MBA v. LLM? Forum

[wingedwolf]

Which degree do you guys think is better for career prospects leading to executive positions (whether it's CEO of Company X or partner of Law Firm Y)? And please don't go on a rant about BigLaw, your law school grades, the law school you attended, why furthering your education is a waste of money, etc...

If you had to choose...MBA or LLM? I could only find one previous thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&t=115634

[Borg]

This is a ridiculous question. Do you want to practice law or do you want to do business? Are you a foreigner? If you're an American and you want an LLM, it's not going to change your prospects at all. Also, despite your objection it absolutely matters what school you are going to. There's a huge difference between an MBA from Stanford and an MBA from Boise State or an LLm from Oklahoma. If you can get an MBA from an M7 school (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, or Northwestern), do that over any LLM program.

[chuckbass]

From everything I've read on here, the only LLMs worth getting are tax ones from GULC, NYU, and UF. So I would say MBA, to answer your question.

[3ThrowAway99]

I thought this was going to be a decent thread.. i.e. post-JD should I pursue LLM in area of interest, or MBA? But you didn't provide enough specific breh.. It's not just a one is better than the other scenario... it depends on particulars.

[3ThrowAway99]

This is a ridiculous question. Do you want to practice law or do you want to do business? Are you a foreigner? If you're an American and you want an LLM, it's not going to change your prospects at all. Also, despite your objection it absolutely matters what school you are going to. There's a huge difference between an MBA from Stanford and an MBA from Boise State or an LLm from Oklahoma. If you can get an MBA from an M7 school (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, or Northwestern), do that over any LLM program.

Actually I think LLM in tax can change prospects... (i.e. backdoor to biglaw). But the catch is, you need to do tax...

[dingbat]

Which degree do you guys think is better for career prospects leading to executive positions (whether it's CEO of Company X or partner of Law Firm Y)? And please don't go on a rant about BigLaw, your law school grades, the law school you attended, why furthering your education is a waste of money, etc...

If you had to choose...MBA or LLM? I could only find one previous thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&t=115634

Neither.
There are no shortcuts to the board room.
Bust your ass and prove your skills.
If you go the biglaw route, you need to be very good, bill a shitload of hours and pull in clients.
If you go the business route, you need to bust your ass, be very good and pull in clients

A JD or an MBA only gives you a leg up at the starting gate (although it could teach you skills necessary to succeed, it's also possible to pick these up along the way)

[Aberzombie1892]

This is a ridiculous question. Do you want to practice law or do you want to do business? Are you a foreigner? If you're an American and you want an LLM, it's not going to change your prospects at all. Also, despite your objection it absolutely matters what school you are going to. There's a huge difference between an MBA from Stanford and an MBA from Boise State or an LLm from Oklahoma. If you can get an MBA from an M7 school (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, or Northwestern), do that over any LLM program.

The M7 designation isn't really a thing in practice. All M7 means is that the deans at those schools meet every year; it would be rare for an employer to have an arbitrary cut off at that mark. I would say that the OP should probably consider the entire top 20 (according to Poets and Qants, which aggregates all of the MBA rankings), and then maybe a few outliers (like Rice, USC and maybe GTown).

[dingbat]

1) UG - Princeton
2) JD - Yale
3) MBA - Harvard
4) ?
5) Profit

Or you can find some guys with an idea for a website, screw them out of the company, and IPO for $38/share

[icpb]

1) UG - Princeton
2) JD - Yale
3) MBA - Harvard
4) ?
5) Profit

Or you can find some guys with an idea for a website, screw them out of the company, and IPO for $38/share

Not sure what you based your progression on. If based on earning potential, it is:
1. UG - Princeton
2. JD - Yale
3. MBA - Stanford
4. Profit

If based on prestige, then it is:
1. UG - Harvard
2. JD - Harvard
3. MBA - Harvard
4. Profit + look down on people with only one or two Harvard degrees

[MrAnon]

it really is a waste of money. no executive ever got to where he was because of his degrees. He got to where he was because he made his name in the field while working. Unlikely anyone looks at the resume and says OH BUT HE HAS AN LLM/MBA so we should hire him over X. This is precisely why these degrees are to be avoided and you should just get work experience.

[dingbat]

it really is a waste of money. no executive ever got to where he was because of his degrees. He got to where he was because he made his name in the field while working. Unlikely anyone looks at the resume and says OH BUT HE HAS AN LLM/MBA so we should hire him over X. This is precisely why these degrees are to be avoided and you should just get work experience.

The degree may give you a leg up at the start, but that's about it.
I know many people whose business/finance career progressed far enough that stopping to get an MBA would hinder their progress.
It can help you get hired, or let you bypass the early stage of your career (eg starting as an associate at an IB), bug that's about it

[Aberzombie1892]

it really is a waste of money. no executive ever got to where he was because of his degrees. He got to where he was because he made his name in the field while working. Unlikely anyone looks at the resume and says OH BUT HE HAS AN LLM/MBA so we should hire him over X. This is precisely why these degrees are to be avoided and you should just get work experience.

While that used to be true, it's not so much anymore. In the old days, an employee could start at the ground floor and potentially one day become CEO. Now, most larger employers have two tier employment systems in which one group has a glass ceiling (i.e. bank tellers/consultants at bank branches) and the other group does not (i.e. risk analysts at the headquarters of the bank). In theory, high powered degrees will get you into the second group.

[top30man]

The most common degree a F500 CEO has is not an MBA or JD but a bachelors in engineering.

[dingbat]

it really is a waste of money. no executive ever got to where he was because of his degrees. He got to where he was because he made his name in the field while working. Unlikely anyone looks at the resume and says OH BUT HE HAS AN LLM/MBA so we should hire him over X. This is precisely why these degrees are to be avoided and you should just get work experience.

While that used to be true, it's not so much anymore. In the old days, an employee could start at the ground floor and potentially one day become CEO. Now, most larger employers have two tier employment systems in which one group has a glass ceiling (i.e. bank tellers/consultants at bank branches) and the other group does not (i.e. risk analysts at the headquarters of the bank). In theory, high powered degrees will get you into the second group.

I think that's always been true, to some extent
Thing is, if you can get into the career track without an advanced degree (eg by being recruited out of Wharton's UG) you could manage without the advanced degree.
It used to be almost impossible to become an associate at an IB without an MBA, but now there's plenty of possibility of making that jump - if you survive long enough.

[Borg]

This is a ridiculous question. Do you want to practice law or do you want to do business? Are you a foreigner? If you're an American and you want an LLM, it's not going to change your prospects at all. Also, despite your objection it absolutely matters what school you are going to. There's a huge difference between an MBA from Stanford and an MBA from Boise State or an LLm from Oklahoma. If you can get an MBA from an M7 school (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, or Northwestern), do that over any LLM program.

The M7 designation isn't really a thing in practice. All M7 means is that the deans at those schools meet every year; it would be rare for an employer to have an arbitrary cut off at that mark. I would say that the OP should probably consider the entire top 20 (according to Poets and Qants, which aggregates all of the MBA rankings), and then maybe a few outliers (like Rice, USC and maybe GTown).

Those schools have the best recruiting by and large, and they would be more valuable than any LLM if a business role is your goal. I'm not saying that NYU, Dartmouth, Berkeley etc. wouldn't be great choices too. I was just using it as a shorthand because the M7 are generally considered the very top tier schools.

[icpb]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

[Borg]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

[anstone1988]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

This conforms generally to what I always thought. Though I would make the tiers bigger:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia
Tier 3: Haas/Ross/Stern/Duke/Darden/Cornell/Yale/UCLA
Others

[Borg]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

This conforms generally to what I always thought. Though I would make the tiers bigger:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia
Tier 3: Haas/Ross/Stern/Duke/Darden/Cornell/Yale/UCLA
Others

No, this way of looking at it doesn't make sense. Schools specialize in completely different things, so you can't easily line them up like you can with law schools. I believe that Harvard is a great all around choice, and should probably be at the top of the list. Beyond that, it depends completely on your interests. If you want to go into finance, you would be much better off going to Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Chicago, or Stern than any of the rest. Even within this set, there are stark differences. For example, Columbia is the home of value investing, which is a much different approach to investing than you might find elsewhere. If you're into entrepreneurship, Stanford or Haas are the obvious choices over all others. If you want to go into marketing it would be totally foolish to go to Wharton over Kellogg. Also, Tuck is a rural school without much pull on Wall Street or well known specialization in anything in particular. Why you would put it in the same category as the others is beyond me.

Basically what you've assembled looks like a random smattering of names based on some arbitrary sense of prestige.

[anstone1988]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

This conforms generally to what I always thought. Though I would make the tiers bigger:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia
Tier 3: Haas/Ross/Stern/Duke/Darden/Cornell/Yale/UCLA
Others

No, this way of looking at it doesn't make sense. Schools specialize in completely different things, so you can't easily line them up like you can with law schools. I believe that Harvard is a great all around choice, and should probably be at the top of the list. Beyond that, it depends completely on your interests. If you want to go into finance, you would be much better off going to Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Chicago, or Stern than any of the rest. Even within this set, there are stark differences. For example, Columbia is the home of value investing, which is a much different approach to investing than you might find elsewhere. If you're into entrepreneurship, Stanford or Haas are the obvious choices over all others. If you want to go into marketing it would be totally foolish to go to Wharton over Kellogg. Also, Tuck is a rural school without much pull on Wall Street or well known specialization in anything in particular. Why you would put it in the same category as the others is beyond me.

Basically what you've assembled looks like a random smattering of names based on some arbitrary sense of prestige.

Your response makes it clear that you have never worked in finance/consulting or gone to business school. The situation on the business side mirrors the situation on the law side; academic specialty doesn't matter at the top. It doesn't matter that Vermont Law School has the #1 ranked environmental studies program; the fact that Columbia Law School is #2 is corporate law wouldn't cause admitted students to choose it over Stanford/Yale.
The most important criteria for prospective students in selecting business schools is employment. Most of the MBA students everywhere want the same thing - good jobs, and good jobs are fairly uniformly defined at the top business schools to include private equity, venture capital, investment banking, management consulting, start-up, and corporate management. The above rankings represents opportunities schools provide for their students. Private equity and venture capital firms focus mainly on Stanford, HBS, and Wharton. The Bulge Bracket banks and consulting firms recruit heavily from Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia. The fact that Kellogg is an academic powerhouse in the area of management doesn't give its student much edge in consulting. Despite Booth's prowess in finance, PE and VC firms still prefer Stanford and Harvard grads. The fact that Columbia is known for value investing isn't going to be the overwhelming factor that gets its grads into PIMCO, for PIMCO still prefers Harvard grads. Tuck's location is more than compensated for by the loyalty of its alumni. Therefore, the specialization that you think sets business schools apart doesn't really affect the most important consideration when choosing a business school - employment.

[icpb]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

This conforms generally to what I always thought. Though I would make the tiers bigger:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia
Tier 3: Haas/Ross/Stern/Duke/Darden/Cornell/Yale/UCLA
Others

No, this way of looking at it doesn't make sense. Schools specialize in completely different things, so you can't easily line them up like you can with law schools. I believe that Harvard is a great all around choice, and should probably be at the top of the list. Beyond that, it depends completely on your interests. If you want to go into finance, you would be much better off going to Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Chicago, or Stern than any of the rest. Even within this set, there are stark differences. For example, Columbia is the home of value investing, which is a much different approach to investing than you might find elsewhere. If you're into entrepreneurship, Stanford or Haas are the obvious choices over all others. If you want to go into marketing it would be totally foolish to go to Wharton over Kellogg. Also, Tuck is a rural school without much pull on Wall Street or well known specialization in anything in particular. Why you would put it in the same category as the others is beyond me.

Basically what you've assembled looks like a random smattering of names based on some arbitrary sense of prestige.

People don't go to business school for academia, specialty ranking doesn't matter.

[Borg]

Your response makes it clear that you have never worked in finance/consulting or gone to business school. The situation on the business side mirrors the situation on the law side; academic specialty doesn't matter at the top. It doesn't matter that Vermont Law School has the #1 ranked environmental studies program; the fact that Columbia Law School is #2 is corporate law wouldn't cause admitted students to choose it over Stanford/Yale.
The most important criteria for prospective students in selecting business schools is employment. Most of the MBA students everywhere want the same thing - good jobs, and good jobs are fairly uniformly defined at the top business schools to include private equity, venture capital, investment banking, management consulting, start-up, and corporate management. The above rankings represents opportunities schools provide for their students. Private equity and venture capital firms focus mainly on Stanford, HBS, and Wharton. The Bulge Bracket banks and consulting firms recruit heavily from Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia. The fact that Kellogg is an academic powerhouse in the area of management doesn't give its student much edge in consulting. Despite Booth's prowess in finance, PE and VC firms still prefer Stanford and Harvard grads. The fact that Columbia is known for value investing isn't going to be the overwhelming factor that gets its grads into PIMCO, for PIMCO still prefers Harvard grads. Tuck's location is more than compensated for by the loyalty of its alumni. Therefore, the specialization that you think sets business schools apart doesn't really affect the most important consideration when choosing a business school - employment.

Right, well maybe the fact that I'm a fucking JD/MBA at a top program will make it clear that I have gone to business school. Maybe the fact that I'm working at a major bank this summer will make it clear that I know something about finance recruiting too. Maybe the fact that I started, ran, and successfully sold a company while you were completing your undergraduate thesis in gender and sexuality studies and filling out law school applications at the same time should clue you in that I know a little bit more about a lot of shit than you do.

You truly are an idiot if you think that specialty doesn't matter in business school. No one who wants finance would pick Kellogg over Columbia. Of course Kellogg doesn't have an edge in consulting, and I don't know where you ever got the idea that anyone thinks that they do. They do have an edge in marketing, however, because that's what they specialize in and it's why people go there. They have strong networks of current students and alumni for people who are interested in doing that kind of work, while places like Wharton, Chicago, and Columbia basically ignore marketing. Academic specialty absolutely matters, because like minded people go to the same places and pursue the career paths that people from those places traditionally pursue, and it creates a feedback loop for recruiting. Yes, Harvard and Stanford have strong networks in many things, and that's why those two tend to stand out. There are very major differences among the others, however, and those differences matter. I know because I researched them heavily and thought about them carefully when I was applying to top business schools.

You're talking out of your ass, and Tuck sucks.

[icpb]

Like law schools, there are distinct tiers (though not as distinct as among law schools) in business schools:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg
Tier 3: Tuck/Columbia/Haas
Tier 4: Michigan/NYU/Duke/UVa/Cornell/Yale/UCLA

You would be taking on a lot of risk by paying to attend any business schools other than these.

This is ill informed.

This conforms generally to what I always thought. Though I would make the tiers bigger:
Tier 1: Harvard/Stanford
Tier 1b: Wharton
Tier 2: Chicago/MIT/Kellogg/Tuck/Columbia
Tier 3: Haas/Ross/Stern/Duke/Darden/Cornell/Yale/UCLA
Others

No, this way of looking at it doesn't make sense. Schools specialize in completely different things, so you can't easily line them up like you can with law schools. I believe that Harvard is a great all around choice, and should probably be at the top of the list. Beyond that, it depends completely on your interests. If you want to go into finance, you would be much better off going to Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Chicago, or Stern than any of the rest. Even within this set, there are stark differences. For example, Columbia is the home of value investing, which is a much different approach to investing than you might find elsewhere. If you're into entrepreneurship, Stanford or Haas are the obvious choices over all others. If you want to go into marketing it would be totally foolish to go to Wharton over Kellogg. Also, Tuck is a rural school without much pull on Wall Street or well known specialization in anything in particular. Why you would put it in the same category as the others is beyond me.

Basically what you've assembled looks like a random smattering of names based on some arbitrary sense of prestige.

This is how analysts at at lease one of MBB make their decisions. They have their reaches, targets, and safeties. Even ones who are trying to go into finance (both sell-side and buy-side) end up choosing Stanford and Harvard over Wharton, Columbia, Booth, etc.

[danquayle]

This is a ridiculous question. Do you want to practice law or do you want to do business? Are you a foreigner? If you're an American and you want an LLM, it's not going to change your prospects at all. Also, despite your objection it absolutely matters what school you are going to. There's a huge difference between an MBA from Stanford and an MBA from Boise State or an LLm from Oklahoma. If you can get an MBA from an M7 school (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, or Northwestern), do that over any LLM program.

The M7 designation isn't really a thing in practice. All M7 means is that the deans at those schools meet every year; it would be rare for an employer to have an arbitrary cut off at that mark. I would say that the OP should probably consider the entire top 20 (according to Poets and Qants, which aggregates all of the MBA rankings), and then maybe a few outliers (like Rice, USC and maybe GTown).

Those schools have the best recruiting by and large, and they would be more valuable than any LLM if a business role is your goal. I'm not saying that NYU, Dartmouth, Berkeley etc. wouldn't be great choices too. I was just using it as a shorthand because the M7 are generally considered the very top tier schools.

Part of the problem with "M7" is that it only includes private schools, so you end up cutting out some of the good public schools like Haas, Anderson, Ross, Darden, etc. I don't know that anyone actively recruits only the "M7", but it is definitely true that these 7 are undoubted considered within the Top 10.

[echamberlin8]

Why are people so angry on TLS?