Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
I was surprised to see that Stern, which is ranked number one for part-time!, seems to not really do good job with part-time MBA career mgt.
What do you folks think? Is it as bad as the article says?
EMBA is really better than Part-time? In my opinion, one shouldn't really be comparing EMBA with MBA and many of the EMBAs don't really teach the management basics, they expect you to know em ( i.e many good schools expect you to be in a senior management role or executive role before you apply for EMBA ) and build more executive knowledge.
I would also be interested to hear whats the perception on 1Y full time MBA? _________________
I think the article was somewhat overinclusive in its criticism of PT programs. The best PT programs are essentially temporally shifted FT programs that allow students to take the same classes, from the same professors, but at a different time, and allow free conversion of both credit and students from one type of program to the other. When schools are reluctant to let students switch from one program to the other, it is a strong sign that they do not truly consider them equivalent. If the schools have their doubts about the equivalence of their own programs, it should come as little surprise that employers would feel the same way.
While I hold Stern in high regard, NYU's reponse in this article was unsettling. Instead of addressing the underlying cause of the poor placement results of the PT students, the school is arguably just ignoring the problem and hiding it from view.
Thanks Hjort for giving your opinion on the article.
You bring up a good point that schools ( like NYU ) should focus and address the underlying issue on why recruiters prefer full-time over part-time and how can they answer the concerns of recruiters by modifying/improving the part-time structure. That would be a better approach than coverup with lame excuses.
You also mentioned in this post as well as one of your previous posts that,
When schools are reluctant to let students switch from one program to the other, it is a strong sign that they do not truly consider them equivalent.
Most of the schools that I have come across don't encourage transfers, expecially from PT to FT. Some of the schools that do allow transfer from PT to FT, say you have to do the transfer right after first semester, and that too depending upon the seats availability in FT program.
Do you know, recommend any schools that allow easy transfers from PT to FT at any semester? I really appreciate answer to this question. _________________
Chicago GSB allows transfer between programs. I have always known that you could transfer between the PT weekday and PT weekend program. But a few weeks back, I met with a GSB alum who was in the PT weekday progam for 1 year, changed to the FT program, did internship at Merryl and came back for 2nd year as FT student. She seemed to indicate that it was very much possible to change between programs. My 2 cents - know that there is a possibility but don't depend on it b'cos they always have the right to say no.
I also know for a fact that Kellogg does not allow you to do this. Hope it helps.
Chicago is probably one of the PT programs when evaluated against these criteria. The PT curriculum and FT curriculum are virtually identical (save for LEAD), and students take the same courses from the same professors.
Another important aspect that one needs to consider is that many schools e.g. Michigan do not allow prospective students to apply to the FT and PT programs in the same semester. The only reason I can think of this is that the competitiveness of these two programs is different. and the schools do not necessarily want to send out the message that a given candidate is not good for FT but is for PT and at the same time reject that student for PT for good. Can you think of any other reason?
If that is true then it follows that the 'general' standard of the PT class is not as good as FT. PT needs a certain number of students to run the program. I believe 25 % of these students are of FT level but rest are not. What do the recruiters think about this ? the ones who get good jobs after a PT program are ones who stay in their respective fields and offcourse bring a lot to the table.
I believe that they said in the info. session for the OSU Fisher College of Business that it is possible to transfer from PT to FT. The way that it came across was that it may not be the easiest thing to do, and they may not necessarily encourage this, but they won't stop you.
Probably the biggest reason for this is the structure of the 2 programs. The FT program requires you to have either already taken certain prereqs (stats, econ, accounting, etc...) or have to take them (at the grad school prices of course!). However, in the PT program (which requires at least 5 yrs. of full-time work experience), they do not have the prereqs. Also, in the FT program, you are required to choose a major, while the PT program just allows you to choose a "specialization" area, if you want. However, the PT program does have certain "core" classes that everyone has to take (finance, marketing & logistics, accounting, etc.)
Basically, the PT program gives you longer to finish (2-5 yrs., as opposed to the 2yrs. for FT), cuts out the prereqs (due to the work requirement, they figure that you'll have more practical experience), and gives priority scheduling for the evening sections. That's right, the PT classes are the same ones as for the FT students, only offered at night. If there are still seats available after the PT students have scheduled, they are opened up to the FT students. On the same note, if you're a PT student, and have some sort of crazy work schedule or something, and want to take a daytime section, you can do that too.
What I do like, also, is that there is absolutely no distinction on your diploma or transcript between the FT, PT, or Exec. programs. No matter which one you graduate from, you simply have an MBA.
The article makes some good points and I've been hearing the same feedback from some of the executives I've spoken with at GE, where I currently work. Remember that most employment reports that list average salary after MBA, types of positions, etc., refer only to FT students.
Technically, Chicago GSB does not let students switch from PT status to FT status. However, they do allow PT students who have chosen not to work to achieve a FT schedule and participate in all the classes (including LEAD), events, etc., as the FT students - so you can see that although this is not technically a transfer from PT to FT, it's a transfer for all practical purposes. And I would imagine any PT student taking this route would be treated as a FT graduate during recruitment, after graduation, etc.
The only difference between the two at GSB is that PT students taking a FT schedule get lower priorities on the GSB internship bidding process as well as lower priority on actually getting into the classes they choose, although not getting into a class you choose is apparently rare.