.

Is it a time factor holding you back? Wife telling you she's lonely when you have the nose in the books?

Just curious.

 

This is precisely right. You will note that all the people in the article dissing DL MBAs or part-time MBAs are recruiters. In all the companies I've worked for, including Fortune sized companies, I'll tell you that recruiters are not exactly the brightest group or hold high positions on the totem pole. Very often, hiring managers just take their words with a huge grain of salt. And not to mention that for the better, top positions, a recruiter is completely not even in the picture. There's a very true analysis in the business world - that the best jobs are obtained through networking (off-hour groups, friends, professionals you know in the industry, etc.).

I read that article and saw it more as a power trip taken by those recruiters interviewed by gasp! - the WSJ. I have said this many times to many friends. If you are a fresh faced kid out of school, then yes, it really matters which school you went to for you have NO credentials except that you went to school. So, you have to market your school's name or whatever program behind you. If you are a professional with x amount of years behind you, the fact that you're still trying to tout your school instead of where you've worked, your professional experience, professional achievements shows that something is very wrong with you. If you are an experienced professional/manager, you should be talking about your work, show what you've done, how many you've managed, the results you've achieved, programs you've managed, created, ROI from them, etc. etc. and what you can do for that company if they hired you. I've never met a single hiring manager personally who wants to hear about the glories of your MBA program, which "networking" (party) event you went to or that you did it full time or part time or no time. In today's business world, if within that 1 hour interview time that you can't even show, talk or proof your business worth/value and the type of competitiveness you can offer that company because of your skills and experience, you're out of that door and you can be sure they'll NEVER call you back or hire you. And if you ever did work for a company that is mired in if you did your degree online, part time, executive or if it's AACBS, ABCDE or XYZ, seriously...do you even want to work there?? Your real value, experience, skills and the type of edge you have will never be treasured in such a company and you'll forever be pitted against Joe Blow whose father was rich enough to send him to Harvard and basically "bought" him his degree because of their family connections. You'd forever be comparing such ridiculous statistics like...is your Harvard degree worth less than my ahem, Oxford degree? Oh wait, your Oxford degree isn't worth that much for I'm a Lord Blah Blah with a direct line to the Queen. You get the picture...

 

I cannot agree with you more! About a week ago I posted a comment that I had a low opinion of most recruiters. I have been trying to get a position filled for the last 3 weeks and I can expand that statement even further... my opinion of recruiters has taken a nose dive from an already very low point. I wouldn't trust them to find me a coal miner in a coal mine.

Yes, they are helpful to narrow down 1000 applications. But most of that should just be filtering against criteria and making appointments and is not rocket science or really anything that a well-spoken administrative assistant cannot do. For the jobs I look for, which are pretty specialized and don't get that many applicants, the hiring process for all of them would have gone faster if I'd been able to bypass the recruiter and do everything myself!

 

SpeedOfLight is dead on.

The WSJ article crosses the line into way too self absorbed. Reminds me of the fustration chess players express because the world doesn't pay a higher premium for their wood pushing skills.

Recruiters are a (barely) necessary evil. They are administrative resume gatherers. With the advent of job boards, they are having a harder and harder time justifying their existence.

I give the following advice to proteges:

- The decision maker is never the recruiter.
- Find a way to get past the recruiter as soon as possible.
- Assume everything the recruiter tells you is flawed.
- Find the real decision maker as quickly as possible.
- Don't negotiate with recruiters, only with the decision maker.

Applies regardless of where/how a degree was received.

 

You are exactly right - The points you've made are the ones I follow in my job search. I always ask who the hiring manager is, what position he/she holds, what department he/she belongs to and very often because the recruiter aka resume gatherer can't answer beyond the basic questions, they give me the hiring manager's name and I deal direct with that person. I immediately get to have a more complete picture of what that position, department or company is about.

6 years ago when the economy was so hot, recruiters were raking it in. Almost every Mary Jane and her cat was trying to be a recruiter. The IT recruiting firms were stacked with recruiters like some used car lot trying to push cars. I talked to recruiters who had NO CLUE as to what they were recruiting for but as long as they could get candidates, the companies were happy with them. And especially during that period, it was SO EASY to get your foot in the door. Since most of the recruiters did not know what the heck they were doing, you could tell them just about anything. When the economy collapsed starting in 2000, companies severely cut down on the usage of recruiters, agencies, etc. as a cost cutting measure. They used job boards and an admin or the multi-tasking HR assistant to filter out resumes. It was not that difficult to do so because out of a pile of 1000 resumes, it was so easy to tell the lousy ones versus the ones that had any substance. And yes, you have to learn to write your resume well but that's another discussion...Incidentally after the economy collapsed, many of the recruiters who were nobody before returned to being nobodies after that. Many left recruiting. I talked to one recruiter who said she was done for she had made her money during the boom and was now going for the next hot thing.

My resume has been picked up by many recruiters who would do a quick scan and NONE has ever bothered to even ask me about my education, despite my listing it on the resume. They do a quick scan...ok, yeah, this guy's got college education and they then immediately ask about where I am currently working, etc. etc. and by then I'd have more or less found out who the hiring manager is. It's a game and you need to not let the recruiter control the game for he/she is NOT the one who will make the decision to hire you or the one you will work for. You should target to market yourself and impress the hiring manager(s). Once you get to talk to the hiring manager, if asked about your degree(s), you can then spin whatever you want about how you achieved it and yes, it generally is a very favorable outlook toward you if you could work a full-time job, have a family and achieve your degree. It shows commitment, tenacity and an ability to make things happen even when things are rough, that any real hiring manager who wants leaders and performers in their team want and search for.

 

Are they dumb.....as well?

Horseraddish!

If the MBA is R.A. or equivalent; then who cares how it was earned (DL , On campus, Half and Half).