Family + Post-MBA Career = Oil + Water

Wow, this probably has to be one of the best topics I've ever read on the forum! But people talk about so many issues that it's hard to follow...

Morris, first of all I admire you for being so open and honest about your problems and issues - even though it's an anonymous forum that took some courage).

I won't even try to equal the quality of the previous posts, which are way out of my league - congrats terp, river (even though you 2 disagree), pelihu, etc - but here's a couple of thoughts anyway (sorry if these points have already been mentioned):

Spending time with your family and privileging life quality over money is very respectable (you could almost be European! ). However, I have a hard time believing that an MBA grad, even when he's working in GM (which is supposedly the lightest option in terms of hours), will be working less than 60 hours per week. I might be completely wrong (please correct me if I am), but I don't see a company paying you an MBA salary for a 9 to 5 job. Therefore you have to have a clear vision on the amount of time you are willing to spend at work (more of that below).

Also, I am the kind of person that thinks that an MBA from a school outside the top 20 (and I'm being large here) is pretty much useless. Might as well read the books. Why lose 2 years of your time and money (don't forget to count the salary you won't be earning anymore) for a school with limited possibilities? I don't know OU at all, but if I were you i would seriously inspect the possibilities that the school offers you in terms of employment. I'm not convinced that they will be able to provide you with the type of salary that you would expect after 2 years of inactivity (even with a free ride). But again, I don't know, and it's something you have to seriously look into.

Finally - and probably most importantly - you have to be very clear with yourself and your wife. Choose a path that satisfies both of you, talk about its consequences (in terms of hours, lifestyle, etc) and stick to it. Nobody should be making sacrifices that they aren't ready to make. I think these kind of decisions should be taken very seriously, without over-the-moon expectations (like earning 120k and being home by 6; unless you're in S&T) and everybody has to understand the consequences; but once a decision is taken that satisfies both of you, everybody has to stick to the plan. It's by far the most important step in the whole process. Much easier said than done though.

With your profile and your expectations, I would look at either part-time (probably your best option all things considered) or full-time with 3 years of sacrifice at work, like Terp (I think) mentioned. In both cases you should be looking at a top 20 school (if you get scholarships more power to you). I personally wouldn't even give a second thought to OU - but that's a personal opinion. Or even, don't do an MBA at all. But that depends on how much you want to change careers / boost your current career (I don't know your background), what potential there is in your current career without an MBA, how happy you are with your job, etc.

One last thing: during the MBA, you'll be home much more than you think. It's not a massive sacrifice in terms of time. It can be if you want to, but it is as busy as you want it to be. You won't be the first guy going for an MBA with a family. However, it's a give-and-take thing: don't expect to go out every night like some students do.

Anyway, sorry for the poor quality of the writing, but I do hope that it helps!


PS: this must be a cultural difference (or an education cost issue), but I really have a hard time understanding the home-school principle: all the (small) benefits that you gain from that are heavily outweighed by the inconveniences IMO (but that's just an opinion from somebody who doesn't know the US of course)

It depends what you define as "top companies". If you mean the whole of the Fortune 500, I would say that your comment is blatantly incorrect. It is more common to find non-pedigreed backgrounds than it is pedigreed ones.

Here's another article for reference:

https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/co ... 9_2661.htm

Q: Do you think potential employers have any bias toward Ivy League schools? Or is it a question of looking at a wider variety of students from a wider variety of institutions?
A: Yes, they're looking at a wider variety of institutions, and the reason is that as other jobs got more attractive, the large corporations had a harder time hiring at the elite schools. Frankly, I think they get their feelings hurt. It sounds odd to say that, but I've seen that over and over. When the market was tight, people would come to Wharton, and couldn't hire. They couldn't get people to take their jobs. They weren't as attractive.

When the market turned down, they could have come back and hired people, but they wouldn't. They got their feelings hurt. It's not an entirely rational process, but they still feel that they really want to go places that want them.

However, to say that if you want to do GM you should forget the ultra-elites, I disagree. On the contrary, since a lot of people want to go to IB/PE, there is less competition for GM in those schools, making them quite attractive for somebody aiming for GM.

I wouldn't be able say whether GM is a question of school brand or not, but I can confirm the point above: a very well-known "GM-type" company does not come to Wharton anymore, simply because nobody accepted the propositions that they made (last time they came: 10 propositions; 0 acceptances). Therefore they don't bother anymore.

However, to say that if you want to do GM you should forget the ultra-elites, I disagree. On the contrary, since a lot of people want to go to IB/PE, there is less competition for GM in those schools, making them quite attractive for somebody aiming for GM.

Just my 2 eurocents.

Terp -

Dude quit lumping USC (ranked 21 in USnews and BW and is normally around 18) in with Pepperdine which is not in anyones top 50, or even top 100. I've lived in southern california a lot longer than you have and there is a HUGE differences between USC and pepperdine (or any other school other than UCLA for that matter). In socal it's UCLA, USC then everybody else. The fact that you lump these schools together does make me question the accuracy of some of your other comments.

edit: one other thing. UCLA/USC/Pepperdine are on a level playing field for GM and corporate jobs? Are you crazy? In socal, if you are looking at IB/MC/PE/GM/Mkt or any other field your chances (based on where you get your MBA) will fall in this order - UCLA, USC, Pepperdine/LMU and everywhere else. ALWAYS.

I understand what you're trying to explain, Audio. And that was an interesting tidbit about the company that made 10 offers for 0 acceptances. That's precisely why I threw in that GE / UConn anecdote a few posts earlier.

However - if companies seeking GM hires are not recruiting at schools like Wharton anymore because the top talent goes the IB/MC/PE route, then isn't your point about recruiting for GM positions being less competitive at the Ultra Elite moot?

Alright, I'll agree with you on Pepperdine. However, don't Marshall and Anderson maintain distinct advantages in certain fields? i.e. I know that Anderson is a lot better for Finance/Consulting, but isn't USC considered the gold standard in some fields where its alumni are dominant?

Just got off the phone with a lady at OU and had to share something I learned.

They choose to have a small class, for some obvious reasons.

They have 52 starting this year. It somewhat hurts the networking, but you can't approach analyzing OU in the same way you do HBS, Columbia, Wharton, or other UE.

Some ranking systems penalzie them for not graduating 50+ students each year. Of the 52 starting this fall, some are dual degree JD/MBA so less than 50 graduate each year.

This part I already knew. The Price School of Business is named for Michael F. Price, a fund manager in NYC. He got his Bachelor's from OU and since has donated tens of millions to the school, thus creating much of the MBA program. His net worth is $1.4 billion, and is listed as the 562nd richest man in the world (by Forbes Magazine).

Here's the interesting part. Every year, Price (still in NY area) arranges for 9 students from OU's MBA program to spend the summer in NYC doing internships and taking a class or two from NYU. (In case you missed the %, 9 students is about 20% of the class). Over the years, this has created a nice little network of OU alumni in NY from getting offers from their summer employers.

So this poses my next question....Is it better to be an average fish in a big pond, or the Don of a smaller pond? I could really stand out from the OU MBA program. Also, if you adjust cost of living for the $75k starting salary of OU MBA grads, that's equivalent to $188k in Manhattan, or $135k in Queens. For Boston, that's about $111k. My point with the cost of living is that comparatively speaking, the salary coming from OU is going to buy about the same things as the salary starting out from a top school in a big city. The difference will not be immediate. It will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.

This has certainly given me more information to ponder. I think what I should do is pick 3 schools that I would really like to attend....Kellogg, Columbia, and Wharton and apply to those. Then if I don't get in, I still have time to go to OU (Admission deadline is July 1, 2009).

Besides, if OU is so horrible, how did Michael Price become a Billionaire?