Is the MBA an overrated degree/qualification?
"For some situations, an MBA can be overrated in the sense that given the cost of time and money, it isn't going to be a great return in some cases. There can be tens of thousands of dollars and a couple of years to get an MBA that some people believes should automatically make them worth $x more in their salary and life should be simple. I'd likely inquire as to what expectations do you have for what an MBA will do for you. Are you expecting to make connections in getting the degree? Are you expecting to learn about how to run a business from the coursework? Are you expecting something else? Depending on what you are expecting, I could see MBA as being anything from a great choice to a lousy choice for people. As noted by Pete Belford's comment, an MBA from a ""degree mill"" would be all but worthless. Where you go can reflect the value of the education as some universities are known for their program about this such as Ivy League schools." The quality of the MBA is really what decides if it's worth it. You have to make sure the school where you are going to is highly regarded or even prestigious. There is a big difference between what you find prestigious and others find prestigious. The student believing it is an awesome school is not enough, the companies and recruiters must believe it too.  Make sure you do your homework on the ranking of the MBA program. Additionally, your undergraduate plays a role how well your MBA is perceived. A decent undergraduate degree complemented with an MBA from a highly ranked school will put you in a trajectory for a high salary and a management position. There is a distinct difference between 'having a degree' and 'being genuinely smart and business savvy'. If you're genuinely smart and business savvy you could theoretically break into the business world with no degree and make a decent salary. The trouble there is that many people aren't smart and business savvy until they get a degree.  On the other hand, it's very possible to get a degree and be completely oblivious about how to conduct your career (poor resume / interviewing skills, no business sense etc). In that case an MBA might not be totally useful (but probably still will be to a degree). However, if you ARE smart about how you conduct your career, an MBA should help you immensely. It depends on what you want it for If it is just salary then maybe not, for instance, some MBA programs may suggest their graduates make $100,000 per year, but you work in an oil field barely finishing high school and make $300,000 a year.  If you go for the MBA right now, you may miss your chance to work in the oil industry for another few years (or weeks), but at the same time, the MBA lasts forever (although, real world experience is also relevant) and it may give you a leg up when you are 50 years old in the unemployment line (or maybe not, because you are overqualified) everything in life is a cost/benefit analysis Passing the GRE lasts for five years, so keep that in mind
"That a threat? I'm happy to show you my qualifications..MBA + CFA. You have provided ZERO backup...you keep insisting that I must be in the wrong (plus all those that downvote citing that they are retards and probably garbage men).    You don't like being challenged. You have provided exactly ZERO support for your bold claims citing an immeasurable ""get in touch with current trends"" - which is the equivalent of ""JUST GOOGLE IT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE"" because you are in fact unable to support your position through objective evidence.   I also believe you are the one that has resorted to name calling...not the other way around.  People get them after they gain experience...which is then what helps them stand out...no where did I ever suggest not to get one, I'm attacking your advice of going right after undergrad and have zero experience.   Wonder what the people over at r/MBA would have to say about it or the countless number of recruiters or the countless number of hiring managers. You are setting this kid up for disappointment." "Grad school applications typically have deadlines around December or January, so you're thinking about this at the right time.   First, obviously, you should get an idea of where you want to go, and what kind of program. There's plenty of ranking lists online that can help give you an idea. Grad school applications take a non-trivial amount of effort, so most people apply to only 5-10.  Next, you'll want to contact potential references. The grad school websites should inform you what type of reference they want, but in my experience these were mostly academic and usually 2-3 per application, finance programs may want more professional references as well. Try to choose the right references for the application, e.g. I applied to financial engineering programs, and would usually have one economics professor and then either a math professor or a statistics professor depending on the focus of the program.  Now, check to see if your programs require a GRE/GMAT score (they probably will), and start studying ASAP. There's tons of study materials available both in book form and online, and if you can put the time in you can probably get a decent score with just a few weeks (4-6) of studying. As far as I know, just about every program that accepts a GMAT score will also accept a GRE score, but not necessarily the other way around, so you may be better off studying for the GRE (verify this!).  And with all those components complete, you'll basically be done! Some applications will ask for various forms of cover letter, or have other essay questions, so set aside some time to write these as well.   Also, if you're looking at Finance Master's programs, I notice that they tend to come in a few varieties. Some set you up for PhDs and are naturally more academic focused, where as ""terminal"" Master's that resemble an MBA will focus on trying to get you a job. Reflect a bit on what you want to accomplish with your degree and figure out the program that's best for that. If you get in to a top school then it won't matter much regardless, but otherwise it is very likely that schools which produce good PhD candidates and research are not necessarily the same schools which place people on Wall Street.  Hope that helps :)" There are several paths of study you could undertake. If you want to learn the fundamentals of the stock market and become a financial analyst, then finance, economics, and accounting (yes, accounting) are all good to study either on your own or in an institution. Furthermore, if you want to study a specific industry, it can't hurt to know a fair amount of the science behind that particular industry. For example, if you want to understand the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries, knowledge of clinical trials, the FDA's approval process (in the US, at least), off-label uses for drugs, genetic engineering, etc. are all good to know. You don't have to become an expert, but having a firm grasp on the science is extremely useful when evaluating a company's prospects. If you're interested in becoming an algorithmic trader or a quant, then physics, certain fields of engineering, signals processing, applied math, computer science, or econometrics will get you much farther than a standard finance or accounting degree. Most people can learn the basics of finance; not everyone can learn advanced mathematics. A lot of the above applies to learning about the forex market as well. Economics is certainly helpful, especially central bank policy, but since the forex market is so massive and liquid, many mathematical tools are necessary because algorithms play a key role as well. Per littleadv's suggestion, an MBA with a concentration in finance may be an option for someone who already has a degree. Also, an MSF (Master of Science in Finance) or a degree in financial engineering (called an MFE, or ORFE, for Operations Research and Financial Engineering) are other, potentially better options for someone pursuing a more technical career. A high-octane trading firm may not care that you've taken marketing and management classes; they want to hire someone who can understand complex algorithms and design and implement new ones quickly.  Some MSF programs are pre-experience programs, which means that in exchange for taking more time to complete, they don't expect you to have significant work experience in the financial industry. An MBA might require such experience, however. Sorry for the late reply - it's the authors distilling of his top business books covering all of the topics you'd expect in an MBA course. I think it's a good starting point in that it'll give you a pretty good overview, you could then go in depth on topics you feel you need to. Here's the good reads link [Goodreads: Personal MBA](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9512985-the-personal-mba) I am an mba and a top IT manager for many years for a medium $3B company.   What they teach you in business school is many times either theoretical or not what happens in the real world.   So, yes, many mangers think IT=costs with no returns.   My company, who used to be only $200M 10 years ago, thinks and knows the correct thing. And we are not a software company. IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment. "Benjammin822 gave a pretty good summary of how schools are thought of but I'll add my two cents as well.  Yes, at ""top"" firms you'll see a heavy representation of Ivies, top LACs, and schools like Duke, UVA, Cal, etc.   However, this does not preclude you from going into investment banking. There are thousands of firms out there, and there are a bunch of stories on Wall Street Oasis about guys from non-targets networking their tail off and breaking in (even at big firms). If you want it bad enough, you'll make the necessary efforts to succeed.   And if you fail, you always have a ""redo"" by pursuing a top MBA." I have an Econ BA, from a small liberal arts school.  My experience is unique, but I'll share what I know.  As a lone degree, job wise it's not as sought after as accounting, marketing, etc.  Those roles are more tactical and immediately applicable in the roles new grads are hired into.  Econ is bigger picture; more strategic in general.  So for a company, as an Econ major your skills aren't as immediately applicable.  Is econ worthless?  Oh HELL no.  Having that large perspective, and that understanding of how things are interconnected will help you throughout your career, and can be very insightful at times.  Sadly it's not everyone's conversational cup-of-tea, but those higher in the org likely have an understanding and appreciation, although likely not the focused degree.  Full disclosure, my undergrad didn't offer an accounting major, and the school had a great relationship with one of the big 4, so accounting was my goal immediately after graduation, despite it being an Econ degree.  My program had many required courses heavy in accounting and quantitative analysis, so I'm not suggesting my econ is the norm.