Well, there is a big difference between a MBA degree and anything else in terms of how it lifts the persons value to another employer. Typical lockin is that you repay if you leave within two years of the end if the course.

Thanks, two years lock-in seems reasonable.

As an employer, I slightly disagree about the value of an MBA. Let's say a job candidate had completed a leadership programme at somewhere like Ashridge or Lancaster. I'd expect them to have heightened 'soft skills' of direct relevance to managing people and teams.

In contrast, let's say someone has done a distance learning MBA with limited face-to-face time or group work. As an employer, I'd have doubts about whether the MBA has done much if anything to improve 'soft skills'. Yet these are the very skills that can be most important!

Of course I'm not saying that an MBA from Luton is worth more than the SEP at LBS: I'm saying that generally a degree is better understood, has more content, makes more of a change and is thus a more transferrable asset. There's a reason why the alumni of distance learning MBAs have higher average salaries than those of executive programmes: they are cross-trained across disciplines, and have better decision-making abilities. Soft skills are great if you already have the general management toolkit, but if you don't have the MBA toolkit, exec ed will lock you into being a functional manager. Speaking from my own experience of a part-time MBA, the education I got in finance and accounting transformed my ability to function as a senior manager, and pushed me up to board level. Exec ed would not have done that, because I would not have had the depth to, for example, work through an M&A process and an MBO.

By the way, your lock-in should also make the difference between 'good' and 'bad' leavers; if someone is made redundant or leaves because of sickness, then you can't have same expectations.

<blockquote>Of course I'm not saying that an MBA from Luton is worth more than the SEP at LBS</blockquote>

That's what I meant.

<blockquote>There's a reason why the alumni of distance learning MBAs have higher average salaries than those of executive programmes</blockquote>

I'm curious what evidence there is about this. Exec ed covers such a broad range of programmes, which would make it difficult to research meaningfully.

A week's leadership programme at LBS can cost £7k. Could that be a better investment than a low-ranked MBA?

<blockquote>Soft skills are great if you already have the general management toolkit, but if you don't have the MBA toolkit, exec ed will lock you into being a functional manager.</blockquote>

That's an incredibly sweeping generalisation! As it happens, I did an exec ed programme at LBS that helped me transition into my first Board position.

I think your own experience is a great example of where an MBA adds value. Doing an MBA just before Board level is ideal, in my opinion, because of the general management toolkit you described. Doing an Exec MBA is excellent, because you can immediately embed new skills into daily work.

However, I've seen investments in MBAs that have only resulted in debt, not career growth. An MBA isn't a guarantee of career development.

<blockquote> As it happens, I did an exec ed programme at LBS that helped me transition into my first Board position.</blockquote>

Are we talking about the longer format executive ed programs here? I can't imagine a two-day crash course would add much value to a cv. Or am I wrong there?

This is a fascinating discussion, by the way. I've asked myself whether I should do GMP or modular executive program, as opposed to an MBA, as well. And I always thought it would be an easier "sell" to my employer, if I wanted to stay on.

Yes, I meant a longer format programme. It was a tailored programme; the LBS Accelerated Development Programme would be the closest equivalent.

I've no idea about the impact on my CV. I might hazard a guess that an LBS ADP could carry more weight than an MBA from a mid-tier school. That's only a guess and I may be wrong.

One of my team has been recruiting recently. Many applicants had an MBA. None were short listed. This made me wonder if an MBA has lost its shine. Is an MBA valuable? I still believe so. Is it worth the extortionate fee? Unless you're an investment banker, I've some doubt whether the fees are value for money now.

That really shows nothing. Self evidently your colleague felt the role did not require MBA skills, so why hire someone who requires that premium? It remains clear that graduates from top MBA programmes double their salaries. What other development programmes does that for business people?

In this case, the main thing it showed that relevant experience and achievements counted for lots more than an MBA.

It also showed that people who haven't been to business school know nothing about the rankings. To my colleague, universities' overall reputations were more important than business school rankings.

Additionally, an MSc in marketing counted as much as an MBA. (It was a marketing role.)

<blockquote>It remains clear that graduates from top MBA programmes double their salaries.</blockquote>

That's one massive generalisation! If an MBA moves someone from IT to investment banking, I agree with you that earnings might double. However, a lot depends on your starting salary, what industry you're in, etc.

In another post, someone is considering spending twenty thousand pounds for an MBA from Kingston or Westminster. Are you seriously suggsting this will double his or her salary?

I'm a CEO and have worked with lots of MBAs. I've seen the value or an MBA and the downsides. Two close colleagues have done LBS MBAs, only for their careers to nosedive afterwards. (Nothing to do with LBS, obviously!) I know three others whose careers remained flat after LBS. An MBA may be useful, but it guarantees nothing.

I do consider an MBA valuable. It's certainly a plus on a CV. Unless you're going into investment banking or private equity, however, then I believe the cost of an MBA is rarely worth the level to which fees have risen.

It's not a generalisation "that graduates from top MBA programmes double their salaries." It's an objectively recorded fact. Just look at:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2011

Of course these are averages. There are half above and below. When we we speak of outcomes, it's obvious that I am speaking of averages. If I say that Chad is an arid country, that doesn't mean it's not wet in the river. But these are not the averages of students who move into investment banking; they are the averages of all students.

Your point about the relative importance of university standing verus business school standing is actually not a generalisation; it's a unique reflection of your experience. For example, The Sunday Times ranks Durham as the number 3 UK university. Its MBA is ranked (on average, over the last three years) 70th in the world and graduates earn on average $101K. City University is ranked 45th in the UK, but it's MBA is ranked 38th in the world (on average) and salaries are typically $124K. So, while in your circles university standing counts, we can point out:
1] That's not the objective pattern - salaries and MBA rankings are more strongly connected
2] Since you have explained earlier that your firm has not hired MBAs when given a chance, and that your view is that it guarantees nothing, we can assume that perhaps your experience as CEO is not the end of the matter.

PS Are you seriously using ad hominem logic like "I'm a CEO and have worked with lots of MBAs"? Please! You may be a great boss but on this point you are defending a point of view on the basis of subjective data in the face of hard evidence. And that approach is not going to make you a *great* CEO.

The salary data isn't meaningful without interpretation. E.g. if a school gets a high proportion of people into investment banking, then I'd expect its average salary increase to be high. In that case, investing in an MBA would probably be a great investment (if you want to be a banker).

What concerns me is that people are paying twenty thousand pounds in fees and losing a year's salary, in return for an MBA from Westminster, Kingston, etc.

I believe an MBA is worthwhile for some. But it isn't a good investment for others.

"According a survey by the Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC), fewer than half of the world?s MBA alumni say they are satisfied with their careers."
See: www.economist.com/node/16103437

Also from the Economist: "A new career? Don't bank on it"
www.economist.com/node/16136206

Clearly we aren't going to agree :-) I leave the last word to you, if you wish ...

<blockquote>

Clearly we aren't going to agree :-) I leave the last word to you, if you wish ...</blockquote>

Chaps, don't walk away from this debate. This town is big enough for the both of you. It's getting interesting. Sparks, let's hear more of your background as a CEO. Duncan, let's have fewer jibes please.

Gloves off, ding ding ...round two!