Thank you for this. For lack of time, my response will be brief. Just wished to raise a few concerns.
Considering the fact that Insead has been around for much longer, many of the Alumni have had the time to advance in their career. Because of this, it is illogical to compare a person who graduated from Insead in the 90's to a Hult grad from year 2008 as many other variables come into play.
Let's also not forget that Hult offers of a Master of marketing (Insead does not) . and these alumni are also represented in the statistics on linkedin.

Agree on the # of Finance lecture hours!

The choice to compare with Insead was yours.

Thanks everybody for the inputs. My fear is that doing an MBA from a school that doesn't have accreditation is that there is too much that could possibly go wrong. I am still going to keep Hult open as an option, as well as some of the others on my list. But I have decided to do the GMAT again, and try to get at least 720. Thanks again!

[quote]My fear is that doing an MBA from a school that doesn't have accreditation is that there is too much that could possibly go wrong.[/quote]
That's a valid fear.

[quote]But I have decided to do the GMAT again, and try to get at least 720. Thanks again![/quote]
Good idea. A little more leverage could go a long way towards getting you into the schools on your list that score a bit higher in terms of international mobility (Merage, Katz), as well as making you more competitive at better schools, Tuck for instance.

Thanks!

I went to Hult and graduated last year. Duncan is factually incorrect in saying that Corporate Finance wasn't a core module. Unless they changed it within the last year Corporate Finance was in the core course list(required) along with Financial Management, Quantitative Analysis, Managerial Economics and Accounting. All of the core course's are 10 weeks long and NOT 8 as you mentioned. On the London campus, there were many finance electives including Strategic Valuation, Financial Structuring & Modeling, Derivatives and Behavioral Finance.

Duncan, you don't like Hult as evidenced by your posts but i wanted to display some facts to counter your fiction.

Indeed, it looks like there's corporate finance content as part of Hult's MBA core finance class.

http://www.hult.edu/en/mba/one-year-mba/curriculum/core-program/

Maybe Duncan meant that there's no class that's just dedicated to corporate finance?

Hi Myriad. Here is a link to the curriculum page as it appeared for most of this year: http://web.archive.org/web/20150318034620/http://www.hult.edu/en/programs/one-year-mba/curriculum#course-content Corporate Finance is listed as an elective, described in exactly the way I described it in my post in July. I think my post there is a fair representation of how Hult described itself. Corporate Finance moved into the core (on the website) on September 5th.

It's not at all the case that I don't like Hult and, indeed, as fellow alumni you and I can discuss that at the next Hult alumni gathering. However, I think it's fair to say that Hult is a school of a special kind, and that applicants should consider the make-up of courses carefully.

In the new curriculum, It still looks like the two finance courses added together might still be a total of 30 hours of lectures (you can correct me if I am mistaken). So, around 15 hours on corporate finance. It's great to have that in the core, and it's great to see the amount of finance in the core growing. As I explained in my post in July, that is exactly the direction Hult should go in.

However, I think it's a bit shoddy to pretend that the curriculum announced in September was always there.

The 2014 class had 60 contact hours in Finance, 30 hours in accounting plus 12 hours for an intro accounting course for those who didn't have an accounting background(which was required), 30 hours in economics and 21 hours in quantitative analysis.

There was actually only one marketing course in our requirements, which is actually a complaint that I had about the program. There were some marketing courses for the electives but the London campus was very finance focused, with many potential electives in each of the D and E modules that were finance.

If corporate finance has become optional in module C, then it is possible that finance contact hours have decreased to 30 hours from 60 for those that choose not to take it. But if students choose corporate finance it has only decreased from 60 to 52. 120 contact hours are available in finance electives for students to pursue them in the courses that I mentioned.

One marketing course in the core seems, to me, like a maximum. It would be interesting, if you have the time, to run through all the core courses you took and tell us how many contact hours you spent for each of them. Either way, it's good news that corporate finance is in the core now.

[quote]
Shifting that, of course, means making the MBA experience more challenging and less enjoyable for students. It also means getting academics who are at the front of the game because you can't use practitioners using 20th century knowledge, for instance who teach disproven methods like CAPM, and then produce students who can do well in the 21st century.
[/quote]

CAPM is still widely used in industry and taught at almost all business schools even the top ones though nobody says the CAPM is the only model to use.

I believe only in finance concentrations at least in the second year of Financial markets/investment students will learn the more advanced models.

What do you think?

Certainly CAPM is easy to teach than later alternatives, but I would hope that when we introduce CAPM we also point out that it's a generalised model which has been proven to be failing for over 40 years. That's the case with a lot of managerial theory. Certainly there's a difference between using CAPM in industry, for project finance say, from using it in the financial services industries or in public policy. It would be like brain surgery with a butter knife.