Klocking out

https://blog.upliftingathletes.org/2015/10/19/beyond-the-trophy-trey-klock-georgia-tech/

What is your chosen major, and what if anything have you used from that major as a contribution to your Uplifting Athletes Chapter?

KLOCK: I’m majoring in Business Administration and have used a lot of what I learned in the classroom for Uplifting Athletes. In my opinion starting this organization is like starting a small company, so I try to implement all of the entrepreneurship techniques I have studied.
 
Good for Trey and his future. He was a solid contributor the past two years and I'm disappointed that we won't see him play on the flats.
 
ncjacket said:
As much as we may not want to admit it there are better MBA programs than Tech and some don't require work experience. Some also play FBS football. Congrats to Trey for finishing in 3 years with the grades to pursue graduate school. Some things are more important than football.
Click to expand...

Virtually every program ranked above Scheller requires work experience unless you are a startup / charitable organization wunderkind.

Most business schools focus on building upon previous experience in the workplace, hence the average WE of ~5 years for the top 20 schools.

There are certainly a lot of FBS football schools with B-schools ranked above ours (Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, UVA, Duke, Michigan, UNC, UCLA, Texas, Indiana, Vandy, Rice, ND, tOSU, Minn, Washington, Wisc), so maybe he found one willing to waive the experience requirement.
 
Good for him, stinks for us.

Experience on the o-line is valuable, especially with a new QB coming in. But, I like what we're doing lately with the Oline play, so we'll see how it goes.
 
If I may chime in here, it appears that he has taken some time and now sees things with crystal clarity.
 
Its was only a matter of time until this Klock would run out on the Flats
 
gtphd said:
Unless it's a top 10 MBA, I agree. Otherwise, it's not worth the time.
Click to expand...

Your typical money-earning analysis would i think clearly prove you wrong. I would think probably around the top 30-40 programs are npv posiitve
 
BuzzCzar said:
Your typical money-earning analysis would i think clearly prove you wrong. I would think probably around the top 30-40 programs are npv posiitve
Click to expand...

It's not a simply ROI calculation of MBA vs. 2 years of working.

What people miss in that analysis is that a professional MS is a "donut hole" for many schools: Because it's not ranked, schools will let in students with less qualifications as long as they're willing to pay for the degree. So someone who can't get into top MBA program will have a much easier time getting into an MS Finance program from that same university, which most employers will treat as equivalent in hiring.

The MS requires less hours, can be done in 1 year, and will almost certainly cost less. You lose the career services of the MBA program, but a Stanford MS will have inherently better career opportunities than a UGA MBA, for example.

Another opportunity: if you have 5+ years of experience, it's often easier to get into an EMBA program instead of the MBA because only the MBA is ranked. It costs a little more, but the EMBA will be treated the same as the MBA by employers and a Columbia EMBA will look better than a UGA MBA on a resume.
 
gtphd said:
Unless it's a top 10 MBA, I agree. Otherwise, it's not worth the time.
Click to expand...

My SIL got one from U of Phoenix and it seems to working out well for her. (I still do not recommend U of Phoenix)
 
gtphd said:
Unless it's a top 10 MBA, I agree. Otherwise, it's not worth the time.
Click to expand...

Disagree, you should probably extend that to top 20 or so. I-banks and consulting firms have an industry standard post-MBA salary and the top firms generally recruit from T20 schools.

gtphd said:
It's not a simply ROI calculation of MBA vs. 2 years of working.

What people miss in that analysis is that a professional MS is a "donut hole" for many schools: Because it's not ranked, schools will let in students with less qualifications as long as they're willing to pay for the degree. So someone who can't get into top MBA program will have a much easier time getting into an MS Finance program from that same university, which most employers will treat as equivalent in hiring.

The MS requires less hours, can be done in 1 year, and will almost certainly cost less. You lose the career services of the MBA program, but a Stanford MS will have inherently better career opportunities than a UGA MBA, for example.
Click to expand...

Stanford doesn't offer an M.S. in Finance. Most schools that offer MBAs either don't offer one, or place a reduced emphasis on the program.

M.S. Finance grads don't make nearly as much, either. Vanderbilt MBAs (Owens) average a total comp of $158,430 for their first year out of business school, while Vanderbilt M.S. Finance grads average $68,137. That's an enormous difference that will only grow throughout the span of a career.

gtphd said:
Another opportunity: if you have 5+ years of experience, it's often easier to get into an EMBA program instead of the MBA because only the MBA is ranked. It costs a little more, but the EMBA will be treated the same as the MBA by employers and a Columbia EMBA will look better than a UGA MBA on a resume.
Click to expand...

EMBAs generally require 10+ years of experience (most programs actually average above this number - Stern is 14 years, Wharton 11 years, Columbia 12 years), as they are for mid-career, middle management types looking to move up within their current organization. Totally different from MBA, which is generally used to switch careers or transition to a different focus area (moving from I-banking to PE, for example).
 
gtphd said:
It's not a simply ROI calculation of MBA vs. 2 years of working.

What people miss in that analysis is that a professional MS is a "donut hole" for many schools: Because it's not ranked, schools will let in students with less qualifications as long as they're willing to pay for the degree. So someone who can't get into top MBA program will have a much easier time getting into an MS Finance program from that same university, which most employers will treat as equivalent in hiring.

The MS requires less hours, can be done in 1 year, and will almost certainly cost less. You lose the career services of the MBA program, but a Stanford MS will have inherently better career opportunities than a UGA MBA, for example.

Another opportunity: if you have 5+ years of experience, it's often easier to get into an EMBA program instead of the MBA because only the MBA is ranked. It costs a little more, but the EMBA will be treated the same as the MBA by employers and a Columbia EMBA will look better than a UGA MBA on a resume.
Click to expand...

With all due respect I'm not sure this is what we all had in mind when we were waiting for your input on this matter, all puns aside
 
The M-Train said:
EMBAs generally require 10+ years of experience (most programs actually average above this number - Stern is 14 years, Wharton 11 years, Columbia 12 years), as they are for mid-career, middle management types looking to move up within their current organization. Totally different from MBA, which is generally used to switch careers or transition to a different focus area (moving from I-banking to PE, for example).
Click to expand...

I don't get the distinction you are making here. I completed an EMBA program and the curriculum was exactly the same as the MBA program at that University.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top