In the English speaking world, The London School of Economics has the best reputation. If you are a graduate than a job is a given. One friend of mine from Dallas got his MBA there and by 26 was the chief executive of a health insurance company. The name goes back to the 1800's and the "utility" revolution of economists like Jevons.

The thing to worry about is getting an MBA, Law Degree or other advanced degree at a no name university. Many people have been duped into believing this will lead to success. Success comes from the individual. If you have it in you to succeed, you will. There are only a handful of places that almost guarrantee a position.

MBA schools apply their own recipes to new students. "MBA is a business" and if you don't get a MBA your will be out of the job market. But this is the idea that business school are selling to new students. MBAs schools promise a better future under the idea that a MBA is an enough condition to get successful. So, is it true? From my point of view I don’t think so. Unfortunately, MBA courses are the only formal education that is more focused in make money that teach. MBA schools have been poisoned for the money that school capture from the students.
Pst. (Bc CE, MBA, MSc. so that’s why I have made these comments

I never met an INSEADer that impressed me. Bunch of empty suites with big egos and not very bright. INSEAD is highly over rated.

A lot of fancy schools dispense MBAs like pez. Once they get the MBA credential from the trophy school all doors open for them. The schools are turning out scarecrows. You know, the scarecrow in the Wizard of OZ, he didn't have a brain so Dorothy told him the Wizard might help him. The Wizard resides in the Ivory tower but he's unable to provide the scarecrow with a brain so he gives him a degree from a fancy university instead. The Scarecrow starts to utter a bunch of meaningless rubbish.

I once worked for a CFO at an international company. He has a MBA from the University of Chicago and he didn't have any idea what a letter of credit was or how it worked. The guy was the quintessential scarecrow, no brain and a trophy MBA.

The world is full of scarecrows. Don't let the trophy degree fool or intimidate you. Just because they have one doesn't mean they are smart or even know what they are doing. Beware of the scarecrow.

Q. How do you know someone has an MBA?

A. They tell you.

Well, at least I learned something from my MBA. There are two kinds of knowledge, the kind you can learn at school and the kind you cannot. To be successful in business, as in life, you need mostly the second kind.

By focusing on rankings causes B-schools to focus on “looking good” rather than “being good.” Virginia Commonwealth University is an example of the “looking good” approach, they recruited their new B-school dean from Disneyland Resort in Anaheim. That’s right the former president of a Disneyland Resort will bring his skills running operations at theme parks, his “looking good” skills, to the B-School. They have their priorities straight. In his career at Disney he served as the manager of marketing development at Disneyland Paris, general manager of operations at Disney’s Hollywood Studios in Orlando, Fla., and vice president and representative of Walt Disney Attractions Japan in Tokyo, all the necessary ingredients to run a B-school.

These deans are in a fight to want to win the competition for students and the competition is strong. Since the 1980’s growth of B-schools has been meteoric not only in America but throughout the world. For example, in India MBA programs have grown from 80 university-based departments and schools of management in 1990 to an astounding 1,800 full-fledged MBA schools in just about 20 years. In a six year period from 2003 business schools in China have doubled in number.
If one sees the B-school brand as important remember this one can get an MBA from Duke or Michigan and other elite schools online. One never has to visit the campus.

Truly said... a distinguished brand should never have a commercial appeal... same goes for education!

I once read in The Economist that 90% of management books are rubbish (or was it dross?).

I suppose a "business education" based on such kind of literature must be the same.

The best Management schools (the likes of Harvard, Stanford, LBS, Chicago, INSEAD etc) give its students an excellent basic management toolkit. Some will use this wisely; others won't, just like in any other education. Many of the leaders of today's corporations have come from these schools.

Sounds of the posts on this board just sound like sour-grape complaints.

RDEstrada: "In the English speaking world, The London School of Economics has the best reputation."

Perhaps you meant this, but LSE only runs management MScs and an Executive MBA (with two other institutions, HEC and Stern) - not a regular MBA. I'm not sure on what measure you're comparing their reputation - LBS and Havard always come up when I look at MBAs.

Not to say that LSE doesn't have great management programmes - I'm sure they do. But I think their economics and political science tracks are better known.

Interestingly, most "rankings" include over 100 TOP MBA schools, and there are many more outside these lists. As a Dean of a Business School, I am inclined to comment that LBS or INSEAD students fail in a job, too, even the best and brightest. My school hires "prestigious" MBA scholars for teaching, with sometimes disappointing results. However, the rigor and pressure at prestigious schools seems to be an element missing in many higher education institutions. Admission into the "named+" school is key to obtaining the networking passport, which guarantees the future jobs. This is nothing else than an "old boys" network, one has paid for.
I doubt that the value of a network is proportionally increasing with the number of alumni.

Come on people, study enginering, we need more people in those areas. Management and social sciences are overcrowded.

I'm glad we are not the only ones suffering the insanity. I can only look forward to the day when MBAs are completely outsourced (from the US).

Maybe then we will have a sane banking sector.

In my view, the aritcle suggests that LBS and INSEAD are increasing enrollment in part by leveraging there brand. Why is this a bad thing? There are many schools all over the planet providing different types of MBA programs, at different price points, to educate people to make more for themselve and the societies they live and work in. Education is one of the important differences between the developed and undeveloped world. I dont understand why two schools who compete to develope a reputation for producing good people with good ideas is construed as being negative. To me, that notion is misguided and it is wrong to imply that talent is not being produced at other schools elsewhere in Euorpe or Canada or China for that matter...it just means that LBS and INSEAD are pursuig a certain market. The idea that there will be just two MBA schools in Europe seems somewhat improbable and unlikely anymore than there will be two in North America.

The need for and refinement of business, economics and government education should be welcomed rather than seen as a negative. The events in the ecomony over the past 18 months should tell us that globalization is real. Business and governments at all levels need to work together to achieve cooperation and policy that encourages building more stable and sustainable industries that are less susceptable to greed and manipulation. Education is an important underpining to growing world economies and making behavioural change in society. You dont need to go to MBA school to learn how to be greedy or manipulative.....that comes natuarlly to some while not to others.

MBA programs are an important part of the global education system and will evolve and adapt to the needs of society just as other academic disciplines have.

There are more than two good schools in Europe. Sure Insead and LBS are top, but state that they are far better then others is quite misleading.

Every major country in Europe has at least two top schools: Spain (IE, IESE), France (HEC, Essec), Italy (Bocconi), UK (LSE, Manchester) etc.

The difference I see is that Insead and LBS have worlwide brands, and the group above is very strong in Europe and their countries, but not so strong far way (Asia, North & South America etc.)

Yeah, those guys with top academic credentials, a proven record of early success and with the guts to invest well over USD 100 K in their education are just a bunch of scarecrows...

I see your sour complaints are based in data points and regrettably on jealousness.

I agree that a MBA (or whatever fancy credential) is not a requirement for becoming a savvy and well intentioned manager. However I am afraid that just the mere interaction of talented individuals must help, not to mention whatever stuff they study and whoever current decision makers they met in campus. In any case, in such a globalized world, why should I prefer Mr. Who over Mr. Who from HBS? It´s a matter of credibility, a slight nuance to be considered nowdays...

Back to the topic of the article, I am strongly against oversized classes for pure offer and supply reasons. Surely the LBS class was small enough to justify a sizeable increase, but continuous (and unlikely) class increases would be a mistake should this institutions want to preserve their "brand equity". In such situation, I would prefer to hire the top 1% of say Bocconi than a regular graduate from INSEAD.

MBA is like betting, you only need to pick the right horse. This betting is a three step process. The first step being the most important, MBA schools biggest competency is in selecting the bright ones, those with motivation, leadership potential, proven track record in business, entrepreneurs, family scions and upcoming corporate stars, all with good GMAT. The second step of the process is to get these guys become rounded up in their knowledge, gain an alumni network and gain brand recognition. The final step of the process is to watch the race in the real world until the picked horse wins big at the corporate hierarchy, or in business.

So before launching into an MBA or criticizing MBAs it’s most important to gain perspective on what is a MBA and what it's not. Let me start with my thoughts on what it's not:

1) MBA will not make a leader, MBA programs do not make leaders, but they do try hard to select potential leaders.

2) MBA will not make one ethical, MBA programs weed out unethical ones in selection process, and remain serious about ethics but they remain short of being moral rehabilitation centers.

3) MBA will not make an entrepreneur; programs will love to select proven or budding entrepreneurs but can't instill entrepreneurship in e.g.: accountants.

4) MBA is not a place to gain strong functional knowledge (with exception of corporate finance or Strategy/Marketing). Actually the functional knowledge in certain areas will remain just above basic. This is perhaps the biggest reason the MBAs are criticized.

Having clarified what MBA can't do lets see with a MBA actually does.

1) The biggest value add perhaps is rounding up of the knowledge base. One can count on basic understand of all the aspects of business. The big advantage is that major blind spots that often act as land mines in career or business are eliminated. This is perhaps the reason MBAs are gravitated to roles as generalists.

2) The other value is in applied knowledge, although nothing can be compared to the real world experience, the case studies help to see the theoretical knowledge applied practically.

3) In terms pure knowledge gain there is a good combination of soft and tangible skills that MBA offers, these would otherwise require several other diverse courses in economics, sociology, psychology or even sports. Organizational dynamics, politics, team building, strategy, core competency, game theory to name a few.

4) Brand name and network.

One more thing MBA offers is a life long criticism from colleagues who do not understand why these seemingly less knowledgeable people are paid more.

What I don't understand is why there not more 'Masters' programs in these pretigous schools. Not MBA but just a Masters degree in finance or management or whatever. Not everyone wants to do an MBA but a lot of people would like to do a Masters' degree perhaps just a year after a bachelors degree to further their academic knowledge without going through 3-5 years of work experience. Anyone ????

MBA is focused on selectively delivering knowledge that can be applied to business problem solving. This requires broad knowledge in several areas, expertise in one area is not needed. MBA programs select theories from various disciplines based on applicability to the business world. Idea is not to fully cover a particular discipline but only parts that can be applied to business problem solving.

So while this approach makes sense in rounding up the overall business knowledge, this leaves out elements with no apparent business application. Essentially one gets selected bits of knowledge in several disciplines but no full knowledge in any area. MBA schools produce "Jack of all trades", clearly a set up for producing Jack of all trades is ill suited for expert master programs in any particular discipline, except perhaps Finance for derivative traders.

MBA without any work experience is surly a lesser experience. Given that the participant is expected to apply MBA knowledge to business problems, great part of education is in reevaluating business problems from past experiences in light of newer learning, being able to visualize how things could have been different. Work experience allows ability to relate to the situations in case studies and in sharing past experiences. With zero work experience, the participant can gain a degree but not the full benefit of the program.

Having had to "clean" up the mess left by those with qualifications better than mine when it comes to accounts, the "scarecrow" analogy is very fitting.
I would want to see experience and credible reference before I would give anyone anything more than a junior position.
In this case I would prefer to employ some one with a vocational qualification over academic, nothing beats experience.