Anyone have a view on MBAs?
- Thread starter Aceyducey
- Start date
Gudday Pitt,
I'd hate to think that this was the last word on the subject.
In selecting the AGSM course, the course offering directly addresses the issues both Dallee and you raise. The reason the execs go for AGSM is that the after-hours lectures are offered concurrently in capital cities and other locations all over Australia. I was on the road for the last 3 years working on outsourcing pursuits. With AGSM (unlike other programs) I was able to attend lectures in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney City, North Sydney and a couple of places in Western Sydney too. No hassle, just show up and slot straight in. Additionally, AGSM caters for the busy "high-powered exec" by providing all research materials / references both pre-bound and online - no need to fight with full-timers in libraries.
This isn't an add for AGSM (it just happens to suit me well), simply clearing up an unfair misconception.
Cheers,
I started my current job just over a year ago, without much sense of a career structure in it. It was something to earn good money to get us out of the financial pit we were in following a business failure.
I've since been promoted and am now on the executive management team, with opportunities for career advancement in the region etc. (its a small australian subsidiary of a medium sized German company)
I'm becoming more aware that if this is the career path I want to go down, I will need an MBA. In order to have an opportunity to have a similar position in an overseas branch, to be a Regional manager, or to be a Managing director, an MBA would almost certainly be a requirement. So, I have been looking into it.
But at this stage, the extra work etc means that it is probably not a possibility in the short term at least. and if I did it, I'm afraid I would be primarily doing it to get the qualification and I'd want to do it with the least amount of work possible! I would probably do it by correspondance. (not saying that I don't want to learn things, but it wouldn't be something I would work on to get the top marks!) but i would also want to study in a program that had some emphasis on Asia, cause thats where my career potential seems to lie.
Pen
I've since been promoted and am now on the executive management team, with opportunities for career advancement in the region etc. (its a small australian subsidiary of a medium sized German company)
I'm becoming more aware that if this is the career path I want to go down, I will need an MBA. In order to have an opportunity to have a similar position in an overseas branch, to be a Regional manager, or to be a Managing director, an MBA would almost certainly be a requirement. So, I have been looking into it.
But at this stage, the extra work etc means that it is probably not a possibility in the short term at least. and if I did it, I'm afraid I would be primarily doing it to get the qualification and I'd want to do it with the least amount of work possible! I would probably do it by correspondance. (not saying that I don't want to learn things, but it wouldn't be something I would work on to get the top marks!) but i would also want to study in a program that had some emphasis on Asia, cause thats where my career potential seems to lie.
Pen
I have an MBA and let me tell you, the thing it really taught me was that I shouldnt have got an MBA. I dont think I'm going to use it to anywhere near its full potential.
So many of the senior career positions you need this type of qualification for need you to work 80-100 hours a week, weekends, put up with massive amounts of stress. It really isnt worth it IMHO.
If I had my time again, I'd spend my time on learning how to get rich. What about starting up a business, learning about marketing, trading shares, options, CFDs etc. What about spending the time renovating houses, or actively investing in IPs. There are many better ways to earn money than getting an MBA to climb the corporate ladder. Dont get me started on that one...
Tubs
So many of the senior career positions you need this type of qualification for need you to work 80-100 hours a week, weekends, put up with massive amounts of stress. It really isnt worth it IMHO.
If I had my time again, I'd spend my time on learning how to get rich. What about starting up a business, learning about marketing, trading shares, options, CFDs etc. What about spending the time renovating houses, or actively investing in IPs. There are many better ways to earn money than getting an MBA to climb the corporate ladder. Dont get me started on that one...
Tubs
I left Year 12 with a TE Score of 795 in 1984 which only just got me into Ag College (which I skipped to go and work a crappy job).
In 1999 I completed an MBA which took 6 years on and off, purely to make my employer of the time shut up.
There was some value in the discipline required to balance real life and the world of academia. I definitely enjoyed some of the subjects, but in general found the experience pretty hollow because I didn't really buy into it. I don't put the letters on my business card, put it that way.
I've yet to see letters after a name or dollars in a bank account make a complete and 'successful' person. In fact I have seen some truly 'brilliant' academics with lots of spare cash make a complete meal out of having a life and sustaining relationships. It seems for some people real life versus pursuit of wealth and education are 2 mutually exclusive things.
But it makes sense, if the pursuit of that MBA experience pushes your buttons, then it could be a wonderful time in your life. Personally, if I'd known you'd be able to buy an MBA over the web for less than a hundred bucks these days, I'd be getting the credit card out
In 1999 I completed an MBA which took 6 years on and off, purely to make my employer of the time shut up.
There was some value in the discipline required to balance real life and the world of academia. I definitely enjoyed some of the subjects, but in general found the experience pretty hollow because I didn't really buy into it. I don't put the letters on my business card, put it that way.
I've yet to see letters after a name or dollars in a bank account make a complete and 'successful' person. In fact I have seen some truly 'brilliant' academics with lots of spare cash make a complete meal out of having a life and sustaining relationships. It seems for some people real life versus pursuit of wealth and education are 2 mutually exclusive things.
But it makes sense, if the pursuit of that MBA experience pushes your buttons, then it could be a wonderful time in your life.
Personally, if I'd known you'd be able to buy an MBA over the web for less than a hundred bucks these days, I'd be getting the credit card out 
This was quoted by Peter Spann in his investor update in Canberra last night
Though Peter did say that many of the extremely rich people in the world did not attend, or did not finish, tertiary studies.
In fact though, as good as it would have been if he said that, he didn't- http://www.snopes.com/quotes/ellison.htm
Though Peter did say that many of the extremely rich people in the world did not attend, or did not finish, tertiary studies.
Geoff,
It doesn't surprise me that this is the sort of stuff Peter would say. As much as I respect his achievements on a financial front, I can't help but think he is still a fairly one-dimensional fellow. A lot of people regard success as measured purely in financial terms, but I'm not one of those people.
If you've read Steven Covey you'd know that you perform multiple roles in your life, and that you should optimally not let any one of these roles singularly define who you are. Some sample roles include:
- Financial Provider
- Spouse / partner
- Father
- Brother
- Employee
- Employer
- University Student
- Socialist
- Christian etc
To my mind, truly successful people understand the multiple roles they perform in life and achieve a relative measure of success in all of these and not an undue amount in any one endeavour at the expense of others. These people are typically more resilient too as failure in any one regard is not soul destroying. Take for example the death of a much loved spouse. For those that define themselves entirely by their marriage, this would leave them completely devestated. However, balanced, principle centred people are more capable of coping with such a traumatic experience. They call on their friends, their children, their extended family, even their workmates to get through the experience. Fortunately, they have a lot of these as they're not singularly defined by their marriage.
I'm not suggesting Peter is completely besotted with money, but he does seem to give it an inordinate ranking when measuring the success of others.
I don't!
My success is only partially defined by my financial success. I consider my education as equally important even if it is not directly correlated with my financial success. I like to be successful in many different endeavours as well and spend as much, if not much more, time devoted to growing a loving family than to my financial future.
I'm dumfounded how anyone could consider a Yale graduate to be a loser. Only a very shallow person with a narrow singular view of life could draw that conclusion. Now, that's the sort of person I'd personally classify as a loser! I respect anyone that achieves outstanding results in any field of endeavour. Just because its not a field of endeavour I'm passionate about does not make me any less respectful of that person's achievements.
Cheers,
Michael.
Hi Michael,
Given the specialisation in each field of endeavour in life, I reckon one needs to be singularly focussed (narrow minded ??) to actually achieve truly outstanding status in whatever field you are talking about.
There is only so much time / money / love to go around.
You can't achieve truly outstanding performances in all aspects of your lives, you need to sacrifice something to proceed with the others that you choose. That's not to say that you can't be well rounded, but well rounded - by definition - isn't truly outstanding.
I liken it to the women's heptathlon or the men's decathlon. Absolutely supreme athletes and extremely well rounded, but pitted against truly outstanding athletes in the individual events, they are flogged senseless, being left in the dust.
They are too big for the long distance events, too light for the throwing events, not fast enough for the sprints and too heavy for the high and long jumps....they are still outstanding well rounded athletes.....but will never reach the top in the individual specialised events.
Do you reckon their is a parallel there somewhere ??
Dazzling,
I liked the sporting analogy! Nice one!!
I agree that it takes single-minded dogged determination plus a fair degree of natural gift to be truly outstanding in a specific field of endeavour, though some are more naturally pre-disposed to success than others. My primary point was that I recognise success in all fields of endeavour. To label a Yale graduate as a loser is a narrow-minded conceit. They may not be rich necessarily, but they've still achieved a high degree of success in their education already. They're probably likely to achieve high levels of employment as well which is equally as admirable. To devalue these accomplishments based on an individual's own preconceptions about what is a valid field of endeavour is narrow minded.
I try and remain balanced and achieve a high degree of success in many different areas. I may not be truly single-mindedly outstanding at any of these but I consider myself pretty bloody good at quite a few. I'm a 2nd Dan in TKD, an Officer in the Army Reserves, a Uni Graduate with Distinction and current MBA student, a proud father and husband, a senior executive, a devoted son, a good friend and listener... but these are broad undertakings and I'm not truly spectacular at any despite my best efforts. For example, I haven't represented Australia in TKD, I've only done it as a hobby with a lot of enthusiasm for a while.
I also tend to focus on specific areas of endeavour at particular phases of my life. Whereas I used to focus strongly on my education and employment when I was younger, now I focus more on being a great husband and father and less so on my job. I'm also pretty driven at present to be successul at property development, but its not my singular pursuit.
If I'm financially successful as a by-product of my endeavours then that's a bonus, but its not the be-all and end-all. Well, not to me anyway.
Just advocating we learn to appreciate success in others where it doesn't correlate to our own view of success or our own fields of endeavour. It upsets me when I see quotes like the one GeoffW posted which degrades certain high achievers just because we don't necessarily value their area of achievement. I'm still dumfounded how any one could possibly view a Yale graduate as a loser. That is just complete nonsense.
Cheers,
Michael.
Michael
You didn't follow the link I gave from www.snopes.com .
While Peter quoted it, and mentioned that it came from an email, it was a hoax email- made to look as if it came from Ellison.
Just a few comments on recent posts...
To MW: I totally agree with your assessment of Peter Spann. I respect his investment success too, but very little of what he says. I went to the last Investor Update and I seriously felt embarrassed for him.
Re the suggestion that you don't need an MBA for a small business: Very true. If you want a small business, you don't need any education at all; that's what keeps businesses small. Last time I checked, I never "wanted" my business to stay small. But horses for courses.
Re Charles Sturt Masters + other similar courses: You get what you pay for, period. Before you all shoot me down, I have a little authority to speak on this because I have a Master of Management from CSU. However, I am now doing a Master of Finance at ANU. The difference is huge! An example: my lecturer for my current private equity course lives in Japan and flies to Canberra to teach. He is world-renowned in the industry and the practical experience he shares is absolutely priceless. I won't even start about CSU lecturers; nice people, good academics, but yeah. Also, our M&A teacher flies from Sydney each week, he has extensive experience facilitating the sale of $1 billion + companies. Again, absolutely priceless lectures. Our classes often go over the three hour limit because no one gets up to leave.
MBAs in general: I think anyone who questions a good MBA (we're talking US Ivy-Leagues, top euros - such as IMD - or maybe even AGSM) is ill informed or isn't motivated in that way. It's the same as wanting to climb an 8000m peak, most people don't understand, it takes a certain type. It's the same with these MBAs; it's not about a textbook education or a piece of paper. It takes certain types. Anyway, I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie regarding this subject. It's futile debating the validity of your goals with others.
To MW: I totally agree with your assessment of Peter Spann. I respect his investment success too, but very little of what he says. I went to the last Investor Update and I seriously felt embarrassed for him.
Re the suggestion that you don't need an MBA for a small business: Very true. If you want a small business, you don't need any education at all; that's what keeps businesses small. Last time I checked, I never "wanted" my business to stay small. But horses for courses.
Re Charles Sturt Masters + other similar courses: You get what you pay for, period. Before you all shoot me down, I have a little authority to speak on this because I have a Master of Management from CSU. However, I am now doing a Master of Finance at ANU. The difference is huge! An example: my lecturer for my current private equity course lives in Japan and flies to Canberra to teach. He is world-renowned in the industry and the practical experience he shares is absolutely priceless. I won't even start about CSU lecturers; nice people, good academics, but yeah. Also, our M&A teacher flies from Sydney each week, he has extensive experience facilitating the sale of $1 billion + companies. Again, absolutely priceless lectures. Our classes often go over the three hour limit because no one gets up to leave.
MBAs in general: I think anyone who questions a good MBA (we're talking US Ivy-Leagues, top euros - such as IMD - or maybe even AGSM) is ill informed or isn't motivated in that way. It's the same as wanting to climb an 8000m peak, most people don't understand, it takes a certain type. It's the same with these MBAs; it's not about a textbook education or a piece of paper. It takes certain types. Anyway, I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie regarding this subject. It's futile debating the validity of your goals with others.
Me too!
I won't be going back to university any time soon, preferring to gather practical experience.
-- MJ.
Try again.... (since my last post dissapeared into a black hole along with several others).
Ever one to admit the error of my ways, I can now see that the Larry Ellison quote was in fact not a Larry Ellison quote (it was an urban myth that he actually said those things).
However the question I posed remains valid -
Can entreprenuership be taught?
And on a more generic level -
Does it matter that Larry Ellison never said those things? The classic book "Who moved my cheese?" is fictional*, but does that make it any less valid a viewpoint to take account of and perhaps learn from?
M
*It has talking mice!
Ever one to admit the error of my ways, I can now see that the Larry Ellison quote was in fact not a Larry Ellison quote (it was an urban myth that he actually said those things).
However the question I posed remains valid -
Can entreprenuership be taught?
And on a more generic level -
Does it matter that Larry Ellison never said those things? The classic book "Who moved my cheese?" is fictional*, but does that make it any less valid a viewpoint to take account of and perhaps learn from?
M
*It has talking mice!
Entrepeneurship, as taught in my MBA (Deakin) was more a case of teaching you how to write a business plan. You come up with a concept and worked in a small group to develop the plan, financials, marketing, etc and that was basically it.
However, we did have a couple of good talks by some people who succeeded in their businesses, and one interesting one by someone who failed dismally.
I dont think entrepeneurship can be taught in the same was as maths and science can be taught. If you've 'got it' then you'll come up with an idea and learn how to market/finance/develop it. If not, then no level of teaching is going to teach you how to become an entrepeneur.
Tubs
However, we did have a couple of good talks by some people who succeeded in their businesses, and one interesting one by someone who failed dismally.
I dont think entrepeneurship can be taught in the same was as maths and science can be taught. If you've 'got it' then you'll come up with an idea and learn how to market/finance/develop it. If not, then no level of teaching is going to teach you how to become an entrepeneur.
Tubs
Neither am I - the only thing I judge a person with regards to money is their net worth and really if we are talking about wealth creation then that has to be the arbiter.
You can be a really cool, interesting and well rounded human being but with no money you don't rank on the "wealth scale" (and no esoteric comments about wealth being more things then money - I agree but I am deliberately trying to make a narrow point here).
I do not judge people as a human being by how much money they have and I agree it would be a pretty shallow person who did.
Most of my colleagues have a large degree of money (wealth) and I hang out with them to soak up their mind-set and learn new things in my chosen field of endeavour, however most of my FRIENDS are very well rounded with few of them as wealthy as others I sometime spend time with. However they are often far more interesting!
It’s easy to understand why you may perceive me as one-dimensional (hard for somebody in here who is only a casual contributor to come across as anything else) and really, I don’t mind if you do, but in this forum and in public I am generally only asked my opinions on money and I guess that's totally appropriate because that is about the only thing I am an expert on.
In fact, while Geoff has quoted the first part of the (hoax) speech it was this bit I was referring to in my presentation…
“Because I, Lawrence "Larry" Ellison, second richest man on the planet, am a college dropout, and you are not.
"Because Bill Gates, richest man on the planet — for now, anyway — is a college dropout, and you are not.
"Because Paul Allen, the third richest man on the planet, dropped out of college, and you did not.
"And for good measure, because Michael Dell, No. 9 on the list and moving up fast, is a college dropout, and you, yet again, are not.”
To simply make the point that education is irrelevant to the pursuit of extreme wealth. When I left school I read at a grade 3 level and could not do simple maths. It has only been in the last 7 years (well after I achived a high net worth) that I have overcome my fear of "formal" education and worked on it.
However, on education I believe, that while an MBA may be no pre-requisite to extreme wealth, in fact it may be an impediment to it - education is valuable intrinsically and is a noble pursuit in and of itself even with no practical outcome. After all I have an MA in Behavioral Science and I’m not a practicing Psychologist. I also regularly attend educational events all around the world because of my membership of YPO that often include Master’s level courses at Harvard, Yale and Oxford – again hardly the behaviour of somebody who doesn’t value education.
And BTW I have NEVER stated that the pursuit of extreme wealth is valid in and of itself – I just find myself in the position of one who’s largely asked to provide information and education on THAT topic.
Maybe we should all band together to produce a MW (Master of Wealth)?
Clarification
Peter,
Many thanks for clearing that up. I agree that the quote you just referenced is far more enlightening than branding Yale graduates as "Loser Cum Laude's". I've always known that a formal education is not a necessary pre-requisite to extreme wealth and that it can in fact impede achievement of this. However, I believe a good education, particularly a business one such as an MBA, does allow you to fill in the ranks immediately behind our extreme over-achieving entreprenarial counterparts. Its a much easier path to financial success in my opinion than striving to replicate Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
When I undertook my MBA 5 years ago I hoped it would take my career and salary to the next level. I'm already on a comfortable six-figure salary but wanted some way to get to the $200K or $300K pa plus club. That might not make you mega-wealthy but it doesn't make you that poor either, and put to good use in investments it can really have a strong compounding effect. I'm only 36 and have a net worth now of a touch over $1M, but I'm also now controlling properties worth several times this.
Since I started my MBA I have changed direction somewhat and am now pursuing property development as well as maintaining my current level of salaried income. The MBA has given me the self-confidence to go into development on my own. Its proven to me that I can achieve what I set out to achieve, and as an added bonus has given me a really broad base in relevant business skills. So my MBA, far from holding me back, has given me the drive to get out there and make my own financial future in my own business.
Peter, I'm glad you're not the one-dimensional fellow I was perceiving you to be. I guess that's a mistake you can make when judging a guy by the posts he makes in a property investment forum! For that I apologise.
All the best,
Michael.
Peter,
Many thanks for clearing that up. I agree that the quote you just referenced is far more enlightening than branding Yale graduates as "Loser Cum Laude's". I've always known that a formal education is not a necessary pre-requisite to extreme wealth and that it can in fact impede achievement of this. However, I believe a good education, particularly a business one such as an MBA, does allow you to fill in the ranks immediately behind our extreme over-achieving entreprenarial counterparts. Its a much easier path to financial success in my opinion than striving to replicate Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
When I undertook my MBA 5 years ago I hoped it would take my career and salary to the next level. I'm already on a comfortable six-figure salary but wanted some way to get to the $200K or $300K pa plus club. That might not make you mega-wealthy but it doesn't make you that poor either, and put to good use in investments it can really have a strong compounding effect. I'm only 36 and have a net worth now of a touch over $1M, but I'm also now controlling properties worth several times this.
Since I started my MBA I have changed direction somewhat and am now pursuing property development as well as maintaining my current level of salaried income. The MBA has given me the self-confidence to go into development on my own. Its proven to me that I can achieve what I set out to achieve, and as an added bonus has given me a really broad base in relevant business skills. So my MBA, far from holding me back, has given me the drive to get out there and make my own financial future in my own business.
Peter, I'm glad you're not the one-dimensional fellow I was perceiving you to be. I guess that's a mistake you can make when judging a guy by the posts he makes in a property investment forum!
For that I apologise.All the best,
Michael.
Deakin University may have pipped you there Peter with their Master of Wealth Management degree (although the content looks like ever other applied finance degree out there to me).
Still, it is an idea (on a broader scale) that I have often contemplated - what would a course of tertiary study designed to give students a grounding in wealth creation and management include?
Firstly, a couple of things would need to be acknowledged:
1. That there are numerous asset classes that can be used to create wealth (ie. equities, property, commodities, cash, etc),
2. That even within those asset classes there are numerous modus operandi that can be used (eg for equities - buy and hold, trading, options, etc),
3. That there are numerous analytical techniques that can be used (again, eg for equities - fundamental analysis, technical analysis, random walk, etc),
and last, but certainly not least...
4. That a significant amount of wealth is created between ones ears (by ones mindset), so any proper study of wealth creation would need to examine investor pyshology and, more generically, the pyschology of success (and the psychology of "failure" and how it can be capitalised on too, eg. fear and greed).
Bearing in mind all of that, a course of study in wealth creation might include the following subjects:
- Fundamental and Technical analysis
- Residential Real Estate
- Commercial Real Estate
- Equities
- Forex
- Commodities
- Business Value Creation (creating wealth through businesses)
- Investor Pyschology
as well as a basic core of:
- Economics
- Accounting and Finance
- Ethics
- etc
And the prescribed texts for this degree??
Well they might include.....
Lateral Thinking - Edward De Bono
The E-Myth Revisted - Michael E Gerber
More Wealth From Residential Property and Building Wealth Story By Story - Jan Somers
How To Win Friends and Influence People - Dale Carnegie
The Magic of Thinking Big - David Schwartz
Losing My Virginity - Richard Branson
Behind the Arches - John F Love
The Intelligent Investor - Ben Graham
etc
Sounds more interesting (and relevant) than what I learned at uni.
M
Why stop at a course? McDonalds have a Hamburger University - so why not a Wealth University
Cheers,
The Y-man