The best online MBA for 15,000 ?

Nice list. But keep in mind that by using these price tags (many of them), it is assumed that you have a undergraduate degree in business, or have already got credits for business background courses. Otherwise, you may have to pay some extra bucks to make up the background requirements.

 

Another key you may use in your filtering is how long has this DL MBA been operated and how many students are studying in the program right now?

As so many universities jump up to offer the DL MBA, some of them may not be well prepared. My one year study with TAMUC let me know that we have to stick with DL programs with long history and large student body (usually you get good service and the program will not be terminated before you finish it).

TAMUC had been offering several MBA courses online for several years before the end of 1999, when the university decided to bring the whole MBA program online. At the end of 2000 (just one-year short life), the university teminated the online option based on concerns from faculty members. When I picked TAMUC, because it is AACSB accredited, the price tag is good (10 X $1100), and Texas A&M brand. But I didn't expect that the program is so short-lifed.

So the above is my two cents.

------------------
Jonathan Liu
http://www.geocities.com/liu_jonathan/distance.html

 

Clearly, but as the list was originally made for my own use, and I do have a Business degree, that was not much of an issue. It is nearly always the case that there will be some prequalifying coursework*. I assumed some minimal competence on the part of the reader to know that or work it out by reading the program details on the web site. Since the number and kind of prerequisites vary, it would become overly clunky and burdensome to produce a list with every caveat spelled out.

* Exceptions to the rule would include HWMBA, of course.

 

I don't want to be a nit-picker here or get involved in an unconstructive discussion .... but what the hell.

Lewchuk, could you please provide the background of your familiarity with "the many" and the specifics of "the some"? Could you describe your sources of information and experience which qualifies your expertise in MBA programs?

My perception - which may well be totally wrong - is that your basis of evaluation is almost all hearsay (maybe from what you've read on this board, and it sounds like you've had a few conversations with some other individuals). If this is the case, this doesn't seem like much of a foundation to be giving serious advice to folks who are trying to make an investment call that will last the rest of their lives.

Again, I may well be off on this: Perhaps you really are an expert on MBA programs. If so, please help me better appreciate your background and expertise. I've got no axe to grind with you at all. But since you've followed AED -> this board, then you'll understand my bent towards quality information when it comes to educational consumers.

Barry Foster
(Again, I'm not going to engage in unconstructive argument here ... but I felt I needed to ask this question.)

 

Very interesting. For "Custom Programs", I notice that US schools account for 6 out of the top 10, 9-15, and 11-20. The UK is 1-10, 2-15, and 3-20. Canada & Australia are 0-20.

For "Open Enrollment", US is 8-10, 10-15, and 12-20. UK is 1-10, 1-15, and 2-20. Canada gets on the board with 0-10, 1-15, and 1-20. Australia whiffs again.

These ratings have to be driving a certain Canadian *bonkers*.

*Note...I have nothing against UK, Canadian, Australian, or any other legitimate schools, but I couldn't resist this one.

Bruce

 

I am definetly NOT an expert on MBA programs. Aside from John Bear (who still has proved fallible on occasion) no one on this forum IMO is. However you do have a number of individuals with an interest in DL in various disciplines and who, from some research, have valid opinions which any rational person would consider a data point in making their decision.
I did quite a bit of reasearch before choosing my program, helped several others, still have an ongoing interest, bring the topic up with others when I get the chance, I have (what most would consider) a fairly successful career which involved working with MBAs and wannabes on a regular basis, have worked in development programs where we send all-stars back to school for their MBA while we guarantee a job upon completion.

If there is a bias in my comments it is due to two factors: 1) I have spent most of my career in fortune 100-type environments 2) My career has been spent in very international environments. If you are managing a McDonalds restaurant in the Mid-west, my comments probably do not apply.

 

I will assume you mean me.

Actually these rankings confirm what I have always said, the United States has some of the best schools in the world... US schools will probably make up the 80% of the top 10 in most disciplines. However, they also have the majority of the worst schools in the world... the UK, Canadian and Aussie schools will typically fall high middle.

Actually, who am I to argue with the Times, but I am surprised with the number of Canadian schools they included. McGill, Rotman and Ivey are the regulars (with Ivey being the flagship) but personally I would question UBC (incredible campus though) or Alberta (butt-ugly city).

 

Sorry to keep harping in this, but how do you conduct your research? Could you describe your methodology for us? Again from my own limited perception, I get the sense that your "research" tends to be what you hear / read from others. To me, that isn't research. It sounds like reading up on stuff and hearing about stuff - 2nd hand information at best. If true, this is not a 'data point'. It's a opinion that comes off being misrepresented as fact.

Perhaps I'm off base. Could you clarify for me?

Again, my perception may well be totally wrong. However, I must admit that your explanation (below) did nothing to change my read of the situation.

I suspect that anyone who has earned an MBA, works for a global company, and has an interest in helping others get an education could make the same case - including a dull brain like me.

Perhaps the difference is that I suggest that consumers do their own research - even if it is as limited as reading about and hearing about stuff. Today - over the days when I started this stuff - some great folks have done a great job of pulling the *real* sources together.

Barry Foster

 

Barry, I didn't know you were playing the "game". For newbies out there, the game goes something like this.

Barry shares his opinion that he thinks His U is good and Shitty U is bad. I, being a graduate of Shitty U, am mortally wounded. I seek out info regarding Barry's relationship to His U and why he thinks Shitty U is Shitty... then the game starts...

I disregard Barry's comment regarding His U because it is His U (i.e. he has a vested interest in promoting His U).

If he says Shitty U is shitty because he knew someone who went to Shitty U and told him bad things about it, I claim "Hear Say" and disregard it.

If he says he spoke with decision makers (i.e. HR folk and senior management) who said that Shitty U was shitty, I claim "tertiary Hear Say" and disregard it (besides these people probably have something against DL due to childhood trauma).


If he says he evaluated the courses/catalogs I can either say a) who are you to evaluate courses/catalogs or b) courses and catalogs, any degree mill can publish nice courses and catalogs... that is no way to evaluate a school.

Finally, if he says it was due to reputable ratings, I say "ratings, everyone knows they are flawed and besides they all hate adult distance learners".

Finally, if he says that he did all of the above... well, that is just coincidence since we have obviously already "proved" that none of this can be trusted.

 

And what do you base this opinion on? Verifiable statistics? Gut instinct? Or just plain old blind bias?

Bruce

 

You seem to be sidestepping. I must admit that I've been wondering some of the same things.

The problem seems to be that in your posts you tend to try to back your opinions with quantitative information rather than leaving them in the qualitative realm. Any time that you make quantitative statements you have to do so realizing that you will be subject to inquiry regarding your sources and methodology. Perhaps if you would leave statements as subjective opinion, rather than seemingly trying to give the impression that you have done exhaustive research on the subject, you might not provoke such confrontation. Qualifying your opinions, rather than stating them as fact, would also help to preclude negative reactions.

Assuming, that is, that you are not getting exactly the reactions that you desire.

 

Lewchuck, I'm not playing any game - esp. the one you laid out here. You've created some fantasy conversation that had happened in this thread. I made no comment on any school - nor am I looking to make one. I'm merely suggesting that people conduct their own investigations. And I'm suggesting that others offering advice - playing the DL expert - at least give some information about how they've drawn their conclusions.

I am merely asking for your basis for your "ratings" of schools. Seems pretty simple, but apparently you'd prefer not to share that (you begged the question again), which is completely fine with me. We could have saved some time if you had just come out and said that in the first place. I have *very* little interest in being baited into some meaningless debate on this board. If you don't want to let others know how you've come to your conclusions about MBA programs - fine. OK. Dandy. Please just say so!!

DL consumers come to this board looking for a little guidance. Posing as an expert does not help anyone - except perhaps to feed a rapidly growing personal ego.

Thanks for the dialogue. Best wishes in your attempt to become a DL program evaluator.

Barry Foster
(sound of door closing on this thread)

 

The criteria in use:

1. U.K. gooooooooood.
2. U.S. baaaaaaaaaad. (Except the Ivies)

I read one of those "pick the right MBA" kind of books in the early 80's before chosing my program. The authors were pretty blunt about their opinions regarding the best B-schools in the country and in each region. They were very clear that there are a handful of schools with national reputations. These schools are known and respected throughout the nation. Then there are some more schools with regional reputations. Those schools are well-known in their locale, but unknown throughout the country. Finally, there are schools that have neither.

The point the authors were making is that you have to consider this three-tier reality when choosing a school. Unless you're going to stay in your local area after graduation, it really doesn't matter too much about the quality of the school, unless that school has a national reputation. Taking an MBA from the University of Southern California or Notre Dame University will be useful no matter where you go. But the difference between, say the University of San Diego (AACSB-accredited) and Strayer University (not) doesn't matter much if you are going to live in Texas, where neither school is known. But in San Diego, you would be better off with USD. In Northern Virginia, Strayer might be the better option.

Considering there were no DL MBA programs available at the time, the authors did not discuss the value of degrees from legitimate foreign schools. But I contend that a run-of-the-mill American MBA is better than one from all but the most famous foreign schools. A degree from the University of Glasgow, far superior to, say, National University, would raise many more questions about how you got the degree (and whether it was legitimate--the school isn't listed in guides employers use to look up schools). You might get screened out of jobs and/or promotions without even having an opportunity to explain your degree. I would rather have an MBA from National that I wouldn't have to explain. It is nothing to brag about, but it is also nothing I have ever had to explain.

Rich Douglas, MBA (National University, 1985)

 

Your logic can be summed up thus,

Better a shitty school that most know about that a very good school that few know about. Well, I find this logic questionable at any time but even more so in the year 2001 and if you are working for large corporations. If I interviewed two people, one with a National degree and the other with a HW degree and wanted the "dirt" on the academics... it would take me approximately 30 seconds to find out that we had no graduates from National but about 10 from HW... another few minutes to fire off some e-mails and I will have the information on my desktop the next morning.

The world is becoming a very small place.

 

But on Mark's USNews thread Lewchuk wrote:

So, should we bow to "perception in the marketplace" and choose one of the "usual suspects", even if Ken Lewchuk finds it "shitty", or should we try to explain to people that the lesser known school is actually excellent and it is the perception that is flawed?

I seem to detect a bit of special pleading here. It is pointless to go against the established wisdom on behalf of a lesser known school, unless it is a British commonwealth university.

 

You take great liberties when encapsulating other's opinions. But you err. National University would stand a much better chance of passing through the scrutiny of an HR screener than H-W. What you don't want to accept is that degrees are used to screen people out, not to find the best candidate. HR wants to get the number of candidates for a job to a reasonable number, THEN start looking. Any advice regarding resumes, for example, will include that it is critical not to include anything that would raise a question and get you tossed in the "Don't Interview" pile.

National University is the second largest private university in the most populous state in the nation. And it appears in every book on accredited institutions. That is what works. No one, and I mean no one, cares how hard you had to study to get your degree. (Not that a National MBA is easy; it takes 15 courses, not nine.) Unless you are coming from a school with national prestige, the degree needs to adequately fill a square.

Argue about quality all you want. I deal in reality.

Rich Douglas

 

I am not sure what your point is. However if you are asking if I would prefer to be in London with a degree from Stanford, interviewing with someone who has not heard of Stanford, vs having a degree from the lowest Times ranked UK school... yes, I would prefer to "explain" my degree.

 

1) Many, many, many HR departments do not confirm credentials at all... that is how many people obtain utility from unaccredited degrees.
2) The majority of HR departments would only confirm credentials (and references) once a candidate is short-listed (after at least the first set of interviews).
3) Any capable HR department would not try to confirm a foreign degree via US resources (like duh).
4) It is extraordinarily easy to confirm the legitimacy of foreign degrees.
5) The largest MBA in the US (according to Temple University publication) is a foreign school... I guess all these people have worthless degrees.
6) Recent stats show approx. 75,000 Americans studying abroad to obtain, apparently, worthless degrees.
7) Thousands of foreign students have obtain admittance to US school on the basis of foreign credentials.
8) Thousands of individuals each each enter the US on work visas and foreign credentials.
9) A number of US corporations recruit at foreign Universities for positions in the United States.
10) Recent contact with senior HR professionals confirm that there is no bias against good foregn schools... "a good school is a good school".
11) Within academia, the United Nations and the EU, there are discussions to increase portability in an ever increasing globalized education environment.

I could go on... but I tire.

 

O.T. conversation in the UK with a tyical HR manager:

P1: "Excuse, sir, here is my diploma from Standford to be consider for this position".

P2: "Standford? What is that?"

P1: "Well, it is Standford University?"

P2: "Stanford University? I haven't heard of it".

P1: "Well, it is a famous university in California".

P2: "California. What is that?"

P1: "It is a state in the West Coast of the United States".

P2: "West Coast? United States? I am sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. If you are making up these things, you'd better make up a better story at another company".

Jockingly yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Appropriate line should read "to be considered...".

Take care,

K.A.L