...and if you start looking at the bagkgrounds and founders of a whole bunch of other companies you will see that they are not computer sci grads from Stanford .......
What percentage of the US GDP do these three companies represent ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stanford MBA vs Berkeley Financial Engineering
- Thread starter StocksSniper
- Start date
...and if you start looking at the bagkgrounds and founders of a whole bunch of other companies you will see that they are not computer sci grads from Stanford .......
What percentage of the US GDP do these three companies represent ?
Quote from Apex Capital:
CAL is a great school.
And the new Haas Business facility is state of the art, with gorgeous views and architecture . . . However, I have no idea on how valuable the MFE program is. Do your own due-diligence.
By the way, applications for the 2006-2007 year are now closed.
Applications for the 2007-2008 year will open today, 12/15.
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/MFE/
Haas is a great school and is one of my favorite places to recruit.......
Depends what you want to do. if you want to trade from home then you need neither. end of story.
if you want to consult or be a banker, do the mba.
if you want to trade for an investment bank/hedge fund, either will get you in the door.
BUT, if you want to trade for an investment bank/hedgefund, i would reccommend the mfe. here is why:
i wanted to trade. i did my mba. i considered it a complete waste of time. the biggest problem was that i did it part-time. by the end of the program i was literally calculating what the minimum grade i needed on the final to pass the class, and i would not come to class for the last 6 weeks. i was burned out from going to work, then class 4 hours a night sometimes.
you're going full time so you'll get a better experience at least time-wise. but with the mba, you take so many USELESS classes that, if you really think like a trader, you couldn't give any less of a crap about them. marketing, information technology, business law....
even with my mba, and sitting on a trading desk (i am a derivatives marketer), i am looking at going back for my mfe. depends what products you are interested in, but the math training is ultimately necessary for you to really understand the dynamic of what is going on.
in a place like a bank, if you have a masters degree, nobody cares if it's an mba or not. you just need it to advance quickly.
good luck, let us know how you fare..
if you want to consult or be a banker, do the mba.
if you want to trade for an investment bank/hedge fund, either will get you in the door.
BUT, if you want to trade for an investment bank/hedgefund, i would reccommend the mfe. here is why:
i wanted to trade. i did my mba. i considered it a complete waste of time. the biggest problem was that i did it part-time. by the end of the program i was literally calculating what the minimum grade i needed on the final to pass the class, and i would not come to class for the last 6 weeks. i was burned out from going to work, then class 4 hours a night sometimes.
you're going full time so you'll get a better experience at least time-wise. but with the mba, you take so many USELESS classes that, if you really think like a trader, you couldn't give any less of a crap about them. marketing, information technology, business law....
even with my mba, and sitting on a trading desk (i am a derivatives marketer), i am looking at going back for my mfe. depends what products you are interested in, but the math training is ultimately necessary for you to really understand the dynamic of what is going on.
in a place like a bank, if you have a masters degree, nobody cares if it's an mba or not. you just need it to advance quickly.
good luck, let us know how you fare..
Quote from prt_systems:
False. Put 100K into a startup company and make it work over 2-3 years time and in a few years you could be well off if you know what you are doing...... If you cant do this or dont have a clue how to do this you can either go into debt or spend a lot of cash onm an MBA or study on your own for a year - even easier if you dont have a family .....
you're incredibly naive. you have an undergrad from somewhere. you decidce to start your own company. you go to VCs. they say.. you only have an undergrad, wtf are you doing.
contrast that to you have an undergrad. same amount of experience. you get stanford mba. you want to raise money for your company. you go to vcs who are impressed with the mba, and you can also call your fellow stanford network. it turns out that a friend of a friend knows a vc and wants to introduce you.
Quote from prt_systems:
Or you could listen to this guy who, in light of not really having any argument, thinks that derogatory language will somehow bolster his vacuous argument.
I did'nt say education was worthless .... what I said is that it does not require that you pay someone half a million dollars in direct and opportunity costs. The original question was whether its was a good idea to quit a 100K plus job to go to graduate school at an expensive school where you foot the bill directly. My repsonse stands: It matters not where you go and it matters much more whether you will make that money back.
If you have no career and excess time and money to burn - no company is willing to foot the bill - then pay that 300-400K.
Dont fall in love with the idea of having a Stanford or Harvard MBA ... at the end of the day nobody is going to throw you money or jobs because of it ... and you can be better than any grad of these programs without incorring the fee. .....
maybe you did have a ph.d in classical languages. hhaha funny.
and also. you never had an mba, so wtf are you talking about?
Quote from nicholaf:
you're incredibly naive. you have an undergrad from somewhere. you decidce to start your own company. you go to VCs. they say.. you only have an undergrad, wtf are you doing.
contrast that to you have an undergrad. same amount of experience. you get stanford mba. you want to raise money for your company. you go to vcs who are impressed with the mba, and you can also call your fellow stanford network. it turns out that a friend of a friend knows a vc and wants to introduce you.
You have no idea what you are talking about ... although you are amusing. My advice: try actually doing the VC rounds after a few years of significant experience....... You have clearly never attempted nor succeeded at dealing with venture capital firms .....
Quote from DrChaos:
OK, prt_systems, what would happen in the VC system?
This is not a flame or snarky remark. Actual curiosity.
VC firms want to maximize their portfolio investments - same as everybody. The trick in dealing with these people is to have a win win out of the gate: that is your business plan - and business - clearly make money and your plan shows a reasonable path to growth. If you have a business that does not need a VC round just to stay in business then its easy to work with VC's: they will want to invest in your company and you can negotiate the terms of their participation to a large degree. On the other hand if you have zero revenue and / or zero profit things become much more difficult. In these cases no matter what your pedigree you will give up a lot of control in exchange for a VC round - if you can get it.
Quote from prt_systems:
Or you could listen to this guy who, in light of not really having any argument, thinks that derogatory language will somehow bolster his vacuous argument.
I did'nt say education was worthless .... what I said is that it does not require that you pay someone half a million dollars in direct and opportunity costs. The original question was whether its was a good idea to quit a 100K plus job to go to graduate school at an expensive school where you foot the bill directly. My repsonse stands: It matters not where you go and it matters much more whether you will make that money back.
If you have no career and excess time and money to burn - no company is willing to foot the bill - then pay that 300-400K.
Dont fall in love with the idea of having a Stanford or Harvard MBA ... at the end of the day nobody is going to throw you money or jobs because of it ... and you can be better than any grad of these programs without incorring the fee. .....
prt_systems,
I've been reading both you and nicholas posts. Some interesting ideas. Both of you have some merits.
But the reality is more complicated and more personal. I worked at a place where many of the fund managers trainees/analysts have MBAs from top schools such as Stanford, Wharton, Univ of Chicago, etc. And I'm sure they are really bright and smart,etc. And it's hard as hell to get into those top schools.
Now, if they hadn't gotten into those schools they wouldn't have the opportunity to get a nice job managing/trading OPM with zero risk to themselves. AND during the booming 90s, they were wooed by other firms with probably huge packages.
Now, whether they were good traders or money managers is another question. The market makes fools out of the best of us. But for other endeavors, education is quite essential. Perhaps not in pure trading.
I think your estimation of opportunity cost should take into account of the person's stage in life. If someone who is 26-30 who has been out working a few years and got good references and want to go to a top MBA schools, then lo behold they should. Their opp. cost isn't anywhere near as high as what you quote of half amillion. They were probably make 50-75K with benefits a year.
So, they sink in another 100-150K in 2 yrs MBA and forgone 2yrs of salary that's another 150K let's say. So, its' about $300K tops. BUT when they get out first year packages should be at least 120-130K from most top MBA schools. Not including yearends and increase year over year. So, in probably a few years they can recover their cost and EXCEED them handsomely. And even with laid offs which are unpredictable they can still market and do well.
Now one could argue, wouldn't it be better to invest the $300K into a biz such as trading. Could be if you are that good. But where would you get that $300K? Good luck getting a loan from the bank to trade. Student loans are lower interest and no penalty for late payments,etc.
But this $300K is kinda like funny money. You can't really compare it. Most of that amt is gross, after taxes it's much lower. Had they stuck in their job with just a BS or BA they might never to that level of compensation unless they are truly talented.
Also, in school you learn a few cool things to juice up your brain.
Sure, I agree that ppl like bill gates and others who drop out of college are now bazillionaires are a great examples of what can be done w/o a formal education.
But I think those days are diminishing fast!
Competition from China and India and elsewhere are coming on strong. They produce probably like several hundred THOUSANDS highly educated engineer a YEAR! That's just in eng. Now they are doing the same in biology, chemistry, physics, math, etc.
And many more of them are getting phds too. In order to EXPLOIT the NEXT NEW NEW THING you gotta have knowledge(either from education or from real life). Now in the old days the barriers to entry were LOW. Steel. Banking. Railroad.
Even in Bill Gates' time it was low. He didn't even write the software. Just bought it. Then hired other ppl to do it.
Now in the next century of super opportunities, what's the chance of a college dropout starting the next biotech, nanotech, quantum computing startup, or google and become the next billionaire??
very slim.