rtg24

The value of an MBA

31 posts in this topic

Ray, this is because the MBA does not prepare future leaders, but future middle management. In a very large corporation, it is also necessary to remove personality from personnel, as a form of risk management (you can see this e.g. via the trouble Branson is having building Virgin to a scale that competes with the largest, best known names; the only company that succeeded to an extent was Welch's GE, again via subdivision of all business into units each run like a small aggressive company).

The cognitive dissonance arises from the marketing done by business schools such as Harvard and Stanford. They need to convince people to give up 2 years of their career and $40,000 a year to be taught how to implement orders. So they create a dream around this experience and attract students like flies. The other attraction, to those students who can see through the marketing, is the promise of a strong "brand" and network which allow them comfortable, effortless positions in large corporations maintained in place by heavy regulation and other governmental intervention.

Experience - both personal, and through exposure to that of others e.g. by reading books written by them - still remains the best school in my view, especially if coupled with a decent philosophy that values productivity. I would be biased, that's how I learnt to invest :D

Some MBAs make it. With a class of 800+ per annum just for HBS, of course there will be many brilliant individuals, such as Orit Gadiesh. But on the whole I agree with you. A most overrated qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, from what I have seen from most MBAs, I am left unimpressed. I am not against shcool nor someone striving to get an MBA. I am against the MBA, and others, thinking that they can lead a company or even a small unit even though they have had no real-world experience at it, for the most part. In other words, an MBA is no guarantee for success even though the individual might have an indepth understanding of certain fields, their knowledge does not seem to translate well to actually doing what is needed to lead, be productive and create wealth.

Most established corporations bring potential CEOs along through a series of projects, corporate knowledge systems, departments, accounting, corporate and contract law, possible Executive VP or COO responsibilities, and/or line company leadership prior to giving them the reins to the major corporation. I think that Warren Buffet does that in his firm. On the other hand, some CEOs have transfered many times between outside companies prior to getting on board as a CEO, and they gain a unique perspective of knowledge that is in many ways superior and more objective than being a long-time employee of one boring corporation.

Then there are the cases where the new CEO has little or no experience in running a company. For example, an inventor may confidently know or have learned his invention science well, and he wants to begin the development of his invention into an efficiently produceable product, begin manufacturing himself, and undertake the marketing of the product. That individual needs the sum total of many professionals' vocational knowledge, and is best advised to hire rational and honest experts and advisors to run the company. The inventor needs to continue learning everything relevant, and needs to become an expert in the degree program they should teach in the colleges, Free Enterprise Ownership Science [to get a MFEOS degree].

Inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most established corporations bring potential CEOs along through a series of projects, corporate knowledge systems, departments, accounting, corporate and contract law, possible Executive VP or COO responsibilities, and/or line company leadership prior to giving them the reins to the major corporation....

Once again, there is nothing in my statements where I ask how a company works in promoting people up through the ranks to CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most established corporations bring potential CEOs along through a series of projects, corporate knowledge systems, departments, accounting, corporate and contract law, possible Executive VP or COO responsibilities, and/or line company leadership prior to giving them the reins to the major corporation....

Once again, there is nothing in my statements where I ask how a company works in promoting people up through the ranks to CEO.

You are picking out just one detail of the larger picture. Recall that you spoke to the matter of the education of company leaders and to the MBA degree.

I wrote to discuss that same topic, the education of the company leaders, and to the principled way the education of those leaders is commonly acheived out in the world.

The MBA is OK, and so is the MBS. Many corporate executives come from diverse educational programs. Many are engineers, lawyers, accountants, marketing and sales executives, and some are inventors and scientists. Some have been military officers, and some have been in government. Some merely inherit the job, however, functioning company executives need formal educations. Education gained out in the world from thought and experience may be better than any MBA.

Notice that it is becoming fashionable to include one's interests and proposed projects on one's resume. Several years ago during the more common authoritarian style of management in companies it was unfashionable to say what you wanted to do with your career or how you thought the company could benefit by your ideas. Today it matters.

Inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, an MBA is a very good option for someone with a non-business background. It's particularly good for engineers.

For people with a business background, the benefits are more subtil. Note that if you want to do a career in a large US corp, many will not promote someone beyond a certain level if they don't have an MBA. That's particularly the case with strategic consultancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience, an MBA is a very good option for someone with a non-business background. It's particularly good for engineers.

For people with a business background, the benefits are more subtil. Note that if you want to do a career in a large US corp, many will not promote someone beyond a certain level if they don't have an MBA. That's particularly the case with strategic consultancies.

Jack Welch has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, but as the CEO of GE he created more wealth than any other CEO of the same time without an MBA. Ken Iverson had a bachelors in aeronautical engineering and a masters in mechanical engineering, but made Nucor into one of the most profitable steel companies in the world without an MBA. Roberto Goizueta had a bachelors in chemical engineering, but turned around Coke and expanded the distance in market share from all competitors to include Pepsi without an MBA. Sam Walton had a bachelors in business, but he never went back to school to get an MBA and I think we all know the wealth that he created.

It might be true today that most US corporations will not promote someone beyond a certain point without an MBA. But I think that is a sign of the irrational thinking and behavior of most corporations today as the list of great minds, producers and wealth creators from the past demonstrates that it is not something that is required to achieve great profits long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of a person that has made it quite a distance without an MBA (nor a college education) is Renee West who started directly out of high-school working in human resouces and is now the president of Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, don't forget the music industry, which was ruined by a shift from artist-seeker types like Richard Branson or the record labels of the 80s and to an extent 90s, to MBAs, who applied what they had learnt, picked cute girls, undressed them on stage and designed music to please the sheep. Hence no evolution of music since pretty much the late 90s (not that I am much into any kind of pop music - just relaying comments from a senior exec I know who quit the industry in disgust over this shift).

All your examples are brilliant; as a counterexample to those who believe establishment firms tend to name only MBAs to the top, I would bring forward Lloyd Blankfein, who heads perhaps the ultimate such firm; he has a JD from HLS, but came into the firm as a metals trader and worked his way up.

Also, Joss, some "pure strategy" consultancies - such as the Monitor Group, ironically started/headed by Michael Porter, the guru of HBS - don't value the MBA as much there days...

It remains to be seen whether business fundamentals are truly being shaken up or whether we are merely undertaking a speeding up of perfectly normal capitalistic processes (I'll let you guess my position on that one); and it is true that HBS and the other Ivies are rapidly changing their curriculum to adapt to new paradigms (until recently, exotic mortgage finance as an option, for example).

One interesting MBA was John Paulson, the thinker behind the "Greatest Trade Ever" (a must-read book, as I keep telling you!). He graduated Baker Scholar, near the top of his class; yet his career took decades to take off and his stunning move against mortgage securities recently was most definitely not something you expect from a typical MBA (they are busy imitating each other).

I'd add that a lot of people in banking and consulting - my peers, really - view the MBA as a 2 year holiday. Most don't even care about their grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general comment, the "Business" degree as it exists now is so watered down and lacking in rigor that it could probably be condensed to two years of trade school. I have numerous anecdotes from smart highschool friends that majored in Business or did the MBA, only to later confess that virtually zero work was required of them, and even less was learned.

One of the easiest ways to judge the quality of a degree program is by the students drawn to it, and graduated from it. The majority of Business students are the stereotypical spoiled white fraternity kids of upper class city families, who think that a Business degree is their one-way ticket to easy-street, or a guaranteed position in Daddy's company.

An immortal moment that is sketched into my mind is working as a tutor, and seeing a fellow tutor draw an integral sign to a "Business Calculus" student, only to hear the student exclaim "what is that??..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An immortal moment that is sketched into my mind is working as a tutor, and seeing a fellow tutor draw an integral sign to a "Business Calculus" student, only to hear the student exclaim "what is that??..."
:D Immortal or immoral?

On the subject of MBA's, I agree with the general consensus that they are useless. Many of my peers view an MBA as a necessary stepping stone toward achieving a career in business. The people I know who that have graduated from my engineering college (undergraduate) and gone on to get an MBA from HBS did not do it to learn about business. They did it simply to put the MBA on their resume, making them much more marketable (particularly in the offshore industry).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject of MBA's, I agree with the general consensus that they are useless. Many of my peers view an MBA as a necessary stepping stone toward achieving a career in business. The people I know who that have graduated from my engineering college (undergraduate) and gone on to get an MBA from HBS did not do it to learn about business. They did it simply to put the MBA on their resume, making them much more marketable (particularly in the offshore industry).

Kids largely go to college today because of the intrinsic value many businesses place on the degree, and because of the vague importance society and their parents place on the "college experience", which somehow 'grows' and 'matures' a student, even as it grows his tummy from cheap beer at frat parties.

As the costs continue to skyrocket, and as businesses continue to become painfully aware that the final product of the modern university is lacking, I think importance will shift away from the degree.

An interesting article I read described it as the new 'bubble' ready to burst:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...t-95639354.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kids largely go to college today because of the intrinsic value many businesses place on the degree, and because of the vague importance society and their parents place on the "college experience", which somehow 'grows' and 'matures' a student, even as it grows his tummy from cheap beer at frat parties.

As the costs continue to skyrocket, and as businesses continue to become painfully aware that the final product of the modern university is lacking, I think importance will shift away from the degree.

An interesting article I read described it as the new 'bubble' ready to burst:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...t-95639354.html

Yes and no. I'll hire a kid from MIT any day. And the Cambridge experience was more about sleepless nights poring over sheets and sheets of numbers than ale, wine and port as is commonly thought.

Some degrees are better than other. I like the 10% rule - that is, in any field, there's 10% of quality and 90% of chaff. E.g. 10% of doctors are actually competent, 10% of traders drive 90% of the revenue, etc. A form of more extreme 80/20 principle. It is true that an English or History of Art student, to take Cambridge examples, does come out with a much more relaxed work ethic than a Natural Sciences or Engineering student, and this is reflected in their career afterwards - although the current president of the Cambridge University Investment Club is a historian who has already worked for 3 investment banks, so as ever there are exceptions.

I wonder whether the MBA would be value-adding for a former member of the military, who needs to transition from the heavily structured and deterministic world of professional war making to the probabilistic/gambling-favouring "real world" of business, which is about calculated risk taking (Ray will probably correct me and point out that military action is also about calculated risk taking - I don't know much about this, so I'll defer to experts). I do know that there are a hell of a lot of former Israeli and US commandos working on the trading floors and the investment banking desk at Goldman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

Your correct that Jack Welch doesn't have an MBA. In fact, most CEOs of Fortune 500 don't either, if I recall correctly.

MBAs are not for people who have the clear potential to become CEOs. These people can study much faster and in a much more targeted manner independently. MBAs are for people who want to make a mid- or sr-level exec career in a large multinational. They are for the "golden mediocrity" people, not the true elite. Of course there are exceptions, in both directions.

Still, there are benefits to an MBA education. To say that it is useless is not correct. What's a valid point would be to say that it's not worth it for most people, and I'd tend to agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting article I read described it as the new 'bubble' ready to burst:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...t-95639354.html

Interesting article indeed. Clayton Christensen has already written a book about the future of education, and disruptive innovation in that field.

It's happened already, at least in finance.

The CFA charter (Chartered Financial Analyst) is now considered on par if not better than an MBA from a top school in most large firms, and getting chartered can be a direct ticket to a job (hell, somebody offered me a job if I passed Level I the first time!). Why? It's only $1.5k a year, for 3 years (3 exams) plus four years of professional experience. But it involves a hell of a lot of hard studying, in your spare time, at the beginning of your career where spare time is all but inexistent. Those who survive the brutal pass rates (30%, 40% and 50% for levels I, II and III respectively, if I remember well - they say it's graded by a pass grade but it's obviously curve-rated so competition is ruthless) and have worked and been nominated by a charterholder have demonstrated considerable drive. In France, 1,500 people try Level I each year, but there are only 400 charterholders in the entire country! It's a fairly good network too, with major hedge fund managers and senior institution folks heading conferences and giving talks (the upcoming CFA UK conference has at least 5 world-renowned names). People are willing to put up with it because the industry knows that the weeding effect is very much there, and this is reflected in your job prospects. The CFA Institute has of course banked on this by providing a jobs forum which immediately filled up with openings more prestigious than anything you'll find in top headhunters like Glocap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a trend away from generalist and towards more specialized and directly applicable skills.

I don't think higher education is on its way out though. In most companies, a good diploma is just too much of an easy shortcut to a high quality pool of candidates. Evaluating self-taught people would require a completely different way to recruit. It's not impossible to do, but it's going to take a long time.

As a side note, I'm currently taking advantage of the vast online offering in terms of IT and CS education. If you're willing to dig around, you can find great courses for free online (videos from Stanford, the MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, etc), including course material, assignment, and even (for some) access to dedicated forum resources. There are also free versions of major (sometimes legendary) books available for download. It's bewildering. The limits to the free online classes is that you cannot go very deep, but you can get started in such a way that you then know what to study on your own, and in what order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. I'll hire a kid from MIT any day. And the Cambridge experience was more about sleepless nights poring over sheets and sheets of numbers than ale, wine and port as is commonly thought.

The phenomenon of education decaying in quality is not excluded from top-level schools. It is happening on all levels, in all fields, regardless of level of rigor. The hard sciences retain the most glory of the past-gone days, but even longtime professors in those fields admit that the difficulty of their courses has been scaled down over the years.

I'm personally quite skeptical of any great difference in education between the levels of school. High prestige schools are high in prestige because of their acclaimed researchers, many of whom actually won't be good teachers, and more of whom as a student even in that field you'd probably never lay eyes on, much less receive their wisdom.

Professors I know who have worked in top-tier and 4th-tier universities will say there is really little difference in the professors. The only significant difference is in the motivation of the students (how hard they like to work).

I would expect that a History or Psychology degree from MIT or a 3rd-tier school to have been equally devalued over the last 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, there are benefits to an MBA education. To say that it is useless is not correct. What's a valid point would be to say that it's not worth it for most people, and I'd tend to agree with that.

To say that something has a certain quality regardless of context is always not correct. MBA's may still remain a practical route for students in certain, limited cases, but this does not negate the gimmicky, mickey-mouse level of courses, and the general lack of rigor and respect the field, and its students, receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kids largely go to college today because of the intrinsic value many businesses place on the degree, and because of the vague importance society and their parents place on the "college experience", which somehow 'grows' and 'matures' a student, even as it grows his tummy from cheap beer at frat parties.

As the costs continue to skyrocket, and as businesses continue to become painfully aware that the final product of the modern university is lacking, I think importance will shift away from the degree.

An interesting article I read described it as the new 'bubble' ready to burst:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...t-95639354.html

I did not read the full article as I am limited on time this morning, but I got the main theme. Have you (and others) read Thomas Sowell's book Inside American Education: The Decline, The Deception, The dogmas? I am almost never in full agreement with Thomas Sowell, but he does a very good job at giving the facts although I might disagree on the fundamental reasons why there has been such a decline. Thomas Sowell's book was originally published in 1993, so I can only imagine what has happened since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To say that something has a certain quality regardless of context is always not correct. MBA's may still remain a practical route for students in certain, limited cases, but this does not negate the gimmicky, mickey-mouse level of courses, and the general lack of rigor and respect the field, and its students, receive.

OK, my point is: in the vast majority of non-business undergrad wanting to work in managerial positions in large corps, an MBA from say a top-15 school is a very good asset. In other cases, it's more difficult to assess.

My experience as a foreigner w/ a business undergraduate degree is that the MBA helped me integrate my knowledge across disciplines, gain slightly deeper knowledge in some discrete areas, and gave me a more practical view of the various subjects. What it wasn't was a mind-blowing, illuminating, intellectual experience. I did work my a.. off. Would I do it again? Yes. Would I recommend it to a US professional doing very well in their current career and happy with it? No.

One non-negligeable advantage for a foreigner is that MBAs get access to a different pool of visas. That makes a big difference if one wants to stay in the US.

The case study method really helps MBA students integrate various discrete pieces of knowledge together. That can only be done effectively in a class setting with students with material experience.

This being said, maybe I'm rationalizing my own choices. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case study method really helps MBA students integrate various discrete pieces of knowledge together. That can only be done effectively in a class setting with students with material experience.

That IS one of the biggest value-adds of the MBA, actually. The stuff you get from discussions with candidates from a varied pool of experience, together with exposure to thousands of cases (in the case of HBS), is definitely something you can't get from books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not read the full article as I am limited on time this morning, but I got the main theme. Have you (and others) read Thomas Sowell's book Inside American Education: The Decline, The Deception, The dogmas? I am almost never in full agreement with Thomas Sowell, but he does a very good job at giving the facts although I might disagree on the fundamental reasons why there has been such a decline. Thomas Sowell's book was originally published in 1993, so I can only imagine what has happened since then.

That is a very, very good book. Meticulously documented, interesting, and ultimately frightening in its conclusion and warning to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. I'll hire a kid from MIT any day. And the Cambridge experience was more about sleepless nights poring over sheets and sheets of numbers than ale, wine and port as is commonly thought.

The phenomenon of education decaying in quality is not excluded from top-level schools. It is happening on all levels, in all fields, regardless of level of rigor. The hard sciences retain the most glory of the past-gone days, but even longtime professors in those fields admit that the difficulty of their courses has been scaled down over the years.

Not true, at least at Cambridge. It used to be the case that students were on the whole quite relaxed, and an average grade would have been a third or lower second class honours, which was considered perfectly acceptable back in the days. It is the high school material that has been dumbed down. Cambridge kind of jokes about it with their "bring you back to speed" course: in the UK, there are two mathematics options for "A-level", "Mathematics" and "Further Mathematics" (considering most people take 3 A-levels, doing both would cover 60% of your last two years at school). Some people are admitted in engineering without having done Further Maths, they are then expected to attend the course. How long does it take Cambridge to teach the equivalent of 1/3 of the last two years of high school study? 2 hours.

Generally, the level was pushed up even further by the Chinese arrivals. Notwithstanding their far superior high school science level (especially in mathematics), most of them had studied for a year or two at one of the top universities in China, and it was not uncommon for >60% of the top 10 list to be Chinese. The professors happily jacked up the course level accordingly.

I'm personally quite skeptical of any great difference in education between the levels of school. High prestige schools are high in prestige because of their acclaimed researchers, many of whom actually won't be good teachers, and more of whom as a student even in that field you'd probably never lay eyes on, much less receive their wisdom.

Before I got into Cambridge, I considered going to Imperial College instead, in London - because it has, supposedly, a "better reputation" for engineering and "better teaching". I did eventually choose Cambridge, and a friend chose Imperial, so I had a chance to sample the difference between a university that is truly world-class (2nd in the world until 2004, now 4th I believe?) and one that consistently arrived top of the country ex-Oxford and Cambridge (i.e. upper tier but not Harvard).

The main difference is in the student population. Cambridge simply attracted the best, especially Europeans (mainly Germans) who preferred their subsidized 3,000 EUR/year place at Cambridge to a non-subsidized $40,000/year place in MIT, etc. Then there were the best of the Chinese and Indian lot who were determined to bring back the highest possible grade and for whom nothing else mattered. The result was an intense, extremely competitive atmosphere where we were taught to try to go to bed at 1.30am so as to still be able to think, with first year undergraduates sending objects into space and subs into deep ocean.

The net result was a much, much faster curriculum. No student at Cambridge - at least not in sciences - works during their time there - there simply is no time. At Imperial, it was not uncommon for students to hold 3-4 jobs during the week to cover their extortionate London living costs. My friend easily breezed through all his exams and finished with a high first. I was regularly ill from overwork but finished with second class honours only. At school, I easily beat him at most subjects.

There's also a huge value-add from being around really smart people. Even the art students are smart (and that's saying something), even if philosophically flawed. The entire town vibrates with intellect and this again helps you prize knowledge and see excellence as a way of life, something I have never found to be true in even top tier universities in the UK (whose students' main goals were to repeatedly get drunk and sleep with as many women as possible). Because you're always surrounded by people who are smart and extremely driven, you become smarter and more driven. It's a great effect and after a three or four year course, compounds into a huge difference over the other graduates in the country (which is why an Oxbridge degree is so highly prized here, even in the arts).

And I thought Cambridge was good, but a friend then went on to do a PhD at MIT, and the undergrads who work for him have roughly the level of a first or second year Cambridge PhD student. With three times the motivation.

There definitely is a difference, and if a kid ever asked me whether he should try an Ivy place or Oxbridge, or go for a 2nd rate place for some reason or another (sports team, chance to start a business, etc.) I know what I would tell him, instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. I'll hire a kid from MIT any day. And the Cambridge experience was more about sleepless nights poring over sheets and sheets of numbers than ale, wine and port as is commonly thought.

The phenomenon of education decaying in quality is not excluded from top-level schools. It is happening on all levels, in all fields, regardless of level of rigor. The hard sciences retain the most glory of the past-gone days, but even longtime professors in those fields admit that the difficulty of their courses has been scaled down over the years.

Not true, at least at Cambridge. It used to be the case that students were on the whole quite relaxed, and an average grade would have been a third or lower second class honours, which was considered perfectly acceptable back in the days. It is the high school material that has been dumbed down. Cambridge kind of jokes about it with their "bring you back to speed" course: in the UK, there are two mathematics options for "A-level", "Mathematics" and "Further Mathematics" (considering most people take 3 A-levels, doing both would cover 60% of your last two years at school). Some people are admitted in engineering without having done Further Maths, they are then expected to attend the course. How long does it take Cambridge to teach the equivalent of 1/3 of the last two years of high school study? 2 hours.

Generally, the level was pushed up even further by the Chinese arrivals. Notwithstanding their far superior high school science level (especially in mathematics), most of them had studied for a year or two at one of the top universities in China, and it was not uncommon for >60% of the top 10 list to be Chinese. The professors happily jacked up the course level accordingly.

I'm personally quite skeptical of any great difference in education between the levels of school. High prestige schools are high in prestige because of their acclaimed researchers, many of whom actually won't be good teachers, and more of whom as a student even in that field you'd probably never lay eyes on, much less receive their wisdom.

Before I got into Cambridge, I considered going to Imperial College instead, in London - because it has, supposedly, a "better reputation" for engineering and "better teaching". I did eventually choose Cambridge, and a friend chose Imperial, so I had a chance to sample the difference between a university that is truly world-class (2nd in the world until 2004, now 4th I believe?) and one that consistently arrived top of the country ex-Oxford and Cambridge (i.e. upper tier but not Harvard).

The main difference is in the student population. Cambridge simply attracted the best, especially Europeans (mainly Germans) who preferred their subsidized 3,000 EUR/year place at Cambridge to a non-subsidized $40,000/year place in MIT, etc. Then there were the best of the Chinese and Indian lot who were determined to bring back the highest possible grade and for whom nothing else mattered. The result was an intense, extremely competitive atmosphere where we were taught to try to go to bed at 1.30am so as to still be able to think, with first year undergraduates sending objects into space and subs into deep ocean.

The net result was a much, much faster curriculum. No student at Cambridge - at least not in sciences - works during their time there - there simply is no time. At Imperial, it was not uncommon for students to hold 3-4 jobs during the week to cover their extortionate London living costs. My friend easily breezed through all his exams and finished with a high first. I was regularly ill from overwork but finished with second class honours only. At school, I easily beat him at most subjects.

There's also a huge value-add from being around really smart people. Even the art students are smart (and that's saying something), even if philosophically flawed. The entire town vibrates with intellect and this again helps you prize knowledge and see excellence as a way of life, something I have never found to be true in even top tier universities in the UK (whose students' main goals were to repeatedly get drunk and sleep with as many women as possible). Because you're always surrounded by people who are smart and extremely driven, you become smarter and more driven. It's a great effect and after a three or four year course, compounds into a huge difference over the other graduates in the country (which is why an Oxbridge degree is so highly prized here, even in the arts).

And I thought Cambridge was good, but a friend then went on to do a PhD at MIT, and the undergrads who work for him have roughly the level of a first or second year Cambridge PhD student. With three times the motivation.

There definitely is a difference, and if a kid ever asked me whether he should try an Ivy place or Oxbridge, or go for a 2nd rate place for some reason or another (sports team, chance to start a business, etc.) I know what I would tell him, instantly.

Everything I'm saying is meant for the context of American education in American schools and universities. Elite schools in Europe are probably still really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But MIT, according to my friend, is way, way, way ahead of Cambridge...
It's interesting that people keep bringing up MIT. The people I know who have done graduate work at MIT from Webb (the tiny engineering school I go to) have found it *easier* than the Webb curriculum.... one guy even woke up in the middle of the night in a panic and went to go see his adviser because he felt he wasn't taking enough classes. And Webb graduates are typically at the top of their MIT class, regardless of where they ranked at Webb. Considering nobody's ever heard of Webb, it makes me wonder how many other little engineering schools are out there that nobody's ever heard of that offer amazing experiences. (Harvey Mudd, I'm sure is up there.) And still, I could go on and on about the problems with the Webb education. Frankly, I suspect that there are problems with all the engineering schools. I'm beginning to wonder how much value should be placed on any degree. Anyway, I'd love to go into it, but there's a hydrodynamics project calling my name. Sorry for offering an opinion and no real supporting evidence - I'll do this later if I have time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites