UNC MAC = Ripoff
[#permalink]
14 Jan 2019, 11:08
I'll give my anecdotal experiences with the program. If it's too long to read, the summary is that you should avoid attendance there.
For reference, my class size was a little under 140. By the time graduation rolled around, I think we were down to about 120. They say 9x% graduate with a job offer. They sell you on Big 4 positions and networking. You're drinking the kool-aid and being brainwashed from Day One. What they don't tell you is that, even as few as 5 years later, over 80% of those same students have either switched jobs 2-4+ times or have applied to further higher education programs, either for an MBA or for another masters program. Talk about racking up the student loan debt. Over 15% of the starting class either dropped or flunked out, with no refunds offered (in essence, paying >$50,000 for an "education" that could have been learned for free online, but since you don't receive a degree, none of it can be applied to a CPA, etc.). I know you probably read that quickly, but let the facts of the 1) job instability after your first contract is over and 2) the forced grade distribution is designed so that at least 10% of each starting class will flunk out, sink in for a moment. Over 80% of the people I know got fired from, laid off from, or left their "prestigious Big 4" position after 1 or 2 years only to bounce around the job market earning more or less the same amount of money for many, many years afterwards. It is honestly shocking to browse through my LinkedIn and see my past colleagues only holding down jobs for 6-9 months before moving onto the next job. They might as well be temp-workers. And this is in a job market of peak unemployment where the candidate is favored! Their statistics are heavily manipulated, probably would make Bernie Madoff blush. The reason why more people don't speak out against it is because they don't want to tarnish their own reputation by admitting that their business school is a cesspool and are too embarrassed to admit to other people that they "failed" in their jobs. Listen, you didn't fail, it's just how corrupted the system is now -- it should not be acceptable to force people to work investment banking hours as a public accountant -- you're in essence earning minimum wage in most parts of the country without realizing it because you're "salaried", the new term for exploiting an employee by overworking them with no paid overtime. More anecdotes -- The people that I use to know that still work at Big 4 companies use to have vibrant social media profiles. They're now ghost towns. You're kidding yourself if you believe any of those people have actual "work-life balance" -- just look into their eyes to see the truth.
I'll also speak about other aspects of the program that are egregious. I would wager at least half of the program attended Kenan-Flagler as an undergraduate business major. Unless you attended Kenan-Flagler as an undergraduate business major, you are at a significant disadvantage for pretty much the entire program. You see, recent business school undergrads entering the MAC program are interning in the summer, scooping up many of those coveted job offers before the program has even started. You're already fighting for limited employment slots before you have even signed your student loan documentation! No wonder the program tries to keep students bifurcated from one another; it's like two class systems, either you were an undergrad business major or you weren't. Students who were not affiliated as an undergrad at Kenan-Flagler have to spend the summer enrolling in "pre-requisites" that, conveniently, all of the undergrads have already completed in their curriculum. Those undergrads that are many years out that have to re-take courses are essentially taking the same course as they did in the past, thus already have an unfair advantage. If anyone has ever taken a summer course, they know how easy it is to become burnt out. Imagine the summer component of the MAC program as that, but on steroids. You basically don't leave the premises of the school with how much studying and class attendance is required.
Then, going into recruiting season, half of the program already have job offers and can focus strictly on academics, while the other half of the program is trying to keep their grades up while also juggling a plethora of meet-and-greets (which are basically required attendance if you want a job; networking, and each last for several hours), interviewing, etc. Good luck trying to make anything above a P, not because you're not intelligent, but because half the program has at least a 50 hour head start while their undergrad major has prepped them on how to game their school's tests (more on this later, but the curriculum is basically just an extension of the courses taken in undergrad).
The professors and curriculum. Oh, Christ. Let's not even talk about how one of the professors actively tries to sleep with his female students and incredulously actually shows up to bars and parties to flirt with them, sends them emails on their Kenan-flager email, etc. Makes even Harvey Weinstein blush. The professors are largely insensitive and talentless, truth be told. Don't let their accolades fool you -- Jana Raedy, in particular, can't go a lecture without mentioning that she's an EY scholar, yet teaches from the book, using the included powerpoint slides and test banks. I remember one situation in particular where students actually approached her regarding a test question, she had no idea how to answer it, and she had to embarrassingly apologize as she eventually discovered that it was an error in the test bank. The curriculum is not intellectually stimulating in the slightest. It is basically undergrad business round 2, slightly more challenging, not because of the content, but because everyone is trying to avoid that elusive L that will result in their forced withdrawal from the program. Everyone studies so that they are not one of the people in the bottom that get arbitrarily kicked out each year. This is because every course has a forced distribution of 10% L's that are assigned on a percentage basis, not a grade threshold. For example, if 90% of the program makes above, say, a 90, then you can receive an L for getting an 89. If you receive 2 L's in the program, you're out. Only in this program can you perform at the B/B+ level and still be booted from the program -- which is why employers barely even look at your grades when making the hiring decision (as I discussed above, this is further evidenced by the fact that half the students receive job offers before even having taken a single course; they could graduate in the bottom 10% and still not jeopardize their job offers at the Big 4). I should also mention that no concept of academic probation exists here. There is actually zero support available for any struggling student, no matter the circumstances that are affecting them at the moment. Considering that at the end of the day, you're a customer -- exchanging your money for their product/service, education -- it is actually pretty comical how they treat you. I'm still over $50,000 in debt from this program yet I still receive donation requests at least 4 times a year. As an aside, I think I would have been strictly better off just using my bachelors and moving up in a company, instead of attending this program that truthfully has made me worse off in life. This is even coming from someone who had job offers with EY, etc. As I alluded to above, the program likes to keep those who attended undergrad at their business school away from those who didn't. You're treated like a second-class citizen if you didn't attend undergrad there. You're even forced into learning teams that are "diversified", but truly this could not be further from the truth. My learning team had 2 people my age that were (failed) college athletes and were dumb as bricks. The fact they had undergrad degrees in business from Kenan-Flagler is truly a testament to how corrupted the system is (if you're a college athlete, it's basically automatic acceptance -- because teamwork) specifically with respect to grade-inflation.
Culture. Everything stated in the above post is true from my experiences. If you're from an impoverished, 'lesser', or 'different' socioeconomic background, you're going to be walking around like you have the scarlet letter "A" tattooed on your forehead. It's also shocking how sexist and political the environment is throughout, from the education to the recruiting (here's a fun drinking game: take a shot for every 'pretty girl' or 'frat-star' Deloitte hires and then consequently retains despite their actual talent or performance). It's a culture that celebrates country clubs, etc., which is ironic as the vast majority of graduates won't experience that kind of lifestyle for 20+ years, if ever. A lot of the pompous individuals have inheritance, trust funds, etc. This attitude is especially true from those of upper middle class backgrounds (parents making $100,000/year in NC, for example, acting as if they're Jeff Bezos).
Their marketing material says that you'll make over $50k starting, and within 5 years can make $100k. They really like to embellish how attainable a C-suite job/upward mobility in public accounting is. Holy crap, what a hoot. It would be comical if it weren't so criminal. You reasonably don't hit 6 figures until after years 10-15, as you (and this is a big if, if you can stick around that long) move into senior manager. Even working in NYC, where the cost of living (not to mention taxes, etc.) is easily double Charlotte, you don't hit ~$78k until years 4-6 as a senior associate. If you stay in low cost of living areas, you're making between 50k-60k for your first 3 or 4 years. In Charlotte, even as a senior associate (4-6 years), I believe you make between $58k and $65k. They like to sell you on the dream (the lottery ticket) because being a partner can start around $400k and move quickly into $600k-$850k. What they don't tell you is that the odds are heavily skewed against you, and only getting worse as time moves forward (less partner turnover, more time required at each promotion, reduced wages). No wonder the "smart" ones left the industry so that they could teach accounting to you!
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good and positives there as well, but I'd estimate it at about 15%-20% positive, 85%-80% negative.